Hi there, audience here. :-D I don't normally chime in but I felt compelled by the... unique rathole y'all have taken this discussion into.
Never have I seen two participants agree so vociferously that they're wasting breath, but also so unwilling to budge even an inch to resolve that situation! It's honestly fascinating: you're like two turtles duking it out by bopping each other gently on the shell, venturing nothing, yielding nothing, dedicated entirely to stubbornness-presented-as-patience.
Y'all are usually fairly interesting to read; but now you're being dull.
If it helps you reset the conversation and "get back on a topic of productive conversation", here are my takes on the recent points:
Modeler: Jack is right, defending this "Turing tests can only be used on bots" position is irrelevant at best. You're wasting words defending a semantic point of no value to the conversation. You've seemingly dug in only to avoid "losing a point," so to speak, not because it's important to the central debate. You're not gonna out-semantic Jack---that's like his whole schtick.
Jack: It's obviously rude to insinuate someone might be a bot, and hiding behind the distinction between "declaring" someone a bot or "using verbiage like 'likely'" is even ruder. This is kindergarten-level interpersonal stuff; there's no way you don't see why Modeler would feel disrespected or heck, even offended, by your statements. That rhetorical habit of yours is counter to the "productive conversation" you claim to love and belies the image you try to project of a calm rational interlocutor---knock it off. Leave that shit for the ragers and trolls, not one of the few people obviously actually trying to have a discussion with you.
And for the record, Jack: to an outside observer, Modeler doesn't seem to be behaving like a bot any more than you are; to my eyes, he's only demonstrating the same conversational stubbornness (e.g., refusal to yield trivial points, refusal to specifically cite to prior comments, insistence on semantic distinctions) that you yourself are guilty of.
Anyway, I'm hugely impressed and thankful for the stamina you both display in sticking to this conversation. And if you find gratification in lines of discussion like these, then by all means, continue. But it sounds like you don't, so instead can y'all please drop these irrelevant back-and-forths and get back to the interesting stuff, like satellites and accelerometers or whatever?
Well color me surprised! Welcome to, and apologies for, the rathole!
While you're here anyhow, i hope it will prove useful to have a somewhat objective third party's perspective on said rathole.
Never have I seen two participants agree so vociferously that they're wasting breath
As far as i recall, i am the only one who has been doing that (though the question "god, why?!" frequently comes to mind). This other "participant" does not express that view, and acts pretty consistently contrary to it.
If they agreed that their responses were a waste of breath, i certainly missed that interaction!
unwilling to budge even an inch to resolve that situation!
I disagree. I've extended earnest apologies for unintended offense several times, and have been earnestly trying to resolve the situation. The only "inch" i will not budge on is to take responsibility for their (re)actions. I acknowledge that by telling them they were/are acting in a bot like manner that i upset them, caused them to feel disrespected, and contributed to their abandonment of the conversation writ large - and although i do and have apologized for any unintended offense, i cannot take responsibility for their actions. To do so would only ensure such childish habits in the future, and be disearnest placation.
venturing nothing, yielding nothing,
I'm open to suggestions! I cannot and would not force the horse to earnestly converse - though i can stupidly continue to try and lead them towards it. Repeating the same action and hoping for a different outcome :(
but now you're being dull.
I could not agree more. I probably should have just blocked them when i said i would. Pity and hope got the better of me - perhaps with a little prostration/attempted restitution mixed in.
They have made it very clear that they have no want or interest in continuing any earnest or productive conversation - even if they should happen to be capable of it. So be it.
It's obviously rude to insinuate someone might be a bot, and hiding behind the distinction between "declaring" someone a bot or "using verbiage like 'likely'" is even ruder
I can certainly understand this view, but i don't agree with it personally. As i said to modeler - perhaps i have become callous to such accusations having been online for so long, but i can't help but feel like such callous is a good and necessary thing to have. I am from the "sticks and stones" generation, after all.
