From: eric@remailer.net (Eric Hughes)
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 94 23:54:42 PST
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: BofA+Netscape
In-Reply-To: <199412130652.WAA12984@netcom4.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <199412130852.AAA01537@largo.remailer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


   From: jamesd@netcom.com (James A. Donald)

----------------------

1. Plain talk.

   you wrote:
   > This is not an argument.  This is a premise. 

   I see:  So you start off with the assumption that what
   I was arguing was false, and because that is a premise 
   not an argument, you do not have to defend it or support it. 

You claimed that what you were saying was my argument.  I pointed out
that it wasn't an argument at all, that it was merely a premise for an
argument.  Pardon me, though, for assuming that you know the
difference between a deduction and an assertion.  What you summarized
was merely an assertion.  A deduction has some sense of the word
"therefore" in it.  What you summarized did not.

Perhaps you thought you were summarizing the conclusion of my
argument, which would have the form of an assertion.  But if you were
doing that, then you really did confuse an argument with its
conclusion.

Now, let me be perfectly clear here.  I quote your summary just to
make sure:

> > The short of your argument is that Netscape will fragment the
> > net by running out there and dumping something in the market
> > place without consensing with all the big boys.

This was a premise of my argument.  Since you managed to restate one
of my premises, I now know that you are able of taking letters of text
and forming them into coherent sentences.  What you have not yet
demonstrated is the capacity for taking _all_ the letters of text and
attempting an understanding of a complete position.

----------------------

2. Typographically Challenged.

   Eric Hughes replies:
   > Perhaps you don't know the meaning of whitespace and paragraph breaks.

   And then he contradicts himself:

   > I did claim you were arguing from libertarian correctness.  Now that's
   > just an insult, which I do not retract.

Aren't we dense today?

Paragraph 1: Insult

Paragraph 2: Argument

Whitespace and line breaks are used as thematic separators.  Let me
use very small words now: The first paragraph was about one thing, and
the second paragraph was about something else.  There was a blank line
between the two which means that these two things are not like each
other.

----------------------

3. Semper Fidelis.

   I accused you of flaming before reading.  Now you claim
   that you did read it, but the laws of logic exempt you
   from having to make rational criticism of what I wrote.

I asked you to summarize what you thought I meant.  I no longer
believe that you're making a good faith effort to talk about the same
thing, so I wanted at least to try to make explicit the lack of
agreement about each other's positions.

Personally, I think it's a waste of time to discuss a topic where
there's not basic agreement on the other's position.  Were it not for
the fact that you continue to address the actual issue after insults
of your own, I would have already ignored this thread.

----------------------

4. Striving to think.

   I argue that good standards are created by victory in the
   market place, and bad standards are made by committees
   and consensus.

Without altering the denotation of the sentence I can interpret this
as "all good standards" and "all bad standards".  Well, that sounds
like an example of Libertarian Correctness to me.

The flies in the market place _uber alles_!

   You argue game theory that would be valid given your premise
   that cooperation works in this case.  

You are seriously misrepresenting my position in this restatement.
First, you will not distinguish between a simple indicative and a
modal form.  What I was pointing out is that it's not clear that
cooperation doesn't work, i.e. it may work.  "May" here is the modal
form.  Second, you will not distinguish an implication from its
converse.  I argued that, given plausible game-theoretic assumptions,
that the best outcome is cooperation.  Game theory is the premise;
cooperation is the conclusion.

Mind you, I'm talking to the _rest_ of the list here.

----------------------

5. In the boat with Chomsky.

And now The Amazing James, reader of minds, will tell me what I really
meant to say:

   Your so called "game theory" is just code for the moral
   assumption that Netscape are wicked not to engage in consensus.

De mortuis mentis, nil nisi Latinum.

----------------------

6. A tip: avoid auctions.

   You do not reason using game theory, you use it as a code
   to express moral claims without having to justify them.

James Donald asked be asked me what iterated dominance was a couple of
weeks ago.

James, do you know _anything_ about game theory?  Anything at all?

Eric