Heavens, Craven! I thought that post of JL's positively beaming with friendliness!
" your general frame of reference and cognitive style differ in fundamental ways from those of Craven and Joe. No big thing."
"Dynamic duo"!
These be words of peace, methinks.
Anyhow, I'd miss you on Philosophy.
Schniff.....
Nothing that some good scrambled eggs and brioche can't fix.
Craven, as Disney's hare would put it, "Unlax doc."
Warner Brothers - and he's a goddamn RABBIT, right???
jesus - me hares all standing up - grrrrrrrrr......
Thanks, Dlowan. You understood me perfectly. I just hate self-justification; nice when someone else does it. Warner Bros. Not Disney?
Cav. You say that "existence is what defines a life." I think the some existentialists (remember "existence precedes essence") would make the qualification that YOU define your life. Existence, per se, is merely the rawest of material, the sine qua non, before even the cooked material of culture. Don't mind me; I'm trippin'. Need more scrambled eggs.
dlowan,
Evidently we have very different ideas about what constitutes "positively beaming with friendliness".
Hint: none of your selective (very disingenuously so IMO) quotes is what I object to. I object to JL's incessant characterization of any disagreement on Joe and myself's part as "attacks".
I've held my tongue a few times hoping that he'd eventually tire of his gratuitous and oblique digs but he seems to have fixated and because I've no need for an obsessed monkey on my back I'll find alternative pursuits for lesiure.
Sigh.
Well, I always knew it was dumb to try to intervene.
Craven, I know JL has mis-characterized many of your disagreements as attacks.
I was referring to the particular post which appeared to be the straw that etc...
If by disingenuous you mean with a deliberate intention to misrepresent, you are simply wrong - but perhaps this hinges on differing interpretations of the contextual meaning of "slings and arrows"?
Whatever - I have learned my lesson - no more attempts at peace-making, if that is what it was. Buggered are the peace-makers, cos they shall piss everyone off - that is a basic law of nature which I know well.
Buck off said monkey as you will.
dlowan,
disingenuous because you know damn well that what you quoted had nothing to do with my objections.
Children, children! It'll be early bedtime for the lot of you if you don't stop this silly bickering this very instant. Ah has spoken.
No, I DAMN well didn't.
I thought you were reacting to THAT post as a final straw.
And I thought, and still think, that you were misinterpreting THAT post.
It was THAT post I was referring to.
And I still don't see what your objection is. Not, as I have now said twice, that I fail to see your beef in general - but in this specific post - which appears to have been a watershed.
If it is the slings and arrows thing - while I cannot, of course, claim to know JL's mind - it seems to me a perfectly jocular Hamlet reference.
Anywho, I don't want to fight with you over something this stupid. There are plenty of perfectly reasonable things to fight with you over.
And, as you claim to know my mind (which is a quite unreasonable claim for you to make) and JL's mind (which is a quite reasonable claim for you to make) better than I do, it would seem useless to advance my actual thinking on the matter any further!
As I said, my intentions were honourable - but clearly stupid.
dlowan,
If, as you state, you know that JL frequently has "mis-characterized many of [my]disagreements as attacks" it is not too much of a stretch to expect you to understand that the portions you quoted had nothing to do with my objections.
Within this thread JL started by saying Joe and I had "hijacked" the thread, then he proceeded to imply that we were being "agressive" and that it "it interferes with serious substantive discourse".
At this point I held my tongue and decided to ignore his game. Joe and I both decided that the definitional incompatibility was not worth pursuing and let it go.
JL, on the other hand, will not let his fixation go and again decided to characterize our disagreement as an attack. We were not guilty of any of the charges he was levelling and his obsession was much closer to hijacking and agression than anything we'd posted.
Now whether or not you think it was "positively beaming with friendliness" and a "perfectly jocular Hamlet reference" is your prerogative. Just as it is mine to think your interpretation of the digs at my expense to be disingenuous and to reject your interpretation of his disparaging of me as friendly and jocular.
So I restate; You knew damn well that my objection to JL's digs had nothing whatsoever to do with the portions of his post that you quoted. This isn't a declaration of what goes on in your mind, you yourself said that you are aware of the particular characterizations from JL that I actually do object to and this was further evidenced by your own subsequent recognition of the portion of his post that I had objected to.
But I agree with one thing you said, and I've no intention to "fight" with you about this. You can, if you desire, characterize his incessant digs as "positively beaming with friendliness". Just understand that my interpretations of his digs about me differ from your rosy characterization of them.
I am amazed by what I have been reading, folks. Craven, I do not want this to escalate to another argument between us. I thought we had resolved whatever tension between us that we had jointly created. But I assure you that Dlowan's interpretation of my intentions is correct. And I insist that I, and only I, am the judge of my intentions. I am very sorry that you feel I have been playing a "game" with you and Joe, and that I am "obsessed" with harassing you. Trust me, you are WRONG. That's not really my style; I get no kick out of competing aggressively (gently perhaps) or even winning (I tend to feel guilt if I humiliate anyone); such goals are far from my psyche. Moreover, I have given up the pain received by your repeated charges of "intellectual dishonesty," something a professed intellectual cannot not take well--a blow below the belt, as it were. But I'm sure you were not really trying to hurt me, just as I was not trying to hurt you. I am sorry I did. You are much more sensitive (not an insult) than I gathered from my experience with you at Abuzz and here. So, let's just chalk it up to our human craziness and remain friends. O.K.?
And Dlowan, thanks for your good intentions.
JLN: For what it's worth, I certainly was not offended by your post. Indeed, I find it ironic that everyone is getting up tight over a post in which you advised Randall Patrick to lighten up. Frankly, I think that's good advice for us all.
you should all remember that as Craven clearly states in each post, he is only a 'Beta test version' so he is bound to have 'bugs'!
[and, if they are in his shorts, he is bound to be somewhat 'irritable'!]
JLNobody
Pardon my presumption, RP, but please do what I am trying to do: lighten up. Your points are well taken. It seems that your general frame of reference and cognitive style differ in fundamental ways from those of Craven and Joe. No big thing. If Fresco, Twyvel and I can withstand the slings and arrows from that dynamic duo so can you. I'm sure you are going to be an on-going intellectual benefactor for the rest of us.
RP:
Me, I bat from either side of the plate in exchanges like this. If someone reads a post of mine and responds civilly and intelligently, I will respond in kind. Craven and Joe, however, did not seem particularly interested in the substantive intent of the post at all. Instead, they seemed more intent on exposing me as someone not even intelligent enough to grasp What A Paradox Is---Logically.
Well, I can go the polemical route, as well. I just never construe it as ad hominems. Polemics is merely a tactical devise that, for example, Websters defines as the "art of disputation". And I am one of the best there is at it.
Randall Patrick
