On Jun 14, 11:42 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 13, 4:20 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 4:34 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 12, 7:26 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 13, 12:04 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 12, 3:49 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 13, 12:14 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 3:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > >> Rupert wrote:
> > > > > > > >>> On Jun 12, 1:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > > > > > > >>>>>>> That does not contradict what I said.
> > > > > > > >>>>>> It does, rupie. You know it does. You see a moral
> > > > > > > >>>>>> dimension; K.M. denies it.
> > > > > > > >>>>> That has never been in dispute.
> > > > > > > >>>> Yes, you are denying it, stupid ****. You are denying
> > > > > > > >>>> it when you say that K.M. sees it as morally justified.
> > > > > > > >>> No, I'm not. K.M. clearly thinks that eating meat is morally
> > > > > > > >>> permitted.
> > > > > > > >> No. He thinks there is no moral issue underlying it at
> > > > > > > >> all.
>
> > > > > > > >>>> You are wrong; he does not see it as morally
> > > > > > > >>>> justified. He sees it as not a moral issue at all, and
> > > > > > > >>>> therefore not requiring moral justification.
> > > > > > > >>> He doesn't think there's a serious moral case against it.
> > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue to be
> > > > > > > >> examined at all.
>
> > > > > > > >>> He does think it's morally permitted.
> > > > > > > >> No.
>
> > > > > > > > Yes, of course he does.
>
> > > > > > > No, ****witted rupie, he doesn't. You are engaging in
> > > > > > > false bifurcation.
>
> > > > > > > >> He thinks, correctly, that there's no moral issue.
>
> > > > > > > > Which is quite consistent with what I said.
>
> > > > > > > No. What you said is a misstatement of what he said.
> > > > > > > He does not think it's morally permitted; he thinks
> > > > > > > there's no moral dimension to it at all. To think it's
> > > > > > > morally permitted is implicitly believe there is a
> > > > > > > moral question about it that has been answered. That's
> > > > > > > not what he thinks.
>
> > > > > > > You're wrong, but in your towering youthful arrogance,
> > > > > > > you can't admit it.
>
> > > > > > > > By the way, the view that there is no serious moral issue raised by
> > > > > > > > modern farming is utterly idiotic.
>
> > > > > > > It's also a sloppy straw man, rupie - no one has said
> > > > > > > that. What K.M. said is there's no moral dimension to
> > > > > > > eating meat.
>
> > > > > > > You ****witted plodder.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > > > Anyway, no more word from you about my mathematical ability.
>
> > > > > None needed. You're a plodder. Your Ph.D. shows diligence, not
> > > > > talent.
>
> > > > You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I have mathematical
> > > > talent or not.
>
> > > I do know, rupie.
>
> > As I say,
>
> No, as *I* say, rupie, you fatuous ****. There are plenty of people
> with Ph.D. degrees in math, and you do not stand out in any way.

Make up your mind what you're claiming. First you said my Ph.D. was
worthless and I was a waste of educational resources. Now you're
saying I probably won't get a Fields Medal and I'm not substantially
more talented than my fellow Ph.D. students. You have no way of
knowing anything about that either, but I don't necessarily wish to
contradict you there. That is still quite consistent with me being an
extremely talented mathematician. There's no shame in not being Fields
Medal material. I have done original and interesting research. That is
a substantial achievement which only a few people can do. Certainly
you are nowhere near capable of it, nor are you competent to judge the
quality of mathematical research.

> You
> wouldn't be ****ing away precious research time here if you did.
>

I'm actually writing these posts while I'm at work. I'm working in a
telemarketing centre, because I need the money. The computer
automatically makes the calls for me, and I write the posts in between
calls (while still maintaining a high performance level at work). So
I'm not really squandering any opportunities for research while I'm
here.

I spend almost all of my spare time engaged in study and research. I
have other interests too which I spend some time on. The bottom line
is that I have done good research, and I have recently come up with
new ideas which I also intend to publish. I am being mathematically
productive. The fact that I spend some time posting here gives you no
rational grounds at all for thinking that I am a mediocre researcher.
You think it does, but it's a joke, it's just your pathological need
to hold derogatory views about other people. I'm a good researcher,
and you have no rational grounds for thinking otherwise, and your
attempts to put me down are very amusing. Keep it up.

> > > I know by virtue of what you tell me: all the time
> > > you waste on this "animal ethics" bullshit, for example, something far
> > > outside your expertise.
>
> > It's not wasted time. It's serious academic study.
>
> It's absolutely wasted time. You're a dilettante.
>

This, too, is something you are not in a position to judge. However,
your confidence in your ability to make judgements about my
mathematical talent is even more amusing.

> > > I don't know what the maths equivalent of the John Bates Clark medal
> > > is, but we'll never hear "rupert mccallum" mentioned as a candidate
> > > for it, nor for any Nobel.
>
> > There is no Nobel Prize in mathematics. The equivalent is the Fields
> > Medal. It is only awarded to people under 40.
> > The Fields Medal is the most coveted prize in all of mathematics,
> > awarded only for the most outstanding achievements, and I've only got
> > nine years left to get it. I grant you it's fairly unlikely that I'll
> > get that one.
>
> It's a certainly that you won't.

You have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter. It's not
certain at all. No-one has any reasonable way of knowing, least of all
you. But I grant you I would be very surprised if I managed to achieve
at that level. However, there's absolutely no shame in not being
Fields Medal material. My supervisor, Michael Cowling, is a world-
class mathematician, and he didn't get the Fields Medal. I might very
well rise to his level of achievement. Only time will tell.

The simple fact that I have done original and interesting research is
a significant achievement. Only a few people are capable of that. You
could never dream of being able to do it. Your attempts to put me down
are really quite pitiful. I suspect it is to compensate for a sense of
your own inadequacy. What achievements have *you* had? You want to let
me read your Ph.D. thesis? And the examiner's report? How many papers
did you publish? How many citations did you get?

> You'll be some dull plodding
> assistant professor at best.
>

Again, you have absolutely no competence to comment on the matter.
You're holding forth on matters that you know nothing about, because
you have a pathological need to hold derogatory views about other
people. I happen to know that I have already had significant
mathematical achievements and my potential for further achievement is
quite high, so I find all this very amusing.

Anyway, what about you? What level of academic achievement would you
be capable of in economics? What makes you so much better than me?

> > I am a talented mathematician.
>
> Probably not.

Well, make up your mind. First you confidently said that my Ph.D. was
"worthless" and that I was a "waste of educational resources", and
just now you said I was only going to be some "dull plodding assistant
professor". Now you say that it's only "probable" that I am not a
talented mathematician. Do you know for sure, or don't you? Why don't
you just acknowledge the obvious fact that you know absolutely nothing
about the matter one way or the other? It's just your childish,
pathological need to put other people down that is generating your
confidence in your totally groundless speculations. I am in a much
better position to know something about the matter than you and I find
your drivel very amusing. I couldn't possibly care less about your
opinion. You are obviously totally incompetent to pass judgement on
the matter.