I wasn't really complaining. Sparring with Judy is a unique challenge. I do not think I ever quite got the hang of it, it is an ongoing learning process dealing with other minds, or what appears to be other minds (y'all could be robots or zombies). I do think your arguments tend to be spongy, and yours is another mind I do not fully grok.
Note however I do appear to be more courteous than Edg in responding to you. I think your comments there were well taken. So that you can respond to me with greater precision subsequently, I have a non-theistic view of the world, care about facts and scientific reasoning, and to the extent I am able, logic. I do think there is something to spirituality, but that all descriptions thereof are metaphorical, that we are dealing with a subject matter that lies outside the thinking process, but not outside experience, and that all statements concerning this are basically untrue but function as guideposts for experience and discovery much in the same way poetry and music provide avenues into experience that mere prose cannot fathom. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Xeno, you have to admit, this is sort of funny. For the last few months, we've had to hear how much you've missed sparring with Judy, and how inadequate those of us who you describe as being in that "other " camp of FFLers are, in engaging in intellectual discussions. But now you have your wish, (at least temporarily), and you're complaining again! Son, make up your mind. (-: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : No, I am not going to think about it. I probably would not score all that high anyway. Too bad there isn't an inventory for antagonism. I bet you would get a very high score on that. You are really back in form. The long vacation from here must have restored something that was depleted. Or perhaps whatever else you were doing came to an end. That is of course total speculation. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : P.S.: You may also want to think about justifying the use of the Wechsler IQ scale (assuming it can be determined for each FFL member) for evaluation of members, given the questions that have been raised about its utility (e.g., "to base a concept of intelligence on IQ test scores alone is to ignore many important aspects of mental ability"). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Criticism_and_views ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote : Intelligence Quotient (IQ) as determined by the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. That should be sufficient. And you propose to determine this measurement for FFL members (especially for those no longer posting here) how? Can you give me a recent example where I asked someone to define a term? I don't recall doing this 'frequently' but also my memory is not particularly good at this stage in my life. If you cannot do that we can consider this post trolling. (Is this the royal or the editorial "we"?) Now that you've defined what you mean by "stupidest" and "smartest," the question of why you haven't been willing to define them previously is obviously moot. But Steve's similar recollection should be sufficient to confirm mine, so let's just chalk up your inability to recall any such demands to your failing memory. If you first establish the fact, then you can wonder why, and perhaps I will give an answer. Actually I can wonder why regardless of whether the fact is first established. (Note that my wondering was not in the form of a question to you in any case. Perhaps the trolling is yours rather than mine here.) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <authfriend@...> wrote : I note that while you frequently demand that other people define their terms, you have not been willing to define "stupidest" (and now "smartest") that you've been harping on recently. Why would that be, I wonder?
