Posting Guidelines and Insulting Behavior


Philip Coates

Recommended Posts

It's like if I say that, underneath, I think Jeff actually is a humanity-lover and is hurt beyond measure inside.

I was thinking the same thing. In seeing JR's anger about others' enjoyment of sports, and his comparing it to the enjoyment of rape, murder and dismemberment, what popped into my mind was Hannibal Lecter's asking, "What did they do to you, Clarice?" Apparently someone badly hurt JR, and all these years later he's still lashing out at anyone who likes the things that his tormentors liked.

J

Yikes. I thought JR was just being polemical. Sports apply the mind to the body in specific focused ways for intense short periods - this kind of theme is addressed by literature, including some writers he admires-- though I see he thinks Roth is mediocre and obviously he did not enjoy The Great American Novel as much as I did, especially pitcher Gil Gamesh.

I think of the non-enjoyment of sports as I do my non-enjoyment of jazz. But I don't think of the perpetrators and appreciators of that intensely irritating noise as subhuman or malevolent. I know they are highly intelligent and I just wish they had gone into a more agreeable line of work.

Daunce, if you'll send me your real-world e-dress (using OL Messenger), I'll send you a couple of mp3 files that I think may challenge your "image" of the way jazz sounds. Care to try the experiment?

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

JR, in a warm and fuzzy moment:

Well, of course, you know more about what my anger is directed at and what its sources are than I do, but I'd

say I don't really care what other people like. Given what other people are, what they like will probably strike me as fairly stupid - somewhere on the scale from laughable to repugnant - but I don't really care. Short of rights-violating activities, I'm perfectly happy to let them like whatever they want. (I mean, it would be nice to live in a world that wasn't populated mostly by ignorant, tasteless clods, but I don't ask for perfection.)

I get where that can come from, but the thing I've observed both from within and without is that being in that state too much can contribute to a pretty joyless state of existence.

Imo seeing the world as populated "mosty by ignorant, tasteless clods" can lead to bitterness and anger.

In some situations, an "I versus them" attitude can come at a high price.

Back in the days when the majority were able, to varying extents, to ram their tastes down my throat, I bitterly hated them for it.

This might help to understand JR's attitude a bit more. Although it is difficult for me here, as I have never made the experience of others ramming their tastes down my throat.

It has been tried to ram doctrines down my throat though (Catholicism in school), I therefore know how it feels like when others attempt to influence one's psyche, but I did not let it get under my skin. It more or less dripped off. Maybe it was because I have always been more on the skeptical side, even as kid. But maybe I just lucked out.

The following excerpts from posts on another thread are examples of a 'non-dualistic' attitude where the person sees himself as part of a connected whole:

I believe this was in direct response to my statement: "I stand on the "mental shoulders" of those many people who came before me, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with many of those with whom I communicate now (such as you). This "changes" my thinking in such a way that I can't easily tell, if I can tell at all, where your views end and my views begin. There's a kind of "bleed-over" between me and all with whom I communicate.

When it comes to participation - with generating the "best values" (is that a correct usage in Objectivist language?) that I can, then yes - I act "as if" I am an independent agent (I prefer not to use the phrase "rational animal.") because my brain/mind isn't fast enough or powerful enough to deal with all of the relational aspects of the world while I navigate and do the work and play of the day.

When I dance with my wife, I am paying attention to the beat of the music; to the location of other people on the dance floor so as to avoid collisions with them. I am wrapped in the music, and there is no "bandwidth" in the moment for me to be thanking Benny Goodman or Glenn Miller. There is little time or mental energy available in me to thank those who taught me how to dance the Swing. There is no mental bandwidth - during the dance - for me to thank the carpenters and craftsfolk who made a building strong enough to withstand high-wind, deep cold and earthquakes. There is no bandwidth to thank the Founding Fathers, to be appreciative of Beethoven who might very well have influenced Benny Goodman or Glen Miller. I have no bandwidth in that moment to thank the people who produce the food I eat so that I don't have to spend life on a farm tilling soil or hunting prey. I just enjoy the dance and applaud at the end and maybe leave a tip in the jar at the door for a "job well done."

