I wonder how "reality" can have a POV? Is reality an entity
to have a POV?
I wonder how someone can "kill" the truth? Robin accuses
Curtis of killing the truth.
> --- "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > You are working away here, Curtis, in your customary
> > fashion: from within the animus you have to the
> > metaphysical principle which has enabled me to suggest a
> > possibility of human accountability that infuriates you
> > and inflames your pride. And you attack me without any
> > willingness to even consider a single thread of
> > plausibility or meaningfulness in what I have said. This
> > is a dead giveaway to your ultimate and hidden
> > metaphysical purpose: Kill the truth which you find
> > abhorrent and inconvenient to your way of living your
> > life.
> >
> > <snip>
> > You are perfectly nonresponsive to what I have just
> > said, Curtis. Can you never deal with the truth except
> > aslant, Curtis? You are not serious here, Curtis,
> > surely. You have become a devotee of Lawrence Krauss,
> > who has come under withering attack not just from
> > philosophers, but from fellow physicists (some of whom
> > are trained in philosophy, as Krauss is not) for his *A
> > Universe from Nothing*. This is a very stupid thing to
> > do, Curtis, trying to make FFL readers believe there is
> > a consensus about what nothingness is and what
> > nothingness isn't, and that the only persons who
> > disagree with you are benighted and antediluvian.
> >
> > <snip>
> > But no, Curtis doesn't do this. If he has nothing to say
> > by way of retort, he just changes the topic, or
> > generalizes it out of all meaning and pertinence to what
> > was being discussed. You kill the reality, the momentum,
> > the context within which truth wishes to create the
> > necessary tension so an issue can be seen from various
> > points of view, Curtis. Once again you lead the reader
> > astray by simply turning away from what is being
> > said--this, after your vociferous protestations about my
> > ignorance, dishonesty, ad hominem arguments. Suddenly
> > just passive and deliberately irrelevant.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Again, you will never face a question or challenge
> > directly, Curtis. You will never let a question strike
> > against your consciousness. If you smell trouble, you
> > walk away, as you have right here. You have not begun to
> > address what I have said here. That is always revealing,
> > isn't it, Curtis? I cannot understand, in all the
> > quarrels you have had with various posters here on FFL,
> > why everyone who is normal, intelligent, and reasonable
> > can't see that you are a moral and intellectual--and
> > metaphysical--cheat, Curtis. > Why would I set myself up
> > for a takedown like this with you, Curtis? No, you are
> > consciously and compulsively misrepresenting me.
> >
> > <snip>
> > You would be asked to go to your room and STFU if you
> > answered like this at the dining room table, Curtis.
> > This is stupid, obstinate, and painfully obstructionist.
> >
> > <snip>
> > I am shocked that so many persons on FFL are intimidated
> > by your way of arguing that you just shut them up. You
> > would not have lasted around where I grew up, Curtis.
> > You would have been censured, and you would have felt
> > the ignominy of your false posturing. This is ruled out
> > of order, Curtis, for you to rule my question to you out
> > of order.
> >
> > <snip>
> > Go to your room, Curtis. WTF? This is getting strange. I
> > am surprised that those who love you have not told you
> > to just shut up. You should just shut up, Curtis. You
> > have nothing to say to what I have said here. You are
> > tediously the same, Curtis: You will never know what
> > it is like to find your ideas, your consciousness,
> > altered by some idea which is opposed to your sacred
> > beliefs, the beliefs which are tantamount to the
> > survival of your first person ontology.
> >
> > <snip>
> > You are a primitive kind of thinker, Curtis--you do not
> > go near the elegance and musicality and loveliness of
> > what it really means to think about an idea. Too bad.
> >You are missing out on one of the great privileges of
> > being a human being. You should be Fidel's right-hand
> > man. You would do well reinforcing his socialist utopia
> > there in Cuba.
> >
> > <snip>
> > You are terrified of bumping up against reality such
> > that reality might invade your consciousness, alter your
> > beliefs, shape you, influence you in any way. I see this
> > most vividly and disappointingly, and shockingly, in
> > your heated exchanges with other posters here on this
> > forum, Curtis. You don't fight fair--but you know this.
> >
> > <snip>
> > No, Curtis, I am just tracking what the inner person
> > Curtis is doing when he pretends to be arguing honestly
> > and sincerely--which you never are, Curtis. Not these
> > days, anyhow. Not in hand-to-hand fighting. There you
> > only fight dirty. And I have seen this.
> >
> > <snip>
> > What an outrageous form of deceitfulness this is,
> > Curtis. I intend to be true to the entirety of our
> > personal past together and all that we have argued about
> > on FFL.
> >
> > <snip>
> > But this you have NOT done, Curtis. You have just
> > attacked me and not once attempted to discern whether
> > what I have to say has any merit. I have not said
> > anything in this post which represents something
> > radically different from what I have been saying on FFL
> > for these 16 months. Your project is an utter and
> > disgraceful farce, Curtis. You don't believe you have
> > taken Robin on in the least. You have just created a
> > kind of illusion of having done so; you never even set
> > out to do this, Curtis. You set out to muddy the waters
> > and somehow throw everything into some different key
> > where confusion would rule
> >
> > <snip>
> > Your so-called "bullying" amounts to the attempt to
> > concuss the other person with the force of your
> > character aggression, Curtis, and to knock them out of
> > context that exists when the argument begins.
> >
> > <snip>
> > There are no points to address, dear Curtis. None.
> > Remember: no art can come from your post. I can act out
> > my post--mute. Don't demand, command, order, bully,
> > Curtis: you are a fake. There must be others in the
> > world who know this about you. But if they don't, I hope
> > they do now.
> > <snip>
> >
> >
--- "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote:
>
> As a professional writer Barry may be more aware than you are of programs
> that automatically count the words on a page. For me it would involve
> cutting and pasting them into a Word Doc which counts them, but Barry may not
> even need to do that depending on how he reads FFL.
>
> I would love for anyone to rephrase Robin's thoery to show that they
> understood it better than I have. Perhaps someone can offer answers to my
> objections that don't include an assumption about my personal motivation and
> flaws, but actually sticks to the points themselves.
>
> Are you up for that Ann? Did you understand Robin's points well enough to
> express it more concisely? Do you believe that someone can reliably express
> "reality's POV"?
>
>
>
> >
> > --- turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A new world's record.
> > >
> > > Needing 50,527 words just to say "I'm insane."
> > >
> > > Impressive.
> >
> --- awoelflebater <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > You counted them all. If you didn't read them you sure know how to miss the
> > boat. Barry thinks (giving him the benefit of the doubt), "Let's see, I'll
> > count the words, not read them and then use 14 ill-chosen words of my own
> > to show how idiotic I really am." Go pick up some dog poop, fish a cat out
> > of the canal or hire another hooker, these activities are apparently much
> > more worthwhile in your addled world. You don't have to read Robin's posts
> > Barry and I am sure you did not so how could you possibly, even remotely,
> > say one valid thing about it? You couldn't and you didn't. Just because
> > "War and Peace" was a long book does it make Tolstoy insane?
> > >
> >
>
