Our friend from Minnesota by way of the Staked Plains hardly need my defense, but I have yet to see him (I assume him) lose his temper, hide the ball, engage in dishonest argument, resort to malicious name calling, weasel wording or nit picking. Would that I could say that about others here, myself included. Two people on these boards have engaged me personally by E-mail. Elucidator was one of them. Of all the people here who I’d guess would be fun to spend an evening with in the company of a couple beers our friend is close to the top of the list.
Like some famous guy once said: If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Well, this has been a hoot! So many fulsome praises! Its like a Sally Fields moment except I don’t want to puke!
Mark Twain
It was also oddly instructive…
I realized that I did not remember the character! And I have read every word, every graven monolith of sententious claptrap….and I have forgotten it all! I barely remember who John Galt was, but don’t remember which book! Was it Atlas Buggered? Or The Fountainpen? But my recollection of such as Kurt Vonnegut, Barbara Tuchman, Mark Twain are as clear as if I read them this morning!
Hell, if I had known that the decrepitude of memory that comes with age had such beneficial aspects, I would have lived faster! I plowed through six volumes of Hermann Hesse before it occurred to me to wonder why all of his heroes had long eyelashes. As for Carlos Castaneda……well, perhaps time to pull the discreet curtain…
Gone. Entirely gone. Was it Steppenwolf who sought the Yankee way of knowledge? No idea. Was it Galt who’s notion of sexual intimacy is pretty much defined by “date rape”? Poof. Gone. no existan
Cool.
Thanks again, guys, I’ve had birthday parties that weren’t half as much fun as this. I shall endeavor not to become insufferably pleased with myself. I make no guarantees.
PS to Uke: I am in consultation with the firm of Howe, Green and Gelding regarding restraining orders. Until such is resolved, please be advised that I am armed, near-sighted, and easily startled.
The OP seems to be pitting Elucidator for making a bad argument.
Elucidator was basically giving the OP in the other thread as a given that the entire scope of allegations of oil for food were correct, and proceeding straight to questions as to its degree of relevancy.
This might be a wise tactic if he feels the OP is going to try to draw generalizations outside of the scope of context of oil for food (which he appears he was.)
Well, I sent it to Dewey, of course. He said make it out to “cash” or it wouldn’t be technicly legal. I said I didn’t understand and he said something about the “text” of my “original intent”. Or something.
Toohey. Classic Toohey. It must be so internalized that you don’t you even realize it. Keep up the good work. Sooner or later there’s going to be a casting call for a remake of… what was the name of that book again? It has slipped my mind! Maybe a glass of coitreau will jog my memory.
What I’ve seen elucidator do when his back is up against the rhetorical wall, rather than straightforwardly concede the argument, is go off into a rhapsody of flowery prose. This is almost certain to include the words, “Balderdash, sir!” and “Tommyrot!” I’d be happier if the guy would just concede the point when he is honestly bested – which, I admit, doesn’t happen too often, because luc is smart enough to know what he’s doing as far as seldom committing seriously to sinking argumentative ships.
That’s not “dishonest argument,” I guess, but it’s not shining honesty either.
Every poster oin this board, from left to right, would do well to read and emulate Left Hand of Dorkness. He may not be the tops in devastatingly funny quips, but he approaches an argument willing to forthrightly concede it if he loses.
