I have always written with the very selfish position of myself as my audience. I want to like what I wrote myself. If others do it of interest to me, but what I'm willing to do about their opinion is really very limited, though I realize now that I am willing to make one big concession gladly, that is, I will search the best metaphors I can find to communicate the flux of history as I see it. Of course communication involves listening, and that is why it is so worthwhile to make such a healthy concession to one's own listeners, when one will also be a listener.
I'll have to defend myself immediately against charges of self promotion and navel gazing but won't be able to sufficiently since I'm willing to admit it is what some call navel gazing and that although it's not intended as promotion, it is about myself and it does in the end promote the subject, which is MyLeftWing.
MyLeftWing is a name like "MyYahoo" or "MyComputer"... we get to say what it means for us to be "left". If you know me you know I don't believe the left v. right spectrum really has much validity except in casual language, so it suits me to define for myself. MyLeftWing is our left wing, and also, the non-politically correct "left wing" as Maryscott O'Connor sees it.
But it's not just about me, for Averroes has precipitated this essay, not directly requesting it, but by having come upon MyLeftWing. I recognized him immediately by style, though his handle is different. You are distinctive Averroes, I shouldn't admit it, but that's one of my main ways of judging people, I tend to value distinctive people.
I don't object a bit, of course, but the notion that Av had showed up convinced me that all of you might as well know about this place of value to me. It's a progressive community and the proprietess, Maryscott O'Connor is known for earnestness and profanity. The mix seems ironic to some, she's somewhat controversial on the left, sparking objectsion from Markos Moulitsas of DailyKos, for example, when she has aggreed to be on Fox Radio and Fox TV.
I got to know her years ago as I know you here, by conversation in comments, but at dailykos.
The profanity distracts a lot of people, and it acts as a sort of shield I think. The people that tend to gather at MLW read the profane as words and are not distracted, and see the ideas. She's not unlike Hubris in that... an ability to post profane text and topics hides what is below one of the most reasonable and fair people you are likely to find. Those of us at MLW tend to see this in Maryscott while others do not and fully expected her to be cussing left and right on national radio and ripping John Gibson new orafices. Instead, she's charismatic and on the best of terms with him, while still not watering herself down. "I saw you said you were going to appear on the right wing nut fest that is the John Gibson radio program on your blog... " John said to her on her first appearance. She handled it in stride, Gibson loves her which is cool and disgusting both if you ask me. How did I get on that tangent? What was I?
It's a pretty progressive community, but not politically correct, swearing is not shocking for one thing, but also many members of the community have non-politically correct opinions, such as myself, or even, in one member's case... liking fois gras and other animal-unfriendly foods... if you don't know why that's politically incorrect, I'll have to tell you later. Many smoke, etc., it's ordinary people that are liberal and progressive mostly but not exclusively.
Maryscott has been going on John Gibson's radio program, and now once on his Fox Television show, and she is very disarming and poised. 
Kos, that is, Markos Moulitsas of the DailyKos fame as just mentioned objects to any liberal going on Fox, and many vehemently expressed worry that she would seem unhinged, blinded as I said they are by her written profanity.
However, her appearances have generated less criticism and more praise after the fact though the unofficial but intentional policy of Kos and the other Dem Bloggers has not changed. I am one of the admins at MLW, as we call it. I can write FP (front page) posts though generally I just write "diaries", essays that go on the open diaries page and on your own "dairy" page, and promote the diaries of others to the FP. Front Page vs. Diary Page is a distinction of the community blogs, generally scoop or scoop-like software.
I think you all could be welcomed there, though it is unabashedly liberal and dedicated to preserving that, the people there pride themselves on listening if you are civil. Again, "civil" is counterintuitive to combine with a tolerance of profanity, but profanity is not uncivil by these standards, it's what you say with (or without profanity) that matters.
