Re: 'But the precise point I was making was that Derek never prefers to focus something he has learned, or something he cannot rebut. Why not? I continue to maintain that either he doesn't grasp such things, or he forgets them, or he suppresses them. I don't say these things to be mean. I say them to help expose to him why listers find him such an unsatisfactory interlocutor. I myself find him a great training partner. Coping with his hard questions and persistent evasiveness is mentally salubrious.'
But I do learn things from the list. I often find, for example, that it forces me to clarify my thinking (well, it seems clearer to me!! :-) and that in itself is a learning experience. I wouldn't stick around if I didn't find it profitable. My only regret, as always, is that more people don't join in. We could all do with some stimulation from new voices I think. I always puzzle by the way over the claim that I am 'evasive.' It always seems to me that I am responding to the points being made. I suspect the appearance of evasiveness probably comes sometimes from the fact that what I think is important is not what the person I am responding to thinks is important. (Eg I think trying to enunciate rules about why X is/is not a work of art - 'give reasons' as I am sometimes urged to do - is a gigantic waste of time. So I don't even try to go down that path.) I'm sorry if I am 'an unsatisfactory interlocutor'. But I can only do my thing... DA On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:33 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Derek quotes me: > > > Re: ' Derek was responding to a rather longish posting, much of which is > > not > > acknowledged by him. This repeated proclivity when responding to > > counter-arguments > > suggests one of three causes: > > > > He doesn't grasp what he's just read. > > > > He forgets what he's just read. > > > > And I can't help suspecting this third factor may be ruling: he either > > willfully or in subconscious flight "overlooks" rebuttals he cannot cope > > with.'" > > > Derek then comments: > > There is another possibility. I don't usually want to write long > detailed > > posts. So I focus on what seem to me to be key points - or points of > > particular interest. > > > But, in "there-you-go-again" fashion, Derek ignores these lines in the > posting he was responding to: > > > > > > One of Derek's regularly-displayed weaknesses is that he apparently > reads > > > postings solely to find what he disagrees with. I don't recall ever > > > finding him > > > saying someone has made a worthy point that he never thought of. A > > > corollary > > > weakness in him is that he regularly ignores those elements in a > > > counter-arguing > > > posting that he evidently cannot rebut. > > > It may be true that Derek prefers to "focus on what seem to me to be key > points - or points of particular interest." > > But the precise point I was making was that Derek never prefers to focus > something he has learned, or something he cannot rebut. Why not? I > continue to > maintain that either he doesn't grasp such things, or he forgets them, or > he > suppresses them. I don't say these things to be mean. I say them to help > expose > to him why listers find him such an unsatisfactory interlocutor. I myself > find > him a great training partner. Coping with his hard questions and > persistent > evasiveness is mentally salubrious. > > > > > > "In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he > > > learns > > > most." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ************** > Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family > favorites at AOL Food. > > (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
