From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Brainwashing (was Re: IQ and religious belief)
Organization: Sydney University Computing Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 02:12:51 GMT

[this is not a flame - this is an attempt to figure out how to
communicate with Jarek]

Jarek:
>>>Could you please list your arguments? I will then compare them to the
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>"I killed you with my knife" example (which you deleted) [and which
>>>pointed to a severe logical fallacy which Graham often uses to "refute" 
>>>arguments of other people]. Good luck.

Me:
>> No thanks - meaningful discussion with you is not possible.
>  ^^^^^^^^^

Jarek:
>All is clear now. Thanks again, Graham. This note explains many things:
>a) Why you "took me to sword" once and you dropped out after my first
>   reply: You wanted to show in a meaningful way that I am stupid, but 
>   it turned out to be impossible for you, if only because it was easy 
>   to show that your arguments work against you. So you retreated;

I swore I wasn't going to reply to you, but this comment of yours really
irks me Jarek. More to the point it shows exactly why meaningful 
discussion with you is not possible.

Has it ever occured to you Jarek that you are wrong and I am right, that
the problem is not with me, but is in fact with you? Did this possibility 
ever even enter your head?

Do you ever wonder why nearly everyone on this group has problems
discussing with you? (eg: Kent, Me, John Johnson, Jim, Kenneth, etc)?
I grant you that it could be because we are all wrong and you are
right, but did it even occur to you that maybe it is the other way
around?

Perhaps you now begin to appreciate why I consider argument with you 
to be possible. If you have not got it, then I will make it plain and
simple. Arguing with you is like talking to a brick wall. I don't
think I have ever seen you conceed that your argument was wrong, flawed
or whatever. All I ever see is that when you get into difficulty you
do one of two things, namely change a definition, or introduce some
new premise or assumption out of the blue.

Comments?

Jarek:
>b) Why (repeatedly) in the same post in which you deleted my answers to
>   your questions you asked these questions again and then asked me why 
>   I hadn't replied: A meaningful discussion is only when Graham has no
>   particular problems to deal with the opponent's arguments. It's thus
>   Graham opponent's responsiblilty to make sure that his argumentation 
>   is easy to refute within Graham's pattern of thinking;

Your claim is verifiably untrue.  Arguments I have admitted to losing 
on the net include :-

a) free will is not in contradiction with an omniscient God. I lost
this the second time around when Bob Beauchaine, Martin Schulte and
a few other convinced me I was wrong.

b) that atheism is a belief system. Beaten first time around by 
numerous people.

Jarek:
>c) Why, after you'd been defeated in the "sword duel" and the "Godless 
>   creation" threads, you mentioned Jarek only in the context of "don't
>   read Jarek" and why, in spite of my provocations, during our further 
>   clashes you never went beyond a courtious exchange of flames. 
>                               [Original papers available upon request]

See my comments above on the futility of posting to you.
Moreover you flatter yourself to think that my silence means you
have "defeated me". Rather it means that there is no hope of us
ever having a meaningful discussion - I would rather spend my time
talking to others.

Jarek:
>I can't FORCE you to admit that you're wrong. But you help me when you
>refuse even to list your arguments - actually, there are no arguments
>you can succesfully use against me, and you know that. Thanks, Graham.
>Thanks for your support. You have been very helpfull. Thanks again. I
>accept your... well, your silence (or your empty words which mean just
>silence). Please be consequent and to surrender to Allison as well.

You over-rate your argument's Jarek. As I have already shown I can
be convinced that I am wrong. However the arguments you put forth
come nowhere near a standard which would convince me that I am wrong. 

Allison on the other hand may yet prove me wrong.

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au