Thanks to Miller. He recognizes my love of vivid humor. And Michael can be pretty funny in his facility with puns. After all, philosophy can be so morbid, so dark in its hooded gravitas, so mumble-mumble. It begs for clown's shoes now and then. And slapstick truth. My antagonism aimed at Miller, and all the others, is actually an eruption of old urban habits, those one learns among the tougher, more inventive kids in gritty city neighborhoods, who readily fight among themselves to prove allegiance to a mutual wariness of the outside authority. Miller is a city guy. He understands the fight. I just wish he'd get past the 19C junk he likes the most.
WC --- On Sat, 10/25/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: William's ad hominems > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, October 25, 2008, 8:13 AM > I have to admit -- that I found this list of ad hominems a > real hoot -- and > broke out laughing time and time again. > > William draws these short phrases with the same strength, > buoyancy, and > tension as he draws those heavy black lines that snake > across his large > canvases. > > So now -- I suppose I should go back through the archives > and find all the > choice words he's had to say about me. As I recall, > he's recommended me for > psychiatric care many, many times - but I'm afraid that > I do have some better > ways to spend my time. > > Since so much (perhaps all) of aesthetics is based on > personal authority -- > it's no big surprise that this authority gets defended > by personal insult -- > it comes with the territory -- and I appreciate that at > least William can > occasionally deliver his with some humor and style. > > "those circus people who pound nails up their > noses" -- what a hoot! -- how > did I ever miss that one the first time around ? > > > **************** > > > > > > > > Cheerskep drives home his point again.....like those circus > people who pound > nails up their noses. > > very narrow, literalist and mechanical > > don't worry, I won't paraphrase you. I prefer > good logic. > > Cheerskep's obsession > > annoying smug assumptions > > Cheerskep claims to be the father philosopher > > he lurks like a street mugger eager to pounce on any > strolling IS that h > appens by. > > Cheerskep, for all his own achievements, is far, far down > the hill from > Kuspit > > If he were to become dictator he's insist on solipsism > as a constitutional > ammendment. > > Cheerskep just can't stand being confronted by anyone > who wants to dig > intob& > > He is simply rigidly stuck to his idea and it's not > sufficiently > demonstrated. > > self serving > > The more Cheerskep toots a one note horn > > It does nothing for Cheerskep's argument to keep whap, > whap, whapping the > dead horse > > He's very testy about his assertive notions > > Spurious > > 19C cane-whacking outbursts > > Cheerskep does not allow a third party (like a jury) to > reveal whether or not > everyone, usually excepting himself, is philosophically, > logically, > linguistically muddled. > > maybe it's just that his comments are too long and > seem to stray from any clear outlook. > > Cheerskep, suddenly alert, happily wrings his hands. > > The two of them [Cheerskep and Michael Brady] are like the > motorcycle cops > hiding behind facing billboards and all too ready for those > reckless kids > speeding by in red sportscars. > > In Michael's case I suspect a Jesuit education > afflicts him; that's bad enough; in Cheerskep's I > think it's a lingering Harvard narcissism. > > One never fully recovers from Jesuit or Harvard education. > > I think you philosophers are lost in the wilderness. > > sexist and banal. > > Cheerskep's Bible sermon > > > _____________________________________________________________ > Need cash? Click to get a cash advance. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijlfa8NTMheW0V26MtE1O3JKe > 7988Oa1AbjuoqxVt7qMBRDV6/?count=1234567890
