Diversity of Everything but Thought

Setanta wrote:

That sort of expressive confusion is not at all remarkable when it comes to Our Fox . . .

Nor is that sort of expressive confusion remarkable when it comes to Our Setanta ... or anyone else. So why your remark, Setanta? What is really remarkable, is that anyone would think such a trivial misstatement by anyone to be remarkable by anyone. Laughing

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

That's odd KW. Ican posted what were obviously book reviews and also a link to Amazon.com where you can pull up the book, read the cover, flaps, the index, and AN EXCERPT if you bothered to do that as he suggested. You are usually more objective than that.

Okay, Ican did give directions to go to an excerpt from the book. But he did not say how that excerpt supports his contention in any way. All I saw in that excerpt was something about Republicans keeping silent about Monica for eight months while Clinton "framed the issue". Ican offered no explanation as to how that excerpt from Amazon supports his notions at all.

Secondly, I do not see what those book reviews are doing in Ican's supposed rebuttal to Blatham. Book reviews don't do it. If Ican has the book, why doesn't he just scan a short passage and post it here? Or even-gasp-type it out and give us the page it is on. He talks enough about the book-it shouldn't bother him to type out a paragraph or two.

Thirldy, later Ican self righteously proclaimed those book reviews were "excerpts" from the amazon website. But blatham asked Ican to produce excerpts from Horowitz' book-not excerpts from book reviews on Amazon's website about Horowitz' book!

0 Replies

I see Ican is quick to leap upon form as opposed to substance, using that most devasting of rhetorical weapons in his arsenal . . . the "emoticon."

I also see that Ican remains mute on the subject of the "excerpts" he dredged up. Several possibilities suggest themselves. That Ican is so dense that he in fact did not realize that he was quoting reviews of the book as opposed to quoting the book itself. That Ican thinks people here are so dense that they would not understand the difference. That Ican has so little regard for honesty as not to care.

Personally, i'd go for the first explanation, as being much the most entertaining possibility. I will be awaiting breathlessly (in the virtual sense only) a cogent response from Ican on the topic. As a cogent response from Ican on any subject would be unique in my experience, it should be quite a show.

0 Replies

KW writes

Quote:

Okay, Ican did give directions to go to an excerpt from the book. But he did not say how that excerpt supports his contention in any way.

Come on now. You are much more fair than that. Blatham has been requested again and again to provide support for his contentions that the 'excerpts' he has presented are unchanged when placed in context and to comment on Horowitz's writings posted here and he has simply continued his vitriolic opinion with nothing to support it. Ican may not have provided excerts that satisfy you, but he did provide excerpts when requested.

0 Replies

And to Nimh, I stand corrected on Kerry's campaign rhetoric. He indeed did state he would roll back only tax cuts for those making over $200,000. I went back and my notes refer only to his running mate, Edwards, who consistently wanted to roll back all the cuts. Kerry's voting record belies his rhetoric, however, and Kerry has subsequently been consistent from the Senate floor in not wanting to make Bush's tax cuts permanent with no qualification that some of the tax cuts should remain. Further all the promises he made during the campaign would pretty well ensure that he would have to raise taxes on everybody to pay for them.

But I did err re the specific words of the campaign rhetoric.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

KW writes

Quote:
Okay, Ican did give directions to go to an excerpt from the book. But he did not say how that excerpt supports his contention in any way.

Come on now. You are much more fair than that. Blatham has been requested again and again to provide support for his contentions that the 'excerpts' he has presented are unchanged when placed in context and to comment on Horowitz's writings posted here and he has simply continued his vitriolic opinion with nothing to support it. Ican may not have provided excerts that satisfy you, but he did provide excerpts when requested.

dear nig nog

When a person writes "X" and "X" is clear in its meaning - it means "X" but then someone (like yourself or Ican) who is shocked! that this person said "X" because it doesn't fit in your thinking comfortably, insists the person cannot have meant "X", even though it is utterly transparent that he said "X" and that "X" means "X", and then demands evidence that "X" means "X"...well, it's all a bit of a laugh.

The burden is on you and Ican to bring evidence to bear that "X" means something other than "X".

The thing is, you can do it, sort of, if you read the text from Horowitiz. Ican did it. He's just being completely too dull - out of his blind partisanship - to twig on the trick involved.

Horowitz says, "This is what the left does" - 'this' being the Leninist/totalitarian machinations and strategies, like 'totally destroying the enemy because politics is war'. He doesn't bring any evidence - NONE - to bear to support this claim...no writings that aren't 100 years old, no quotes from dem strategists (such as me quoting Horowitz), no briefing papers from dem agents (such as the Luntz memos). He just says the 'left' is guilty of these things. And therefore, it's not only morally ok for republicans to do them...it is NECESSARY they do them.

