Enter Your Reply

<BLOCKQUOTE> Fergus: Is the putting-messages-on-hold-while-I-check-with-the-subject service you have just given Ed a courtesy you will be extending to all of us who come under attack? </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>First of all, I am not online at all times, functioning as an automatic monitor of content. The message you are complaining about was posted since I was last online, and I am only getting online again now. I cannot control what people post while I am offline, and I can do something about it only when I get online.</P> <P>Second, the message I did delete was a vitriolic personal attack. If Ed's message were of the same character, I would block it, but it is not.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> Ed is implying that Mark Thompson is an irresponsible poster because he's supposedly posting incorrect information. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Whether or not this is true, Ed has not called Mark Thompson an irresponsible poster. I draw the line at personal attacks, not at express disagreement with, or even disapproval of, what someone has said.</P> <BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, he says it isn't even information - it's just something incorrect. But it was Ed who misquoted Mark, even using quotation marks, before jumping on him for his opinion. Mark's post saying XYZ 'looks intriguing' was obviously an opinion. </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>I think Ed offers confusing definitions of information. Let me try to clarify this issue for both sides. Mark seems to understand Ed as saying that his statement is both false and meaningless. While a sentence might be ambiguous between a false meaning and meaninglessness, no sentence or statement is actually both false and meaningless. A meaningful statement is either true or false, whereas a meaningless statement cannot be true or false. If Ed maintains that what Mark has said is false, then he understands it to have a certain meaning, and he cannot regard it as meaningless. But if he does regard it as meaningless, then he does not take it to mean anything, and he cannot regard it as false.</P> <P>Judging by the beginning of Ed's initial message on this matter, he understood Mark to be saying that 'Knights are not a factor in Gothic Chess.' This is a meaningful statement, and it is false, but Mark never said or implied this. Ed also seemed to understand Mark as saying that Grotesque Chess is better than Gothic Chess because Grotesque Chess gives the Knights a more central location, which helps eliminate the handicap they are put at on a larger board. Mark never said or implied that Grotesque Chess was better. The only normative claim he made about Grotesque Chess is that its idea of centralizing the Knights in the opening array looks intriguing. At best, he is saying that Grotesque Chess might be better on this basis, but the verdict is not in. It is merely a matter he considers worth exploring.</P> <P>When Ed says that Mark's comments lack information and are false, I think he means that Mark's meaningful claims are not backed up by any empirical data. If Mark had in fact said that Grotesque Chess was better, which in fact he did not, then Ed would be right to say that he had not backed up his claims with any empirical data. In fact, Mark has not offered adequate empirical data to make any comparative judgement between the two games. But all he is really saying is that the differences between them are of such as a character as to justify an investigation into what empirical data can be found on which is better. I agree with this claim. I believe the matter of which game is better can be decided only by empirical investigation into both games, and this has not yet been done.</P>