From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Wed May 11 2005 - 16:48:21 BST
Hi Ham,
On 11 May 2005 at 4:47, hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
Whether as the result of a hangover or simply having experienced a
bad day on Tuesday, you made a ludicrous accusation that I wager
you'll soon regret. Although you weaseled out of naming the
participant you accused of slander, it's obvious to everyone by now
that I am the tainted "second conservative" referred to.
msh:
You're number 3, not number 2. Number 3 was never accused of
slander. So relax. It is interesting however that you evidently
caught a glimpse of yourself in my description of number 2.
ham:
What does venting your personal animosity in this provocative manner
accomplish?
msh:
I'm attacking what I perceive to be very dangerous ideas. It's
nothing personal. How could it be? I don't know you or anyone else
on this list, except by the ideas they post. And my style is
antagonistic in direct proportion to the danger imposed by the ideas
I'm battling.
ham:
For one thing, it proves that MoQ loyalists are true to form in
defending their "cultist devotion to an intellectual fad" to the
point of verbally abusing their antagonists.
msh:
Again, I'm "abusing" low quality ideas, not people. And I'm not even
close to a MoQ purist, so your comment about "cultist devotion" makes
no sense to me. Nor do I see that the word "cultist" may be applied
to anyone else on this list. As far as I can tell, no one
uncritically accepts every word uttered by RMP.
ham:
Secondly, it confirms my suspicion that there is, indeed, a leftist
liberal majority here with an agenda to disparage conservative
ideology, and that this effort is far more intense than the
intellectual energy they apply to resolving philosophical disputes.
msh says:
Conservative ideology is often disparaged here and elsewhere because
it is seen to derive from a singularly unenlightened view of the
world and its inhabitants. The agenda, if there is one, is to
deconstruct ideas that are obstructive of evolution.
ham:
And lastly, as you must surely be aware, politically motivated
attacks on MD contributors only serve to demonstrate the juvenile
(i.e., low quality) tactics to which certain members are capable of
stooping. Such tactics would seem to contradict your admonishment to
tfp that the Randians have a special claim on being "...more
concerned with promoting just the material interests of a minority
(i.e. self/selfish orientated)",
msh says:
This was Ant, not me. But I agree with Ant...
ham:
as opposed to your liberal? view that "There are other alternatives.
For example, to cut the Gary Cooper High Noon delusions, and
recognize that we are all in this together, that cooperation, not
competition, produces the highest quality results for all." So much
for magnanimity!
msh:
Saddam Hussein and GWB share in our common humanity. This doesn't
mean we should accept without challenge any destructive or
obstructive action they seek to perform. Some human beings are far
less fully-realized than others.
ham:
You've accused me of slander, Mark.
msh:
No, see above. And I never will accuse you of such, as long as you
support your attacks on the ideas of others with argument and
evidence, and you are willing to honestly debate your position.
The rest of your post rests on this misreading of my words, so I'll
skip responding to it.
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "The shadows that a swinging lamp will throw, We come from nowhere and to nothing go." MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 11 2005 - 17:15:15 BST