"You Can’t Prove A Negative"

[chaz wyman]

This is starting to go too far. Inevitably we would express the action of the brain as mathematical. But as maths is ipso facto and invention of Babylonian and Greek scholars, identifiable at a particular historical point, it is rather churlish to say that we have hit upon the language of god as so many have. I'm beginning to tire of this discussion as it seems to be goinf round in circles.

Not that the history of mathematics is at all relevant to what I'm saying, but I think you're way off here. First, mathematics is and has been an ongoing process, we have methods now far in advance of what the Greeks or Babylonians had come up with, we see more of nature, and the application of that maths has lead to a far greater understanding of our universe than that possessed by the Babylonians and Greeks.

Not at all relevant to the discussion. Think about it! This jsut makes your case worse. Maths is what humans do with their conscious minds in the realm of the idea. It is a means of modelling the words with abstract ideas. A flagellum does not do maths, but it's movement can be described with maths. If you don't like this, then we have found a point of disagreement - congratulations!

Besides, your point in history is way off, with the first verified mathematical artifacts dating back to around 30,000BC, used to count off phases of the moon, months and menstrual cycles. It is likely mathematics of one form or another has been with us since the beginning of thought, in expressions of magnitude and relationships.

I warn you I have a degree in Ancient History and Archeology - so don't bullshit me. Let's have some evidence.

I think we are done here.

Ok.

I am taking about a spear in a natural context.

Natural or unnatural, you're still wrong.

You are beginning to sound like the average arse-hole in the NG world.

[bytesplicer]

This is starting to go too far. Inevitably we would express the action of the brain as mathematical. But as maths is ipso facto and invention of Babylonian and Greek scholars, identifiable at a particular historical point, it is rather churlish to say that we have hit upon the language of god as so many have. I'm beginning to tire of this discussion as it seems to be goinf round in circles.

Not that the history of mathematics is at all relevant to what I'm saying, but I think you're way off here. First, mathematics is and has been an ongoing process, we have methods now far in advance of what the Greeks or Babylonians had come up with, we see more of nature, and the application of that maths has lead to a far greater understanding of our universe than that possessed by the Babylonians and Greeks.

Not at all relevant to the discussion. Think about it! This jsut makes your case worse. Maths is what humans do with their conscious minds in the realm of the idea. It is a means of modelling the words with abstract ideas. A flagellum does not do maths, but it's movement can be described with maths. If you don't like this, then we have found a point of disagreement - congratulations!

Yes, a flagellum doesn't do maths, and 'we' can describe its movement with maths. Why is it moving the way it does? Why is the movement predictable under similar conditions, and can be extrapolated to varying conditions? A child, completely untutored in maths, could predict its movement. The description and the reality could be seen as convergent.

Besides, your point in history is way off, with the first verified mathematical artifacts dating back to around 30,000BC, used to count off phases of the moon, months and menstrual cycles. It is likely mathematics of one form or another has been with us since the beginning of thought, in expressions of magnitude and relationships.

I warn you I have a degree in Ancient History and Archeology - so don't bullshit me. Let's have some evidence.

I know you do, you mention it quite a lot. And I never intentionally bullshit. Well, I don't possess the actual artifact, nor was I there at the time. If you can accept a reference as evidence, look up the Lebombo bone, which will lead you to other examples of tally sticks. You might also want to investigate prehistoric numerals as a search term.

Many animals display a rudimentary understanding of order and magnitude, reinforcing the fact that such thoughts were likely present in our early ancestors. Mathematics as a discipline is something that has grown apace with our own sophistication.

I think we are done here.

Ok.

I am taking about a spear in a natural context.

Natural or unnatural, you're still wrong.

You are beginning to sound like the average arse-hole in the NG world.

I suck at acronyms, what's an NG world? Once more you resort to baseless insults when your intellectual well runs dry, character assassination in lieu of argument. Weak, and you're still wrong. I take your silence on the brain, robots and computers that you don't want to press those issues either. As you say though, most of these issues are tangential to our main disagreement of realism vs idealism (even though I don't disagree with you, and am just interested in exploring the ideas). I maintain my on the fence position, and am happy to concede that my thoughts about mathematics and reality may be wrong, it is a big unknown. Being a generally adaptable creature, I'll see where our discoveries lead us, and adjust my views accordingly.

