[ExI] Optical illusion tricks you into seeing different colors

[Brent Allsop]

Hi Mike,

Yea, that makes a lot of sense, and I can better see why some of my tactics
are mistaken.  So thanks for this help, and I apologize for doing this, I
will work to change.

As I indicating "eff" the ineffable, in reality, is still, barely, a minority
camp <https://canonizer.com/topic/102-Communicating-Ineffable/2-eff>.with a
score of 2.25, while the leading camp for 'grok
<https://canonizer.com/topic/102-Communicating-Ineffable/4-grok>' has 2.5.

I'm still not convinced that 'grok' is better the 'eff', but I will put
more thought into this, especially if you actually formally support the
'grock' camp, along with that multiple other people, I will join this camp,
and agree that that is a better word, for more people.  So I will use that
one.

So thanks for the help, and everyone else, please accept my apologies for
these mistakes.

Brent



On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 6:09 PM Mike Dougherty via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 20, 2021, 7:10 PM Brent Allsop via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>>  Strongest methods of effing the ineffable, if achieved this will falsify
>> your bleating claims that we can't eff the ineffable.
>>
>
> I will try to help:
>
> Stop using this expression.  You can't "eff the ineffible."  There is no
> verb 'to eff'
>
> Ineffible is literally defined as not possible to define or explain.
>  Every time you use this expression,  you undermine any credibility you
> might have had.
>
> Fwiw, refering to people's point as "bleating claim" is also likening them
> to mindless sheep's 'bleating' - which does not endear them to further
> discussion.
>
> You lose your audience by using words in weird/nonstandard ways. You lose
> your audience by insulting/offending them (either calling their effort
> 'bleating' or calling out their 'blindness' - which I know you don't
> intend,  but also don't seem to grasp how/why my advice to you is to be
> more aware)
>
> I have taken shots at your repeated use of "ineffable redness of red" with
> 'fiveness of five' and 'breadness of bread' - I'm hopeful you take this in
> the spirit I meant.
>
> I really would like to believe I have some insight into how my own
> perception works... but I humbly admit I don't know.
>
>> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20210520/0e88e56b/attachment.htm>