Re: TRM - Morbidity has set in, or not?

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 15:05:02 GMT
Message-ID: <yGH9g.3891$S7.864@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

Roy Hann wrote:
> "Frank Hamersley" <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com> wrote
>
> I admit I don't understand why I feel moved to rebut an ad hominem (and
> wholly irrelevant) attack on someone else, but here goes anyway.

AH attack on who exactly? Does mentioning someone by name qualify a post as AH these days?

>> * Therefore contrary to your opinion Gene, I think it is reasonable to 
>> conclude that FP considers, nay promotes albeit obliquely, the belief that 
>> he is "smart and logical"

>
> Well duh! Is there *anyone* who writes for public consumption who doesn't
> think that of themself? That is just a truism. You'd be right to howl
> down anyone who set out to do that who knew they were stupid or illogical
> and did it anyway.

Doh yourself! It was GW who made the bullshit claim - I simply felt inclined to rebutt it using your "duh" analysis but using more words.

>> i.e. the antithesis of his tormentors, and further that he is also 
>> "boastful" given his preparedness to operate dbdebunk.

>
> So everyone who is moved to operate a website for the instruction and
> information of others is boastful?

Basically anyone who publicly belittles and humiliates those who they consider less capable or wrongly informed risks being tagged. Sure its hard to modify a stance when we are strongly convinced of it, but sometimes a little decorum goes a long way.

> What about those who write books?
> Articles? Who lecture? Who teach? Just how much humility is enough to
> qualify you venture out in public then?

You are taking the piss!

>> All that said there is nothing wrong with this posture if you are capable 
>> of substantiating this at every turn of events.  Of course it can go pear 
>> shaped if you meet your match or you pick a loser - but that is FP's risk 
>> and his call to place his own bets.

>
> There is nothing wrong with being wrong occasionally. There is everything
> wrong with having it demonstrated to one but refusing ever to concede.

Sure - horses, water - you have to get over it though if they drown or die of thirst.

> FP
> does publish errata and does from time to time revise his views. All the
> examples of the latter that I can think of he openly acknowledged to be
> after discussion with others.
>

>>>      Perish the thought that someone should have an agenda.  I like
>>> FP's of supporting the RM.  It is far better than these slimy Latest
>>> Things that keep popping up from under rocks.
>> For sure.  My only concern is having made himself a target of the 
>> naysayers, if he stumbles for what ever reason, it has the potential to 
>> tarnish the RM in the minds of under informed types.

>
> Tough. That's a chance I'm certainly willing to see him take. Anyway, in
> the long run, one stumble couldn't tip the balance any more than one
> elegantly proved truth could.

LOL! The fickleness of human behaviour seems to place much greater weight on a persons stuff ups than achievements. I accept however, that the long run is a leveler - even Bill Clinton is back from the dead although Dan Quayle seems to have gone to ground with the potatoe (sic).

>> A lesser evil perhaps than allowing snake-oil to be sold in super-markets?

>
> You make out that it is an issue of towering importance to our age, to be
> decided by the subtlest of arguments. It's just one guy and a website for
> goodness sake!

What ever gave you that idea - he's just this guy you know!

Cheers, Frank. Received on Sun May 14 2006 - 10:05:02 CDT