Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

Bob Badour wrote:
> >
> > They are not empircal observations about the people, because
> > you can't observe the people.
>
> Given the enormous volume of gibberish the idiots post, what makes you
> think anyone is going to read either position with enough care and
> attention to understand your argument?

I see. We have to protect the vast, speed-reading hoardes, who will be persuaded by insults but only confused by more substantive commentary.

> The poor lurker may mistake these phoney charlatans as your peers.

Again the professed concern for unidentified and unidentifiable people, coupled with withering insults directed at actual people. I am astonished that you claim such concern for the newsgroup in general while simultaneously expressing such contempt for so many of the people in it.

> > There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
> > reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
> > dislike name calling, and I have said so on many occasions,
> > said so then, and likely will say so again in the future, if by
> > some strange chance people continue to call each other names
> > even after I've asked them nicely not to.
>
> You questioned his legitimacy as a poster for making a perfectly valid
> observation about the argument (or lack thereof) given.

I guess you have a hard time telling the difference between commenting on a person and commenting on an idea, and that could perhaps explain your difficulty in understanding why I acted as I did in that situation. I only object to the first one. If they look the same to you, though, it may appear as if I object to both, which would indeed be a problem.

> Your post was anti-empirical.

So you keep asserting.

> You questioned his legitimacy claiming
> that some willful ignorant had established her legitimacy. In reality,
> [name deleted] established his legitimacy years before either you or the
> self-aggrandizing ignorant ever showed up.

That person's first post on usenet was in 1998; mine was in 1987. His first post on c.d.t was on 10/21/2001; mine was less than a year later, so your "years" is at best an exaggeration. Or should I say "anti-empirical?" Anyway, I am unclear what your point is in repeatedly bringing up the fact that that person's first post was slightly earlier than mine.

> Since you and she showed up, what decent content is in this newsgroup
> has been drowned out by a torrential slurry of diarrheic nonsense spewed
> forth by the self-aggrandizing ignorant whose 'legitimacy' you defended
> and by three or four similar ignorants.

I still find it useful, and a valuable resource. If you don't, why stay?
Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary stays focused on ideas, and stays polite.

> It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic
> nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic
> nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants.

Agreed. Also, I can point out when people are not being polite, and when people are name-calling. And you can call me names for doing so.

> > He stopped, and I have not said anything negative about him
> > since then.
>
> Only [...] could tell us if you had any bearing on that or whether he
> simply has not encountered another situation to make him draw a similar
> conclusion.

I did not say that I had any bearing on what he did. I only said what *I* did in response to what he did.

> Actually, I do. Very much. I know and admire more than one such
> individual. I have the honesty and maturity to interact with such people
> very effectively.

I have observed here exactly the opposite. How you are elsewhere, I have no information, so who knows? You may be quite different in person. Which is why drawing conclusions about people based on their usenet posts is logically invalid, as well as impolite.

> > I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
> >
> > How did you feel about him, Bob?
>
> I found him anti-empirical and saw serious flaws in his arguments that
> you must have missed.

Heh. I remember the one time you and he really went at it. In fact, he had some good arguments on his side, but I thought you won that one on intellectual merits. Nonetheless, I have learned a lot more from him than I have from you.

Marshall Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 17:57:41 CEST