tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post113667347516604800..comments2024-03-29T06:22:47.638-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Preventing Tyranny: Part TwoDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137252115854010612006-01-14T07:21:00.000-08:002006-01-14T07:21:00.000-08:00CNS News - Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Qu...<A HREF="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200601\SPE20060113a.html" REL="nofollow">CNS News - Murtha's War Hero Status Called Into Question</A><BR/><BR/><B>A Cybercast News Service investigation also reveals that one of Murtha's former Democratic congressional colleagues and a fellow decorated Vietnam veteran, Don Bailey of Pennsylvania, alleges that Murtha admitted during an emotional conversation on the floor of the U.S. House in the early 1980s that he did not deserve his Purple Hearts.<BR/><BR/>"[Murtha] is putting himself forward as some combat veteran with serious wounds and he's using that and it's dishonest and it's wrong," Bailey told Cybercast News Service on Jan. 9. Murtha served in the Marines on active duty and in the reserves from 1952 until his retirement as a colonel in 1990. He volunteered for service in Vietnam and was a First Marine Regiment intelligence officer in 1966 and 1967. </B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200601\POL20060113d.html" REL="nofollow">CNS News - Murtha's Anti-War Stance Overshadows Abscam Past</A><BR/><BR/><B>Members of the press have given extensive and glowing coverage to Rep. John Murtha's criticism of the war in Iraq, but have overlooked a number of other controversies the Pennsylvania Democrat has experienced over the past 25 years. This includes his reported role as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Abscam bribery scandal of the late 1970s and early 1980s.<BR/><BR/>Murtha has denied any wrongdoing, but Cybercast News Service has learned that one of Murtha's former allies, a Democratic congressman who served on the House Ethics Committee in 1981 and says he lobbied colleagues not to censure Murtha, now believes Murtha lied to him about his role in Abscam.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>The swiftboating of Murtha has begun, I 'll be eagerly waiting to see who will stand by him and come to his defense.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137163086154087822006-01-13T06:38:00.000-08:002006-01-13T06:38:00.000-08:00Read about our officialn policy of ending tyranny ...Read about our <A HREF="http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2005/07/coming-us-policy-ending-tyranny-in-our.html" REL="nofollow">officialn policy of ending tyranny in the world.</A>M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1137151640959453642006-01-13T03:27:00.000-08:002006-01-13T03:27:00.000-08:00If the rich pay the most in taxes they will own th...If the rich pay the most in taxes they will own the government.<BR/><BR/>Well the rich pay the most and do own the government.<BR/><BR/>You want citizen government?<BR/><BR/>The citizens are going to have to pay for it. i.e. lower taxes on the rich raise them on every one else.<BR/><BR/>Not very popular is it?<BR/><BR/>BTW about 80% of the soldiers in Iraq support the mission.<BR/><BR/>Surprisingly about 80% of Afghanis are favorable to the USA. <BR/><BR/>BTW what is your solution to the Iranian problem - you know the bit about starting an atomic war to destroy Israel.<BR/><BR/>I note that Iraq is fairly close to Iran. As is Afghanistan.<BR/><BR/>Of course all this could be the ravings of mad men. No more important than the 1924 ravings of a certain German (well Austrian actually) mad man.<BR/><BR/>BTW jihadism is a figment of our imaginations and Bush is paying those guys to increase his personal power.<BR/><BR/>I blame Clinton for the '93 WTC attack. He engineered it to increase his power.<BR/><BR/>In fact Thomas Jefferson got us started on the whole anti-jihadi business. He should have been nicer to them instead of making war on them. <BR/><BR/>Islam is a religion of peace - they do promise peace as soon as they control the whole world. We ought to give peace a chance.<BR/><BR/>Lots of people live under sharia. We could too.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136951170024690852006-01-10T19:46:00.000-08:002006-01-10T19:46:00.000-08:00This post is simply to say that I read all of you....This post is simply to say that I read all of you. It's absorbed. Though I think some of it unfair.<BR/><BR/>I quasi apologized for "moron" several times and was told that it had been shrugged off... AND that it had been repaid by worse statements elsewhere, up at the posting (and not comment) level. Since Even my initial response was somewhat justified, all of this, in my opinion, makes my ad hominem sin minor.