| | Phil,
I interpreted your post #2 to be saying that Tim Russert's death was of no significance and you were criticizing those who posted about it. Also, you appeared to be trivializing it by comparing it to tabloid-like headlines like "Paris Hilton gives birth to three-headed child". If that was not your intent, and you seem to be suggesting that it wasn't in post #10, then I apologize for over-reacting. If it was your intent, then my post #4 stands.
But I want to address some of the other things you said in subsequent posts. Much of it I disagree with, but a discussion of that will have to wait. But, in post #13 you said:
Never be "insulted" when something objective, factual, precise is stated.
This was in response to my criticism of your statement that
... express[ing] -personal contempt- for the person you are disagreeing with -- something that has unfortunately become almost part of the DNA of Objectivists."
This statement is neither objective, factual, nor precise. But it is insulting. You seem to think that the passive-aggressive approach of saying that an individual is an example of an insulting generalization, rather than confronting them directly, is not an insult to that person. I disagree.
Finally, as an aside, I don't respond to Mr. Keer's posts. If anyone is interested in why I don't, they can look at his post that followed my "ad hominem" attack on him that he referred to in post #14. Oh, wait: you can't look at it. It was deleted because the administrators thought it was too offensive. BTW, this was not at my request. I would have preferred it remain as a source of insight into Mr. Keer's character.
Thanks,
Glenn
|
|
