»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Tolerance and Importance
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Tolerance and Importance |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is from "There's no Such Thing as Free Speech (and it's a good thing too)" p. 217: Fish's first law of tolerance-dynamics: Toleration is exercised in an inverse proportion to there being anything at stake. What do you think? |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Kind of reminds me of Boyle's Law ( mathematical form- PV=k ) which is itself an inverse mathematical relationship. This means that the pressure-volume product will always be the same value if the temperature and amount remain constant. As one quantity goes up in the value, the other goes down. As pressure increases, volume decreases and vice-versa. It's all relative---heh There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, although I think he was being facetious in terms of an actual 'law'. I disagree with the statement because I think things are contextual (I guess what you would call relative?). Certainly, there are times when disagreement will lead to argument and violence, but he seems to be saying that this will always be the case depending on how much you care about the topic. I don't think that means much. I can think of times where agreement can do much the same thing -- when someone screams 'this is a great movie' in the middle of a great movie for example. I'm trying to keep this light but I think tolerance, if not a hundred percent attainable, is a lot more attainable than this 'law' indicates. I also think that it doesn't see the world as interactive, as intersubjective, as it seems to be. I see tolerance, not as compromise or a willingness to concede, but as a willingness to talk. Not 'live and let live' but, a 'how do you live, here's how I live' philosophy. Brad |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Brad, I concede your point however, I think the "law" was accurate insofar as someone really is more tolerant of say "irritant A" the farther removed from "A" they are. For instance I am more tolerant of chemical plants if there isn't one located across the street. If there were one near me that was in violation of EPA emissions standards and I thought the chemical was dangerous I might be very vocal and begin protesting. I think the same is true for most any situation you might think of. A person who has never been touched by crime who is for the death penalty-- but had pretty much kept his opinion to himself--- Someone close to him is murdered-- suddenly you have a person who is very much vocal about their opinion. I could of course ( like dennis miller ) be wrong....heh There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. byron [This message has been edited by Jamie (edited 08-31-2001).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
What is the point of "Fish"? There is no point. That is his point. As an anti-foundationalist, Fish attacks both conservatives and liberals. In a way, Passions would be the epitome of Fish's view of liberalism. It doesn't matter in these discussions whether the truth is spoken, how sophist the remarks (Fish does not object to himself being called a sophist engaged in rhetoric), or how ridiculous the logic of any given statement. If the goal is tolerance and the avoidance of conflict, then faulty truth or logic are unimportant. I read once that Fish believes conservatives are thugs and liberals foolish. (he prefers foolish over thugs). If speech were totally free, then what is the point of speech. Speech would have no meaning, because in simple terms, anything goes. At some point, you have to put on limits. But, as Fish indicates, it doesn't really matter if you agree with his writings or not. Life goes on, and we all exist within the framework of our own communities. Free speech is what you believe it to be based upon your own existence. Just being a dumb hick from the sticks, I suspect most people have their limits of tolerance, in speech or any matter of importance in their life. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Jaime, I'll be back. No time to discuss this but glad to see someone actually's read this guy (I use him here all the time). I don't think he means that there's no point except in foundationalism. I agree with that. What I think he's done here however is make a foundationalist argument without knowing it. With that said, Jaime's point is accurate. There is a time and a place to discuss things (even serious things) but there is also a time and a place not to. What I want to argue is that with a little effort many of us can tell the difference. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Two appropo quotes come to mind: The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract. -- Oliver Wendell Holmes and: I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me. -- Dudley Field Malone |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Okay..tolerate me here....talk to me like I'm four years old. But isn't "what's at stake" relative too? I think this is based on an assumption that the world is a civilized place...