lacking follow-through

Steve Holden steve at
Fri Sep 12 18:26:17 CEST 2008

Aaron "Castironpi" Brady wrote:
> On Sep 12, 7:23 am, Steve Holden <st... at> wrote:
>> castironpi wrote:
>> If you are flattered to be compared to an AI you must come from the same
>> race as Mr. Spock in Star Trek.
> No, I said 'for my logic to compared'.  Speaking of which, I think you
> excluded the possibility of diligent and ethical human, which meets
> the criteria (of being flattered to be compared to an AI)... unless
> Vulcan is just a synonym for it.  If you want a discussion of why a
> diligent and ethical human takes pride in / devotes effort to logic,
> that's another topic that I'm happy to engage on.
>> You aren't entitled to require discussion of your ideas and proposals.
> No, but you are entitled to human interaction.  If your case is that I
> should seek mine face-to-face instead of keyboard-to-screen, you
> probably have a point.
> ...
>> [...]
>>> For example, I sometimes hear people talk about salary as though it
>>> were social approval, and vice versa.  Even though the analogy doesn't
>>> hold in every case generally, it is still a good way to express
>>> yourself in many contexts, and especially when the more precise word
>>> isn't on the tip of your tongue.
>> Perhaps under those circumstances the better choice is to hold off
>> posting and do some research until you come up with the proper word.
> Yes I know.  Good thing everyone at Mozilla agrees with you, and
> Thesaurus.Com is included in Firefox's quicksearch engines.
>> Precision in the expression of ideas encourages debate, whereas sloppy
>> "just write what you feel" is likely to result in hostile responses, as
>> it causes the perception that you value your own time more than that of
>> the people you attempt to engage.
> But the value of expression and self-expression can outweigh the value
> of debate, even in so stuffy a setting as a Usenet group.  Make time
> for both or stifle your emotions.  Do you hold I should be speaking
> from the heart more or less?
> Regardless, you've contradicted yourself:
> 1) "just write what you feel" is likely to result in hostile responses
> 2) If you are flattered to be compared to an AI you must [not be
> human]
> Assume you, Steve, do as you say (practice what you preach).  You do
> not write either "just what you feel", nor anything that can be
> compared to an A.I.  Define the goal of A.I. to be logic and reasoned
> "post-impulsive" deliberation (my title to define as I voiced the
> flattery).  Then conclude you don't post to the newsgroup.  Observe
> you do, and reach an absurdity.  What premise do you retract?
> Knowing nothing of your background in philosophy or otherwise, it may
> be a little unfair to put words in your mouth like that.  It's a deep
> problem (that yes, does have implications on the "diligent and
> ethical" issue above) of human nature and the human condition: If
> you're not rational, then you're a man.
> Besides, it is better to complain to the group that it is dropping my
> posts than to anyone else.
The defence rests.

Steve Holden        +1 571 484 6266   +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC    

More information about the Python-list mailing list