I consider myself to a little intelligent but HUH? Jim Bob Calco wrote: >>>> This is getting silly..whatever happened to the noble art of >>>> cropping ? >>>> >> >>> Oh, that would take *effort* and require consideration of what >>> >> they >> >>> were sending out. >>> >> Wow, Ed, that was a cheap shot. I guess when you can't deal with >> arguments intellectually, you have to take whatever shots you can. >> Although I too appreciate concise postings. >> > > When Ed can't deal with somebody -- either because their modes of expression > are consistently contrary to his own, or (as in my case) because they refuse > to discuss issues strictly within his predefined discursive boundaries and > logical premises, all carefully crafted to make his "logical" conclusion the > inexorable conclusion -- then he ignores them. > > In other words, he can't stand discussing any issue when he doesn't get to > frame the debate and define every relevant term, and even the very criteria > of what is relevant to the debate. Translated: He won't engage in a > discussion with anybody who won't let him set himself up for rhetorical > success. > > Note, he seems to reserve this sad label of 'twit' for folks of some flavor > of conservative disposition---at least I cannot think of any of the libs or > atheists on the list who are also in his twit filter, though I could think > of a few who clearly qualify--at least if one agrees with my inclusion in > Ed's twit list. But I could be wrong about that, and hope I am. > > Instead, he reacts indirectly when other people of ostensibly "lower" > standards (i.e., those who have the tolerance and courage for real debate) > engage folks on his beloved 'twit' filter, and always with a snide > "us-vs.-them" generalization like the one above. > > On a positive note, he runs this list pretty openly, not to mention at his > own expense, so I guess we must forgive his being a petty jerk from time to > time. I used to get indignant about it, even offended, but it has become > over the years part of the overall charm of OT for me. The paradox of such a > closed-minded, self-righteous, intolerant person* hosting such a > free-wheeling forum for philosophical debate within, supposedly, a technical > mail list (rather than its own separate list as most people would suppose it > should be) is intriguing, and I generally like nearly everybody who > participates here. > > Most of us here, including Ed, are nothing if not entirely consistent and > predictable, and it's comforting on some primordial level to note such > constants in the universe, yea, even when we are occasionally not in our top > form. Actually that's when things are most interesting. > > - Bob > > * - At least in his OT persona, I view him as such--I admit I never met him > personally, and suspect he's a fine guy with whom to knock back a few adult > libations once you get to know him. But such people generally don't > blacklist others like Ed does, so it's an open question for me. > > >> -- >> Larry Miller >> >> > > >
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts --- multipart/alternative text/plain (text body -- kept) text/html --- _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/%(listmsgid)s ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
