You feel the need to post a meaningless, empty putdown "I can only laugh" but it's laughable to you that one would respond to that.

I did not tag you in it. I assessed the page of the thread, laughed, and responded in kind.

You seem to want some kind of insult to land. It wont, because I don't find hte context apt to insult me. So, not sure where you're going - just think its pretty distasteful to do what you've just done in an attempt to find some ad hominem-esque reason for dismissing an interlocutor. Fine. You do you boo.

You posted immediately after my post, so it was reasonable for me to think you were commenting on me. But now that you have disclaimed that you meant me personally, then, of course, I stand corrected that you meant me personally.

just think its pretty distasteful to do what you've just done in an attempt to find some ad hominem-esque reason for dismissing an interlocutor. — AmadeusD

Ah, but you do wish to comment on me personally after all.

If by 'interlocutor' you mean you:

I haven't tried to dismiss you. But you haven't interlocutorated much anyway.

If by 'interlocutor' you mean RussellA:

Your characterization is incorrect. I have not dismissed any interlocutor on an ad hominem basis. Rather, I have engaged virtually every point he's tried to make, every claim, every argument - in detail and with thoroughness, and repeatedly in pace with his repetitiveness. And for a long time I made no personal comment about him. Meanwhile, his mode has to been to skip the rebuttals given him and shift his claims (but as if he has not) and spread a trail of red herrings . Then, in addition to my responding on point, I have also discussed that he is indeed ignorant on even basics and highly irrational in his arguments - and not just as free-floating characterizations, but in exact reference to the very specific points and arguments of his, as I have engaged virtually all of them.

So, I don't find the context apt to be criticized for my posting method. But, as I've said all along, if there are flaws in my arguments, then I'm happy to hear of them.

Ah, but you do wish to comment on me personally after all. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Due to your direct responses to me, yes. It would be completely wrong to take that as somehow retroactively meaning I meant to engage you directly initially. You took up the conversation, and I continued. There were several people posting between my comment and my previous comment (looking back, that is). I didn't tag you, or anyone. Clear indicator I am not talking to you so I am glad you've noted that.

I haven't tried to dismiss you. But you haven't interlocutorated much anyway. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You're doing it right here. Hilarious.

The comment you made was directly after two fairly chunky posts by me. You could have said that this thread in general makes you laugh (but why?), but you left it utterly open ended what you're laughing at. While you may have not been talking about me specifically, there is no "clear indicator" that you weren't. But I grant that, if you truly did not mean me, then I inferred incorrectly. I take your word for it that you did not mean me specifically, but it is not true that you had clearly indicated that when your reply followed directly after my posts and with no indication what specifically you were laughing at.

But then you mischaracterized my posting as an attempt to dismiss with ad hominen. So I remarked that you do want to talk about me. I didn't claim that that is retroactive.

Saying that you haven't been very much engaged in the ongoing discussion is not dismissing you. It only partially explains why I haven't very much engaged with you vis-a-vis the ongoing discussion. (However, you have touched on some points that I have not addressed, only because (1) I don't see how they very much bear on what I've posted or I have not read processed how they do and if so what my response would be, (2) I need to learn more about the context of the quotes and their import, and (3) as with anyone, I exercise my prerogative to respond only to what I am motivated to respond to.) Meanwhile, I don't fault you for not saying very much about the ongoing discussion; it is purely your prerogative to post or not post whatever you like.

But since you bring up posting decorum, you asked me a technical question early in this thread, and I gave you a good and concisely informative answer that would provide you with a perspective. If I recall correctly, you then posted no recognition of that. Of course, again, that's your prerogative. But if dismissiveness is a concern of yours, perhaps you would recognize that asking someone for information and then receiving it but without at least posting that the information was received and understood (or not understood, thus requiring elaboration) is also a kind of dismissiveness.

(<--) I can only laugh :D

I exercise my prerogative to respond only to what I am motivated to respond to — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yessir, and I the same. I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you.

asking someone for information and then receiving it but without at least posting that the information was received and understood (or not understood, thus requiring elaboration) is also a kind of dismissiveness. — TonesInDeepFreeze

It wasn't aimed at me - the posts in question were responses to other people, so I revert to the above appreciation.

It wasn't aimed at me - the posts in question were responses to other people, so I revert to the above appreciation. — AmadeusD

The post to which I refer was my direct response to your direct question to me.

LOL, i'm now genuinely confused. I was intending there to point out that "I can only laugh" was in response to about eight posts, none of which were at or about me best I can tell - it was discussion between yourself and RussellA. Hopefully that clears that issue up :)

I can only laugh. — AmadeusD

Why did it take 9 pages. — AmadeusD

Open ended, content-free snark like that is also a form of dismissiveness, whether to an individual or a group.

