Comment: Gee, no thanks.

(See in situ)


Gee, no thanks.

According to you the initial contention was defined by you, and I have not seen my actual interest in this discussion accurately defined by you, not then, not now, and based upon past experience there is little in the way of evidence to judge that you will ever understand my interests in this discussion.

Again, tell my what you think I am supposed to say and I can sign on the bottom?

"...the initial point of [your exclusive] contention was [as you dictate it was to me despite my repeated objection],...[whatever you say it was regardless of what my actual intent, interest, offer, is, in fact]"

"...you STILL don't agree what definition of the terms are..."

I have no interest in agreeing or disagreeing so how would you know if I agree or do not agree if I have not even decided myself as to any such agreements?

That is clearly a case of you claiming to know what I think despite the obvious fact that your claim is false.

"Having stated such, so now you shouldn't be surprised when I ask you: so...WTF's your point, again, with this reply?"

My point is to offer my viewpoints (such as your repeated false claims as to your supposed knowledge of what I think) and then find out if anyone offers a competitive viewpoint, to which yours does measure up, in spades, despite the occasional resort to insult, and therefore my goal, my point, is reached, and to further establish evidence as to reaching my goal, as it happens, there is yet another opinion offered to that same goal, albeit in other words.

Link and quote:

http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/3203000

"I really want you to know how much I appreciate your comments and dialog. It's really helping me to move off square one! Please keep it going!"

It is obviously noteworthy that the expressed offer of a competitive viewpoint in that case does not specifically apply to our discussion here, but the idea there is to highlight the principle point of discussion which is to attack a problem, or to perceive a thing, from many angles instead of one angle, and from many angles the object can be made of more dimensions, intending to make the object observed more accurately.

Does that now answer your question concerning my point as I see it, and as I see it without you tell me what my point is?

"So excuse me, when I ask you sincerely: WTF are you trying to accomplish here?"

Many perspectives are desired from where I sit, and one perspective that I am particularly interested in is the perspective that is associated with the concept of pricing something according to that which the market will bear, or this stuff that can be called capitalism, but few, or no one, is willing to actually discuss that angle of view, in my experience, as the rule has been, without exception, that there won't be a discussion, instead there will be an argument for the sake of argument, including resort to insults, and all too often a resort to deceit.

So my hope is that discussion with a so called capitalist, at least once, may actually occur, and then be documented as part of my personal experience, and who knows, I might even turn such a discussion into another book project. Miracles have been known to happen? <-------- note the question mark.

"....you and I STILL differ on "collectivism vs. collective..."

That may or may not be the case, and if I have not felt any need to judge the matter, how can you claim to know my thoughts on that matter, or, if you can show me where I have expressed said difference then I can speak on that specific point, rather than having no clue as to what is your precise concern now being expressed in an ambiguous manner (as far as I can see)?

Does speed reading actually work, or do you end up having a conversation with the someone built out of the spaces between the lines, instead of the actual person who wrote what you are speed reading? My asking is in no way a conclusion on my part. An accurate answer is requested.

"So, again, the "non sequitur:" why are you expending bulk of your reply to me, on Common Law remedies?"

Perhaps in that I have made an error, but my reasoning (even if I am misled) is such that our discussions are not private in the sense that everyone except us two are excluded from the data stream, so I tend to use the occasion to report on my own personal experiences. As further defense (the error exists and the error is unjustified, if there is error) I think that as far as my part in this discussion my personal experiences offered as part of the discussion are appropriate considering the general purpose of the Forum and this Topic, if not your specific concerns (or argument).

"And worse, proceeding to accuse me of insulting you, when you've spoken with light conveyances of tonal condescension peppered throughout your series of replies?"

My intention was not to make a specious accusation, rather the evidence as far as I am concerned is conclusive, without any reasonable doubt, again on my part, your obvious intention is to insult me. Right or wrong, that is my viewpoint, and again I offered what I consider to be inculpatory evidence proving the fact. If wrong, and shown to be wrong, I can apologize. My guess is that no such thing will be possible; again based upon my current viewpoint, which is based upon the current evidence.

"I'm NOT the one who 'insulted' you, first."

It has been quite some time since I have had to deal with this concept of who shot first, and perhaps I have grown careless in making damn sure that I do not willfully seek to insult anyone. If you can show me where I have insulted you first (rather than a case of me merely pointing out a fact) then I can recognize where I did so, and then I can not only apologize for doing so, I can thank you for once again offering to me those acts done by me, where I have made errors.

