<<- Previous Message		Next Message ->>
<- Previous In Thread		Next In Thread ->

Honestly, someone just needs to back down. Really, what's the harm in dropping the thread? Principle? It's really, really overrated.

I had a friend a while ago that I don't speak to who does things over principle. We don't talk any more because of his principles.

Really, if it's not about longwaves, just leave the threads be...

While I appreciate your contributions to this list, you and Bill bantering back and forth is unnecessary, and drags down the quality of the threads. Albeit conflict is healthy, mud flinging, on both sides, discourages longwaves discussion.

This thread is WAY Off Topic now... Let's all agree to drop it, kiss, and make up :)



-----Original Message-----
From: andean [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 8:01 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others

Costas,

Thank you! I guess what I write is not straightforward enough for all the readers. In refuting what you thought was me, you refuted my accurate portrayal of Tamblyn's positions.

I was saying---meant to say---"look what Tamblyn is saying: insisting on reasoned....is 'pseudo.' Ad hominem is.....'intellectual.' This is the substance of.....'parallel universe.' Right? Wrong!!! This is what Tamblyn is saying and he is wrong."

You have refuted these positions just as I have, but you thought it was I who was arguing them instead of seeing this as my intended paraphrase of the essence of Tamblyn. It is I constantly asking Tamblyn for reasoned answers, for which he accuses me of being "pseudo intellectual."

I have said that Mr. Tamblyn calling me "Limbaughesque" is an attempt to brand and stigmatize me, to discredit as heresy that which you cannot refute, without reasoning to demonstrate how I am like Limbaugh. Costas, you are correct. This is not ad hominem, strictly speaking, and I have talked about it as an attempt to stigmatize, in a separate paragraph as I recall.

Even though you and I agree, Costas, Tamblyn is back to the ad hominem, now the "fool" routine. Please see one of the most recent posts in this thread.

You do see my point, but you thought I was saying what was really an accurate portrayal of what Mr. Tamblyn is saying. So, according to Tamblyn, for agreeing with me, you are also, just like me, a "fool and pseudo intellectual," not to mention many other demeaning epithets. Let's see if he says it to you, too.

This is the second instance where my demonstration of Tamblyn's ludicrous statements has been mistaken as my own statement. I guess I'll have to lay it out very plainly in the future. I suspect if I did that, the simpatico with Tamblyn might lead to a different interpretation. That happened the first time . I'm surprised, Costas, with your education, that you did not see Mr. Tamblyn's tactics.

Dean

-----Original Message-----
From: Costas Piliotis [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:51 PM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others

Hmmmm... Dean, I've seem you cast plenty unsubstantiated assertions out there. You point fingers saying "That's a straw man" and "That's an ad-hominem" without providing any premises for your argument. You are not using the concepts correctly because you say make these assertions and don't substantiate them. You are definitely not applying any of the tennets of critical thinking in refuting others' arguments.

Let's analyze your argument:

"...Yeah, insisting on reasoned debate is “pseudo intellectual.” Ad hominem comment from the fallacious tongue is “intellectual.” This is the substance as well as the subject matter of the so called “parallel universe.”..."

I) insisting on reasoned debate is “pseudo intellectual.”
II) Ad hominem comment from the fallacious tongue is “intellectual.”
Therefore:
III) This is the substance as well as the subject matter of the so called “parallel universe.”

I ergo refute that:
I) is an assertion we cannot prove a priori. I actually believe the contrary, that insisting on reasoned debate is, in fact, intellectual.
II) By accussing someone of using "Limbaughism" as an attack on the man rather than the issue is fallacious. Bill stated the comment was like something Rush Limbaugh would say, hardly a solid statement, but not necessarily an ad-hominem. An ad-hominem is to attack the person instead of the issue.
III) Just makes no damn sense at all to me. Did this make sense to anyoen else? How many implicit premises do we need to throw between II and III to come to that conclusion?

Ergo I must conclude that you cannot be using the very tools you say to be using. I call you "pseudo intellectual" for using the term ad-hominem, a critical thinking term, out of context. You didn't use the term to refute another person's argument, you simply used it to look pretentious. I am simply calling a spade a spade.

Oh, and I got 98% in that philosophy class btw... Easiest class I've ever taken, with the hottest prof ever... Made me want to go in for extra help a lot :)


-----Original Message-----
From: andean [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:41 PM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others

Costas,

You are quite welcome.

