On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:45 AM, gruff <[email protected]> wrote: > "... On Aug 18, 8:19 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > wrote: ..." > > > Gruff, it seems like there's a bit of pot and kettle going on here. You > have > > been denigrating and belittling all through this thread, and I certainly > > don't see any sense of humility or concern from you. In fact, you most > > definitely appear to think your position and intelligence are superior. > > I responded in kind. I have been attacked, belittled and denigrated > by a specific poster which calls for a like response. In politics > when attacked it is fallacy to let it lie. It must be responded to > else it grows and festers like an unattended wound. >
Disagreeing with your idea is not attacking you. You seem to think that it is. Pointing out that you are making personal, assumptive statements about people, as opposed to criticizing ideas, is not attacking you. Again, you seem to think that it is. Can you help me spot the places where you were personally attacked? > > I'm sorry you think I appear to think myself superior but nothing is > further from the truth. If you take the time and unbiased perspective > to read my posts I am sure you will see that they are each conditioned > and acknowledged by the limits of my own knowledge and wisdom. I > think most of my posts prove to be based in reality and logic and not > given to flights of ego or fantasy. > I agree; most of your posts do prove to be based in reality and logic...except for the ones where you make absolutist statements of another person's intentions, or falsehoods. In those cases, such as seen in this thread, there certainly does appear to be some flights of both ego and fantasy...in that you cannot possibly know the true intentions of someone's heart, much as you might think so. If you kept your attacks focused on the idea, instead of the person, you'd never be in the center of this type of disparity. > But a number of people here on ME seem to be present only to gratify > their own egos and I rebel against that. It is the function of this forum to explore ideas, and one typically is biased towards one's own ideas, and would like to see them gratified. This is a function of philosophical conversation. Rebel all you want, but many of your posts come across exactly the same way. > I am here to explore ideas > and when I run across someone who presents as you have accused me > then, yes, I rise up and rebel and attempt to expose that individual > as the charlatan and a fraud I believe them to be. Most times my > assessment is supported by others. > I'm not concerned with your assessment of someone else's intentions, and argumentum ad populum is beneath you. It is neither your responsibility, nor acceptable in this venue, for you to try and play honor police, especially given the unmitigated gall of your assumptiveness. Who are you to claim to know the intentions of a stranger, participating in a conversation in an online forum? Are you God? I might be led to believe so, given the avowed veracity of your knowledge of the internal workings of others. > > However, there seems to be more of the latter than of rational > discourse which, if continued, will lead to my leaving the group once > more. In fact, I will even leave it to a vote. Those who wish me > gone, let them speak and it will be so. This sort of plea for democratic intervention reeks of histrionics, and is also beneath you. I haven't heard anyone wish you gone. All I want is for you to play by the same rules of courtesy towards people, and not resort to ad hominem. If you can't, there won't be a vote about it, it will be a moderator action. Given the quality you can and often do bring to a conversation, I hope you can.