However, if you are not progressive, being the minority might get hard, and feel unbalanced, as it's no doubt true you will notice more tolerance of liberal positions than conservative positions, the main offense being that while many will treat you civilly IF someone gets upset with a conservative view they are likely be tolerated and in this way, a community remains ideological for good or bad. I post all over, including conservative homes like redstate, this sort of status doesn't bother me at all, but there is pressure and I wouldn't deny it.
To balance this I'll tell you of a second blog and stop there lest I reveal more than a few percent of my secret lairs and paths. This is a new blog that combines a conservative and liberal in debate, ostensibly, though both will post individually as will I. Unlike an average new blog, this one already has traffic as the liberal, Armando, is very well known at DailyKos (dkos has over 600,000 visits a day, astounding) and the conservative, Joshua Treviño, aka "tacitus" is founder of tacitus.org and redstate.org, and well known also in political blogging, from the right.
So an instant audience of left and right is met at this blog which started just last monday.
But note, these people come to swords crossed mostly from blogs that are not ideologically mixed, it's new to them, UNLIKE CABAL users. We're old hands at it. Tacitus was Josh's blog, but he always welcomed progressives to post in comments and eventually to the main page, and it has now been set free and the FP stories come from diaries which have been voted to the front page. Treviño has excellent credentials in terms of wanting things to be represented in a balanced way, I respect his integrity though I marvel sometimes that such a respectable person could have positions that, in this day and age, I find impossible to themselves respect. Support for the war, anti-choice, etc, but an honest man not afraid nor resentful of criticism or contradiction. Also, Treviño is credible as a "compassionate conservative", which I respect. Like many Americans in 1999, I have much hope that compassionate conservativism COULD have meant something good, and again, though to me some of his positions ironically seem discompassionate to me... at least I know it is a matter of differing judgment, that he believes his policies are best, not just for him, but for the nation.
Armando, otoh, is an asshole. Mind you, I'm excellent friends with Armando, it's his actual personal position that he's an "asshole". He's not actually an asshole, but he can be rhetorically intimidating to people. One part of the swords dynamic happens to be that Treviño is able to demand Armando's civil best, and sets policies against profanity and too much bluster, two vices of Armando's. Armando is a Clarke Democrat, and his actual ideas are not molested at all by profane or blustering thoughts, just web log comments at time. You know how it is. Profanity is not tolerated at Swords.
This site I'm speaking of is to be found at SwordsCrossed.com, it opened Monday. I'm helping these guys with some stuff that is to Armando very technical, to Joshua somewhat technical and something he could use help on. They insisted that it was only right to let me post with them though the site is set up ostensibly as a debate between those two, to be continued or rebutted in comments by all. My reputation in that whole space is as someone that is generally incomprehensible, totally impossible to understand. But they insisted so I'll use the forum.
Cabal is also a blog in this genre, hubris another compassionate conservative (independent?), who put together something that ended up, if anything, slanted against him. I can't tell you how much I respect intellectual bravery like that... but VERY MUCH. More than anything else, I suspect, that defines a man or woman's politics. Hubris is one of the most honorable men in debate I've ever met, and my standards are high. I'd like to see you post here at Cabal more, Hubris, and I'd like to promote it in the right and left blogosphere.
Indeed, I would like to see Hubris Blogging at MLW, and all of you, and still, of course, Cabal, which I hope can continue.
Cheers.
"I'd like to see you post here at Cabal more, Hubris"
Seconded. Let's hear that decent, intelligent, frightfully funny voice more often.
Posted by: Winston Smith | April 22, 2006 at 12:00 PM
that was supposed to still be a draft... heh
Posted by: pyrrho | April 23, 2006 at 03:33 AM
pyrrho : I stopped by there some time ago, and was called everything under the sun, for daring to go against the current.
I know it is not unique to that site, or to either ideological persuasion, but why is there always such a mental blockade to diversity of thoughts and opinions?
