 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote in message
> news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
>
>> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
>> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
>> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
>> > stated inflexibilities.
>
>> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
>> is a flaw in your reasoning?
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.
No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
your mind if proven wrong. That's what's called (in my book) a waste of
my time.
I don't tend to spend my time trying to change people's minds when
they're not open to having their opinions changed. That tends to be a
futile exercise, and not worth me wasting my time on.
Unless I'm bored, that is. I've got too much to do now to engage in such
a discussion.
>> > Then again, maybe the goal was simply to derail the original
>> > discussion....
>
>> My intent was simply to state an opinion. You've made it abundantly
>> clear that you're not open to changing your mind on this topic, so
>> further discussion with you about why I think you're wrong is pretty
>> pointless.
>
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> validity of any arguments I make.
Of course it doesn't. But it does play into whether or not I want to
spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view. It's my time
I'm concerned about, not yours. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/12/09 13:41, somebody wrote:
> Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the validity
> of any arguments I make.
Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth it for
him or anyone else here to counter your points.
If this were a public forum that will shape copyright policy, then it
would make sense to respond to what you say regardless of your
conversion likelihood.
As that is not the case, there is no benefit in engaging in discussion
with you on this topic.
(And before you say it: The suggestion that you're giving counterpoints
and that he may benefit by practicing in counter them is, in most cases,
an invalid suggestion).
--
All work and no pay makes a housewife.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:17:02 -0500, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth
it for
> him or anyone else here to counter your points.
>
> If this were a public forum that will shape copyright policy,
then it
> would make sense to respond to what you say regardless of your
> conversion likelihood.
>
> As that is not the case, there is no benefit in engaging in
discussion
> with you on this topic.
Precisely, thank you for that summary, that's exactly what I've been
trying to get across. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a32b7be$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/12/09 13:41, somebody wrote:
> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
validity
> > of any arguments I make.
> Naturally. The point he is making is that there is nothing worth it for
> him or anyone else here to counter your points.
I could buy that, I could even buy the claim that his time is too valuable
to waste on my arguments, if he did not continue to waste even more time
trying to argue that his time is too valuable to waste on my arguments. As
it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
discussion with demagoguery.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a32a605@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:41:02 -0600, somebody wrote:
>
> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> > news:4a328c16$1@news.povray.org...
> >> On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:46:34 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> > "Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
> >
> >> > Interesting way to not hold a discussion <g>. In light of present
> >> > evidence of three posts since you stated your inflexibility for
> >> > further discussion, I propose that we do not place too much stock in
> >> > stated inflexibilities.
> >
> >> So then are you saying that you're open to being convinced that there
> >> is a flaw in your reasoning?
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but naturally, my reasoning is
> > of perfect. It's up to you to show that it is not.
> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> your mind if proven wrong.
I said no such thing.
> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of my time.
See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.
> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
> > validity of any arguments I make.
> Of course it doesn't. But it does play into whether or not I want to
> spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.
Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
argument? Is it the validation you seek?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:15:18 -0600, somebody wrote:
> As
> it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
> discussion with demagoguery.
I told you what my point was. It's not my problem that you don't accept
it. But let's do without the personal slurs, OK?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:59 -0600, somebody wrote:
>> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
>> your mind if proven wrong.
>
> I said no such thing.
You made the comment that you've never changed your mind due to an online
discussion and that you don't see that happening. You state your view as
an absolutist view. What exactly am I meant to think?
>> That's what's called (in my book) a waste of my time.
>
> See my reply to Mueen Nawaz.
I did, and I saw no need for you to decide what my intention was. I
stated what my intention was, and as I wrote to you up there, it's not my
problem that you refuse to accept my explanation.
>> > Whether I am willing or not to change my mind has no bearing on the
>> > validity of any arguments I make.
>
>> Of course it doesn't. But it does play into whether or not I want to
>> spend my time trying to convince you of my point of view.
>
> Still stuck on convincing me I see. Why isn't it enough to make a good
> argument? Is it the validation you seek?
I don't really care what you think any more. I certainly don't need your
validation for my reasons for not continuing to debate a moral/legal
position that is different from your stated position.
Since you are determined to continue painting me as intentionally
derailing "your" thread, you can have "your" thread back.
Enjoy.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/12/09 21:15, somebody wrote:
> I could buy that, I could even buy the claim that his time is too valuable
> to waste on my arguments, if he did not continue to waste even more time
> trying to argue that his time is too valuable to waste on my arguments. As
What gave you the idea he is "wasting time"? Are you suggesting you
know in depth what he takes interest in and what he doesn't? And
somehow, you know this better than, say, I?
In any case, you're an equal partner in this - you're continuing to
argue on the very thing you equate to being a waste of time. Something
in it for you, presumably.
> it is, the motivation seems to have been to simply derail the actual
> discussion with demagoguery.
Translation: "The people in this newsgroup are too stupid at reading
comprehension, so I must deign to inform them on what is going on
regarding Jim Henderson".
This isn't exactly the best forum to win points by playing the victim.
--
Liberal Household: Tresspassers will be lectured!
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a332193@news.povray.org...
> On 06/12/09 21:15, somebody wrote:
> In any case, you're an equal partner in this - you're continuing to
> argue on the very thing you equate to being a waste of time. Something
> in it for you, presumably.
I never said my time is too valuable to waste.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4a33214f$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:25:59 -0600, somebody wrote:
> >> No, it's not up to me if you've stated that you're not open to changing
> >> your mind if proven wrong.
> > I said no such thing.
> You made the comment that you've never changed your mind due to an online
> discussion and that you don't see that happening.
Do you not see any difference between that and "not changing one's mind if
proven wrong"? Anyway, I won't press the matter any more. Even to me it's
starting to now look like waste of both our times.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
