Geege v. Jeff, the Title Bout (only on FPV - FoRKPerView)
Tue, 02 Oct 2001 16:52:48 -0500
> you wouldn't recognize change if it spit in your space.
That is absolutely ludicrous, btw. If you'd like to pursue that
tangent, have at it. Lemme tell ya, though: I'm *nothing* if not
change-oriented pretty much across the board. :-) My problem isn't
change, it's standing still. Always had trouble doing that. ;-)
> do you honestly think your approach is fresh?
Nope, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants and contributing very
little new stuff here. I'm not claiming "freshness" of approach,
either --- I'm hoping that some day we can all (me included) shrug off
irrationality and sentimentality and catch up with some of those
giants. It's a long process, and it's inevitably frustrating to all
BTW, just for the record: I'm just as susceptible to irrationality
and sentimentality as the average Joe, and part of this kind of
discourse for me is just that, a process of ferreting out and
eliminating these defects in my own positions and thought processes.
Even you, Geege, contribute valuably to that process. :-) But you're
still a defective irrational sentimental neo-liberal "save the planet"
primitive compexicist neo-maxi zoom dweebie. ;-)
> your outdated negative associations limit your ability to come up
> with anything fresh: complex = beaurocratic, simple = revolutionary,
> TO YOU.
I'm not interested in revolution *at all.* Better equations would be
complex = unworkable & problematic, simple = workable & effective.
Remember that "sophisticated" and "sophistry" are closely related
> to the rest of us, who've passed thru stage-one social analysis
If you can't attack the position itself successfully, attack the
underlying process in some vague fashion? You can do better than
that, Geege. If you want to invalidate my position, go for it ---
attack the position. Illustrate how I'm wrong. Demonstrate how good
and wonderful and peaceful and prosperous and happy the world has been
throughout history as a result of these memes I'm calling defective.
Don't stoop to such a weak and ineffective tactic as obliquely casting
aspersions on whatever analytical process you think or claim that I've
made or not made.
> and come out the other side, your notions of how the world should be
> borders on platitude.
And I'll merely argue that (and I'll be more gentle here in the
interest of precision) *what I believe to be* your notion of how the
world should be doesn't border on unworkable, it demonstrates it every
day in failures great and small.