Re: James Watson loses job over speech

nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J. Lodder) wrote
cybercypher <cybercypher75@xxxxxxx> wrote:
nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (J. J. Lodder) wrote
[...]
And cowardly snips too.

Cowardly snips? The snipt content is in the post I replied to. It's not
X-no-archived, so anyone can see it if they choose to. I chose to
eliminate everything simply because no one else in the NG will bother
responding, so we're talking only to each other. You do remember what
you think you said, don't you?

See, you can't.

I don't have to produce anything to satisfy your demands.

You appear as a liar if you don't.

No I don't.

You claimed I said something.

I claimed you said what you said. You insisted that Watson was
pretending to have "the Truth" when he has only "one truth". You
obviously know what the truth is. I don't, so I have no opinion about
his opinions except, as Murray says, that expressing them as he did
serves no useful purpose, whether he is right or wrong. His statements
are politically incorrect. Can you judge the science? I seriously doubt
it.

I don't believe that you are qualified to pass judgment on the truth
value of Watson's comments, yet you insisted on doing so. Go ahead and
deny that, Captain Omniscience.

I challenged you to produce a Message-ID where I said such a
thing.

Message-ID: <1i6n4ec.14kiphj7yer2cN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

"The problem is that there is more than one 'truth',
and there is also 'truth' on different levels.
Pretending to possess -the- truth when it is only one 'truth'
is what gets people in trouble.

"What gets people pilloried is not possession of the truth,
it is the pretence of possesing all of it,"

Message-ID: <1i6oohx.18e28nn1l0oxrxN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

"One does not have to posses the truth to see that others don't,"

You arrogantly refuse to produce one

There are two for you. Demonstrate that your statements mean anything
other than "I believe it to be true that [what you said], and that is
absolutely true and you must accept it as true simply because I say it
is true".



and you don't retract your baseless claim.
That makes you a liar, for you must know by now
that your claim was unfounded.

I claimed that everything you said demonstrated that you know better
than everyone else what is good and true and decent, that you are your
own judge and jury, and that you are unable to see the connotations of
your own English prose.

Prove me wrong.

You are fighting your own imaginings,

That's every ***'s defense.

not something I really wrote.

Everything you "really wrote". You seem to believe that words
have only denotations and not connotations and that everything
you write must be taken at face value. Yeah, right. That's both
idiocy and arrogance all rolled up into a single mole (the nearly
blind burrowing animal), not the dysplastic nevus that seems
fixed between your shoulders and ears.

Dear Newbie,
the way to conduct a usenet discussion
is to select some text that somebody wrote, quote it,
and write a comment below it.
One should never invent what others might have said,
and build reactions on that.

I've been on this Usenet thing for 13 years. I know how to conduct
discussions in English. You want me to play by your rules, but I prefer
to play by my own.

An apology would be in order.

Again you are unable to understand even your own English, much
less the English of others. You will get no apology from me for
your egregious arrogance and ignorance.

No surprise here, that would be normal decent behaviour.

I have proved myself to be indifferently normal and occasionally decent
when dealing with people I consider idiots. You are one of those
people. You've been treated indifferently decently.

I really think you can and should do better,

I couldn't care less what you think I can and should do. You don't seem
to understand that. I don't give a damn whether you do better or not.
You obviously aren't currently capable of doing any better than you
have, and it looks as if you won't be able to do any better in the
foreseeable future, so don't bother trying.

--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
Native speaker of American English; posting from Taiwan.
"Most murderers are tolerable individuals momentarily blinkered by
their passions. Liars and thieves, however, are almost always
intolerably consistent recidivists addicted to their own petty self
interest." Anymouse.


.

Loading