But in THIS MOMENT, in my slower moments, where I have time to consider all that MUST BE INVOLVED for me to enjoy the dance, and the myriad other things that I do and enjoy - well then I do have time to enjoy exploration of the epistemological. And repeatedly, without even the tiniest reservation beyond acknowledging "I too am fallible", I come to see that all that I enjoy; all that I can even think involves so many shortcuts I've been enabled to take by all that came before me and that surrounds me now. The notion of "independent agent" becomes much more complex and a much richer concept.

Does this make any kind of sense?

- Bal

Gratefulness can be felt on IamBalSimon's part for all those who by their hard work have made it possible for him too enjoy a beautiful dance with his wife.

I can relate to the message of these posts 100 %.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course, you know more about what my anger is directed at and what its sources are than I do...

I haven't claimed to know more about your anger than you do. I've only commented on how your anger comes across to me.

...but I'd say I don't really care what other people like.

Which is why you're so worked up about what they like?

Given what other people are, what they like will probably strike me as fairly stupid - somewhere on the scale from laughable to repugnant - but I don't really care.

As quick as you are to judge others for their liking of things which you don't, and as emotional as you are about it, it seems that you have a strong need to believe that others are beneath you.

Short of rights-violating activities, I'm perfectly happy to let them like whatever they want. (I mean, it would be nice to live in a world that wasn't populated mostly by ignorant, tasteless clods, but I don't ask for perfection.)

Ah, so you're the pinnacle of taste and refinement, are you? What's the old saying? Something like, "She was the type of woman who, if accidentally locked into the National Gallery at night, would begin rearranging the paintings"?

Back in the days when the majority were able, to varying extents, to ram their tastes down my throat, I bitterly hated them for it. Now, for the most part, I never even think about either their tastes or them. I focus my attention on what I want to focus my attention on and am seldom even reminded of the existence of those (and those activities) I don't like.

But isn't that what a tasteless clod would do -- focus on what he likes rather than learning to appreciate things whose value isn't readily apparent or instantly emotionally gratifying to him, and to assume that his interests were special and that everyone else's were inferior?

Now and then, I do make a passing reference to one of my more intense dislikes, as when Selene (IIRC) asked me if I had read The Natural. Since I do hold Bernard Malamud in a certain amount of esteem, I thought I ought to offer at least a sentence or two by way of explanation of why I had not read his best known novel. So I said my antipathy toward sports makes it unlikely that I would read a novel or see a film that was centered on sports.

Your explanation of why you haven't read The Natural reminds me of someone who refuses to immerse herself in, say, a Hammershoi painting because its colors don't go with her drapes.

Then someone else (PDS?) asked me to elaborate. This may have been a mistake. The novelist James M. Cain said once that all his novels were really about the same thing - the worst thing in the world: getting what you want. I think people who ask me to elaborate usually wish they hadn't. When I express my views at any length, it generally causes unhappiness. People become upset.

Who's upset? Other than you, I mean.

A lot of people, knowing this from bitter experience, have adopted the policy of never asking me for my views. This is probably a wise policy.

I've asked some questions which you haven't answered. Instead, you seem to have distracted yourself with a lot of huffing and puffing about how very special and refined your tastes are, and how intimidating and upsetting you apparently hope that you are. My, what a big, bad wolf!

Here are the question again:

"Do you really not understand that the basketball or football games that an adult plays are much more complex than those which a child plays, or that adults who watch them are experiencing them on a level of complexity that children can't grasp? You apparently still have a child's understanding of the games, and never realized that there can be very complex structures and strategies involved."

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

though I see he [JR] thinks Roth is mediocre and obviously he did not enjoy The Great American Novel as much as I did, especially pitcher Gil Gamesh.

JR,

Why do you think Philip Roth is a 'fraud' and a 'mediocrity'?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I somehow or other fucked up the formatting on the quote function for this post. When it comes to computers, I'm not very bright, and I haven't the time to figure out what I did wrong, so I'll insert lead-ins to indicate who is talking and who is saying what.

I had written:

"I'd say I don't really care what other people like."

Jonathan replied:

"Which is why you're so worked up about what they like?"

Actually, I'm not "worked up" at all, Jonathan. If you think I am it's either because you've had so little experience with me that you simply don't know how to judge these matters, or, perhaps, because you are so "worked up" at the thought that someone has seen the truth about your childish preoccupation with football and basketball.

