Re: THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)

Marshall Spight wrote:

> 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?

Persuaded? No. Informed? Perhaps.

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

So many? I don't express contempt for any more than a small handful.

>>>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 would guess the same about you.

>, and

With all due respect, I find your methods no different than mine. I believe I have a more realistic expectation of outcome and a more solidly fixed moral compass.

Otherwise, your complaints about my content and style, and my complaints about the ignorants' content and style, are no different.

>>Your post was anti-empirical.

I not only asserted it, but I gave the empirical justification for asserting it. As I said, your post was anti-empirical just as your response to my assertion is. The anti-empiricism undermines your position.

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

What relevance does that have to the issue of either's legitimacy in c.d.t ?

> 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?"

I question whether your measurement method is accurate. I recall Bob from the mid-nineties at least, and I suspect Google has an incomplete archive prior to 2001. I could be wrong about that.

Nevertheless, are you suggesting his earlier involvement with the newsgroup than either you or the self-aggrandizing ignorant makes him any less legitimate as a contributor here?

> 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.

Because it demonstrates the obvious anti-empiricism of your personal attack against him. You used length of participation in your attack against his legitimacy. If one accepts your position that length of participation establishes legitimacy, then Bob Hairgrove has greater legitimacy than the willful ignorant you championed at his expense.

On the other hand, his post that the willful ignorant failed to provide a reasoned or substantive response was empirically accurate. His suggestion to bounce her off the bottom of the twit filter was an empirically sound suggestion.

>>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.

Good question. I stayed away for a couple of years. Did that enrich the newsgroup? If the handful of willful ignorants selling their snake-oil here left, would anyone really lose anything of value?

> Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary
> stays focused on ideas, and stays polite.

Good for you. So, then, is it okay to drive out people who can make substantive and reasoned contributions as long as it suits what you want?

If that is okay, is it any less okay for me to drive out self-aggrandizing ignorants when it suits what I want?

>>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.

And I can question you on your expectation for doing so. What do you hope to achieve?

>>>He stopped, and I have not said anything negative about him
>>>since then.
>>
>>Only Bob Hairgrove 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.

So then, it is your opinion that it is okay for you to say negative anti-empirical things about him, but it is not okay for him to say entirely empirical things about others when you personally deem the things said as negative?

Since you reject intellect by discarding empiricism, do you believe you are presenting either a moral or ethical argument?

>>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 disagree. I suggest your embrace of anti-empiricism in at least some cases undermines your assertion regarding empiricism in this case.

>>>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.

Good for you. At least, you are learning somewhere. That says nothing about your earlier comparison and assertions, though. Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 18:45:00 CEST