[Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health

[Joe Campbell]

Maybe we now have the answer to the question, How do you deal with Crabtree?

On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 8:17 AM, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:

>  The thesis is that you are not interested in constructive dialog.
>
> Your response gives more than ample evidence of that. And also more than
> ample evidence of dysfunctional disclarity.
>
> w.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> ; Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 7:57 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health
>
>  "Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on the list that you
> consider to be "right" and "left" so that people will not have to attempt to
> reach the foggy recesses of your mind in order to decide who's who in your
> opinion.  Otherwise, most will think you are pulling a Roger Falen by
> refusing to respond to an issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating
> yourself using different words and syntax."
>
> While I find you mildly unpleasant and not a little creepy, I don't
> currently believe you are stupid. Do you really still imagine
> that insisting that I respond to to your demands in precisely the manner
> that will please you is a productive use of your time? Do you actually
> believe that I am concerned with what you and your mythical "most" are
> thinking? If so, a drastic revision of my opinion is in order.
>
>  "I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or enumerate "right"
> and "left" because even in that dark back room of The Lock Shop you know
> that there is vast disagreement among those you claim to be on the left on
> this list on some very fundamental issues such as abortion, the death
> penalty, health care, first amendment rights, gun ownership rights,
> religious freedom and truth, the bailouts and other economic issues,
> educational reform, drug policy, the desirability of unions, possible
> solutions to the immigration problems, etc. "
>
> Oh no! Us cartoon characters in our dark back rooms prefer to believe in
> monolithic stereotypes that never vary from the role to which they are
> assigned. To wit:
>
> The "right" = six gun toting, God fearing, courageous, generous types who
> love America, Mom, and apple pie and feel truly sorry for drug ingesting
> hippies who refuse to eat red meat and have questionable hygiene. These
> stalwarts gravitate to professions such as astronaut, super hero/costumed
> crime fighter, bronco busting, bull riding cowboy of a decidedly
> non-brokeback persuasion, and double ought spy.
>
> The "left" = squirrelly, tofu munching, dope smoking, atheist gas bags who
> march and wave placards in homogenous herds and have never met a criminal,
> tree, or illegal alien that they have not immediately wanted to coddle, hug,
> or provide welfare benefits to. If they can be bothered to arise from their
> cannabis and/or narcotic induced stupor to perform any semi-useful labor at
> all they will normally be lawyers, collage professors (liberal arts),
> bureaucrats, interpretive dancers, and mimes
>
> Does that satisfy your curious lust for definition?
>
> Something, something, something...
>
> Some hastily tossed off flippant response. Is it becoming obvious that
> boredom is
> beginning to set in? Gosh, I hope not.
>
> Blah, blah, reading suggestions I'll immediately ignore, blah...
>
> zzzzz...
>
>  "It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a way that would
> promote understanding/clarification and possible resolutions, or man up and
> admit that you are just another propagandist whose goal is not truth, but
> attempts at persuasion exalting your personal ideals."
>
> Or what? you'll hold your breath, kick your little feets and pound your
> teeny widdle fists? Listen, I get it. I really do. You want me to take this
> forum more seriously. You want me to take you seriously. You want me to read
> the books you recommend. You want me to discuss what you want to discuss and
> you want me to discuss it in a manner that is pleasing to you. I'm reading
> you five by five. It pains me to have to tell you that there no chance your
> dreams are going to come true in this regard. For the last time, here's the
> deal. You may feel free to complain to your little hearts content but, I
> write what I write for reasons that are my own. Demanding that I do
> something differently or insisting that I respond to you in some specific
> way is a waste of your precious remaining time on earth. Now go pound sand.
>
> g
>
>  *From:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 02, 2011 8:30 AM
> *To:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] [SPAM]Re: that Jared guy and mental health
>
> Crabtree writes:
>
> 'I don't really believe that there is any real lack of clarity on this list
> as to where the "left" leaves off and the "right" kicks in."'
>
> Either define "left" and "right" or enumerate those on the list that you
> consider to be "right" and "left" so that people will not have to attempt to
> reach the foggy recesses of your mind in order to decide who's who in your
> opinion.  Otherwise, most will think you are pulling a Roger Falen by
> refusing to respond to an issue in any meaningful terms except by repeating
> yourself using different words and syntax.