<BR/><BR/>I am done with this. I have long warned you all that a thick skin is needed, down here at the comments level. Rob has one, and earned my respect, standing up for himself when I got testy... and paraphrasing when necessary.<BR/><BR/>But I have no pity for whiners who first accuse me of things I never said, then get all martyr without a scintilla of real justification.<BR/><BR/>Since you all want me to, I withdraw the "go away." Whiskey has had intelligent things to say in the past and I will try to shrug this as flowing from finals pressure. <BR/><BR/>I am not visiting this layer again.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136941849650775252006-01-10T17:10:00.000-08:002006-01-10T17:10:00.000-08:00Dr. Brin:You haven't mistreated me on this blog as...Dr. Brin:<BR/><BR/>You haven't mistreated me on this blog as of yet. I don't think you're a big meanie, obviously, and your work has had more effect on my views than you might realize.<BR/>(Still, even after reading "The Transparent Society" and enjoying it immensely, I prefer some shroud of anonymity when posting to open fora on the internet. Others maintain a <I>far</I> stronger ability to look at me than I have to look back at them, particularly if I provide my full name and they don't even post here. Selective anonymity in different fora, then, is my only recourse.)<BR/><BR/>While whiskey's response was way over the top, I understood why he balked at the classification of Bush's tax cut as "aristocratic."<BR/><BR/>(For example: if the tax cuts were aimed at aristocrats, so much moreso are the taxes themselves! While loopholes desperately need to be closed, and tax evasion often lets certain wealthy organizations and individuals off the hook, the rich still pay way, way more than the lower-middle class. Much of the country that ends up as zero-filers -- that is, people who don't even <I>pay</I> federal taxes when all is said and done -- still received "refund" checks. And many people who are not wealthy at all -- I included -- received a welcome check that was quite reasonable considering how little we pay in taxes. If whiskey is being honest, as I suspect he is, then he enjoyed the same treatment.)<BR/><BR/>I also didn't think that his response, however unpleasant, justified an ad hominem attack. The easiest way to carry the high ground in a debate is to stay calm (and get others on your side to do the same) and let your opponents lose their head (and thus their credibility) by being irrational and emotional and angry. It's also frequently the best way to remain honest.<BR/><BR/>It is quite possible that I simply missed the not-unpleasant, vigorous disagreements here over the last year. Other times, I have been quite certain that the prevailing attitudes here drove away <I>fairly</I> respectful dissent. Far better to remain civil to someone who is initially uncivil and welcome him to real, civil debate. Some intelligent people who have much to bring to the conversation nevertheless start off a bit militantly with an unfamiliar crowd, especially when they misunderstand their opponents. Many a time, I have found it easy to clarify my position and simply invite my opponent to debate civilly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136937906556460722006-01-10T16:05:00.000-08:002006-01-10T16:05:00.000-08:00I guess, by now, one more comment won't make the d...I guess, by now, one more comment won't make the damage caused by this little spat any worse.<BR/><BR/>Damage? Why, yes. A posting with an important message (what was it again?), and look at how much it has been discussed. Go on, scroll back and see. A few pertinent remarks drowned out by an increasingly shrill rantfest (the noise level not assisted by the cries of 'hey, fellas!')<BR/><BR/>Do you want to try persuading republican friends to stand up with a variant on Peter Seller's <A HREF="http://thesession.org/discussions/display.php/2576/comments#comment50311" REL="nofollow">Irish Band</A> sketch?<BR/><BR/>Karl Rove &co. would be whooping fit to bust if they knew!<BR/><BR/>The best thing to do is to consider this an object lesson in why we should *all* learn moderation in our responses.<BR/><BR/>Oh yes, and remember to check out this Friday's Long Now discussion on nuclear energy (for the promise of an exercise in paraphrasing, if nothing else)Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136922760323330832006-01-10T11:52:00.000-08:002006-01-10T11:52:00.000-08:00Can both Brin and Whiskey calm down regarding this...Can both Brin and Whiskey calm down regarding this sword fighting, please?Sarabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05044786582426844753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136895233217956782006-01-10T04:13:00.000-08:002006-01-10T04:13:00.000-08:00Personally, I think I would be delighted to be in ...Personally, I think I would be delighted to be in a position to even consider being invited to a $100-dollar-a-plate dinner (I'd never go, even if I could afford to, but it would be nice to be invited). However, my finances are such that even a dinner out at Denny's strains my budget to the breaking point, and sometimes beyond.