Krimel, Soft spot for the underdog? Between you and Dave Thomas, it is Mr. Pirsig who seems the underdog, and I gladly whip the both of you if you were before me.
Marsha On Aug 21, 2010, at 2:03 PM, Krimel wrote: > Krimel said: > I have never understood metaphysics to be an excuse for avoiding ideas. > > dmb says: > I know. What you've always understood is snarkiness as an excuse for > avoiding metaphysical ideas. I don't know where you got the impression that > rudeness could serve as a substitute for making an intelligent point but you > have definitely been misled. > > [Krimel] > Coming from someone who has boasted about the number of Moqers of a > Christian persuasion whom you have personally chased away from this forum; > this is ironic indeed. Your rudeness and snarkiness on this forum are the > stuff of legend. Do you seriously expect to garner sympathy by whining that > someone has done unto you what you have consistently done unto others? > > What you are taking as "snarkiness" and rudeness might also be interpreted > at frustration at your lack of engagement with the issues raised. In fact I > think you would be hard pressed to find an example of one of my posts that > relied exclusively on the snarky. Take the example cited by Platt as reason > for having me censured: > > "Rather than engage the issues raised he slaps on the label SOM and "Presto" > no need to read, no need to engage the issue, time to just sit back and feel > self-righteous." > > That rude comment was preceded by another: > > "It is hard to see how anyone interested in the idea of consciousness could > ignore or dismiss Chalmers but for dmb it's not a problem." > > The snarkiness is clearly a mark of frustration at this tactic of yours. The > rudeness is an admittedly bad rhetorical move aimed at getting you to stop > it. > > Not that the rudeness had the intended effect but now after reading a wiki > you think Chalmers "might" be interesting. The point is that your first > inclination is to ignore what the person says based on your assumptions > about their assumptions. Then you come back after a few days or months or > even years and cite the very things you previously denounced. After years of > this kind of twisting and evasion, snarkiness comes naturally. > > It isn't just your lack of breath and depth that is offensive; it is the > pride you take in being narrow and shallow. > > [dmb] > Nobody is buying it, Krimel. > > [Krimel] > I might have agreed with you on this at various times but now I am not so > sure. Even Marsha who has a contrarian soft spot for the underdog hasn't > been moved by your whining. Dave Thomas has been voicing many of the same > issues I have in slightly less snarky terms. Engage those issues. I'd love > to see it. I'll happily stay out if you find my comment make you > uncomfortable. > > [dmb] > And so here is the only response you deserve. > > Yawn. > > [Krimel] > At last something different. I thank you for that. > > > > 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/md/archives.html ___ 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/md/archives.html
