Dr. House
7/31/2008 7:43:00 AM
On Jul 30, 5:21 pm, "Chuck Stamford" <shell-stamf...@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
> > > Kelly, you may "wonder" about some theoretical person in your above all
> > > you
> > > like, but so long as you so blatantly mischaracterize the pov of the
> > > actual
> > > person you have in mind to engage in such wonderment, there's a basic
> > > disconnect between you and reality. I guess you need that though, right?
>
> > Well then why don't you set matters strait by accurately stating that
> > point of view and clarifying the difference?
>
> > Chuck:
>
> > Go to the source; ask Vera.
>
> House:
>
> In this case I am asking for your opinion on her POV so you would be
> the source. You claim Kelly got it wrong. I'm sure you think that
> about others as well. Can you articulate that 'basic disconnect'
> between what Kelly thinks and the reality of what News Runner wrote?
>
> Chuck:
>
> Sure, but that's not what you asked for the first time, which is why I sent
> you to Vera.
It is what I asked for the first time. I just didn't realize I need
to spell out to you that asking you means I want to hear _your
opinion_.
> The basic problem with Kelly's view of Vera's remarks is the same as yours,
> and pretty much everyone else's whose taken a shot across her bow - it
> invovles being factual what can only be speculated upon; i.e, her
> motivation. She's entitled to her opinion, House. Everyone is entitled to
> their opinion so long as they properly qualify it, but no one is doing that
> except for Vera and me!
I get so tired of telling you that I know they are all entitled to
their opinion and they all have the right to express it. Why do you
keep repeating this non-issue? Please provide a quote and link to
where I did not properly qualify my opinion.
> We're saying it is our opinion that Brett Tindall's life was not courageous
> nor self-sacrificial ("heroic") based on that testimonial alone, and that
> his life represents, in appearance at least, disobedience to God's will for
> intimate relationships between men and women.
That doesn't look anything like the comments that turned a 50 message
thread into a 900 message thread. You pretend that what you and GNR
said was not controversial and that isn't honest.
> Now everyone here has taken a turn at ADDING to that opinion whatever they
> think will best justify them villifying the two of us,
Nobody has added more to _your_ take on News Runner's position that
News Runner herself.
> some not even
> bothering to do that much. Kelly falls into the latter category, acting as
> if it's just a given that what SHE mentally adds to what we actually did is
> "the truth",
The funny part is how much you mentally subtract. How many times have
you mentioned specific genetil parts in this thread? Oh wait, that's
not part of your point of view. No it couldn't be that.
> . . .and she's under no obligation at all to justify it to anyone,
> which is where she disconnects from reality.
Actually that sounds like you. When asked to justify we see you
bluster, distract, distort and drone on. Then when it is pointed out
to you that this is not quite what was expected you say you are done
and you snipe with bathroom humor insults.
> She has the same epistemic
> obligations as anyone else does if she wants to be considered "sane", which
> is to say, regarded as having a properly functioning set of cognitive
> faculties, and she obviously wants to be regarded as such. So she wants
> what she refuses to earn, which is another way in which she disconnects from
> the real world where there simply is no free lunch.
The funny thing is that when I take the time to provide what you
demand you find some excuse for not reading it. I can't blame Kelly
if she doesn't give you the time of day. She has probably watched
your game and knows how it ends.
> Now, if you want more than that, go see Vera.
Been there and done that. News Runner has vowed to do all she can to
ruin my reputation without ever facing me in strait debate again.
Either way it is her loss.
House