From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Jan 12 2002 - 06:22:06 MST
[Hermit 1] The first version of this mail seems to have been lost during
Lucifer’s little hiccough yesterday, so this is version II. Don’t bother
with the other if it does arrive later, or with this one if you saw the
first. They deal with essentially the same material in similar ways – but I
do wish I had saved the first version and a lot of time.
[Hermit 1] To save time and bandwidth I have concatenated Yash’s sequence of
posts and dealt with them all here.
Part I
[Yash 0] Ok, so all is fine and dandy, you consider as dumb, and I do think
you're an asshole.
[Hermit 1] Every asshole is entitled to an opinion. Thank you for sharing
yours. I would imagine that a lot of people are comparing my carefully
substantiated opinions and your assertion and coming to a conclusion. What
do you think that it will be?
[Yash 0] Everybody's happy with that.
[Hermit 1] Actually, it would take a very dumb person not to figure out that
many of the congregation are rather unhappy right now. Unfortunately, not
realizing this, you will probably never give it a moment’s thought.
[Yash 0] Let's move on.
[Hermit 1] Here is where Yash supports his assertions. Oops, I spoke to
soon. Maybe later?
[Yash 0] Recently you were finding it strange that people were saying they
were on the list for so long, and you said that you'd rather think there are
intelligent people on this list. Then on a more recent post, you claim just
that: "I have been longer on this list than most".
[Hermit 1] Context. It matters. In the first instance I was suggesting that
having been on the list longer does not make one member better than another,
in the second I was probably justifying that I am sufficiently acquainted
with the membership and customs to provide comment. Are you too silly to
follow such things, or do you just get a kick out of misrepresentation?
Don’t bother to answer, and we’ll draw our own conclusions. By the way, it
is customary to provide references when one provides a quotation so that
others can see them in context.
[Yash 0] Just one more example of your fucked-up thinking, trying to set
standards for others but these standards you can't comply with yourself.
Work on yourself first before finding fault with others.
[Hermit 1] /me helpfully labels the stick for Yash.
[Hermit 1] Let go here -> [Wrong End]=====Stick==[Right End] <- Grasp here
[Hermit 1] Context matters or misrepresentation is inevitable.
[Yash 0] You think because I do not respond to some of your idiocies I don't
have answers to them? It's just because you're so stuck up in dogma you
wouldn't understand.
[Hermit 1] I suspect that one would have to be an idiot for this thought not
to have crossed one’s mind about you. Particularly when you demonstrate your
ability to sustain your arguments so convincingly.
[Yash 0] I prefer spending my time discussing with people who can argue
intelligently, not blabber-mouths with no substance and who have limited
vision and are narrow-minded. That's how you are to me.
[Hermit 1] There is a saying that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
Take it out with Optorex. Another saying refers to the way we see others as
mirroring ourselves.
[Yash 0] I have no need to respond to challenges about assertions you are
claiming I did but which I never wrote. Instead YOU are the one making some
unsupported claims about dates and a certain chronology and you are exciting
yourself all over these. Why should I respond to these? I never said
anything about this.
[Hermit 1] Fortunately, being good at ESP, I was able to work out that you
are referring to my justification of why I do not accept your proposition:
["RE: virus: Astronomy/maths tongue + Sarcasm++",Yash,Sat 2001-12-29 09:42]
[Yash] The same exists within the Vedic tradition whereby a small
four-sentence ode to Krishna, whose meaning is a prayer to him, in fact
stores the value of pi/10 to 32 decimal places when each syllable is
converted into its corresponding numerical value in the Vedic gematria
system. It is also said that this very verse contains a master-key to expand
the number of pi decimal values indefinitely (!?!).
</quote>
[Hermit 1] It is true that you don’t <em>have to<em> address the
justifications for my opinion, you don’t even <em>have to</em> justify your
own opinion. I was simply suggesting that if you hoped to convince anyone
else that you had a clue that it might be was necessary or helpful. We can
now see clearly why you consider it unnecessary.
[Yash 0] Come on, what TRUCE are you talking about?
[Hermit 1] Oh, Casey thought that when you said:
[“RE: virus: More prime-ape thinking.”, Yash, Thu 2002-01-10 06:41]
[Yash] 1. I'm don't view discussions as 'opportunities' to sneer at people.
2. I dont view a person who has different opinions as me as an
opponent. 3. I'm not on a list to fight other people.
[Hermit 1] that you were suggesting that you didn’t really want a fight. I
thought that he was wrong, that you were lying for effect, but was prepared
to attempt to go along with the idea. You appear to be confirming that I was
correct.
[Yash 0] We all know one can't make a good idea about something unless we
properly research it. And all you've done is just seen bits and pieces of
the said book and dismiss it completely because of the link with the Vedic
(read religous/spiritual/theological traditions).