(and even "civilized" is subject to the relative objectivity of viewpoint.) So rules and boundaries becoming law? Are exercizes in collective preference. And preferences are exercizes in personal judgement. Judgement--all judgement is subject to the fallibility of said relative preference. (We can only truly understand things from our own point of reference...everything else is conjecture.) and I'm sorry that I cannot quote the fancy quotes, (though I do have vague memory of a few) nor do I pretend to possess original thought. But I do know, the world is not neatly aligned...stuff happens. And to dismiss that as "out of time, out of place" is to miss the opportunity for a bit of enlightenment. The world, and the laws of the world are only as perfect as the people. My personal preference is discussion, with the sharing of ideas as the goal. (No competition there, just excitement.) When it comes down to a battle of quotes? Knowledge becomes trivial pursuit. (Which actually delves more into my spiritual leanings.) And? I'm not happy to admit, that I have lost my sense of humor. I was a much happier jester. I think there should be balance. To solve a jigaw puzzle, the cut of the pieces should most certainly be considered. But it's so much easier when you acknowledge the patterns of color too. (serenity exits...gathering the ashes of brain cells...) had to have ONE joke Brad!!!  |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Okay..tolerate me here.... --Okay. But isn't "what's at stake" relative too? --Yes, it is.  I think this is based on an assumption that the world is a civilized place...(and even "civilized" is subject to the relative objectivity of viewpoint.) --Drop the word 'objectivity' and I'll agree again. So rules and boundaries becoming law? --It's a tendential law. That's a little bit different than what you normally think of as law. Are exercizes in collective preference. --Well said. And preferences are exercizes in personal judgement. --Ah, don't, please don't go down that road. Judgement--all judgement is subject to the fallibility of said relative preference. --Think in the other direction. Judgements are subject to the success or failure of what happens next. (We can only truly understand things from our own point of reference --Yep. ...everything else is conjecture.) --Which means everything is conjecture. and I'm sorry that I cannot quote the fancy quotes, (though I do have vague memory of a few) --Don't be sorry. Those are for fun and because some of us are too lazy to redescribe everything we read. nor do I pretend to possess original thought. --Good. Now realize that most of the rest of us don't really possess anything that's original. We transfer, bring the back to the front, synthesize, quote, paraphrase, reverse, and anything else you can think of that avoids that word original. Unless of course that's what you mean by original. But I do know, the world is not neatly aligned...stuff happens. --Yep. And to dismiss that as "out of time, out of place" is to miss the opportunity for a bit of enlightenment. --Not quite sure what you mean here, but If you're referring to my 'time and a place' argument, reread my movie example. I'm not saying all that much. The world, and the laws of the world are only as perfect as the people. --I don't know where this comes from. My personal preference is discussion, with the sharing of ideas as the goal. (No competition there, just excitement.) --You've just made my day!!!!!!! When it comes down to a battle of quotes? Knowledge becomes trivial pursuit. --True, the point is the discussion of the quote, not the quote itself. If you're referring to LR's quotes, they're good ones thought, aren't they? (Which actually delves more into my spiritual leanings.) --Lost me again. And? I'm not happy to admit, that I have lost my sense of humor. I was a much happier jester. --Ah, you've got to keep your sense of humor. I think there should be balance. --How very Aristolelian of you. To solve a jigaw puzzle, the cut of the pieces should most certainly be considered. --Yes. But it's so much easier when you acknowledge the patterns of color too. --Yes, but that's not a balance. Both are useful ways to solve the jigsaw puzzle and both should be used together. How do we know this? We know when we solved the jigsaw puzzle. See above -- your own example fits very well with my own thoughts. (serenity exits...gathering the ashes of brain cells...) --Hoping she'll return. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