There is another possibility, of course. Many people are unable to distinguish between someone who is being emphatic and someone who is "worked up." Particularly if someone is very emphatic in saying something people don't want to hear or don't like to hear - something that contradicts the conventional wisdom (the conventional wisdom in this case being something like "sports good, grunt, grunt, reading books boring and bad, grunt, grunt") or identifies a truth people feel uncomfortable acknowledging - they tend to become quite "worked up" themselves and generally are able to convince themselves that anyone saying such outrageous things and saying them so emphatically must be on some sort of emotional tear, raving and ranting in an incoherent and unhinged manner. (Ayn Rand does a fine job in Atlas Shrugged of depicting the behavior you can expect from most people if you openly identify some truth they don't want to acknowledge. I recommend it.)

I had written: "Given what other people are, what they like will probably strike me as fairly stupid - somewhere on the scale from laughable to repugnant - but I don't really care."

Jonathan replied:

"As quick as you are to judge others for their liking of things which you don't, and as emotional as you are about it, it seems that you have a strong need to believe that others are beneath you."

Does a man who declares that the sky is blue thereby reveal "a strong need to believe that the sky is blue"?

I had written:

"Short of rights-violating activities, I'm perfectly happy to let them like whatever they want. (I mean, it would be nice to live in a world that wasn't populated mostly by ignorant, tasteless clods, but I don't ask for perfection.)"

Jonathan replied:

"Ah, so you're the pinnacle of taste and refinement, are you?"

By no means. Just a few light years ahead of around 90 percent of the population.

Jonathan wrote:

"I've asked some questions which you haven't answered."

He was kind enough to repeat one of them:

"Do you really not understand that the basketball or football games that an adult plays are much more complex than those which a child plays, or that adults who watch them are experiencing them on a level of complexity that children can't grasp?"

I realize that adults who are secretly a little uncomfortable with their strong interest in such childish things have attempted to persuade themselves and others that this is true. It is, however, laughable on its face. There is clearly nothing about these games that would baffle a five-year-old, since that's the mental level of most of the thrashing, boneheaded jockstraps who play them.

Anything else I can do for you?

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

I am curious. Why do you think anyone is interested in what you think about sports?

I know I didn't before. After reading what you have written about this topic, I just tune it out. You obviously don't know, don't care, and don't like those who do know and care.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're wrong and simple-minded on sports in the childish manner you accuse, but you're still entitled.

Why on earth would I mess with that, much less be offended by it? It's a curious thing, the reactions you prompt.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

I am curious. Why do you think anyone is interested in what you think about sports?

I know I didn't before. After reading what you have written about this topic, I just tune it out. You obviously don't know, don't care, and don't like those who do know and care.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're wrong and simple-minded on sports in the childish manner you accuse, but you're still entitled.

Why on earth would I mess with that, much less be offended by it? It's a curious thing, the reactions you prompt.

Michael

I don't expect you to care anything at all about anything I might write, here or elsewhere, Michael. Far too much of it conflicts with what you passionately want to believe.

I tried to stop writing about this particular topic approximately 24 hours ago, as I recall. If no one says anything further about it, I shall do the very same. If people insist on going on "correcting" my supposed "errors" on the subject, I'll probably continue to comment, though I think I find the whole subject far more tiresome than you do. If people don't like what I write, let them read something else. If everyone stops reading my comments on this subject, maybe they'll stop commenting about it themselves, and when that happens, I'll stop, too.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Well, I certainly don't want to correct you.

I'm just curious about why people are interested.

For instance, I really don't care about what a Rand-hater (say, a radical communist) thinks about Ayn Rand's ideas, regardless of what he declares in public. I seriously doubt I would convince such a person of anything good about her stuff (or even her, for that matter) unless he opened the door to objective discussion about it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[...] it is difficult for me here, as I have never made the experience of others ramming their tastes down my throat.

OY!! Was that inadvertent? :lol:

Well, of course, you know more about what my anger is directed at and what its sources are than I do...

I haven't claimed to know more about your anger than you do. I've only commented on how your anger comes across to me.

