[MD] my olive branch effort

[blue-jay maple]

Ian:
> Nuff said - chat anytime Nick.
> Being misunderstood (even unintelligible) is the story of my life ;-)
> I don't go out of my way "to be unintelligible" - but I do
> deliberately avoid falling into all the usual expected patterns if
> argumentation - a difficulty I create, I really do appreciate. (The
> criticisms I react to are the ad hominem suggestions that I am
> wilfully unitelligible, inconsistent or lacking integrity in my words
> an actions ... I am happy to be disagreed with anytime.)
> I happen to think our real mission is to evolve a better language for
> "MoQ living" rather than a language for winning philosophical
> arguments or satisfying examiners and peer reviewers in existing
> academic institutions - though obviously I can see the pragnmatic
> value in these latter games.
> Cynics (in the Diogenes / Kynic sense) I have no problem with. The
> problem is - by defintion - these have to be exceptions to the
> received norms - we can't all be individuals in this sense - I feel a
> "Life of Brian" quote coming on.....
> Last blogged about Kynics here.
> http://www.psybertron.org/?p=2165

Nick:
My problem, meaning, what I do and is a problem is I'm really "shouting" 
at the words people type.  I'm not so much so "shouting" at them, though 
I get cross at times when the words seem to be the person or at least I 
merge the words/concepts the person is conveying to be a demonstration 
of that person.  I think it's difficult for people when I approach it this way 
(but everybody does it to some extent).  I look at what they type and I'm 
arguing about what they are typing, their concepts, but I do point out it is 
"their words/concepts".  It gets into a funny fickle problem in computer 
internet life.  In person it's a lot easier to point to people what I mean 
cause the conversation flows better instead of having to ad nauseum 
repeat myself to eight different people at once over and over again.  It's 
gets unfortunately wacky.

Nick


> 
> Regards
> Ian
> 
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:31 PM, blue-jay maple<libertytree at mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Nick:
> >> > Ian, are you saying here you prefer me to be Ad Hominem?  Ok, 
> >> so my sincere
> >> > personal opinion is a "no win game".  Ian, you're one opposite person.
> >
> > Ian:
> >> No I am saying exactly the opposite. It is the only rule worth
> >> "enforcing" - even by self discipline - in my opinion (and
> >> incidentally its the ony rule ever enforced by Horse).
> >
> > Nick:
> > Oh, on the internet the only rule "worth enforcing".  Ian I would 
> > like to chat
> > with you before we get into anything too much.  :-)  I have a difficult time
> > understanding you sometimes.  I'm sorry it's my fault.
> >
> > Ian:
> >> The aggression you expressed to me presonally (and subsequent olive
> >> branch) is water of a duck's back ... I can move on. I was pointing
> >> out it was a no-win game (for you) in the sense that even when you do
> >> apparently sincerely express inter-personal views (even positive
> >> ones), others (gav, MK so far) object.
> >
> > Nick:
> > gav didn't object, he misunderstood.  M K, needs love and feels left out.  I
> > can't help that.  I never said anything bad to M K anyways.  He had to have
> > been joking.
> > What about my feelings Ian?  I've had to buck it up to
> > people not even trying for the most part.  People not understanding the
> > way I do an intellectual exercise, and people not trying for the most part
> > to understand how I'm approaching this.  Ron did an excellent job in going
> > through the intellectual exercise with me, but Ron has always had a big
> > heart when it comes to dealing with other people.  I'm not trying to downplay
> > the approach of others (except I noted in this olive branch post), but I come
> > into this forum and right away for my position I get attacked without a soft,
> > sincere effort to understand what I'm saying.  I called people criminals and
> > murderers, but that was boundary setting of the intellectual discourse.  It
> > is pointing out where the lines are in our actions.  As I've said 
> > we need not get
> > into that anymore.  I came into this forum with a clear 
> > perspective of law, and
> > I got responses that were very dangerous in my perspective.  But who cares
> > what I experienced... I'll move on.
> >
> > Ian:
> >> My objection to the ad hominem - to anyone - is the distracting
> >> irrelevant unproductive "noise" it generates. As I must have said a
> >> hundred times - life's too short.
> >
> > Nick:
> > I can respect that.  I really can't argue against that.  We can turn this
> > into a philosophical discussion:
> >   Did you ever hear of the Zen monks hitting their students with 
> > a stick while
> > they zazen?  Have you ever heard of the cynics from ancient greece?
> >
> > Nick
> >
> >
> > --
> > Be Yourself @ mail.com!
> > Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
> > Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
> >
> > 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/
> >
> 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/

>


-- 
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com