OT: NYT article on, among other things, the limits of our ability to acknowledge what we don’t know

[eavesdropper]

[quote=desmond]E, you realized what you were doing, did it anyway, and then tried to cover it up with your “juice”. As soon as I saw SP analogy, I rolled my eyes and lost interest, great job on an otherwise good thread. But remember, your different.[/quote]

desmond, the last thing that I would attempt to do on Piggs is to “cover up”. My experience has been that most Piggs on this board can sniff out a coverup better than the genuine article can sniff out French truffles.

I knew what I was doing: citing an example of a well-known public figure who I believed to be afflicted with this particular disorder. It helped to have someone of universal identifiability since, as I pointed out, the Piggs don’t know my brother-in-law, or my former employee, or the job candidate I once interviewed, all of whom are similarly impaired. My “juice”, as you term it, was because I recognized that there might be people who would use it as an opportunity to get political (and wanted to discourage them), or that there would be hypersensitive readers who would seize on the mere mention of a name as evidence of a threadjack. I’m sorry (you don’t know how truly sorry) that the only one I could think of at the time was Ms. Palin. Since then, I have thought of another identifiable figure, but, he too, is from the world of politics, so I will refrain from adding his name.

If I had used Barney Frank, instead of Ms. Palin, would you have gone on reading a post in which you had been interested? How about Bill Maher or Glen Beck? They’re not politicians, but they are readily-identifiable figures in political discussion of a polarized nature? What about George Clooney or Derek Jeter or Rachel Ray or Bill Gates?

There’s a wide chasm between using the name of a political figure in a post, and deliberately attempting to politicize the thread. I believe that it was readily apparent that I was not trying for the latter. Does this mean that there will be across-the-board policing of threads, with expulsion threatened to the poster who presumes to mention a politician’s name when trying to demonstrate a (nonpolitical) point?

I’m sorry that the mere mention of Ms. Palin’s name, and my linking her with the disorder, caused you to stop reading. I don’t know you, and I am unacquainted with your political beliefs and preferences. However, I will say that I make it a point to seek out articles, message boards, and other sources that are in opposition to mine. I’m quite comfortable with my beliefs, and do not require reinforcement of them. However, there is always the chance that my beliefs are based on erroneous or false information, or have been influenced by severely biased journalists. Hearing or reading opinions and information that are in direct opposition to mine, unpleasant as it can be at times, does not threaten me. It can do only two things: (1) sway my opinion by providing me with evidentiary information to the contrary, or (2) reinforce my faith in my opinion.

I learn an awful lot by searching out new and often conflicting sources of information on all kinds of subject matter. But what is constantly underscored by all of this learning, is the fact that there is still so much that I don’t know, and probably never will. It’s one of the reasons I’m so intrigued by the article.

[Jim Jones]

Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please!

[Jim Jones]

Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please!

[Jim Jones]

Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please!

[Jim Jones]

Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please!

[Jim Jones]

Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please!

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jim Jones]Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please![/quote]

Jim: Exactly. In Eavesdropper’s defense, she’s a very intelligent poster, decidely not partisan and did an excellent job of explaining her choice of using Sarah Palin (and in a way that was NOT a political threadjack).

Desmond, however, cannot seem to either grasp this, or is unwilling to accept a well-reasoned and well-explained rationale. I credit Eaves for trying to walk him through this, but, at some point, you have to realize that this person is either unable to understand or unwilling to listen.

Eavesdropper: Your attempt was well done, but clearly fell on deaf ears. Leave him be to go mutter in the corner now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jim Jones]Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please![/quote]

Jim: Exactly. In Eavesdropper’s defense, she’s a very intelligent poster, decidely not partisan and did an excellent job of explaining her choice of using Sarah Palin (and in a way that was NOT a political threadjack).

Desmond, however, cannot seem to either grasp this, or is unwilling to accept a well-reasoned and well-explained rationale. I credit Eaves for trying to walk him through this, but, at some point, you have to realize that this person is either unable to understand or unwilling to listen.

Eavesdropper: Your attempt was well done, but clearly fell on deaf ears. Leave him be to go mutter in the corner now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jim Jones]Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please![/quote]

Jim: Exactly. In Eavesdropper’s defense, she’s a very intelligent poster, decidely not partisan and did an excellent job of explaining her choice of using Sarah Palin (and in a way that was NOT a political threadjack).

Desmond, however, cannot seem to either grasp this, or is unwilling to accept a well-reasoned and well-explained rationale. I credit Eaves for trying to walk him through this, but, at some point, you have to realize that this person is either unable to understand or unwilling to listen.

Eavesdropper: Your attempt was well done, but clearly fell on deaf ears. Leave him be to go mutter in the corner now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jim Jones]Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please![/quote]

Jim: Exactly. In Eavesdropper’s defense, she’s a very intelligent poster, decidely not partisan and did an excellent job of explaining her choice of using Sarah Palin (and in a way that was NOT a political threadjack).

Desmond, however, cannot seem to either grasp this, or is unwilling to accept a well-reasoned and well-explained rationale. I credit Eaves for trying to walk him through this, but, at some point, you have to realize that this person is either unable to understand or unwilling to listen.

Eavesdropper: Your attempt was well done, but clearly fell on deaf ears. Leave him be to go mutter in the corner now.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jim Jones]Can we bury the Palin argument without choosing a winner and move back onto the original topic the thread was created to discuss?

A truce please![/quote]

Jim: Exactly. In Eavesdropper’s defense, she’s a very intelligent poster, decidely not partisan and did an excellent job of explaining her choice of using Sarah Palin (and in a way that was NOT a political threadjack).

Desmond, however, cannot seem to either grasp this, or is unwilling to accept a well-reasoned and well-explained rationale. I credit Eaves for trying to walk him through this, but, at some point, you have to realize that this person is either unable to understand or unwilling to listen.

Eavesdropper: Your attempt was well done, but clearly fell on deaf ears. Leave him be to go mutter in the corner now.

[jpinpb]

LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)

[jpinpb]

LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)

[jpinpb]

LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)

[jpinpb]

LOL. A truce. Except it was clear to me it wasn’t meant as political at all. e-dropper has been trying very hard to direct the posts to the topic at hand, even in explaining the use of SP.

I really hope it doesn’t come to not even the mere use of a politician’s name as an example. Should we not mention Clinton’s name as a soccer fan? I think as long as we don’t argue about parties and attacks, we are okay. This was a cerebral topic, IMO and not political.

(Pleeeassse do not deviate from the topic and discuss Clinton, least I suffer e-dropper’s fate – no cover ups or anything – nor wanting to discuss soccer here)

[Author]

Posts