<BR/><BR/>Bush's tax cuts were indeed aristocratic, in that they were aimed primarily at an economic aristocracy. That some small part of that happened to splash into the upper echelons of the middle class was strictly accidental, and I personally suspect that were Bush's handlers able to avoid that, they would have. (I don't credit Bush himself with being particularly malicious - I don't think he's bright enough to be malicious.)<BR/><BR/>Whiskey John, I appreciate your apology, but some of your supporters here seem to have missed the fact that you flew off the handle over a misunderstanding of one three-word phrase that didn't even pertain to the topic at hand. David is within his rights to ask you to back off in the confines of his own blog, of course.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Brin, I understand your annoyance at the perceived attack on you and your beliefs, an attack which, if truly believed, would be at such variance with the available facts as to stagger the imagination. However, responding at the sniping level more than once, while fun, really doesn't advance the dialogue any...<BR/><BR/>Now, you two, sit down, shake hands, and have a beer. That's an order. Don't make me turn this Internet around, 'cause I'll do it, believe you me, mister! :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136894021706561622006-01-10T03:53:00.000-08:002006-01-10T03:53:00.000-08:00Francis, please note that your criticism manifeste...<EM>Francis, please note that your criticism manifested as an expression of your personal impression that I am sometimes closeminded or repressive of differing opinions. What I want to address is not the opinion itself -- which I could dispute by pointing to hundreds of lively give and take exchanges here -- but rather to the fact that you were expressing an opinion.</EM><BR/><BR/>And I could produce a pile of examples for you of your own words. Believe it or not, there are some sane post-modernists out there (and the early post-modernists were reacting to the insanity of an unchallenged Modernism which lead to an effective lack of criticism).<BR/><BR/>Besides, you talk about closed-mindedness. In my experience, few people think themselves to be closed-minded. They just have a range of opinions they consider sane and sensible, a range they consider acceptable, a range they consider crazy or stupid, and a range they consider abhorrent. Everything I've seen indicates that you are no different from anyone else I've ever met here.<BR/><BR/><EM>The person in question was not doing that. He was shoving words and beliefs into my mouth, in a screeching tone of bitter accusation, no less.</EM><BR/><BR/>My reading of his initial post is that he was not. What he was pointing out was that you appeared to be making an insulting generalisation and one that was contrary to reality as he perceived it and at that point anyone in his situation who knew you less well would tune out what you were saying.<BR/><BR/>There is a world of difference between making a strawman argument about someone and pointing out that what they appear to be saying is not what they intend to say - and that what they appear to be saying is somewhat counterproductive to their goals. (Something that Whiskey was guilty of even as he pointed it out to you).<BR/><BR/>At that point, you misread him as badly as he says you could have been misread - and things spiralled out of control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136881294681516692006-01-10T00:21:00.000-08:002006-01-10T00:21:00.000-08:00Well, I guess I should have clicked reload to look...Well, I guess I should have clicked reload to look at recent comments before I posted my comment. Whiskey1, I applaud your last comment. I think it was a stand up thing to do. I hope David will respond in kind.<BR/><BR/>CharlesBig Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136880939992706982006-01-10T00:15:00.000-08:002006-01-10T00:15:00.000-08:00(Note: I'm posting this comment in both David's an...(Note: I'm posting this comment in both David's and Whiskey1's blogs, as well on on my own <A HREF="http://bigcthoughts.blogspot.com/2006/01/how-to-talk-to-modernist.html" REL="nofollow">blog</A>. Feel free to respond there on "neutral ground")<BR/><BR/>Ugh. Is it too late to plead for calm and forgiveness from both sides? David, Whiskey1, you guys have let a series of small misunderstandings mushroom into fullblown mutual disgust that I think is unwarranted and unhelpful. <BR/><BR/>Stop inhaling the indignation fumes and look at what the other guy is telling you! David, a couple comments up you mentioned the "Paraphrasing Challenge" that I actually think is a great way to have a constructive argument, but then you didn't do it regarding Whiskey1's arguments. In an attempt to bring the situation into perspective from a neutral observer, I'll try it for both your arguments. Let me know if I don't accurately represent you.