I am no saint, but I appreciate reading the thoughtful viewpoints of those that take differing positions than myself within the political universe. I can toss out the wingut rhetoric with the best of them, but find that in the end, it serves no purpose other than to make me chuckle briefly while looking at my computer.
That is one thing I truly miss about Spinsanity. Despite the fringes from each side (I always loved Don Williams), in the end, there tended to be some well thought out and well argued debate on topics.
I am not sure that we will ever actually change anybody's mind about a political position, but people may be forced into revisiting their own perspective, and re-evaluating it in light of the new information they get from a robust debate.
Posted by: JD | April 27, 2006 at 10:06 PM
JD, I've been able to get by mrginally by treating the site as i wold any religius site. i try to find the deepest held dogmas and avoid discussing them.
Mostly, I've done what i usually do, which is to comment on bad arguments. Even this hasn't saved me.
A writer there took bush to task for not paying the judgment won by some landowners in court, having to do with the Rangers' stadium in Arlington. Kindsa said that he was morally reprehensible for stiffing the poor landowners who had duly won in court.
Well, i didn't know anything about it, so i checked old newspaper accounts. What i fopund out was that the city had set up a commission to buy land for the stadium, and had paid a family $800,000 for their 13 acres of land, using emminent domain condemnation powers. The family contested the price. This occurred in 1990, I believe.
In 1997, the family won a judgment against the city granting them $500,000 for the land. The settlement was put into escrow while the city decided whther to appeal. (It eventually grew to $750,000).
A year later, in 1998, the city decided that they could pass the cost onto the Rangers, under a clause in the contract that allowed them to pass on any expense over $135 million.
Now realize that Bush had been Governor for several years now, and was taking no active managerial role in the Rangers. His share, and liability, was about 8%. (I put this in because the original writer wanted to know why Bush had refused to pay the poor landowners their rightful 7 and 1/2 million dollars tht he owed them.)
The city eventually submitted a formal claim on the Rangers for the amount of the settlement--two days after the Bush group sold the Rangers!
In other words, there was never any claim on the bush grooup, although I suppose that the then managters knew it was coming, and the buyers did as well.
I offered that if there was a problem with the contract or the method of ob5taining land, one wshould not expect corporations to save the people, but their own local government.
Well, for that informatin, i was defamed, figuratively spat upon, and generally called bad names. I was totally shocked by the vehemence of the readtion, and the reac5tin itself.
I expected something on the order of:
Thanks. i didn't know that.
or:
The paper you got those facts from got it wrong. Here is another scource with updated information.
Now it hasn't always been that bad, but it has enough that i won't be staying long.
One reason i stay is that Ms. O'Connor is not in that mold. She is opinionated, but she thinks for herself, and has herself felt the sting of the crritics on the left.
Another reason is that it so reminds me of my experiences in a Mao-ist group years ago. No one had rights but the community, and those were controlled by personalities. Ms. O'Connor, inmy judgment, is not about the cult of personalities, although some of her more self-righteous followers are.
Tjhe place is as interesting as many muslim sites or Catholic sites, although not as interesting as some of those.
Posted by: Averroes | April 28, 2006 at 04:58 AM
JD,
My thanks to you is not due to surprise. The reaction of some (very few but generally valued people there) was such that I could not have blamed you had you responded in kind. So I thank you greatly.
Turns out this is a trial of sorts for MLW, but not just that, also for our visions of the net. MLW has a tight knit group, but it's just a public web site as well.
fyi. thanks again. It's interesting. I still like the idea, hopefully the results are not in yet.
Imagine the shock of the idea that Hubris might post to the front page... I am of a dual mind, in general, this kinds of disturbance are part of worlds colliding, so we face the facts of each others existance, on the other hand, there is a vibrant community at MLW I don't want to disturb.
In the end, however, the community has to be robust enough for this, I think.
MLW gets crap for being a tight knit community, to my way of thinking there are pros and cons. I think the cons can be avoided if we are brave enough to face the world and the wide internet openly. Over all I think we are, but the way the dynamics play out can be surprising.
