Stunning!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
The most partisan leftist I know thinks the most partisan personality in the leftist media is smart, honest and not at all way off in left field.
Anyone with a clue could see she is very smart just from watching her program. For those without a clue, it may help to know that she was a Rhodes Scholar and has a Doctorate from Oxford. As for honest...again, anyone with a clue can see it from watching her. As for "not at all way off in left field", you just made that up; I said nothing about where she fits on the political spectrum. Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents, but that is your failure, not hers.
BoneSoft wrote:
There's really no need for you to post anymore, I already know what you're going to say.
I don't post in order to convince you of anything; I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish, (ii) make posting rubbish less enjoyable.
John Carson
OK, fair enough. Smart doesn't guarantee right. But I might argue that true honesty would by necessity negate a fair amount of partisanship. As for left field, yes I added that to the list since I see it as one of her lesser worst qualities. Some of her other crappy qualities, like smug arrogance, you share with her. That's probably why you think so highly of her.
John Carson wrote:
Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents
Not at all. If she actually had talents of persuasion, I could appreciate what she does. However, she, like you, have absolutely no ability whatsoever to appeal to the other side. At least, we have no evidence to suggest that either of you have ever tried. Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
John Carson wrote:
I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot. That's just brilliant not. :rolleyes: So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board. How very Ilion of you. :thumbsup:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
OK, fair enough. Smart doesn't guarantee right. But I might argue that true honesty would by necessity negate a fair amount of partisanship. As for left field, yes I added that to the list since I see it as one of her lesser worst qualities. Some of her other crappy qualities, like smug arrogance, you share with her. That's probably why you think so highly of her.
John Carson wrote:
Clearly, she is one of the most left wing people on television. That means that you are incapable of appreciating her talents
Not at all. If she actually had talents of persuasion, I could appreciate what she does. However, she, like you, have absolutely no ability whatsoever to appeal to the other side. At least, we have no evidence to suggest that either of you have ever tried. Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
John Carson wrote:
I post to (i) help bystanders see that you are talking rubbish
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot. That's just brilliant not. :rolleyes: So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board. How very Ilion of you. :thumbsup:
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
It is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him. Maddow is sweetness itself compared to O'Reilly. Maddow, for example, has a long history of generally amicable debates with Pat Buchanan.
BoneSoft wrote:
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot.
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation.
BoneSoft wrote:
So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board.
Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board. It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
John Carson
-
Pot, I'd like you to meet kettle, dutch oven and wok. :rolleyes: Go ahead there Timmy, what's my pattern? The only thing you've noticed is that you never agree with me. But go ahead and see if you can make something up.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
Go ahead there Timmy, what's my pattern?
Well, Bonehead, you like to come off oh so impartial and above it all but message after message you do the same right wing talk radio party line. You're a bit smoother than Gaskey but not enough to fool anyone.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
BoneSoft wrote:
Her purpose seems to be to insult those she disagrees with as much as humanly possible, with maybe a little side project to fan the flames of those who hold her exact perspective. Maybe that's why Oreilly's ratings completely dwarf hers. If you want to appeal to others you kind of have to speak to them, or at least not constantly insult them.
It is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him. Maddow is sweetness itself compared to O'Reilly. Maddow, for example, has a long history of generally amicable debates with Pat Buchanan.
BoneSoft wrote:
So you engage in conversation so you can speak to phantoms that might be within ear shot.
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation.
BoneSoft wrote:
So, you're entire purpose for entering discussions is predicated on the assumption that everything you post is superior in content and honesty to everybody else on the board.
Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board. It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
t is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him.
He isn't, constantly. Most of the time, but not constantly. But fine, you think she's the best thing since sliced bread, so be it.
John Carson wrote:
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation. Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board.
Sounds like a thinly veiled excuse to be an insulting asswipe to people. Do you normally talk directly to people adjacent to people you are actually trying to communicate with? Do you call the waiter over and then tell your wife in a loud belligerent voice what you want to order? I would only think to do that when I just wanted to be a loud belligerent ass to my wife. But, whatever works for you. :rolleyes: OK, just so I got it, you berate people for posting things you don't like in the hopes that people not directly engaged in the discussion might benefit from it. Seems to me that constructive discussion with THE PERSON ACTUALLY IN THE DISCUSSION would be much more efficient.
