@dhummel
Really? All your philosphical name dropping and econ-technic language and you reveal yourself to be an Apple fanboy? Dissapointing.
This "namedropping" and "econ-technic language" stuff seems to have this subtle accusation of a tendency towards affectation on my part.
The "econ-technic language" may have come from that one time I got that degree in economics. I was walking around town one day, minding my own business, when this cult of ex-Milton Friedman (namedrop?) grad students shanghaied me. I was kept against my will and force fed a low-protein diet while they indoctrinated me with the quantity theory of money (econ-technic?). I have yet to fully recover and may never truly heal.
As for the dropping of names, I fear I am in desperate need of a reeducation in the art of name usage as I am having a hard time differentiating between the heinous and unjustifiable act of "namedropping" from the unfortunate necessity of occasionally using a proper noun -- or even, horror or horrors, two-- in a sentence for the greater good.
Ok, Rousseu and Hobbes are certainly names of philosophers I'll give you that, but not exactly obscure. Furthermore, I cannot think of anyone more associated with the articulation of the beliefs -- as well as the usual accompanied caricatures of beliefs -- many seem to be heavily influenced by and it was my opinion that this was unhealthily so. Hence, the aforementioned invocations don't seem to be entirely superfluous. So what's the litmus test? Is there any situation in which use of names in a message board post is acceptable?
I always hope for intelligent opposition. Oh well, I guess I'll keep looking around.
Best of luck with that.
I would love for you to specifically define what a "scam" is in your previous post.
Yes, legend said something similar, but much more colorfully. I had hoped people would be able to put this together themselves -- by reading or meditation or what-have-you -- but I guess it was not to be.
One party financially benefited from an intentional deception of two other parties to both their financial detriment in a legally dubious dealing that was eventually settled out of court for $1M. In my opinion this gets file under the "scam" header. Perhaps, since it was settled out of court you feel I should use alleged scam instead?
You may of course -- and rightly so -- protest that there is not a single definition in the previous paragraph much less a specific, rigorous, logically consistent definition. Quite frankly, I'm lazy and not particularly interested in that specific glass bead game (pretentious reference of a critique of the pretentious?). It seems clear enough to me and if I feel like writing a rigorous definition I am going to work on my thesis. In short, I leave this as an exercise to the reader.
You inject so much morality and prejudice into your posts
So this means either I'm not a bot or that I pass the Turing test (psuedo-CS-technic language). Or is there something exceptionally imbued with morality and prejudice that I've said recently?
it's hard to tell what you mean pejoratively and what you are actually saying.
Sorry?