If it's alright for me to quote myself here -- I think it was me that said: "Words are equally a challenge. The poet struggles to write about what he feels. His limitations are not only his own lexicon but the understanding of the reader as well. Try, for example, to describe the color blue to a person born blind, just the concept of colors, or even the concept of light and dark. Creating specifications for an individual without a frame of reference becomes a virtual impossibility. Even if I were to transcribe the exact frequencies of light that produce the spectrum shades we interpret as 'blue' what meaning would it have to a person that never saw it? He might even make note of all the frequency numbers and correlate them to the specific words 'blue', 'red', 'green' -- and be able to re-identify them at a later time -- but is that understanding color?" -- Night Hawke circa 1992 just consider me too lazy to redescribe everything I've writ... lol BRad... intersting discussion... I hope she comes back too... [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (edited 09-03-2001).] |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
I just came back to say thank you all--and give a bit of a curtsey...and NOW? I'm going to get ready for the Aerosmith concert!  (serenity exits, wearing leather...  ) |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Jamie and Serenity- enjoyed your input. Well stated and expressed. Local Rebel- nice quotes, just not quite sure how they relate to the discussion at hand. Brad- I do not think your statements on what Fish was expressing were correct. Certainly they are not what I interpreted, but what the hey, I'm just a dumb farm boy. The only people who read Stanley Fish are graduate students and professors. It is difficult for this farm boy to discuss statements taken out of context that are part of a fairly complex theoretical treatis. Tim's first law- Tolerance is exercized in inverse proportion to the pronounciations of tolerance by the alleged tolerater. (that is a wee bit facetious) Which somewhat explains why academia is the bastion of political correctness. But I digress. Toleration is viewed in this discussion as an ideal to work towards. First, how are you going to define toleration? Should we tolerate the Taliban? Racism? Sexism? Untruths? Passions censors speech. Institutions of higher learning censor speech. Bad? Certainly not if tolerance is defined as acceptance of morally or ethically reprehensible behavior. Fish's statement in that context is merely a statement of common sense. I would prefer to think one should keep an open mind, and encourage discourse with those whom your views are divergent. Toleration is not limitless and basic human values will control how far toleration will be exercized. [This message has been edited by Tim (edited 09-04-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
"Brad- I do not think your statements on what Fish was expressing were correct. Certainly they are not what I interpreted," --Well, that's why I posted it. I wanted to know what others think. "but what the hey, I'm just a dumb farm boy." --What does that have to do with anything? "The only people who read Stanley Fish are graduate students and professors." --Untrue. "It is difficult for this farm boy to discuss statements taken out of context that are part of a fairly complex theoretical treatis." --It's not that complex, but I didn't think we needed the context because of the way he phrased the 'law'. I think what he's saying is that this is what 'really' happens when we talk. Sometimes it is but sometimes it isn't. Fish's anti-foundationalism (or lack of it here) wasn't something I was interested in, I just wanted to know other people's 'take' on the law. --The essay is a criticism of Posner, Rorty, and Dworkin's Pragmatism. He's simply saying that they aren't all that pragmatic in their Pragmatism. Rorty, in particular, argues that a Liberal Pragmatic view opens up more space for the type of conversation that this law says doesn't exist. Perhaps Rorty does go too far, perhaps his argument is utopian, but my point is that Fish goes too far in the opposite direction. "Tim's first law- Tolerance is exercized in inverse proportion to the pronounciations of tolerance by the alleged tolerater. (that is a wee bit facetious)" Facetious, yes, but I see your point. In a way, you're saying that when people are so busy screaming 'tolerance' 'tolerance', they neglect to be tolerant themselves. I agree. Tolerance will be shown through actions, not by claiming one's own tolerance. "Which somewhat explains why academia is the bastion of political correctness." --Actually, it explains why people outside and inside academia aren't all that different. Tolerance is tough. "But I digress." --Gee, I hadn't noticed. "Toleration is viewed in this discussion as an ideal to work towards." --Yes, but only under certain conditions. Jaime's right in his chemical factory example; that's a time to fight. I wouldn't be particularly happy with a lawyer who expressed 'tolerance' to the opposing side's views (except as a strategic manuever). In both cases, the point is to win. I just don't think that all conversations have to be about winning. In many cases, shouldn't it be about coming up with the best ideas we can? See the difference? My daughter's education matters a lot to me so I decide she should study at Harvard (or whatever). My wife, however, wants her to stay in Korea(in order to learn Korean and Korean culture -- something I also happen to think is important). The point isn't to 'win' the argument but to decide, as best we can, what is