Crispin
Silver Member
- Jun 26, 2012
- 3,584
- 2,856
- Detector(s) used
- Coinmaster Pro, Sand Shark
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Good evening ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, children of all ages! Is a pleasure to perform to such a great and admirable audience. I have known half of you half as well as I would like, and I like less then half as you half as well as you deserve. On to the main event:
After abstaining from serious conversation in the 2nd amendment I have been politely asked to re-enter the debate. How can I refuse such a polite request? The topic of this thread, is...you guessed it...compromising on gun control. I think I read something about the NRA was willing to discuss negotiations on some of the 23 points but I might be making that up. Rebel, did you tell me that in a dream state or did I read it off of CNN? Regardless, I continue to believe in compromise. However, it is hard to compromise with somebody who does not want to bend even the slightest bit. Thus, I would like to use the remainder of this post as psychoanalysis of how some posts can be interpretated when their author goes into the conversation refusing to even consider changing their view. My friend, Griz, has been ever so kind to start us off with his thoughts (copied from Spart's thread.) (I'm sorry Onfire, I tried to let it go. He wouldn't let me.) We are talking about Max Planck's law of generations, keep that in mind.
"I am referencing it to explain the differences between you and I."
Lordy. If you don't know one whit about me, how can you even know what the differences are? Your perception of such differences as they may be are a meaningless concept to me, as is the law you mentioned. Why is it a law? Because some "intellectuals" buy into it? Is there any disagreement from other intellectuals?
1. When people accuse others that "you don't know me" it is usually a sign of deep seeded insecurity.
The really big problem here is that as you sit and read this you are trying to look at my picture while you read my words and come to some conclusions about what I write. Any such assumptions must be wrong because you do not know the tone in which I write. Am I banging the table with my fist? Am I laughing out loud? Am I half lit up on some good fifteen year old single malt? Do I farm your missives out to one of my friends to answer? The truth here is that I sit and sort of shake my head in a bemused and dismissive way. 2. More insecurity, preemptive counterattack on inevitable interpretations to follow.
The same goes both ways. I know very little of you. My first impressions was from your dog's picture. I think you are some kind of psychologist or psychiatrist. I have preconseptions about those fields that may or may not be valid. You seem to be a talker, or, as said eariler, a sophist. I, on the other hand, am a doer. Talk is easy and cheap, but it does not put beans on the table. After my last post I went out and chopped some wood for a fire tonight. Good exercise. You said statistics can be twisted. This tells me you are not much at math. You don't trust numbers. I would respond that words too can be twisted.
3. One states the obvious, anybody not know I'm in the medical field at this point in time? Now one can claim the opposite of what one really is before Spart can call one out on it. More random interpretations, this one wayyyy offff! Do you know what the kinds of math we have to learn to be doctors. Try acid-base balancing with metabolic vs respiratory alkalosis. When you are done with that try the Kreb's cycle and biochemistry. If you are still not convinced doctors are good at math then go take the MCAT (prereqs include organic chem, inorganic chem, physicis I and II, calc I and II, and just a smidgen of biology.)
My measure of a person is what they do, what they accomplish. Not knowing exactly what you do I can only guess that you use words to try and help people who have some sort of mental problem. Me, I help people in a different way. I was never a professor. I am a teacher, or like to think I am. But I learned what I teach the hard way. Yes, I am college educated. College taught me some new words and concepts, few of which turned out to be relevant in the real world. Yes, I have taught in college. But always in an adjunct role. I have run businesses, hired, fired, promoted and taught many people a craft. I am by nature a numbers person, but I do love words. My best fights were always with lawyers. I loved to beat them down. For example, so few people really understand the difference between "I'm sorry," and "I apologize". "I am sorry your cat is dead. I apologize for running over it." So yes, while I am a numbers person, I can use words too. They can be fun to play with.
4. One hasn't really said what one does because one likes being vague. One bashes intellectuals again and brags about how one beats down lawyers. Now one is going to explain an obvious difference to somebody one thinks is in the psychiatric field. That will make one look smart.
"More: I am so much more for knowing you, but less, by far, for not knowing you, more." Words can be fun. I wrote that to a girl I was sweet on many years ago. She wanted to know how much I earned. Smart girl!
5. Oops, need to take ones aricept and namenda.
I have people ask me sometimes, "Why don't you like me?" They never understand the answer. Respect is far more important to me. You can only lie to me once. You can only steal once. You can only be a bully once.
6. One is upset at what onfire inferred and making a veiled challenge.
So, I don't need any intellectual word game explanations from you or anyone else. I've heard all the psycho-babble. I know Maslowe and most of the others. I've read Kant, Durant, Stiglitz, Laffer and a few others. I've also read Heinlein, a truly great philospher.
7. One quotes a bunch of people one knows very little about to look smart and then cites a science-fiction writer as a truly great philospher. What happened to that Air Tax thread?
So the final question is, do I like or dislike you? As I don't know you, except through this site, I have no idea. I doubt we will ever find out. Could you ever like me? Who knows? Who cares?
8. One really forgot what one was talking about, but ones rhetorically rant needs a finale.
Remember this, "It is what it is." Deal with it and move on. Next?
