 |
|
|
|
|
#574605 - 07/15/10 11:41 AM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Peter Urkowitz]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
In retrospect, I think JB should NOT have put Knut on ignore, seeing as how much the discussion/debate has gotten so interesting (and I am most definitely not a follower of Shakespeare in any way, shape or form).
Still, JB's reasoning, at the time, was sound...from his apparent point of view. Byrne was right, at the time, to put Knut on ignore because Knut wasn't agreeing with him? But the discussion after the ignoring became more interesting, making Byrne's decision regrettable in retrospect? Uh no. JB's reasoning was apparently not JUST that Knut was simply disagreeing with him, but that there was no REAL logic (Hi, Ceci!) involved in his conclusions. JB felt that Knut was not dealing with the FACTS as they ARE... Mind you, in retrospect, Knut's facts are just as legitimate as JB's facts. How do you figure that? Knut was clearly the most knowledgeable and articulate person in the thread, from beginning to end. He was never rude to Byrne, despite being baited. Indeed. Knut handled himself VERY well. I guess one could argue that the conversation improved because Byrne removed himself from a portion of it, allowing it to proceed more reasonably? So in that respect Byrne did the right thing? Indeed (what...again?). It was a little weird (though not difficult at all) following the discussion as JB & Knut's discussion coincided. Very interesting stuff.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574606 - 07/15/10 11:42 AM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: shjonescrk]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
A few days ago I spent WAY too much time reading that thread on the Shakespeare Authorship Question: http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35592&PN=1&TPN=1It's an interesting topic, and Knut Robert Knutsen acquits himself well, even after Byrne puts him on ignore. Byrne does not acquit himself well, and gets pretty snippy and aggressive at times, but not terrible, I guess. That's a, more or less, fair assessment. This is one of those subjects in which JB will apparently not swerve his beliefs from. He definitely studied this subject, though (understatement). But that's the thing about Byrne - his opinions don't swerve when presented with an argument on any subject. If you take the Shakespeare thing, not at any time has Byrne even acknowledged that the other side have a point. They are just wrong and he is just right. He is extremely rigid in his views - he should lighten up. I agree, especially regarding this particular subject.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574607 - 07/15/10 12:06 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Troy Lightbourne]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
Lars is certainly a better man than I in this regard. If I were spoken to (or typed at) in the manner in which JB communicated, I wouldn't have been able to react the way Lars did. Mind you, there would have been no anger involved on my end, but I certainly would have had a few more words to say. Well, there you have another reason why I never bothered to register over there. Even watching this thing go down far Lars as it did, I'd probably would still have to say something like, "You really threw Lars on your ignore list over this? Come on, Man!" and then it would be all over for me over there. In a certain sense I don't blame you, but that particular argument was between Lars & JB & since Lars wasn't publicly taken aback by the situation, then nobody else should be (at least over there...obviously). And yet there are visitors (not lurkers) who are able to go to the JBF without such worries. They manage to communicate & have fun regarding a great many subjects (not just about JB & most times JB is not even involved). Yes. I know. Those commission threads are full of them. Actually, you ARE safer in a thread Byrne doesn't participate in... as poor Knut learned. ? As with Lars, he's handled things quite well. I don't imagine he feels poor at all. Some of the rules may indeed be nutty, but they are not insurmountable objects. Well...yeah... so long as you completely play ball with those nutty rules. As I said...Others manage & with no negative effects. Innocent Board Member: "Hey, y'know what I caught this weekend? The Incredibles! Man! That's a good..."
Fellow Board Member: "SHH! Here comes JB!" If the board member was indeed innocent, then there would be no need to worry. There's absolutely nothing wrong with JB wanting to know that he's communicating with someone genuine & not a cowardly fabrication. Why should it matter if he's talking to Joe Whoever or if he's talking to DarthVader2005? It's a message board. Apparently it wasn't always this way. JB's apparently had several experiences that caused him to get all paranoid about this. But it COULD have... which is the point regardless of how it turned out. It could also have turned out that the moon is made of green cheese & the theory of relativity if all about families. Fantasies can be fun, but they can also be unhealthy. Certainly indicated ignorance. And that example just may indicate hate, but it doesn't prove it. With your extreme example in mind, just how was JB indicating a hatred for, as you put it, anti-religion. Well here you're just never going to see it because clearly you have a far higher threshold of what constitutes hate. I really don't need to see the crosses burning before I can safely say, "I guess they hate that guy." My threshold of tolerance is obviously VERY much higher than yours. As I implied earlier in this thread...For me the glass is half full...For you, it appears to be shattered. A jerky statement is not the same as a statement indicating that you hate something. Ah! Hair splitting time! Okaaayyyyy....Switch the word "jerky" for the word "hateful" and the point remains the same. Just because you call someone names or express a dislike for their appearance does not mean that you are being hateful. I have friends (& some relatives!) who act like @$$holes & a couple of them even look like hookers...to me (and I have told them so), but I have no hatred for them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574611 - 07/15/10 01:45 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 10/31/03
Posts: 1338
Loc: Airdrie, Scotland
|
I have friends (& some relatives!) who act like @$$holes & a couple of them even look like hookers...to me (and I have told them so), but I have no hatred for them.
