Someone confused and unable to admit his errors wrote:
Your points don't need refutation. They need pity. I can hear the petulance from miles away.
For instance it is quite clear that a probability is calculated, the linked pages show that.
YET AGAIN, this point is absolutely not under dispute. Your frequent repetition, as if it's any kind of "rebuttal", of one of the points we all agree on (and implying that it in any way shows that my points "need pity") while studiously *avoiding* the points you've been repeatedly refuted on, is a classic case of a red herring.
You employ this cheap rhetorical device *very* frequently. Please explain why you do it, I'm genuinely curious.
Do you do it because you think you're being clever? If so, you're quite mistaken, since I've never seen anyone fall for it, and it's blindingly obvious when you employ such a dodge.
Do you do it because you really are unable to grasp the fact that your "rebuttals" fail to address the refutations of your posts, and you actually believe that nattering on about irrelevancies and/or points that aren't the ones actually under dispute somehow supports your flawed arguments?
Or is it done for some other reason(s), like simple trolling perhaps, or passive-aggressiveness, or something else?
I'm fascinated by your unusual "style" of discussion, and I'd really like to understand it better.
[AC wrote:] They are calculated.
[I responded:] Gosh, what a shocker. Red herring #832,485 (give or take).
Again, your shock is no argument for anything but your shock.
ROFL!!!
This is just... Hilarious! The really, *really* funny thing is that later in his petulant post AC writes: "Damage to any of three different areas [of the brain] could render individuals unable to understand sarcastic comments." Obviously, he's writing from personal experience.
Clue for the sarcasm impaired: When I wrote, "gosh, what a shocker", it didn't actually mean that I was surprised that the formula produced a calculated result. It meant that I was rolling my eyes over the fact that you were stating the obvious as if you thought I didn't already know it. It was the equivalent of, "no s***, Sherlock", or "tell me something I don't know".
I'm glad I could clear that up for you. I'm sorry I wasn't aware of your handicap earlier, or I would have made allowances for it.
Furthermore, when AC writes, "Again, your shock is no argument for anything but your shock", this is yet *another* red herring, because my "what a shocker" snicker wasn't used to make any "argument" whatsoever. My actual arguments were based on those silly "mathematics" and "facts" thingies. Note how AC didn't address *those*, he just fixated on my snickering and whined about how *that* wasn't an argument, as if *that* was the substance of my post and as if by addressing *that*, he had dismissed my actual argument. RED. HERRING.
Plus your gambling problem does not help your argument either.
My gambling example *is* part of my valid argument (as well as part of my policy of "don't argue with a fool, bet him money"), even though you have chosen to sidestep it entirely (snideness is not adequate rebuttal), either through disingenuous evasiveness or a failure to understand it.
Notice that the summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top. That means something.
Yes it does, but nothing that rescues your errors. Red herrings, anyone? The astute reader will also note that although AC snottily says that it "means something", he is unable/unwilling to explain what, if anything, it actually means in the context of the actual points under dispute.
Pretending to have an argument while failing to actually make one is classic bluff behavior by those who have found themselves cornered and/or out of their depth in a discussion.
And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation.
ROFL!! Yes folks, you heard it here first -- AC tries to imply that pi must actually a rational number. Since I think it's highly unlikely that even he can be confused enough to actually think that, the only alternative is to conclude that he is intentionally and dishonestly posting something that he knows is making a blatantly false implication in order to try to "rebut" one of my points via sheer fakery.
Disgusting, I know, but he does it a *lot*. Again, I'm really curious as to what would motivate someone to behave this way -- I'd still like him to explain his behavior.
And since I know he'll try to bluff a response implying that that's not what his point was (without actually explicitly saying what it *was*), let's cut to the chase: Do you, or do you not, believe that pi is a rational number? Yes or no. No waffling.
Plus, AC is just flatly and completely wrong when he writes, "And the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation". Nope, sorry, thanks for playing, Don Pardo will tell you what lovely consolation prizes you've won. As AC himself points out -- so he can't claim to have missed it -- the "summation for the calculation of pi has a symbol on top", and although it was a red herring relative to *my* argument, it does indeed "means something" fatal to AC's fall-on-his-face error. He incorrectly claims that "the set of rationals is closed when using all of the operations in the equation", because the set of rationals is *NOT* closed when using the operation of summation to infinity, which is one of the "operations in the equation" that AC cut-and-pasted into his reply.
Nice try, son, but you've tripped and fallen yet again. One wonders why you keep trying. While the fraction of "hits" in the Buffon's Needle process converges slowly towards 2/pi, your own is converging towards zero.
Finally, your not understanding irony is no virtue.
What's really no virtue is your pretense that I'm unable understand irony, when in fact it should be obvious to anyone who isn't *actually* brain-damaged that I sometimes use irony myself to deflect your lame attempts to employ irony as red herrings. Game, set, and match. Get back to us when you're able to keep up.
And no, your attempts to employ irony to sidestep *relevant* points doesn't put us on equal footing.
As you so kindly treated Alamo-girl, I will return the favor. Don't post to me.
As you're well aware, I haven't been posting directly to you for almost two years now, after you became incensed when I asked you questions which highlighted your hypocrisy and pointed out your tactics, at which point you decided that you didn't like to be reminded of your behavior. Here's a synopsis of that discussion, although masochists are welcome to follow all the posts in that exchange to see how it played out.
Since then, as you well know, I have respected your wishes and directed my dissections of your fallacious posts and your game-playing to "All" or other participants in the thread. I apologize for not fixing the "To:" field in my last reply, I had *thought* that I had redirected it as usual and had certainly intended to, but apparently I overlooked it this time.
Nonetheless, isn't it rather childish of you to object to my replying to you after we've been having a lengthy back-and-forth discussion in which you've been a willing participant? If you don't want me replying to you, why do you keep replying to my posts? Feel entirely free to ignore them if you don't actually want to have a discussion with me. But if you can't help yourself, why not drop the silly "moommmmm, he's posting to me after I've been replying to him for days!!!" whine? For someone who doesn't want to be included in the discussion, you seem to go out of your way to find my posts (even though they don't ping you) so that you can reply to them.
Make up your mind.