9. Time for my afternoon nap.
Well, that was fun. Anybody want to discuss compromise on the 2nd amendment? I'm up for it.
Crispin
After abstaining from serious conversation in the 2nd amendment I have been politely asked to re-enter the debate. How can I refuse such a polite request? The topic of this thread, is...you guessed it...compromising on gun control. I think I read something about the NRA was willing to discuss negotiations on some of the 23 points but I might be making that up. Rebel, did you tell me that in a dream state or did I read it off of CNN? Regardless, I continue to believe in compromise. However, it is hard to compromise with somebody who does not want to bend even the slightest bit. Thus, I would like to use the remainder of this post as psychoanalysis of how some posts can be interpretated when their author goes into the conversation refusing to even consider changing their view. My friend, Griz, has been ever so kind to start us off with his thoughts (copied from Spart's thread.) (I'm sorry Onfire, I tried to let it go. He wouldn't let me.) We are talking about Max Planck's law of generations, keep that in mind.
"I am referencing it to explain the differences between you and I."
Lordy. If you don't know one whit about me, how can you even know what the differences are? Your perception of such differences as they may be are a meaningless concept to me, as is the law you mentioned. Why is it a law? Because some "intellectuals" buy into it? Is there any disagreement from other intellectuals?
1. When people accuse others that "you don't know me" it is usually a sign of deep seeded insecurity.
The really big problem here is that as you sit and read this you are trying to look at my picture while you read my words and come to some conclusions about what I write. Any such assumptions must be wrong because you do not know the tone in which I write. Am I banging the table with my fist? Am I laughing out loud? Am I half lit up on some good fifteen year old single malt? Do I farm your missives out to one of my friends to answer? The truth here is that I sit and sort of shake my head in a bemused and dismissive way. 2. More insecurity, preemptive counterattack on inevitable interpretations to follow.
The same goes both ways. I know very little of you. My first impressions was from your dog's picture. I think you are some kind of psychologist or psychiatrist. I have preconseptions about those fields that may or may not be valid. You seem to be a talker, or, as said eariler, a sophist. I, on the other hand, am a doer. Talk is easy and cheap, but it does not put beans on the table. After my last post I went out and chopped some wood for a fire tonight. Good exercise. You said statistics can be twisted. This tells me you are not much at math. You don't trust numbers. I would respond that words too can be twisted.
3. One states the obvious, anybody not know I'm in the medical field at this point in time? Now one can claim the opposite of what one really is before Spart can call one out on it. More random interpretations, this one wayyyy offff! Do you know what the kinds of math we have to learn to be doctors. Try acid-base balancing with metabolic vs respiratory alkalosis. When you are done with that try the Kreb's cycle and biochemistry. If you are still not convinced doctors are good at math then go take the MCAT (prereqs include organic chem, inorganic chem, physicis I and II, calc I and II, and just a smidgen of biology.)
My measure of a person is what they do, what they accomplish. Not knowing exactly what you do I can only guess that you use words to try and help people who have some sort of mental problem. Me, I help people in a different way. I was never a professor. I am a teacher, or like to think I am. But I learned what I teach the hard way. Yes, I am college educated. College taught me some new words and concepts, few of which turned out to be relevant in the real world. Yes, I have taught in college. But always in an adjunct role. I have run businesses, hired, fired, promoted and taught many people a craft. I am by nature a numbers person, but I do love words. My best fights were always with lawyers. I loved to beat them down. For example, so few people really understand the difference between "I'm sorry," and "I apologize". "I am sorry your cat is dead. I apologize for running over it." So yes, while I am a numbers person, I can use words too. They can be fun to play with.
4. One hasn't really said what one does because one likes being vague. One bashes intellectuals again and brags about how one beats down lawyers. Now one is going to explain an obvious difference to somebody one thinks is in the psychiatric field. That will make one look smart.
"More: I am so much more for knowing you, but less, by far, for not knowing you, more." Words can be fun. I wrote that to a girl I was sweet on many years ago. She wanted to know how much I earned. Smart girl!
5. Oops, need to take ones aricept and namenda.
I have people ask me sometimes, "Why don't you like me?" They never understand the answer. Respect is far more important to me. You can only lie to me once. You can only steal once. You can only be a bully once.
6. One is upset at what onfire inferred and making a veiled challenge.
So, I don't need any intellectual word game explanations from you or anyone else. I've heard all the psycho-babble. I know Maslowe and most of the others. I've read Kant, Durant, Stiglitz, Laffer and a few others. I've also read Heinlein, a truly great philospher.
7. One quotes a bunch of people one knows very little about to look smart and then cites a science-fiction writer as a truly great philospher. What happened to that Air Tax thread?
So the final question is, do I like or dislike you? As I don't know you, except through this site, I have no idea. I doubt we will ever find out. Could you ever like me? Who knows? Who cares?
8. One really forgot what one was talking about, but ones rhetorically rant needs a finale.
Remember this, "It is what it is." Deal with it and move on. Next?
9. Time for my afternoon nap.
Well, that was fun. Anybody want to discuss compromise on the 2nd amendment? I'm up for it.
Crispin