<BR/><BR/>The pragmatist in me tells me that this won't do any good mending fences between two strangers on the Internet. Why should you guys listem to me anyway, right? However, the optimist in me tells me that at the very least I'll improve my own arguing skills, and I can't make the situation any worse. The worst that can happen is that you both, in addition to hating each other, hate me as well, right? :) Well, here we go:<BR/><BR/>David:<BR/>You're upset because you perceive Whiskey1 leveling a personal attack at you by "putting words in your mouth" and asserting that you hold positions that you don't actually hold. You're also miffed that he has missed the main point of this particular blog post to rant about your use the phrase "aristocratic tax cuts."<BR/><BR/>Whiskey1:<BR/>You're upset because David doesn't address the substance of your critiques and chooses instead to respond with insults. You perceive hypocrisy when the guy who espouses that we should avoid falling into the trap of false dichotomies and vilifying one's enemies resorts to nothing more than personal attacks when confronted with counter arguments.<BR/><BR/>Did I get your positions right? For what it's worth, here's my perceptions on both positions:<BR/><BR/>David:<BR/>When I look at Whiskey1's posts, I see some good constructive criticism in there. Granted, he makes some claims about your position on tax cuts that seems like a big leap from your one "aristocratic tax cuts" statement. However, I could also interpret this as a rhetorical device to get you to see what effect your words might have on people with different perceptions and assumptions than your own. Even though you are against "class warfare," the "aristocratic tax cuts" language can evoke that perception in some people, particularly the rational conservatives and libertarians you want to reach. Whiskey1 pointed this out to you, and perhaps overreached by claiming that you actually are against tax cuts for anyone. However, you didn't calmly refute that claim, or respond to the critique that maybe your use of "aristocratic" langauge was a poor choice. Yes, the body of your writing on this blog and elsewhere refutes this, but your direct responses didn't address Whiskey1's substance, which is poor form in an argument.<BR/><BR/>I also submit that, as the guy who is shouting warnings at every opportunity about avoiding the "indignation high" and trying to see your opponent as a fellow rational human being rather than an evil monster, you have some high expectations from the peanut gallery. Speaking for myself, I expect you to "practice what you preach" and show us how it is done when you argue. Not that I expect you to be perfect (you are still human after all) but I do expect that you should have a better-than-average perception that distinguishes mere misunderstandings from pure malice. And I know, you have time constraints, this blog is a hobby, and you're not as careful in the comments as you are in the main post. I'm willing to give you plenty of consideration for all those factors. Still, I think you missed an opportunity here not to indulge your anger.<BR/><BR/>And Whiskey1's opinions of you are not hidden away behind your back, they're two clicks away on his blog. And they're not slander (or I guess libel, since it's in print). Other than some profanity, they're no worse than anything he's said "to your face" in your blog. He also gave you some substantial compliments.<BR/><BR/>Whiskey1:<BR/>I think you could have addressed the point about "aristocratic tax cuts" better. I think your constructive criticism would have been better received had you not made the assertion that David was calling regular people aristocrats. At least, that's the way I initially perceived your comment. And, come on, you know David isn't espousing the traditional liberal "tax and spend" canard.<BR/><BR/>Yes, he was wrong to call you a moron and not address the substance of your criticism. But, minus the moron (point in your favor) isn't that what you've done with his main post? You've ignored his major point about tyranny to focus on a poor choice of language regarding the Bush tax cuts, and then expanded that to claim that David is against tax cuts for the middle class. Isn't that a bit of a leap? In previous exchanges, you've seen that David is rather impulsive, even rude, when responding to comments on his blog. He's got limited resources, and sometimes he'll overract to statements that on further consideration can be interpretted less hostilely. But haven't we all done that sometimes? I also realize that it seems like pretty hypocritical behavior for the guy who coined CITOKATE to insult you rather than address your criticisms. I'm not defending that. But rather than trying to resolve his misunderstandings of your position, you've added fuel to the fire by holding on to your own misunderstandings of his position regarding "aristocratic tax cuts."