From my perspective, there is no rudeness intended by any captcha or other bot detection method - including my own. Telling them that they are exhibiting bot like tendencies which are preventing meaningful discussion was not intended to be rude or to offend - but so such tendencies could (hopefully) be avoided so that productive conversation could continue. Although it certainly can be received as rude, such minor rudeness (even major rudeness, in my view) must be able to be overcome/overlooked if productive conversation (rational discourse) is your aim. It is a necessary conversational skill.
I expressed an earnest concern and evaluation that they were appearing more likely a bot through exhibiting these behaviors (repeatedly, to boot).
That rhetorical habit of yours
What rhetorical habit? Being rude? I don't think i have a habit of that - rhetorical or otherwise. Though, as i said - i can certainly see how i was received that way and understand why in this context.
Leave that shit for the ragers and trolls
In general, i agree that some of my interactions here have been more "troll handling" than i would prefer - but it was difficult to feel that there wasn't a willful troll on the other side considering their absolute steadfast refusal to get back on any topic, and utter devotion to continuing this endless "aside" ad nauseaum despite repeated pleas to the contrary. Top that with a barrage of baseless "you're a liar (but i won't quote/cite how or when)" "cherries" and you have yourself a troll sundae :(
that you yourself are guilty of
That's because they are mirroring me (another bot tendency, by the by). Even the specific verbiage used is lifted. However, i don't shy away from admitting mistake or quoting/citing specifically (within reason). As for being a semantic pedant - guilty as charged, but i do try not to be needlessly pedantic.
And if you find gratification in lines of discussion like these
Not at all. My finger hovers above the block button even now. I am not completely convinced they are not a bot or have not been a bot at previous times in this discussion - however, for my part - i don't much care if they are or not. If they can avoid the conversational habits that bots engage in and otherwise hold earnest rational discourse - i'm happy to engage if for nothing else than the ordering (and/or refining) of my own thoughts.
The other impetus to continue discussion is the off chance that it is as you say - as it sometimes appears in communication with them - that they have an earnest interest in the subject/discussions and my demeanor and/or approach has pushed them away from it into this mindlessly repetitive and reflexively contrarian death spiral. I certainly don't want that to be the case, and am happy to make any amends i can to remedy that (possible in this forum).
But it sounds like you don't, so instead can y'all please drop these irrelevant back-and-forths and get back to the interesting stuff, like satellites and accelerometers or whatever?
God, i've been saying that dozens of ways since this whole rathole began - it is my sincere hope that modeler responds differently to your plea than to the dozens of mine.
Hi there, audience here. :-D I don't normally chime in but I felt compelled by the... unique rathole y'all have taken this discussion into.
Never have I seen two participants agree so vociferously that they're wasting breath, but also so unwilling to budge even an inch to resolve that situation! It's honestly fascinating: you're like two turtles duking it out by bopping each other gently on the shell, venturing nothing, yielding nothing, dedicated entirely to stubbornness-presented-as-patience.
Y'all are usually fairly interesting to read; but now you're being dull.
If it helps you reset the conversation and "get back on a topic of productive conversation", here are my takes on the recent points:
Modeler: Jack is right, defending this "Turing tests can only be used on bots" position is irrelevant at best. You're wasting words defending a semantic point of no value to the conversation. You've seemingly dug in only to avoid "losing a point," so to speak, not because it's important to the central debate. You're not gonna out-semantic Jack---that's like his whole schtick.
Jack: It's obviously rude to insinuate someone might be a bot, and hiding behind the distinction between "declaring" someone a bot or "using verbiage like 'likely'" is even ruder. This is kindergarten-level interpersonal stuff; there's no way you don't see why Modeler would feel disrespected or heck, even offended, by your statements. That rhetorical habit of yours is counter to the "productive conversation" you claim to love and belies the image you try to project of a calm rational interlocutor---knock it off. Leave that shit for the ragers and trolls, not one of the few people obviously actually trying to have a discussion with you.
And for the record, Jack: to an outside observer, Modeler doesn't seem to be behaving like a bot any more than you are; to my eyes, he's only demonstrating the same conversational stubbornness (e.g., refusal to yield trivial points, refusal to specifically cite to prior comments, insistence on semantic distinctions) that you yourself are guilty of.