I would say that a concept used correctly is not "pseudo," because there is no pretense that it is anything but what it was intended for. If I used a first year university calculus function in the proper manner, the manner for which it was intended, then I might have found a less complicated solution to a problem, but it would not be considered "pseudo." If I used the same function to distort a situation, then that would be misleading and "pseudo."

What is "pseudo" is to learn your first year university concepts (assuming you did! or later concepts) and to violate their logic without proof of the exception. More to the point, pseudo is also to distort so that you Appear consistent with these basic concepts, without withstanding the scrutiny they provide, and, thereby, to have created a sham or spurious argument.

There is a burden of proof on the person who purports to ignore the basic tenets of logic. If he cannot sustain that burden with a reasonable explanation, then he has a problem worthy of true genius to solve. Such a genius is wasting his time on an email discussion list, but I'm here to listen if he is here to make his case.

Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: Costas Piliotis [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 11:02 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others

Dean -> I don't wish to drag myself in the middle of this, yet I feel compelled to jump in and point out your use of language is equally "pseudo intellectual". It equates to that of a first year university student that's learned a few terms in a critical thinking class - "Ad Hominem", "Fallacious", and your earlier "Straw Man"... All those are products of a single first year university class...

=D

Have a nice day!



-----Original Message-----
From: andean [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 10:23 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward wil ling to spill the blood of others

Yeah, insisting on reasoned debate is “pseudo intellectual.” Ad hominem comment from the fallacious tongue is “intellectual.” This is the substance as well as the subject matter of the so called “parallel universe.”



Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 3:51 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



Nice try, Mike, but believe me all you're going to get for your trouble is more sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual, Limbaughesque whining in return. And of course an invitation to explain yourself -- which would only elicit more of the same from Poor Deanie One Note.



Bill


Mike Shea <>wrote:

And your analysis of Harkin's statements are presented where, with the necessary footnotes to prove them false and misleading.

Dean, all you do is whine................really is non productive and certainly sheds no light on anything except you self deception and denial.

Enough said.

Bring on the new material for analysis and reflection.

Mike



----- Original Message -----

From: andean

To:

Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 8:30 PM

Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re:Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



Once again, sadly, the list’s self styled “intellectual” hasn’t produced a single argument or analysis that holds water,---just fallacy, false argument by definition, and giggles. He has nothing to say that cannot be refuted. Instead, he attempts to ridicule,----and he appears to be proud of it. He does it very often. Does that look like a “twit” to you? I would say so. Uncanny how often one can demonstrate that a subtle, psychological characteristic like “projection” applies to Mr. Tamblyn’s behavior, when all he’s trying to do is simply demean and defame somebody else!! If I were he, with those characteristics, I would be embarrassed, if not ashamed. That is a major, Substantial difference between Mr. Tamblyn and me.



Meanwhile, all his fallacious speaking avoids the problem of defending Sen Harkin’s indefensible, double standard comments, which are the subject of the thread. Do you think that’s a coincidence? He quite simply has no argument there, either, to defend his post. Tamblyn the political strategist the “Terrier.” If he has no reasoned argument, I wonder why he likes it. Probably because he IS embarrassed---not by being impolite and unprincipled about debate and free expression, but by being exposed for having no argument ! It’s my fault for calling it out rather than his fault for doing it.



Dean





-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 4:41 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



Actually I think of my responses to Forburger's posts more as "ad twit" than "ad hominem." {ggg}


andean <>wrote:

Sadly, this Tamblyn speaks with fallacious tongue! His most common fallacy is ad hominem argument. He does a Lot of ad hominem “argument.” I think he knows it means attacking the author of the argument, rather than attacking the reasoning of his argument. It doesn’t matter. He does it anyway---he appears to like it all the more! He suggests I must be “stupid,” without his ever refuting my reason ing with his own analysis. To presume the authority to do such a thing seriously, without supporting logic, the intellectual vanity involved, is rather pseudo. Using fallacy is pseudo intellectual, becau se it perpetrates a deception (the fallacious conclusion), under the cover of intellectual authority. It is Mr. Tamblyn who possesses the characteristic that he merely asserts to b e mine. This is strong evidence of projection on his part.



In an adjacent post under this title Mr. Tamblyn suggests that if I stopped posting in a manner to which he objects, it would be “end of game.” Censorship is his goal, as he fancies himself an arbiter, without ever giving reasoning to support his positions. His overconfidence in his own knowledge, a complete faith, such that reasoned analysis is unnecessary to dispose of disagreement, such that another point of view should not even appear, is a conceit typical of the sophomore—more evidence he projects his own characteristics onto me.



