I guess.machinesworking wrote: I'm sorry, I thought you were interested in what I had to say.
Since you've decided that your debate/logic/philosophy skills are far too complex for me to grasp, I guess we're done?
I had actually written perhaps my longest response ever to you, but didn't write my above ("above" meaning my previous post) syllogisms until the end of the would-be post. As soon as I had typed them in, I said, "f**k me, why did I write so much and in such detail? It's just going to make him take my response personally." Instead, I opted to get right to the point, make an apology of sorts, and hope that was good enough for you. Apparently it's not, and you're going to insist on being insulted anyhow. I can't "MAKE" you believe me that it wasn't meant to be an insult. If someone told me, "Greg, playing classical piano isn't your strong point," I wouldn't take it personally. I'm telling you-- forming arguments and evaluating counter-arguments (and counter-examples) isn't your strong point.It's not that my skills are too "complex" or "beyond" you. It's just that you don't have them. Period. Make no mistake, they ARE a specific skill set that requires learning, understanding, and even practice. Like ANY set of skills. You're not born with the knowledge of how to fix cars, and not knowing how to fix cars doesn't make you instantly "mechanically inept," it just means that you don't have those skills.
I'm not sure how you can accuse me of smug self-righteousness, and then imply that I'm like this David fellow. Talk about an underhanded insult. I'm a "lifelong learner" and it's my passion to learn new things. It's simply that you didn't have anything to "teach". What exactly was I supposed to learn? It wasn't a case of exchanging information but of presenting 2 perspectives. Yours wasn't a comprehensive enough argument for me to say, "Hrm, I disagree, but that's interesting." Rather, it was so full of holes and rhetoric that I found that I was trapping myself (not really your fault) into addressing each inconsistency and red herring. On your side, you ignored or didn't understand my points, and from there it blew up into some sort of disproportionately long discussion, during which each new post contained more inconsistencies for me to trap myself into replying to....Insert story about David here...
Instead, I saw a way to end it by getting right to my point and as I said, hoping that it'd be enough. Not sure what else you expected from me. I imagine you DID want me to address every point, but that's a maze without end.
I could probably reconstruct one or two of the points I addressed if you REALLY want me to, but I'm not sure what good that would do. Let me know.
Again, I'm sorry if you took anything personally. I really AM shitty at playing classical piano.
Greg
