From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Sep 17 2002 - 22:56:30 MDT
Lee, I've had you on killfile for sometime, but I grubbed out this message
after reading Harvey's post.
I agree utterly with Harvey's criticisms of your manner on this list. I
congratulate him for taking you on, head on, over it, because you seem to be
an extraordinarily slippery customer. There is little doubt that you behave
exactly like a troll.
No, I wont waste my time looking for examples.
Emlyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 September 2002 10:57
> To: extropians@extropy.org
> Subject: RE: *Why* People Won't Discuss Differences Objectively
>
>
> Harvey writes
>
> > How many times do people have to tell you to stop
> stereotyping other
> > people or prejudging other people before you get the
> message? It is
> > hard to believe that it never occurred to you that
> pigeon-holing other
> > people's beliefs by your own assumptions instead of their own
> > statements might upset them.
>
> You're being quite ridiculous. I'm hardly the only person in
> the universe using the words "liberal" and "conservative". In
> fact, I'm not even the only one on this list! Some even go so
> far as to say "right" and "left". Geez.
>
> > Strangely, you just blasted me in another thread and said that you
> > never claimed that people were afraid to discuss their difference
> > objectively. Now you are expressing this same concept again.
>
> You read each of my posts with so much a priori venom
> that you aren't able any longer to even discern what I
> mean.
>
> > > Um, confession time: I created the title to this thread a
> > > bit out of frustration.
> >
> > Of course. You frequently do this.
>
> One might say that this supports the old adage "Never Confess
> Anything: it will always be seized and used against you." But
> long ago I said to myself, "I don't care. All I care about is
> trying to find the truth." (Naturally, I wish that I could
> *always* live up to that but.... oops!! another confession!
> I have not always been able to live up to that.)
>
> > You constantly play games that seem intended to annoy other
> > people. Given Gina and now Samantha, you seem to be the biggest
> > cause of people threatening to quit the list than anyone one else.
>
> I'll wait till they tell me so, thank you.
>
> > Why won't people discuss this topic with you that you
> > repeatedly try to get started here? For some, it is
> because they find
> > the basis of your topic invalid. That is the answer to your
> > question. But you reject this answer and pretend that they aren't
> > answering your question.
>
> But they *are* answering my question now. I have had some very
> constructive ideas from no less than three posters, whose names
> I shall omit to keep them from going on anyone's list.
>
> > >> Actually I believe that most people, regardless of intelligence
> > >> and level of fundamental goodwill, tend to be caught in certain
> > >> primary modes or stages of consciousness that hopefully evolve
> > >> over time.
> >
> > Yes. It is obvious that you believe this.
>
> I hope you realize that Samantha wrote that, not me. I'm
> not completely convinced its accuracy, actually. As I wrote
> back to her, the concept of *evolve* here makes the notion
> questionable. Looks like you may be reading this thread
> with insufficient care.
>
> > Another reason no one wants to discuss these questions
> > with you...
>
> You're a barrel of laughs sometimes, Harvey.
>
> > ...is that you aren't really seeking answers. You already
> > have all the answers worked out. Your goal is to lead
> > others to your answer or preach your theories to
> > others in response to their participation.
>
> I shouldn't admit this (for obvious reasons), but there is
> a small component of truth here. If I think that I am right
> then I do wish others to "know the truth". (This is why I
> invite Jehovah's witnesses into my house for rousing
> discussions.)
>
> But you are dead wrong in your emphasis here. The *main*
> reason that I propose theories is to get critical comment
> on them. True, the criticism doesn't always sink in right
> away, and it may be months or years before I can see that
> my critic was right. Another reason to propose theories
> is reciprocity: I would like to hear other people's ideas
> too.
>
> > If you have a theory to present, just present it. You
> > don't have to play games pretending to lead up to your
> > pronouncements or lead other people to ask the right
> > questions so you can answer them.
>
> This supposition of such Machiavellian tendencies on my
> part is quite humorous. But I'm starting to worry that
> your articulation of this trait may be an act of self-
> description. I've seen that happen before: the only
> real cheater I ever saw in chess tipped me off a long
> time ahead of time (if only I'd known to read the signs)
> by accusing others of cheating. I wonder if
> you don't perhaps have some of the same Machiavellian
> tendencies that you're "seeing" in my posts, tendencies
> which you only barely keep under control.
>
> > This is also part of the reason that no one wants
> > to discuss your issues.
>
> Again, you make me LOL. Not only are you speaking for
> the Majority, you seem to be unable to recognize the
> reality that "my" issues are *often* discussed.
>
> I'm not really an ogre, Harvey. It's all in your mind.
>
> > You won't let the conversation flow wherever it will.
>
> Good grief! As if I have the power to control the
> conversation! You are indeed attributing to me
> more than merely human capabilities; I don't know
> whether to be flattered or insulted.
>
> But the worst part is, I think you're dead serious, and
> I am concerned. I invite you to talk behind my back to
> one or two others off line who you trust, to try to get
> a little perspective.
