On 02 Nov 2013, at 11:13, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:

On 01 Nov 2013, at 15:17, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:

When some bully oversteps the line of decency, then by default any
discussion ceases to be rational. Then we are left with the choice to let it
be or denounce the crossing of our personalized line.

With regards to this infinite back and forth, all the insults and cul-de-sac arguments, with zero progress on this exchange with Julius Caesar, I believe
Quentin has every right to say "spammer" and "troll".

Quentin's reaction and tone in this regard are more plausible to me than the
posts of JC. Increasingly so, in fact. PGC

I can't agree more.

I don't understand why Quentin get nervous (once) on Richard, who was just
slow to see some point, and that happens to any of us, when tired, or
something (to be nervous, or to be slow).
Keep in mind people in this list lives under different amount of sun!

But it is a sort of relief for me that you, and Quentin (and some others) got also the feeling that JC might act as a bullyer or troll-like,. That's clear, to *me* with his insulting tone when trying to deride any attempt to study something. I am not too well placed to say that to Clark, so I think that you and Quentin are ... rather courageous to witness this. That can
help everybody.

I think JC must have realised at some point that his initial
objections were not valid but, by that point, he was too invested in
proving you wrong.

OK. That's the "pride" theory, and making it explicit will not help John. I guess. But there are other theories. May be he believes that from step 3 everything follows correctly, and he finds the conclusion too much startling. Or something like that.

His more recent objections are more suspicious,
because it's hard to believe that a smart guy who understands and
explains complex ideas cannot see the problem with arguing in a way
that goes against the usual meaning of probabilities. He's also
insisting that you said things that we all can see that you have not
(like the infamous back-paddling on definitions accusation).

Glad you saw that.

Why does John Clark do this publicly? Why not in private circles like my usual opponents.
There is an amount of rare braveness in John Clark that I appreciate.

Enough brave to go to step 4? That's the question.

On the bright side, Bruno, people have been discussing your ideas for
years and keep doing so. This is a huge victory, as any scientist
knows. Trolling comes with exposure. There's no reason for you to be
sad, really. Many of us are very happy that you and your ideas exist
in this world, and it's even better that we get to discuss them with

Thanks for the warm remarks,




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to