Sometimes, you just haven't been noticed

By -
I just found 19 unposted comments in my queue. For some reason, some comments get placed in my spam bucket instead of my inbox, and I only see them when I go into Blogger. And how often I do that variously enormously based on my schedule: today, for instance, was the first time in at least a week I got a chance to do this.

But it does make for amusing moments: today I discovered that "Robert," responding to my post discussing Bob Roddis's comments at Murphy's blog (so I am assuming "Robert" is Roddis) had an entire argument with me, in which he became increasingly angry, and finally wound up calling me a "pathetic piece of sh*t," without my knowing he had ever posted anything.

The disturbed are perfectly capable of working themselves into a rage all on their own, without any involvement by a second party.

Comments

  1. Samson Corwell2:02 PM

    Well, it sounds like they were put in the right place then.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Samson Corwell2:08 PM

    This may be an ad hominem, but I think there's a strong relationship between the falsity of a person's opinions and their general amount of crankiness. This Roddis fellow sounds like a prevaricating, persecution complex suffering, egocentric nut.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unknown3:13 AM

    Gene: my favorite thing is when people infer the views that they hate on the person that is not even affirming these views. I think you had a post on this.

    Example:

    Me: "I don't think that doing political theory is like doing mathematics..."

    Them: "What?! So you believe that we can just fly by the seat of our pants and make decisions on the economy, health care, and education by whim?!?!"

    Me: "I think that Progressivism has its own moral views, metaphysics, and political ideas on things, just like many religions."

    Them: "So you are saying that I'm going to pray the rosary to the Progressive altar while chanting the name of Obama?!?!?!"

    And so on and so on. If you find a humorous way of dealing with these nitwits, let me know. My current response has been one of affirmation: "Why YES I DO...!" That usually either shuts them up or makes them realize how obtuse they sound to others.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more