Apparently you have forgotten, but awhile back you took exception to one of my posts, and accused me of misquoting you. I disagreed, since I had quoted your exact words FIRST, and then proceeded to paraphrase you to the effect of “is this what you meant?”. You then announced that you would not respond to any more of my posts. I’m not interested in re-hashing anything now, but I’ve noticed that you have started responding to my posts again. I just wanted to remind you of your previous announcement that I am on your “ignore” list. I can’t stop you from responding to my posts now, but I don’t see the point in you doing so.
I apologize if I have broken any rule of decorum here.
I can’t find the thread - it was awhile ago. No, the moderator did not intervene. I was really hoping to avoid getting into who was at fault and rehashing the whole thing. This wasn’t supposed to sound like a flame directed at Libertarian, but maybe it did. I just thought it was silly for him to keep directing posts at me and possibly wondering why I wasn’t responding.
Actually, I don’t recall ever saying that anyone was on my ignore list, certainly not after the ignore list rule was announced. I’m typically quite scrupulous about obeying the rules. Some say that I’m anal about it. I often ask about finer points of the rules, sometimes no doubt to the dismay of those who administer them. Even now, I have a rules question open in ATMB.
That said, there was a discussion a few months back in which a user (I don’t remember who) made what I believed to be a convincing argument that the ignore list is not only pointless but problematic. I decided then that I would remove every entry from my ignore list, and I did so.
It’s nothing to do with any “second chance”. I simply decided that I would read what I want to read and respond to what I want to respond to.
Libby seems to be an all right guy to me… a little quick to respond sometimes, but over time his faults smooth out. 'Course, I’m the kind of guy who’s all about “second chances” (and third chances, and fourth chances, and fifth chances) so maybe I just find a sort of twisted, delirious auto-brotherhood with someone else who does the same.
Maybe Libertarian just responds to posts he/she (or thon maybe) finds interesting without considering the psuedo-bullshit-relationship he has with the person he’s responding to.
And his response isn’t to you alone, that’s what email is for. This is a messageboard.
Blowero, you’ve broken the biggest rule of Pit decorum–“Don’t be pointless”–because without a link, so the rest of us can read for ourselves what happened, this whole thread is pretty pointless
IMO.
Although you and Lib have my permission to consider this thread as your “room”.
O.K., since you all seem so interested, I found the thread. And I have to apologize, Libertarian. You’re right; you didn’t say I was on your ignore list. You said “this discussion is finished”, and typed a line (------) under it. And then you didn’t direct any posts towards me for several months, but maybe that’s just a coincidence.
Since people seem interested in re-hashing this, here’s the link. Did I misquote Libertarian, or was he just being a baby? I leave it up to you, fellow Dopers. (I believe the post in question starts around page 3.)
People seem interested in re-hashing this only because you brought it up first, remember. As you have already apologized to Lib, I will address only a couple of salient points.
Er, it’s a thread from last May? And it’s taken you six months to get around to this?
I don’t think Lib sounds like a “baby” at all–I think he sounds like he’s tired of the discussion. He soldiered on through two whole pages of stuff like this–
"You said “unknowable from within our closed reference frames” (emphasis mine). The word “our” includes the writer himself, which would make YOUR (Libertarian’s) reference frame CLOSED, and would therefore make objective reality unknowable to you (Libertarian). Are you saying that you have access to your so-called “absolute reference frame”? If so, why then do you believe in these so-called “closed reference frames”? And, if possible, could you explain this stuff without using self-invented jargon?
and this:
“the problem with the Eristic Principle is that there is indeed an objective grid for the universe; i.e., for any arbitrary particle, its distance from any other particle at any time is an exact sum of Planck distances. Thus, the objective grid is the grid whose coordinates are Planck distances apart.”
–which gives me a headache just to Copy and Paste, let alone try to understand. And so after a while he’d had enough, and he left.
No, it took Libertarian six months to get around to directing posts towards me, and I was curious as to why the sudden change. My God, wasn’t the o.p. clear enough?
If you think I was wrong, that’s fine. But Libertarian distinctly cut and pasted the part of the discussion where I denied having misquoted him, and said, directly below: “then this discussion is finished”. It was NOT simply because he was tired of the discussion, so let’s please be clear about that.
And it was my opinion that all the gobbledygook that you quoted from the thread was in large part from Libertarian’s own pen, so to speak. He was the one who introduced the stuff about “closed reference frames”, etc. I was just trying to nail him down on what exactly he was talking about, at which point he claimed I misquoted him and stopped responding. I mean, that was the whole point; the guy was talking in riddles, and giving curt replies when anyone asked him what he meant.
I accept your apology. No harm done. Just so you know, I try always to separate comments in any one post to multiple users with 5 sequential hyphens. Like this:
I understand. And just so you know, I wasn’t accusing you of breaking any rules. A couple people seem to have thought that was what I was saying, so I wanted to clear that up.
Incidentally, a closed reference frame is [symbol]R[/symbol], such that [symbol]R Û a[/symbol] for every [symbol]a[/symbol]. An open reference frame, by contrast, is [symbol]R[/symbol], such that [symbol]R Þ a[/symbol] for every [symbol]a[/symbol] in [symbol]R[/symbol].
As you have already apologized to Lib, I will address only a couple of salient points.