in the best interest of our daughter (and when she can talk to listen to her views as well -- once she has some that is). I still think there's a lot at stake here and I don't think that if I decided to let her stay in Korea it would mean I care less. Rather the issue is more important than my winning the argument. I think Fish's law confuses court talk with other types of talk like my daughter's future education talk. First, how are you going to define toleration? --I already did. Toleration doesn't mean agreement, it simply means a willingness to listen, to talk, to interact. "Should we tolerate the Taliban?" --Should we try to understand their point of view? I think so. We should also try very hard to make our views understood by them (given that the chances of that happening are probably slim, but they will walk out of the discussion, not us. The problem is that they believe they are RIGHT and TRUE. In essence, if you agree with us, you are right, if not, you are wrong. Where did the discussion go?) "Racism?" --Same. "Sexism?" --Same. "Untruths?" --I'm far more worried about those truths that everybody talks about. "Passions censors speech." --In order to allow other speech to exist. Passions policy is quite pragmatic. Ron has consistently pointed out that Passions is not a political statement, but a space where some people wish to interact in certain ways and not others. It is one component, not of Rondom, but of Internet tolerance as a whole. "Institutions of higher learning censor speech." --In some places and in some areas, but there's still a lot more variety in those institutions than you think. Bad? Certainly not if tolerance is defined as acceptance of morally or ethically reprehensible behavior. --Apparently I answered the questions in the wrong way? Fish's statement in that context is merely a statement of common sense. --And therefore foundationalist. Perhaps I've inadvertantly come across as arguing for the opposite direction all the time (My first few comments do come off as slightly utopian, my mistake), but what I want to argue is that court talk is not the only type of talk. "I would prefer to think one should keep an open mind, and encourage discourse with whom your views are divergent." --I agree. "Toleration is not limitless" --True. "and basic human values will control how far toleration will be exercized." --What exactly are basic human values? _________________________ Tim, earlier you said that Passions is free because it doesn't matter, that you can do anything because nothing's at stake. I want to talk about that in another thread if you don't mind. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Tim You're right. My lazy quotes don't actually apply directly to the thread topic but were posted in reply to posted replies. As to the actual quote from Fish -- I think he's all wet. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Brad- You're welcome. I tried. That was the point I was trying to make. and masochist? (a joke) comprehension is relative also. Just ask my Aunt Edna. Personally, I agree it wasn't overly complex. But then again, I am a masochist. Afraid you've lost me on the court, law talk. It almost seems to me you are interpreting Fish's "law" as a legal term. You have a phobia against lawyers or what? (tongue in cheek) Actually, maybe because it is my feeble brain, but I do not see you contradicting Fish's statement all that much. Would you feel different about your daughter if she wanted to forego her heritage or her education and become a beach bum in Hawaii? I suspect your tolerance might be tested because it would no longer be a balancing test of what you feel is in her best interests. And Harvard? sheesh... why would you want to wish that on your daughter? (joke, sort of) I added the basic human values as an afterthought to see your reaction. Just a little experiment. Another relative term, but don't ask Aunt Edna, it is past her bedtime. Never said Passion's was free. I apologize if I was not clear. I was attempting to make a point that censorship can be a good thing if it fits within your beliefs and community. Passions would not function with free speech. I have no problem with the censorship in the proper situation. Does not appear that you do either. Nor does Fish. Toleration in Passion's exists because not a lot is at stake in Passions. Try critiquing or correcting one of the established social members. Has been tried on a few occasions and creates quite a buggaboo. The maintenance of the social community is of more importance than other goals. Again, not saying it is bad, it just is, and is what makes Passions what it is. I do have to confess to being a lawyer and hope you don't look down to much on me because of my chosen profession. I promise not to do the same to you. (humor) My undergraduate degree in History and Political Science would appear to have been a waste towards my law degree under your views, because the focus was not on winning. Finishing on a serious note, I do feel it unfortunate you have such a disparaging view of the law and lawyers. While it might seem somewhat utopian, some even believe the law is a search for truth and justice. I did have the luxury of being a prosecutor for most of my career, but the thought is the same. My job was not to convict people, but seek justice. Now I have really digressed. Ack... Local Rebel-just got the joke, Fish-wet... good one. [This message has been edited by Tim (edited 09-05-2001).