And...this is the really neat trick...Horowitz suggests (as Ican informs us) that the left/democrats WILL accuse the other side of doing exactly what it does itself. Ipso facto, any criticism of republicans is a lie and merely a detailed map of what dems do themselves. Leaving Horowitz in a perfect state of grace.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

That's odd KW. Ican posted what were obviously book reviews and also a link to Amazon.com where you can pull up the book, read the cover, flaps, the index, and AN EXCERPT if you bothered to do that as he suggested. You are usually more objective than that.

Okay, Ican did give directions to go to an excerpt from the book.
Now say you're sorry.

But he did not say how that excerpt supports his contention in any way.
True! I left that to any objective reader capable of reading and understanding English, because I was not willing to transcribe the excerpts, post them here, and comment on them. I'm sorry for that and I'm sorry that I am unable to copy and post here copyright material Amazon won't let me copy and post here.

All I saw in that excerpt was something about Republicans keeping silent about Monica for eight months while Clinton "framed the issue".
You either read too fast the several pages of excerpts, or you didn't read them at all.

Ican offered no explanation as to how that excerpt from Amazon supports his notions at all.
True again! Sorry about that per the above, and further sorry that you are unable to see that for yourself.

Secondly, I do not see what those book reviews are doing in Ican's supposed rebuttal to Blatham. Book reviews don't do it. If Ican has the book, why doesn't he just scan a short passage and post it here? Or even-gasp-type it out and give us the page it is on. He talks enough about the book-it shouldn't bother him to type out a paragraph or two.
I respectfully request that you buy the book yourself. Another reason (besides being lazy) that I won't transcribe it, is because I bet you wouldn't trust my transcription's fidelity.

Thirldy, later Ican self righteously
self-righteously

proclaimed those book reviews were "excerpts" from the amazon website. But blatham asked Ican to produce excerpts from Horowitz' book-not excerpts from book reviews on Amazon's website about Horowitz' book!
True! I'm again sorry. I should have first posted: excerpts from the book reviews from the Amazon website. But I'm not all bad. I followed that with a post that gave Blatham (and you and everyone else) instructions on how to access Amazon's excerpts from Horowitz's Book.

I'll now go out in the woods and spank myself. Mea Culpa! Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I see Ican is quick to leap upon form as opposed to substance, using that most devasting of rhetorical weapons in his arsenal . . . the "emoticon."

I also see that Ican remains mute on the subject of the "excerpts" he dredged up. Several possibilities suggest themselves. That Ican is so dense that he in fact did not realize that he was quoting reviews of the book as opposed to quoting the book itself. That Ican thinks people here are so dense that they would not understand the difference. That Ican has so little regard for honesty as not to care.

You continue to indict yourself. See and study carefully with all your capability the following quote from page 176 which was posted Mon May 16, 2005 12:34 p.m. Post:1339551:

ican711nm wrote:

[copied from www.amazon.com ]
1. The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits
by David Horowitz (Hardcover - July 14, 2000)
Avg. Customer Rating: *****
Other Editions: Hardcover | Audio Cassette

Usually ships within 1-2 business days
Used & new from $29.75

The Art of Political War and Other Radical Pursuits
by David Horowitz

1 used & new from $29.75
[end of what was copied from www.amazon.com]

Instructions
Goto: www.amazon.com

Then proceed to search for the title.
Then Look inside.
Then select what can be seen inside.

View: Front Cover | Front Flap | Table of Contents | Excerpt | Index | Back Flap | Back Cover

Setanta wrote:

Personally, i'd go for the first explanation, as being much the most entertaining possibility. I will be awaiting breathlessly (in the virtual sense only) a cogent response from Ican on the topic. As a cogent response from Ican on any subject would be unique in my experience, it should be quite a show.

Your continuing resort to vilification of me reveals your continuing lack of competence to provide rational rebuttal to my arguments.

0 Replies

At such time as ever i see a rational argument from you, i will then have the opportunity for rebuttal.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

... When a person writes "X" and "X" is clear in its meaning - it means "X" but then someone (like yourself or Ican) who is shocked! that this person said "X" because it doesn't fit in your thinking comfortably, insists the person cannot have meant "X", even though it is utterly transparent that he said "X" and that "X" means "X", and then demands evidence that "X" means "X"...well, it's all a bit of a laugh.
A statement "X" has a meaning that is not independent of the context of statements in which it is contained. Supply the context of the statement "X" then we will evaluate the validity of your hypothesis about what Horowitz meant by it. If you are correct about the meaning of "X" in it's context, then we will acknowledge it.