“Limbaughesque” is simply an attempt to brand and stigmatize, to discredit as heresy that which he cannot refute with reasoning. (I seldom listen to the radio.)



Mr. Tamblyn must think he is “scoring points” with Somebody. I would not support such tactics. To me it is wholly ineffectual “argument”---of no consequence, and demeaning to Mr. Tamblyn by revealing the immaturity of his assertions with no analysis.



Perhaps he hopes that all these ad hominem posts, in lieu of discussing the original subject, Sen Harkin’s comments and double standard, for example, will exasperate me. I rather believe that if I took the initiative to try to insult Mr. Tamblyn in the way he is trying to insult me, such that he even informs the list that his unsupported “nonsense” will be “endless,” and that he thinks I must be “masochistic” to endure it all, then Mr. Tamblyn would regard me as quite immoderate and complain about it. He is now in his repetition mode, expecting repetition to convince readers, when he has never offered any analysis to prove what he says. (Repetition is also quick and glib.)



Mr. Tamblyn does not demonstrate the skills of forming reasoned argument, and he seems to hurl unsupported epithets, instead. I used to think he’s silly; now it seems very sad.



Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 9:02 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



How studpid does Mr. Forburger have to be to believe that he is scoring points with pseudo-intellectual, sophomoric, Limbaughesque nonsense like this? It boggles the mind!


(posted at 8:54 AM EDT, Friday, 27 August)


andean <>wrote:

That Mr. Tamblyn’s mirror is curved and distorted (must be why he’s giggling), as he uses my time lapse as something to seize upon—anything at all will do. There is certainly no reasoned refutation, so I guess I was right, if not immediate, in my answer. Is Mr. Tamblyn suggesting he always “turns the other cheek?” Couldn’t be. He has already announced, as if it were a Friendly statement, that he never will, and that the “nonsense” will be “endless,” and I noticed no objection to that from anybody.



As I said below, I only use terms when I can show that they apply. It seems weird when the ideas are new to you, which is why I do the reasoning each time. (Though it can be tedious, it is a good reality check.) After Mr. Tamblyn learns the concepts, they won’t seem so weird anymore, and he will likely incorporate them into his inim itable style, similar to his use of ad hominem, which was new to the list when I introduced it.



The point is that one can avoid doing the projecting or the straw man argument because he now understands the concepts, or he can avoid doing them by writing more rigorous and objective argument, without knowing the concepts. Instead, if he uses them, regardless of notice about them, and implies that it is weird for anybody to notice, I would be remiss to let such a patent falsehood stand unchallenged, as would anybody else on the list. Mr. Tamblyn seems to suggest it is my fault for seeing it, rather than his fault for doing it. Very nifty switch.



Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 12:00 PM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



Makin g up for lost time as it were -- projection and straw men all over the place! LOLOLOL!


andean <>wrote:

This is very, very sad. Mr. Tamblyn projects onto me that I, just as he does, would simply toss out a term, for appearances, to try to impress (or ridicule), when it really didn’t apply.



I guess Mr. Tamblyn hasn’t learned yet that there must be an argument before there is a straw man, because a straw man is a weakened statement of the opposition’s argument. Since Mr. Tamblyn made no arguments, just unsupported assertions, I noticed no straw men. Maybe one day he’ll understand its importance, and it won’t be so disturbingly trivial to him.



In case it hadn’t occurred to you, you can’t prove anything with a straw man. The straw man argument fails for all but the gullible. Any takers? Needless to say, in serious discussion the participants avoid such fallacies to ma intain credibility.



Having nothing to say but fallacies and unable to refute what I wrote, the resourceful Mr. Tamblyn giggles about what I did Not say, attempting to be the smug, condescending superior, without ever having attained the intellectual heights with solid argument. This self styled “intellectual” is most underwhelming and immature. I know a ten yr old who does this on occasion.



Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 7:20 PM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



Oh my God! He got through four paragraphs without a straw man. LOLOLOL!



andean <>wrote:

Once again, sadly, Mr. Tamblyn offers no reasoning for Any of his assertions. Hence, they are utterly of no consequence, yet, he fancies himself an “intellectual” critic of others! My, my. Now we know the source of the nonsense.



