Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Zander comments in the Boston Globe about his firing...
22 views
Skip to first unread message
O
Feb 10, 2012, 11:30:21 AM2/10/12
to
JohnGavin
Feb 10, 2012, 12:43:10 PM2/10/12
to
well be the most elite street in the U.S.
The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
pianomaven
Feb 10, 2012, 12:50:36 PM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 11:30 am, O <ow...@denofinequityx.com> wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/6qpd2nd
>
> Read it before they put it in the pay per view slot.
Woodcock sounds like a real dork. My impression is that he resents the
> http://tinyurl.com/6qpd2nd
>
> Read it before they put it in the pay per view slot.
fame BZ has in the community and would prefer to have someone whom he
could control. He just took the opportunity available to him to fire
Zander when it presented itself to him. Moral outrage is so easy to
feign.
TD
bassppn
Feb 10, 2012, 6:22:30 PM2/10/12
to
AB
M forever
Feb 10, 2012, 6:53:01 PM2/10/12
to
and he fails all the time.
bassppn
Feb 10, 2012, 9:03:18 PM2/10/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
not surprising, he fails in everything, especially in matters
relating to music (and vibrato) :-)
AB
Dumbarton Oaks
Feb 11, 2012, 7:07:23 AM2/11/12
to
On 10 feb, 15:43, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
> accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
> while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
> Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
> scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
"Arrogant" is the way in which lazzy people use to call a person with
> The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
> accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
> while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
> Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
> scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
self confiance, determination and iron will.
Zander is a great conductor, great teacher, and fantastic motivational
men; firing him for that was a real demostration of how stupid can be
a man sitting in a chair behind a desktop.
M forever
Feb 11, 2012, 12:52:10 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 7:07 am, Dumbarton Oaks <varelas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 feb, 15:43, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
> > accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
> > while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
> > Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
> > scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
>
> "Arrogant" is the way in which lazzy people use to call a person with
> self confiance, determination and iron will.
Not necessarily. There are conductors who are far, far better than
> On 10 feb, 15:43, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
> > accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
> > while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
> > Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
> > scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
>
> "Arrogant" is the way in which lazzy people use to call a person with
> self confiance, determination and iron will.
Zander - who, let's face it, is just a local celebrity who never had a
real career as a conductor and who needed rich patrons to buy him a
semi-professional orchestra (the pickup band grandiosely advertised as
"Boston Philharmonic") to set himself in scene - and who are
themselves far less arrogant than he is. He is first and foremost just
a self-promoter. Everything he does and says is about himself and
about making people find him great.
> Zander is a great conductor,
> great teacher,
I doubt that, since he isn't all that great a conductor. But he is
good at making people think he has a lot to say. And he does,
actually, it's just what he generally says is often banal stuff
dressed up to sound very smart. Doing that in itself is actually smart
because it makes sure everyone in his audience understand what he says
(because what he says isn't all that hard to understand), but he
dresses it up in ways which suggest to the people he is talking to
that the subject is actually quite lofty, so they are all really smart
because they understand what he says.
Basically, he is just playing to the gallery with well dressed up
banalities.
> and fantastic motivational
> men;
So is Tony Robbins. That doesn't make him a great musician.
> firing him for that was a real demostration of how stupid can be
> a man sitting in a chair behind a desktop.
allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
couldn't have known that.
Bob Harper
Feb 11, 2012, 2:08:31 PM2/11/12
to
On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
(snip)
liberal views. This is not unusual these days--see Sebelius, K., Pelosi,
N. and Obama, B. for textbook examples from the public sector.
This has nothing to do with any defense of Benjamin Zander's actions or
omissions. I offer none, as I think none is warranted.
Bob Harper
(snip)
>
> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> couldn't have known that.
Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> couldn't have known that.
liberal views. This is not unusual these days--see Sebelius, K., Pelosi,
N. and Obama, B. for textbook examples from the public sector.
This has nothing to do with any defense of Benjamin Zander's actions or
omissions. I offer none, as I think none is warranted.
Bob Harper
M forever
Feb 11, 2012, 2:18:08 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> > allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> > with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> > things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> > sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> > crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> > Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> > couldn't have known that.
>
> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> liberal views.
What does that mean?
> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> > allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> > with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> > things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> > sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> > crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> > Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> > couldn't have known that.
>
> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> liberal views.
Bob Harper
Feb 11, 2012, 3:49:48 PM2/11/12
to
On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
>>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
>>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
>>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
>>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
>>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
>>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
>>> couldn't have known that.
>>
>> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
>> liberal views.
>
> What does that mean?
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
>> (snip)
>>
>>
>>
>>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
>>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
>>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
>>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
>>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
>>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
>>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
>>> couldn't have known that.
