Re: virus: Logic Nazi

Zloduska (
Wed, 24 Feb 1999 05:24:02 -0600

MemeLab wrote:


I didn't mean it like that. We obviously see the situation differently, and you have reason to be defensive.

>This is very interesting. I do something a little creative, responding
>intuitively to the many vivid images that Reed conjures up about his past and
>what he thinks he sees in many of us here, by creating the persona of "Logic

Well, in that post I saw it as you dragging up Reed's old post to just to throw it in his face. It seemed kind of over-the-top to me. I wasn't refering to you assuming the handle "LogicNazi", but more to the way the battle got quite personal. It appeared that you were "taunting" Reed just because you're less-than-pleased with him lately.

>I figure its a welcome break from "usual long boring passages of
>haughty, textbook-like speech". I get taken to task for it. I am "way to
>serious", or I am suffering from an "identity crisis". Reed takes an off the
>wall tangent, and he gets praised by you. This is a very interesting double
>standard. I can only guess the values that went into constructing it.

Not a double standard at all. You aren't even in the equation of my praise for Reed's "off the wall tangents". I wasn't saying I liked Reed's monologues because they defeated you, or anything to do with you for that matter, but because of _my_ experience with him. I was only commenting how I saw his tangents differently, because to me they made him seem more genuine, colorful, and human. Personally, I'd rather see list members use tales about their background and experience to show their viewpoint, rather than endless cold arguments. Is that biased against you? I certainly didn't intend it to be.

>Indeed, I have been suggesting for quite some time that that we can agree to

Really? Then we agree!!! I agree with you to agree to disagree, and we can agree that Reed doesn't have to agree with us either!

>If I recall correctly, it is Reed that thinks we should all agree
>that some manifestations of faith are GOOD, not just tolerable, but good. He
>gets quite upset when we won't agree with him on this. He thinks it is his
>duty to "close the gap" between rationalists and people of faith, citing some
>amorphous "universal human goals" which he refuses to describe that we are
>supposed to be all working toward. I am quite happy to live and let live,
>have no desire for this philosophical union with all of humanity that Reed
>thinks we should be pursuing.

Nooooo.........don't you go dragging *me* into this!

Jake, if my post peeved you off, I'm sorry. I was trying to make a truce, or something like that.