R said:
>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?
>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 not good, folks. perhaps people are intimidated by the crusty intellectuals inhabiting this board. ;-) if you're suggesting some members be less judgemental and give others a chance to express themselves and to learn (which i think we all want to do), then i'm in full agreement with you.
get busy writing everyone. ;-)
That's why I posted to Carrol: I objected to the words he used which encouraged, however slightly, an inhibition to more open speech.
in that case, i'm glad you posted what you did.
>
>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.
whatever works for you. ;-)
So, instead of straining those overtired finger muscles, roll your eyes and move on.
Exactly. I'm going to the gym for a swim as soon as i finish this note.
>
>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.
no problem at all.
>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.
should it have? at least it wasn't laconic, was it?
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.
there's nothing to forgive. although, "wilfull ignorance," and eye rolling was a bit exaggerated. ;-)
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.
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
cute. i'll revert to the editorial "we." ;-)
just between us, and the rest of the board, i've watched about five minutes of seinfeld in my life. i think it sucks. although i do think julian marie dryfus (sp?) is very attractive.
R
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20020630/fcaaa8ed/attachment.htm>