[chaz wyman]

Not that the history of mathematics is at all relevant to what I'm saying, but I think you're way off here. First, mathematics is and has been an ongoing process, we have methods now far in advance of what the Greeks or Babylonians had come up with, we see more of nature, and the application of that maths has lead to a far greater understanding of our universe than that possessed by the Babylonians and Greeks.

Not at all relevant to the discussion. Think about it! This just makes your case worse. Maths is what humans do with their conscious minds in the realm of the idea. It is a means of modelling the words with abstract ideas. A flagellum does not do maths, but it's movement can be described with maths. If you don't like this, then we have found a point of disagreement - congratulations!

Yes, a flagellum doesn't do maths, and 'we' can describe its movement with maths. Why is it moving the way it does? Why is the movement predictable under similar conditions, and can be extrapolated to varying conditions? A child, completely untutored in maths, could predict its movement. The description and the reality could be seen as convergent.

Wrong! (do you like that?) So unbelievably wrong I am reeling. We can describe how. If you want to answer why then ask god.'Why' implies an intention. Any scientific question that cannot be re-figured to ask 'how' instead of why is not a scientific question but a metaphysical one. The description and the actuality might seem to be divergent and the accuracy of the model will determine its degree of convergence. But I am glad you agree with me that a flagellum does not do maths, because when I throw or catch a ball, I am not doing maths either THis is a vital distinction that avoids an anthropocentric arrogance (se below).

Besides, your point in history is way off, with the first verified mathematical artifacts dating back to around 30,000BC, used to count off phases of the moon, months and menstrual cycles. It is likely mathematics of one form or another has been with us since the beginning of thought, in expressions of magnitude and relationships.

I warn you I have a degree in Ancient History and Archeology - so don't bullshit me. Let's have some evidence.

I know you do, I never intentionally bullshit. Well, I don't possess the actual artifact, nor was I there at the time. If you can accept a reference as evidence, look up the Lebombo bone, which will lead you to other examples of tally sticks. You might also want to investigate prehistoric numerals as a search term.

I can't prove a negative, so I can't prove that there was no maths at 30kbp. But 'history' requires writing, so if we are playing cheap points, there is no 'history' at all at 30kpb, by definition.

Scratches on a stick are archeology and not 'history' as such. But the burden of proof is still on you, But even if you could prove counting (and not just decoration) I would ask you to respect the difference between arithmetic and mathematics.
But none of this is relevant - but it is cheap point scoring. The fact is there was no maths ar 100kbp, or 100,000kbp so the point remains; it is a human conceit - that was the point I was making. Can you figure why I am getting impatient with you?
This does not make me 'wrong' it makes you childishly pedantic.

Many animals display a rudimentary understanding of order and magnitude, reinforcing the fact that such thoughts were likely present in our early ancestors. Mathematics is something that has grown apace with our own sophistication.




I think we are done here.

Ok.

I am taking about a spear in a natural context.

Natural or unnatural, you're still wrong.


You are beginning to sound like the average arse-hole in the NG world.

I suck at acronyms, what's an NG world?

NewsGroup

Once more you resort to baseless insults when your intellectual well runs dry, character assassination in lieu of argument. Weak, and you're still wrong.

Saying a person is 'wrong' and them offering nothing is no argument. Try again.

I take your silence on the brain, robots and computers that you don't want to press those issues either.

It's completely off topic for one thing, and not particularly relevant to the digression either.

As you say though, most of these issues are tangential to our main disagreement of realism vs idealism (even though I don't disagree with you, and am just interested in exploring the ideas). I maintain my on the fence position, and am happy to concede that my thoughts about mathematics and reality may be wrong, it is a big unknown. Being a generally adaptable creature, I'll see where our discoveries lead us, and adjust my views accordingly.

There is an important distinction that is worth preserving: our current view of the universe and the Universe in-itself. You are trying to dissolve this important distinction. Your assertion (or implication) that biological systems are doing maths is childishly anthropomorphic. This distinction has to be preserved if you are not to go down that well trodden road of bad scientists and theologian who claim that we have final answers and that what we think of the world is a direct and faithful facsimile of reality which it can never be. In the historical past people KNEW that the world was in the centre of the universe, no ifs, no buts; they knew there was a substance called pholgistan; that human desire, aspiration and fate were written in the stars - these were not seen as speculations but as hard facts. Once we abandon the distinction between our methods and knowledge and what is out there in-itself then we have lost the road to progress and change so necessary for the growth of science.

