[MD] What is SOM?

[david buchanan]

Gav said:
how old are some of these guys? 12,13? certainly 'childish' is an apt adjective. i think we have a nice juxtaposition going on: the old and new world. the old world built on competition, represented by krimel, platt et al: these guys think discussion is a contest and the winner is the one that gets the last word in.  the new world which is being built on cooperation and is represented by your good self, marsha et al: primarily interested in collaboratively reaching new and better intellectual analogues, ie truth. it seems to me that you have changed somewhat....i still love your rapier wit bro...that hasn't changed...rather you seem unruffled by the poisonous/puerile retorts of others....i would say you seem more amused (and bemused i suppose) than anything.

dmb says:
Thanks gav, but I'm not really any nicer than I used to be. Its just that school has a calming effect. The clarity and intelligibility of the lectures, discussions and assigned reading material is like a sedative, especially after long-term exposure to drivel. And Krimel rarely bugs me that way. He can write a sentence and make a point. That's all I expect from people in place like this. Can't really discuss metaphysics with anything less. It makes me crazy to see less than that. Pisses me off like you wouldn't believe. That's when the neurotic jackass comes out and, sadly, I don't yet know how to let it go. Thanks all the same.
 

 
> --- On Sun, 31/8/08, david buchanan  wrote:
> From: david buchanan 
> Subject: Re: [MD] What is SOM?
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Received: Sunday, 31 August, 2008, 5:56 AM
> 
> Krimel said to dmb:
> But, but, Dave. Anything proceeding from the mouth of anyone who advocates
> science must, by definition be SOM. Isn't science just one big united
> monolith with all its proponents marching in lock step? These evil bastards are
> either deluded, intentionally trying to deceive others as to their true aims, or
> your endless rants are just the fetid blasts of hot air they appear to be. I am
> I to conclude that appearances can be deceiving but not always.
> 
> dmb says:
> Since I have never even implied that scientists are deluded evil bastards and
> repeatedly explained that the MOQ's purpose with respect to science is to
> expand and improve upon its empirical principles, your childish drivel
> doesn't merit an answer.
> 
> Man, this is fun!


_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger.  Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_082008