The former, sure. But of hte thread (or at least the wider discussion beyond my contributions) - I just don't see a problem there.

I don't think the latter is dismissive at all.

As I said, it's fine that you clarify that the "I can only laugh" was not meant to be directed at me specifically, but rather to two posters at once (why?) with one of them being me, but that was not, as you later claimed, clearly indicated at the time. And especially so since the poster you had been previously faulting was me, not RussellA. You let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. Fine that you say you didn't mean it that way, but at least own that it was your, at best, ambiguousness, which itself is rude in that context, that resulted in me naturally counter-attacking and defending.

clearly indicated at the time. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly.

ou let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope.

And especially so since the poster you had been previously faulting was me — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yep, so naturally I would have replied to you, right? Whereas I didn't.

naturally counter-attacking and defending. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Sure, and you've clarified why. Nothing makes it reasonable in context, despite your protestations. Given I already made two attempts to say "Cool man, we weren't having such a go at each other as it seemed" I can't be bothered further than saying so again.

Cool man, looks like we didn't intend to have a go at each other the way its been interpreted. Good.

[not as you later claimed - TIDF] clearly indicated at the time. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly. — AmadeusD

The absence of indication is not "clear indication". Clear indication would be something like, "Not directed at anyone in particular".

You replied directly after my two posts. You had been defending the other poster's position and faulting mine. It was clearly not clearly indicated that you did not mean me. And now you're just saying by mere assertion, contrary to words on screen, that it was clearly indicated.

And it turns out, per your reveal now, that you were laughing at (about? who knows but you?) me in tandem with another poster. You didn't mean me personally, you only meant me personally along with another person personally.

I already made two attempts to say "Cool man, we weren't having such a go at each other as it seemed" — AmadeusD

Oh, is that what you meant to convey? You have a curious way of communicating, I'll give you that.

You are clearly making some extremely sensitive inferences that don't make sense. No idea why you would want me to be insulting you, but there we are. You're wrong, and clearly so.
In lieu of hand-holding you through it:

Oh, is that what you meant to convey? You have a curious way of communicating, I'll give you that. — TonesInDeepFreeze

I can only laugh.

I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you. — AmadeusD

so I revert to the above appreciation. — AmadeusD

Take care.

I don't think the latter is dismissive at all. — AmadeusD

What you said was ambiguous. It could have meant that it took RussellA nine pages too long to wake up (though later contradicted by the fact that you actually think he's right), or it could have meant it took nine pages too long for RussellA to finally prevail against other posters (including, and prominently, me) who disagreed with him. It could have meant that it took nine pages too long for people collectively to reach a dead end of incoherent disagreement. I could have meant a lot of things. But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not.

You are clearly making some extremely sensitive inferences that don't make sense. — AmadeusD

You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. Saying "clearly" is nothing. Being sarcastic is, of course, fine in and of itself. But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic

I outline what I (still) recognise as a distasteful approach, but I very much appreciate your clarification here. Genuinely. Thank you. — AmadeusD — AmadeusD

Which clarification? The facts I informed you of? The fact that I did not, as you falsely claimed, dismiss the other poster with an ad hominem but rather that I engaged virtually every one of his claims and arguments in detail and thoroughly, and only then did I also talk about what a horribly lame arguer he is.

naturally counter-attacking and defending. — TonesInDeepFreeze — AmadeusD

You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.

I said "naturally" and I did not strike it.

ou let out a fart of snark that would naturally be understood to be directed at me. — TonesInDeepFreeze — AmadeusD

The typo of omission is yours not mine. I said "You [...]".

But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope. Still nope. It is not. This is simply you outlining an ambiguity and then claiming the least-charitable version for your own ends. Not sure why you would, and it's not for me to explain.

It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yeah, but it was neither. Sorry pal.

You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes I have. Multiple times. I have, in fact, teased apart several direct misinterpretations you've made. But you're still here, intent on finding a way for me to have impugned you. A sad affair, to be sure.

But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic — TonesInDeepFreeze

Luckily, those two things are true, and I am not being dishonest.

You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.

I said "naturally" and I did not strike it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

That was the point my guy. You did not 'naturally' react. You misinterpreted, perhaps had your ego hurt, and assumed the worst in all three turns (the initial "Why did it take...", the "I can only laugh.." and my actual responses in this exchange).

You can only lead a horse to water. I tried to squash the 'beef'. Four times now, actually. You do not want to. So be it. I will treat you as you request. Though, I would ask that you do not consistently multi-post,. and just edit the initial post. I will notice.

.

I maintain it was. It was not in response to you directly, or indirectly. — AmadeusD

You said it it was in response to two posters - me and another. That's pretty direct, at the very least indirect only by being shared with another.