...but I'd say I don't really care what other people like.

Which is why you're so worked up about what they like?

JR isn't coming across to me as at all "worked up." I've seen JR "worked up" both in person and on-line.

On the other hand, you're coming across to me as "worked up" over anyone's making comments you find insulting about your sports interests.

[...] it seems that you have a strong need to believe that others are beneath you.

Literally, most people are beneath JR if standing on level ground. He's 6'3" -- though I think you mentioned somewhere that you're that tall or taller yourself.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'm not "worked up" at all, Jonathan. If you think I am it's either because you've had so little experience with me that you simply don't know how to judge these matters, or, perhaps, because you are so "worked up" at the thought that someone has seen the truth about your childish preoccupation with football and basketball.

Hey, I'm not the one ranting about his anger and bitterness, his feelings of superiority, and what an intimidating intellectual bad ass he believes himself to be. Those are the behaviors that make you appear to be "worked up."

There is another possibility, of course. Many people are unable to distinguish between someone who is being emphatic and someone who is "worked up." Particularly if someone is very emphatic in saying something people don't want to hear or don't like to hear - something that contradicts the conventional wisdom (the conventional wisdom in this case being something like "sports good, grunt, grunt, reading books boring and bad, grunt, grunt") or identifies a truth people feel uncomfortable acknowledging - they tend to become quite "worked up" themselves and generally are able to convince themselves that anyone saying such outrageous things and saying them so emphatically must be on some sort of emotional tear, raving and ranting in an incoherent and unhinged manner. (Ayn Rand does a fine job in Atlas Shrugged of depicting the behavior you can expect from most people if you openly identify some truth they don't want to acknowledge. I recommend it.)

Do you also recommend some of Rand's rants about how monstrously, viciously evil and psychologically damaged people were for creating or enjoying art that she didn't like or understand? Heh. A man of superior tastes and high self-esteem will be disgusted by certain colors and scenery! And he'll hate sports! Yes indeed, how utterly rational and truthfully "emphatic," and not at all "worked up."

Does a man who declares that the sky is blue thereby reveal "a strong need to believe that the sky is blue"?

No, but let's not pretend that you were declaring anything like "the sky is blue." You were not making an objective observation. You were giving very emotional and uninformed opinions based in your anger and bitterness toward others who appreciate sports on a level that you're apparently incapable of grasping.

Look, I'm sorry if sports fans put your head in a toilet when you were a kid, or hung you up on a coat hook by your underwear, or whatever. That was cruel of them, but it has nothing to do with liking sports. You're like a puppy who has been kicked by an owner who wore cowboy boots, and who now snarls whenever he sees someone wearing cowboy boots. It's not the boots, little doggie. You're snarling at the wrong thing.

By no means. Just a few light years ahead of around 90 percent of the population.

And how are you measuring your tastes and refinement compared to others? What standard are you using? From what I've seen, the standard appears to be that whatever you like is assumed to be in good taste and whatever you dislike is assumed to be in bad taste. How objective!

I realize that adults who are secretly a little uncomfortable with their strong interest in such childish things have attempted to persuade themselves and others that this is true. It is, however, laughable on its face. There is clearly nothing about these games that would baffle a five-year-old, since that's the mental level of most of the thrashing, boneheaded jockstraps who play them.

That's exactly what I suspected: you have a child's understanding of sports, and you apparently resent the fact that others are both physically and intellectually more capable than you are when it comes to certain subjects.

Anything else I can do for you?

Sure, you could address some of my points and questions from the "Art Instinct" thread, such as those which can be found here and here, about the problems of open-endedness in trying to judge both meaning and quality in the non-literary arts, and the other difficulties that occur when trying to apply Rand's (or anyone else's) proposed method of "objective" aesthetic judgment to non-literature -- that is, if appreciating and discussing the non-literary arts and the aesthetic theories behind them is not beneath your inherently superior tastes and interests.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, you're coming across to me as "worked up" over anyone's making comments you find insulting about your sports interests.

Ellen, do you know what a zone defense is, or a full-court press, and when, why, and in which sports they might be used? I could see how someone who has little knowledge of sports, and little or no interest in them, might take my laughing at a sports ignoramus's opinions as my being "worked up," but I'm really not insulted or upset by JR's opinions. Usually JR seems to restrict himself to commenting on subjects about which he has some actual knowledge, which is something I've always respected about him. Not so in this case.

