[MD] Free Will

[david buchanan]

Marsha said to dmb:
You left off your last statement the "You freakin weasel" part., which was way out of proportion.  Now your neglecting to include the last statement is even more ironic, but not surprising. 

dmb says:
"Weasel" is just the casual, slang version of the complaint I explained at length. Making stuff up to avoid the actual argument is to weasel out of it. According to my dictionary "weasel" is not just a small, carnivorous mammal, the term can be used figuratively and informally to mean "a deceitful or treacherous person" or as a verb it means to "achieve something by use of cunning or deceit" as in the sentence, "she suspects me of trying to weasel my way out of the accusation". To "behave or talk evasively" is to be a weasel.

I also asked Steve if he had been taking lessons from you, Marsha, because you are the mayor of weaselville. Insult and evade, insult and evade. Your standard operating procedure is an endless loop of weaseling.

Obviously, there was nothing misleading about deleting the term "weasel". That move was only intended to turn down the temperature while still pressing the same point about the illegitimacy of this evasive behavior. Turning the heat back up only gives Steve an excuse to bail out once again.


weasel |ˈwēzəl|nouna small, slender, carnivorous mammal related to, but generally smaller than, the stoat. • Genus Mustela, family Mustelidae (the weasel family): several species, in particular M. nivalis of northern Eurasia and northern North America. The weasel family also includes the polecats, minks, martens, skunks, wolverine, otters, and badgers.• figurative informal a deceitful or treacherous person.verb ( -seled, -seling; Brit. -selled , -selling ) [ intrans. ]achieve something by use of cunning or deceit : she suspects me of trying to weasel my way into his affections.• behave or talk evasively.


 Here's the entire quote:
Steve said to Matt:
...Then there is the issue of _pre_determination which I think is only a concern if you imagine an omniscient super-being, but it still manages to keep James and dmb awake at night.  > 

 
> On Jun 23, 2011, at 12:22 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
> dmb said to Steve:
> James and I are imagining an omniscient super-being? Huh?

 
> I don't expect all that much from you, Steve, but I didn't think you'd stoop so low. My main argument has been that freedom and constraint are both real because both are known in experience. Super-beings, whatever that's supposed to mean, don't have anything to do with it. I would accuse you of misconstruing my position but that would be too generous. You're just making stuff up, probably to avoid the burden of addressing the actual argument. You freakin weasel. 		 
> 
> ----------    	   	

 
> 
> On Jun 27, 2011, at 12:29 PM, david buchanan wrote:
> 
> > 
> > dmb also said:
> > Hey Steve, here is one example wherein I complained about your tactics precisely because they spoiled any chance of having a real conversation. I accused you of inventing the omniscient super-being, the one that supposedly keeps me and James awake at night. (James hasn't had any concerns for over a hundred years, of course.) If you make stuff up instead of disagreeing with the things I actually said, then isn't fair to say your tactics have spoiled the conversation? I think it's more than fair.

> > As you can probably see, I'm only pressing this point again because Marsha re-posted these earlier complaints. How you get irony out of this is a mystery to me because I think it clearly shows that my complaints are valid and that your tactics are bogus. Your comments can only be justified if you have a legitimate reason to believe that I was pressing an omniscient super-being. I'm sure you have no evidence of that because there isn't any evidence of that. And so it's more than fair to say you're making stuff up and then attributing it to me. And since that's the case, who is the offended party?

> > It's like you want me to apologize for saying "ouch" too loudly when you stepped on my foot.