On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:42:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:41:11 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
>>>didn't. Let's try again...
>>
>>
>>Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic"
>>non-sequitur.
>>
>No, it did not, at least not in my feed. Neither did your
>claimed reply. The second repetition did, as did this one.

<sigh> Willful blindness strikes again.

Assuming you're not playing stupid words games, your "this" refers to
the following:
**************************************
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700
Message-ID: <3u77nihpatd733irjcask7f9758frdnthj@4ax.com>
*************************************

which is the original to your repost:
***************************************
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700
Message-ID: <nl18nihbesl5b1h8jlc9eaiurko2mmjhc6@4ax.com>
*************************************

I replied to your original post here:
*************************************
From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500
Message-ID: <efb9nilfnh78a608erdmjck9o58nmql9qa@4ax.com>
***************************************

Your denial of the facts makes your posts a self-parody. An irony
here is you make the same stupid mistake here that you and others did
before, to deny the fact that some posts are going missing and
inspired my comment about willful blindness, which in turn inspired
Harran's willfully stupid Chez Watt.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 12:54:00 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>> can?).
>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>> recognize.
>>
>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>
>
> I'd say "the blind" refers to a condition that is involuntary and more
> or less permanent , while the "willfully blind" refers to a condition
> of choice and so contingent. As such, the phrase alludes to three
> monkeys rather than any Asian religious philosophy. YMMV.
>
Sounds about right.
>
>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> == 2 ==================================================
>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>
>

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>
>Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>blind ;)
>
Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
including who the participants were.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:12:00 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 07 Dec 2023 18:55:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2023 08:37:13 -0800, the following appeared in
>>>>>>talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
>>>>>><specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>#2, please.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>How ironic.
>>>>>
>>>>Really? In what way? I notice when *my own* posts go
>>>>missing, but I fail to see how that statement is generally
>>>>applicable to others' posts of which I have no knowledge.
>>>>Thus "Say what?"
>>>
>>>
>>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid. Your question
>>>above illustrates your willful blindness of these facts. Any further
>>>rationalization by you would follow Harran's illustration of willful
>>>stupidity.
>>>
>>Perhaps you could set aside your personal acrimony long
>>enough to remember that CW *has* no context and references
>>no poster; the statement stands on its own.
>
>
>Perhaps you could turn off your willful blindness to recognize that
>Harran's CW is a consequence of his willful stupidity. As for your
>expressed line of "reasoning", it's incoherent and non sequitur, as
>your "*own posts*" don't inform the point or show what you claim it
>shows.
>
Missed the part about the fact that CW doesn't include
attributions or context again? OK.
>
>>>>>>>The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
>>>>>>>mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
>>>>>>>the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
>>>>>>>so far in December) that I saw.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Vote for your favorite.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>== 1 ==================================================
>>>>>>>In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
>>>>>>> > new species came from.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>== 2 ==================================================
>>>>>>>In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>-------------------
>>>>>>>In case I forget to post it, here is the winning entry from September:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>====================================================
>>>>>>>In the category: you cannot pee in the same river twice
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It was never my objective to associate or deny rivers as human
>>>>>>>for human continence. Just for the water cycle.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:14:40 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:

>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:42:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:41:11 -0500, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
>>>>didn't. Let's try again...
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic"
>>>non-sequitur.
>>>
>>No, it did not, at least not in my feed. Neither did your
>>claimed reply. The second repetition did, as did this one.
>
>
><sigh> Willful blindness strikes again.
>
>Assuming you're not playing stupid words games, your "this" refers to
>the following:
>**************************************
>From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700
>Message-ID: <3u77nihpatd733irjcask7f9758frdnthj@4ax.com>
>*************************************
>
>which is the original to your repost:
>***************************************
>From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700
>Message-ID: <nl18nihbesl5b1h8jlc9eaiurko2mmjhc6@4ax.com>
>*************************************
>
>I replied to your original post here:
>*************************************
>From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
>Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500
>Message-ID: <efb9nilfnh78a608erdmjck9o58nmql9qa@4ax.com>
>***************************************
>
>Your denial of the facts makes your posts a self-parody. An irony
>here is you make the same stupid mistake here that you and others did
>before, to deny the fact that some posts are going missing and
>inspired my comment about willful blindness, which in turn inspired
>Harran's willfully stupid Chez Watt.
>
Try to get this past your attitude:

I made two posts. Several hours later that day, neither post
had shown up, so using my "sent" folder I reposted both with
the added comments at the top. Neither original post has
ever shown up in my feed; the fact that you were able to see
them is irrelevant to the above. And given the small number
of posts I see on any given day I won't miss my own.