Anyway, I'm hugely impressed and thankful for the stamina you both display in sticking to this conversation. And if you find gratification in lines of discussion like these, then by all means, continue. But it sounds like you don't, so instead can y'all please drop these irrelevant back-and-forths and get back to the interesting stuff, like satellites and accelerometers or whatever?
Well color me surprised! Welcome to, and apologies for, the rathole!
While you're here anyhow, i hope it will prove useful to have a somewhat objective third party's perspective on said rathole.
As far as i recall, i am the only one who has been doing that (though the question "god, why?!" frequently comes to mind). This other "participant" does not express that view, and acts pretty consistently contrary to it.
If they agreed that their responses were a waste of breath, i certainly missed that interaction!
I disagree. I've extended earnest apologies for unintended offense several times, and have been earnestly trying to resolve the situation. The only "inch" i will not budge on is to take responsibility for their (re)actions. I acknowledge that by telling them they were/are acting in a bot like manner that i upset them, caused them to feel disrespected, and contributed to their abandonment of the conversation writ large - and although i do and have apologized for any unintended offense, i cannot take responsibility for their actions. To do so would only ensure such childish habits in the future, and be disearnest placation.
I'm open to suggestions! I cannot and would not force the horse to earnestly converse - though i can stupidly continue to try and lead them towards it. Repeating the same action and hoping for a different outcome :(
I could not agree more. I probably should have just blocked them when i said i would. Pity and hope got the better of me - perhaps with a little prostration/attempted restitution mixed in.
They have made it very clear that they have no want or interest in continuing any earnest or productive conversation - even if they should happen to be capable of it. So be it.
I can certainly understand this view, but i don't agree with it personally. As i said to modeler - perhaps i have become callous to such accusations having been online for so long, but i can't help but feel like such callous is a good and necessary thing to have. I am from the "sticks and stones" generation, after all.
From my perspective, there is no rudeness intended by any captcha or other bot detection method - including my own. Telling them that they are exhibiting bot like tendencies which are preventing meaningful discussion was not intended to be rude or to offend - but so such tendencies could (hopefully) be avoided so that productive conversation could continue. Although it certainly can be received as rude, such minor rudeness (even major rudeness, in my view) must be able to be overcome/overlooked if productive conversation (rational discourse) is your aim. It is a necessary conversational skill.
I expressed an earnest concern and evaluation that they were appearing more likely a bot through exhibiting these behaviors (repeatedly, to boot).
What rhetorical habit? Being rude? I don't think i have a habit of that - rhetorical or otherwise. Though, as i said - i can certainly see how i was received that way and understand why in this context.
In general, i agree that some of my interactions here have been more "troll handling" than i would prefer - but it was difficult to feel that there wasn't a willful troll on the other side considering their absolute steadfast refusal to get back on any topic, and utter devotion to continuing this endless "aside" ad nauseaum despite repeated pleas to the contrary. Top that with a barrage of baseless "you're a liar (but i won't quote/cite how or when)" "cherries" and you have yourself a troll sundae :(
That's because they are mirroring me (another bot tendency, by the by). Even the specific verbiage used is lifted. However, i don't shy away from admitting mistake or quoting/citing specifically (within reason). As for being a semantic pedant - guilty as charged, but i do try not to be needlessly pedantic.
Not at all. My finger hovers above the block button even now. I am not completely convinced they are not a bot or have not been a bot at previous times in this discussion - however, for my part - i don't much care if they are or not. If they can avoid the conversational habits that bots engage in and otherwise hold earnest rational discourse - i'm happy to engage if for nothing else than the ordering (and/or refining) of my own thoughts.
The other impetus to continue discussion is the off chance that it is as you say - as it sometimes appears in communication with them - that they have an earnest interest in the subject/discussions and my demeanor and/or approach has pushed them away from it into this mindlessly repetitive and reflexively contrarian death spiral. I certainly don't want that to be the case, and am happy to make any amends i can to remedy that (possible in this forum).
God, i've been saying that dozens of ways since this whole rathole began - it is my sincere hope that modeler responds differently to your plea than to the dozens of mine.
Thanks for chiming in!
lol thanks!