[wynand]

> Or want to cite a fruitful philosophical problem Wittgenstein did have, to contradict my view?

That burden is on you, since you made the original assertion.

[xenophanes]

You are expecting me to cite the lack of something? How?

[wynand]

That doesn't let you off the hook.

You could say about anything "show me one place where x has value". In such a position, you'd always be able to dispute any point raised.

If you really believe that there is nothing of value in the Tractatus, then you should give a short summary of what you think it is about and why you don't think it has any value.

With such a summary, it's possible to have a debate, since your assertions can be challenged.

[xenophanes]

Do you think it has value? What value?

Why are you refusing to make a substantive comment? Given your refusal, why should I make a second one?

Yes, debating who should go first is stupid. So why are you doing it? (I am doing it, now, b/c I am curious why you take this approach.)

[rms]

I think the problem is that wynand didn't make the original reply to you, he just inserted himself into the debate without saying anything substantial.