[Sigia-l] data as information?

[Scott Nelson]

On Jun 29.2005, at 23:26, Alexander Johannesen wrote:


> On 6/30/05, Scott Nelson <skot at penguinstorm.com> wrote:
>
>
>> so how would you represent noise?
>>
> I've already stated it is a pattern
>

a pattern of what?

you're still suggesting this exists in the abstract, while People do  
not.


>  If you can't handle a philosophical discussion
> like this, then perhaps you shouldn't engage? And no, I'm pretty sure
> I'm not your ex-wife.
>

pretty sure?

i've got no problem with, and frequently engage in, such discussions.  
this has long since ceased to be that.

this list serves a practical purpose. your continual insistence on  
being contrary has long since ceased to be practical.

didn't the "purely philosophical" conversation conclude a long time  
ago? most, including yourself, have admitted that Data vs. Fact is  
not an objective thing, but rather a subjective judgement. You  
continue to try to push the conversation further into Objectivity,  
despite this tacit recognition.


>>>  unless he's really stupid (which he
>>> actually is, given he needs a script and doesn't even bloody exist!)
>>>
>> ok. this officially took this conversation into idiocy.
>>
> I should have slapped some smiles and hahaha around it.
>

perhaps you should have. isn't one of the first rules or online  
communication that notion that emotion, subtle nuances of personality  
aren't conveyed well.

yes you should have. it would have made for good architecture.


>> he's not stupid, he's fictional and being used for illustrative
>> purposes only.
>>
> He was also used as comic relief,
>

not really. he was used to illustrate a point. your interpretation of  
that as comic relief speaks to your interpretation only.


> (even send a whole thread
> into idiocy) instead of adressing the issues raised.
>

this entire discussion slipped into idiocy some time ago. The issues  
raised have largely been thrashed out by excellent comments from:
Timohty Karsjens
Eric Scheid
Dan Saffer
Ted Han

and many others. Inane, contrarian responses to well thought out  
responses have added little to the actual discussion, but much to  
drag the discussion out to 62 messages (not including Ziya's) - 12,  
or 20%, from you on a conversation you didn't even start. Anybody  
know what the record on the list is?

I leave it to you to determine the value of your own effusive  
contributions.