Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 12, 4:03 pm, "JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2:51 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:

Getting things straight...

<< One can speculate on a physical pathology in cases like Cimode or Neo;
> > however, whether the missing intellectual honesty is more "cannot" than
> > "will not" has little effect in the end. Whether the individual
> > self-aggrandizes for the indirect benefit to some hair-brained construct
> > or for some direct benefit to himself makes precious little difference.>>

I would like to make some comments onto some aspects discussed as I seem to be a new case of discussion from Bob Badour's obsessive mind .

<< In the end, whether David is a crank like Cimode or Neo, a snakeoil

 salesman like Joe or Dawn, or a more classic troll has little import.  All of the above share the same very important trait: they lack  intellectual honesty.>>

--> Been called worse.;)

Bob Badour's stated that I lack intellectual honnesty. On several occasions, I have disagreed with some of his statements and exposed the reasons of such disagreements. Instead of responding to some arguments exposed, he clearly has chosen to disqualify them as nonsense and *intellectual dishonnesty*.

OTOH, I have at many occasions supported that some of his comments were sound *if* they were sound. I also recognized my errors with some people.

The above demonstrates that his argument is baseless. I have explained his method of denial and argument disqualification. But I have totally lost interest into it.

<< One can speculate on a physical pathology in cases like Cimode or Neo;
 however, whether the missing intellectual honesty is more "cannot" than
 "will not" has little effect in the end>>

--> Bob Badour's emits the hypothesis that I or Neo could be physically incapacited and therefore would not be *able* to be intellectually honest. This is an under the belt disqualifying technique. All I can say is that I am fine thanks.

I will not make any further comments and will not respond unwarranted personnal attacks because I prefer let people judge for themselves.

If the price for being a very skeptical person who never take things for granted (EVER) is to be called *self promoting person* *crank* or *physically incapacited intellectually dishonnest*, then I believe I am happy to pay such price.

Regards. Received on Mon Feb 12 2007 - 17:18:50 CET