[MD] Regarding The Fundamental Nature of The Intellectual

[Ian Glendinning]

DMB, your "complaint" was to describe my - skirting round an important
issues, whilst talking about another - as "drivel".

Like you I'd be happier with constructive argument, rather than
offensiive rhetoric.

Feel free to discuss "isms" with anyone you like - I am not in your
way. I'm just saying that I will find it difficult to take dicsussion
of this serious "governance" discussion worthwhile enough for me to
contribute, until we can separate the socially conditioned language of
the isms from their intellectual content.

I'm trying to claer the way for me. But it need be no obstacle to you
.... unless this is some back-handed flattery that says you don't want
to discuss it without me ;-)

Anyway we know what each other's buttons are.
I've had enough of this "meta-discussion" I want to get to the main event too.
Ian

On 7/17/08, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Ian said to dmb:
> Sorry if my trying to achieve constructive arguments makes you mad.
>
> dmb says:
> I keep complaining that you are skirting the issue, that your contributions are confusing and unhelpful. I'd welcome "constructive arguments" with open arms. I'm practically begging you for "constructive arguments", begging you to address the quotes and ideas from LILA. You're making me crazy precisely because I don't see anything constructive at all. Your arguments are full of skirting, equivocation and contradiction. Sorry, but I'm not going to pretend to "respect" that. If there is some reason that you think my complaints are not valid (other than the fact that its not particularly nice) then you're perfectly free to explain that.
>
> I realize that nobody wants to be criticized and I understand how such things can sting the ego but that is simply not enough to cause me to censor myself. These criticisms are aimed at what you post, what you say, not who you are. Sorry, but if the things you say don't make any sense, I should be allowed to complain about it and offer alternatives. Isn't that just the nature of a philosophical discussion group? Like I've said before, if you wanna swim you're gonna have to get wet. If that attitude makes me look arrogant, well that's just the price I have to pay.
>
> dmb said previously:
> Look, I'm trying to be civil and I'm trying to stick to the relevant quotes and ideas. I'm trying to avoid using words like "drivel" but look at what you're saying here. You admit that you're at least temporarily unwilling to discuss isms in the first sentence and then admit in the second sentence that such a stance is "merely skirting around the issues". What is the point of temporarily skirting the issues? Your attempts to hold both positions at the same time isn't diplomatic or balanced. Its just contradictory non-sense. And speaking of skirting around things, why are you not addressing the content of my remarks, the quotes I pulled and the case I made?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Time for vacation? WIN what you need- enter now!
> http://www.gowindowslive.com/summergiveaway/?ocid=tag_jlyhm
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>