<BR/><BR/>----<BR/><BR/>... So does any of this make sense? Do you think maybe you both are overreacting to perceived insults? I realize that this is maybe too late since the real insults have already started flying on both sides, but I thought it was worth a shot to try and make peace. Maybe the "indignation high" has worn off? <BR/><BR/>I'm reminded of the Simpsons episode <A HREF="http://www.snpp.com/episodes/3F09.html" REL="nofollow">"Two Bad Neighbors"</A> in which George H.W. Bush moves into a house across the street from the Simpsons. Homer and Mr. Bush immediately dislike each other, much to the chagrin of their wives. When Marge invites Mrs. Bush over for tea, they discuss their husbands' behavior:<BR/><BR/><I>Barbara</I>: I really feel awful about your lawn, Marge. George can be so stubborn when he thinks he's right.<BR/><I>Marge</I>: Well, Homer, too. They're so much alike.<BR/><I>Barbara</I>: Too bad they got off on the wrong foot. It's just like the Noriega thing. Now, he and George are the best of friends.<BR/><BR/>There is much wisdom in the Simpsons. :)<BR/><BR/>CharlesBig Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02475844932543383723noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136875923735770802006-01-09T22:52:00.000-08:002006-01-09T22:52:00.000-08:00*sigh*I agree, until whiskey becomes more interest...*sigh*<BR/><BR/>I agree, until whiskey becomes more interesting there's no more reason to respond.<BR/><BR/>Most everyone here is just too old to go on arguing in this sort of spiral. And I know I'm still too young to go on any longer. We've got more important stuff to do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136872083920985872006-01-09T21:48:00.000-08:002006-01-09T21:48:00.000-08:00It amazes me that people get so worked up over thi...It amazes me that people get so worked up over this. Here we have a opportunity to give our comments to a Hugo and Nebula award winning writer and his prompt responses and all the world to see the result. Yet Wiskey1 felt free to deliberately insult the author on his own blog. Just remember none of us would have this opportunity if it were not for Dr.Brin. It’s a rare and wonderful opportunity. If we end up wasting Brin’s time with personal offences over a minor point this Blog will disappear and all of us will be the losers. So I say thanks Dr.Brin for being open to this kind of abuse, but you don’t have to take the bait.<BR/><BR/>On a aside, I debated with Trolls like Wiskey1 before, where you can guess what they will say even before you see it on the screen, and go ballistic over a single word like Aristocratic. His mind was already made up before he ever came to this Blog. I thought it was laugh out loud funny how obviously angry he was at not being taken seriously. Cheap sophistry wrapped in a veneer of criticism can be had for nothing on the news channels, we don’t need to encourage the trolls here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136863546570662572006-01-09T19:25:00.000-08:002006-01-09T19:25:00.000-08:00Um... you mean, like the horrific way that I am tr...Um... you mean, like the horrific way that I am treating you two guys? Ooh, me big meanie... ;-)<BR/><BR/>I will contemplate your expressions of opinion that I am intolerant of differences of opinion. In my own opinion, I can look back at many vigorous but not unpleasant disagreements during the last year.<BR/><BR/>I will contemplate your opinions, even though I initially disagree...<BR/><BR/>...if you will contemplate that this fellow did nothing like disagreeing or expressing an opinion. He came out of no where shrilly ACCUSING me of holding beliefs that bore no resemblance - an any remote way -- to any that I hold. Beliefs that he indignantly posed as wanting to take food off his table.<BR/><BR/>If you cannot tell the difference, be assured that there is one. Indeed, your criticisms, just now, did not raise my pulse, my blood pressure, my ire... or any desire to make you go away.<BR/><BR/>Only a wish to do a little better. Thanks.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136860155232633922006-01-09T18:29:00.000-08:002006-01-09T18:29:00.000-08:00Note: I didn't read what you had written right the...Note: I didn't read what you had written right there, David. Perhaps you have had some give-and-take exchanges where people disagreed with you politically and were well received, but I haven't read them. As far as I've read, anyone who wasn't on <I>basically</I> the same page as you has been shouted down by you and by other posters here -- largely from the sizable anti-Bush camp (regardless of how they self-identify, politically).