Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jun 19, 2014 4:02 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9492909) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Jun 18, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Louis Talman > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 18 Jun 2014 12:04:04 -0600, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > >> (GSC): OK, you will now claim that's not what you're > >> saying... > > > > (Lou Talman): One of the undeniable benefits of > > habitual imprecision is that those who are > > so habituated can always deny, with a measure of > > plausibility, that what they > > have actually said is something other than what > > they really meant---even > > when what they have said is very close to what they > > did mean but will never > > admit. > > (RH): This notion, that I somehow frame things > deliberately > to confuse you and GS is absurd. > I think you might usefully read Lou Talman's message to which you're responding and understand just what he is saying. > > No one has ever > thought of me as a guy that doesn?t want my ideas to > come across. If anything, they feel sometimes that I > want only my ideas to come across. So I ask you, how > is it an advantage for me to say things that confuse > the two of you? > I suspect you have confused yourself a bit more than you've confused either Lou Talman or GSC. > > Why would I want to deny something? I > have thoughts, I put those thoughts to words, like > anyone else, and If they don?t come across, then do > like anyone else, ask me what I meant. > You've misunderstood the 'core problem'. As Lou Talman has suggested, you're habituated to use language imprecisely. That prevents you from putting your thoughts into words with an adequate degree of precision and care. If either of us (or anyone else) asks you to explain what you meant, you will come out with *yet more words*, used with the same degree of imprecision and carelessness to which you're habituated...
You see the problem? We could get into a 'vicious cycle' that could perhaps go on forever!
If it were not for the scorn that you've been pouring on the OPMS, I'd suggest that you should try out a Mission, something like:
"To write with greater clarity and precision" (A).
I'm entirely sure such an exercise would provide many benefits.
In fact, that is EXACTLY a 'sub-Mission' to my main Mission,
M: "To develop and *market* the OPMS".
[My *marketing* is somewhat different, in purpose and approach, from what most marketing people think of as 'marketing'].
In any case, the specific linkage of interest here is:
"'A' quite significantly CONTRIBUTES TO 'M'"
I have just taken out two of the elements out of the hundreds (and, in fact, thousands) in the models (and part-models) I've constructed (articulating the above and many other linkages). The models created have in fact "SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTED" to my Mission.
For instance, I've become 'habituated', so to speak, to check out everything I write, against this and other linkages in my several models.
Even this message has already been checked against my models (this particular linkage as well as many others) - and it will be further checked even after I've sent it out.
The result? I don't believe anyone - even you - can ever accuse me of writing carelessly and/or imprecisely. I fully accept that I can always significantly improve the quality of my ideas and how I express them. The models I've constructed have convinced me that I'm very far from perfect. So I keep on trying. (But of the things I'm sure about, I'm pretty near 100% sure and I can strongly defend those ideas about which I'm sure against the most rigorous and knowledgeable of criticism; that is something you cannot do, if you'll check out from any impartial reader, i.e., someone who is not drawn from your cohorts and consorts).
Unfortunately, you believe (I think) that:
i) You are already writing with utmost clarity and precision that cannot be improved upon, so you're unlikely to try out anything so arduous as an OPMS exercise for the purpose suggested. (I must confess that it's quite arduous - and I can NEVER achieve perfection or anything like that [relating to this particular linkage or any other]);
ii) You believe the OPMS is some kind of elaborate 'celestial scam' I have created to scam you and others. > > I am not > trying to play mind games on you two. I take my > opinions too serious to waste the time with this > absurd notion you put forth. > But, alas, you don't take your own opinions seriously enough to 'waste' your time learning how to write them with clarity and precision. > > > > But, much as they deny it, what they do say is a > > very accurate reflection of > > the way they think. Lack of precision in our use > > of language always reflects > > our lack of precision in thinking, just as lack of > > precision in thinking > > exhibits itself in our use of language. > > It isn?t imprecision in language, it is just that the > thoughts are too much for you to get right away. I > get that. You don?t have a lot of experience thinking > about these things at this level. You don?t partake > of these conversations except once every blue moon. > Of course you are going to be unprepared to keep up, > but all you have to do is ask for clarification. > Well, OK, you believe your ideas (and the words you couch them in) are just too profound for Professor Talman and GSC.
That's your opinion and I guess you're entitled to it in a democracy.
Others may be entitled to have other opinions, of course.
Whatever, I do believe Professor Talman does have other work to do than to keep asking you for clarifications. As do I. [You may recall the 'vicious cycle' that I had remarked on earlier].