[Hermit 1] One does not require absolute certainty to form an opinion.
Indeed, outside of pure logic, it is rare to have all the facts about
anything. So it is fortunate indeed that it is quite legitimate to form an
opinion based on <em>sufficient evidence</em> or nobody but the faithful
would be able to decide about anything. A sane person presented with
evidence that they are standing in a sewer, does not look for fresh-water
oysters in the hope of finding pearls. So too, I formed an opinion of “Vedic
Maths” based on the many issues I have presented to you (rather than on its
“links”) and decided that there was a low to non-existent probability of
finding any pearls in it.
[Hermit 1] Really, the only question left is whether others agree with you
that your unsubstantiated assertions require no justification. That they
will concur with you that your beliefs are more convincing than my justified
opinion. What do you think the odds are?
[Yash 0] This is not over
[Hermit 1] Your choice.
[Yash 0] unless you admit that you haven't given the book a full
read and tested the exercises and admitted that it is shoddy scientific
research to have a full-fledged opinion about something you haven't looked
into.
[Hermit 1] Rubbish. I have already responded to this assertion in the
previous letter and above.
[Yash 0] So you're a scientist eh?
[Hermit 1] Yes.
[Yash 0] Sneer all you will, it doesn't affect me. I don't particularly care
about you or your opinion. I've showed enough of your failings so that other
people will not be blinded by your ways.
[Hermit 1] Almost you persuade me. The question is whether you persuade
anyone else. Yourself perhaps? Do you really believe what you wrote here?
[Yash 0] Ha, and look at what you're saying below, you asshole. That's the
first thing you did: completely misrepresent what I was saying.
[Hermit 0] Attempt not to misrepresent the argument.
[Hermit 1] Please explain how:
[“virus: 20 points, some advice and a challenge or two to Yash. PS Ping for
Casey/Walter”, Hermit, Fri 2002-01-11 10:10]
[Hermit] "The assertion that any Indian source prior to 500 CE contains PI
to more than 4 digits of precision (the limits of simple measurement) in an
unequivocal form"
[Hermit 1] Misrepresents your argument, which, let me remind you again was:
["RE: virus: Astronomy/maths tongue + Sarcasm++",Yash,Sat 2001-12-29 09:42]
[Yash] The same exists within the Vedic tradition whereby a small
four-sentence ode to Krishna, whose meaning is a prayer to him, in fact
stores the value of pi/10 to 32 decimal places when each syllable is
converted into its corresponding numerical value in the Vedic gematria
system. It is also said that this very verse contains a master-key to expand
the number of pi decimal values indefinitely (!?!).
</quote>
[Hermit 0] Avoid personal comment completely.
[Yash 0] Hahahahah funny you, and you can't even follow the very principles
you set for yourself. You are the one who started with name-calling.
[Hermit 1] I disagree. Let me remind you:
[“RE: virus: Weird claims about PI - Ping Yash”, Yash, Sun 2001-12-30 04:29]
<quote>
[Yash] You should expect many things to do so, especially if you subscribe
blindly to all the occidental history which, as I said, is heavily biased.
For a few examples, please read the seminal "Black Athena". An open is of
the essence if you want to learn fast. Dismissing anything just because "it
runs in the face of all you know" is not conducive to search and could make
you stagnate instead of evolve.
</quote>
<quote>
[Yash] Okay, so you want to be precise, but then I do not see what value
this brings to the argument. I view it as an attempt on your part to appear
to have researched the matter and seem precise, but you fall short again. I
only wanted to be brief but you had to say that, so here's the real name of
the author because I have the book, which I'm pretty sure by now that you
don't, and you haven't read nor tried to apply the principles therein:
</quote>
[Hermit 1] I could continue. I don’t need to. Reread your posts from
2001-01-3 through 2001-01-5. You are condemned by your own words.
[Yash 0] In which case, I've decided not to read your whole post, which I'm
sure is going to be another whole load of crap camouflaged in a dhiarrea of
verbal shit with not much substance.
[Hermit 1] This is your opinion. Unsupported as usual/always. Speaking of
substance, what are your qualifications?
[Yash 0] That's more time for me to continue to learn and improve my own
worldview.
[Hermit 1] What an excellent idea. I'm sure that this will be a long
process. Goodbye Yash.
[Yash 0] You can fuck off.
[Hermit 1] Yes, we don’t need you to explain why you need to “improve” your
worldview. It is self-evident.
Part II
[Hermit 1] That was quick. Are we to understand from this that you have a
very short attention span, or that your worldview is very small?
[Yash 0] Just a last thing:
[Hermit 1] That would be a relief, but I don’t believe you mean it.