The burden is on you and Ican to bring evidence to bear that "X" means something other than "X".
It is you who accused Horowitz of recommending rather than describing Democrat political tactics. Horowitz is innocent of your accusation until you prove if you can, or if you can provide persuasive evidence, Horowitz is guilty of that.

The thing is, you can do it, sort of, if you read the text from Horowitiz. Ican did it. He's just being completely too dull - out of his blind partisanship - to twig on the trick involved.
Your resort to villification of Foxfyre and me implies you to be incompetent to provide a rational rebuttal of our arguments on this topic.
...

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

At such time as ever i see a rational argument from you, i will then have the opportunity for rebuttal.

"At such time as ever i see a rational argument from you, i will then have the opportunity for rebuttal" Laughing

0 Replies

I must have missed something. I presented the initial thesis for this thread, i.e. there is excessive liberal bias on American universities with scientific data to support that. Also the thesis included informed opinion of a corresponding intolerance for conservative thought and that a student's opportunities for a complete and balanced education are diminished because of that.

I was advised by Blatham and others that I had not proved the thesis, it was imperative upon me to do so, and it was not incumbant on anyone to disprove it no matter how much they excoriate those who support it.

I have provided no thesis whatsoever re Horowitz, but Blatham did.

And now Blatham takes the position that it is not his responsibility to prove it but it is incumbant upon me and others to disprove it if we disagree with it.

Does everybody of the liberal left think like that?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I must have missed something. I presented the initial thesis for this thread, i.e. there is excessive liberal bias on American universities with scientific data to support that. Also the thesis included informed opinion of a corresponding intolerance for conservative thought and that a student's opportunities for a complete and balanced education are diminished because of that.

I was advised by Blatham and others that I had not proved the thesis, it was imperative upon me to do so, and it was not incumbant on anyone to disprove it no matter how much they excoriate those who support it.

I have provided no thesis whatsoever re Horowitz, but Blatham did.

And now Blatham takes the position that it is not his responsibility to prove it but it is incumbant upon me and others to disprove it if we disagree with it.

Does everybody of the liberal left think like that?

This is a combination of pathos and unintended humor.

0 Replies

sorry Atkins, I have to go with the premise that it's INtended humour not unlike constitutional girl and just wanders.

0 Replies

Quote:

I presented the initial thesis for this thread, i.e. excessive liberal bias on American universities with scientific data to support that.

Boy, you are a slow learner.

What the survey information showed is that professors, particularly in certain subject areas, overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

That information does not support your/Horowitz's thesis...demonstrable bias affecting curricula or students.

0 Replies

Quote:

I presented the initial thesis for this thread, i.e. there is excessive liberal bias on American universities with scientific data to support that

No, you didn't show any scientific data at all to support this. You need to stop claiming this; it makes you look, well, even worse.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I didn't say the data presented and informed opinion was conclusive support or evidence for liberal bias, but it was support and evidence that far outweighs anything yet presented to oppose it. And the fact is both Blatham and Cyclop insisted that I support the thesis while you both maintained there was no obligation for you to support any of your own vitriolic objections to it.

But now Blatham does not wish to support his own thesis re Horowitz but thinks those who oppose it should prove their basis for opposition.

I'm just pointing out the double standard here. That's all.

0 Replies

foxfyre

I think you could not spot a double standard if you took the full afternoon building it in two directions.

You cannot allow yourself to be mistaken about anything of significance in your framework of ideas. Your boat is headed for that painted horizon and it ain't goin' anywhere but where you got it pointed. I've never seen such a tight grip on a rudder. Even george, who had to white-knuckle a carrier around the annoying swirl of savage-piloted dinghies, can walk over a few steps, if only to check out some dark cleavage below. Not you.

All you are doing is preaching, and that's fine, sometimes I get a deep tingle from good preaching. But I don't tingle when you speak. There's much less of the playful angel and much more of the hard unyielding pew about your preaching. Such a cold Jesus you offer us. He would set us against each other thus? Prideful and hateful and seeking such vindication as comes from watching the WRONG OTHERS burn forever?

0 Replies

I dont' care if it rains or freezes
Long as i got my plastic Jesus . . .

0 Replies

Then Blatham, this discussion and all others with you is ended. Rather than show me the error in my conclusion, you again choose to attack me personally. But when you can't support your own opinion, that's all you have isn't it. Oh well. I'll move on. All the best to you.

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know