David 2009/11/19 David Lawley <davidlaw...@hotmail.com>
> > > From: Paul Bart <pb2...@gmail.com> > > > Anonymity. > > > > > > MikeB ignores the perfectly good reasons for anonymity stated in my > > > previous post > > > > > > I participate in many forums that allow anonymity, and do not see the > > > problems you atributre to anonymous postings. > > > > > > Just because you say iot does not make it true Mike. > > > > > > > Well generally he never just "say it", the majority of his posts are well > > researched and well argued. On the other hand your posts are neither, but > I > > have noted a strong tendency on your part to categorise people if they do > > not agree with your view; "flat earthers" comes to mind. In my opinion it > > is difficult to advance any argument by simply throwing labels and > slogans > > about.. > > My view and that of the vast bulk of experts Paul. If it quacks like a > duck, it is a duck, no matter how you try to dissemble. I view those who > deny the generally held view of the vast majority of scientific experts as > flat earthers. In fact that could well be the definition of flat earthers. > Yes, that was the sentiment of the Pope Urban VIII when he subjected Galileo to the Inquisition, yet he was still wrong. The sanctified experts then or now do not get it always right. > > I find it most amusing that you use the argument of labels and slogans when > that is the stock in trade of climate change deniers. > See here you go again, no proof just more labels, but thanks for providing a ready example. > > I have noticed an amusing tendency on your part to defend the indefensible. > Glad to be of service. > > > research, research and far more thought. He isn't always the most > > social animal and yes my post here can easily be construed as biased > > because he has been a friend of mine for more than forty years, BUT > > the one thing that you can NEVER take away from Mike is his research > > research and thought, based on Democratic, Free of dogma, free of > > precedent, free of the fear of criticism, thinking processes. Often > > the truth hurts and is often unpalatable as well but that is what i > > think Mike is always after. > > Well this quote is not mine, bot belongs to Ron Sanders, but I do agree with him > Whilst I disagree often with Mike there are many areas that we do agree on, > though I would describe Mike views on CC as fruit loop. Despite your claim > Libertarian dogma is often present in Mikes posts. > > I have always enjoyed the vigorous debates with Mike, and have > subsequently spoken by phone with him on a number of occasions and found him > incredibly friendly, knowledgeable and helpful in his area of expertise, > despite the "robust" nature of some of our previous discussions. > > > > > >> Anonymity. > > >> > > >> MikeB? ignores the perfectly good reasons for anonymity stated in my > > >> previous post > > >> > > >> ?I participate in many forums that allow anonymity, and do not see the > > >> problems you atributre to anonymous postings. > > >> > > >> Just because you say iot does not make it true Mike. > > > > > > Well generally he never just "say it", the majority of his posts are > well > > > researched and well argued.? On the other hand your posts are neither, > but I > > > have noted a strong tendency on your part to categorise people if they > do > > > not agree with your view; "flat earthers" comes to mind.? In my opinion > it > > > is difficult to advance any argument by simply throwing labels and > slogans > > > about.. > > >> > > >> At no point did you address the issue of those who would not be able > to > > >> state their views if not anonymous. > > >> > > >> True freedom of speech sometimes requires anonymity Mike, whether you > like > > >> it or not. > > > > > > Well true freedom of speech never requires anonymity, that is why it is > > > called "freedom of speech". I have spent first 18 years of my life > living in > > > a country with a communist regime, so I do know just a bit about the > lack of > > > "freedom of speech".? Not sure what argument you would advance to > suggest > > > that there would be any problem exercising your "freedom of speech" on > this > > > list.? Well apart from a fear of posting something stupid I guess. > > > Given your "supposed" expertise Paul I am surprised you are not aware that > anonymity is generally a method where people who for various reasons may not > be able to speak freely without some form of recourse. It was and is > extensively used by people from countries with the sort of repressive regime > you describe, such as China currently. Interesting you are not aware of > that. I suggest you look at the link below. > How could you possibly interpret what I have written in that way? Clearly totalitarian regimes do not allow freedom of speech and hence anonymity may be necessary. But this list? Are you suggesting that consequences of annoying the state in in a totalitarian regime is the same as the consequences of annoying some one here? > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/08/AR2009040803248.html > > As Oscar Wilde wrote , “Man is least in himself when he talks in his own > person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” > Indeed true, well in my opinion anyway, thanks for providing the quote, more impressive from Oscar Wilde then me. The question is though, do we want "man" to be himself? I thought that why we have had religion, laws, social rules etc. to prevent "man" being himself. It could be an ugly picture otherwise. > > > > >> Matt please do not leave the group because of the ranting of someone > who > > >> has little support for the unpleasant > > >> attack he has made on you in recent posts. Mike does not speak for the > > >> whole group, in fact I doubt many support his view at all. > > > > > > And how do you know what the level of support for Mike's, or anyone > else for > > > that matter, is? It is well documented that only a small portion of > people > > > that are members post.? So I am interested in how can you make such an > > > assertion.? And lets not hide behind the statement "I doubt", the > intent of > > > your post is quite clear. > > I doubt Paul, because I get off list messages of support form those who do > not want to be "bullied" to quote one > off list respondant. If you wish to support such actions it reflects more > on you than me. It is notable that none have expresed support of Mikes view > including yourself. If you do support his view why not say so, rather than > shoot the messenger. > > Two reasons, I would not insult him by defending him, he is more then capable of it himself and 2, there many things that I do not agree with him. > > > >> > > > >> Matt please do not leave the group because of the ranting of someone > who > > > >> has little support for the unpleasant > > > >> attack he has made on you in recent posts. Mike does not speak for > the > > > >> whole group, in fact I doubt many support his view at all. > > > > > > > > And how do you know what the level of support for Mike's, or anyone > else for > > > > that matter, is? It is well documented that only a small portion of > people > > > > that are members post.? So I am interested in how can you make such > an > > > > assertion.? And lets not hide behind the statement "I doubt", the > intent of > > > > your post is quite clear. > > I was refering only to the issue of anonymity, and I dont see the extensive > research you mention quoted in any of the related posts, grasping at straws > much? I am not hiding behind anything. > > I do doubt, you are welcome to prove me wrong, by for example expressing > support for Mikes view which I note you do not do anywhere in your reply. > Was it Tim Shirley (sorry if it was not you Tim) who analysed the post few years back on a monthly basis showing the number of members v the number of posters? Anyway, some one did and the ratio was very low. In any case David I am always wary of someone who purports to speak for the majority without having any reliable means to test it. > > Regards > > Dave L > > ------------------------------ > Check out The Great Australian Pay Check now Want to know what your boss > is paid? <http://clk.atdmt.com/NMN/go/157639755/direct/01/> > > _______________________________________________ > Aus-soaring mailing list > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net > To check or change subscription details, visit: > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring >
_______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
