Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> twit-filters and honesty

twit-filters and honesty

From: mAsterdam <>
Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 05:59:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4483aba5$0$31650$>

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.

> Please note the important distinction between "not willing to accept"
> and "having not yet accepted". The first is the very definition of
> closed-minded while the second indicates mere skepticism.

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

Original text of this message