>>
>> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
>> liberal views.
>
> What does that mean?
Bob Harper
JohnGavin
Feb 11, 2012, 4:03:13 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 4:07 am, Dumbarton Oaks <varelas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 feb, 15:43, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
> > accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
> > while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
> > Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
> > scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
>
> "Arrogant" is the way in which lazzy people use to call a person with
> self confiance, determination and iron will.
No. Not the same at all. One can possess the positive qualities of
> On 10 feb, 15:43, JohnGavin <dagd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The article really tells us very little about him though. It nicely
> > accentuates the positive, with only a hint of what was said here a
> > while ago. That Zander was rather arrogant as well.
> > Newspaper articles like that rarely convey what goes on behind the
> > scenes - and maybe it's better that we don't know.
>
> "Arrogant" is the way in which lazzy people use to call a person with
> self confiance, determination and iron will.
self-confidence, determination and strong will power, yet be kind to
others, forebearing and patient with others. Arrogance comes from a
false sense of superiority. Two very different things.
M forever
Feb 11, 2012, 4:57:11 PM2/11/12
to
On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
> >> (snip)
>
> >>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> >>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> >>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> >>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> >>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> >>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> >>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> >>> couldn't have known that.
>
> >> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> >> liberal views.
>
> > What does that mean?
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
>
> Bob Harper
I know what the word means. Remember, I learned Latin in school, and
> On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
> >> (snip)
>
> >>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> >>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> >>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> >>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> >>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> >>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> >>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> >>> couldn't have known that.
>
> >> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> >> liberal views.
>
> > What does that mean?
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
>
> Bob Harper
you didn't.
What wasn't clear to me though is what you meant by what you are
saying. How can one be "illiberal" and hold "liberal" views at the
same time?
Going by the definition provided by you, specifically 1., I must
remind you that I do not belong to, am affiliated with, nor subscribe
to any ideological world view or religious group which seeks to
regulate the personal affairs of people, such as their sexual
behavior, whether they can use contraceptives or have an abortion.
But you do. So what you are saying doesn't make sense.
Looking at 2., I must remind you that I do not belong to, am
affiliated with, nor subscribe to any ideological world view or
religious group which makes absolute claims about their world view,
their connection to and representation of a higher, super-worldly
authority which seeks to regulate the worldly affairs of people based
on that belief system.
But you do. So what you are saying doesn't make sense.
Please clarify.
Bob Harper
Feb 11, 2012, 6:42:36 PM2/11/12
to
On 2/11/12 1:57 PM, M forever wrote:
> On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>
>>>>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
>>>>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
>>>>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
>>>>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
>>>>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
>>>>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
>>>>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
>>>>> couldn't have known that.
>>
>>>> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
>>>> liberal views.
>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> I know what the word means. Remember, I learned Latin in school, and
> you didn't.
You don't know that. In fact, I did.
> On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>
>>>>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
>>>>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
>>>>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
>>>>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
>>>>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
>>>>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
>>>>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
>>>>> couldn't have known that.
>>
>>>> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
>>>> liberal views.
>>
>>> What does that mean?
>>
>> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> I know what the word means. Remember, I learned Latin in school, and
> you didn't.
>
> What wasn't clear to me though is what you meant by what you are
> saying. How can one be "illiberal" and hold "liberal" views at the
> same time?
Easy. Look at the attitudes toward disagreement with their positions of
> What wasn't clear to me though is what you meant by what you are
> saying. How can one be "illiberal" and hold "liberal" views at the
> same time?
the people I named. Look at the editorial page of the NYT. Look at your
words here. All are illiberal in the attitude they take toward any
disagreement with the agreed upon party line.
>
> Going by the definition provided by you, specifically 1., I must
> remind you that I do not belong to, am affiliated with, nor subscribe
> to any ideological world view or religious group which seeks to
> regulate the personal affairs of people, such as their sexual
> behavior, whether they can use contraceptives or have an abortion.
>
> But you do. So what you are saying doesn't make sense.
nor anyone I know seeks to *force* anything on anyone. Persuade, yes;
force, no. Unlike HHS.
>
> Looking at 2., I must remind you that I do not belong to, am
> affiliated with, nor subscribe to any ideological world view or
> religious group which makes absolute claims about their world view,
> their connection to and representation of a higher, super-worldly
> authority which seeks to regulate the worldly affairs of people based
> on that belief system.
own views to those of anyone else, and your expression of those views
fits definition 3 like a glove.
Like most 'illiberals', you demand a naked public square. No unapproved,
non-secular views may be expressed without being shouted down, nor, a
fortiori, be given any weight in the public conversation.