If you think I'm either lying or "willfully blind" that's
*your* problem, not mine, and I won't engage with you again
in this thread. Have whatever kind of day you deserve.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>>> can?).
>> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>> something that is not there".
>
> I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
>
> THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
> streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
>
> “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
>
> “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
> one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”

I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
>
> “And how can you do that, sir, when they’re missing?” said Groat.
>
> Ah, so there’s a clue as to why you’re still sitting in a rundown old
> building making tea from rocks and weeds all day, Moist thought. Aloud he
> said: “It’s a knack. Now, I could be wrong, of course, but—ah, we turn left
> here…”
>
>>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>>> recognize.
>>>
>>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>>>
>>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> == 2 ==================================================
>>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>> --
>> --
>> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

Mark Isaak wrote:

> The subject of Chez Watt had fallen from my awareness space until Nyikos
> mentioned it yesterday (thank you, Peter). To catch up, then, here are
> the nominations from October. There were no nominations in November (or
> so far in December) that I saw.
>
> Vote for your favorite.
>
> == 1 ==================================================
> In the category of, yes, yes, and ...
>
> > Note: we do not find IDers searching for answers as to how or where
> > new species came from.

How could that not be a winner?

#1, please.

[Though a t.o. newbie, i will vote, and, if found
wanting, may the FSM have mercy on my soul. We don't
find antipasta perps searching for answers as to where
new newbies come from, yet, here we are.]

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:11:17 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

<snip spam>

>>>Perhaps you could set aside your personal acrimony long
>>>enough to remember that CW *has* no context and references
>>>no poster; the statement stands on its own.
>>
>>
>>Perhaps you could turn off your willful blindness to recognize that
>>Harran's CW is a consequence of his willful stupidity. As for your
>>expressed line of "reasoning", it's incoherent and non sequitur, as
>>your "*own posts*" don't inform the point or show what you claim it
>>shows.
>>
>Missed the part about the fact that CW doesn't include
>attributions or context again? OK.

Missed the part about the fact that Harran's CW, and your
rationalizations for it, are willfully stupid? OK.

And to address your historical whining about deleted context, the
above stands on its own.

<snip remaining spam>

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:19:51 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 11:14:40 -0500, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:42:06 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:41:11 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 08 Dec 2023 09:05:42 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>How ironic; this post didn't show up, and I noticed it
>>>>>didn't. Let's try again...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes it did, as my reply to it proves, which makes your "how ironic"
>>>>non-sequitur.
>>>>
>>>No, it did not, at least not in my feed. Neither did your
>>>claimed reply. The second repetition did, as did this one.
>>
>>
>><sigh> Willful blindness strikes again.
>>
>>Assuming you're not playing stupid words games, your "this" refers to
>>the following:
>>**************************************
>>From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>>Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
>>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 16:01:50 -0700
>>Message-ID: <3u77nihpatd733irjcask7f9758frdnthj@4ax.com>
>>*************************************
>>
>>which is the original to your repost:
>>***************************************
>>From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>>Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
>>Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2023 23:19:39 -0700
>>Message-ID: <nl18nihbesl5b1h8jlc9eaiurko2mmjhc6@4ax.com>
>>*************************************
>>
>>I replied to your original post here:
>>*************************************
>>From: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
>>Newsgroups: talk.origins
>>Subject: Re: Chez Watt vote for October
>>Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500
>>Message-ID: <efb9nilfnh78a608erdmjck9o58nmql9qa@4ax.com>
>>***************************************
>>
>>Your denial of the facts makes your posts a self-parody. An irony
>>here is you make the same stupid mistake here that you and others did
>>before, to deny the fact that some posts are going missing and
>>inspired my comment about willful blindness, which in turn inspired
>>Harran's willfully stupid Chez Watt.
>>
>Try to get this past your attitude:

You first.

>I made two posts. Several hours later that day, neither post
>had shown up, so using my "sent" folder I reposted both with
>the added comments at the top. Neither original post has
>ever shown up in my feed; the fact that you were able to see
>them is irrelevant to the above. And given the small number
>of posts I see on any given day I won't miss my own.
>
>If you think I'm either lying or "willfully blind" that's
>*your* problem, not mine, and I won't engage with you again
>in this thread. Have whatever kind of day you deserve.

