This and That
Bells said:
Have you ever known someone to get trapped in their own joke? I mean, if ever there was a time for a character to come up for air, this might be it. I admit, Geoff finally confused me.
You know, the sad thing is that you're actually serious.
I mean, yeah, that's what I'm thinking, too, but there's this part of my mind that just screams, "No! It can't be!"
• • •
GeoffP said:
God, if it's the event I'm thinking of, who was it that got that 3-day revoked?
Depends on which explanation you go by.
I recall what you're referring to, and, yes, I did appreciate the sense of that individual. But, while you are indeed recalling the correct event, I think, I'm referring to a different aspect.
At the front end of that incident I was having a lovely discussion with S.A.M. about the American psyche as it related to Blackwater/Xe. Yet in the middle of all that heat, I heard much about how S.A.M. is just this evil troll.
I go through it with my colleagues frequently; Bells is more directly aware of what I mean, since she gets to see those exchanges as they happen. But I've pointed out several times over the years that the image of S.A.M. as this intractable, perpetually hostile troll just doesn't add up. I have civilized, enlightening conversations with her quite frequently. I happened to be having one when some random detractor stepped up and started beating his chest at her.
Kind of like you, this time; I was having a perfectly civilized discussion with S.A.M. when you decided to object to what really does seem a fairly obvious point about identity politics. And you kept insisting.
So what I'm actually reiterating in that paragraph, Geoff, is that it's possible to have progressive, informative, civilized discussions with S.A.M. It's an important point to me because one of the longstanding arguments against S.A.M. has essentially works out to, "The sheer volume of complaints is significant, even if the content cannot be verified." That is, if enough people complain loudly enough, action will be taken against S.A.M. regardless of what the actual facts are.
And yet, as you read it, apparently that point is entirely about you. Don't get me wrong; yes, you are related to the point. But the paragraphs following the one you've quoted are also important to the point. It might be that Bells disagrees with my assessment, but she knows by those paragraphs pretty much exactly what I mean.
You do not, as you do not have access to all of those records. So let me assure you:
That paragraph is not specifically about you, Geoff.
Here, look: I'll do you a solid. 'Splain where you're going with this civilly and we can talk. I've had a taste, and it isn't where you think it is, but fire away.
Actually, in truth, I'd be happy to give it a whirl, but I don't know what you're asking. That is, do you want to know what the point actually is, where your reading comprehension fails you, or how I justify myself within the confines of your very nearly delusional assertion of indisputable truth?
The first, short version, is simple enough: Apparently, your need to disagree with me led you to complain about the suggestion that there is more to an American Jewish identity politic than mere Judaism.
The second, longer version involves the whole post you've quoted an excerpt of. If you attend the paragraphs in the order and according to the relationships intended, you'll find that what I'm describing is a simple proposition of intellectual dishonesty. That is, there is a set of assertions on record, with some degree of detail. You have disagreeed with those assertions and details, but over the course of a single sentence that becomes a cornerstone for the entire argument that follows. That argument chose to not address the details on record, but, simply, assert a counterpoint justified by the declaration of, "
There is no alternate configuration, I'm afraid."
Statement #1, without which your entire review of events falls apart, is only true because you say so. If you read post
#91 above, you will find a detailed assertion regarding the meaning and presentation of the topic post.
You have asserted a counterpoint, and the
only argument in favor of that counterpoint is that
there is no alternate configuration.
The third is a mess that, frankly, would exceed the comprehension you've demonstrated here at Sciforums. But essentially, Geoff, you need to remember how the components of something lend to its whole. That is, you cannot necessarily isolate paragraphs in a vacuum. Take a look at what you quoted in
#138, Geoff. Of
course you need more explanation, since you're only dealing with a third of the argument. Take a look at the reminder you quoted in
#137. Of
course you're missing the point, and thus dedicating your response to yourself; you're only attending between a quarter and a third of the argument, which argument is itself part of a larger consideration. So, for now, I can only encourage you to remember that the words make up the sentences make up the paragraphs make up the chapters make up the story. Quoting people accurately at Sciforums is actually a bit tough, all things considered. Not only do so many people write poorly, but reading comprehension as a human institution is in decline in the U.S. right now. I can only encourage you to remember your reading comprehension skills.
For instance, if you follow the paragraph you quoted from my post to Bells, you'll find that the next three paragraphs continue to discuss a specific issue, which in that case was the difference between what takes place and how people remember an event.
And, yes, that post did come back to you eventually, but that's separate from your need to remind us all of your magnanimity.
And just because you did the right thing in 2009 does not automatically mean you're doing the right thing now.