>
> But you do. So what you are saying doesn't make sense.
>
> Please clarify.
Bob Harper
Kip Williams
Feb 11, 2012, 7:19:00 PM2/11/12
to
Bob Harper wrote:
> Like most 'illiberals', you demand a naked public square. No unapproved,
> non-secular views may be expressed without being shouted down, nor, a
> fortiori, be given any weight in the public conversation.
I don't think so. I think he's been trying to get a bit more than 10% of
> Like most 'illiberals', you demand a naked public square. No unapproved,
> non-secular views may be expressed without being shouted down, nor, a
> fortiori, be given any weight in the public conversation.
the public square, and the other side in the issue is used to having 98%
and regards anything less than that as capitulation to the forces of
godlessness and will never agree to it.
It may look different to you here, because for whatever reason, we
irreligious types seem to be represented more than in meatspace.
Next week will be the first quiz in the Intro to Religion class
(required) that I'm taking this semester. We'll see if it shoots my average.
Kip W
M forever
Feb 12, 2012, 3:22:53 PM2/12/12
to
On Feb 11, 6:42 pm, Bob Harper <bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/12 1:57 PM, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
> >>>> (snip)
>
> >>>>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> >>>>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> >>>>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> >>>>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> >>>>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> >>>>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> >>>>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> >>>>> couldn't have known that.
>
> >>>> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> >>>> liberal views.
>
> >>> What does that mean?
>
> >>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
>
> >> Bob Harper
>
> > I know what the word means. Remember, I learned Latin in school, and
> > you didn't.
>
> You don't know that. In fact, I did.
Sure...just like you told me you actually knew German. I guess in your
> On 2/11/12 1:57 PM, M forever wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 3:49 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 2/11/12 11:18 AM, M forever wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 11, 2:08 pm, Bob Harper<bob.har...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 2/11/12 9:52 AM, M forever wrote:
> >>>> (snip)
>
> >>>>> Zander protected one of his cronies who is a convicted pedophile and
> >>>>> allowed him to work in an environment where he had constant contact
> >>>>> with young people. I am a very liberal person and I think way too many
> >>>>> things are illegal in the US which shouldn't be, but when it comes to
> >>>>> sexually abusing children, I think that is one of the very worst
> >>>>> crimes one can commit and that guy shouldn't have been there, with
> >>>>> Zander knowing about it. Good thing he didn't "re-offend" - but Zander
> >>>>> couldn't have known that.
>
> >>>> Actually, Michael, you are a quite illiberal person who happens to hold
> >>>> liberal views.
>
> >>> What does that mean?
>
> >>http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/illiberal
>
> >> Bob Harper
>
> > I know what the word means. Remember, I learned Latin in school, and
> > you didn't.
>
> You don't know that. In fact, I did.
world, it is enough that you "believe" you actually know things - you
don't actually have to know them.
> > What wasn't clear to me though is what you meant by what you are
> > saying. How can one be "illiberal" and hold "liberal" views at the
> > same time?
>
> Easy. Look at the attitudes toward disagreement with their positions of
> the people I named. Look at the editorial page of the NYT. Look at your
> words here. All are illiberal in the attitude they take toward any
> disagreement with the agreed upon party line.
>
>
>
> > Going by the definition provided by you, specifically 1., I must
> > remind you that I do not belong to, am affiliated with, nor subscribe
> > to any ideological world view or religious group which seeks to
> > regulate the personal affairs of people, such as their sexual
> > behavior, whether they can use contraceptives or have an abortion.
>
> > But you do. So what you are saying doesn't make sense.
>
> To be sure, I agree with the Church about these things, but neither I
> nor anyone I know seeks to *force* anything on anyone. Persuade, yes;
> force, no. Unlike HHS.
course just sanctimonious nonsense. Your church has a very long
history of trying to force these things on people. They shouldn't even
need to "persuade" them. These things are private matters, they aren't
the business of any church, and in more modern countries, they are
also complete non-issues. We have other, much bigger problems. And
aren't you glad that your daughter has easy access to contraceptives
in London, so you don't have a bunch of little bastard Harpers running
around, like your church wants it?
> > Looking at 2., I must remind you that I do not belong to, am
> > affiliated with, nor subscribe to any ideological world view or
> > religious group which makes absolute claims about their world view,
> > their connection to and representation of a higher, super-worldly
> > authority which seeks to regulate the worldly affairs of people based
> > on that belief system.
>
> No, you only believe, if that is the word, in the superiority of your
> own views to those of anyone else, and your expression of those views
> fits definition 3 like a glove.
>
> Like most 'illiberals', you demand a naked public square. No unapproved,
> non-secular views may be expressed without being shouted down, nor, a
> fortiori, be given any weight in the public conversation.
