From: joedees@bellsouth.net
Date: Fri 09 May 2003 - 21:35:47 GMT
> > From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Besides, if Ted were a true Sheldrake worshipper and
> > > > > > evangelizer, he would have tried coaxing us to read the
> > > > > > master's latest work _The Sense of Being Stared At_,
> > > > > > recently published if I'm not mistaken. As it stands, again,
> > > > > > I might be the first (with this post) to have mentioned that
> > > > > > book on this list, not Dace. Cut him some slack.
> > > > >
> > > > >Joe:
> > > > >Hokay. It does appear to me, however, that he might not have
> > > > >brought up that pseudoscientific prestidigitator's latest
> > > > >paranormal peroration because of the less than ebullient
> > > > >reception which past works by the wacko have received here.
> > > > >And, remember, I just reposted a paper of mine that I
> > > > >considered to have anticipated a line of thought he recently
> > > > >posted; he is the one who responded with the initial vitriol.
> > > > >
> > > > At this point, if either of you offers anything of value to a
> > > > discussion, it might be quite difficult for the other to
> > > > acknowledge it or approach each other objectively, removed from
> > > > the history of heated tit-for-tat. You two are obviously not on
> > > > the best of terms and may start wearing list members out, except
> > > > those who thrive on the aggressiveness of pro-wrestling style
> > > > trash talking.
> > >
> > >Joe:
> > >And my meta-comparison of the relationship between phenomenology
> > >and genetic epistemology with the relationshop between semiotics
> > >and memetics, securely anchoring memetics in an acknowleged
> > >pantheon of contemporarily accepted psychological and philosophical
> > >perspectives, is of no value here, the place which desperately
> > >hungers for legitimacy for its viewpoint? Puh-LEEEZE!
> > >
> > I wasn't saying you have nothing to contribute, though your attacks
> > on
> Dace
> > aren't quite in the edifying category. Dace could *mis*read the same
> > conditional point I made, but my emphasis was on whether either of
> > you
> would
> > be in a position to recognize a valuable contribution by the other,
> > given the distorting effect of mutual animosity. This animosity has
> > apparently distorted your perception to the point that you mistook
> > my comment as an insult instead of a critical reflecton upon the
> > situation between you two.
>
> I understand what you're trying to do here, Scott, and I applaud your
> effort. But you've misread the situation. I feel no animosity toward
> Joe whatsoever. There's no tit-for-tat game going on here. He just
> keeps attacking me, and in the course of defending myself, I've tried
> to explain why this pattern keeps repeating. When I label him with a
> personality disorder, it's not to hurt his feelings but simply to
> explain to the rest of the list what's going on here. This is a
> standard condition. There are millions of people diagnosable with a
> PD in the US. While Joe is the most over-the-top case I've ever
> encountered, in "real life" or online, there's nothing particularly
> unusual about this. PD's rarely improve, and there's no cure. Joe
> will continue insulting me-- like claiming I'm incapable of rational
> thought or, above, where he says I label everything I oppose as
> "reductionistic," a ridiculous accusation that he can't possibly back
> up with any examples-- and he will continue offering hallucination as
> fact, as in the above claim that I responded to his recent paper with
> the "initial vitriol." He will also continue promoting himself as
> some kind of genius whom we should all unconditionally admire.
>
> Ted
>
A passage from Dace's other post proves to be quite illuminating here.
To partaphreas, he complains that no matter how hard he attacks me,
that I respond tenfold. This sounds like not only a schoolyard bully, but
a frustrated one; "He Hit Me Back! And Hard! WAAAAH!" Then, of
course, he attempts to retroactively revise his original attack as a
defence, in spite of archival evidence to the contrary, and, like the
craven coward to be found at the heart of every schoolyard bully,
wheedle and whine for sympathy and support. How pitiful. How
pathetic. How typical of Dace.
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri 09 May 2003 - 21:43:11 GMT