eric@snark.UUCP (11/26/87)
I have now been attacked three separate times for stating my opinion that
MESmith is out of his mind, and I understand there is a fourth one waiting
in alt.flame which ought to be good for a chuckle or two.
The attackers evidently didn't read my posting very carefully, or else I
was less clear than I thought in stating my opinions. For the benefit of
anyone else who may be confused, if they care, let me state the following:
1. I do not claim to have medical authority nor an MD's training; my
statements are therefore to be considered opinions, at best informed
opinions.
2. I do not think MESmith is evil, wrotten, wrong, stupid or a no-good-shit.
I *do* think he is a person who, under great stress, has substantially
lost contact with consensus reality.
3. I believe there is a lesson here in the evils of sexism -- not the one
MESmith and his indignant defenders would have us draw, but a sobering
reminder of the costs of anti-female prejudice in the damage it does
to people who might otherwise be well-integrated, contributing and even
outstanding members of society.
MESmith's defenders really amuse me. They rake me over the coals for
making "strong statements about a person I've never even met" while implicitly
defending his right to scoriate entire *classes* of victims that have never
even heard of him -- most libertarians, most USENET sysops, most males.
You know, I think I have more respect for MESmith than they do -- *I'm* willing
to treat him as though he's responsible for his behavior.
Finally, I promise that I will issue a public retraction of my expressed
belief that MESmith is a delusional paranoid when he retracts his
reiterated claim that he has been deliberately victimized by a nationwide
conspiracy of sysops intent on suppressing his freedom of expression.
Until that happens, I intend to direct all flames on this topic to /dev/null
without replying.
[P.S.: My use of male gender pronouns for MESmith is intended to respect "his"
expressed wishes, but should not be taken as an endorsement of "his"
socio-semantic theories.]
--
Eric S. Raymond
UUCP: {{seismo,ihnp4,rutgers}!cbmvax,sdcrdcf!burdvax,vu-vlsi}!snark!eric
Post: 22 South Warren Avenue, Malvern, PA 19355 Phone: (215)-296-5718daveb@geac.UUCP (11/30/87)
In article <288@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP writes: >I have now been attacked three separate times for stating my opinion that >MESmith is out of his mind... >1. I do not claim to have medical authority nor an MD's training; my > statements are therefore to be considered opinions, at best informed > opinions. As you are not a medically trained individual, you can't depend on a title to make your opinion believable, have to demonstrate the validity of your argument. I submit you have not done so. >2. I do not think MESmith is evil, wrotten, wrong, stupid or a no-good-shit. > I *do* think he is a person who, under great stress, has substantially > lost contact with consensus reality. The last two words are critical: the argument is from consensus. While this is (well, was) traditional in psycology, it is not the only definition of reality. The consensus on the shape of the earth (flat), the causes of madness (demonic possession), etc., have often been wrong. To summarize "humans are as fallible collectively as individually". > >3. I believe there is a lesson here in the evils of sexism -- not the one > MESmith and his indignant defenders would have us draw, but a sobering > reminder of the costs of anti-female prejudice in the damage it does Now *there's* something I can agree with. -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.
era@killer.UUCP (12/04/87)
In article <1902@geac.UUCP> daveb@geac.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) writes: >In article <288@snark.UUCP> eric@snark.UUCP writes: >>I have now been attacked three separate times for stating my opinion that Your opinion? Is that your personal opinion, and the personal opinions of some other individuals, or a collective agreement by everyone? Obviously the people who you claim attacked you did not agree. They have differing opinions. So there is no collective agreement, no consensus, just differing opinions. And these differing opinions do not even divide according to gender lines. >> I *do* think he is a person who, under great stress, has substantially >> lost contact with consensus reality. > The last two words are critical: the argument is from consensus. Exactly, David. Eric's argument is from consensus. Yet there is no collective agreement as to the meaning of the word consensus. >> MESmith and his indignant defenders would have us draw, but a sobering So there is not only an attempt to discredit me, but an attempt to discredit anyone who does not agree with Eric. When Eric states a personal opinion, that is a consensus, and anyone who disagrees, is "indignant," that is, emotional rather than logical. Eric could have claimed to hold a traditional opinion, a majority opinion, or possibly even an official opinion, but when someone claims that they have a consensus, while admitting that there are people who disagree with them, a fact which indicates that they do not have a consensus or collective agreement at all, there is a fault in their thinking. Eric may not be aware of the meaning of the word consensus, or Eric may have difficulty with logic, particularly when the issues involved arouse strong emotional reactions. But to claim to have a consensus when no consensus exists, is irrational at best, a deliberate political ploy at worst, and, in any case, not behavior appropriate to one who would assume the responsibility of counselling others. --Mark