John Carson wrote:
It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
No it is not. I interject my opinions (which I recognize are only opinions) for two simultaneous reasons. 1) In case others find my perspective interesting or it helps them articulate their own points, and 2) to get feedback on my opinions for clues as to what I may need to put more thought or research into. But then again, my interest in discussion is to learn, gain perspective and help others better understand my perspectives (otherwise known as constructive argument). But I now understand. When you reply to somebody, you're actually addressing everybody else in the forum, not the person you reply to. Being such a unorthodox approach to discussion, (some might say bass-ackwards) you could save yourself and everybody else on earth a whole lot of grief if you would just announce that before starting in with
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Go ahead there Timmy, what's my pattern?
Well, Bonehead, you like to come off oh so impartial and above it all but message after message you do the same right wing talk radio party line. You're a bit smoother than Gaskey but not enough to fool anyone.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!The fact that you haven't observed me making a stand anywhere other than on the right doesn't mean anything. Just as the fact that I've never seen you argue anything original or less than far left doesn't mean anything. If all you've seen are a few hairs, all you can really deduce is that it's a mammal. "Umm, you're on the right" isn't a pattern. Try again. I don't try to be impartial, I try to be considerate and open minded to other opinions, instead of attacking anything that doesn't fit my little world. I try to avoid insulting people and throwing names around. So sue me. Just because you lack couth doesn't mean I'm self righteous. The approach taught at the John Carson school of argument doesn't do anybody any good, I'd stop auditioning for a scholarship if I were you.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
John Carson wrote:
t is just hillarious that you think O'Reilly doesn't constantly insult the people who disagree with him.
He isn't, constantly. Most of the time, but not constantly. But fine, you think she's the best thing since sliced bread, so be it.
John Carson wrote:
Newsflash. This is a public forum, not a private conversation. Now you are just making up stuff again. What I said was that I reply to you so that other people reading the thread will see that you are talking nonsense. There is no implication in this that I consider myself or what I post superior to everyone or everything (respectively) on this board.
Sounds like a thinly veiled excuse to be an insulting asswipe to people. Do you normally talk directly to people adjacent to people you are actually trying to communicate with? Do you call the waiter over and then tell your wife in a loud belligerent voice what you want to order? I would only think to do that when I just wanted to be a loud belligerent ass to my wife. But, whatever works for you. :rolleyes: OK, just so I got it, you berate people for posting things you don't like in the hopes that people not directly engaged in the discussion might benefit from it. Seems to me that constructive discussion with THE PERSON ACTUALLY IN THE DISCUSSION would be much more efficient.
John Carson wrote:
It is the case that when I disagree with someone, I think I am right. If it didn't think I was right, I would change my opinion to the one I did think was right. Isn't that what you do?
No it is not. I interject my opinions (which I recognize are only opinions) for two simultaneous reasons. 1) In case others find my perspective interesting or it helps them articulate their own points, and 2) to get feedback on my opinions for clues as to what I may need to put more thought or research into. But then again, my interest in discussion is to learn, gain perspective and help others better understand my perspectives (otherwise known as constructive argument). But I now understand. When you reply to somebody, you're actually addressing everybody else in the forum, not the person you reply to. Being such a unorthodox approach to discussion, (some might say bass-ackwards) you could save yourself and everybody else on earth a whole lot of grief if you would just announce that before starting in with
BoneSoft wrote:
OK, just so I got it, you berate people for posting things you don't like in the hopes that people not directly engaged in the discussion might benefit from it.
When a Republican and Democrat debate on a news program, is the primary intent of each to convince the other of his or her point of view? No? Same principle here. It isn't difficult.
BoneSoft wrote:
No it is not.
So at the time you express an opinion, you don't think that opinion is right? So are you deliberately lying? Why are you saying things that you don't believe are correct?
