Mirror Image Freedom

Gerry Quinn · 16 Dec 2010, 19:25 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: gerryq at indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 19:25:44 -0000
Subject: (urth) Mirror Image Freedom
References: <SNT123-W505B8C01CC83C617FBACA6CF150 at phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <2713B621B74D4E56A1AF8E21FECFB7D7@jill>


From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>
>>Gerry Quinn- If A presents a theory and B stamps it 'REJECTED' without 
>>explanation, we must
>>certainly take into account or views of B if we are paying heed to the 
>>rejection.  But if B lays
>>out a strong and logical case for rejection, B's character and motives of 
>>less import.  Indeed, we may
>>suspect that A's protests in this regard may reflect more on A than on B.
>
> This is simplistic and biased. You clearly see yourself in the role of B. 
> Only A is seen as capable of
> ego-related bias, never B. You just won't recognize that what seems 
> "strong and logical" to you is not
> seen that way by every other person.

Far from it.  In the case of the Antechamber, for example, I am clearly in 
the position of A, whereas David Stockhoff, in particular, is in trhe 
position of B.  I don't whimper and question his motives and attempt to 
pyschoanalyse him.  I answer his points as best I can and try to come up 
with better ones of my own.

>>I will continue to express my views regarding theories you or others may 
>>present here, just as I hope
>>others will express their views regarding mine. In all cases I would 
>>expect such views and theories to
>>be supported or challenged by evidence (principally textual) rather than 
>>by special pleading and innuendo.
>
> Your "God and Christ are in the Sun Series" theory is a good example. To 
> you, that theory is based on strong
> textual evidence. Yet I can see your mental edits, resulting in the 
> deletion of texual mentions of so many
> other gods, many by name.  You don't want them so aren't there. But Christ 
> is wanted, so you include him in
> the story based on flimsy evidence which is as good an example of 
> "pleading and inuendo" as there can be.

I've accepted without demur that Dionysus is mentioned, which I had not 
noticed before.  I have tended to refer to Jesus rather than Christ, as the 
text is explicit there.

> Normally I would not use such patronising language to express doubt 
> regarding someone else's valued, long-
> considered personal interpretations. I only use it here to illustrate what 
> it is like to be criticized by
> Gerry Quinn.

I can only hope you will learn to criticise like Gerry Quinn.  You could 
make a start by including more references to the text and fewer personal 
attacks.

> I would never suggest you stop expressing your views. Nor do I expect you 
> to change the unctuous tone
> that creeps into your posts. You are who you are. The best I can hope is 
> that you become aware of it. I'll
> leave it at that.

It makes me laugh when you refer to 'patronising language' and 'unctuous 
tones'.

- Gerry Quinn

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net