"Yeah, but WHERE in my previous reply did I ever invoke coercive enforcement of a word definition?"

That could have been answered following my question, and now that can be answered following your question. Why was it not answered following my question? Why wait until now to focus on that point?

I am curious, so I asked the question, and now you are also curious?

"...you STILL don't understand the difference between collectivsm vs. collective..."

May I point out again that I have no interest in the matter concerning what you may find interesting in those word definitions as you intend to use them?

"...perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness..." The point at which my conclusion is that you intend to insult me has passed, and this is merely another example of inculpatory evidence as far as I am concerned. If in fact it is my error in shooting first, as your words may communicate, as an as yet difficult thing for me to, so far, understand, at all, let alone to understand precisely, the evidence here, to me, is clear.

Word choice "verbose," as far as I am concerned is willful intent to insult me. I can certainly be wrong, I am wrong most of the time.

Failing (miserably) at knowing precisely when I am wrong adds to the measure significantly; hence the point of discussion. Show me, please, where I am wrong.

I can show you, with the word choice "verbose" where, in my reasoning, you are willfully working to insult me.

I am not claiming injury; by the way. Insults go with the territory, like water goes with swimming.

I lost my place. Going back I found this:

"...feign indignant sanctimony..."

I'm swimming in insults?

"...you wanted to pretend that I'm the one who initially vaguely insulted you..."

I have a long experience of dealing with those whose method is to insult, and so my HIDE is THICK to a point of determined effort to avoid glossing over examples of obvious insult, and instead I've developed a routine to highlight those cases so as to avoid the often claim, late into the raining of insults, that in some way I started the green flag on open warfare of insults.

I can apologize, but for what, precisely?

At no time, from my view, did I ever pretend (now my honesty is discredited) that there was ever a "vague" case of insult.

My method is to quote the actual words that constitute an insult.

I can be wrong, but my experience is such that word choices such as "verbose" are chosen for a reason, and word choices such as "pretend" are on the same ocean.

"What would be the point?"

That is, by your words, an example of condescension. I can ask as a measure of defense against the charge, if you please, how can I find out what the point is if I do not ask?

I sent a link to information on that specific topic concerning what can happen when the point is not well understood, or agreed upon, whereby Josiah Warren clearly zeros in on that specific point. Does that not offer any credit to my sincerity, without any ulterior motives, as to my intent to merely find out what the point is in fact?

If not, then I can apologize for failing to find better words that can be used to find out the point without communicating any sense of insult. What else can I do at this point?

As to the offer of explaining the context of the quotes by Sam Adams, I fail to see (there too) where you find my words to be evidence of my intent to insult you.

[** You're really going to tell me that your Samuel Adams addendum, wasn't meant to be lightly insulting, when you yourself state: "I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:" just before that, considering the content? Stop insulting conversational flow & common sense, Josf! lol.]

The intent there was to offer a possible situation whereby the test of freedom "can I leave" is proven to be a good idea, a good test, whereby someone like Sam Adams says, sure, you can go, we here are those who maintain voluntary associations, but your test of freedom here is not the same test once you wander, if by chance, into the Dogs of War that have been unleashed upon anyone who may be testing the waters of freedom.

If somehow you take that as an insult, rather than agreement (in part) then I am again at a loss as to what to do at this point other than to oppologize for failing to remove all words that could possibly be taken as an insult.

I did not use the word "verbose" nor did I use the word "pretend" nor did I use other word you have used that target my personal character directly.

It has been a method of mine, in such cases as this, to start the list of insulting words aimed at my personal character. Is that warranted, useful, at this point?

"Nope, no light conveyances of condescension whatsoever!"

Here I most certainly can apologize along the lines of having built up methods of defense that are unwarranted in fact, in your case.

How can I find out if I am dealing with a reasonable person without asking?

I do make errors. Please accept my apology. I can now see precisely my error in your case.

I apologize. What can I do at this point, by way of restitution?

I also see an opportunity to point out that my actual intent, with those ill constructed words, was not to insult you personally, as that method, as ill conceived as it may be, has been my "if the shoe fits, then wear the shoe" volley.

If you are claiming that the words (any words) in question have powers of authority, which was what I thought you were claiming with your word choices such as "actual," then my "shoe fitting" was done to anyone who does make such claims. If you make no such claims of "authority" over the meaning of words, as in EXCLUSIVE authority over the meaning of words, then the shoe does not fit in your case.