>
> > You have an end-game already planned and twist the
> > conversations toward your goals to the point
> > that real discussion becomes impossible.
>
> Since I am *so* diabolically clever, and anticipate
> the turns of the conversation so well that I'm already
> foreseeing the endgame, you should just give up now
> and capitulate: it will be easier on you after I
> take over the world.
>
> > > But if we were to draw up some extensive
> > > list of issues such as:
> > >
> > > profiling
> > > invading Iraq
> > > global warming
> > > gun control
> > > reparations
> > > affirmative action
> > > social safety net
> > > Monica Lewinsky and Bill
> > > Vietnam War
> > > immigration
> >
> > Why are these the top-ten issues on this list?
>
> Because AS I SAID IF YOU WERE CAREFULLY READING and had
> had seen the phrase
>
> "just to name the first ten that come to mind"
>
> directly *following* that list, it is because they are
> the first ten that came to mind! It was random.
> Well... (oops, confession time again) I did separate
> two of them that were rather closely related, for
> effect, but I touched only two of them. Now I *need*
> to be as totally honest as I can for the sake of *my
> own* sanity.
>
> > I believe that all the above are off-topic and should be
> > permanently banned.
>
> Mind you, I'm not advocating that these *be* discussed.
> In fact, I remained aloof from a thread started by Kai
> Becker which was pretty provocative about the evils and
> arrogance of the U.S. and all; it would suit me *just fine*
> if those things above were not discussed (not that I'm promising
> to stay out of them, mind you). I'm rather more interested
> in discussing what *causes* people to have the views they
> have on each side of those issues.
>
> > >> Precisely why are you yourself apparently putting down all
> > >> others and denigrating their strawman motives as concocted
> > >> by yourself?
> > >
> > > Hmm. Sounds like a loaded question 8^D
> >
> > No, I'm pretty sure she was serious.
>
> Do you know what "loaded question" means? It means an
> *unfair* question, Harvey, much like "Have you stopped
> beating your wife". Of course Samantha was serious.
> Now I couldn't literally answer that question without
> agreeing to its obvious premises---I'm sure that she
> knows that, and had she had the time to carefully
> review her post, she would have found some other way
> to accuse me of those things without making it a
> presumption of the way the question was worded. But I
> don't have a real problem with what she did because it's
> a frequent occurrence when writing email (or perhaps even
> speaking) and uh oh I'm sometimes guilty of it myself.
> And I put a grin on it, just so that she'd know that
> I wasn't accusing her of anything diabolical.
>
> > Your postings seem to be arguing with yourself.
> > You almost never respond to what people really say.
>
> Funny that you're the only one complaining of this
> that I know of. Would someone *please* who happens
> by the way to agree with me on other political issues
> also speak up here? Or even off-line? I would *love*
> to know if there was something to this beyond Harvey's
> imagination.
>
> > Instead, you go off on your own tangent arguing
> > strawman positions that you yourself invented.
>
> You're getting more and more delusional.
>
> > Of course, this seems natural given your insistence that
> > you can predict other people's political viewpoints even
> > before they express them. You see one or two points and
> > immediately pigeon-hole people. From then on, it doesn't
> > matter what they do or say, you keep responding to your
> > own predictions instead of literal reality.
>
> You're seriously reality-challenged about this. Would anyone
> regardless of their political views please support Harvey
> on this if it is true that I have ignored your objections
> and continue to misstate your position? And *please* supply
> what it is that you say about yourself (that is, some political
> viewpoint that you have) where I keep claiming that you have
> some other viewpoint?
>
> > Until you figure out why people keep calling you dishonest,
> you will
> > never understand why people don't want to discuss your
> issues on your
> > terms.
>
> You, and your brother, and perhaps Michael Wiik have called me
> dishonest. I would invite anyone else, provided they have an
> example, to also make that claim. If I *am* being dishonest,
> then I really want to know.
>
> > I know I am being rude and blunt here, but seriously. this is
> > the answer to why nobody wants to play with you.
>
> So you really are living in your own world. You can't see
> that a number of people have responded constructively to
> my posts (on this, and on many other topics).
>
> I'm not joking, Harvey: you do need a vacation or something,
> because if your perception of reality can become so delusional
> on something as trivial and unimportant as this, then you are
> in grave danger over important issues. Please consult with
> friends about *all* important things (e.g. cryonics, or major
> life decisions). I'm being deadly serious. Good luck, and as
> one cryonicist to another, I hope that you know I really do
> mean it.
>
> Lee
>
***************************************************************************
Confidentiality: The contents of this email are confidential and are
intended only for the named recipient. If the reader of this e-mail is not
the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction,
disclosure or distribution of the information contained in the e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please reply to us
immediately and delete the document.
Viruses: Any loss/damage incurred by using this material is not the sender's
responsibility. Our entire liability will be limited to resupplying the
material. No warranty is made that this material is free from computer virus
or other defect.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:07 MST