Ian: > Nuff said - chat anytime Nick. > Being misunderstood (even unintelligible) is the story of my life ;-) > I don't go out of my way "to be unintelligible" - but I do > deliberately avoid falling into all the usual expected patterns if > argumentation - a difficulty I create, I really do appreciate. (The > criticisms I react to are the ad hominem suggestions that I am > wilfully unitelligible, inconsistent or lacking integrity in my words > an actions ... I am happy to be disagreed with anytime.) > I happen to think our real mission is to evolve a better language for > "MoQ living" rather than a language for winning philosophical > arguments or satisfying examiners and peer reviewers in existing > academic institutions - though obviously I can see the pragnmatic > value in these latter games. > Cynics (in the Diogenes / Kynic sense) I have no problem with. The > problem is - by defintion - these have to be exceptions to the > received norms - we can't all be individuals in this sense - I feel a > "Life of Brian" quote coming on..... > Last blogged about Kynics here. > http://www.psybertron.org/?p=2165
Nick: My problem, meaning, what I do and is a problem is I'm really "shouting" at the words people type. I'm not so much so "shouting" at them, though I get cross at times when the words seem to be the person or at least I merge the words/concepts the person is conveying to be a demonstration of that person. I think it's difficult for people when I approach it this way (but everybody does it to some extent). I look at what they type and I'm arguing about what they are typing, their concepts, but I do point out it is "their words/concepts". It gets into a funny fickle problem in computer internet life. In person it's a lot easier to point to people what I mean cause the conversation flows better instead of having to ad nauseum repeat myself to eight different people at once over and over again. It's gets unfortunately wacky. Nick > > Regards > Ian > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM, blue-jay maple<[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > Nick: > >> > Ian, are you saying here you prefer me to be Ad Hominem? Ok, > >> so my sincere > >> > personal opinion is a "no win game". Ian, you're one opposite person. > > > > Ian: > >> No I am saying exactly the opposite. It is the only rule worth > >> "enforcing" - even by self discipline - in my opinion (and > >> incidentally its the ony rule ever enforced by Horse). > > > > Nick: > > Oh, on the internet the only rule "worth enforcing". Ian I would > > like to chat > > with you before we get into anything too much. :-) I have a difficult time > > understanding you sometimes. I'm sorry it's my fault. > > > > Ian: > >> The aggression you expressed to me presonally (and subsequent olive > >> branch) is water of a duck's back ... I can move on. I was pointing > >> out it was a no-win game (for you) in the sense that even when you do > >> apparently sincerely express inter-personal views (even positive > >> ones), others (gav, MK so far) object. > > > > Nick: > > gav didn't object, he misunderstood. M K, needs love and feels left out. I > > can't help that. I never said anything bad to M K anyways. He had to have > > been joking. > > What about my feelings Ian? I've had to buck it up to > > people not even trying for the most part. People not understanding the > > way I do an intellectual exercise, and people not trying for the most part > > to understand how I'm approaching this. Ron did an excellent job in going > > through the intellectual exercise with me, but Ron has always had a big > > heart when it comes to dealing with other people. I'm not trying to > > downplay > > the approach of others (except I noted in this olive branch post), but I > > come > > into this forum and right away for my position I get attacked without a > > soft, > > sincere effort to understand what I'm saying. I called people criminals and > > murderers, but that was boundary setting of the intellectual discourse. It > > is pointing out where the lines are in our actions. As I've said > > we need not get > > into that anymore. I came into this forum with a clear > > perspective of law, and > > I got responses that were very dangerous in my perspective. But who cares > > what I experienced... I'll move on. > > > > Ian: > >> My objection to the ad hominem - to anyone - is the distracting > >> irrelevant unproductive "noise" it generates. As I must have said a > >> hundred times - life's too short. > > > > Nick: > > I can respect that. I really can't argue against that. We can turn this > > into a philosophical discussion: > > Did you ever hear of the Zen monks hitting their students with > > a stick while > > they zazen? Have you ever heard of the cynics from ancient greece? > > > > Nick > > > > > > -- > > Be Yourself @ mail.com! > > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses > > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > Archives: > > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > -- Be Yourself @ mail.com! Choose From 200+ Email Addresses Get a Free Account at www.mail.com Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