Better to see than wonder, that's my motto.
Posted by: pyrrho | April 28, 2006 at 04:32 PM
Hey everyone, thanks so much for the kind words. Sorry for taking so long to respond, I've had a crazy last few weeks.
Part of the reason I lost interest in posting is that I hate the way most people stop being, well, people online. Y'all are an exception. If I can be around a few people who keep their humanity attached and treat each other as they would while discussing something at a bar, I'll be a happy man.
Thanks for being cool.
Posted by: Hubris | April 29, 2006 at 10:32 AM
Pyrrho, I m,ust admit I am a little amused by the reception you got over at MLW. i went back last night to read that part of the comments on your piece that i hadn't before. It's amusing that you were cast in the same role that i found myelf in dailly. Heck, I'bve been cast in the same role here!
I noticed that even when you tried to state your motives clearly, some, like ST, just wouldn't believe you. Where have we seen that sort of thing before?
Posted by: Averroes | May 05, 2006 at 04:19 PM
I've seen it many times in my life... where are you thinking?
Posted by: pyrrho | May 05, 2006 at 10:32 PM
I used 'we' for a reason!
Posted by: Averroes | May 06, 2006 at 03:37 AM
http://www.conservatoroccidentalis.com/?p=81> Gallery of “liberals.”
http://hubris.typepad.com/cabal/2006/01/woo_hoo_is_this.html#comment-14532564> As foreseen.
Because “conservatoidism,” being a matter of theology, cannot fail. It can only be failed.
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 17, 2006 at 07:01 AM
Actually, http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_11_20_digbysblog_archive.html#113304649195203560> Digby said it better.
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 17, 2006 at 07:06 AM
someone post a new post!!!
frankly, you are still welcome at MLW... note the proprieter of MLW was fine with the whole thing. I sent her hubris material prior to the whole thing.... it's a free net.
However, SwordsCrossed is bipartisan and might suit better anyway.
But more importantly, I think Cabal is worth perpetuating...
Posted by: pyrrho | May 18, 2006 at 06:24 AM
Honesty:
'Saints' or 'Winners' in the sense i was ysng i6t, sometimes, is a concept from Transactional Anaylisis in whch the person so described takes responsibility for his own life, and sees all humansm, including himself and all others, as uniques and worthwhile beings who syhould be treated wuith respect. simplistically speaking, it is the famous "I'm OK, You're OK" position. (This position is predominantlky lacking on MLW, where blame is the coin of the realm, and real humans are dismissed on a daily basis.)
'Saints' in the more literal sense are those humnans who are venerated for their holiness.
'Deification,' on the other hand, goes beypond veneration to worship. An example is Haile Salassie, who is NOT venerated as a saint, but deified by the Rastrafarians.
To say that i said you were deifying Clinton is simply dishonest. Sorry, son. What ytou were doingf was defending Clinton, venerating him, re-interpreting hids "works" in terms of your homnouring him. I made no claim, implicit or otherwise, that you were "deifying" him.
To say so, especially after i had raised the spector of dishonesty, is telling.
Posted by: Averroes | May 23, 2006 at 04:59 PM
pyrrho:
From a CBS story:
he nation's top law enforcer, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, says he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.
Gonzales also said Sunday the Bush administration would not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation. He said officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
"There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected."
Now, this is why I have always pushed the study of logic.
You see, if you disagree with AG Gonzales, you would support some such statement as "there are NO statutes on the books which could be used to prosecute reporters who leak classified information."
As youcan see, this has nothing whatsoever to do with "freedom of speech," or, more to the point, "freeom of the press."
As usually understpood, these things have to do with proior censorship. Neither freedom is thought of as a defense against breaking the law, either civily or criminally.
F9or instance, you are certainly free to commit libel or slander, but citing the re;levant freedom will not protect you from suits. Likewise, publishing or stqting fraudulent claims for your product will result, we hope, in civil and/or criminal legal action, and citing therse freedoms will be no defense.