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Just two quick points (Don't worry, I'll be back), First: If Passions doesn't matter, if there is nothing at stake here, then why do some people get so angry? Why do people, sometimes, not 'tolerate' the way things are done here? LR -- I think I'm going after identity again. Second: It's a nice slide but I don't see how you can interpret what I wrote as indicating a dislike for lawyers. Some of my best friends are lawyers. Okay, one more quick question: Can you describe what you do without reference to wonderfully noble concepts like TRUTH and JUSTICE? I think you (we) can and it shouldn't change the way you feel about your profession. But it might give us a chance to focus a little more clearly on what's wrong and, perhaps, stimulate ideas on how to make it better. TRUTH and JUSTICE are metaphysical concepts that, nine times out of ten, don't help the conversation, they hinder it. Brad |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
sheesh, why do I feel I am back in school? again, everything is relative. The most general response would be to leave Passions which is why a number (of what I would perceive to be the more interesting members) have left, or post very little. Not worth the hassle. You are not bad at the two-step either. Heck fire, I even went out for a beer with a few of my professors on occasion. Metaphysical? is that some kind of dietary supplement? (humor again with a subtle point) facts and doing what is right. That is how I explain it to grade school children during tours. ciao, take care, have to go fight for truth and justice. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
sheesh, why do I feel I am back in school? --I don't know. Maybe because you decided to test me first? again, everything is relative. --What exactly does that mean? The most general response would be --to answer the questions. to leave Passions which is why a number (of what I would perceive to be the more interesting members) have left, --I acutually agree with you here. Although I don't believe we mean the same people. or post very little. Not worth the hassle. --What hassle? It's not that hard to figure out. You are not bad at the two-step either. --Wish I knew what you meant here. Heck fire, I even went out for a beer with a few of my professors on occasion. --Golly gee. Metaphysical? --Look it up. is that some kind of dietary supplement? (humor again with a subtle point) --humor with a dull, dull, dull point. I've heard it before, before, before. facts and doing what is right. --uh huh. That is how I explain it to grade school children during tours. --Figured that. ciao, take care, have to go fight for truth and justice. --What, no answer? Brad |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Testing? sure. golly gee; look it up; before, before, before; uh, huh. What I was looking for, to see if you would or could relate on the level of the person you are conversing with. You did. I enjoyed seeing that side of you. I have a rather simplistic view of life I am afraid, but then again my life is somewhat simplistic. Really not much into theory, wasn't in college either. So I will bid adieu and join those who have left the halls of Passions. Enjoyed the conversation. Been fun, take care all. Mike/Tim |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Testing? sure. golly gee; look it up; before, before, before; uh, huh. What I was looking for, to see if you would or could relate on the level of the person you are conversing with. You did. I enjoyed seeing that side of you. --I'm glad I entertained you. But I don't really think we've been conversing. You have a strong tendency not to address what other people ask you. I have a rather simplistic view of life I am afraid, but then again my life is somewhat simplistic. --Not at all. You have a very complex view of life undergirded by tradition. You don't say, "This is what I do because this is what I do." You say your job is the search for truth and justice -- these are theoretical ideals and goals and anything but simplistic. You depend on these but they're just as much theory as anything I've posted here. --The difference, of course, is that you don't want them to be challenged. Actually, it does seem that you can't imagine them challenged. Really not much into theory, wasn't in college either. --Then why did you respond? My guess is that you're into it a lot, you just don't think people should be thinking like this, you think this stuff is wrong and foolish -- but somewhere you think it does matter or you wouldn't be trying so hard to go around it, to belittle it. Apparently, you think I look down on you (because I think I've figured it out?) and that's something you think is foolish. I