Diversity of Everything but Thought

Brandy wrote:

After reading this entire thread, which was not easy as it goes on forever, I find Fox and three or four others right on target, and their main critics to be just that. Critics but with no balls at all.

That is an opinion from someone who claims to have read nearly 200 pages of this thread.

0 Replies

well, for my part, it was just an old war wound. (my voice hasn't changed a bit)

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

blatham wrote:
Horowitz's love of diversity is clearly evidenced within the sites and organizations he has set up. Absolutely NO voice that is remotely left makes any appearance at all. That's because Horowitz is sincere about diversity of ideas. ...

Let me try to put your argument into an objective form that I can understand.
quote]

Is that possible?

Sorry! I couldn't resist!

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Her toys, Atkins, her shop-worn, faded, silly toys . . .

Whoda thunk it?!

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

Notice how Brandy only appears when someone like foxfyre (she? !) or another member of the clacque needs help?

No, not until you mentioned it.
Remarkable in my view, too, is that she first posted (and joined on 14 Sep 2004), but on Tue, 29 March 2005 posted

Brandy wrote:

Well here I go. My first post. I read it all ...

0 Replies

Damn you and your researching ways, Walter!

heh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Damn you and your researching ways, Walter!

heh

Cycloptichorn

Someone has to do it!

0 Replies

Atkins wrote:

Brandy wrote:
I lost a bet to Fox not too long ago. She warned me that there were people here who could not have a discussion without using insulting speech and insulting those they despise. I was certain that if people were civil, it would generate civility. Obviously I was wrong.

Brandy is obviously a sham. Notice how Brandy only appears when someone like foxfyre (she? !) or another member of the clacque needs help?

Are you still attempting diagnoses, Dr. Atkins?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Atkins wrote:
Notice how Brandy only appears when someone like foxfyre (she? !) or another member of the clacque needs help?

No, not until you mentioned it.
Remarkable in my view, too, is that she first posted (and joined on 14 Sep 2004), but on Tue, 29 March 2005 posted

Brandy wrote:
Well here I go. My first post. I read it all ...

I hate to speak for anyone -- so I'm not -- but I should point out that Brandy indicated she had just read a long thread and was ready to wade into the deep. As she did, you might allow her to state that it was her first post (on that thread) and not think too much of it. Walter, the good Dr. Atkins is in a habit of - with an air of authority - diagnosing posters based upon a scintilla of information (didn't Frist do that), so it might be worth hesitation when agreeing with his assessments in the future.

(Edited to correct that her "first" post was in a different thread)

0 Replies

I just want to point out that I spoke for myself and - as said in my above response - found that remarkakle ... in my view.

But thanks for yours, Tico.

0 Replies

Ahem. For the record I am working on an advanced degree and working two jobs so I don't have a lot of time to be here. I met Fox at a meeting last fall and we have stayed in touch. Because there was a thread of particular interest to me, she directed me to this forum. If I seem tuned in to her it is because I know her and like her. I don't know who the ''clique'' is supposed to be, but if Judge Atkins is opposed to it, I think I would be happy to be part of it.

Thank you to Ticomaya for defending my honor.

And to Finnd'Abuzz I am happy to include you among the few.

My lunch hour is over and I have to get back to my class. Please feel free to keep talking about me.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I just want to point out that I spoke for myself and - as said in my above response - found that remarkakle ... in my view.

But thanks for yours, Tico.

Anytime, Walter.

0 Replies

Brandy wrote:

I don't know who the ''clique'' is supposed to be, but if Judge Atkins is opposed to it, I think I would be happy to be part of it.

quote]

Well, doesn't that say a great deal about how judgmental this person is or these people are. Prejudicial.

Anyway, the writer lacks an air of authenticity.

And the word was clacque.

0 Replies

Quote:

Atkins writes

Brandy wrote:
I don't know who the ''clique'' is supposed to be, but if Judge Atkins is opposed to it, I think I would be happy to be part of it.

quote]

Well, doesn't that say a great deal about how judgmental this person is or these people are. Prejudicial.

Anyway, the writer lacks an air of authenticity.

And the word was clacque.

Do you mean claque, oh critic of everybody else's posts?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you mean claque, oh critic of everybody else's posts?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

...Horowitz is far more of a political creature than any prof I ever had or any student I ever studied with. And he is certainly more singular minded as to what constitutes proper political ideas. If you would want anyone to do this task, he's just about the worst possible choice. He manifests no love of viewpoint balance in anything he does. He is singularly and specifically and totally out to forward a conservative viewpoint - his mission statement says that. ...

In this post of yours, until this paragraph, I thought your position was that Horowitz was simply wrong about his perception of a significant general bias in our universities toward L points of view and against R points of view. For my convenience, I'll label that bias L//R.

While I have not personally encountered evidence of L//R bias other than the obvious bias of particular professors like Ward Churchill, I cannot find sufficient evidence to conclude there is or is not L//R.

Nonetheless, in this post I'll assume there is no L//R. Given that, and in spite of that I am unable to fault anyone who thinks there is such bias for working to give evidence of that bias and to reduce and perhaps eliminate it. I am unable to conclude from Horowitz's efforts to correct an imbalance he perceives exists that Horowitz "manifests no love of viewpoint balance in anything he does." Yes he is passionate about obtaining a balance he thinks currently doesn't exist, but that is not a fault. His fault is at worst his conviction that L//R exists.

So what is the evidence that Horowitz and other like-thinking people are wrong or right?

Discussion of that question is what I thought this thread was about. That's what I thought Foxfyre in particular was interested in doing and was doing. How about you?

