On 22 Mrz., 16:27, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 12:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 5:12 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/21/2012 8:40 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 21, 9:53 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/21/2012 12:22 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mar 21, 8:14 pm, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:02 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 21, 8:00 pm, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 11:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 10:59 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 6:13 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:27 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 17:19, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 9:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21 Mrz., 15:55, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/21/2012 12:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 21, 7:58 am, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 11:53 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 7:36 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 10:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 5:38 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/20/2012 8:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 20, 4:13 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 10:31 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:27 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/19/2012 9:39 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 4:29 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:37 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 7:15 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 11:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 19, 6:13 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 8:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 6:16 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/18/2012 1:07 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 18, 2:33 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 3:33 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 8:33 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 17, 3:50 pm, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/17/2012 1:05 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 6:12 am, George > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a hideously ugly fake word on its face, and the loathsome
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and false beliefs encapsulated in it are even more hideously ugly.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's ugly about the ideas involved in veganism?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False morality is inherently ugly, especially when it involves self
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exaltation and sanctimony.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that a desire to do something about animal suffering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is inherently ugly, and
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There isn't any such authentic desire. *It's really all about the ego
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and self-image of the so-called "vegan".
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This belief of yours strikes me as irrational.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. *You just say that to try to deflect attention from you
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own ego gratification and self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How exactly do you think I am trying to exalt myself
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Believing that you're "better" than omnivores based on what you don't eat.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You do.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you think that?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you ask pointless questions?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked the question because I was curious to know the answer.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really!?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Do you perhaps have some alternative explanation in mind?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem very willing to share your thoughts with me at the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moment.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't ask me to share them - you just asked me if I had any.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear what the alternative explanation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is that you have in mind, if you care to share it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll give some consideration (!) to sharing it.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I hope you will share it, because the chances are it will be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusingly stupid.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it almost certainly would not be.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Presumably you know what alternative explanation you have in mind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> why I asked the question.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say that it "almost certainly would
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not be" amusingly stupid, does that mean that there is some doubt in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your mind about the matter?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why do you say "almost certainly" as opposed to "certainly"?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you teaching beginning algebra in Germany?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I'm not doing any teaching, why?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then how are you ****ing away your time in Germany?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Doing research on topological twin buildings and topological groups.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> So, the telemarketing job was a bust, eh?
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't know why you keep carrying on about that telemarketing job.
>
> >>>>>>>> I thought it suited you.
>
> >>>>>>> You think a lot of things.
>
> >>>>>> Yes, and nearly all of them are high-quality thoughts. *Among them are
> >>>>>> what an arrogant and egotistical goof you are.
>
> >>>>> A lot of people who know me better than you do don't think I'm
> >>>>> arrogant and egotistical.
>
> >>>> I'm sure a lot of people think ****wit makes perfect sense, too.
>
> >>> I find that rather unlikely.
>
> >> You don't know the circle of people with whom ****wit associates.
> >> ****wit has said that his associates find his bizarre, poorly founded
> >> blabbering about philosophy and ethics to be very sensible. *We know
> >> already that ****wit's associates are as wretchedly uneducated as he is
> >> - guys who have maintenance jobs in rural taverns or occasional work as
> >> band roadies as ****wit has said he has don't tend to associate with
> >> thinking people.
>
> >> I /do/ know the class of people with whom you associate, because
> >> although I didn't complete my Ph.D., I was around those people for a
> >> long time, and some people I know who did finish the program are still
> >> friends and acquaintances. *A very common defect I've noticed among
> >> highly educated people is they think they're the smartest people in the
> >> room on /everything/, not just in their field of expertise. *You very
> >> plainly suffer from this defect.
>
> > Do you have any evidence for this?
>
> Yes, my personal acquaintances, as I already said - can't you ****ing read?
>

Your personal acquaintances don't constitute any evidence that I
suffer from this defect.

> >> Another is that they think they're all
> >> Nietzschean supermen - the normal rules don't apply to them. *You appear
> >> to me to suffer somewhat less from this second defect than other Ph.D.s
> >> of my acquaintance, but you do suffer from it.
>
> > No, I don't.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha! *Yes, you do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> It's hard to say which
> >> is the more outrageously offensive defect. *When someone suffers from
> >> both, as you clearly do, the result is invariably very bad.