re silence is concurance in article blue cis pitt edu joslin pogo isp pitt edu david joslin writes for those missing the context of this thrilling discussion between jim and i jim wrote the following to me in e mail after i pointed out hate to shatter your self image of perfection that you appear to hold but your language is wrong jim and me i pointed out that i did in fact agree that both robert weiss and jim meritt took quotes out of context hence i find it difficult to understand why jim thinks i am a hypocrite needless to say i don t have time to reply to every article on t r m that takes a quote out of context of course not just the ones you disagree with q e d so according to you jim the only way to criticize one person for taking a quote out of context without being a hypocrite is to post a response to every person on t r m who takes a quote out of context jim replied by saying did i either ask or assert that but today we find four articles from jim one of which has the subject so as of then and pointing out a specific instance wrongo again is it not the case that in the eyes of the law when someone is aware of something and has the capability of taking action and does not that individual may be held responsible for that action which is of course a complete red herring taking quotes out of context isn t a crime i don t have time to read every article on t r m and i m certainly under no obligation to reply to them all so check the newsgroups does silence is concurrence imply that jim thinks that because i didn t respond to weiss articles i must condone weiss taking quotes out of context jim doesn t want to give a direct answer to this question read what he has written and decide for yourself telepathy again you claim to know what i want but back to the context of my conversation with jim jim s next gambit was to claim that he was using inductive logic when he concluded that i was being a hypocrite i challenged him to provide the details of that logic that led him to an incorrect conclusion no you asked specifically what was wrong with yours today we find another obscure article posting it twice didn t help maybe to the ignorant i accept your classification more red herrings could jim mean that he has read an uncountably large number of my articles do you know what uncountably large means it does not appear so could jim mean that because i axed his articles but not weiss articles he wants to conclude inductively well i can t see where he is going with this i am not suprised but i can help him with his induction i ve written roughly that does not appear to be the case the appearance of your argument is more like that captain kirk would have gotten from mr spock written by a stagehand at paramount think hard about this jim see the pattern think harder run it through your induction engine and see what pops out of course you appear arrogant so i already had figured that out