"Why, Paul, I look like a hooker. I do so appreciate your honesty."
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574612 - 07/15/10 01:58 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: shjonescrk]
|
Member
Registered: 12/13/06
Posts: 304
|
"Just because you call someone names or express a dislike for their appearance does not mean that you are being hateful."
what would you call it then?
_________________________
Comics are supposed to be fun, so lighten up people!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574613 - 07/15/10 02:29 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Paul W. Sondersted, Jr.]
|
Member
Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2822
|
Uh no. JB's reasoning was apparently not JUST that Knut was simply disagreeing with him, but that there was no REAL logic (Hi, Ceci!) involved in his conclusions. JB felt that Knut was not dealing with the FACTS as they ARE... Oh, Paul. You still don't understand how logic works, do you? No wonder you can't recognize the fallacies in your own posts. Not dealing with the facts as they are would be an example of a faulty premise, not faulty logic. One can be perfectly logical while working from incorrect facts. In a certain sense I don't blame you, but that particular argument was between Lars & JB & since Lars wasn't publicly taken aback by the situation, then nobody else should be (at least over there...obviously). This, oddly enough, is a Context Imposition on behalf of another person. Whether Lars thinks it was bad behavior or not, that has no bearing on whether or not it was indeed bad behavior. And yet there are visitors (not lurkers) who are able to go to the JBF without such worries. They manage to communicate & have fun regarding a great many subjects (not just about JB & most times JB is not even involved). You are repeating your combination of cherry picking (also known an Argument from Selective Observation) and No True Scotsman. It's not as cute the second time around, Paul. poor Knut? As with Lars, he's handled things quite well. I don't imagine he feels poor at all. Knut seemed upset enough by Byrne's behavior to post the following: "I am here to discuss the issues, and for some reason you've decided to make the Shakespeare issue something personal, so you stalk me in other threads, calling me out with snide, backhanded comments about how I'm irrational, mentally ill and a hypocrite. I would like that to stop. Now. It does not become you." Perhaps he thought Byrne was being snide, backhanded, and unbecoming in a positive way? Interestingly enough, this was posted less than 24 hours before he was placed on Byrne's ignore list. If the board member was indeed innocent, then there would be no need to worry. I must admit that I'm tickled by the fact that you defend John Byrne by slightly paraphrasing the favorite motto of police states: "the innocent have nothing to fear." It is, in case you're wondering, a logical fallacy. Specifically, a false dichotomy.
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever."
- Ed Gauthier, DCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574615 - 07/15/10 02:35 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: Alexander Ness]
|
Member
Registered: 12/19/05
Posts: 2822
|
A libertarian I know who is a sort word choice nazi says it is not hateful or mean to describe a fat person as fat. Nor an ugly person as ugly. This is one of many reasons why libertarians tend to come off as viewing the world through some sort of bizarre, socially inept tunnel vision. If you say something knowing it will be hurtful to another person, getting huffy and insisting that, "hey, I'm just being factually accurate! You ARE ugly!" does not magically make it less hurtful.
_________________________
"When one says 'Africa,' it refers to Africa in the Euro-colonized sense, not the damn bush country or whatever."
- Ed Gauthier, DCP
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574616 - 07/15/10 03:17 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: shjonescrk]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
I have friends (& some relatives!) who act like @$$holes & a couple of them even look like hookers...to me (and I have told them so), but I have no hatred for them.
"Why, Paul, I look like a hooker. I do so appreciate your honesty." Sometimes the truth hurts, but telling it like it is does not require hate. Nice try, though.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#574617 - 07/15/10 03:17 PM
Re: Q for JB
[Re: aric shapiro]
|
Member
Registered: 07/22/01
Posts: 4593
Loc: Sparks, Nevada, United States
|
"Just because you call someone names or express a dislike for their appearance does not mean that you are being hateful."
what would you call it then? See above.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index