I did not say that, thank you very much.

was in response to about eight posts — AmadeusD

(your point is these posts were an exchange between yourself and RussellA - unfortunately for me, it was also a couple of other posters, not just you two. My point was distancing my reply from the personal aspect you're tied to).

You've taken the worst reading I can get from it (that, instead of what I actually did - which was distance my response from any personal comment) such that you now think I was responding to you (both) directly. That is not the case, or what I wrote. It was somewhat imprecise though. It was a comment on the previous set of comments, which were not to, about or for me - not a response to them. So I'll cop to that misunderstanding entirely - I apologise with no qualifier.

Otherwise, this is a roundabout. You misunderstood, I have clarified - you've accepted, and yet here we are. I reject your position on the basis its an emotional reaction to something you've read into my posts - and will now move on :) Didn't meant to offend, and don't really care about it anymore.

But as it stood, it was you making a snarky put down of something or other. So, a form of dismissiveness. It is disingenious to toss out snark but pretend it's not. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Nope. Still nope. It is not. This is simply you outlining an ambiguity and then claiming the least-charitable version for your own ends. Not sure why you would, and it's not for me to explain. — AmadeusD

Again you reply by ignoring what I wrote. I said exactly why it is dismissive, even with its ambiguity.

You haven't addressed the specifics of my argument about it. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Yes I have. Multiple times. — AmadeusD

You failed to address the previous specifics and you just now failed to address the latest specifics as you claim to not fail to address the specifics!

But it's dishonest to pretend that one hasn't been sarcastic and to pretend that not even is it reasonable that another took you as sarcastic — TonesInDeepFreeze

Luckily, those two things are true, and I am not being dishonest. — AmadeusD

You mean that you weren't sarcastic in the remarks I mentioned? Or you mean that you were sarcastic and you're being honest that you were?

You ought not put strikethrough across my words within a quote like that.

I said "naturally" and I did not strike it. — TonesInDeepFreeze]

That was the point my guy. You did not 'naturally' react. — AmadeusD

You miss the point. When you put strikethrough in the quote, it appears that I had made the strikethrough since you literally quote me that way without indicating that it's your redaction not mine. If you feel that "naturally" was not warranted, then you could say that instead of quoting me as if I had myself applied strikethrough.

perhaps had your ego hurt — AmadeusD

Not perhaps, but definitely, your speculation about me in that regard is wrong, as well as it is the kind of thing people so mindlessly say in disagreements.

I tried to squash the 'beef'. Four times now, actually. — AmadeusD

You try to squash it by coming back again and again to claim you are right and I am wrong. It's utterly your prerogative to continue arguing, but it is absurd to continue arguing while claiming to be the one who is interested in ending the argument! That's typical forum inanity.

I did not say that, thank you very much.

was in response to about eight posts — AmadeusD

(your point is these posts were an exchange between yourself and RussellA - unfortunately for me, it was also a couple of other posters, not just you two. My point was distancing my reply from the personal aspect you're tied to). — AmadeusD

You wrote:

in response to about eight posts, none of which were at or about me best I can tell - it was discussion between yourself and RussellA. — AmadeusD

[bold added]

You literally wrote that it was a response to a discussion between RussellA and me. I think my counting is pretty good when I count RussellA and me as two people.

Wow. You don't even know what you wrote!

It was somewhat imprecise though. It was a comment on the previous set of comments, which were not to, about or for me - not a response to them. So I'll cop to that misunderstanding entirely. — AmadeusD

That's good. But it was not imprecise. It was precise:

"it was discussion between yourself and RussellA." [bold added]

I reject your position on the basis its an emotional reaction — AmadeusD

Not very much emotional except that I do enjoy countering bad posts such as yours lately.

So now are you going to try to "squash" the quarrel by continuing it again?

and assumed the worst in all three turns (the initial "Why did it take..." — AmadeusD

If you would read what I posted, you would see that I said that I don't know what your "nine pages" remark was supposed to mean. I listed some obvious candidates but said that you might have meant something else. But if you didn't mean the remark as dismissive then only you can say what you did mean by it. If "Why did it take 9 pages" is not meant as exasperation that it took so long before RussellA arrived at the quote you made of him - exasperation with him or with his interlocutors or both - and to be dismissive of the nine pages worth of posting, then what does it mean?

No. Quine doesn't say that, and he doesn't say anyone else has said that. — bongo fury

Quine said:

But the whole outside sentence here attributes falsity no longer to itself but merely to something other than itself, thereby engendering no paradox.

I interpret Quine as saying that in the expression "this sentence is false" is false, the outside sentence is "this sentence is false". It seems to me that Quine is saying that there is no paradox because the outside sentence is not referring to itself but to something other than itself. Quine is saying that there is a hierarchy of references.

IE, "this sentence is false" is not being used self-referentially.