So facts don't concern you? OK. There are none so blind as those who
are proud of having no idea what they're talking about.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 12:18:48 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03?PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03?PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>>>> can?).
>>> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>>> something that is not there".
>>
>> I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
>>
>> THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
>> streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
>>
>> “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
>>
>> “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
>> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
>> one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
>
>I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
>same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
>unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).

It would be better to argue that "missing" in this case is failing to
see what's actually in front of your face.

>> “And how can you do that, sir, when they’re missing?” said Groat.
>>
>> Ah, so there’s a clue as to why you’re still sitting in a rundown old
>> building making tea from rocks and weeds all day, Moist thought. Aloud he
>> said: “It’s a knack. Now, I could be wrong, of course, but—ah, we turn left
>> here…”
>>
>>>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>>>> recognize.
>>>>
>>>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>>>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>>>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>>>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>>>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>>>>
>>>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> == 2 =================================================>>>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>>> --
>>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
>>
>
>--

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>>> can?).
>> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>> something that is not there".
>
> I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
>
> THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
> streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
>
> “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
>
> “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
> one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”

I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
>
> “And how can you do that, sir, when they’re missing?” said Groat.
>
> Ah, so there’s a clue as to why you’re still sitting in a rundown old
> building making tea from rocks and weeds all day, Moist thought. Aloud he
> said: “It’s a knack. Now, I could be wrong, of course, but—ah, we turn left
> here…”
>
>>>> Non sequitur. The comment isn't about "the blind" but "the willfully
>>>> blind". There's a difference even the willfully blind should
>>>> recognize.
>>>
>>> I'd say on logical grounds, the wilfully blind are a proper subset of
>>> the blind. So that still works as a Zen riddle for me, and what the perception of
>>> an absence would mean if the perceiver is blind. As I said, neither post
>>> was great chez whatt material, but this one has a nice philosophical issue
>>> at its core that has baffled philosophers ever since there was philosophy
>>>
>>>>> Also harks back to one of the oldest philosophical questions,
>>>>> how can we predicate attribute to things that do not exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> == 2 ==================================================
>>>>>> In the Seeing What You Don't See category:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Failing to notice missing posts is an effect of willful blindness.
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>> --
>> --
>> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
><martinharran@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>
>>Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>blind ;)
>>
>Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>including who the participants were.

Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
post that I was responding to.

>>

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:17:06 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
> >>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
> >>>>> can?).
> >> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
> >> something that is not there".
> >
> > I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
> >
> > THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
> > streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
> >
> > “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
> >
> > “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
> > man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
> > one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
> I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
> same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
> unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).

That would definitely be an option, and one I'd quite
like for all sorts of reasons, but I'd generalise it in this context:
Whenever we see something that is not there, we form a mental
image or model with the thing being there, and then compare the
two.

Or as it says in the song (I did an entire paper about this one... :o))

Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there!
He wasn't there again today,
I wish, I wish he'd go away!

When I came home last night at three,
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall,
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...

On 2023-12-12 2:17 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:17:06 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
>> On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
>>>>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
>>>>>>> can?).
>>>> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
>>>> something that is not there".
>>>
>>> I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
>>>
>>> THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
>>> streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
>>>
>>> “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
>>>
>>> “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
>>> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
>>> one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
>> I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
>> same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
>> unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
>
> That would definitely be an option, and one I'd quite
> like for all sorts of reasons, but I'd generalise it in this context:
> Whenever we see something that is not there, we form a mental
> image or model with the thing being there, and then compare the
> two.
>
(Hmmm, from the UK? You misspelled "generalize".) Be that as it may, I
am not sure what context you are referring to. The context for my
comment was a response to the original Chez Watt nomination where I
concluded that I was among those being chastised for being 'wilfully
ignorant' of a missing post. True, due to my killfiling habits, I am
wilfully ignorant of the posters original post though I often see them
2nd or 3rd or ... hand. But a 'missing' post? I am just ignorant, the
same as everyone but the poster.

> Or as it says in the song (I did an entire paper about this one... :o))
>
> Yesterday, upon the stair,
> I met a man who wasn't there!
> He wasn't there again today,
> I wish, I wish he'd go away!
>
> When I came home last night at three,
> The man was waiting there for me
> But when I looked around the hall,
> I couldn't see him there at all!
> Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
> Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...
>
Love it, but a little deep for my tiny brain. I go with things like:

Twas midnight on the ocean
Not a streetcar was in sight
The sun was shining brightly
And it rained all day that night.

or

Thirty days has September,
April, June, and no wonder
All the rest like peanut butter
Except Grandma who drives a Cadillac.

