>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.
>you aren't the only one who's counseled carrol regarding his >knee >jerk
>response to words he doesn't like and doesn't understand >from a >source he
>knows nothing about and can't deal with.
Like I said above . . . .
>i don't >believe >carrol has discourage anyone from having their say,
>however; >members >of this message board (such as yourself) are not that
>easily >lead.
Coming from personal experience, having nothing to do with Carrol, members of this board can be easily "led" into being so discouraged that they say nothing where otherwise they would speak up. That's why I posted to Carrol: I objected to the words he used which encouraged, however slightly, an inhibition to more open speech.
>
>BTW, rolling your eyes is good exercise for the eye muscles which too
>commonly are fixed in one position reading a CRT or a book.
It can also act to relax the finger muscles that begin to work overtime when one spots statements so beyond the pale that one feels compelled to say something equally profound. So, instead of straining those overtired finger muscles, roll your eyes and move on.
>
>R wants you to know he's male, and is not a right wing equivalent of >mike
>p,
Well, that's good to know, especially since I didn't say you were. I was replying to Carrol's comment about shared practices on this mail-list. Sorry for the confusion.
>who's material R enjoys very much. (keep it coming, mike!) >at the
> >risk of being too open R wants you to know he enjoys firing in >360
> >degrees to see if he can hit any of the smug, pedantic, rigid
> >intellectual snobs
>that that belch redundant, well masticated dogma from time to time on >this
>message board. 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.
I estimated that there would be no point in arguing with you about that particular belief of yours, since you seemed so sincere in stating it. If I made the mistake, and you did want to discuss it further, forgive my presumption.
You might want to consider not speaking so much about yourself in the third person. People here probably remember Seinfeld and might wonder when you're going to scream, "Sic semper tyrannis!" and attack someone.
!{)>
Todd
_________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com