I’ve been asking the point (and reasoning) of his quote from the “Progress Report.” But, apparently, for Mr. Tamblyn, all is personal. Failing to give a reasoned response, he seems to feel he “saves face” by presuming to ridicule the Questioner with name calling. I have a little surprise for Mr. Tamblyn: the pleasure of this behavior is his, and, but for that, it is of no consequence. Projecting pleasure from this behavior onto me is false. The pleasure for me would be a reasoned answer, which I requested.



Characterizing me as “Limbaughesque” (I seldom listen to the radio), with no reasoning to demonstrate the connection, is a necessary step to discredit and stigmatize as heresy, that which you cannot reasonably refute. The actual argument would be far more legitimate, intellectually, but yo u have none. Once again, sadly, it’s personal, while claiming to be intellectual.



I answer Mr. Tamblyn because he bootstraps himself up to an intellectual arbiter of correct thinking, while he is unwilling or unable to show the reasoning for his assertions, except fallacies. Perhaps I give him undue credit for having real reasons for his presumptions, even if they are unconscious. The alternative, is it not? Is that he is foolish. Perhaps he simply senses, that for him, real reasoning about policy issues is “not…productive in any way at all”---and that’s “my” problem.



Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 1:20 PM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



Despite what I have said in previous post s (for example Message 6248 ), Mr. Forburger seems to be unable to accept the fact that I do not find it to be productive in any way at all to discuss anything at all with him.



If he persists in responding to my posts, I will persist in poking fun at him. Perhaps he takes some sort of masochistic pleasure in this, but my guess is that in his own sophomoric, pseudo-intellectual, Limbaughesque mind, he thinks he is scoring points of some sort. If I'm right, we are likely to see an endless stream of his nonsense.



andean <>wrote:

Once again, sadly, Mr. Tamblyn offers no reasoning worth mention, when asked the implication (the point) of his posting from the “Progress Report.” I guess he doesn’t know, which is not surprising. Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 11:21 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



One needs no more evidence than Numbers 1 through 9 to realize the truth of Number 10.. {g}

andean <>wrote:

Once again, sadly, Mr. Tamblyn offers no reasoning worth mention. Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2004 6:06 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Re: Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood of others



10) Dean Forburger should not attempt to draw inferences. LOLOL!


andean <>wrote:

What is the implication? 1) Cheney should advocate weakness? 2) Cheney should resign? 3) Only those who served in the military can be President? 4) Harkin was grossly negligent in n ot campaigning for Bush 43, a veteran Navy pilot, against draft dodger Clinton (who subsequently waged bombing campaigns without seeking congressional approval)? 5) Kerry should be elected because he was awarded 3 Purple Hearts and other decorations for valor for his action in 4 months of combat duty in the Navy “swift boats?” 6) Bush is not qualified to be Commander in Chief because he only learned to fly a fighter jet in the National Guard, seeing no combat duty? 7) The passive constituency, chiefly Democrats, is not qualified to make war decisions because they have not served in the military and will not? 8) The anti war constituency cann ot b e trusted to create a war s trategy? 9) What?? Dean



-----Original Message-----
From: William Tamblyn [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 7:45 AM
To:
Subject: [Longwaves Forum]Sen. Tom Harkin attacks Cheney as a coward willing to spill the blood o f others



From today's Progress Report:

IRAQ – VICE PRESIDENT 'COWARD': With Vice President Cheney continuing his attacks on his opponent's commitment to U.S. national security, some are fighting back by pointing out that Cheney's credentials in standing up for his own country are suspect. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), a Navy pilot during Vietnam, said "When I hea r [attacks] coming from Dick Cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it makes my blood boil. Those of us who served and those of us who went in t he military don't like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and he wants to be tough. Yeah, he'll be tough. He'll be tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's kids. But not when it was his turn to go." Cheney received five deferments to avoid serving in Vietnam. Cheney's first child, Elizabeth, was born nine months and two days after childless men were deemed eligible for the draft, allowing Cheney to receive a special deferment and avoid service. Meanwhile, President Bush has refused to release documents proving his whereabouts when he was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air National Guard.

_____

Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum

To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.



You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum

To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.


You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum

To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.



You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum

To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.


You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum

To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.



You are subscribed to the SafeHaven Longwaves Forum

To Unsubscribe, send a blank email to with the word Unsubscribe in the subject line.

<<- Previous Message		Next Message ->>
<- Previous In Thread		Next In Thread ->

« Opinions expressed at SafeHaven Forums are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the opinion of SafeHaven, its management, or the forum moderators. »