[Yash 0] Take your 20 points and see if you can see in my post whether I
tried to assert any of them.
[Yash 0] Then you'll understand why I say you are on a different argument
line than I was.
[Hermit 1] I did not suggest that they were your arguments, I suggested that
the facts I presented made my conclusion that "The assertion that any Indian
source prior to 500 CE contains PI to more than 4 digits of precision (the
limits of simple measurement) in an unequivocal form" is false, inevitable.
[Hermit 1] What you have to do is to substantiate your assertion:
["RE: virus: Astronomy/maths tongue + Sarcasm++",Yash,Sat 2001-12-29 09:42]
[Yash] The same exists within the Vedic tradition whereby a small
four-sentence ode to Krishna, whose meaning is a prayer to him, in fact
stores the value of pi/10 to 32 decimal places when each syllable is
converted into its corresponding numerical value in the Vedic gematria
system. It is also said that this very verse contains a master-key to expand
the number of pi decimal values indefinitely (!?!).
</quote>
Part III
[Hermit 1] I told you I didn’t believe you.
[Yash 0 quotes Hermit] Don't argue on the basis of authority. Claims to
authority will generally (and rightly IMO) be ignored. There are far more
years of education present on the CoV than on most forums, and expertise in
many fields, yet a sensible fourteen year old can post here without concern
that their opinion will be sneered at simply because they don't have a grey
beard and a PhD. And (rightly again) a PhD will be sneered at if they post
nonsense (although, in all fairness, it is usually the other way around. But
then, I'm biased).
[Hermit 1] True, I said that.
[Yash 0] But later....
[Yash 0 quotes Hermit] As a scientist (specialized in communication theory
and structures), as an amateur historian with far deeper knowledge of the
Ancient World and Orient (as well as the late Renaissance, Restoration and
early Industrial Age) than most, and having extensive cryptographic and
actuarial experience, I feel more than qualified and competent to comment on
it - and largely in field.
[Hermit 1] True, I said that too.
[Yash 0] Here again you'd want other people to follow certain rules, but you
can't help breaking them at the first opportunity. You're so full of shit
you think you're above rules but you would set some upon other people,
right?
[Hermit 1] I have never made any “rules.” I have made some suggestions. You
have chosen to ignore them. In the first instance I was describing my
perspective of the list dynamics and suggesting what might or might not be
helpful to you. In the second I was responding to your claim to authority:
[“RE: virus: Pi me!”, Yash, Tue 2002-01-08 02:56]
<quote>
However, to put the record straight to you: I've done more than 15 years of
mathematics, including Maths in Physics and Chemistry at French University
level which is more advanced than its English counterpart( Shrödinger's wave
equation for atomic orbitals, etc...), and I'm a Systems Engineer.
</quote>
[Hermit 1] and denigrating mine:
[“RE: virus: More prime-ape thinking.”, Yash, Wed 2002-01-09 12:21]
[Yash] And yes, maybe it'd hurt you to realise I know more maths than you
do, but then it's probably true as well. I was once investigating some
meta-mathematics, deriving some formulae and theorems about operations
whatever the base you work in.
…
[Yash] Anyway go on like this and it just exposes you as the fraud you
really are.
</quote>
[Hermit] The context makes the difference. Fraud you said. Unlike you, I did
not assert "because I am such-and-such" you should listen to me. Instead, I
was effectively observing that "despite what Yash said, I believe that it is
valid for me to give an opinion."
[Hermit 1] By the way, when are you going to substantiate your asserted
superior qualifications?
[Yash 0] The funny thing is, this time, we can see this clearly in a single
post of verbal dhiarrea of yours.
[Hermit 1] Perhaps you should reconsider your use of “we” here.
[Yash 0] I think it's a short trip till you realise how worthless you really
are. This is gonna hurt bad, I'm telling you.
[Hermit 1] You are entitled to your unsubstantiated opinion. Just as we are
entitled to call upon you to substantiate it. And when you cannot, to draw
our own conclusions.
[Yash 0] See, I don't care how qualified you are or you feel to be, as soon
as you're distorting arguments and can't admit your failings, you're toast.
[Hermit 1] I fear that the record indicates that your pronouns are as
confused as your spelling (which I wouldn’t usually mention as it is a
pathetic ploy to engage in, but as you have chosen to comment on that of
others, seems only fair). I have not distorted the arguments (although I
grant that your lack of comprehension may have left you with that opinion),
have no failings which are particularly relevant at this time, and in the
long run, we're all toast.
[Hermit 1] And I do care how qualified you are, as you raised this and then
used it as the basis of an insult [“RE: virus: More prime-ape thinking.”,
Yash, Wed 2002-01-09 12:21, Supra]. I'm still waiting for your
substantiation - as are others.
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT