p.s. I also thought that your conflating a second-hand opinion concerning young James's debilitating depression and feeling of helplessness with a mature discourse on freewill versus determinism was ridiculous.
On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:41 PM, MarshaV wrote: > > > > Dmb, > > Since I did the reposting,,, > > You left off your last statement the "You freakin weasel" part., which was > way out of proportion. Now your neglecting to include the last statement is > even more ironic, but not surprising. Here's the entire quote: > > > ---------- > > On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:22 PM, david buchanan wrote: > > dmb says: > James and I are imagining an omniscient super-being? Huh? > > I don't expect all that much from you, Steve, but I didn't think you'd stoop > so low. My main argument has been that freedom and constraint are both real > because both are known in experience. Super-beings, whatever that's supposed > to mean, don't have anything to do with it. I would accuse you of > misconstruing my position but that would be too generous. You're just making > stuff up, probably to avoid the burden of addressing the actual argument. You > freakin weasel. > > ---------- > > > On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:29 PM, david buchanan wrote: > >> >> dmb says: >> Hey Steve, here is one example wherein I complained about your tactics >> precisely because they spoiled any chance of having a real conversation. I >> accused you of inventing the omniscient super-being, the one that supposedly >> keeps me and James awake at night. (James hasn't had any concerns for over a >> hundred years, of course.) If you make stuff up instead of disagreeing with >> the things I actually said, then isn't fair to say your tactics have spoiled >> the conversation? I think it's more than fair. >> As you can probably see, I'm only pressing this point again because Marsha >> re-posted these earlier complaints. How you get irony out of this is a >> mystery to me because I think it clearly shows that my complaints are valid >> and that your tactics are bogus. Your comments can only be justified if you >> have a legitimate reason to believe that I was pressing an omniscient >> super-being. I'm sure you have no evidence of that because there isn't any >> evidence of that. And so it's more than fair to say you're making stuff up >> and then attributing it to me. And since that's the case, who is the >> offended party? >> It's like you want me to apologize for saying "ouch" too loudly when you >> stepped on my foot. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:22 PM, david buchanan wrote: >>>> >>>> Steve said to Matt: >>>> Then there is the issue of _pre_determination which I think is only a >>>> concern if you imagine an omniscient super-being, but it still manages to >>>> keep James and dmb awake at night. >>>> >>>> >>>> dmb says: >>>> James and I are imagining an omniscient super-being? Huh? >>>> >>>> I don't expect all that much from you, Steve, but I didn't think you'd >>>> stoop so low. My main argument has been that freedom and constraint are >>>> both real because both are known in experience. Super-beings, whatever >>>> that's supposed to mean, don't have anything to do with it. I would accuse >>>> you of misconstruing my position but that would be too generous. You're >>>> just making stuff up, probably to avoid the burden of addressing the >>>> actual argument. > > > > > > > > ___ > > > 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