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136859789801998532006-01-09T18:23:00.000-08:002006-01-09T18:23:00.000-08:00Dr. Brin:I agree with Francis. You have a ready-m...Dr. Brin:<BR/><BR/>I agree with Francis. You have a ready-made sympathetic group in the libertarian/limited-government conservative camp, and despite (or perhaps because of) my strong disagreement with many things you say, I stick around because you have some very interesting things to say. But when you act in a way that would get someone kicked off a good political forum, and seemingly try to form a little echo chamber here (despite your CITOKATE exhortations!), it strongly discourages that aforementioned sympathetic crowd from paying attention. And Dr. Brin, we're precisely the group you want to reach. We're the people you tried to reach out to at the Libertarian National Convention.<BR/><BR/>So why can't I read a comments page on this blog where a critic was received warmly, whose criticism and disagreement were welcomed and treated seriously?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136857012494611092006-01-09T17:36:00.000-08:002006-01-09T17:36:00.000-08:00Francis, please note that your criticism manifeste...Francis, please note that your criticism manifested as an expression of your personal impression that I am sometimes closeminded or repressive of differing opinions. What I want to address is not the opinion itself -- which I could dispute by pointing to hundreds of lively give and take exchanges here -- but rather to the fact that you were expressing an opinion.<BR/><BR/>The person in question was not doing that. He was shoving words and beliefs into my mouth, in a screeching tone of bitter accusation, no less. And martyrdom, as I was portrayed proposing (in essence) that his family starve.<BR/><BR/>You and everybody else here knew what I meant by "aristocratic tax cuts." Moreover, a decent person might have at least posited that a second meaning might have been the one I meant, rather than the utterly insane interpretation that I thereby meant to call a struggling family "aristocrats."<BR/><BR/>Especially since I made the alternative meaning clear on many occasions.<BR/><BR/>And since the whole point of the posting at-hand had nothing to do with political disagreements like tax policy, and was entirely about creeping tyranny, instead, I had a right to be miffed at a complete non-sequitur, hurled out of the blue.<BR/><BR/>In any event, note the spiral. "moron" was shrugged off... with cryptic reference to revenge taken elsewhere...<BR/><BR/>But horror-stricken insult and righteous indignation and expressions of betrayal and hurt only happened when I said the simple words "go away."<BR/><BR/>You figure it out. Playground stuff.<BR/><BR/>I am done with this. Your post is welcome as CITOKATE and I will try to bear your criticism in mind as I try to maintain a place for lively disagreement.<BR/><BR/>I hope you, in turn, will review what I posted above -- about the Paraphrase Challenge. The warning is out. Disagree with me, fine. <BR/><BR/>But don't screech at me about things I never ever ever ever said or ever believed.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136854660491371182006-01-09T16:57:00.000-08:002006-01-09T16:57:00.000-08:00David, Whiskey1: Do you want a JCB to help you dig...David, Whiskey1: Do you want a JCB to help you dig any faster?<BR/><BR/>David, Whiskey's original point was a good one that you seem to be completely ignoring. You do have a tendency to attack directly those you disagree strongly with (it's one I recognise in myself) and this tends to irritate people <EM>and thereby make you far less effective</EM> at doing anything other than preaching to the choir.<BR/><BR/>Preaching to the choir has its place - but to anyone who is not a member of the choir, you come off as being fairly closed-minded. If you deliberately think you need a focus of opposition (or just have one), narrow it down as much as possible so you do not convince more people than necessary that they are being attacked - at which point they will get defensive and stop listening.<BR/><BR/>If you want to attack the tax cuts, a better phrasing would have been "tax cuts mostly for the benefit of the aristocracy" - calling them "aristocratic tax cuts" implies that everyone who benefited (short term anyway) was an aristocrat - clearly counterfactual and somewhat insulting to what would otherwise be a fairly receptive group.