From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Apr 27 2002 - 00:33:43 MDT
David Lubkin wrote:
>
> I've raised two distinct concerns that have been discussed by others on
> the list in the past.
>
> The first is that, at least as long as we're stuck in meat bodies, we
> have to be selective in how we use our time. Not all ideas are worth
> consideration and not all messengers are worth listening to, because the
> time we spend on them is at the expense of something else. We all,
> naturally and appropriately, prejudge ideas and messengers. You didn't
> skip Kurzweil's talk at EXTRO-5 to listen to a disheveled man in the
> parking lot tell you about the Illuminati.
>
Actually I wasn't at all impressed by that talk as I had read
the book and almost nothing new was added. But that is neither
here nor there. I hardly think the person you disparaged as a
"loon" apparently for his contentions about 9/11, is very fairly
compared to a disheveled man in the parking lot muttering about
the Illuminati.
I have no argument that our time is limited and we have to pick
and choose though. But in this particular case your judgement
seemed to come awfully fast and harsh. It didn't look fair to me.
>> Just because something is monstrous to even consider as possible does
>> not mean it is acceptable to automatically dismiss and label any who
>> consider it or advocate it as true as a "loon".
>
>
> Agreed. I dismissed the gentleman in question as a "loon" not for any
> one thing alone. All the separate issues I raised together led to that
> conclusion.
>
Perhaps we can agree to disagree because I was not convinced of
his loonacy by the evidence (much of which looked more like
preset opinion) presented.
I am not saying the guy is trustworthy or should not be
verified. I would put him in the category "If what he says
makes sense and the case appears plausible then look into given
time and sufficient importance".
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:40 MST