Skepticism and The Normal

Taffer, I take my hat off to you! You are obviously a true connoisseur of the game. I had not considered the historical parallels of this game, but you're absolutely right: we may well have a proper humdinger on our hands.

I must admit that it was not an easy decision to place myself in spoon, but I felt that the resulting positional advantage was worth the temporary loss of tactical flexibility. I shall take my next move when released from spoon as per clause 221-b of the Baker Street rules (pre-schism).
 
flimflam_machine said:
I disagree, it cannot be proved to be false since it is still dependent on personal opinion. In practical terms it would be a lie, but if I were to prove that you were lying what I would actually be doing is proving the implied statement "I think that AJ is beautiful" to be false. Which is perfectly possible becuase I could theoretically observe the fact of what you think.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. . . Assigning truth or falsehood to a subjective statement does seem like a strange thing to do. That's why I said "may be considered to be true/false." Although if it is a lie, isn't it a false statement (by definition)? But this is really starting to get into the nitpicky details of things :D

Again, spot on. How long have you been involved in this thread relative to Bubblefish?
Click to expand...
Ummmm, that would be one day?

Wayne
 
Last edited:
I suppose that it being a lie would have no bearing on the subjective statement eg "AJ is hot" being true or false, but only on the objective extension of that statement "I think AJ is hot". I am now inclining to the view that subjective ideas have no truth value - only the objective extension of those subjective statements has any truth value.
 
Although if it is a lie, isn't it a false statement (by definition)? But this is really starting to get into the nitpicky details of things
Click to expand...
Indeed it is, but let's pick those nits. If you lie about the state of the real world then that would be a false statement "London buses are green" = straightforward lie. If you simply make a subjective observation that misrepresents what you actually feel it is a lie of sorts since you are implying that [I think]"AJ is beautiful", the "I think" part may be false, but that doesn't make the statement "AJ is beautiful" false in itself. I guess that's not really added anything, I'm just restating myself.

Ummmm, that would be one day?
Click to expand...
And your contribution already outstrips Bubb's in terms of intellectual value. I particularly liked your dealing with all 6 of his "laws", do you have a background in logic/philosophy? Just a word of warning in case you haven't already gathered: don't expect any positive feedback from Bubb. You'll probably get a vast reply most of which will be incomprehensible due to Bubb's unusual use of language (don't get sucked in!) and the rest will just make clear that he's not understood your points. But then, I'm always happy to be proved wrong on this prediction.

Edit: Curse you Yaffle, you got in before me! How dare you pre-emptively agree with everything I said! Incidentally, do you have a plan for getting out of that appallingly nihilistic Dollis Hill loop that you're currently stuck in?
 
Last edited:
flimflam_machine said:
Indeed it is, but let's pick those nits. If you lie about the state of the real world then that would be a false statement "London buses are green" = straightforward lie. If you simply make a subjective observation that misrepresents what you actually feel it is a lie of sorts since you are implying that [I think]"AJ is beautiful", the "I think" part may be false, but that doesn't make the statement "AJ is beautiful" false in itself. I guess that's not really added anything I'm just restating myself.
Click to expand...

Yup, I agree, it doesn't make "AJ is beautiful" false in itself. The statement, as subjective, is neither true nor false by itself.

And your contribution already outstrips Bubb's in terms of intellectual value. I particularly liked your dealing with all 6 of his "laws", do you have a background in logic/philosophy? Just a word of warning in case you haven't already gathered: don't expect any positive feedback from Bubb. You'll probably get a vast reply most of which will be incomprehensible due to Bubb's unusual use of language (don't get sucked in!) and the rest will just make clear that he's not understood your points. But then, I'm always happy to be proved wrong on this prediction.
Click to expand...

Well, thank you :) It won't bother me if Bubblefish (or anyone else) has only negative feedback. I'll read any response to my posts eagerly, looking for where my legitimate mistakes or omissions have been pointed out, and adjusting my argument (or thinking) accordingly. After all, that's part of the fun, right?

As far as my background is concerned, I'm a computer programmer (for the time being), so I should have a good foundation in logic. . . Not all programmers do, I'm led to understand, but I have trouble imagining how a person can program a computer without a good understanding of logic. As far as philosophy is concerned, no specific background there, it just makes me feel warm and fuzzy thinking about things :)

Wayne
 
Edit: Curse you Yaffle, you got in before me! How dare you pre-emptively agree with everything I said! Incidentally, do you have a plan for getting out of that appallingly nihilistic Dollis Hill loop that you're currently stuck in?
Click to expand...

Well I wouldn't want to give anything away, but barring my preferred action (I have a couple up my sleeve, but only if I have read the opposition well enough), the Twitcher's Gambit will become valid in 7 to 10 moves, depending on the direction things take.
 
Amazing - the complexity and tactical diversity you Brits employ is astounding!

Of course, it helps to live in the center of the very action itself...

I thought backtracking (or, in this case, invoking the Dollis Hills loop) was forbidden after the 2003 Transcentral Station fraud trial was finalized?

I'm so lost...
 
Z said:
Amazing - the complexity and tactical diversity you Brits employ is astounding!

Of course, it helps to live in the center of the very action itself...

I thought backtracking (or, in this case, invoking the Dollis Hills loop) was forbidden after the 2003 Transcentral Station fraud trial was finalized?

I'm so lost...
Click to expand...

Overturned on appeal
 
Nearly cornered, but I pull out:

Pimlico (I last used it when I played the Grosvernor light opera society in 2005 in a fiendish match)

basilio
 
Last edited:
To nudge us into the final set of overs

Black Friars

and no LBW! (Lewisham before Wembley)

basilio
 
Deeply cynical Arkan! Trying to stalemate the game through a multiple Dollis Hill loop! I shall thwart your plan by breaking out of spoon, but this will of course mean sacrificing my first square, south-of-river advantage. Of course this tactic leaves me only one possible move right into the middle of nowhere: Hatch End!
 
flimflam_machine said:
Deeply cynical Arkan! Trying to stalemate the game through a multiple Dollis Hill loop! I shall thwart your plan by breaking out of spoon, but this will of course mean sacrificing my first square, south-of-river advantage. Of course this tactic leaves me only one possible move right into the middle of nowhere: Hatch End!
Click to expand...

Oh, FFM, I thought you were better than that.... That's an ambitious move, and I can see the possible setup for an Anderson-O'Neill Gambit, but you're leaving yourself open to both the Hempfield Finesse and the Cholomondely Feint. I think that if I play Golders Green I can set up a two-move forced win.
 
Basilio said:
Nearly cornered, but I pull out:

Pimlico (I last used it when I played the Grosvernor light opera society in 2005 in a fiendish match)

basilio
Click to expand...

Sorry, Pimlico already used so an unintended disconnected transfer commited. Im out for a turn, and lose my tie bonus!

2 points to Mojo, and I reserve Blackfiars.

appologies all around for not marking my score card.

basilio
 
That's good honest play there Basilio! A worthy opponent.

From Baker Street I think I can legitimately perform the Marjoribanks Shuffle straight along to Marylebone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom