Hello Philosophers

[Beingof1]

Cuzinbasil:

I am quite sure that miracles happen.

But if you think it is okay to encourage magical thinking, I'll have to stand corrected.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

you are so quick to criticize.

Thank God for that! Which others I attacked and do you think they did mind?

I. Alex runs rings around you, so fast that your "gooey" mind cannot keep up.

I always had a good understanding with him and still have, outside the forum. Our exchanges as well as our real differences might have gone over your head though, I wouldn't be surprised.

But this kind of hubris is common among autodidacts, as is the persistent, defensive projection of inadequacy.

Interesting. You sound uncertain though using famous weasel words like "is common among".

The sense of humor is fine, thanks - which you would know if you had one. BTW - if you are going to lecture me on my own language, try not to say things like "misunderestimating,"

You got to be kidding!

[cousinbasil]

Cuzinbasil:

I am quite sure that miracles happen.

But if you think it is okay to encourage magical thinking, I'll have to stand corrected.

Your point?

[cousinbasil]

Interesting. You sound uncertain though using famous weasel words like "is common among".

Famous weasel? Like Montagu Sylver?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Just in case your humorous attempt was intended to mask ignorance about your own weasel statement on "autodidacts": weasel words.

By the way, what made you think I was autodidact and in which specific subject? You're muddying the waters again. It's called "red herring". Perhaps learn first about logical fallacies before opening your mouth about something again.

[cousinbasil]

I thought you didn't read my posts, Deebs.

[cousinbasil]

famous weasel words like "is common among"

How do weasel words get to be famous? Just curious. I mean, if there is a list somewhere of weasel words that somehow got famous, I'd like to see it so I don't make that mistake again. To think a simple phrase like "is common among" could be on such a list! Who knew?

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Son of cousins, let me demonstrate your comprehension disabilities again:

I thought you didn't read my posts, Deebs.

No, I wrote they are to me not worth reading and also something about a filter active when I'm logged in to enable me to flip through long or boring discussions much easier.
Can't you see how you subtly change your memory, my words even for this unimportant issue? It's called lying. That's what you are of course: a liar! Or at least very sloppy with truth.

famous weasel words like "is common among"

How do weasel words get to be famous? Just curious.

By being widely known, at least to those familiar with debating stuff, or with a dictionary!

if there is a list somewhere of weasel words that somehow got famous

Yes, I did already link you to a page with a list of common examples. But try a few years of serious discussion and the list will not contain surprises anymore.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: I thought you didn't read my posts, Deebs.
Diebert: No, I wrote they are to me not worth reading and also something about a filter active when I'm logged in to enable me to flip through long or boring discussions much easier.

No, what you wrote was this:

When logged in you and many other posters who write too frequent and too irrelevant at this forum are filtered out by my settings.

One could assume if your settings filter me out, then you cannot actually read my posts. Would you say this is a logical inference? You cannot admit it because then you would have to take back this:

Can't you see how you subtly change your memory, my words even for this unimportant issue? It's called lying. That's what you are of course: a liar! Or at least very sloppy with truth.

This is a perfect example of the very thing I said you do all the time. You criticize others for the very things you do - it makes it so easy to pick out your mistakes in logic and faulty memory. You say I muddy the waters - that's because all I have to do is a little stirring and you trap yourself in contradictions like this one. You are easily confused, my friend. And obviously I know you read my posts because you are looking for things to pounce upon. I was being facetious - over your head?

Diebert: ...famous weasel words like "is common among"
cousinbasil: How do weasel words get to be famous? Just curious.
Diebert: By being widely known, at least to those familiar with debating stuff, or with a dictionary!

First, most dictionaries do not label any words as "weasel" words. Second, a thing does not get to be famous by being widely known. That's what being famous means - but again, English is not your first language. It's like saying a thing gets to be big by being large.

Yes, I did already link you to a page with a list of common examples.

Yes, I checked that list. If "is common among" was on the list, I must have missed it. Are you sure it was on that list? Maybe there is another list you are mistaking it for? My point was that if you accuse me of using "weasel words" and give one as a "famous" example of being one, you should be able to say why you think so. Otherwise, I could pick some expression you have used and claim the same thing. What's the point?

But try a few years of serious discussion and the list will not contain surprises anymore.

I have no doubt you consider yourself some kind of serious debater or thinker.

That would make one of us.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

One could assume if your settings filter me out, then you cannot actually read my posts. Would you say this is a logical inference?

Or perhaps you didn't think of the possibility that I might not be logged in all the time so that the filter is not always there. Apart from that I have still the possibility to click on the cloaked posts if I want to, for example when I try to track the context of a discussion. This doesn't change my opinion about your posts not worthy of reading. I think I will include as well " not worthy of pointing out the painful inconsistencies and nonsense in them". Of course only after this:

First, most dictionaries do not label any words as "weasel" words.

I was talking about the definition of "famous". Another joke over your head I'm afraid. Why do I bother, as the Dutch saying goes:" you're looking for nails at low tide", thinking claiming a find makes you look clever somehow.

Second, a thing does not get to be famous by being widely known.

You asked a rather lame question about how do weasel words get to be famous. As I wrote: try a few years of serious discussion,knucklehead!. When many people actually do that and compare notes, certain patterns get known and described. Perhaps you should study those more carefully.

By the way, Alex, who still can't take his eyes of this forum of course, wrote me this week wondering why his name was brought up when I was talking about crowing Jew. Indeed, I mean everybody knows Alex is a balking Jew while Victor was the crowing Jew. But they both are still operating in a way higher league than you are. Good luck finding a more patient person explaining your limits to you. Good friends are hard to find.

[Tomas]

One could assume if your settings filter me out, then you cannot actually read my posts. Would you say this is a logical inference?

Or perhaps you didn't think of the possibility that I might not be logged in all the time so that the filter is not always there. Apart from that I have still the possibility to click on the cloaked posts if I want to, for example when I try to track the context of a discussion.

Another way is when a person is filtered out (paco, for instance) and cousinbasil replies to one of her posts then paco's quote would also show up.

[guest_of_logic]

Blair is abusive but quite reasonable, while you are nicer, smarter but probably a psychopath.

Hey steady on, there is none smarter than I :).

JizaBelle has sociopathic tendencies, rather than psycho.

It's completely and utterly plain to anyone with even vaguely a half, a quarter, a tenth, hell, a billionth of an iota of idea of what Elizabeth is about that neither of you have the first hint of a scent of a whiff of a gist of a vague, floating, wishful henid as to who she really is. Sociopath or psychopath? You guys are so off the mark that it's sick. Really, there's nothing else that can be said. Categorising a person in the exact opposite way that they deserve to be categorised simply because you resent her approach can be labelled in no other way than sick.

[cousinbasil]

Another way is when a person is filtered out (paco, for instance) and cousinbasil replies to one of her posts then paco's quote would also show up.

Paco is a she?

[cousinbasil]

I was talking about the definition of "famous". Another joke over your head I'm afraid.

I was indicating your clumsy use of syntax, do not be so offended. I am actually doing you a favor. Your thinking is sometimes muddled and using proper syntax would help you express yourself more efficiently and assist you in figuring out what it is you are really trying to say before actually writing it.

As I wrote: try a few years of serious discussion,knucklehead!.

As I wrote, you are indeed a legend in your own mind.

Indeed, I mean everybody knows Alex is a balking Jew while Victor was the crowing Jew. But they both are still operating in a way higher league than you are.

I have not read many of Vicdan's posts, so perhaps I can be forgiven for not knowing what "kind of Jew" he is. But I have read Alex and maybe it's not clear to you how he toys with you. I hope he sees fit to return at some point as I do enjoy reading his thoughts.

And it is interesting to me that if I have anything remotely positive to observe about another poster here at GF I am "sucking up" according to you, while at the same time the slightest criticism of your posts gets you so ruffled. Again, your self-image may be too wrapped up in your perceived persona here - I really am only trying to help you get over yourself.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Sociopath or psychopath? You guys are so off the mark that it's sick. Really, there's nothing else that can be said.

Laird, I'm not sure why you feel the need to go on about these off-the-cuff remarks as if they were suddenly some serious psychological assessments or character judgement.

But if you really want a more thoughtful and reasonable qualification I can give you one. When I said E. was nicer and smarter, I decided to balance this with a reference to the neurotic and compulsive elements which to me stand out in many of her posts. About her personally I don't know that much so I thought it would be clear it was mostly hyperbole and tongue-in-cheek. Do I have to walk on egg shells here, at this forum? And just after I explained to you I insult especially my friends or at least those I trust can understand?

Anyway. There is a serious angle to this although I doubt the use of DSM-IV based qualifications. One could theorize about the common cause of so-called PTSD, borderline personality and the anti-social personalities. Although they often represent different ends of a behavioral spectrum, it might very well be two sides of the same issue: a recoil from an imprint made, an experience which became intense suffering, and a revenge or a complex "justice" is in order. That revenge can be directed outwards or inwards. And sometimes the distinctions blurs, as if the self is too damaged, the lines faded.

Anyone hating and punishing themselves is in terms of capability only a hair width away from punishing or invading others. This dynamic is such an universal drama that to me it's silly to talk about disorder this or that. We all have "sociopath" tendencies, like we all suffer, out of ignorance and tend towards revenge and justice which never realizes. Perhaps this context, even if you'd not understand all of it, could at least clarify why I have so little problem calling someone nice, smart and possibly psychopath while perhaps thinking of something different than someone reading it feeling protective.