And laqstly, pyrrho, I don't remember your EVER defending Rove or Libby in the Plame case on the basis that they had a freedom of speech to leak her name and occupation.
My fear here is that you well know these arguments, and are simply being dishonest in your "analysis," or worse, maybe as an amplicative, playing to the crowd.
But i will admit that it is possible that you are simply being illogical, naively so.
But i don't think so.
(I dare you to publish this at MLW. I could use a good piling on.)
Posted by: Averroes | May 23, 2006 at 05:15 PM
well, perhaps there is some confusion between deiification and canonization, it's not a distinction I was respecting nor do I value the distinction.
My point is only that I've done niether, I find Clinton flawed, as all politicians, and retain much of the estimate that made me first loath him when I followed the 92 primaries... there is nothing like the blindness of faith or the romance of religious pedestals in my view of him.
quite the opposite, I came to value you him on pragmatic grounds... a reluctant but real respect.
You sought to destroy my claim by applying religious frames to my esteem of Clinton... and that, Averroes, was the dishonest part in my opinion.
Posted by: pyrrho | May 23, 2006 at 08:29 PM
You sought to destroy my claim by applying religious frames to my esteem of Clinton.
Actually, you are simply wrong. As i explained, my usage came more from TA.
And you misunderstand the religious frame, which i take from your mistatement of it above. There is nothing in blindness of faith or lack of flaw in sainthood; even saints are presumed to be sinners. Sainthood is more likely to be a pragmatic judgment of real respect for what the person did. Take the latest candidate, the late Pope.
As for the distinction between canoniztion and deification, you are free to abuse the language any way you wish. But to fail to make this distinction is very, very dishonest.
In religious terms, for instance, one is free to venerate St Francis, for instance, but to worship the saint is a sin which cqn lead you to hell. it is "having a false god," in the Christian and Jewish lingo.
Posted by: Averroes | May 23, 2006 at 09:48 PM
"As for the distinction between canonization and deification, you are free to abuse the language any way you wish. But to fail to make this distinction is very, very dishonest."
Apologies to all in advance if I violate any civility standards here. But it seems every day Averroes becomes more absurd and more abusive.
If conflating two colloquial expressions of religious regard is "very, very dishonest," isn't it a fortiori "very, very dishonest" to http://hubris.typepad.com/cabal/2006/03/censure_of_the_.html#comment-15405068 > insist begging questions means raising them . . . just because the obviously mistaken usage is so persistent? (Apparently that precision so critical to matters of faith is—where actual logic’s concerned—as optional as a hood ornament. Of course, after all this time we’re well aware which of those disciplines preoccupies Averroes endlessly, and which one he merely abuses.)
Like Lewis Carroll's Humpty Dumpty, words mean what Averroes wants them to, period, and at the drop of a hat he'll abuse pyrrho (or anyone else who declines to be bullied) over his distinctions-without-a-difference, or some other meaningless linguistic folderol. He’s Cabal’s very own http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/11484425.htm > Mr. Language Person! and has richly earned our corresponding reverence (gee, is that different from “adulation” or “worship”?)
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 25, 2006 at 09:21 AM
Winston, you are such an idiot sometimes.
You see, this was based on a conversation in which the sainthood of Clinton was a topic.
At the end, pyrrho said that i accused him of "deifying" Clinton.
So, as you can clearly see, when you get out of paid liar mode, the question is EXACTLY how I use the words.
Further, it is dishonest to try to up the ante on an argument by introducing a term that had not been us3ed in several exchanges in place of a word that HAD been used.
My dictionary makes a clear distinction between canonization and deification.
So, your argument is misplaced. You see, it is exactly pyrrho who is declaring that he may use words exactly how he wants to, and says so in so many words:
perhaps there is some confusion between deiification and canonization, it's not a distinction I was respecting nor do I value the distinction.
