Yeah, I'm a little dismayed by your post to Tango, I don't deserve this.
“Derserve’s got nothing to do with it.” (William Munny, Unforgiven)
I’m kidding with this statement BnZs
. I’ve always liked Clint Eastwood muttering that phrase. (I was actually also trying to make fun of myself by suggesting I “learnt” my “gazinta ciphering” from Jethro but all of my attempt at humor obviously went over like a bunch of lead balloons!)
Please allow me to be serious for a bit. I’m very sorry you felt I was treating you like an idiot. Please accept my apologies.
I’d like to rant philosophically for a minute. The following applies for any FM dispute. Your specific dispute is an example. Put yourself in my shoes for a moment.
A) You’re still making the same assumptions that I’ve said you can’t make. I’ve explained why you can’t in a variety of ways and in different BBS threads. From my point of view you are ignoring what I (and others) have said over and over again.
B) You’re also asking me to spend my time and my effort to produce the “details and tedious figures” of why you can’t categorically assume what you’ve assumed. I’ve already told you why, but from my angle you’re not listening. What would lead me to believe that you would respond any differently if I provide the details to the why?
C) Why is it that I have to provide all the intricate details and not you? The argument isn’t between you and me. The truth is that the argument is between you and Sir Isaac Newton. I’ve already given you the basis for you to go have your fight conceptually and in details with Sir Isaac.
So how am I supposed to interpret your actions & how should I respond? From one vantage point the above are classic signs that you’ve already formed an opinion and have closed your mind. If I respond by providing more details then I open up myself to the risk of you wanting to further debate the details to prove that you are right instead which drags on and on. There’s a high probability that all the effort I put in explaining will be a complete waste of time to me.
What incentive do I have to subject myself to the probability of some tortuous & exasperating debate where the debate really should be between the person with the FM dispute and Newton? I already know the outcome of that. Newton always wins. But some people will argue until the cows come home to try and prove otherwise because they’ve already closed their minds. To be clear, I’m not saying you’ve closed your mind but from your responses it’s hard to know.
So that’s my philosophical dilemma. I’ve already given you the basis for testing & analyzing your assumptions. If you aren’t willing to go examine that yourself, why on earth would it make sense for me to spend even more time and effort on my part in explanation? I could be doing plenty of other enjoyable and useful things.