[bytesplicer]

Not that the history of mathematics is at all relevant to what I'm saying, but I think you're way off here. First, mathematics is and has been an ongoing process, we have methods now far in advance of what the Greeks or Babylonians had come up with, we see more of nature, and the application of that maths has lead to a far greater understanding of our universe than that possessed by the Babylonians and Greeks.

Not at all relevant to the discussion. Think about it! This just makes your case worse. Maths is what humans do with their conscious minds in the realm of the idea. It is a means of modelling the words with abstract ideas. A flagellum does not do maths, but it's movement can be described with maths. If you don't like this, then we have found a point of disagreement - congratulations!

Yes, a flagellum doesn't do maths, and 'we' can describe its movement with maths. Why is it moving the way it does? Why is the movement predictable under similar conditions, and can be extrapolated to varying conditions? A child, completely untutored in maths, could predict its movement. The description and the reality could be seen as convergent.

Wrong! (do you like that?) So unbelievably wrong I am reeling. We can describe how. If you want to answer why then ask god.'Why' implies an intention. Any scientific question that cannot be re-figured to ask 'how' instead of why is not a scientific question but a metaphysical one. The description and the actuality might seem to be divergent and the accuracy of the model will determine its degree of convergence. But I am glad you agree with me that a flagellum does not do maths, because when I throw or catch a ball, I am not doing maths either THis is a vital distinction that avoids an anthropocentric arrogance (se below).

Yes, the question is a metaphysical one, which is why stating rightness or wrongness is a mite inappropriate. The only way we have of answering the how is mathematics. The why in the context of our reality may also be down to mathematics. Science is based on asking why, finding the answer and uncovering another why. As I've seen in the past, this kind of word play is what you resort to when you don't get your own way.

You may not be doing maths when you catch a ball, but that is not to say your brain and body aren't, similarly with the flagellum. Look again to the thread on simulation theory for yet another perspective on this. Another metaphysical question, unanswered to date. I don't mind you telling me I'm wrong, it's something you do to everyone so I know it isn't personal (as it wasn't toward you).
[/b]

Besides, your point in history is way off, with the first verified mathematical artifacts dating back to around 30,000BC, used to count off phases of the moon, months and menstrual cycles. It is likely mathematics of one form or another has been with us since the beginning of thought, in expressions of magnitude and relationships.

I warn you I have a degree in Ancient History and Archeology - so don't bullshit me. Let's have some evidence.

I know you do, I never intentionally bullshit. Well, I don't possess the actual artifact, nor was I there at the time. If you can accept a reference as evidence, look up the Lebombo bone, which will lead you to other examples of tally sticks. You might also want to investigate prehistoric numerals as a search term.

I can't prove a negative, so I can't prove that there was no maths at 30kbp. But 'history' requires writing, so if we are playing cheap points, there is no 'history' at all at 30kpb, by definition.

What a desperate load of babble that is. Don't argue like MagnetMan, you're better than that. There was mathematics at 30kbc, and this is evidence, this 'cheap points' shows that evidence isn't your primary concern, just winning an argument. I know this from our last conversation, and as with that conversation I'll also allow you the last word, important as it seems to you. Your history comment is by the by, suggesting correctly that mathematics predates written history, and is a more fundamental language than language.

Scratches on a stick are archeology and not 'history' as such. But the burden of proof is still on you, But even if you could prove counting (and not just decoration) I would ask you to respect the difference between arithmetic and mathematics.
But none of this is relevant - but it is cheap point scoring. The fact is there was no maths ar 100kbp, or 100,000kbp so the point remains; it is a human conceit - that was the point I was making. Can you figure why I am getting impatient with you?
This does not make me 'wrong' it makes you childishly pedantic.



Again, pathetically desperate, squirmy word play. Archaeology or history, who cares, mathematics was practiced at that time. Asking me to respect the difference between arithmetic and mathematics is childishly pedantic. There is no further burden of proof on me, the tally stick is proof enough, as well as the now proven cases of mathematical ability in animals, removing your human conceit argument, it is part of our evolutionary heritage. Other indicators include our 'natural' use of base ten, based upon counting on fingers, again, if you'd read up on prehistoric numerals you'd see what I'm talking about. That final comment demonstrates how shrill and unreasonable you are being in the face of a perfectly reasonable and supported argument. Besides, I was saying you were wrong about computers and targetting, and you were. I provided the requested reference, and you call me childish? You're getting impatient because your self-worth appears to be based on winning arguments, and now that we're out of the realm of metaphysics and into the realm of facts, you're out of your depth. You presented statements on computing and the brain with such authority, and yet it was all garbage. You warn me not to bullshit you, I don't, and you start whining about 'archaeology not history'.

