Sport Today

This will (hopefully) be my last post on this.  I will make a separate
followup to this on the issue of logic & rationality.  I entreat
others not to flame DSQA on this thread, so hopefully this can die
down.

Whatever.. but, I don't recall asking to shake your hand.  You offered
me your hand (in the part you conveniently deleted).  Rather than
leave your hand dangling in mid-air, I refused it and did you the
courtesy of telling you why.  I'll be more succinct now: I don't like
soiling my hands.

I would stop now, but there's the matter of the flame war..
[stuff deleted]

Let me be very clear: I want NO contact with you of any sort.  Not by
shaking your hand, definitely not by getting close enough to you to
"breathe down your throat".  Its not fun at all..

However, try to remember back to last week.  You were the first to
bring my name up, (1) following up to my post and (2) quoting my name
in another post; I don't follow up to anything you write, period, and
least of all to any "views" you post.  Frankly, I don't care what
about your cricket opinions, so if you leave any mention of me out,
I'll be delighted...

So, hows this -- if you like, respond to this post.  I will not
respond to anything you say, so you can be content in having had the
last word.  You can also suggest that I am scared of fighting with
you, whatever, I don't care.... have your day...

BUT AFTER this one post, do NOT respond to ANYTHING ELSE I write and
do not refer to me in any of your posts, either directly or
indirectly.  I'll do the same -- in fact, thats exactly what I was
doing until you quoted my name and followed up to my postings. You are
not important enough for me to give a hoot about any opinions you hold
about anything.  Except when you directly say anything about me.  Your
cricket opinions mean nothing to me; do me the same courtesy and
ignore my posts.

You are a professed lover of peace, so here is an opportunity for you
to do what you preach, and stop any flames.

I will, of course, be happy enough to discuss my positions with others
such as Jawad and Syed who can disagree with me and still not be
personal (or be genuinely sorry if they caused hurt).  And don't lump
yourself with Jawad Ali as far as I am concerned; apologies between
him and me have been exchanged...

But if you do choose to respond after responding to this message,
don't say I want a flame war.  You will want one...

So say what you like...

Bharat

PS: One followup on the subject of logic to follow.

--

Learning Systems Department, Siemens Corporate Research
US Mail: 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)

On the subject of Logic and Rationality brought up by DSQA

This is not a flame, but an explanation.  And will hopefully be my
last post related to Salman Azhar.

However, one of your (DSQA's) primary objections is to "hypothetical"
scenarios.  Unfortunately, logical discourses are rooted in these
hypothetical scenarios -- the IF-THEN statement underlies basic logic
and rationale.  In formal Logic, these are called "assumptions."

Two parties cannot have a logical discussion if they disagree about
the assumptions.  Here the assumption was IF "India beats WI and Aus
beats Pakistan" -- this is just an assumption and is a given in the
rational discussion.  The entire discussion is based upon what follows
if this (admittedly) unlikely scenario occurs.

If you don't want to discuss what happens in this situation, the
only response is to ignore the discussion.

However, the "assumptions" are a pre-condition to having any logical
discussion.  They may be unlikely, but are not a physical
impossibility, so they are a reasonable basis for a logical discussion
(if you don't believe me, check with a Professor of Logic at Duke, or
look at any Freshman text on Logic).

You may think the assumptions are unlikely to come true, but thats NOT
germane to the logic of the discussion -- the likelihood of those
assumptions was never a part of the discussion.  An analogy is what
would happen if Clinton were re-elected.  Someone may believe that
Clinton has no chance of being re-elected and would be uninterested in
that discussion, and could just stay out of it.

Now comments regarding the "THEN" part are fair game, such as "a
single data point is not enough to cause a flip-flop" (actually two
data pts.: Ind over WI & Aus over Pak).  But any argument that even
includes any discussion of the likelihood of the assumptions, IN THIS
PARTICULAR CASE, ceases to be a logical/rational argument.

However, at this point, I want to reiterate that I have absolutely no
interest in discussing the logic of my position with you (though, I
will happily do so with Jawad, Syed, Harish, Sadiq, and anybody else).

Hoping to hear silence after a 24 period of response(s) from you,

Bharat

--

Learning Systems Department, Siemens Corporate Research
US Mail: 755 College Road East, Princeton, NJ 08540
Phones: (609)734-6531(O) (609)734-6565(F)

Wow, what a thoughtful start you have to your open letter. :)  I
offered you my hand because you had stuck your neck out by some rather
fantastic analysis... and it was a way out for you.

Thanks I much appreciate it.

Mr. Rao: If the moon was made of blue cheese, you are abosultely
truthful about this stmt.

However, moon is not made of blue cheese and you have repeatedly
followed up on my postings, but have trouble admitting the truth (and
in fact, you are following up for the third time or so on my posting).
Mr. Rao, it is OK to lack shame, but do you have absolutely no respect
for the truth.

On the other hand I do.  It is amusing to read your rational and
logical insights. :)

Thank you for sparing me your wrath. :)

No, of course I would not suggest that.  I have suggested, and will
suggest that your cricketing sense is hypothetical. :)

That is my perogative, and I wish to avail it whenever I deem fit.  

Since it is easy for you to lie through your teeth, I don't think I
can trust you, and in fact would point out to you the next time you do
follow up.  May be, you would live up to your promise, but only by
asking your sidekicks to repsond.

I care too hoots about you, and on some days three hoots.  :)  Chill
out, and enjoy, and don't take yourself so seriosuly that you lose any
respect for truth courtesy, mutual respect, and FACTS.

An opportunity OR a flame? :)  Once again, you may want to practise
what you preach about sophistry.

You initiate a flame war by providing the sparks, and then walk away.
This is remiscient of what you did with *sounding names.  Shame on
you, Bharat!  Shame on you, Bharat!  You have no integrity whatsoever.

There goes your promise on discontinuing this darn thread. :)  

++SA

--

        "Innate charlatanism coupled with general dogmatic ignorance
has accentuated the intellectual, moral, and spiritual degradation of
the literate masses"               ------- D. Salman Azhar

I wish you luck in explaining your position to the rest.  I hope you
do so on RSC so that "anybody else" can follow your trial. :)

Take care, and no hard feelings from my side beyond a couple of hours.

++SA

--

        "Innate charlatanism coupled with general dogmatic ignorance
has accentuated the intellectual, moral, and spiritual degradation of
the literate masses"               ------- D. Salman Azhar

  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

** Rao sahib, were you, er.. by any chance CAPTAIN of England Cricket Team
in a past lifetime? :))

** Ooooooooo... Rao babu naaraaz ho gaya hai. Rao Sahib, please take your
stupid non-cricket related fights and logic/philosophy elsewhere. And
please don't give yourself too much importance; people aren't exactly
dyyyying to shake your hands, alright?

Z.U.Khan