Azamat wrote:
>
> Ferenc,
>
> This forum mostly consists of very intelligent and polite people. (01)
indeed! and just to support this thesis, recall a few strikingly clear,
original, deep and enlightening messages posted here by some of the most
intelligent and polite people (thus not me!): (02)
"The fact is in your short reply you created too much nonsense for a
learned person <...>I suggested that you were more competent in
theoretical physics than in ontology. Of course, this is not a ''naive
physics'', but a real science asking for a real mind able to master the
real world. If want to show more nonsense, just ask." (03)
"<...> you have to read funny musings on silence in music, etc. It looks
we need to radically upgrade the level of our discussions to meet the
requirements of the OntoForum." (04)
"It seems the forum needs not only more professional focusing on
ontology but some patience to others positions, worldviews, and projects." (05)
"It appears the proper name of this forum is gablog, or how <...> and
others are going to waste their time." (06)
"I just wonder how somebody might be so ridiculously anserine. The
thread is worth to be renamed as ''logical goat and sheep, and how
harmful they are for the cause of ontology''. (07)
"like it or not, you in the irreal place where most things are badly
perverted. Where some AI debunked formal logicians metamorphosed into
bad ontologists, where logical drool is presented as the frontier of
semantics and ontology, where 'reality' is an abusive word, and where
one chronic self-promoter, having comic incognizance of ontology, will
be constantly making his logical crap on you, adding insult if you try
to resist." (08)
"I am surprised to mention these common things to the such high quality
researcher as you are." (09)
"Don't tax your mind beyond it's limit." (010)
"rather strange that this principal issue in semantics has been
overlooked by our hyperactive disputant" (011)
... amazingly polite, no? (012)
> So any infelicity can be excused and pardoned, of course, if it is not
> repeated several times. Since somebody sensible should try avoid
> such ... convoluted wordings: (013)
"- '''Quantity''' is the state of being much, or the property of a thing
marked by a magnitude or plurality (number). By its definition, quantity
is an ontological (general) term [sic] used to refer to any type of
quantitative properties or attributes of things." (014)
"Since there is no meaning (intension or extension) without context, or
universe of discourse, possible worlds, circumstances, formally
presented as the linguistic context of use, or closed context (Boolean
algebra), theory, or consistent theory, formal (mathematical or logical)
or factual (historical, social, physical, etc). " (015)
"The UFO is designed as the world knowledge groundwork or unifying
semantic platform within which could be integrated the particular
knowledge (sciences) of the physical, biological, mental, and cultural
worlds, to be encoded as the entity data types and major rules of
operations in the reasoning systems of high-level intelligence,
fundamental to the Intelligent World" (016)
> It is taxing your mind to read these sorts of messages. For you need
> to read it again and again, and finally put your best interpretation,
> having nothing to do with the message. (017)
"The world is the greatest unbounded but single entity; "
& "First of all, that there are appearances or phenomena, chaotic,
unintelligible, and unreal, and laying behind them stable, intelligible
and real realities."
& "There are reality and irreality. These traditions are dealing with
unreality; so they hardly ever can be right."
& "Repeat again, there is Reality (Being, Existence, the Universe,
Cosmos) and reality, the World and world." (018)
> Still, i think there can be something original in your messages; but
> it is your duty to send me a well formulated thought. (019)
indeed. you were right when you once said, "My message might have been
too enigmatic."
it is also tempting to be evil and recall, once again, an opinion about
your own book posted at amazon's: (020)
"This book is seriously flawed. I could not work out if the author was a
mathemetician dabbling (very poorly) with philosophy, or a muddled
philosopher bumbling his way around computer science." (021)
-- (022)
not advertising myself as a very intelligent and polite (especially not
the latter) person, i'd like to suggest that you perform some reflexive
thinking before you, again, pour a bucket of waste on other members'
heads, some of whom do appear much more intelligent and polite than you. (023)
vQ (024)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (025)
|