Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5630173" data-attributes="member: 6679265">Thank you, pemerton, for the response... You wrote a long post which I have yet to fully absorb, but one thing that pops out initially to me is that part of the misunderstanding(s) seems to be a result of conflating different tangents such that I'm not sure who is discussing what. I would like to take one baby step at a time, by reviewing the problem of the Alexandrian essay:AFAIK nobody has defined the parameters. It seems to me that one cannot simultaneously accuse the Alexandrian of purposefully obscuring the parameters (AFAICT with no proof whatsoever) and assume a correct inference of those supposedly obscured parameters. AFAICT it was Innerdude who labelled it a theory. One would might set the mob on innerdude for that, not the Alexandrian. If that's true, and should poor innerdude be ripped apart for the crime of inarticulation, one might remember (too late by then) that putting the label "theory" on an opinion piece does not automatically make it a theory to be analyzed as such. But yes, I agree it's a pseudo-theory or opinion piece (take your pick). Again, how so? I think, pemerton, that you're trying to produce a 'black swan' to answer a question that nobody is asking. That is, I think you've inferred a non-existent question which, if it did exist, would be a losing proposition, as I tried to explain above and over the last few pages. Please let me know if you need any additional clarification on my part would be helpful. Otherwise, I propose from hereon, that we avoid making unsupportable inferences from the essay or, better yet IMO, avoid referencing the essay altogether, and would you agree with that? If yes, I will review the rest of the above post and go from there.</blockquote>

Verification