Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!news.dfci.harvard.edu!camelot.ccs.neu.edu!chaos.dac.neu.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!gatech!swrinde!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!noc.netcom.net!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBot3y.L23@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3tttjh$j5p@netnews.upenn.edu> <3u101c$efu@sun001.spd.dsccc.com> <3u3dph$5bh@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 03:45:34 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 74
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30123 sci.logic:12349

In article <3u3dph$5bh@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Balter's "Which is a contradiction" was a separate sentence.  I took
>Balter as referring to his conclusion "B xor C".  What it was a
>contradiction to isn't clear, but then Balter isn't clear in general,
>given his frequent bad logic, transparent lies, and oral foaming.

So now that you've spewed your typical ad hominem nonsense,
how about responding to the substance as you now understand it.
Oral foaming, indeed.  But perhpas you are faoming so violently that 
you momentarily confused "oral" with "verbal".

>>Weiner seems to be arguing that humans don't have Goedel sentences
>>because none have been determined/found.
>

>Not at all.  I am arguing that our way of mathematical thinking seems
>to be immune to Goedelization.

And what sort of an argument is an argument about what *seems* to be?
A pretty weak one, I think.

>>					   Balter, successfully,
>>_proves_ that this argument is unsound.
>
>If so, good for him.  Since it has *ABSOLUTELY* *NOTHING* *TO* *DO*
>*WITH* *WHAT* *I* *AM* *SAYING*, who cares?

Since I showed that, if you did have Goedelian limits, it would still seem to
you that you did not, the fact that, to you, "our way of mathematical thinking
seems to be immune to Goedelization" is no argument at all.

Since you now claim that you didn't understand my argument because I am such a
retarded misuser of the English language that it never occurred to you that I
meant what it was apparent to several others that I meant, what are we to make
of your claim that my "proof", which is nonsensical and invalid by your
interpretation, was a valid proof of that which you hold and I deny?  I think
the charge of intellectual dishonesty holds.  And if you argue that this just
shows what an idiot I am to have taken your comment seriously when it was
simply intended as further ridicule, then I suggest that you are simply
wasting your time.

>>					  For some reason, Weiner
>>_pretends_ [I believe that his mistake in logic was intentional,
>>hence my use of "intellectually dishonest" above] to miss Balter's
>>point, and then writes the _lie_ that Balter "proves [that] what
>>he keeps claiming is false."
>
>You may have noticed that Balter is a degenerate shameless liar, going
>so far as to alter my very words in quotation, in addition to waxing
>sarcastic over things I obviously never came even close to saying.  If
>he wants to play that retarded game--you did notice his circle jerk
>gibberish, I assume--I will not give his possible ambiguities one
>yoctogram of intelligent credit.

I suspect that most readers here have in fact noticed something rather
different.  As far as "alter my very words in quotation", usually when
one writes something of the form

	Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
	>You may have noticed that Balter is a degenerate shameless liar,

	how about this:

	>You may have noticed that Wiener is a degenerate shameless liar,

*intelligent* readers understand the point of the substition and do not
interpret it as a claim that that the latter text is a direct quotation.  One
can only speculate about the dark processes that might have led you to
interpret this sort of thing as *lying*.  Perhaps you spend too much time in
your own company.
-- 
<J Q B>

