At least I am " in alignment " with how you see Tink's behaviour and communication ( in ) abilities, Slip ! I've had my share of persplexion with his ' breaking news ' pronouncements.
On Aug 9, 2:11 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
