Determinism

[Todd Archer]

R said (in response to me)

>>it's interesting, Todd, that carrol needs you to point all this out to
>> >him.
>
>Everyone makes mistakes or blunders or faux pas.  Carrol doesn't need >ME 
>to
>point stuff out to him.
>
>then why did you?     i think you're being... tactful?

I try to be tactful, but what I was getting at was that anyone could have 
done what I did.  I interjected because I felt the desire and acted on it 
rather than passing over in silence.

>also, R wants to point out that a considerate >member of
>>this message board asked him to expand on his >original "laconic"
>statement
>>about determinism, which willingly (or >willfully, to use your term) R
>did.
>
>Yes, you expanded on your statement, but I felt its character didn't
>change.
>
>should it have?    at least it wasn't laconic, was it?

I would have liked it to have changed, and, yup, it wasn't laconic.

>why are you so polite?     you can argue with me if you like.   i don't
>know that i'd be very much worth arguing with, however.     argue with
>carrol.   he's much more opinionated than i am.

I try to be polite to everyone. Why not?  Generally speaking, they're 
initially as deserving of respect, as I would like given to me, simply by 
virtue of sharing my life, however tangently.

It's not so much a matter of "worth" as it is my seeing something that turns 
my crank at the moment (and that I believe I can safely "handle"); I can't 
reply to everything that moves me one way or another.

<shrug> Oh, I might argue with Carrol at some point in the future.  Who 
knows?

Todd

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com