Re: "Professional" does not = "High End"

In article <1126570768.812586.298400@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> MINe 109 wrote:
> > In article <1126562748.990594.241910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > In article <1126553064.215688.54880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > "ScottW" <ScottW48@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > MINe 109 wrote:
> > > > > > In article <dm0bi1tpstpfahppjrn758rmaa74t91bum@xxxxxxx>,
> > > > > > dave weil <dweil2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know why I find it so annoying that these guys like Scott
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Stewart are so unable to just plainly acknowledge when they are
> > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > I probably shouldn't. Perhaps I should accept this as the only
> > > > > > > way
> > > > > > > that he can bring himself to admit that he was firing from the
> > > > > > > hip
> > > > > > > when he challenged my statement.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It did seem reflexively contrary rather than well-thought. Overseas
> > > > > > observers might consider what effects on discourse there may be
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > errors are evaded, facts aren't acknowledged, and common ground
> > > > > > disdained. No wonder some of us resort to citations and needlessly
> > > > > > precise wording.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's possible that Scott's responses are ultimately emotional, so
> > > > > > responding to his literal words don't address whatever he's feeling
> > > > > > at
> > > > > > the moment he writes, unless the "Angry White Male" thing is an
> > > > > > act, in
> > > > > > which case he can't back down without giving up the game a la
> > > > > > Pinkerton.
> > > >
> > > > > One thing you two will never comprehend nor accept is that there is
> > > > > nothing for me to back down from and no game for me to give up.
> > > > > Whatever game there is in play doesn't interest me here.
> > > >
> > > > That's odd, because you seem to avoid appearing to back down and you
> > > > haven't given up on anything. That's a lot of trouble for something
> > > > that
> > > > doesn't interest you.
> > > >
> > > > I take the second thing back: you do disappear from arguments when your
> > > > position grows untenable.
> > >
> > > Thats nice that you can so easily attribute motive.
> >
> > It's an opinion, but I'm willing to retract taking back the second bit
> > and return to the argument that it seems you haven't given up on
> > anything.
>
> If you think that would be interesting.

As you like.

> > > Actually there
> > > are many reasons I drop a discussion.. most often when it becomes
> > > obvious there will be no meeting of minds.. or when time just doesn't
> > > permit responding until the thread has become stale... or sometimes I
> > > view a post but don't immediately respond yet my viewer is set to show
> > > unread messages only... and I either forget or just don't take the time
> > > to find the post again to respond.
> >
> > Or your position becomes untenable, speaking hypothetically according to
> > the rules of debate and without attributing motive: it's the position
> > that's untenable.
>
> OSAF

Those magic letters that mean so little.

> > > Once again it just shows a difference in approach.. you seem to strive
> > > for some sort of victory.. I state my position, argue it until no new
> > > info is brought forward and move on. I learn some things in the
> > > discussion and gain some understanding of alternative POV and am often
> > > faced with references of little to no relevance or of significant
> > > questionable credibility. I'm sure you sometimes feel the same.
> >
> > However, you have been known to dismiss well-reasoned commentary by
> > actual experts as mere "opinion" while touting partisan rhetoric as
> > "facts."
>
> OSAF

No, literal truth that I could illustrate with quotes if I cared to.

> > I'm not searching for 'victory' but I would consider it a victory for
> > both of us if you would reconsider your positions in the face of
> > contrary evidence.
>
> I believe I did exactly that with regard to the port. Do you really
> think port operations and the city of NO can't exist separately (one
> without the other)?

I was speaking more generally than that. As you may recall, I applauded
your response to the port thing.

> > > > > But I am curious... what do you expect to accomplish with a post
> > > > > like
> > > > > this? Do you want me to throw my hands up in frustration ala Howard?
> > > > > Would that be a jubilant thing for you guys?
> > > >
> > > > Howard left under his own power. Lord knows why he relished the abuse
> > > > he
> > > > engendered. My grievance with him was real and justified, so my only
> > > > regret is that he didn't own up to his behavior as the cause of his
> > > > problems.
> > >
> > > You didn't answer the question.
> >
> > It was an observation expressing my opinion of your possible
> > motivations.
>
> You still didn't answer the question.

Okay, to be literal: to further the conversation, no, and, probably not.

> > I didn't expect you to respond to it at all, but if you did, I'd expect
> > an emotional reaction as if you were being attacked. Since you've
> > claimed not to play games, you must identify yourself as an "Angry White
> > Male."
> >
> > > > As for the first bit, I didn't write it for you. You are free to
> > > > respond.
> > > >
> > > > > I'll admit that I find my
> > > > > exchange with you frustrating.. at one point I thought you were
> > > > > capable
> > > > > of dialogue but it is apparent that you're more interested in playing
> > > > > the game of ridicule.
> > > >
> > > > I'm quite capable of dialogue.
> > >
> > > Sometimes but then you write the following paragraph to which I
> > > vehemently disagree.
> >
> > That's part of dialogue.
> >
> > > > As for ridicule, when you spout RNC
> > > > talking points or parrot Malkin while accusing me of not arguing from
> > > > "facts," ridicule is called for. And I let a lot of ridicule sent my
> > > > way
> > > > pass me by, which is usually easy to do as it's often based on mistaken
> > > > views of what I've written.
> > >
> > > You just rationalized admittedly shitty behavior but I doubt you can
> > > see that.
> >
> > You have repeated talking points and cited Malkin opinions as fact while
> > dismissing my viewpoints and citations as opinions.
> > That's not a
> > rationalization.
>
> Your justification for ridicule was rationalization.

You could rearrange those words a bunch of ways and they still wouldn't
mean anything.

Ridicule is an effective way to expose weak arguments.

> > > > Some of my "ridicule" is in response to ridiculous positions. Do you
> > > > really think anyone who pays less in taxes than government spending
> > > > divided by population isn't "pulling their weight"? Or is it tax
> > > > revenue
> > > > divided by taxpayer?
> > >
> > > You've just ignored the core of that argument but I doubt you see
> > > that.
> >
> > You haven't explained the "core" of your argument. If there's a "core,"
> > it's you trying to score points off of dave's lifestyle,
>
> Actually if you really looked at history it was Dave trying to score
> points off of his lifestyle and I was simply pointing out one of many
> consequences.

So it is gamesmanship after all. Well, carry on then. Now that I
understand you, I have nothing to say.

> > which is
> > frankly none of your business. But that would ascribing motive and that
> > isn't allowed.
> >
> > > > Or when Arny claims he can control musical performances more precisely
> > > > than the musicians can.
> > > >
> > > > > Is that what you're here for?
> > > >
> > > > I like music and audio, and when those aren't available, responding to
> > > > what I see in front of me.
> > >
> > > Well enjoy yourself. I will be doing my best to ignore your
> > > compulsion to ridicule from here on.
> >
> > How many of your own rules did you just break?
>
> Do you feel ridiculed?

Not a bit.

> I am not going to be responsible for
> excessive sensitivity on your part... oops... is that ridicule too or a
> legitimate expression of opinion?

Neither.


Stephen
.