Test Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 21, 2009, at 2:25 PM, "Bob Calco" <[email protected]> wrote: >> So long as you don't forget that you should not take the "way" I say >> things seriously but that many a time the underlying message is >> deadly >> serious. > > Funny, you and he want slack for *how* you express your very serious > opinions, but extend none of that slack to others, like Mike or me. > >> Trouble is us people tend to only believe what WE came up >> with, > > I agree! > >> so if I get serious and explain every issue and it's ramification it >> will be deadly boring and you'll probably come up with a counter for >> every one of them (logic is a whore). > > Well this is convenient, and disingenuous, since you're always > harping on > the rest of us to defend everything logically. > > I agree logic is a Whore. The best we can ask of logic is to help > identify > internal inconsistency between our assumptions, our premises, our > predicates > and our conclusions. First truths are not proven, or disproven, by > mere > logic. They require experiential evidence to validate, which is a > Liar as > often as Logic is a Whore. Metaphysics, alas, is a Bitch. > > I actually enjoy learning about other people's logical conundrums and > experiential quandries, as much as I enjoy exposing my own, but if > someone > wants to get into a pissing contest with me in terms of research, > logical > explication and consistency, I think I've demonstrated amply that I > can do > more than go toe to toe. > > You guys just can't admit it, or handle it, so you reduce the > conversations > to ad hominems. > >> So I'd rather shake you with an >> irony or an outrageous retort in order to see if you get to think >> something new on your own. >> I should admit my success is as much as with the other method...... >> but >> I get more fun :-P > > Actually I know you're capable of the other method and wish you'd > try it out > more often. You give up too easy on yourself---ergo you do the same to > others. > >>> I tried taking his arguments seriously, and I seriously extended my >> own >>> points and counter-points on many occasions, but he simply doesn't >> want to >>> confront information that takes him out of his comfort zone without >> making >>> it about the other person's mental health, or some kind of group- >> think >>> referendum. >>> >> Why shouldn't he, you are nuts....certified! And the whole group >> thinks >> so..... except the other nut cases as Mike, Pete, etc. Look at you, >> if >> that kind of people were agreeing with me and praising me they I'd >> know >> it's time for a great introspection and to examine everything in my >> image of the world. >> > > Same could be said of the cadre of kooks you hang with. > > Actually I like a lot of folks on this list, not just Mike and Pete, > and > more than Mike and Pete have argued in my favor. Ken and Nick and even > Vince, when he agrees with me, isn't ashamed to say so. > > I really liked, and got along well with, Kristyne, though we often > disagreed. You'll see I never once got on any kind of a personal > level of > animosity with her. I try to mirror the folks I'm engaging, whether > they > agree with me or not. > > I'm by no means perfect at this but I enjoy the banter as much as the > serious stuff. Yea, even with Geoff and you. I have probably engaged > you two > more than anybody in recent weeks---yet I get lumped with Mike and > Pete, > both of whom have openly disagreed with me. > > So I'd get my facts right if I were you about all this unanimity of > opinion > or clear lines of demarcation you and Geoff are imagining. > >>> This latest "observation" about how everyone agrees with his >> definition of >>> conspiracy theorist and his ham-fisted way of attempting once again >> to >>> attach that label to me >> And he is absolutely right. > > Blah blah blah. > >> >>> after I effectively demolished his argument >>> point-by-point in a separate thread, and despite the fact that this >> post >>> itself has nothing whatever to do with conspiracies, proves how un- >> seriously >>> he's taking any debate. >>> >> Nah! You bored him to death, as you did every one of us. > > Right. Sure. > > - Bob > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ 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/profox/[email protected] ** 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.