BoneSoft wrote:
But I now understand. When you reply to somebody, you're actually addressing everybody else in the forum, not the person you reply to.
Yes.
John Carson
-
BoneSoft wrote:
OK, just so I got it, you berate people for posting things you don't like in the hopes that people not directly engaged in the discussion might benefit from it.
When a Republican and Democrat debate on a news program, is the primary intent of each to convince the other of his or her point of view? No? Same principle here. It isn't difficult.
BoneSoft wrote:
No it is not.
So at the time you express an opinion, you don't think that opinion is right? So are you deliberately lying? Why are you saying things that you don't believe are correct?
BoneSoft wrote:
But I now understand. When you reply to somebody, you're actually addressing everybody else in the forum, not the person you reply to.
Yes.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
When a Republican and Democrat debate on a news program, is the primary intent of each to convince the other of his or her point of view? No? Same principle here. It isn't difficult.
You're joking right? :wtf: Thread 2605, taped before a live studio audience. OK then... weirdo.
John Carson wrote:
So at the time you express an opinion, you don't think that opinion is right?
No, I recognize opinions for what they are, opinions. An opinion is your judgement based on a set of assumed facts. The only way an opinion could be described as right or wrong is to determine if all the "facts" that it's based on are actual facts, and whether or not all relevant facts were taken into account. Which is difficult near the point of impossible. So, those of us who have a clue, as you like to say, recognize that our opinions are nothing more than feelings based on our best interpretation of the facts we know. In math, we know that you cannot solve an equation that has more variables than known values. People forming opinions however are bound by no such limitation. So no, I would never claim that my opinion is "right", nor would that make me dishonest for having or expressing that opinion. Maybe there are relevant facts that I'm not aware of, maybe my understanding of some facts is faulty, maybe what I see is limited by preconceived feelings on similar issues. Asserting that your opinion is right is foolishly arrogant, it's assuming that you have all the facts and know how to put them all together, which I would wager virtually never happens with anybody.
John Carson wrote:
Yes.
Wow. What do you do when everybody present replies? Give up and leave since there's nobody else to indirectly talk to? That's just a bizarre way to deal with people.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
John Carson wrote:
When a Republican and Democrat debate on a news program, is the primary intent of each to convince the other of his or her point of view? No? Same principle here. It isn't difficult.
You're joking right? :wtf: Thread 2605, taped before a live studio audience. OK then... weirdo.
John Carson wrote:
So at the time you express an opinion, you don't think that opinion is right?
No, I recognize opinions for what they are, opinions. An opinion is your judgement based on a set of assumed facts. The only way an opinion could be described as right or wrong is to determine if all the "facts" that it's based on are actual facts, and whether or not all relevant facts were taken into account. Which is difficult near the point of impossible. So, those of us who have a clue, as you like to say, recognize that our opinions are nothing more than feelings based on our best interpretation of the facts we know. In math, we know that you cannot solve an equation that has more variables than known values. People forming opinions however are bound by no such limitation. So no, I would never claim that my opinion is "right", nor would that make me dishonest for having or expressing that opinion. Maybe there are relevant facts that I'm not aware of, maybe my understanding of some facts is faulty, maybe what I see is limited by preconceived feelings on similar issues. Asserting that your opinion is right is foolishly arrogant, it's assuming that you have all the facts and know how to put them all together, which I would wager virtually never happens with anybody.
John Carson wrote:
Yes.
Wow. What do you do when everybody present replies? Give up and leave since there's nobody else to indirectly talk to? That's just a bizarre way to deal with people.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
You're joking right? Thread 2605, taped before a live studio audience. OK then... weirdo.
You seem to have a public forum confused with an email correspondence. Sure, the audience is much smaller, but it is still public debate.
BoneSoft wrote:
No, I recognize opinions for what they are, opinions. An opinion is your judgement based on a set of assumed facts. The only way an opinion could be described as right or wrong is to determine if all the "facts" that it's based on are actual facts, and whether or not all relevant facts were taken into account. Which is difficult near the point of impossible.
