From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 11 2002 - 17:39:29 MST
[Hermit 1] Reply to both of Yash's outpourings concatenated.
Part I
[Hermit 1] Now everyone can see the sweet nature of the halfwit whom they
were defending.
[Yash 0] Ok, so all is fine and dandy, you consider as dumb, and I do think
you're an asshole.
[Hermit 1] As stated before, you are strong on opinion, strong on assertion,
and weak on justification, responsiveness and discussion. I would image that
nobody is left in any doubt about the accuracy of my description of you any
longer.
[Yash 0] Everybody's happy with that.
[Hermit 1] I'm sure that if this really is your opinion, that you must have
reasons for thinking so. But do consider what it means if you are wrong. I
think that an awful lot of normally tolerant people are becoming quite
annoyed... and don't blame them an iota.
[Yash 0] Let's move on.
[Hermit 1] Now comes the bit where Yash supports his assertions. Oops, too
soon.
[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 matters. On the one hand, I was pointing out that
everyone is equal. On the other suggesting that I have a functional
knowledge of anticipated protocol and personalities on the list. Which you
self-evidently did not.
[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] I deliberately disassociated my statements from the policy of the
CoV in my preamble. You are now demonstrating (again/as usual) that in
addition to your other flaws, that you have poor comprehension.
[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] Yet you cannot or will not support your assertions. Which
indicates that you are an imbecile, as this is a forum for rational
discussion (again, I point to the label at http://virus.lucifer.net and the
email which you you received when you logged onto this list). So now the
question becomes why you are here. May I suggest that you carefully consider
your reply.
[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] That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. However, you
have now asserted it, and thus I challenge you to justify it.
[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] I provided my reasons for discounting your initial assertion
which I remind you, 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 (!?!)."
[Hermit 1] You are welcome to ignore those points if you so choose. At the
end of the day, those listening to this non-discussion will decide on the
truth of the proposition. As most of them will not perform the research,
they will probably decide based on whether my opinion or yours is better
justified and thus carries more weight. I simply provided some suggestions
to you as to what you would need to do if you wished your opinion to be seen
as having any value. This response shows that you don't care to defend your
opinions (i.e. that it has no value to you) and thus, most here will
determine that it has no value to them either. Unsupported opinion is cheap.
So the vast majority of Virians will simply ignore you until you go away.
[Yash 0] Come on, what TRUCE are you talking about?
[Hermit 1] The truce which Casey inferred that you intended when you
suggested that you were not here to fight. A completely unjustified
inference it would seem.
[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] Not at all. You are ignoring the issue, the 20 points and the
challenge, and presenting yet another unsubstantiated opinion. I am sure
that others noticed that I deliberately rephrased the argument in order to
remove religious issues from it. It is you who is now reintroducing them.
Not a good way to win friends and influence people in this congregation.
[Yash 0] This is not over 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] Bear in mind that I am asserting that my opinion is sufficiently
supported and have gone to a great deal of trouble to present evidence of
that support. You are putting up your unsupported opinion that I am wrong.
Guess which carries more weight?
[Yash 0] So you're a scientist eh?
[Hermit 1] Amongst other things. Some of which may be relevent. But I do
notice that you have still failed to provide your asserted qualifications.
[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] I think you will find that my warranted sneers are sufficiently
respected and your rantings sufficiently idiotic to simply reduce the
attention paid to you by those few who do not already have you on ignore to
the point where you are simply discarded as having nothing to interest us
further... Can you spell Gator fate? Is this what you want?
[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 1] No. Let me remind you again. Here is your initial 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 (!?!)."
[Hermit 1] All I am doing is rejecting this assertion as I have from the
beginning. What are you doing?
[Hermit 0]: Attempt not to misrepresent the argument.
[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] As noted above, I am not "misrepresenting the argument." Indeed,
if you knew what an argument was, I would suggest that you are guilty of
exactly this. But your blatant ignorance excuses you.
[Hermit 1] It seems that your memory is faulty. May I remind you that after
your initial assertion above, I requested details and clarification. You
responded with further assertions and extended the scope of them. After a
second polite letter from me you responded with a sequence of assumptions
and insults.
["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>
[Hermit 1] You followed this up with an advocacy of belief:
<quote>
[Yash] Oh really, and how do you know, pray? Did you try at least one
example of each of the 16 aphorisms on paper and mentally to see if they
work or not? And in any case Herm, the traditions do say "Seek and ye shall
find". Blake also said "To see a world in a grain of sand". That's the exact
sort of thing the mystic does.
</quote>
[Hermit 1] An assumption, insult and advocacy of belief:
<quote>
Even then, I doubt you'll be impressed because you are so obviously biased.
Then again, if ever you do get the opportunity of being initiated in those
ancient mysteries, then you'll probably view things a bit differently.
Moreover, I'm not here to convince you or anything.
</quote>
[Hermit 1] and a repetition of assumption and insult.
<quote>
Does that mean the idea should be dropped just because Herm probably got
fooled by some self-serving Swami?
It's fine to be a sceptic, Herm, especially if you claim to be a scientist.
But to dismiss things you don't know just because you don't know them or
haven't tried them doesn't sounds very scientific to me.
</quote>
[Hermit 1] I merely responded in kind. Don't wine at having your own tactics
used upon you.
[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] We now have your colorful, scatological, and unsupported opinion
to contrast with my justified opinion. Others will no doubt make up their
own minds. What do you think they will decide?
[Yash 0] That's more time for me to continue to learn and improve my own
worldview.
[Hermit 1] And no doubt attempting to propagate it. That must be exiting for
you. Do you anticipate more or less success than you have achieved at the
CoV?
[Yash 0] You can fuck off.
[Hermit 1] How erudite... How persuasive... How responsive.
[Hermit 1] It seems we must wait to see your qualifications.
Part II
[Hermit 1] Back so soon? Didn't you say that you were going to "continue to
learn and improve my own worldview"
[Hermit 1] Is it because your mind is so small that your worldview is so
limited?
====
[Hermit 0] 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).
[Yash 0] But later....
[Hermit 0] 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.
[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] Not at all. You are confused again. In the former I was stating a
convention here - and a good one. In the second I was supporting my opinion
(and as an additional hint, try to find out exactly what percentage of
people taking the Society of Actuaries entrance examination achieve an upper
first) and allowing you the opportunity to adjust your CV to support your
assertion:
["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.
[Hermit 1] Next?
[Hermit 1] I still don't see your qualifications... which you need to
present to support the above opinion.
[Yash 0] The funny thing is, this time, we can see this clearly in a single
post of verbal dhiarrea of yours.
[Hermit 1] I am fairly confident that this is <em>all</em> all that you saw.
But is it all that everyone else saw? Have you ever considered how
frequently people see only what they expect to see? Or don't you have that
kind of mind. Oh. Right. Forget the question.
[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] I take note of this unsupported assertion. Does it require
feeding and water, or can I simply put it in the safe? I do so want to
cherish it carefully, you see.
[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] Thank-you for confirming that the advice I gave was sound. Now
that you have read this reply equally carefully, would you care to
reconsider your stance?
[Hermit 1] Speaking of qualifications, would you be so kind as to put yours
out where we can see them. I'm sure Joe will assist you soon, by turning on
the "Klieglights." If you are not sure what that means, a quick search in
the archives for "Gatorfate" will enlighten you.
Hermit
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:39 MDT