>Date: Wed, 17 Mar 1999 11:18:48 -0700
>From: David McFadzean <david@lucifer.com>
>Subject: Re: virus: tit for tat
>
>At 12:34 PM 3/17/99 -0500, Reed Konsler wrote:
>
>>Agreed. But which side is the most valuable changes from
>>context to context. Are you insisting that <reason> is most
>>valuable in every context save nihlism?
>
>Of course not. I don't think you read what I said, let alone
>look for any truth in my message.
Interesting that you would say that...
>>Really? I think this is your perception of it, not mine.
>
>Why are you so quick to discount my perception?
Interesting that you would say that, also...
>>First, I can admit when I'm wrong...for instance, when
>>KMO called me on the philosophy of science thing. I was
>>bitching out of line, and he was right, not me. Jeez, David
>>...do you want a confessional? I've been wrong so many
>>times I've lost count. When you prick me do I not bleed?
>
>Apparently not. Maybe KMO can make you bleed but I can't.
Words are words. Good, reasonable, faithful, intelligent people share a common bond which transcends the signifiers. I believe that.
>>Second, I'm not insulting anyone. I'm confronting them.
>
>Nice euphemism.
"lucifer.com", "church of virus".
Are you insulting or confronting?
I think it's a wonderful juxtaposition, but it took me a long time to understand what a "church of virus" might be. I found meaning in that, for myself anyway. That is, in my mind, a confrontation...not an insult. Now I confront.
>>Third, I accept inconsistency in an upright way...I don't
>>need to hide behind anything. I use rhetoric as a tool, as
>>have you in making these negative and inappropriate
>>associations to Level 3
>>
>>>I can certainly play your game. Do you think it will be fun?
>>
>>Is it?
>
>For my answer you will have to listen to my silence.
[smile, nod]
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------