--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Joe" <geezerfreak@> wrote: > <snip> > > Barry, on the other hand, I find highly amusing and often > > insightful. > > See, that's what I was trying to get at. I have > *never* found his posts insightful, since well before > there was a "feud" per se. Sometimes he's mildly > amusing, but most of his attempts at humor are labored > and leaden. > > As I've said frequently, he's a sloppy thinker. His logic > is poor; he bases his theses on unfounded (and often > unspoken) assumptions; he rarely considers alternative > possibilities. He's prone to hyperbole so extreme it > invalidates his points; he uses weasel words to load his > arguments; he uses ambiguity to pivot from one step to > another when there's really no connection. And of course > there's his constant dishonesty, not to mention his > inconsistency from one day (or even one post) to the > next, as well as the same mantra-like themes repeated > over and over again dressed up in different verbal > costumes as if they were brand-new "insights." > > Then there's the constant demonization of those who > don't agree with him. He can't seem to argue *for* > anything without at the same time putting down > anyone who believes differently. > > In most cases, what he appears to do is start from his > conclusion, what he wants to believe (or wants his > readers to believe), and then work backward to put > together a train of thought that seems to lead to that > conclusion--but only if you don't examine it too > closely. > > But he's very skilled with words; he knows how to make > what he's saying *sound* logical and persuasive. You > have to look past the fancy wordsmithing to the > structure and content of his arguments to see how > shallow and generally misbegotten they really are. All > flash and little substance. > > My penchant for analyzing his posts and pointing out > their shortcomings was what got the feud started way > back on alt.m.t. At first, we had actual debates on > substance, but he had such a hard time with those > that eventually he gave up and resorted to attacking > me personally instead. Now, that's *all* he does > where I'm concerned, while I continue to dismantle > his arguments on substance.
But from the above paragraphs and given how you feel about his posts and the manner in which he presents ideas and argues, why do you even read them? I know you "continue to dismantle his arguments on substance," but why? To me, it is certainly not as if Barry is changing as a result. If there is anything to learn from all these years of back and forth, I don't think Barry has learned it. Nor does he care to. In fact, this type of interaction usually makes people grasp more strongly at their own style rather than changing. So in my opinion, your posts are making Barry yet more irritating to you. Do you think your posts have had any effect on Barry at all? I imagine that you are continuing to read and respond to his posts for other reasons. Do you enjoy the process itself? Do you feel compelled to read his posts? Could you just not read Barry? > > > He, Rick and Curtis are the "must read" posts when > > I'm looking in on FFL. > > Curtis is always a must-read. I agree, Curtis has lots to say and says it beautifully. He is kind of wise, I would say. Obviously I don't always > agree with him, but there's often more insight in a > single one of his posts than Barry manages in many > months' worth. Rick has a knack for very straightforward, > no-nonsense presentation, complete with supporting facts. >