Believing that you are right is not the same thing as believing that you are infallible. Here is another chance for you to get a clue, so pay careful attention. Courts get their verdicts wrong some of the time. The innocent are convicted and the guilty go free. Nevertheless, any jury that is not corrupt believes that its verdict is correct. It finds a person guilty because it believes he/she is guilty. It finds a person not guilty because it believes that the person is not guilty or, more precisely, that the prosecution has not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You see it is perfectly possible to know that you are wrong some of the time yet, taking your beliefs one at a time, to believe that they are all correct. The point is that, while you may know that some of your beliefs are incorrect, there is no way to know which ones. Looked at one at a time, they all seem to accord with the evidence as you know it. If any don't, then the sensible thing to do is to change your beliefs so they do accord with the evidence. The truth is that you, like most people most of the time, believe that you are right when you express an opinion. If you don't, then you are just a lying troll.
BoneSoft wrote:
Asserting that your opinion is right is foolishly arrogant, it's assuming that you have all the facts and know how to put them all together, which I would wager virtually never happens with anybody.
What is amusing is how you have this self image as a person of open-mindedness, humility and caution. Yet your opening posts routinely drip with contempt for your political opponents as you leap to ludicrous and frequently paranoid conclusions. "Rachel Madcow" "the most flamingly liberal pinko commie Bush-bashing media whore
-
BoneSoft wrote:
You're joking right? Thread 2605, taped before a live studio audience. OK then... weirdo.
You seem to have a public forum confused with an email correspondence. Sure, the audience is much smaller, but it is still public debate.
BoneSoft wrote:
No, I recognize opinions for what they are, opinions. An opinion is your judgement based on a set of assumed facts. The only way an opinion could be described as right or wrong is to determine if all the "facts" that it's based on are actual facts, and whether or not all relevant facts were taken into account. Which is difficult near the point of impossible.
Believing that you are right is not the same thing as believing that you are infallible. Here is another chance for you to get a clue, so pay careful attention. Courts get their verdicts wrong some of the time. The innocent are convicted and the guilty go free. Nevertheless, any jury that is not corrupt believes that its verdict is correct. It finds a person guilty because it believes he/she is guilty. It finds a person not guilty because it believes that the person is not guilty or, more precisely, that the prosecution has not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. You see it is perfectly possible to know that you are wrong some of the time yet, taking your beliefs one at a time, to believe that they are all correct. The point is that, while you may know that some of your beliefs are incorrect, there is no way to know which ones. Looked at one at a time, they all seem to accord with the evidence as you know it. If any don't, then the sensible thing to do is to change your beliefs so they do accord with the evidence. The truth is that you, like most people most of the time, believe that you are right when you express an opinion. If you don't, then you are just a lying troll.
BoneSoft wrote:
Asserting that your opinion is right is foolishly arrogant, it's assuming that you have all the facts and know how to put them all together, which I would wager virtually never happens with anybody.
What is amusing is how you have this self image as a person of open-mindedness, humility and caution. Yet your opening posts routinely drip with contempt for your political opponents as you leap to ludicrous and frequently paranoid conclusions. "Rachel Madcow" "the most flamingly liberal pinko commie Bush-bashing media whore
John Carson wrote:
You seem to have a public forum confused with an email correspondence. Sure, the audience is much smaller, but it is still public debate.
I think we've devoted too much time to this already. But to me, when you start a thread you are providing an opinion and invitation for discussion on the topic or your specific points. When you reply to a post, you are engaging the original poster directly, while at the same time inviting discussion from anyone else as well. Lambasting a poster with a response solely for the benefit of passersby is what some might just call bullying. In any event, it's an odd way to operate, but to each his own.
John Carson wrote:
Believing that you are right is not the same thing as ... If you don't, then you are just a lying troll.
Some sound arguments. I would say that I don't believe my opinion is right so much as I hope that it is. Even in the jury example. But I see your point, and we're arguing semantics.
John Carson wrote:
What is amusing is how you have this self image as a person of open-mindedness, humility and caution.