How do you interpret what Quine is saying?

I interpret Quine as saying that in the expression "this sentence is false" is false, the outside sentence is "this sentence is false". — RussellA

I admitted to being unsure about the drift of that Quine passage, but you don't seem even to speak the language.

I'm being rude, but your tone is to lecture (e.g. with lecture headings), so I can't help it.

In " "this sentence is false" is false", "this sentence is false" is the inside sentence and is placed inside the enclosing expression form: "______ is false" or "x is false" or "( ) is false", where "______" or "x" or "( )" indicates where the inside expression is to be placed.

Quine talks about "the whole outside sentence" by which he either means the enclosing expression form (or matrix, or predicate, or open sentence, according to dialect) or the whole, as in, inside and outside, both. The composite of both. I would say "the closed sentence" but I have a feeling Quine wouldn't - because there's no quantification. I'll take correction or clarification on that from @TonesInDeepFreeze and others.

But I can't imagine that anyone who speaks the language (or some dialect) of modern analytic philosophy could read the passage and think that by "outside sentence" is meant the expression placed in the place otherwise held by "______" or "x" or "( )".

Yes, he's saying there may be a hierarchy of references. That may be relevant to clarification of his drift. On which I welcome advice. From speakers of the language.

Suppose y = sin(cos(x)). Which (sin or cos) would you say is inside, and which outside?

In " "this sentence is false" is false", "this sentence is false" is the inside sentence — bongo fury

In the expression ""this sentence is false" is false", what does Quine mean by "outside sentence".

Does he mean "this sentence is false", or does he mean ""this sentence is false" is false"

Quine says that the outside sentence is no longer attributing falsity to itself.

I would have thought that the sentence "this sentence is false" is no longer attributing falsity to itself.

What would it mean for the sentence ""this sentence is false" is false" to be no longer attributing falsity to itself?

And I may stipulate that in the context of my post, "This sentence" refers to "This sentence has five words"...On what basis is it claimes "This sentence has five words" not meaningful? — TonesInDeepFreeze

On the basis of infinite recursion.

Self-referential case
In the self-referential case, "this sentence, the sentence "this sentence contains five words", contains five words".
But we know that this sentence is the sentence "this sentence contains five words".
Therefore, "this sentence, the sentence "the sentence "this sentence contains five words" contains five words", contains five words".
Ad infinitum. Infinite recursion. Therefore meaningless. — RussellA

Not wanting you to waste your time on my ludicrous arguments, I will just make the following point, which seems central to your argument that a self-referential sentence can be meaningful:

Let "The Pentastring" refer to "This sentence has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

OK
===============================================================================

The Pentastring has five words, since the Pentastring is "This sentence has five words" and "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Separating into parts

IF - the Pentastring is "this sentence has five words"

Incorrect. As you have said many times on this thread, something in the world cannot be an expression in language. Using the model of "snow is white" is true IFF snow is white, then "the Pentastring" exists in language and the Pentastring exists in the world.

"London" is a city. (false - "London" is a word, not a city) — TonesInDeepFreeze

The Pentastring may be named as "this sentence has five words", but the Pentastring isn't "this sentence has five words".

AND - "this sentence has five words" has five words

OK

THEN - the Pentastring has five words

Incorrect conclusion.

The following are OK:
The Pentastring may be named "this sentence has five words"
"This sentence has five words" has five words

Just because the name of the Pentastring has five words, it doesn't follow that the Pentastring itself has five words.

Just because a name for the Eiffel Tower has two words, it doesn't follow that the Eiffel Tower itself has two words.
===============================================================================

"The Pentastring has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

"The Pentastring has five words" is not how "the Pentastring" has been defined.

Suppose we define 'the Pentastring' as the "This string has five words". — TonesInDeepFreeze

For the sake of argument, using sentence instead of string

Then "the Pentastring is this sentence has five words"

Therefore, "the Pentastring is this sentence has five words" is true IFF the Pentastring is this sentence has five words.

Also, "the Pentastring has five words" is true IFF the Pentastring has five words

But, the Pentastring is this sentence has five words is not the same as the Pentastring has five words.

Therefore, "the Pentastring has five words" is not how "the Pentastring" has been defined.
===============================================================================

"This sentence has five words" asserts that "This sentence has five words" has five words. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Same problem as before.

Does he mean "this sentence is false", or does he mean ""this sentence is false" is false" — RussellA

Are you really unable to find my answer to this question in my previous post?

What would it mean for the sentence ""this sentence is false" is false" to be no longer attributing falsity to itself? — RussellA

It would mean for it to instead be attributing falsity to a smaller sentence inside of it.

Please note this isn't some exegetical choice of mine. It's what (I feel sure) Quine expects any competent reader to understand from what he's written.