"hiding" from reality
Janet Myers myers@capital.net
Sat, 6 Jun 1998 15:40:53 -0400 (00897180053, 01bd9183$046f7ac0$9caf61cc@default)
MJ:
<snip>
Unless you have actual evidence for such a crime ... and are willing to
do something other than 'whine' ... simply <delete> these posts and
continue to hide from ideas you disagree. This seems to be the 'errancy'
way.
JANET
Michael, do you think that there is some sort of obligation to always
respond to "ideas you disagree," or else one is hiding? You and I
exchanged some private correspondence in which I asked you some
questions,
and presented some arguments with which I know you disagree, but you
answered neither questions nor arguments. Can it be said that you are
"hiding" from them? Is this the MJ way? And now I suppose that you will
"point at reality" for me? What arrogance.
MJ:
A review of our discourse finds no questions nor arguments to which you
are referring.
JANET
I can resend them to you, if you wish. In my paragraph above there is at
least one unanswered question. Does this mean that you are "hiding?"
MJ
If I state, Mr. Till is the 'list-owner' for this (errancy) forum ...
how is this identification of reality 'arrogance'? Is it somehow an
argument?
JANET
The first question is simply disingenuousness. As for the second, I don't
understand it, so I'm afraid you will have to "point" at reality for poor,
stupid me.
MJ (quoting)
>>However big the fool, there is always a bigger fool to admire him.
>> > -- Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux
>
JANET
Strange that you would use that quote. I entirely agree with it. Dick
Jones and his minions come to mind.
MJ:
Who are Jones's minions? Could not an equal statement be made of Till
(and his minions)? Helen (and her minions)? Shumaker (and his minions)?
Bell (and his minions) or even you (and your minions)?
JANET
Did I say otherwise? I found your quote to be apropos, and said so. That
you had someone else in mind is entirely likely. So?
Janet