twit-filters and honesty

Bob Badour wrote:

>> mAsterdam wrote:
>>>
>>> ... it also helped, that you are very willing to accept
>>> the RM - even thought you do have some gaps in your
>>> knowledge about it - no problem for you here, a few months
>>> of reading will help you putting it in perspective.
>>>
>>> The point is that if you weren't very willing to accept
>>> the RM, my guess is you would not be treated as well, even
>>> if you would have been as humble as you were/are.

Note how according to the stalker "not willing to accept" the RM (which the jerk took care to leave out) is "the very definition of closed-minded"-ness.

> One cannot be simultaneously closed-minded and humble.

Brilliant phraseology. So?

> Closed-mindedness
> is not only arrogant but rude and disrespectful in that it wastes the
> time of everyone else. mAsterdam seems to think he can be rude to
> everyone here and that no one should ever have the temerity to note the
> rudeness.

Man, am I rude! BTW I am so ignorant I had to look up "temerity": Unreasonable or foolhardy contempt of danger; rashness.

I (according to the hiding stalker) am so rude, that one needs "Unreasonable or foolhardy contempt of danger" to even note it.

> Bollocks on that!

Yeah, Bollocks, stalker!

> Actually, the key word in the phrase is "willing". Whether one has or
> has not accepted a particular point of view, if one is unwilling to
> accept different points of view, one is closed-minded and frankly lacks
> intellectual honesty.

Bollocks, stalker! Accepting different points of view does not require willingness to accept one particular POV, in casu RM.

> Having twit-filtered mAsterdam for intellectually dishonest
> closed-mindedness and for wasting people's time, his phraseology comes
> as no surprise to me at all.

BB-fans (as the jerk claims not to read this), feel free to elaborate.

> Even with this explanation, I don't expect him to get it.

Nice "explanation". I cannot be "simultaneously closed-minded and humble". I cannot even engage in public dialogue with the one who writes this shit. No, I'll give it this point. Its expectation was right on the mark. Is it happy now? I don't expect so.

> I find it interesting who mAsterdam perceives are the bullies.

The stalker lies. It's a rhetoric lie, but a lie nevertheless.

[snip wedding metaphor]
> The self-aggrandizing ignorants are self-indulgent, disrespectful, rude,
> and they insist on shoving their way to where they do not belong. Are
> those not the acts of bullies?

No. They are acts by ignorants. Self-indulgent, disrespectful, rude, yes, but ignorant. The stalker willingly dumped that excuse.

[snip bullying]

>> DW wrote:
>>
>>> No, but I definitely apologize if I was rude. I am clearly
>>> having a hard time stating this question in a way that you
>>> can understand ... I would like to be able to get all the
>>> way to questions that would resonate with you, but I'm
>>> clearly having trouble doing that.

[snip bullying] Received on Sun Jun 04 2006 - 22:59:26 CDT