After Chris's vehement blast about ad hominem, which was directly and intentionally aimed (I'm surprised it wasn't in all caps), he posts a reply to the gruffian reply saying........."Ad Hom's are for those who are incapable of formulating a real position, rebuttal, statement. They are a sign of weakness in intellect and understanding, above and beyond being uncivil and rude." <<CJ
This is far from reality as I think I of all people have spent more time and exerted more energy in trying to get to the meat of the Tinker "Idea", "Thing" etc. I had in the past few months put together a few real positions and still see that Tink insists on isulting others because they don't see/understand his "idea", whatever it is. Others have put forth less than complimentary issue regarding Tink's persistent regurgitation ad nauseum, of the "rule overrides right" mantra, as if it is some kinda of new idea instead of the cliche thinking that it is. Rule overrides right, wow, how profound, like no kidding, everyone knows that rule overrides right. So round and round it went and it's still spinning aimlessly. In the end it seemed as though my post, if read for the first time, was purely a ad hom attack but in retrospect anyone who has reviewed the entire episode will see that it was just a "had enough BS" attack. I've attacked others that have come in here and attacked my ME friends without just cause and heard little of it. I'm sure that I can revise my post to say it all differently but still mean the same, as Fran points out, the subversive/subliminal attack and I might just do that to set the record straight. While I do apologize for deviating from ME decorum I still stand by my post to the Tink. Revision; Tinker!! I'm picturing a evangelist purporting to have some secret knowledge that people can ascribe to. Something in the line of a "Jim Jones" or "Rev. Moon" style personae. I've asked for explanations and haven't received anything, the dialogue is going around in circles fast enough to cause a cyclone and it seems to lead on the new comers with smoke and mirrors amazement. I'm feeling like I'm at a carnival. It would be great to see you take this "Idea" of yours to first base. You have a bit of knowledge but it's a big secret! Your position is repetitive causal reductionism within a cyclic format. You have failed to make statement beyond affirmation of consequence and so we are dangling. When can we get past the cover of the book? If that is still ad hom I'm lost but for sure I've reached the end of formulating real positions and rebuttals to Tinks grandiose apparitions of world change and I'm sure there are plenty of others who are in alignment. I hope this clears it up. On Aug 8, 11:58 am, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > "...therefore it follows that I should attack the person > who is continually pushing the non-idea and exposing it as the > nonsense it is...." - SD > > Slip, there are other possibilities, no? :-) > > On Aug 8, 3:34 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've thought about the ad hom issue as Chris put it, attack the idea > > not the person, this I have to say is something that I have attempted > > dozens of times, problem being that there really isn't any idea, just > > a continuation of a daydream that Tinker want's to keep pushing > > around. As of yet I haven't seen anyone else latch on to this Tinker > > idea and run with it while building a formidable thread in the > > process. > > So for ad hom I would actually have to have a viable idea to attack, > > which I don't so therefore it follows that I should attack the person > > who is continually pushing the non-idea and exposing it as the > > nonsense it is. Unfortunately that didn't go well and has caused this > > big tink stink. Secondary to that is the fact that I will have to at > > this point totally ignore all such posts and posters. I still don't > > see anything worthwhile coming from the tink, a review of posts will > > show that disruption is the prevailing wind. > > > On Aug 8, 3:03 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 8 Aug., 00:50, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It seems to me that you are presenting the Idea that it is OK for one > > > > who is intellectually superior to ad hominem subversively when they > > > > cannot refute the ideas of the one they would be attacking with the > > > > intellectual superiority. > > > > 1.) The idea of intellectual superiority vs. inferiority sees to be an > > > issue for you, Tinker. What is your understanding of the term > > > "intellectual superiority"? > > > > 2.) "... to ad hominen ... when they cannot refute ... " It doesn't > > > have to be an "either/or" thing, it can also be an "and/as well as"!- > > > Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
