From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: The Genesis of this whole silly SAT flap
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 19:29:49 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.IBM.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <nyikos.718154974@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>
> Anyway, Larry Margolis, with malice aforethought, took the one sentence
> and deleted everything around it for paragraphs around, making it look
> like I was strutting around and claiming to be superior to almost everyone
> on the net.

No malice involved; I deleted everything but the part to which I was
replying.  I don't believe it changed the context in any way.  You claimed
to be superior in areas in which you've shown quite the opposite.  I drew
no conclusions, but merely pointed out the discrepancy between what you
claimed and what you've shown us.

> In <1992Sep13.155019.38256@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.co
> >In  <nyikos.716327790@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Pete
>
> >> I can run circles around most people when it comes to
> >> science and philosophy.
>
> >You've certainly shown no sign of it; in fact, you've shown yourself
> >to be rather ignorant of logic and set theory.
>
> Note that Larry's first clause already accuses me of "showing ignorance,"
> with the "in fact" going a good bit further.

Yes, that's what you've showed us.

> Larry tried to wiggle off the hook several times,

Not at all; I stand by my original statement.  In fact, I gave examples a
number of times, but you chose to run away rather than address them.
In  <nyikos.716943782@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  you said:
# I see no reason to repeat any more of Margolis's tedious post.
to which I replied:
   If you can't respond to the dozen or so points I raised, I suppose
   running away is the best thing to do.

In <13605@pogo.wv.tek.com>, daveb@pogo.wv.tek.com (Dave Butler) wrote a
well thought out post which pointed out half a dozen rhetorical fallacies
you've employed; I never saw a reply to it.

> saying that the ONLY thing he accused me of
> was to have "showed ignorance", but the "in fact" clause uses the words
> "showed yourself TO BE rather ignorant."

As I stated a number of times, I'm going by what you've posted here in
talk.abortion.  In your posts, you've shown yourself to be rather ignorant
of logic and set theory (and also of many English words).  I explicitly
stated that I did not conclude from this that you *are* ignorant of these
things, I merely pointed out the discrepancy.  E.g., in article
<1992Sep17.184755.28315@watson.ibm.com> I wrote:
   Now, it's possible that you're just swallowing anti-abortion propaganda
   and spitting it back at us without thinking about it, and if you actually
   thought about it, you'd realize that what you were saying isn't logical.
   I have no way of knowing this, so I can only go by what you post.  Note
   that I didn't say that you *are* ignorant of logic and set theory, just
   that this is what you've shown us.

There are other reasons I can think of for someone claiming to be an
expert in logic and set theory to present some of the ridiculous claims
you've made, but those are less than flattering, so I didn't even suggest
them as a possibility.  Were I posting in malice, as you suggested, I would
have mentioned them.  I prefer to avoid those sleaze tactics.

> At any rate, with my credibility
> in all kinds of other matters under intense fire by Larry, I felt I had
> to seize this opportunity to show how he had compromised his own
> credibility with this outrageous claim.  How else to do that, except
> by posting some of my credentials?

Well, you could have responded to some of the articles presenting evidence
of illogical posts from you.  Your credentials don't make them any more
logical.

> Then the threads branched in three directions.  Ron Bense challenged
> even these credentials, and I reluctantly dragged out more information
> about myself in response to him.  Margolis...well, as I said to him
> in a later post, "You just don't know when to quit, do you?"

*You* do, though - when proven wrong, you just stop answering.
(Or, you try to change the subject and sidetrack us.)
But you continue talking later as though you hadn't been proven wrong.
A little honesty would be refreshing.

(BTW - I think you're being dishonest when accusing me of saying you *were*
ignorant, and ignoring the many posts in which I reminded you that I said
you've *shown* ignorance (of logic and set theory).  I chose my words
carefully; please don't twist them.)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)