FBM wrote:That's no sweat, as long as you're all comfortable with it. But also please try to keep the (apparent) belligerance among yourselves and be a little more accomodating to people who aren't in the loop. Gracioso!
Little Idiot wrote:@ the egomaniacs (we know who you are )
Feel free to gloat on 'defeating' me in what ever petty insignificant way you feel you have done so by my withdrawl from the pettiness and ego-conflict which is almost destroying this thread.
There's something to clear up about the "nastiness" and the "ego-trips" that derail this thread, since LI appears to have taken hold of that "moral high ground", and even making the subtle inference that the ones who disagree with LI are "egomaniacs".
There are various types of egomaniacs. For instance, when I first challenged Jerôme Serpenti, he called me a "bore", and directed me at the 3000+ posts about the subject and the formal debate. I could have, just as
jamest did, give him the finger and continue to press him to explain how his point was defensible. Instead, I went on to read the formal debate, make a fucking huge summary of the event to understand it better, and even skimmed the entire 3000+ posts.
Does that sound as a "ego-trip" to you? Someone aware of things might call it "humility" and "civility", to make the necessary research, reading in order to understand what is at stake. Having done so, I understood Jerôme better. I could have maintained my challenge, but I wouldn't be making strawmans or red herrings.
The failure of doing this, while making agrandizing claims of victory, of "sieging the castle of science" and other inanities, doesn't result in good faith among the other participants. The failure to respond to what we consider are the best points and arguments that we make is also nasty, ignoring them and still pretending to have the high ground in the discussion.
LI also makes wild claims about metaphysics and not once he justifies them. Doesn't that also count as arrogant and ego-tripping? Yes, it does, in my dictionary.
Alas, there have been good contenders in the past. While they were not perfect, at least they tried to argue all of the points being debated. For instance, Dace and Fizhburn. There was also one (I don't remember his name) who apparently understood Jerôme's point, but then went against it anyway, because he couldn't "believe it", he argued from incredulity. At least he was sincere and understanding.
We here have none of that. Jamest keeps going with his reading comprehension issues, red herrings and self-proclaimed victories, while LI rapes quantum mechanics (the hallmark of wooist conspiracy theories) and the whole english grammar, while, apparently, be satisfied with his own medal of "good behavior".
So no, I am sorry, I do not agree with this accusation. Now, if someone else has the wits and good mood to make a good thoughtful and respectul point, while not fleeing from reading what other people point to them as essential to understand what is at stake, I do not think that the "ego-tripping" continues. Perhaps then we can have a mature discussion. IOW, a "mature discussion" needs adults in both sides of the equation.