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136853355878682402006-01-09T16:35:00.000-08:002006-01-09T16:35:00.000-08:00FWIW, I think the blog in question is:http://www.w...FWIW, I think the blog in question is:<BR/><BR/>http://www.whiskeyb4breakfast.org/<BR/><BR/>Plenty there that I thought immature, self-contradictory, and just plain wrong -- or should I have swiped Pauli's "not even wrong"?! [hey, a good blog in its own right if you like physics, see http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/ ] -- ironic in view of the blog's subtitle "Occasional mentions of great pieces of music, but mostly just ranting about sloppy thinking from a skeptics perspective". But I didn't see anything I thought actionable. I'm not a lawyer, though. And I only read the most recent two posts.<BR/><BR/>If someone else wants to take a look, see the contents of the URL above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136850370989562902006-01-09T15:46:00.000-08:002006-01-09T15:46:00.000-08:00Everybody please note: moral outrage, from a perso...Everybody please note: moral outrage, from a person who, shielded by pseudonymity, publicly avows that he has slagged me, by name, in other, quasi-public places.<BR/><BR/>He did so, also, without ever inviting me to see the slurs that he posted in his blog, or allowing me any chance to reply. <BR/><BR/>And yet, such a person -- who has thus gone out of his way to stab another person in the back, in REAL AND POTENTIALLY LASTING, HARMFUL WAYS -- indulges in the self-righteous hallucination that he is the injured party.<BR/><BR/>The rest of you, looking back, can see that I denied holding the views that he attributed to me. e,g. ever calling a middle class person an "aristocrat," or any of the other absurd things shoved into my (or rather, a strawman's) mouth. (Indeed, I have never opposed all tax cuts. Else I would never have been a keynote speaker at a Libertarian Party National Convention!)<BR/><BR/>Explicitly, I said: "I do not hold the views you attribute to me."<BR/><BR/>Now, how does a mature - vs immature - person respond, when told this by another person?<BR/><BR/>The immature person responds "OH YES YOU DO BELIEVE THOSE THINGS!"<BR/><BR/>Um... who is the better expert on what I believe? Is Whiskey the world expert on what David Brin believes? Or is... maybe... David Brin the expert on what David Brin believes?<BR/><BR/>Ah, well, of course it is possible to catch another person being two-faced and hypocritical. But in that case (key point) who bears a burden of proof?<BR/><BR/>The mature person responds with:<BR/><BR/>"Hm... well, if you deny holding the views that I just attributed to you, I had better find explicit statements and build a case... or else I should retract."<BR/><BR/>The ideal way to do this is called the Paraphrasing Challenge. No person can really, maturely, argue with another person till they have tried to honestly and sincerely PARAPHRASE what they believe the other person's position really is! Otherwise, we might ALL give in to the temptation to strawman each other.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, you do not understand your opponent's position until you have paraphrased so well that he (maybe grudgingly) has to admit that your paraphrasing accurately portrays his position.<BR/><BR/>To the point. It is not my job disprove intemperate and insultingly shrill spewings that purport to represent my views. I am in no way obligated to bear that burden of proof. Nor (especially) is it my job to "point-by-point" prove positions that I actually never said and have never believed!<BR/><BR/>(Talk about a "have you stopped beating your wife?" cheat!)<BR/><BR/>If this were a decent person, then instead of slandering me in secret... and yet in public... (something that is now quite possible on the Internet)... he would have said: "Let me paraphrase what it is that I think you've said, Is this really what you believe? If so, I plan to argue against that."<BR/><BR/>But this person probably hasn't even a clue what I am talking about, so why am I wasting my time?<BR/><BR/>Because the rest of you deserve some discussion of this general class of behavior. It is deeply related to the drug high I discuss at:<BR/>http://www.davidbrin.com/addiction.html<BR/><BR/>Now, also please note the increasingly shrill tone. Recall, a while back, that his dudgeon was much lower, saying that he did not mind "moron" much and that he had said far worse about me at the main posting level of his own site? Now he is wounded, wounded, wounded! What a spiral.<BR/><BR/>As a further point, I want to talk about blogging protocol. You will note that I am always much more careful with language in the main postings, than in followup commentary. Clearly it is well-understood by most that the commentary level allows more impulsiveness, and requires greater lattitude. I point this out because a few of my responses during this back and forth were less mature than I would have liked. I regret that.