On Nov 20, 2004, at 1:50 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
I'm not *that* new. I recognized, as should you, that this last post was JDG's attempt to draw out Dr. Brin, so he could once again engage him in acrimony.
Hmmm, its interesting that you are so sure about your viewpoints...How do
you know what is in JDG's head. Did he tell you that is what he was
attempting? Have you discussed his motivation with him offlist?
Well, since his behavior in this vein has been consistent up to this point, I'd like to know why you imagine he'd behave *differently* this time.
My reading of your posts is that you often write as though your quick assessement is far superior to scholarship on the part of others.
No; however, you seem to assume I've done no scholarship of my own. IOW, perhaps my assessments aren't so "quick" as you seem to think they are.
For
example, as far as I can tell, you wrote as though Gautam's memory of a
class he took at Harvard is the equal of your gut feel. If that is not
what you intended, then I'd be happy to explain to you why I obtained that
understanding from what I wrote, and have you show me why your intent was
not to give that impression.
Your assessment is initially unfair, because there is no way to know, when Gautam is posting, when he is using his "memory of a class he took at Harvard". He doesn't cite references and yet no one seems to have trouble accepting his statements; yet if I happen to issue an opinion of my own without citing references of my own, suddenly it's double-standard city.
Furthermore there *have* been times when his recall has been proved erroneous. Therefore there is no reason why I should accept your (or anyone's) premise that "memory" is superior *or* inferior to "gut".
Finally, I never declared an assertion of fact in the exchange you're thinking of. I said "I bet" -- which is quite a long way off from "I know" -- yet for some reason it was taken as being a literal declaration of fact that I could substantiate.
I'd like you to explain that to me.
He's used the technique before. Goading, prodding, and then when told to stuff it, crying foul.
OK, so people you agree with shouldn't be questioned, while it is perfectly
acceptable to insult those you differ with....as you insulted me.
Where did I insult you?
The only
logical reason for this is if you had an intuition that was far superior to
the scholarship of others. To be blunt, I see no evidence of that.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion.
What I mean by the foregoing is that when I highlight the behavior pattern of an individual, and then make a prediction of how that person will behave *next* time, I'm unsure how *you* make the lateral leap to my holding an intuition that is superior to others' scholarship.
What scholarship is involved here, precisely, that I am supposed to be sidestepping? Have you conducted an in-depth survey of JDG's behavior on this list that I'm unaware of?
I wasn't fooled by the polite tone any more than a sheep's hide would trick me into disbelieving the wolf's growl. Pray tell me why you fell for it.
Because I don't think I know the truth about other people a priori. I try
to glean what I can from what I read. That is another way you and I appear
to differ. :-)
Well, I tend to go by what I see. And when I see cycles of goading, prodding, and then complaining about results by someone, and then see evidence of that cycle commencing once more, I tend to assume it's going to proceed as has happened before. It's just pattern recognition, that's all.
Its interesting that you made a broad swipe, insulting 90%+ of Americans,
including JDG and myself, and then cry foul when JDG says "Oh no".
Where, precisely, did I do such a thing?
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