Although I occasionally dip into the *Collected Works of Lewis Carroll*.
But he was a mathematician and so expected to be a little... off?
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>> <martinharran@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>> Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>> point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>> blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>> comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>>
>>> Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>> the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>> Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>> blind ;)
>>>
>> Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>> including who the participants were.
>
> Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
> becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
> make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
> post that I was responding to.
>
In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting
perceived slights. Sometimes these things escalate into things that drive
long term cascades of indignation and strife.

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:31:54 +0000, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>><martinharran@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>>
>>>Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>>the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>>Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>>blind ;)
>>>
>>Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>>including who the participants were.
>
>Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
>becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
>make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
>post that I was responding to.
>
A reasonable course to take.
>>>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 21:42:03 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:31:54 +0000, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
><martinharran@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>>><martinharran@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>>Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>>>point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>>>blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>>>comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>>>
>>>>Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>>>the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>>>Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>>>blind ;)
>>>>
>>>Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>>>including who the participants were.
>>
>>Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
>>becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
>>make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
>>post that I was responding to.
>>
>A reasonable course to take.

If only you weren't willfully blind to Harran's lies.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:24:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>>> <martinharran@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>>> point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>>> blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>>> comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>>> the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>>> Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>>> blind ;)
>>>>
>>> Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>>> including who the participants were.
>>
>> Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
>> becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
>> make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
>> post that I was responding to.
>>
>In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting
>perceived slights. Sometimes these things escalate into things that drive
>long term cascades of indignation and strife.

In general, it would be better overall if people tended toward
honesty. Either Harran has KF'ed my posts or he hasn't. If he has,
he can't go back and check the posts about me he's responding to. If
he hasn't, his repeated claims that he has KF'ed my posts are outright
lies. If he uses GG to read posts that he KF'ed, then he defeats the
whole point of KF'ing my posts. Either way, Harran's comments above
are willfully stupid lies. That you continue to act blind to these
facts is on you.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:24:03 +0000
*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
[]
> In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting
> perceived slights. Sometimes these things escalate into things that drive
> long term cascades of indignation and strife.
>

Quite so.

Too much endless bickering. It's too personal.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:24:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>>> <martinharran@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>> Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>>> point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>>> blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>>> comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>>> the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>>> Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>>> blind ;)
>>>>
>>> Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>>> including who the participants were.
>>
>> Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
>> becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
>> make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
>> post that I was responding to.
>>
>In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting
>perceived slights.

A sense of humour can also help.

>Smetimes these things escalate into things that drive
>long term cascades of indignation and strife.

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 12:48:55 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:24:03 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
><ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 10:08:20 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 09:07:53 +0000, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>>>> <martinharran@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 15:39:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Dec 2023 13:27:08 -0500, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Incorrect. The Chez Watt was posted by Harran, who regularly makes a
>>>>>>> point of declaring that he killfiles my posts, and so is willfully
>>>>>>> blind to the comment's context, which is the very point of the
>>>>>>> comment, which makes his nomination willfully stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jillery fails to take into account that the full discussion between
>>>>> the two of you was preserved in your response which triggered my Chez
>>>>> Watt nomination. Perhaps Jillery is the one who is being wilfully
>>>>> blind ;)
>>>>>
>>>> Was it? You remember far more than I do about the subject,
>>>> including who the participants were.
>>>
>>> Nothing to do with remembering - fortunate as my memory lapses are
>>> becoming ever more frequent. When someone challenges a post by me, I
>>> make a point of going back and checking what I actually posted and the
>>> post that I was responding to.
>>>
>>In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting
>>perceived slights.
>
>A sense of humour can also help.

A coherent sense of personal integrity would help even more.

>>Smetimes these things escalate into things that drive
>>long term cascades of indignation and strife.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 09:32:37 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Dec 2023 01:24:03 +0000
>*Hemidactylus* <ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
>[]
>> In general it might be better overall if people trended toward forgetting
>> perceived slights. Sometimes these things escalate into things that drive
>> long term cascades of indignation and strife.
>>
>
>Quite so.
>
>Too much endless bickering. It's too personal.