agree that it is foolish but I can't tell you that because you won't believe me. You already know the truth, the theory that works the best. --Besides, all this talk gets in the way of you looking down on me. --Why else would you spend the time on all the silly farm boy talk, why else would you read anything I've written as anti-lawyer? --You already 'know' my type, my kind. So I will bid adieu and join those who have left the halls of Passions. Enjoyed the conversation. --Again, what conversation? You know in a way, you've shown that Fish is wrong again. Redescribing the legal profession in pragmatic terms isn't supposed to change anything but as long as you resist it and avoid it as you do here, it must mean that you believe it just might change something. Your response should have been, "So what?" Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: could be a dangerous sport Brad -- looks like we'll have to recruit more board fodder...it's just too bad people can't even approach a differing opinion without taking it personally |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
yes-- I take it as a personal affront that Brad refused to admit Fish was right in his basic statement. (more tolerance being exercised the farther one is removed from a matter ) btw-- in case anyone has a humordetector on the fritz. There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Yeah, it could be dangerous. I have visions of going back to America sometime, walking into a bar, someone finds out who I am, and then punches me out. But then I think I'm just being egotistical. Still, I think I've learned a lot from this thread. Tolerance to other views is exercised in relation to one's identity regardless of what the 'stakes' are. If you conflate opinion with identity, poetry with identity, you'll get angry at people who disagree with you. How can you tell when someone is doing this? They start labeling you, themselves, and try to 'sound bite' you -- the quick kill if you will. And, of course, as I already mentioned with the Taliban, they walk away. I just think if we talk long enough, if we don't walk away, sometimes we can work through this problem in a lot of interesting and important subjects. Not always, of course, but I think many people might be surprised how much can be brought about by talk. Brad |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
you didn't get punched out in bars before this?  heh heh heh....I like talking -- most people do -- that's the problem -- we just don't like listening... eh? But, my dad always told me I had two ears and one mouth for a reason... so.. my identity is that I listen to what other people have to say and see if there isn't something to learn or agree with... and I have to end this sentence with something besides a preposition. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Yanno? I'm so naive. I had no idea this was a pissing contest... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
aahhhhhh... serenity, serenity...... Robin Hood and Little John, Arthur and Lancelot... all great (male) friendships begin with a joust.... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Nothing wrong with a good pissing contest now and then. I just don't think that's what happened. Personally, I think there was a lot of confusion between the person and the position, identity with the idea. Jaime's joke makes it quite clear how silly that is but, nevertheless, they do. Tim mentioned that you can't go after 'entrenched members' and I was a little confused. I kept trying to think of an 'entrenched member' that I haven't disagreed with at some point. But that wasn't his point. You can't tell an 'entrenched member' that they aren't all that great or that they aren't as wonderful as they think they are. That's true. But you're not supposed to do that to any member. That's a personal 'attack'. It's a distinction that's muddled by Fish's point and, I think, Tim's. By the way, does anybody else have a really difficult time passing a dead horse and not kicking it? Two more points I want to make here. One, when someone says something's relative, that's the beginning, not the end, of conversation. Two, I want to talk about importance and its relationship with Passions and with this forum -- but I'll put that in another thread. Brad |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
"Nothing wrong with a good pissing contest now and then."--- Sure. Easy for you to say. But I have a distinct disadvantage! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
You'd be surprised. Handicaps are well known in these things. At least in my experience. Brad |
||
|
Jamie Member Elite
since 2000-06-26
Posts 3168Blue Heaven |
Brad-- It is .. J-A-M-I-E... ...and I think we are in agreement more than you think... There is society where none intrudes, by the deep sea, and music in its roar. |
||
|
serenity blaze Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
Grinning...okay...but before I agree, I'd really like to know? Are we going for distance, accuracy, or quantity?  |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
