[MD] re, fellow european-Bodvar

[plattholden at gmail.com]

Now we've devolved to a scene in the schoolyard when one character  
"calls out" another to fight. I'll give you credit for supplying entertainment, 
Arlo. But, it does get boring after awhile . . . as I'm sure others have 
concluded. So count me out of any further commentary on your juvenile 
challenges.    



On 16 Apr 2010 at 18:15, ARLO J BENSINGER JR wrote:

> [Platt]
> Another hilarity, the master of ad hominem attacks moralizing about the  shame
> of ad hominem attacks. Oh well, laughter is always welcomed at my house. Keep
> up the great work.  
> 
> [Arlo]
> Kindly point out my "ad hominem" attacks. In the meantime (since I know you
> can't), shall I repost the growing list of points you've been evading?
> 
> Here's the lastest, why respond with (yet another) baseless attack on me rather
> than responding to simple points.
> 
> Who is the "average reader" here you feel is incapable of "easily
> understanding" academic discourse? 
> 
> It's evident from Pirsig's involvement with Ant and other academics, that he
> endorses and supports them. Your attempt to cast these people as
> "philosophologists" is disingenuous to say the least.
> 
> It is also evident that Pirsig has been interested in seeing the MOQ brought
> into "academic philosophy" departments; also evident from his involvement with
> Ant and DMB. So your attempt to demonize the Academy with anti-intellectual
> talk-radio jargon is inane.
> 
> When YOU don't "easily understand" a book, its rather revealing that your only
> recourse is to accuse the author of elitism and arrogance, cause god knows it
> can't be YOU. I would think a better approach would be to learn, broaden
> oneself, study and work to understand what others are saying. But that makes me
> an elitist, doesn't it?
> 
> Shall I go on? Or will the only response I get be yet another baseless attack
> on me? Odds? 1:1. 
> 
> Here's my final question.
> 
> Are you really not ashamed of the rhetoric you deploy here? Seriously?