"But I never really considered that 'insulting,' though I 'get' that it was borderline MEANT to be."

Here again is an observable fact of error on your part. There was no insult intended to anyone, not you, and not to those who wear the shoe of false authority over the meaning of words EXCLUSIVELY, since, in fact, there are no culprits raising their hands confessing to that fact.

Does that make sense?

I can elaborate, but my guess is that you can speed read (no insult) and still get the message intended. If I am wrong, and you return words that report another miss-identification of my true intent, then that will be that which happens in the future.

"Unless, you actually are unaware of the fact that in most polite circles, condescending tone IS equally considered insulting; unless you want to tell me that definitions of "condescension" and "insult," are also arbitrarily derived."

Actually my writing "style" if you will is by comparison to my verbal, as in face to face, "style" void of emotion. So, that may explain part of my error, since I am often asking why people tell me to calm down, lower my voice, and "I can't take you anywhere," whereby my viewpoint is such that I've done no wrong. What is the problem with being emotional about impending doom by criminals with badges running amok torturing and mass murdering with the earnings we could be using to defend ourselves against such evil?

So, knowing how toned down my writing is, compared to my speaking, and not real having any idea, any reason, for toning my emotions down, at all, how is it that I can reason toning down my writing, when from my view my writing lacks any emotion whatsoever?

I do not, repeat, I DO NOT, intend to insult anyone, other than, perhaps, those who volunteer to wear the Dictator shoes, and then, in my opinion, they insult themselves. I am merely the messenger boy.

I carry the glass slippers, the Cinderellas try them on, some find the perfect fit, you do not, or have I missed something?

Note that I am asking a question. How can I claim to have any idea as to what your precise thinking is, in fact, while current experience amply suggests measures of failures to communicate, on my part?

1. I do not intend to insult.
2. The message you read communicated to you an intention on my part to insult you.

What should that tell me about my ability to communicate?

Should ask for clarification before jumping to conclusions?

Have I missed something along the lines of those people who claim that they have an EXCLUSIVE power to dictate the "actual" meaning of words?

No hands are raised? No perfect fittings of that shoe?

No Cinderellas on this Forum?

LOL.

Me too. It is refreshing, at times, to be able to laugh.

Your feet are way too big?

"More power to you."

Funny (not laughing) you should say that because my understanding is such that more power to everyone turns out to be less relative power to the criminals, which is, in real terms, a state of Liberty.

Earn as much as you can, it will be required.

"it's a "concoction of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs."

I get that, sure, in context of your estimate of what is relevant to our discussion. I can offer, and not as an insult, merely as a way of offering my viewpoint in response to your viewpoint, that at some point I can ask if you would please just write my responses to you, and then I will never wander off the topic the least bit.

____________________________________________________
And yet, you STILL are of the mind that "collective" & "collectivism" don't mean what they mean, because you deem the arrival of their definitions to be more arbitrary than others. (As I've stated numerous times, that I 'get' your rationale and reasoning for WHY you still disagree)
_____________________________________________________

Here may be the POINT of contention in clear FOCUS without wandering at all. So, again without insult, tell me what I can write that addresses this viewpoint precisely, and I can then either sign at the bottom or not.

"Um...don't know: should we define that first?"

I see now that the use of non-sequitur, by you, is not meant as an insult. Or that is my current viewpoint offered to you. I can't claim honesty, what would that do other than clue you in that I was lying? I can offer. Then the ball is in your court.

The resort to insult can be set aside, or no longer played up, interaction on my part, sure, at this point.

It has been fun, rewarding, worth the effort, informative, so far, and it is very refreshing to find those who have a hard time with the shoe fitting. I can chalk it up to lessons learned on my part, good lessens, leading to thinner skin, or wiser judgment?

Probably not wiser judgment in my case. It takes a lot of repetition of the same errors before I can really bear down and learn something.

"...still barely addressed the original topic of contention?"

Yes, from your view I am missing something, and I agree that that is your view, so from this point I again offer the possible cluing me in of what I am missing, in a sure fire way, whereby that which you expect me to write is written by you, and then I can put my voice to those words, then I can be on that page at that point; meanwhile I am clueless.

"No, really. What would you do, if you were me, observing your line of reasoning and replies?"

I've tried that, and it does not work. Have you ever played chess on both sides? Have you ever played 3 way chess with 6 people?

"If you honestly don't think that from my point of view, when all your replies to me have been about (aside from some 10%-ish relevant answer to the two initial terms discussed), it's been anything but the initial topic?"