This clearly implies that he is aware of the distinction, bu6t, perhaps because it is inconvenient, he chooses to ignore it here.
Let's say, Wiston, that you are out driving and get pulled over by a cop. He notes that you suddenly swerved a while back, and proposes that you may be impaired. You protest that you swerved to avoid a rabbit, but he insists that you submit to some new field test of sobriety.
He asks you to brethe into a tube with xsome blue liquid in it. He explains that if you are over the legal limit of blood alcohol, the liquiud will turn red. You breathe confiddntly into the tube, knowing that you haven't had a drink in eons. Sure enough, the liquid changes not one iota.
Yet the policeman proceeds to arrest you for driving under the influence. You note that the luiquid in the tube remained blue. But Pfficer Pyrrho explains to you that "there may be some confusion gbetween red and blue, but it is not a distinction that i am honouring nor one that i value."
Of course, when you cpome before Judge Smith, he agrees--with the officer.
Now, Winston, if YOU want to argue that there is no difference between claiming that someone is a saint and saying that someone is a god, please make your case.
Asd for the matter of begging the question, my what a long and bitter memory you have. The point there is one that pyrrho could have made here, that he was speaking loosely, and according to common usage. (For instance, we sometimes say that a man "adores" his wife, and we don't think that he is making her a god--usually.) The conversation here took up after he had the opportunity to make that point. In fact, he argued opposite of what you have in sayng that he recognizes the distinction, but chooses simply to ignore it to make a point.
Don't you think, venerable Winstoon, that when questions of meraning arise, the proper and useful thing to do is to define one's usage? that's what i did in the "begging the question" example, and you have every right to argue that one should never use the term as it is commonly used. (I make a similar argument about the use of "oraganic" in terms like "organic food" or "organic farming.") pyrrho has every right to claim a usage here to clarify what he was saying. He chose not to do so.
Note also that when i was called on my plebian use of "begging the question" outside of its more proper logical meaning, I acknowledged the proper usage, and subsequently, for clarity, I substituted, for the cpommon usage, the phrase "invites the question."
Ya' gotta problem wi' dat?
Posted by: Averroes | May 25, 2006 at 06:56 PM
NO, only YOU made the topic Clinton's sainthood.
Here is the essay at MLW: http://www.myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8586
And your point was in a thread where I objected to the liberal author calling Bush's prevaricating a level of "clintonian parsing".
At no point did anyone but you, Av, claim or show interest about Clinton's sainthood.
Sorry, being a million times more competant than Bush does not make him a saint.
Posted by: pyrrho | May 25, 2006 at 10:41 PM
Av,
the issue is not that there isn't a distinction, it's when is that an important distinction.
No one claimed he was a god OR a saint, and the denial of deification matches a denial of canonization.
I could bring up the difference between "mention" and "use" and someone here might misuse the terms... it wouldn't make it on topic.
Posted by: pyrrho | May 25, 2006 at 10:43 PM
Bush's prevqaricating? You know, pyrrho, i have asked on fifty different boards, including several times at MLW, and have yet to receive even an attempt at an example. Remember:
Bush said X.
Bush knew when he said X that not-X was true.
Somple. Not one example. Now, who is prevaricating?
In the Clinton thread, you made several claims that are demons5t6rably untrue, such as that the Bosnia policy was a success, the making of which can only be explained by your over-evealuation of Clinton. And it is true that only I said he was a saint. And i meant it. You seemed to have missed that point several times, as did Winston.
the issue is not that there isn't a distinction, it's when is that an important distinction.
I get it. i can do it, too:
When the rabbits fly over Peking, the really smart will duck for cover charges are about two drink minimum!
Whether it is an immportant distinction or not depends, one would thik, on whomever was using the terms. in this case, as you have correctly asserted, it was I. And, yes, the distinction is of vital importance. You were saying that I was saying that you were deifyong Clinton, and i never came close to making the claim. what you said was, therefore, a lie:
pyrrho said that I accused him of deifyong Clinton.