Many animals display a rudimentary understanding of order and magnitude, reinforcing the fact that such thoughts were likely present in our early ancestors. Mathematics is something that has grown apace with our own sophistication.
[/b]



I think we are done here.

Ok.

I am taking about a spear in a natural context.

Natural or unnatural, you're still wrong.


You are beginning to sound like the average arse-hole in the NG world.

I suck at acronyms, what's an NG world?

NewsGroup

Thanks, still not sure what that is, like an RSS reader or UseNet? Or is it an american thing?

Once more you resort to baseless insults when your intellectual well runs dry, character assassination in lieu of argument. Weak, and you're still wrong.

Saying a person is 'wrong' and them offering nothing is no argument. Try again.

My argument was in the post you replied to. You didn't refute it, as I said, it wasn't even quoted or addressed in your following post. You gonna accuse me of editing posts again?

I take your silence on the brain, robots and computers that you don't want to press those issues either.

It's completely off topic for one thing, and not particularly relevant to the digression either.

I guess that phrase would differ if you'd been correct though, huh?

As you say though, most of these issues are tangential to our main disagreement of realism vs idealism (even though I don't disagree with you, and am just interested in exploring the ideas). I maintain my on the fence position, and am happy to concede that my thoughts about mathematics and reality may be wrong, it is a big unknown. Being a generally adaptable creature, I'll see where our discoveries lead us, and adjust my views accordingly.

There is an important distinction that is worth preserving: our current view of the universe and the Universe in-itself. You are trying to dissolve this important distinction. Your assertion (or implication) that biological systems are doing maths is childishly anthropomorphic. This distinction has to be preserved if you are not to go down that well trodden road of bad scientists and theologian who claim that we have final answers and that what we think of the world is a direct and faithful facsimile of reality which it can never be. In the historical past people KNEW that the world was in the centre of the universe, no ifs, no buts; they knew there was a substance called pholgistan; that human desire, aspiration and fate were written in the stars - these were not seen as speculations but as hard facts. Once we abandon the distinction between our methods and knowledge and what is out there in-itself then we have lost the road to progress and change so necessary for the growth of science.

This shows that you have merely continued to misinterpret me. I can see the distinction between our current view of the universe and the universe itself. You pig-headedly hold onto the assertion that I'm saying biological systems are doing maths. I'm not. I'm saying the behaviour is mathematical, in that it is predictable and reproducable. Maths is the word I'm using to describe this, because that's what maths deals in. In our last 'discussion' on energy and evolution I said time and time again that physical reality would seem to be completely describable by maths, and is essentially clockwork in that regard. But this is nowhere near an answer to everything. If reality were discovered to be mathematical, from the big bang to now, this still leaves the obvious unanswered questions of how and why did this transpire. As I said in that topic, regardless of the predictive power of maths (or energy) you'll always be left with big unknowns because maths and the universe appear relational in nature, and these relations 'peter out' as we move to the various limits of our vision, and says nothing about conditions 'pre-universe' that would cause our universe to form and behave the way it does, or in the case of no 'pre-universe', again why it behaves the way it does. As you say, metaphysical questions, but ones I believe will be knocking at our door sooner or later.

On the question of distinctions, I think you may actually be guilty of seeing too many distinctions. We, our brains, and possibly our thoughts, are not distinct from the rest of nature, Also, there may come a point where what we think of the world is a direct and faithful facsimile, I don't know the future, do you?

Equating my argument, or the realist argument in general, with phlogiston and astrology is, to put it mildly, inappropriate, and seems just another method of character assassination on your part. Also, why doesn't this argument apply to what you're saying? You KNOW the truth behind the universe and mathematics, no ifs or buts. Could you be wrong? I accept I can be.

[Typist]

Wrong, misinterpretation, illogical, preposterous, pathetic squirmy word play, irrepresentational of irrational irreality, in a pedalogical shrillness of prehistoric numbering systems, which is not related to whining about archaeological permutations of the linear order of supposedly circular arguments.