[...] it seems that you have a strong need to believe that others are beneath you.

Literally, most people are beneath JR if standing on level ground. He's 6'3" -- though I think you mentioned somewhere that you're that tall or taller yourself.

Yeah, I'm 6'4".

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Well, I certainly don't want to correct you.

I'm just curious about why people are interested.

For instance, I really don't care about what a Rand-hater (say, a radical communist) thinks about Ayn Rand's ideas, regardless of what he declares in public. I seriously doubt I would convince such a person of anything good about her stuff (or even her, for that matter) unless he opened the door to objective discussion about it.

Michael

Michael,

I don't think your example is really analagous. Objectivism and communism are different types of philosophical thought. What about a philosophy-hater, who considered philosophy a silly form of daydreaming about life, invalid as a proper pursuit for adults, who should engage in the study and practice of science, arts and sports?

Music, art, storytelling and sports have been part of human culture for as far back as we know about. Wouldn't you question the grounds for dismissing one of these constants as worthless, or even destructive, and its participants as inferior to the rest of humanity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like if I say that, underneath, I think Jeff actually is a humanity-lover and is hurt beyond measure inside.

I was thinking the same thing. In seeing JR's anger about others' enjoyment of sports, and his comparing it to the enjoyment of rape, murder and dismemberment, what popped into my mind was Hannibal Lecter's asking, "What did they do to you, Clarice?" Apparently someone badly hurt JR, and all these years later he's still lashing out at anyone who likes the things that his tormentors liked.

J

Yikes. I thought JR was just being polemical. Sports apply the mind to the body in specific focused ways for intense short periods - this kind of theme is addressed by literature, including some writers he admires-- though I see he thinks Roth is mediocre and obviously he did not enjoy The Great American Novel as much as I did, especially pitcher Gil Gamesh.

I think of the non-enjoyment of sports as I do my non-enjoyment of jazz. But I don't think of the perpetrators and appreciators of that intensely irritating noise as subhuman or malevolent. I know they are highly intelligent and I just wish they had gone into a more agreeable line of work.

Daunce, if you'll send me your real-world e-dress (using OL Messenger), I'll send you a couple of mp3 files that I think may challenge your "image" of the way jazz sounds. Care to try the experiment?

JR

OK Jeff, you're on. In return you get Jean Beliveau's career highlights reel. No fast-forwarding!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JR said he was 6'4".

I used to be just a quarter inch shy of 6'2" but the best I seem be be able to do now is 6'1".

It's not all bad. My IQ has gone up from 73 to 74 in roughly the same amount of time.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JR said he was 6'4".

I used to be just a quarter inch shy of 6'2" but the best I seem be be able to do now is 6'1".

It's not all bad. My IQ has gone up from 73 to 74 in roughly the same amount of time.

--Brant

Coincidence! Since I joined OL my IQ has gone up but my PQ (Productivity Quotient)

has gone down.

Carol

5'4" and holding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think JR said he was 6'4".

I think you're right. Dear me, have I shaved an inch off of JR's stature?

I used to be just a quarter inch shy of 6'2" but the best I seem be be able to do now is 6'1".

Ditto, subtracting a foot.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, you're coming across to me as "worked up" over anyone's making comments you find insulting about your sports interests.

Ellen, do you know what a zone defense is, or a full-court press, and when, why, and in which sports they might be used? I could see how someone who has little knowledge of sports, and little or no interest in them, might take my laughing at a sports ignoramus's opinions as my being "worked up," but I'm really not insulted or upset by JR's opinions. Usually JR seems to restrict himself to commenting on subjects about which he has some actual knowledge, which is something I've always respected about him. Not so in this case.

"Laughing" isn't how you're coming across to me. You seem to me similar to Phil in one respect. He lectures people trying to get them to act as he thinks proper to Objectivists, and you keep at people who denigrate loves of yours -- I mean, not just in a way of disagreeing with the denigration but like you're set on convincing them they're wrong. You said something earlier about repeating and repeating. I don't remember which thread. That seems operative to me here. If you were simply "laughing," wouldn't you have let it go after JR demonstrated obdurateness?