Mark S, and others, but you have proven time and time again that you
aren't able to express and argue your views reasonably and
coherently.Most of the time you just snip&snipe, so you have no
business complaining. You also have no basis for calling me ungenerous
since rather than just ignoring you or putting you down as you
deserve, I do condescend to give you detailed replies once in a while,
even though you have not yet proven you are actually worth the
attention given to you.
And yes, one must be intolerant towards intolerance because being
tolerant towards intolerance is itself intolerance. One must oppose
the continuous attempts of religious organizations to meddle in the
affairs of other people just like one must oppose racism and other
forms of intolerance and those who do not want to give everyone equal
rights.
So your whining about "liberals with illiberal views" is just silly
passive-aggressive nonsense, just like your snipping&sniping.
> > But you do. So what you are saying doesn't make sense.
>
> > Please clarify.
>
> I believe I have.
and how much is just hypocrisy. There is certainly a lot of the latter
in what you say and how you behave, I am just wondering what the ratio
is, and if you are even aware of that yourself. Or if you are so
brainwashed and so full of your sanctimonious self that you really
can't see that. That's actually an interesting question.
Gerard
Feb 12, 2012, 3:50:24 PM2/12/12
to
M forever <ms1...@gmail.com> typed:
As disgunsting as ever.
>
> > > Looking at 2., I must remind you that I do not belong to, am
> > > affiliated with, nor subscribe to any ideological world view or
> > > religious group which makes absolute claims about their world
> > > view, their connection to and representation of a higher,
> > > super-worldly authority which seeks to regulate the worldly
> > > affairs of people based on that belief system.
> >
> > No, you only believe, if that is the word, in the superiority of
> > your own views to those of anyone else, and your expression of
> > those views fits definition 3 like a glove.
> >
> > Like most 'illiberals', you demand a naked public square. No
> > unapproved, non-secular views may be expressed without being
> > shouted down, nor, a fortiori, be given any weight in the public
> > conversation.
>
> You have been given a lot of weight in conversations here with me,
> Mark S, and others, but you have proven time and time again that you
> aren't able to express and argue your views reasonably and
> coherently.Most of the time you just snip&snipe, so you have no
> business complaining. You also have no basis for calling me ungenerous
> since rather than just ignoring you or putting you down as you
> deserve, I do condescend
Sure. You come from your high trone to answer (with your usual insults), and
nobody syas "Thank you, your highness, thank you so much".
So you are actually the victimj og your own kindness.
>
> > > Looking at 2., I must remind you that I do not belong to, am
> > > affiliated with, nor subscribe to any ideological world view or
> > > religious group which makes absolute claims about their world
> > > view, their connection to and representation of a higher,
> > > super-worldly authority which seeks to regulate the worldly
> > > affairs of people based on that belief system.
> >
> > No, you only believe, if that is the word, in the superiority of
> > your own views to those of anyone else, and your expression of
> > those views fits definition 3 like a glove.
> >
> > Like most 'illiberals', you demand a naked public square. No
> > unapproved, non-secular views may be expressed without being
> > shouted down, nor, a fortiori, be given any weight in the public
> > conversation.
>
> You have been given a lot of weight in conversations here with me,
> Mark S, and others, but you have proven time and time again that you
> aren't able to express and argue your views reasonably and
> coherently.Most of the time you just snip&snipe, so you have no
> business complaining. You also have no basis for calling me ungenerous
> since rather than just ignoring you or putting you down as you
> deserve, I do condescend
nobody syas "Thank you, your highness, thank you so much".
So you are actually the victimj og your own kindness.
Bob Harper
Feb 12, 2012, 4:30:35 PM2/12/12
to
and could not have, any knowledge notwithstanding.
It's really too easy :)
Bob Harper
M forever
Feb 12, 2012, 8:41:28 PM2/12/12
to
and you have claimed to know a foreign language before (mine,
bizarrely), but you have never been able to demonstrate that that is
actually true.
I do also know that in your mental world, simply believing you know
something is already good enough for you.
"respond" except for snipping&sniping.
I have to repeat this, as it really is an interesting question:
Keyword: "believe". I sometimes wonder how much you really believe,
and how much is just hypocrisy. There is certainly a lot of the latter
in what you say and how you behave, I am just wondering what the ratio
is, and if you are even aware of that yourself. Or if you are so
brainwashed and so full of your sanctimonious self that you really
can't see that.
for your point of view, all you do is snip&snipe and fling
defamations. So my question is whether you do that consciously because
you know you have nothing else to say, or if you are so self-righteous
that simply believing you are right even when your arguments are so
basic and so easily dismissed.
0 new messages