>
> I think that you are cravenly refusing to define or enumerate "right" and
> "left" because even in that dark back room of The Lock Shop you know that
> there is vast disagreement among those you claim to be on the left on this
> list on some very fundamental issues such as abortion, the death penalty,
> health care, first amendment rights, gun ownership rights, religious freedom
> and truth, the bailouts and other economic issues, educational reform, drug
> policy, the desirability of unions, possible solutions to the immigration
> problems, etc.
>
> And hence, any meaningful characterization of "left" and right" would
> exclude or make very fuzzy their inclusion in the list many you apparently
> think of as leftists.  That this is so is exhibited by many prior
> discussions on this list.  So, to deny such is either dishonest and/or
> cowardly.  [Google:  "Over-simplification", "Over-generalization", and
> Dishonesty".]
>
> 'Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely clear. It's pretty
> much anything the left doesn't want to hear from the right. Hate speech is
> defined by its source not its content.'
>
> So if someone on the right says "the economy will do better under
> conservative leadership," and someone you allege is on the left disagrees,
>  that's hate speech?  What rot.  Again you offer no reasonable criteria to
> determine what hate speech is except that it is *anything* one *particular
> * [the "left"] group doesn't like about what another [the "right"] says.
> That makes almost any political discussion of opposing views hate speech.
>
> See:  The Fallacy of Persuasive Definition:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
>
> It is not surprising that you again refuse to participate in a meaningful
> discussion of the issues.  That is your style and fits your limited
> worldview from the window of the backroom of your business.  Your definition
> of "hate speech" is so prejudicial, and it's lack of clarity greatly
> amplified given the lack of precision of the meaning of "right" and "left"
> that it tells readers a lot about you, but not much about the reality
> outside of you.
>
> "The never-ending insistence that *everything evil* emanates from the
> conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs are long suffering saints
> is hogwash and an endless round of competing lists will do nothing to change
> that fact."
>
> Another gross distortion/lie/exaggeration.  Who one the list said anything
> like that?  Some have said that violent rhetoric and hate speech is more
> common from pundits on the right, but I do not see that anyone claimed that
> such practices where exclusive to the right.  So starting with a grossly
> false O'Reillyism, you then negate the possibility of anyone giving any kind
> of evidence that would might clarify or give weight to one side or the other
> on the issue.  What a dunce-like position!
>
> Although you falsely accused Reggie of being foolish because you disagreed
> with his characterization of three people on his prior long list, and
> although your alleged counterexamples are open to reasonable questions
> such as Andreas Schou has raised, it is you that appears to be foolish, if
> not dishonest and cowardly when you:
>
> [1] Refuse to define in any meaningful way what you are talking about,
>
> [2] Use really cockeyed, prejudicial persuasive definitions when you do
> deign to define terms, and
>
> [3] Tell bald-faced lies about other's positions.
>
> Perhaps your self-education might benefit from a concentrated study of
> Wesley Salmon's concise, but incisive book *Logic*.  Or a careful reading
> of *Proofiness* by Charles Seife might help you deal with some of your
> problems of over-generalization and over-simplification.
>
> It's time to man up and either respond to the issues in a way that would
> promote understanding/clarification and possible resolutions, or man up and
> admit that you are just another propagandist whose goal is not truth, but
> attempts at persuasion exalting your personal ideals.
>
> w.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Gary Crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com>
> *To:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> ; Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 01, 2011 7:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health
>
>  Interesting. You sound like the kid on the playground who always wanted
> to tell everyone else what the game should be, define the minutia the games
> rules, and then become pouty when his expectations weren't met with regard
> to being deferred to in all matters. Life can be a disappointment for kids
> like that.
>
> I don't really believe that there is any real lack of clarity on this list
> as to where the "left" leaves off and the "right" kicks in. (I don't
> consider myself a proper member of the "right" but to make this easier for
> you we'll pretend it's the case) The difficulty arises, at the very least in
> the most current discussion, when those on the left want to pretend to be
> Sunday's child where it comes to acts of violence and political discussion
> that is less then demure. The never-ending insistence that everything evil
> emanates from the conservative end of the spectrum and that the libs are
> long suffering saints is hogwash and an endless round of competing lists
> will do nothing to change that fact.