In order for the premise to be true, the computational derivatives would have to be bullshit garbage, which as Kant clearly stated, is not found within the realm of paradoxical newsgroups.

Further, the derivational value of math myths is due to the metaphysical questions which will be knocking at our door sooner or later.

So there! If you are so STOOOPID as to debate these obviously obvious points, the burden of pudding is on you!!!

[bytesplicer]

Wrong, misinterpretation, illogical, preposterous, pathetic squirmy word play, irrepresentational of irrational irreality, in a pedalogical shrillness of prehistoric numbering systems, which is not related to whining about archaeological permutations of the linear order of supposedly circular arguments.

Wow! Even though this seems to be aimed at me, I am bowled over by the sheer awesomeness of that sentence!

In order for the premise to be true, the computational derivatives would have to be bullshit garbage, which as Kant clearly stated, is not found within the realm of paradoxical newsgroups.

Given that we have both realists and idealists of many flavours, as well as the massive gaps in our knowledge, is Kant the final word on the nature of the universe? Chaz also mentioned newsgroups in a derogatory fashion, am I missing something there?

Further, the derivational value of math myths is due to the metaphysical questions which will be knocking at our door sooner or later.

I agree, I think.

So there! If you are so STOOOPID as to debate these obviously obvious points, the burden of pudding is on you!!!

Well, I am stooopid when all is said and done, but as I said to Chaz, I wasn't really debating, I was exploring, isn't that the nature of metaphysical questions? Reality could be 'all in our head', what does that say about the distinction between what we perceive and what's 'out there'? Simulation, as discussed in another thread, also shares this implication. Can you really say at this moment in time what the 'truth' is?

As I've said, I'm really on the fence, and can see arguments from both sides. The same applies to me for the idea of God, I don't believe religious doctrine, not for a moment, but I can't dismiss a possible creator because of that, I don't know, and I honestly think no-one else does either. God may or may not exist, and may or may not be as described by religion, regardless of how we think, just as maths may or may not be the basis of our reality, regardless of what we think. This attitude may lead to me appearing stupid and confused, but that's because I am!

[Typist]

Wow! Even though this seems to be aimed at me,

NO! You're wrong again, due to your unreasonable inflection upon the suchness of oneness within the paranoid parabolical divergence paradigm.

I am bowled over by the sheer awesomeness of that sentence!

So are you saying I'm a bowling ball??? Is this meant to be pendantic, preposterous, predatory, perfunctory, paralegal, or just a mere marriage proposal??

Given that we have both realists and idealists of many flavours, is Kant the final word on the nature of the universe?

No, of course not. Kant was realistic about idealists only in that he expected them to ideally be real, when really they were ideal, that's the deal, buy none for the price of one, and when it's done, it's fun. How can you not know this???

Chaz also mentioned newsgroups in a derogatory fashion, am I missing something here?

But, what do you mean by "a" and "am" and "also??? Define your terms in terminological terminology or the redundant functions of computational compunctions will reveal you to be a mere poser of proposals.

I agree.

Geez, if you had read the forum rules, you'd know this is not permitted. MODERATOR!!!

As I've said, I'm really on the fence, and can see arguments from both sides.

In others words, you're not a real man, right? C'mon just admit it. Chaz and me real men!!!

PS: Attention Shoppers: They're serving LSD in Simulation Room 14 until 1pm.

[Arising_uk]

... am I missing something there?

Yes, Typist is just attempting to take the piss out of CW.

[bytesplicer]

Wow! Even though this seems to be aimed at me,

NO! You're wrong again, due to your unreasonable inflection upon the suchness of oneness within the paranoid parabolical divergence paradigm.

Hahaha, that was a very well constructed non-argument!

I am bowled over by the sheer awesomeness of that sentence!

So are you saying I'm a bowling ball??? Is this meant to be pendantic, preposterous, predatory, perfunctory, paralegal, or just a mere marriage proposal??

The closest I think, given those choices, would be a marriage proposal.

Given that we have both realists and idealists of many flavours, is Kant the final word on the nature of the universe?

No, of course not. Kant was realistic about idealists only in that he expected them to ideally be real, when really they were ideal, that's the deal, buy none for the price of one, and when it's done, it's fun. How can you not know this???

I feel like the computer in Star Trek who was asked to define love. I'm about to explode!