Don't like endless bickering? Then stop enabling people who willfully
ignore clear and documented facts.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Wednesday, December 13, 2023 at 12:47:07 AM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> On 2023-12-12 2:17 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:17:06 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> >> On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
> >>>>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
> >>>>>>> can?).
> >>>> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
> >>>> something that is not there".
> >>>
> >>> I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
> >>>
> >>> THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
> >>> streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
> >>>
> >>> “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
> >>>
> >>> “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
> >>> man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
> >>> one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
> >> I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
> >> same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
> >> unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
> >
> > That would definitely be an option, and one I'd quite
> > like for all sorts of reasons, but I'd generalise it in this context:
> > Whenever we see something that is not there, we form a mental
> > image or model with the thing being there, and then compare the
> > two.
> >
> (Hmmm, from the UK? You misspelled "generalize".) Be that as it may, I
> am not sure what context you are referring to. The context for my
> comment was a response to the original Chez Watt nomination where I
> concluded that I was among those being chastised for being 'wilfully
> ignorant' of a missing post. True, due to my killfiling habits, I am
> wilfully ignorant of the posters original post though I often see them
> 2nd or 3rd or ... hand. But a 'missing' post? I am just ignorant, the
> same as everyone but the poster.

No, I meant going beyond the context of the Pratchett quote, to a general
theory - that is, I agree with you that "in a way", the missing letters "are
there", as mental representations. I just think that answers largely your
own question: "about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
> >>>> something that is not there". I'd say that generally, if we perceive
an absence, that means we have a mental model of the absent thing, and
sometimes this mental model is so deeply ingrained that it can dupe us into
believing the object was really present.

Now, I'd say that this is the case for "visual absences" , and everyone who
is able to have visual mental images, which made me wonder how this would
be experienced by people who have been blind from birth.

> > Or as it says in the song (I did an entire paper about this one... :o))
> >
> > Yesterday, upon the stair,
> > I met a man who wasn't there!
> > He wasn't there again today,
> > I wish, I wish he'd go away!
> >
> > When I came home last night at three,
> > The man was waiting there for me
> > But when I looked around the hall,
> > I couldn't see him there at all!
> > Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
> > Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...
> >
> Love it, but a little deep for my tiny brain.

it gains a lot in my view when performed, like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XzBMRLwhxA

(I as looking to a version from the early 20th century
that I used when giving talks about this, but can't find
it any longer - another absence

>I go with things like:
>
> Twas midnight on the ocean
> Not a streetcar was in sight
> The sun was shining brightly
> And it rained all day that night.
>
> or
>
> Thirty days has September,
> April, June, and no wonder
> All the rest like peanut butter
> Except Grandma who drives a Cadillac.
>
> Although I occasionally dip into the *Collected Works of Lewis Carroll*.
> But he was a mathematician and so expected to be a little... off?
> --
> --
> Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 8:22:07 PM UTC, Burkhard wrote:
> On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 5:17:06 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> > On 2023-12-10 2:09 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> > > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:42:03 PM UTC+1, DB Cates wrote:
> > >> On 2023-12-09 2:54 PM, Burkhard wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 7:47:03 PM UTC+1, jillery wrote:
> > >>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 05:09:19 -0800 (PST), Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Thursday, December 7, 2023 at 5:42:02?PM UTC+1, Mark Isaak wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not a great choice tbh, but No 2 has a nice Zen-like quality to it - how
> > >>>>> can the blind see something that is not there? (or maybe only they
> > >>>>> can?).
> > >> I'm more curious about how the *not blind* (wilful or otherwise) "see
> > >> something that is not there".
> > >
> > > I'm referring m' learned friend to the treatise "Going Postal" by Pratchett, T:
> > >
> > > THERE’S A LITTLE HABIT I have,” said Moist, as he led the way through the
> > > streets. “It’s to do with signs.”
> > >
> > > “Signs, sir?” said Groat, trying to keep close to the walls.
> > >
> > > “Yes, Junior Postman Groat, signs,” said Moist, noticing the way the
> > > man winced at “Junior.” “Particularly signs with missing letters. When I see
> > > one, I automatically read what the missing letters say.”
> > I suppose one could argue that "missing" in this case is not quite the
> > same as "not there". Indeed, how could Moist read the missing letters
> > unless they were 'there' in his mind (memory and/or context).
> That would definitely be an option, and one I'd quite
> like for all sorts of reasons, but I'd generalise it in this context:
> Whenever we see something that is not there, we form a mental
> image or model with the thing being there, and then compare the
> two.
>
> Or as it says in the song (I did an entire paper about this one... :o))
>
> Yesterday, upon the stair,
> I met a man who wasn't there!
> He wasn't there again today,
> I wish, I wish he'd go away!
>
> When I came home last night at three,
> The man was waiting there for me
> But when I looked around the hall,
> I couldn't see him there at all!
> Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
> Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door...

Oh gosh, thank you for that! I learned the first verse from my older brother over 60 years and have often recited it to my grandchildren but I never knew the second verse.