Where have I claimed humility? I'm always on the look out for some humility because I know it's something I lack. And caution? Where'd you get that from? I've admitted impetuousness, to you directly.
John Carson wrote:
Yet your opening posts routinely drip with contempt for your political opponents as you leap to ludicrous and frequently paranoid conclusions.
Well, when starting a thread, it's much easier to color your opinions more brazenly and flamboyantly than you would when addressing someone personally. Which I suppose is the same thing that accounts for a good portion of my disdain for Madcow. However, since I don't have a show on MSNBC, I'll claim to be less of a hypocrite, though our ratings are probably comparable. Besides, open mindedness really doesn't come into play until reviewing responses. ;)
John Carson wrote:
What's bizarre is participating in a public debate and thinking it is a private one.
Ad absurdum, and addressed above.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as w
-
John Carson wrote:
You seem to have a public forum confused with an email correspondence. Sure, the audience is much smaller, but it is still public debate.
I think we've devoted too much time to this already. But to me, when you start a thread you are providing an opinion and invitation for discussion on the topic or your specific points. When you reply to a post, you are engaging the original poster directly, while at the same time inviting discussion from anyone else as well. Lambasting a poster with a response solely for the benefit of passersby is what some might just call bullying. In any event, it's an odd way to operate, but to each his own.
John Carson wrote:
Believing that you are right is not the same thing as ... If you don't, then you are just a lying troll.
Some sound arguments. I would say that I don't believe my opinion is right so much as I hope that it is. Even in the jury example. But I see your point, and we're arguing semantics.
John Carson wrote:
What is amusing is how you have this self image as a person of open-mindedness, humility and caution.
Where have I claimed humility? I'm always on the look out for some humility because I know it's something I lack. And caution? Where'd you get that from? I've admitted impetuousness, to you directly.
John Carson wrote:
Yet your opening posts routinely drip with contempt for your political opponents as you leap to ludicrous and frequently paranoid conclusions.
Well, when starting a thread, it's much easier to color your opinions more brazenly and flamboyantly than you would when addressing someone personally. Which I suppose is the same thing that accounts for a good portion of my disdain for Madcow. However, since I don't have a show on MSNBC, I'll claim to be less of a hypocrite, though our ratings are probably comparable. Besides, open mindedness really doesn't come into play until reviewing responses. ;)
John Carson wrote:
What's bizarre is participating in a public debate and thinking it is a private one.
Ad absurdum, and addressed above.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as w
BoneSoft wrote:
But to me, when you start a thread you are providing an opinion and invitation for discussion on the topic or your specific points. When you reply to a post, you are engaging the original poster directly, while at the same time inviting discussion from anyone else as well.
I think that when you start a thread you are pushing a particular line, trying to persuade forum participants of its correctness. When I respond, I am pushing back against that effort. Even if that is not your intent, it is its effect.
BoneSoft wrote:
Where have I claimed humility? I'm always on the look out for some humility because I know it's something I lack. And caution? Where'd you get that from? I've admitted impetuousness, to you directly.
The following passage is a claim of both humility and intellectual caution, even when you don't use the words:
So no, I would never claim that my opinion is "right", nor would that make me dishonest for having or expressing that opinion. Maybe there are relevant facts that I'm not aware of, maybe my understanding of some facts is faulty, maybe what I see is limited by preconceived feelings on similar issues. Asserting that your opinion is right is foolishly arrogant, it's assuming that you have all the facts and know how to put them all together, which I would wager virtually never happens with anybody.
More generally, you paint of yourself as this person who just wants a discussion, who is open to others' views, who just wants to learn. This is starkly at odds with the way you come out with fanatical right wing bile. I will admit that, as the discussion proceeds, you do tend to show a more reasonable side. However, it is entirely lacking in your initial posts, which tend to be dogmatic, ignorant and thoughtless. You seem to think that a completely different set of rules applies to initial posts and later ones. I treat them all as simply contributions to public debate.
