From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 12:23 AM
To: paulholbach@gmx.net
Subject: RE: alt.atheism.moderated


> "You utterly fail to address my point, and instead (re-)invoke an
> argument against a claim that I haven't made.  Do you have any
> idea how tiresome such behavior is?"
> 
> For many weeks Iīve been seriously, matter-of-factly and painstakingly
> addressing every single word of your posts

I agree you've been serious and painstaking, but it's manifestly not 
true that you've addressed "every single word" of my posts. This case was 
only the most recent example:

  > > If I'm defining what it means for a world to exist, and you agree
  > > with my definition, then you can't complain that the world
  > > (whose existence I'm defining) doesn't exist.
  > 
  > A world of ontological nothingness is not definable in a logically
  > tolerable way!

I can cite other examples of you not addressing my arguments:

* > This "Non sequitur" is a non sequitur. [utter non-answer, my diagnosis
  of which remains unanswered]

* > Itīs ludicrous to claim that what I claim is ludicrous. ;-) [annoying
  non-answer]

* (What is an "objective fact"?) [still not answered]

* I'm trying to define 'world', and you're USING the term
  to dispute my definition. [admonishment ignored, infraction repeated]

* I ask you again: please state your formal definition of 'world'. 
  [Repeated requests over several weeks before you agreed with my definition.]

* When you say that the bh-empty-world counts as "nothing" and cannot
  be the correspondent of a model, what is the source of this knowledge
  you have about the bh-empty-world? [unanswered]

* It violates the rules for
  defining a world to speak of a proposition in its proposition list
  as have a variable bound to something that is not in the domain set.
  [ignored; violation repeated]

So in just the last two months I can cite seven cases of you ignoring 
different points I've made.  This doesn't even count the dozen or so 
times I begged you, over about two months, to define 'world' and 
'nothingness' before you finally did so. So please tell me: how many 
times do you get to ignore my arguments before I'm allowed to say that 
your doing so is "tiresome"?  If not seven times, is it the biblical 
"seven times seventy times"?

> and now you really have the
> audacity to assert that I "utterly fail to address" your point! 

Yes! Your sentence above clearly does not address my corresponding sentence, 
and instead of correcting your omission, you send me a nastygram with half 
a dozen unjustifiable attacks on my character.

> Itīs you who
> didnīt even deign to utter one single word of appreciation regarding my
> summary from August 06 as if it were just an immature childīs pointless
> babbling!

Your characterization of my attitude is quite erroneous. The longer your 
article, the longer it takes me to reply to it.

> By the way, talking about "behavior", itīs your [1] unsportsmanlike 
> [2] Mr big ego, [3] son of know-it-all kind of conduct that does repel ME!
> In your many posts you have shown that youīre a bright man 
> indeed, but your [4] obstinate and sometimes [5] incomprehensibly 
> antagonistic complacency doesnīt become your intellectual complexion. 
> You appear as if you were much more
> keen on [6] self-opinionatedness than on any reasonable willingness to
> compromise! 

Unless you have some specific evidence and arguments to support these six 
serious accusations, I'll just assume that you're venting your frustration 
and that I shouldn't take them seriously...
--
brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net