>
> Also, the definition of "hate speech" is absolutely clear. It's pretty much
> anything the left doesn't want to hear from the right. Hate speech is
> defined by its source not its content. When the same sentiments are
> expressed from a liberal perspective it becomes passionate political
> discourse and a sacred first amendment principal. From the right, pure
> incitement to violence (even when none was voiced) to be quashed by any and
> every means possible. Violent speech is funny in that when a person hailing
> from the "right" talks of targeting a district, defeating an opponent, or
> quotes the founding fathers the remarks are an unequivocal, bold neon
> colored calls for assassination. When the "left" explicitly hope for the
> death of Sarah Palin and/or her children, pray for Dick Cheney's heart to
> give out, and make big budget Hollywood movies glorifying the murder of GWB,
> the speech is apparently translucent in the lack of notice it receives.
>
> I hope that this gives you "a clear and distinct idea" on where this
> cartoon character stands on the matter at hand. Now, if you'd be so kind,
> could you go into a little more detail with regard to my education? There is
> very little that I find more fascinating then to hear the playground mope
> expound at length on the topic of what he imagines my background to be.
>
> g
>
>
>
>  *From:* Art Deco <deco at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 01, 2011 2:35 PM
> *To:* Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Subject:* [SPAM]Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health
>
> A lesson to Reggie, et al:
>
> This dispute is on Vision 2020 is driven by at least two things:
>
> 1.    The lack of anywhere near agreement on the definitions of "right" v.
> "left" and "hate speech".
>
> 2.    The apparent inability and unwillingness of Falen/Crabtree to
> support their positions with meaningful arguments.  With Roger, it is the
> apparent inability to understand what an argument is; with Crabtree, it is
> the long demonstrated unwillingness *to engage in meaningful dialogue* on
> any subject where his basic beliefs may be threatened by facts and/or
> alternative values.
>
> Reggie:  When you put the list at issue together, you offered evidence.
> One would expect those holding an opposing views would offer a different
> list of at least the same magnitude.  Both Crabtree and Falen are unwilling
> to do so.  Forget meaningful dialogue.
>
> At some point, maybe one side or the other would offer more clarifying
> definitions so that the dispute could be better conducted by referring
> meaningful evidence.  Don't look to Falen or Crabtree for that either.  It
> is too threatening.
>
> I repeat the following without much hope that either Falen or Crabtree will
> alter their self-satisfying, but futile, churlish behavior:
>
>  'It may be wise to remember in a discussion of values [or any other
> subject] the following paraphrase of a quotation from English Philosopher
> John Locke:
>
> "When comparing two ideas, it is necessary to have a clear and distinct
> idea of each."'
>
> Or its modern statement:
>
> "When comparing two statements or theories, the clearer, less vague and
> ambiguous statement(s) of and definitions used in each, the better the
> chance of meaningfully determining the truth, or in the case of values, the
> correct application, or least discovering the roots of agreement or
> disagreement."
>
> Over many months of reading Crabtree in action on V2020 I have thought that
> he might be the object of a possible *Far Side* cartoon whose caption
> would be "When self-education goes horribly wrong."
>
>
> Wayne A. Fox
> 1009 Karen Lane
> PO Box 9421
> Moscow, ID  83843
>
> waf at moscow.com
> 208 882-7975
>
>  ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> *To:* Reggie Holmquist <reggieholmquist at u.boisestate.edu>
> *Cc:* vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 01, 2011 10:52 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [Vision2020] that Jared guy and mental health
>
> I hope that you had fun putting together this list, some of which it would
> really be a stretch to call hate speech or necessarily from the the right.
> It would almost seem that anything you disagree with is hate speech or right
> wing. I don't much care if it is exactly equal from both sides. suffice it
> to say that there is plenty on both. *I am not going to go tit for tat
> with you.
> *Roger
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20110203/665de4ad/attachment-0001.html