Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)

• Previous message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
• In reply to: David Longley: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
• Next in thread: Stargazer: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:42:51 +0100

"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8cFAWOBOBcnBFwgn@longley.demon.co.uk...
> In article <419da2c9$0$44083$5fc3050@dreader2.news.tiscali.nl>, JPL
> Verhey <matterDELminds@hotmail.com> writes
>>
>>"David Longley" <David@longley.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:GgiOpPMRrTnBFwVI@longley.demon.co.uk...
>>..
>>>>You are insane.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There's another example.
>>>
>>> I'm certainly not insane. I'm telling you some facts about your
>>> verbal
>>> behaviour that you clearly don't like reading that's all. What you
>>> post here is either abuse, factual error, or inconsequential
>>> metaphysics.
>>>
>>> Try to stop.
>>
>>Try to accept the facts as they are.
>
> The fact is you can't take sound advice and *stop*.

My advice is sound, yours is derailed.

>
>>Your mental disability to
>>comprehend your problem ie how to communicate effectively, is serious.
>
> It has nothing to do with "mental disability". Your inability or
> refusal to follow and act upon reasonable instructions clearly reveals
> where the deficit is. It's in *your* behaviour.

I don't take advice from anybody insulting me. I just don't feel like
it.

>
>>
>>Many have explained it to you, so did I.
>
> The people who behave like you have the same problem, that's all.

You have no idea.. that's all.

>If you look carefully, you'll see that each and every one of them have
>been criticised for irrational, ignorant behaviour.

They reject you because you insult them needlessly. That you don't
understand the difference is your problem, and signals sociopathy.

>Each and every one of them has failed to see what is being done here.
>That's very much grist to my mill, and several other observers know
>that.

"Several" others..that can only be you and Glen.

I suggest you look at
> group characteristics. That would require you to practice "the
> extensional stance" though.

You just don't accept to be rejected by individuals and groups. They do
that for a good and healthy reason. But because of your mental ilness
you don't see that. You are caught in your own trap.

>
>> Distorting the facts won't help
>>you.
>
> Something you should, ironically, consider seriously.
>
>> It only makes you more and more disturbed.
>
> I already know you distort the facts. That doesn't disturb me. What
> disturbs me is your (and other observers' elsewhere's) inability to
> accept how incorrigible folk like you are and how "reasoning" or
> "discussing" matters with folk like yourself is a waste of time (there
> is a paradox here, so be careful).

blablabla..

>
>> Your only chance, and
>>ours to understand better *what* you are talking about, is to start
>>talking and explaining, on the spot. I'm only interested in debating
>>what you say here.
>
> There is now *here*. What you have refused to do is to read what I
> have said.

Wrong. I did read some of it and found it uninformative.

You are either too idiotic or too incorrigible to grasp what that
> entails. You do not understand how whatever is said is said in a
> context, and how you ignore that context.

I know much better what's going on than you do.

>
>> If you have nothing to say and send me to the library
>>to learn that's fine - your point is taken and you can leave it at
>>that
>>and go home.
>
> Nobody is sending you to a "library". You have been provided with the
> very material you say you request. You simply don't read it or
> understand it. That makes you an ignoramus or idiot.
>>
>>Or you start talking. Explain what this "intensional opacity" is all
>>about.
>
> You ignore it. I'm sure some others reading this (if anyone still is),
> will be able to see that even if you don't.

You are seriously crazy and delude yourself.

>
>>Consider your public university students with enough brains, but
>>not specialists or particularly informed about those issues. Talk like
>>Skinner did to his students. Explain and educate. Make them
>>interested.
>
> That's a selection procedure which you exclude yourself from through
> your behaviour. There is a sine qua non for all education to be
> effective. That's what's missing here, and all I wish to do is
> highlight where the deficit is. You don't understand what I am doing.

Education is my profession.. you clearly don't even understand the
basics.

>
>
>>Trust me: it will be more fun for you as well. Unless your interest
>>and
>>fun is just to insult, calling people idiots so you can feel yourself
>>the big Mufti. Then go ahead and amuze everybody as the local fool,
>>King
>>of Laputa.
>
> You make assumptions about what I am doing and those represent limits
> on possibilities. The inferences you then draw may or may not be valid
> given the premises you begin with, bu
> tthereisamajorproblemthere.
> Are your premises true, if they are true, are they relevant?
>
> You have not been "listening", and that's not surprising, as you
> delight in telling us all how selective your "listening" is. This is
> the problem with "thinking" and the rest of (y)our common-sense folk
> psychology.

You don't know what you are talking about and how to solve your problem
since you don't see it.

• Previous message: JPL Verhey: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
• In reply to: David Longley: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
• Next in thread: Stargazer: "Re: Zenkin's paper on Cantor (reply of Dr. Zenkin)"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]