On Mar 23, 6:56*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/22/2012 10:32 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 22, 7:10 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/22/2012 10:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Mar 22, 5:45 pm, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/22/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:48, George > * * *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,
>
> >>>> You are unqualified for it.
>
> >>> Well, as I say, I was offered the job, I didn't apply for it. At no
> >>> stage did I misrepresent my qualifications in any way. So the person
> >>> who offered me the job obviously has the idea that I'm qualified for
> >>> it. Furthermore he's frequently told me that he's received positive
> >>> feedback on the presentations that I give.
>
> >> The fact that any unqualified goof could be offered a "job" to lecture
> >> on "animal rights" is an indication of the intellectual speciousness of
> >> the whole concept.
>
> > I am not "any unqualified goof".
>
> When it comes to ethics, that's precisely what you are.

In your unqualified opinion, which someone who has completed a PhD in
ethics does not share.