John Carson
-
The fact that you haven't observed me making a stand anywhere other than on the right doesn't mean anything. Just as the fact that I've never seen you argue anything original or less than far left doesn't mean anything. If all you've seen are a few hairs, all you can really deduce is that it's a mammal. "Umm, you're on the right" isn't a pattern. Try again. I don't try to be impartial, I try to be considerate and open minded to other opinions, instead of attacking anything that doesn't fit my little world. I try to avoid insulting people and throwing names around. So sue me. Just because you lack couth doesn't mean I'm self righteous. The approach taught at the John Carson school of argument doesn't do anybody any good, I'd stop auditioning for a scholarship if I were you.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't try to be impartial, I try to be considerate and open minded to other opinions, instead of attacking anything that doesn't fit my little world. I try to avoid insulting people and throwing names around.
Keep telling yourself that. Self delusion is good. :laugh: However, anyone who as watched you operate here knows just how open minded and impartial you really are.
BoneSoft wrote:
I'd stop auditioning for a scholarship if I were you.
I don't need a scholarship, I can pay my own way.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!! -
BoneSoft wrote:
But to me, when you start a thread you are providing an opinion and invitation for discussion on the topic or your specific points. When you reply to a post, you are engaging the original poster directly, while at the same time inviting discussion from anyone else as well.
I think that when you start a thread you are pushing a particular line, trying to persuade forum participants of its correctness. When I respond, I am pushing back against that effort. Even if that is not your intent, it is its effect.
BoneSoft wrote:
Where have I claimed humility? I'm always on the look out for some humility because I know it's something I lack. And caution? Where'd you get that from? I've admitted impetuousness, to you directly.
The following passage is a claim of both humility and intellectual caution, even when you don't use the words:
So no, I would never claim that my opinion is "right", nor would that make me dishonest for having or expressing that opinion. Maybe there are relevant facts that I'm not aware of, maybe my understanding of some facts is faulty, maybe what I see is limited by preconceived feelings on similar issues. Asserting that your opinion is right is foolishly arrogant, it's assuming that you have all the facts and know how to put them all together, which I would wager virtually never happens with anybody.
More generally, you paint of yourself as this person who just wants a discussion, who is open to others' views, who just wants to learn. This is starkly at odds with the way you come out with fanatical right wing bile. I will admit that, as the discussion proceeds, you do tend to show a more reasonable side. However, it is entirely lacking in your initial posts, which tend to be dogmatic, ignorant and thoughtless. You seem to think that a completely different set of rules applies to initial posts and later ones. I treat them all as simply contributions to public debate.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
he following passage is a claim of both humility and intellectual caution, even when you don't use the words:
So be it, it wasn't a lie.
John Carson wrote:
More generally, you paint of yourself as this person who just wants a discussion, who is open to others' views, who just wants to learn. This is starkly at odds with the way you come out with fanatical right wing bile. I will admit that, as the discussion proceeds, you do tend to show a more reasonable side. However, it is entirely lacking in your initial posts, which tend to be dogmatic, ignorant and thoughtless. You seem to think that a completely different set of rules applies to initial posts and later ones. I treat them all as simply contributions to public debate.
I see the problem. You see any perspective from the right as dogmatic, ignorant, thoughtless, fanatical bile. Kind of like Rachel. Though there's hardly a leftist perspective that makes any sense to me, I don't assume the owner is a retard for having it.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't try to be impartial, I try to be considerate and open minded to other opinions, instead of attacking anything that doesn't fit my little world. I try to avoid insulting people and throwing names around.
Keep telling yourself that. Self delusion is good. :laugh: However, anyone who as watched you operate here knows just how open minded and impartial you really are.
BoneSoft wrote:
I'd stop auditioning for a scholarship if I were you.
I don't need a scholarship, I can pay my own way.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
I'm a proud denizen of the Real Soapbox[^]
ACCEPT NO SUBSTITUTES!!!Tim Craig wrote:
anyone who as watched you operate here knows just how open minded and impartial you really are.
Yeah, most probably do. You've apparently missed it though. Probably due to a severe lack of open mindedness and impartiality. But believe what you want, it means nothing to me.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.