From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 25 2002 - 15:30:04 MST
[David Hill 2*] I repeat. Where does he find the time.
[Hermit 2] I don't sleep much. And dealing with idiots doesn't take a lot of
time - although they do take enough time to reduce worthwhile contributions.
However I try to put in enough time to keep those coming too...
[David Hill 2] I reject your assertions of knowledge of right...
[Hermit 2] Your assertion about knowledge is noted and rejected as I
provided grounds which you have failed to refute. Here:
[Hermit 1] No. Most people, including you ([David Hill 1.1] supra) think
seldom or at all. I [i]know[/i] that I am right that people have to think in
order to hold rational discourse (definitional). And I [i]know[/i] that I am
right to attempt to defend reason, experience and rationality and others
attempting the same, here and elsewhere (no alternative has ever lead to any
recorded deliberate advancement in recorded history).
[David Hill 2] ..and you fail to support your claim of skill or talent
[Hermit 2] Your assertion that I made a claim to skill is incorrect. Here:
[Hermit 1] But as many here know, you picked really bad examples of what you
think that I cannot do <smirk>.
[Hermit 2] My assertion was that you picked really bad examples and implied
that the people who know better than you are laughing at you.
[David Hill 2] in fields other than slander.
[Hermit 2] You keep making unfounded assertions which are themselves
libelous (written slander) and insulting (because you cannot or will not
substantiate them).
[David Hill 2] If I fail to meet your standards of proof or eloquence in
debate it is because I am doing other things.
[Hermit 2] As I have seen no evidence that you are capable of debate, nor do
I see any structure for a debate, nor do I see evidence of the "other
things," I conclude that this proposition of yours is as ridiculous as
everything else you have asserted - certainly it is as unfounded. And all
unfounded assertions are obnoxious - yours are just more "troll-like" than
most.
[David Hill 2] Painting a picture may not be your idea of an elegant
argument but still be worthwhile activity.
[Hermit 2] Don't you find the giraffes rather distracting*?
[David Hill 2] Do the others you include in WE know you are with them?
[Hermit 2] Some of them, certainly. One is nodding at me. :-/
[David Hill 2] In the face of your statement of knowledge I reiterate my
point "everybody thinks they are right" and continue..
[Hermit 2] It must be the giraffes, unless, perhaps, you just ate an
oyster*. Note above. My assertion was founded and was an assertion of the
purpose for which the CoV exists [url=http://virus.lucifer.com/about.html]a
forum for rational discourse[/url]. So, your rejection of my motivation is
equivalent to distancing yourself from the objectives of the CoV. Which
means that I am entitled to ask what you think you are doing here. After
all, you seem to have joined under false pretences. Refer
"[url=http://virus.lucifer.com/about.html]Virus is a collaborative project;
if you subscribe to the ideas consider subscribing to one of the mailing
lists![/url]".
[Hermit 2] What is your excuse for wasting my time if you don't subscribe to
our charter?
[David Hill 2] .. that they'd be rather stressed to go around stating they
were wrong. Unless the actually thought they were wrong in which case they'd
be sure in their knowledge that they were wrong.
[Hermit 2] "Stressed"? By being wrong? LOL! You cannot be serious.
Everything is only provisionally "right" (cf Popper). Progress occurs when
we prove ourselves wrong. Deal with it.
*When confronted with surrealist non sequiturs, what is one supposed to
reply? Treating such utterances seriously only reinforces the delirium.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:41 MDT