From: dabrowsk@parc.xerox.com (Jarek Dabrowski)
Subject: Re: Justifying Views related to Valid Proof?
Organization: Xerox PARC
Date: 21 Jul 92 16:19:14 GMT

SUMMARY: Bye, Ken. I explain why. Still, if someone else is willing to
         take his arguments and talk TO ME about them, he is welcomed.  

In <1992Jul20.162001.29898@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> Ken Arromdee again talks to
himself, though I spent a lot of time to attract his attention...

I'm afraid that Ken Arromdee's reply terminates our discussion. As usual
(multiple examples available on request) he replied to the first letter
of my article. He did not answer any of my questions. He ignored all my
and repeated his questions which were answered (maybe not fully, I can't
tell) in the text he deleted without any reference to the content of my
reply. His strongest argument was that he "doesn't reply because I don't
reply" though in my last post I took my time to explain, point by point,
how his "criticism" (that I talk only about positive assertions and that
I ignore the truly negative ones like "no gold", "no AIDS") is mistaken
because I dealt with EXPLICITELY these two statements (I repeated my two
examples and I gave a third, each time taking care to write how a "No X"
or "no belief in X" changes from being negative as clearly requiring no
justification to being positive as clearly requiring justification). 

Second, the subject of "objective evidence". Ken asserted that objective
evidence can be explained away in my world view and I told him why this
isn't so. To avoid the standard exchange of empty words I requested (for
the second time I guess, but I've already lost count because Ken ignores
ALL or virtually all my specific questions) that Ken backs his assertion
with a specific example. Of course, Ken deleted and ignored this. More,
he also deleted my examples how his point of view ALLOWS HIM to explain
objective evidence away. He responded with an example how his world view
may CHANGE under the objective evidence (BTW, exactly as mine would). He
has thus shown not only his inability to interactively discuss things
and his inability to attack my views, but also his inability to defend
his own views when exposed to the same kind of attack he tried on me.
His defense was based on exactly the same logic he claimed to recognize
in mine and which he claimed to be faulty...

Third, he has been trying to force the discussion into personal channels
by repeatedly imputing that I consider his criticism as personal attacks
though a simple glance at my own words would have told him otherwise. I
won't quote anything here. If you don't believe me, go figure or drop me
an e-mail; I have a full record of my discussion with Ken. 

Though I don't exclude that all this is NOT a sign of Ken's bad will and
NOT a sign of his GENERAL inability to discuss interactively, the rough
reality is that, in spite of my considerable efforts, I have failed to
establish any channel for information exchange with Ken Arromdee. My
last posts to him were a desperate and time-consuming attempt to avoid
this very post you are reading now, but as I see it now it could go on
forever. Therefore, I suggest we separate: Ken will keep out of my way
and will make NO comments on my articles, and I will ignore his posts as
well. My opinion is that his opinions are wrong and illogical, while his
opinion is that mine are wrong and illogical, and no interaction between
us exists and will ever exist. So let's not waste our time.

I will NOT reply any more, Ken. Please prove that, after all, you are
able to read and quote this statement if you want to say your last word.
I have to write this request explicitely because you were one of the two
posters who ignored a similar request in my Intro file. Others did not. 

Bye, Ken.


Best wishes,
             Jarek
------------------------------------------------------
 .-----.      Jarek_Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
 `-> <-'    Jarek(u)Dabrowski@Parc.xerox.com         
I WANT DAN BREDY BACK TO THE NET