[Vision2020] Don't change the subject DOUG

[g. crabtree]

Man, do I ever "feel your pain" on this one. Years ago when I finally completed the final series of tests and evaluations to achieve my certified master locksmith rating I was quite crestfallen when I was not addressed as "Master" Crabtree by the community at large. I mean really, all that time, study, and expense and no recognition? As the years have gone by, I have managed to come to grips with my disappointment and manage to live my life in a relatively normal fashion but occasionally something, such as this, will come up to reopen this aging wound. All I can say now is that I hope that you too will learn to cope with the sorrow of not receiving your full measure in the arena of professional salutation and somehow manage to persevere.

Master G

  ...and a hip hop, a rappin' to the rhythm of a doc who squawks a lot. He wants us to say "hey there, Dr. J." and when we don't it makes him hot. Between you and me if it's simply a PhD there's scant chance to have your shot. For respect you shout and with out you pout but props should come naturally. If it's title you crave then its time you'll save by acquiring your M.D. ... (with apologies to John Deacon)


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vpschwaller at gmail.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 12:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Don't change the subject DOUG


> Good question, Schwaller! 
> 
> Rational discourse is difficult, so I don't think that faulty reasoning is necessarily an indication of some kind of character flaw -- unless the faulty reasoning is intentional. Deliberately using fallacies, deception, or lies in an effort to get someone to believe something is an indication of a character flaw but that is more than bad reasoning. Thus, if "one arrives at an incorrect assumption or conclusion based on logic and reasoning" it doesn't necessarily "say anything about the individual." Though it would if the person were a liar.
> 
> Which brings me to a hypothetical question. First suppose that you are not Glenn Schwaller but that you’re someone else like me, reading the posts of a man who calls himself 'Glenn Schwaller.' Suppose also that the writer of these posts is not named 'Glenn Schwaller' and that no one with that name exists locally. Furthermore, suppose that the writer of those posts is a pastor at a local church who is pretending to be someone he is not. If this were true, what would you think of that pastor? Would you think he was crazy? Would you think that he was a danger to the town that you lived in? Would you worry?
> 
> Remember this is a hypothetical question -- I confessed last time that I don't think that you are a pastor of a local church, although you sound like one. Keep in mind EVERYTHING that you've said so far. If you were someone else reading the posts of 'Glenn Schwaller' and it turned out that the writer of those posts was actually a pastor of a local church, what would you think of that man? I guess we should suppose, also, that the pastor might not actually write the posts but that he encourages others to do so. Still, what would you think of such a man?
> 
> Since I have your attention and you're finally answering my questions, I have another question. I might have asked this before but not directly. 
> 
> Given that it "seems to you" that "arguments are useless when it comes to changing one's beliefs," why do you raise topics like polygamy? It can’t really be, as you say, an attempt "to generate some discussion on the issue; an 'attempt to dialogue' if you will." What is the point of dialogue given that you are of the "opinion" that "arguments are useless when it comes to changing one's beliefs"? This, by the way, is one reason why I think you're merely throwing poop bombs and not actually attempting to engage in dialogue. What, according to your own opinions and seemings, is the point of dialogue?
> 
> There is another question that I asked you previously [Sun Jun 3 18:00:52 PDT 2007] but I'll save that for another time. Thanks!
> 
> And please call me 'Joe,' which I prefer. My gripe was not with folks calling me 'Mr. Campbell' as opposed to 'Dr. Campbell.' It was folks calling me 'Mr. Campbell' after I happened to mention that I didn't like it. It is the stick in the eye that bugs me, not the name. Call me what you wish.
> 
> --
> Joe Campbell
> 
> ----------------
> 
> Thu Jun 14 17:55:49 PDT 2007
> 
> Since I have not read a re-write of the history of American slavery, I am in
> no position to compare that with the Holocaoust, denial or otherwise.  And I
> have no idea what I have done that would suggest I use my religion as a
> "shield for my actions."
> 
> If one arrives at an incorrect assumption or conclusion based on logic and
> reasoning, does this say anything about the individual, or their reasoning
> processes, or both?  Is their logic invalid, or is their interpretation of
> the data faulty?
> 
> Glenn
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070615/00b9687c/attachment-0001.html