That is some weak logic chopping Chaco. You would not last five minutes in a seminar room with good minds. Even if you are not "young" in years, you certainly are unsophisticated and "young" in mind.
Probably due to my humble roots. Hey, isn't this thread about books? Why am I your topic?
Ironically, you assail my "weak logic" as you write two sentences comprising nothing but one of the most common fallacies in logic, the ad hominem, aka a personal attack. Back to Logic 101 for you. You throw a lot of shade, Sunshine.
I'm not defending Lasch, but why are you so vigorously (some might read it as "almost desperately") defending the dumb assertion that anything pre-Net is irrelevant?? And defending it without actually defending it? If this is your routine response to criticism, I'm fairly certain you're no stranger to ad hominems.
"...why are you so vigorously (some might read it as 'almost desperately') defending the dumb assertion that anything pre-Net is irrelevant??"
Where is the "vigor?"
Who are the "some?"
Where is the "almost desperately"?
Where am I "defending" anything?
Why would you describe my assertion as "dumb?"
Where did I write that "anything Pre-Net is irrelevant?"
I didn't. You did. If you were a logical person, you would know that your trolling sentence is not only holier than Swiss cheese - It's exemplary of another of the most common logical fallacies - The Strawman - as abundantly illustrated by your "anything" troll.
"And defending it without actually defending it?"
Ironically, exactly (I guess)!
"If this is your routine response to criticism, I'm fairly certain you're no stranger to ad hominems."
Or trolls. I don't have a "routine response to criticism." Your entire post is clearly a long troll. It's totally off topic, much like the post I replied to in the first place. But thanks for recognizing that this thread is about me.
Is this your "routine response?" Haha!
Of course I'm no stranger to ad hominems. I just pointed several out before reading your troll. Comprehension issue?
"Why am I your topic?" Because you offered an incorrect and superficial assessment of a man I met and had some discussion with; and who I found to have an excellent mind. Although now, these many years later, I would talk to about very different topics. Time is like that. I am certain he would have evolved also. For someone who prefers "facts" to "opinions" all you had to offer on that piece were ill formed opinions, baseless conclusions, and scurrilous assertions about someone much more talented than you that you were too lazy to make the effort to understand. Look back on what you have written and think about who engages in ad-hominen. You may want to look up non-sequitur while you are at it.
"...all you had to offer on that piece were ill formed opinions, baseless conclusions, and scurrilous assertions about someone much more talented than you..."
Incorrect. I read the long review in the link provided by the poster to which I replied. So, not baseless - solid basis. I doubt you read the review.
But why would a logical person like you see this forum as a "talent" contest? It doesn't make sense. BTW, I especially like the "scurrilous assertions" part. I now realize that reading Lasch makes people mean and illogical. He must have been a bad person.
"...you were too lazy to make the effort to understand."
What can I say? I was tired. I had to take a nap after reading that long-winded review.
"Look back on what you have written and think about who engages in ad-hominen."
Easy enough.:
"You would not last five minutes in a seminar room with good minds."
"...you certainly are unsophisticated and 'young' in mind."
"...you were too lazy..."
Sunshine 3, Chaco 0.
"You may want to look up non-sequitur..."
You already failed the logic test, over and over. On the plus side, you're mildly entertaining.
"I don't even know how to respond to someone who thinks 'pre-Net' is 'no longer relevant'..."
Yet you do, thereby negating your assertion. Not logical. This is a near perfect example of doublethink. Check Orwell for the definition.
"...you must young, and not well read."
Wrong and wrong again. Sorry, 2 wrongs do not make a right, Sunshine.
That is some weak logic chopping Chaco. You would not last five minutes in a seminar room with good minds. Even if you are not "young" in years, you certainly are unsophisticated and "young" in mind.
"...you certainly are unsophisticated..."
Probably due to my humble roots. Hey, isn't this thread about books? Why am I your topic?
Ironically, you assail my "weak logic" as you write two sentences comprising nothing but one of the most common fallacies in logic, the ad hominem, aka a personal attack. Back to Logic 101 for you. You throw a lot of shade, Sunshine.
I'm not defending Lasch, but why are you so vigorously (some might read it as "almost desperately") defending the dumb assertion that anything pre-Net is irrelevant?? And defending it without actually defending it? If this is your routine response to criticism, I'm fairly certain you're no stranger to ad hominems.
"...why are you so vigorously (some might read it as 'almost desperately') defending the dumb assertion that anything pre-Net is irrelevant??"
Where is the "vigor?"
Who are the "some?"
Where is the "almost desperately"?
Where am I "defending" anything?
Why would you describe my assertion as "dumb?"
Where did I write that "anything Pre-Net is irrelevant?"
I didn't. You did. If you were a logical person, you would know that your trolling sentence is not only holier than Swiss cheese - It's exemplary of another of the most common logical fallacies - The Strawman - as abundantly illustrated by your "anything" troll.
"And defending it without actually defending it?"
Ironically, exactly (I guess)!
"If this is your routine response to criticism, I'm fairly certain you're no stranger to ad hominems."
Or trolls. I don't have a "routine response to criticism." Your entire post is clearly a long troll. It's totally off topic, much like the post I replied to in the first place. But thanks for recognizing that this thread is about me.
Is this your "routine response?" Haha!
Of course I'm no stranger to ad hominems. I just pointed several out before reading your troll. Comprehension issue?
Good moniker, Trollificus.
Troll score:
Chaco - 4, Trollificus - 1
"Why am I your topic?" Because you offered an incorrect and superficial assessment of a man I met and had some discussion with; and who I found to have an excellent mind. Although now, these many years later, I would talk to about very different topics. Time is like that. I am certain he would have evolved also. For someone who prefers "facts" to "opinions" all you had to offer on that piece were ill formed opinions, baseless conclusions, and scurrilous assertions about someone much more talented than you that you were too lazy to make the effort to understand. Look back on what you have written and think about who engages in ad-hominen. You may want to look up non-sequitur while you are at it.
"...all you had to offer on that piece were ill formed opinions, baseless conclusions, and scurrilous assertions about someone much more talented than you..."
Incorrect. I read the long review in the link provided by the poster to which I replied. So, not baseless - solid basis. I doubt you read the review.
But why would a logical person like you see this forum as a "talent" contest? It doesn't make sense. BTW, I especially like the "scurrilous assertions" part. I now realize that reading Lasch makes people mean and illogical. He must have been a bad person.
"...you were too lazy to make the effort to understand."
What can I say? I was tired. I had to take a nap after reading that long-winded review.
"Look back on what you have written and think about who engages in ad-hominen."
Easy enough.:
"You would not last five minutes in a seminar room with good minds."
"...you certainly are unsophisticated and 'young' in mind."
"...you were too lazy..."
Sunshine 3, Chaco 0.
"You may want to look up non-sequitur..."
You already failed the logic test, over and over. On the plus side, you're mildly entertaining.