Yikes! You are taking all this way too seriously, I think. I was not passing judgement on you. I was just talking about how your messages come across. I am fairly positive that I would like you if I was to meet you in person and agree with you on most issues (other than pomo!).
Your analogy above is not helpful, however. The job of an actor is to intentionally deceive me (with my participation) and outside of that transaction it is irrelevant to me who the actor is "in reality". But in a social forum I expect you to present to me who you really are, not some alter-ego, because it is important to me to know who you really are. It seems to me you appreciate this issue, since you prefaced a recent post with "To play devil's advocate". The difference between real and Internet lives, that I hinted at, only makes such sensitivity all the more necessary. Internet interactions (at least for me) are quite stunted... if I was to take a walk with you in Baltimore I might see the many sides of Wojtek -- helping a homeless person along with cursing the guy who took a shit on his steps.
Among other things, you write that you have an obsessive aversion to anyone speaking with cock-sure certitude. Interestingly, it is such an aversion that warms me to pomo philosophers and away from scientists and science groupies. You on the other hand have quite the opposite reaction. We follow different paths of reasoning, but perhaps it is our cock-sure certitude that we are right, that makes us express ourselves with arrogance and self-righteousness (such as when you challenge me to jump off the fifth floor, echoing Sokal's meaningless challenge: the test is flawed in multiple ways, since modus tollens only helps Sokal, not me, but more importantly: its not the law of gravity that stops me from jumping, and there are many cases -- the ceteris paribus"es" -- where I could indeed make that jump. Examples of similar expression from me can be found in the archives).
At the risk of sounding like an opinionated arse, I will point out that this list -- as are most lists -- is dominated by a few of us opinionated arses (with the possible exception of Doug and Joanna). Especially in a medium where a wink, a nod, a pat or a smile are difficult to express, this is bound to result in friction, misunderstanding, and shallow wars.
> Whether one is a member of a country club, youth
> gang, or a radical group – one is expected to follow
> highly scripted roles, dress codes and forms of
> expression. A rebel group may be rebellious toward
> the mainstream or other groups, but it is highly
> conformist inside. I think this is precisely why
> people like me or Michael Pugliese, who never
> personally attacked anyone, touched more raw nerves
> than people who regularly hurl obscenities at other
> list members. Obscenities do not question the script
> that defines the group’s identity and its
> interpretative frameworks, dissenting opinions do.
Pug gets into trouble because that's his MO. In the old days he would have been called a flame-baiter, today a "troll". So, I will leave him out of the below. As "the queer dewd" pointed out to me one day long, long ago, there are different ways in which one can hurl obscenities: the simple folks say 'motherfucker', the sophisticated have better techniques (paternalism, condescension, etc).
Regarding scripts and conformance: Here on LBO I feel like I have the spectre of Marx hanging over my head at all times (this is part of the quarrel, I think, between the "netroots" and Max). So, I feel in my wounded self-pitying moments, that LBOsters get away with all sorts of illogic, as long as they conform to the Marx narrative and jargon, while questions or thoughts that can at the least be treated as naive, are met with the greatest suspicion and derision. But I get equally worked up when big claims are made about truth, reality or against religion, etc.
Perhaps you (and I) are right... perhaps folks need to loosen up a bit and listen to an alternate perspective. Or perhaps it is simply that they have no patience for our unexamined views and opinions (unexamined in their opinion -- much the same as your view of your wife's expression). Or maybe we just want to sling the stuff, not receive it ;-). That's understandable.
--ravi