Chaz also mentioned newsgroups in a derogatory fashion, am I missing something here?

But, what do you mean by "a" and "am" and "also??? Define your terms in terminological terminology or the redundant functions of computational compunctions will reveal you to be a mere poser of proposals.

I really was missing something wasn't I.

I agree.

Geez, if you had read the forum rules, you'd know this is not permitted. MODERATOR!!!

You really are very very naughty!

As I've said, I'm really on the fence, and can see arguments from both sides.

In others words, you're not a real man, right? C'mon just admit it. Chaz and me real men!!!

Teach me!


PS: Attention Shoppers: They're serving LSD in Simulation Room 14 until 1pm.

[bytesplicer]

... am I missing something there?[/b]Yes, Typist is just attempting to take the piss out of CW.

Haha, I couldn't tell at first, what does that say about me, doh

[Typist]

Haha, I couldn't tell at first, what does that say about me, doh

You?

What does it say about me that you thought those were normal Typist posts??

"Sigh, there goes Typist again, that damned delusional dumbfounded dilettante."

[bytesplicer]

Haha, I couldn't tell at first, what does that say about me, doh

You?

What does it say about me that you thought those were normal Typist posts??

Hah, in honesty I didn't read the name until the second post, and was still primed for contention, and I'm just very gullible too!

"Sigh, there goes Typist again, that damned delusional dumbfounded dilettante."

You certainly dumbfounded me, your post was awe inspiring, I'm just glad you don't use your powers for evil (much)!

[chaz wyman]

Not that the history of mathematics is at all relevant to what I'm saying, but I think you're way off here. First, mathematics is and has been an ongoing process, we have methods now far in advance of what the Greeks or Babylonians had come up with, we see more of nature, and the application of that maths has lead to a far greater understanding of our universe than that possessed by the Babylonians and Greeks.

Not at all relevant to the discussion. Think about it! This just makes your case worse. Maths is what humans do with their conscious minds in the realm of the idea. It is a means of modelling the words with abstract ideas. A flagellum does not do maths, but it's movement can be described with maths. If you don't like this, then we have found a point of disagreement - congratulations!

Yes, a flagellum doesn't do maths, and 'we' can describe its movement with maths. Why is it moving the way it does? Why is the movement predictable under similar conditions, and can be extrapolated to varying conditions? A child, completely untutored in maths, could predict its movement. The description and the reality could be seen as convergent.

Wrong! (do you like that?) So unbelievably wrong I am reeling. We can describe how. If you want to answer why then ask god.'Why' implies an intention. Any scientific question that cannot be re-figured to ask 'how' instead of why is not a scientific question but a metaphysical one. The description and the actuality might seem to be divergent and the accuracy of the model will determine its degree of convergence. But I am glad you agree with me that a flagellum does not do maths, because when I throw or catch a ball, I am not doing maths either THis is a vital distinction that avoids an anthropocentric arrogance (se below).

Yes, the question is a metaphysical one, which is why stating rightness or wrongness is a mite inappropriate. The only way we have of answering the how is mathematics. The why in the context of our reality may also be down to mathematics. Science is based on asking why, finding the answer and uncovering another why. As I've seen in the past, this kind of word play is what you resort to when you don't get your own way.

Hey - it's time you went and inserted a sharp object inside yourself!
This thread is contentless.

[Aetixintro]

This thread is contentless.

I contest this! Actually, I think it has more content than many others, but I surely see the quarrel in the last posts. Perhaps it's this you're referring to?

If it boils down to "Hey - it's time you went and inserted a sharp object inside yourself!", I think you guys/people should quit this. Perhaps you can at least start a new thread where you continue "this".

Peace.

[chaz wyman]

This thread is contentless.

I contest this! Actually, I think it has more content than many others, but I surely see the quarrel in the last posts. Perhaps it's this you're referring to?

If it boils down to "Hey - it's time you went and inserted a sharp object inside yourself!", I think you guys/people should quit this. Perhaps you can at least start a new thread where you continue "this".

I tried to end it earlier but as an attention seeker he bated me by saying that I was 'wrong' over a thing that was essentially right. This is like a red rag to me, and I took the bait. Several of his objections to my words were of this kind, where the point is made though the detail of which might be challenged by an irrelevancy. This is why I put and end to it.

He should call himself hairsplitter not bytesplicer.



Peace.