Robert Hansen posted Jun 20, 2014 4:56 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9495016) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Jun 19, 2014, at 12:08 PM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > (GSC): You are already writing with utmost clarity and > > precision that cannot be improved upon, > > (RH): I never said it cannot be improved. > (GSC): True enough, you did not ever say any such thing. > > I said many times > that it was improving. > You may well have said many times that "it is improving". I've seen no signs of any such improvement taking place in practice on the ground. > > What I am saying is that it is > by no means too imprecise for people to understand, > ipso facto, because of the vast number of people I > converse with who have no problem understanding what > I write. > Well, we've seen enough examples at this forum of imprecise and even extremely sloppy writing from you (not to mention the sloppy thinking behind that sloppy writing) to make the claim, with some justification, of sloppy writing (and thinking).
But if you still insist that your writings (and the thinking behind them) are models (or examples) of clarity and precision in writing and thinking, well, I yield to your superior knowledge of yourself and your writings and your thinking. > > The reason you two make such a fuss yet > don?t ask for clarification has nothing at all to do > with the precision of my writing. You simply don?t > like what I write and you don?t think like I do. > I do not presume to suggest that I know Professor Talman's reasons for not "asking for clarifications", but in my case it is simply what I'd stated - the desire not to get into a further 'vicious cycle'. I find my head verily spinning on occasion as it is, without getting into those further vicious cycles.
The reason I keep entering into these discussions with you is primarily because it does help me with my efforts to strengthen the OPMS modeling underlying whatever I write. No doubt you'll suggest that "OPMS is just empty list-making!" or some other such nonsense, but I've heard such nonsense enough times to take it in my stride by now.
I had also mentioned a somewhat 'ignoble reason' for getting into these discussions. Well, that too... > > You?re educated but you have no instincts. And I wish > I had better news, but in my experience with people, > there is no cure for that. > And herewith another 'De Profundis', this one by Robert Hansen, deeper far than anything put forward by the Psalmist or by Lord Byron (this should be Oscar Wilde, of course, not Lord Byron): > > Here is an example of instincts. I look at all of > this and feel that society as a whole is governed by > a form of entropy that, like physical entropy, is > unavoidable. You cannot raise the energy of all its > members all at once. However, there will always be > members of that society who rise well above the > average, and members who fall well below. Now, you > won?t like that model because you are religious > rather than inquisitive and you base your models on > faith rather than instincts. > Interrupting the flow of profundity from RH: Gauss said it too, though in different contexts: there's even a law about the phenomenon with his name attached to it! (This was long before Bell, Professor Lynn and 'israeliteknight', et al ever appeared on the scene with their distortions). > > There is no way to > communicate my models to you because without > instincts, you will never understand them. In your > mind, who would ever think such a thing. But I am not > *thinking* such a thing. I am seeing it instinctively > and relaying it to you. > Well, sincere thanks from me for "*thinking* such a thing" and for taking the trouble of "relaying it to (us)," notwithstanding our manifold disabilities in terms of 'instinct', etc. But not to worry: your 'model of confusion' has been pretty clearly communicated, will you or nil you, through your 7000-odd posts here.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")