<BR/><BR/>But this person openly avows to having posted nasty things about me in his blog. I ask that some of you check to see if these comments were at the <B>formal posting level,</B> and tell me if you find them potentially actionable.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps we should see if modern law agrees about this distiction in blogging levels.<BR/><BR/>Putting a capper on this (I hope), let me say that I apologize to the rest of you for any clumsy stomping around. This kind of thing recurs online too often. I predicted it in Earth. <BR/><BR/>What it all boils down to is this. I have nothing to gain from events such as these. The only person who will continue to be harmed is me. Note that I will probably never mention this person again in all of my life (unless forced to). Whereas he will probably say harmful things about me endlessly, whevever an opportunity arises. (Care to bet?)<BR/><BR/>Still, I benefit. Rob Perkins has been as insulted by me, on several occasions, but he stands up to me, paraphrases, sometimes forces me to back off or rephrase (or even apologize... then he shrugs, and moves on.<BR/><BR/>I am glad to have HIM on this list.<BR/><BR/>In contrast, whatever it costs me in persistent and perpetual sniping -- from a genuine moron -- I am glad to have quits of the other guy.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136838341266397542006-01-09T12:25:00.000-08:002006-01-09T12:25:00.000-08:00Text of the proposed Act Tony Fisk mentioned is at...Text of the proposed Act Tony Fisk mentioned is at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.chiefminister.act.gov.au/docs/B05PG201_v281.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136822835111391532006-01-09T08:07:00.000-08:002006-01-09T08:07:00.000-08:00Oh, and let's not get me wrong. I wasn't talking a...Oh, and let's not get me wrong. I wasn't talking about Hannity *or* Colmes. I was talking about the guests their producers book for the show. <BR/><BR/>I can't stand watching Hannity, btw. He gets about 20 minutes of my time every calendar quarter.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136822748846664402006-01-09T08:05:00.000-08:002006-01-09T08:05:00.000-08:00Wise up? David, I'm trying to introduce the conser...Wise up? <BR/><BR/>David, I'm trying to introduce the conservative impressions into the conversation. I offer the reasons why they don't cry havoc at their betrayal. You're citing the facts most of them (you say) refuse to see. <BR/><BR/>(Plus, it could also be that they're busy with other things, I dunno.)<BR/><BR/>So we're arguing past each other in a way.Rob Perkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13115249244056328076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136796702626448282006-01-09T00:51:00.000-08:002006-01-09T00:51:00.000-08:00After this piece of lying and utterly awful abuse ...After this piece of lying and utterly awful abuse of both reason and the English language... and openly avowing having slandered me elsewhere... I have no choice. This fellow is not a mind I want to have anything further to do with.<BR/><BR/>I will not waste my time point-by-pointing you at any level. Go away. Slag me and do your worst. But go away.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1136786319460514032006-01-08T21:58:00.000-08:002006-01-08T21:58:00.000-08:00@Rob:Wikipedia describes Habeus Corpus thus:Known ...@Rob:<BR/>Wikipedia describes <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeus_corpus" REL="nofollow">Habeus Corpus</A> thus:<BR/><I>Known as the "Great Writ", the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law.</I><BR/><BR/>So, knowing where the individual is isn't the same thing as having them in the court in public view pleading their case. (Although if the individual is hidden away, it makes the championing of their cause that much more difficult, don't you think?)<BR/><BR/>Read that wikipedia article a little further and you will find entries on how Habeus Corpus has been affected by recent anti-terror legislation in the UK, the USA, and Australia. I find it almost too surreal to be frightening when I read that "<I>it (the Australian anti-terror bill) makes it an offence to even talk about somebody being imprisoned. One of the more controversial aspects of the legislation is the requirement that a parent, if informed of their child's detention, may not inform any further person, including the other parent.</I>"<BR/><BR/>(They're coming to take me away, hee hee!)<BR/><BR/>---<BR/>On a happier note, I've discovered Jim Baen's Universe website is now up at <A HREF="http://www.baensuniverse.com/" REL="nofollow">http://www.baensuniverse.com/</A>Tony Fiskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14578160528746657971noreply@blogger.com