Ellen

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

You can take a look at this one narrow aspect of one small aspect of football strategy from Bill Walsh's notes on dropback passing here.

The mental analytical tools required for just this slice of one set of offensive plays is comparable to the analysis required in chess.

I have played both at a highly competitive level and they are quite similar.

6. Curl: -5 step timed.

CURL11.PNG

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

You can take a look at this one narrow aspect of one small aspect of football strategy from Bill Walsh's notes on dropback passing here.

The mental analytical tools required for just this slice of one set of offensive plays is comparable to the analysis required in chess.

I have played both at a highly competitive level and they are quite similar.

6. Curl: -5 step timed.

CURL11.PNG

Adam

Betcha they couldn't do that on skates.

Before you say it Adam - I know, the Leafs can't do it either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

You can take a look at this one narrow aspect of one small aspect of football strategy from Bill Walsh's notes on dropback passing here.

The mental analytical tools required for just this slice of one set of offensive plays is comparable to the analysis required in chess.

I have played both at a highly competitive level and they are quite similar.

6. Curl: -5 step timed.

CURL11.PNG

Adam

Betcha they couldn't do that on skates.

Before you say it Adam - I know, the Leafs can't do it either.

Carol:

Structurally, hockey has their plays also here which I know you know...lol

  • Option 4 - Skater 2 continues along the boards toward the goal. Skater 1 cuts towards the net. Skater 2 cycles the puck near the net and continues to the offside of the net for support. Skater 1 skates the puck out of the corner and makes a pass to Skater 2. Skater 2 makes quick one-time shot on goal.

overload_wide4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

You can take a look at this one narrow aspect of one small aspect of football strategy from Bill Walsh's notes on dropback passing here.

The mental analytical tools required for just this slice of one set of offensive plays is comparable to the analysis required in chess.

I have played both at a highly competitive level and they are quite similar.

6. Curl: -5 step timed.

CURL11.PNG

Adam

Betcha they couldn't do that on skates.

Before you say it Adam - I know, the Leafs can't do it either.

Carol:

Structurally, hockey has their plays also here which I know you know...lol

  • Option 4 - Skater 2 continues along the boards toward the goal. Skater 1 cuts towards the net. Skater 2 cycles the puck near the net and continues to the offside of the net for support. Skater 1 skates the puck out of the corner and makes a pass to Skater 2. Skater 2 makes quick one-time shot on goal.

overload_wide4.gif

Yeah, we had a tough time trying to teach Rahida to defend against that one. She couldn't understand why the players couldn't all just wear #1 and #2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Laughing" isn't how you're coming across to me.

I think the problem is that often times I enter a discussion assuming that an Objectivish/libertarian-type is just having a little fun and joking around with his bluffing and blustering. I then join in with a little rough playing myself, but it often turns out that they're serious -- they actually believe the ridiculous shit that they're saying. And then that makes me want to explore their mindset further. To someone following along, I think my playful part of it can be missed, or blurred into my transition to actual incredulity.

You seem to me similar to Phil in one respect. He lectures people trying to get them to act as he thinks proper to Objectivists, and you keep at people who denigrate loves of yours -- I mean, not just in a way of disagreeing with the denigration but like you're set on convincing them they're wrong.

Yeah, I can see where you'd think that. I think the difference between Phil and me, though, is that I'm really not interested in changing anyone's mind or correcting their behavior. I'm motivated by other things, one of which is observing people who seem to expect others to be convinced by rational arguments, and evaluating how open to arguments they are (or are not) themselves. I find that fascinating. I'm more about probing than preaching.

You said something earlier about repeating and repeating. I don't remember which thread. That seems operative to me here. If you were simply "laughing," wouldn't you have let it go after JR demonstrated obdurateness?

On this thread, I'm still at the point of believing that JR is not foolish enough to believe the silly crap that he's saying. I'd say that I have more respect for him than that. I've been operating under the assumption that we're having some fun jousting, and that he's yanking chains and hoping to get a rise out of people. If it turns out that I've seriously misread him, I'll eventually drop it and lower my estimate of his intelligence and personality accordingly.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now