Perhaps I jumped into this Topic at the wrong spot. I could have jumped in with my own original response that was not in reply to your response. I might have said the same things, but to who?

Your version of what is or is not The Topic can be easily understood by me, at this point, without insult, just tell me what I need to write to get right back onto that specific topic without any moving off of it on my part.

________________________________________________

"how a "collective" is NOT the same as "collectivism"/"collectivist"??
_________________________________________________

There is precise point at which I can ask, without insult, write my part in how I should respond to those words, so as to remove any room for any claim of me wandering off of that topic, and I can then comment with a one word response such as Agree or Disagree.

Is that a possible method of resolving my clue-less-ness at this point?

"Does that make it clear, WHY your replies have been both "apt and irrelevant non-sequiturs," to me, now?"

No, but there may be a way to clue me in, I offer a way. Perhaps you have a better way. My thinking is that I covered that topic, and my thinking goes further to a point where I think you misunderstood my responses to that topic. So much for my participation in that topic goes, I remain powerless.

If you can allow to more power to me, then it could be you writing an apt response by me where I return to that topic of your concern, and I return precisely where I should return, according to you, because you place me at that very point of focus.

"I'm seriously curious."

Me too. That to me is the beauty of discussion. I can't guess what you may offer in response.

"Because I don't have such buddies, whom, when I ask to borrow a socket wrench from, then she/he gives me a Philips screw driver, and tries to convince me because they're fundamentally based on the act of torquing, to a less or large degree, it'll do the job."

To me that analogy works to point at the point of focus, and to me the idea of you writing exactly what you think I should write to hand you the right tool, instead of the wrong tool, fits as a possible, curious, resolve to my poor ability to hand you the right tool.

You can even avoid any problems associated with the socket required for the nut or bolt size needed. I can know exactly which socket size you want, a deep socket, or not a deep one. I have a very nice long handled 1/2 Snap-on ratchet, all my other Snap-on tools were stolen, twice, they are pricey. Or do you want an a box end wrench? Do you want a box end ratchet wrench?

Metric?

...for the sake of argument...

I prefer not to do things for the sake of argument.

I think that the wrench analogy was well said, and I can actually cook, but the fix is the same, from my view, clue me in on what I can write, and then I will know precisely how I can get on topic according to you.

"...what would I have accomplished?"

In my case, as stated, my goal is to compared, competitively, viewpoints, so as to build a more accurate viewpoint in that manner.

I understand, I think, the concern illustrated by the two analogies, and so the concept of having you spell out exactly which ingredients, or tools, you seek, and then I can sign at the bottom as to my ability to produce those supplies.

You see my dilemma, Josf?

If my offer of a remedy to that dilemma does not work, then I am at a loss in seeing your dilemma.

"Plus, you do 'get' that ignoring someone's question and going off on tangent that you fail to draw back into the point, in itself can be considered 'rude' thus 'insulting,' right?"

If that is the case, then I am not aware of that being the case, since my viewpoint is such that I addressed concerns over the topic of what you desire to be the definition of the words you desire to use.

If I am mistaken, then my offer of a remedy has been offered enough times to make it pointless to repeat the method offered, at this point.

"...I call your BS on your selective philosophical purity..."

One more insult and I won't make a list, rather, the point of no return will be reached at that point of my finding another naked insult.

At this point:

"'So...basically Josf thinks some words just mean what he wants it to mean, and others, not?'"

I see error. I have no thoughts in my head resembling the thoughts attributed to me, personally, so the same fix, in this instance, works, tell me what I think, tell me what I should write, and I can offer back to you a yes, that is what I think, or a no, that is not what I think.

Which words, in your estimate of my thinking, "just mean what he [does not] wants it to mean?

If I want some words to mean something, which is true, then that is agreed upon by me, without resistance on my part, whatsoever, on the other hand there are words, supposedly attributed to me, that "just mean" what I don't want them to mean?

How is that even possible?

I don't want some words to mean just what I don't want them to mean?

I don't even understand what you mean, at that point.

I understand, clearly, that all words, without exception, mean what I want them to mean, every time in intend to use words to convey accurate messages.

Why would I have any interest in not wanting a word to mean something, what would be the point of such a wanting on my part?

"Cheerio."

Yes, it has been worth the effort on my end. I will certainly be requesting more competitive viewpoints on the Natural Law (Common Law has serious errors built into the process) Grand Jury front, and I hope you find a connection at some point in that struggle.

Joe