On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 8:37 AM, Rupert wrote:
>

> >>>>>> 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.
>
> Sorry, I thought you were asking how I know it happens at all. *My
> immediate in-person acquaintances do not, of course, comprise evidence
> that you suffer from the defect. *It is my experience of you in Usenet,
> and my observation that you present yourself as knowing things outside
> your field far better than others that demonstrates your defect. *This
> idea that you give "talks" (preaching to the choir) about the ethics of
> human use of animals is very solid evidence.
>

I do give talks about the ethics of the human use of animals, and I am
not preaching to the choir, I am talking to people who are about to
engage in experiments on animals. And I was offered that job, I did
not apply for it.

I do not present myself as having more knowledge than I in fact have.

> >>>> 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.
>
> !!!!!
>

I did not value your opinion, or find your unargued expression of it
interesting, so I ignored it.