But pyrrho knew full well that i had never made that claim when he made his assertion.
Therefore, pyrrho lied.
See? it's simple.
Posted by: Averroes | May 26, 2006 at 01:44 AM
Hubris, I’d be very interested in your reaction to http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/27/winning-over-the-hills-and-hollers-crowd/> this post from a fellow West Virginian about identity politics.
By the way, post more of your beautiful children.
Hope you’re well.
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 27, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Pyrrho, you’re undoubtedly http://www.saintclinton.com/> familiar with this? In fact, you’ve probably dropped a few dollars there, shopping.
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 27, 2006 at 11:16 AM
"The point there is one that pyrrho could have made here, that he was speaking loosely, and according to common usage."
That he was doing exactly that was crystal clear from the context. That's why calling pyrrho "very, very dishonest" was, well, itself "very, very dishonest." And abusive.
Sounds like you and pyrrho disagree about what the actual topic was. I'm putting my money on pyrrho's perception, thanks.
Posted by: Winston Smith | May 27, 2006 at 02:08 PM
The simpler fact is that pyrrho ACCUSED me of saying the he "deified" Clinton, aqnd that is exactly wrong. n cpommon usage, this is called a "lie."
In other words, pyrrho didn't say that he was usingt the term 'deification' in some sort of common usage (although i must admit that i don't find this particular term in common usage), he said rather that he, pyrrho, can uyse the term in whatever way he wishes, and how I used it doesn't matter.
All he had to say was that he recognized that i said that he was making a saint out of Clinton in the sense of 'saint' that I explained. And that it is true that i didn't ever say that he was "deifying" Clinton in the sense of setting him up as a god.
But pyrrho has so far refused to do this. Instead he made the strange argument that there is no difference so far as he is concerned between 'deification' and 'canonization.' I can't think that someone as intelligenct as pyrrho (or you) would accept that proposition.
Of course, pyrrho may be intending to revive the old "he said it without saying it" argument.
Now, YOU may rely on "context" when it suits your purpose, but instead, I went with what pyrrho actually said. i know this is odd for a person like you who thinks up a conclusion first, and then frixes an argument around it, as you have obviusly done here.
Sounds like you and pyrrho disagree about what the actual topic was. I'm putting my money on pyrrho's perception, thanks.
You could go read the entire exchanbge itself. The original topic, as i remember, had something to do with Clinton's abi.,ity to sell himself and his policies. I maintained that he was very, very good, as slick as any sociopath. I then made the point that I thought that Clinton was what some in the TA community call a "saint," that is, someone, simplistically speaking, who has moved from the sociopathic position of "I'm OK, you're not," to the winner position of "I'm OK, so are you." I also mentioned that pyrrho was defending questionable things in Clinton's record as one commonly sees being done when one is supporting someone for canonization. For instance, he called Clinton's Bosnia policy a success, which it clearly wasn't.
That's why calling pyrrho "very, very dishonest" was, well, itself "very, very dishonest."
Sorry. I think you are taking pyyrro';s side here simply because you are against me, for whatever reason. You see, pyrrho said that I accused him of "deifying" Clinton, and that is simply false. Untrue. Not even clse to reality. It is a non-fact. Now, oif pyrrho had some problem with the language which caused him to make this false statement, he has had plenty of time and opportunity to clear it up. instead, he has let the statement remain "o the books" as an assertion, one that is, FALSE. pyrrho KNOWS that it is a false statement. Ane that, even for a paid liar, is recognizable as a "lie."
The simple truth is, Winston, that I NEVER accused pyrrho of "deifying" Clinton. NEVER. NOT ONCE.
I know that this may be an inconvenient truth for you, but, if i may say, for at least some topics, truth has never been an issue for you anyway. Apparently it is not here.
Posted by: Averroes | May 29, 2006 at 06:29 PM