I know that I am interested in reading the arguments on either side of the issue. What I call good-guy-bad-guy arguments do not belong in this thread because they do not address why Horowitz and other like-thinking people are wrong, or why Horowitz and other like-thinking people are right.

0 Replies

Quote:

I am unable to conclude from Horowitz's efforts to correct an imbalance he perceives exists that Horowitz "manifests no love of viewpoint balance in anything he does."

If
1 - he manifests elsewhere no love of viewpoint balance (and he does not, as evidenced by his sites and operations which are totally devoted to forwarding a conservative viewpoint and which contain nothing but conservative opinions - of the more extreme variety often) and if

2 - his mission statement is to forward conservative ideology (which is his mission statement)

then we might find reason to question his proclamation of a love of balance, and we might find reason to question your claim or supposition that...

Quote:

His fault is at worst his conviction that L//R exists.

Quote:

So what is the evidence that Horowitz and other like-thinking people are wrong or right?
Discussion of that question is what I thought this thread was about. That's what I thought Foxfyre in particular was interested in doing and was doing. How about you?

Preceding this page, whatever number it now is, are many many pages wherein that discussion has taken place. After a while, recapitulation can weary one.

0 Replies

kelticwizard wrote:

All I saw in that excerpt was something about Republicans keeping silent about Monica for eight months while Clinton "framed the issue".

Ican wrote:

You either read too fast the several pages of excerpts, or you didn't read them at all.

The issue is the following statement made by yourself.

Ican wrote:

Horowitz was describing and not advocating the lousey tactics of contemporary radicals.

Show me ONE SENTENCE which deals with that in the single excerpt from Horowitz you pointed us to. Go ahead-one sentence. You can't do it. Because it is not there.

Oh, and don't try that stupid dodge that Amazon won't let you quote the excerpt. Amazon's excerpt is three pages long-you can quote a sentence or two without violating Amazon's rights. Fair use doctrine.

Folks, the fact is that Blatham asked Ican to produce evidence from Horowitz that Horowitz was describing, not advocating, lousy tactics and Ican does two things:

A) Points to an excerpt from Horowitz' book that does NOT deal with the issue at all, plus

B) Quotes a lot of blurbs which claim that Horowitz did this, but which were not written by Horowitz himself. And are therefore useless.

That is why Ican keeps claiming that he has given Blatham "excerpts" from Horowitz-when in fact he has produced only ONE excerpt, (singular) from Horowitz and several from book reviews written, naturally, by people other than Horowitz. The book blurbs tend to support Ican's contention-but the excerpt from Horowitz himself does not.

Of course, IF Ican actually has this book at his fingertips, he can easily quote a sentence or two and give us the page number-but he won't do that. His excuse? We wouldn't trust his transcription. False. If he prints the sentence and page number, he would put pressure on his opponentw to prove it is false.

The fact is, at this point we have to question if Ican really has read this book. Because he is not acting like someone who has bought this book. Someone who actually bought the book would simply be quoting short paragraphs and giving out page numbers to support his contentions.

0 Replies

Horowitz is not a good guy. He's an ideologue in the worst sense of the term. And he is, perhaps more problematically, ceaselessly self-absorbed.

The book of his I have (Left Illusions) is painful to wade through. The first 50 pages, written by himself or others, are filled with aggrandizing reflections...

"Ponderous though these thoughts were for a fifth grader, these ideas were indeed mine."

"Like [Whittaker] Chambers, I had become the most hated ex-radical of my generation."

"I am now as prominent on the conservative side of the ideological divide as I once was in the ranks of the left."

"As a result of the marxist ideas I had already absorbed, I was thus able by the age of eleven to dispose of the enduring pathologies of our social condition."

And so it goes, on and on. And he wishes, too, that we understand his poetic and learned range...

"That YES can be sounded with an emphasis that ranges from the frenzied bitternes of a Timon to the melancholic petulance of a Jaques in As You Like It. It has it pradigmatic expression in the answer of Diogenes the Cnic to the world conqueror from Macedon who had stopped in his way to ask the philospher what he desired of him, Alexander. Diogenes answered that he wanted only that Alexander step aside and cease to block his sunlight."

"What separates Beatrice's statement from Hamlets..."

"The career of Don Quixote (albeit an 'obsessed' romantic) illustrates how a critical realism..."

"'In the realist, the miracle springs from faith, and not faith from the miracle' (dostoevsky). 'Whether we take...the Indo-Aryan rita...the primeval order of that which is right and just, or Israel's tsedek, in which truth and justice combine, or the Greek dike, the inexorable course of world events..."

"'I have prayed just one prayer in my life: Use me.' These are the words of Spegel, the actor, in Ingmar Berman's film The Magician."

Then, he begins talking about the left in universities...note the time warp aspect...

"Can Maoism, the new vogue in SDS ideology..."

"These are not academic points. The 'Weatherman' statement of the new SDS leadership is built around the strategic concept of 'people's war' as laid down by China's Lin Pao. The concept envisages a united people's front of Third World liberations forces encircling the principal metropolis of imperialism, the United States."

It doesn't get any better. Just more strident.

0 Replies

"Strident" is definitely the word.

Judging from that excerpt on Amazon, Horowitz clearly writes for the right-wing True Believer. If you are going to get through Horowitz' book, you had better believe in all or most right wing positons before you start, or you will throw the book down in disgust after a few pages.

0 Replies

Have you read the book KW?

0 Replies

Diversity of Everything but Thought

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know