BE> The mere fact that someone does not provide supporting argument for a
BE> certain statement does not show that the statement is viewed by him as
BE> incorrigible or as a dogma. He may be assuming that you know what the
BE> argument is; maybe he just forgot to state the argument; he may have
BE> stated something so outrageous as to inspire the reader to view it as a
BE> dogma (when in fact it was only a mistake) and thus reveal
BE> himself to be uncritical (a common Holysmoke ploy); or maybe he
BE> really didn't have an argument and merely sent off a message in
BE> first draft, not really committed to the statement on subsequent
BE> examination.
Bob, I sense that you are intellectually VERY honest and I understand your
dilemma because you evidently have a great deal of regard for Rice. The only
reason I raised the question in the first place was that I've encountered him
before and I assure you that he doesn't allow anybody else NEARLY the
atitude
you believe should be allowed to him. I don't wish to continue to beat a
ead
horse now that you have acknowledged that Rice DID make an unwarranted
assumption of fact (and he did it deliberately about a subject in which he is
obviously VERY passionate). We all DO make assumptions about the level of
knowledge and intelligent of those with whom we're conversing. I've just
found Mr. Rice quite unforgiving of the slightest lapses in others which he
readily forgives in himself. I once followed the convention of referring to
Sigmund Freud as a genius in his time and was subjected to an almost endless
spate of stalking and abuse by Rice and Gordon for DARING to use such a term
with regard to Freud. I never any longer go NEAR the Skeptic echo but they
followed me around to continue the abuse and to show everybody else what a
dummy I was. One does tire of such things. I also stay clear of the
juvenile debates on Holysmoke.
Sincerely,
Frank
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------
* Origin: Maybe in 5,000 years - frankmas@juno.com (1:396/45.12)
|