| Revision as of 22:44, 28 July 2005 edit172.193.218.186 (talk) Wikified← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:28, 29 July 2005 edit undo172.196.121.225 (talk) "'Snow is white' is true" suffers from redundancy; suffice it to say simply, "Snow is white" since that statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs.Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| ::The logic of this response escapes me. Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey; indeed, this was ''despite'' being asked several times to do so. Ramsey is the originator and main advocate of the redundancy theory of truth that .6 used as the basis for his POV dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute in good faith, discussion of Ramsey would be essential. Instead, .6 failed to address the issue and hid the discussion by archiving it. My point was precisely that .6 ''avoided'' discussion of Ramsey by archiving relevant material. ] 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC) | ::The logic of this response escapes me. Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey; indeed, this was ''despite'' being asked several times to do so. Ramsey is the originator and main advocate of the redundancy theory of truth that .6 used as the basis for his POV dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute in good faith, discussion of Ramsey would be essential. Instead, .6 failed to address the issue and hid the discussion by archiving it. My point was precisely that .6 ''avoided'' discussion of Ramsey by archiving relevant material. ] 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :::Why would we need Ramsey or anybody else to tell us that your statement, "'3 is less than 4' is true" is redundant? | |||
| :::Three IS less than four. Period. That is the definition of the term, 'three': "One less than four." Truth has nothing to do with it. | |||
| :::The term, 'truth' refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs. "'Snow is white' is true" suffers from redundancy; suffice it to say simply, "Snow is white" since that statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs. --172.193.154.102 | |||
Revision as of 02:28, 29 July 2005
italicized instructions on RFC page
- DotSix, you should note the italicized instructions on RFC page. A transgression against these instructions is treated as direct evidence for the proceedings. Ancheta Wis 11:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- What italicized instructions on RFC page are you talking about? Please explain.
Copy of allegation on project page
I am including the following information from the RFC page in case it is better form to have this information on the discussion page. 11:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs), calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from:
- 207.200.116.67 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.133 (talk · contribs) note the similarity of annotation to 172.195.53.33: no personal note except a simple IP address, clearly a platform from which to launch messages. Also, note his 7/23/05 annotation "...in accord with the actual state of affairs" is terminology used by 67.182.157.6 and no other party to the dispute. See this diff| Also, 23:33 22 July 2005 diff shows 207.200.116.133's usage of "...you boys..." terminology in concordance with DotSix's usage, "...you boys..." appearing 15:33 16 July 2005 |
- 207.200.116.14 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.130 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.196 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.7 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.198 (talk · contribs)
- 172.195.53.33 (talk · contribs) talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
Archiving material as a rhetorical tool
- Material directly relevant to the discussion of redundancy was removed to an archive the day after it was posted, thereby ending an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise. The discussion concerned the philosopher Frank Ramsey whose redundancy theory was the reason cited for .6's NPOV complaint; .6 did not enter into the discussion of Ramsey's work, instead archiving the discussion, prematurely ending it.
- Banno 20:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Banno does not report the actual state of affairs. The accused never mentioned the name, "Ramsey" at all. Repeat, the accused never mentioned Ramsey. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to the page where he did here:
- The logic of this response escapes me. Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey; indeed, this was despite being asked several times to do so. Ramsey is the originator and main advocate of the redundancy theory of truth that .6 used as the basis for his POV dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute in good faith, discussion of Ramsey would be essential. Instead, .6 failed to address the issue and hid the discussion by archiving it. My point was precisely that .6 avoided discussion of Ramsey by archiving relevant material. Banno 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Why would we need Ramsey or anybody else to tell us that your statement, "'3 is less than 4' is true" is redundant?
- Three IS less than four. Period. That is the definition of the term, 'three': "One less than four." Truth has nothing to do with it.
- The term, 'truth' refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs. "'Snow is white' is true" suffers from redundancy; suffice it to say simply, "Snow is white" since that statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs. --172.193.154.102