Sorry, hagdirt

[essentialsaltes]

So the whole Cal Godot thing on enigmachat got me all misty-eyed and nostalgic for Adam J. Bernay. Let's play internet stalker.

He's now a rabbi, conducting services for a messianic congregation that meets in his house. (Well, okay, his parents' house.)

And ladies? He's single:

"I am single, 31 years old, and looking for Miss Right. My hobbies include science fiction fandom, karaoke, and spouting opinions.

About my potential match: Ideally, I'm looking for an American Ashkenzic Messianic Jewish woman, 25-35 years old, raven-haired, dark-eyed beauty around 6 feet tall, healthy but not so thin the bones stick out, as seems to be the fashion nowadays."

Comments

[dogofthefuture.livejournal.com]

Not liking you is wrong?

[maccabee.livejournal.com]

Making rude comments about people is just wrong.

Ask yourself: What did I ever do to you to merit your ire? I DISAGREED WITH YOU! And I stood my ground! Oh, no! I must be stupid! Or maybe I'm just a fellow human being who deserves your respect.

[dogofthefuture.livejournal.com]

Er, I think you may have me confused with someone else. To the best of my knowledge, I've never disagreed with you. I don't think I ever even knew of you until I first read this post.

I was intrigued by your notion that someone who dislikes you is wrong, though.

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Standing your ground is not a meritorious trait when you do so (and you certainly have!) in the face of contrary evidence. Particularly when you have no facts to offer that support your side of the argument. I don't like you because you were intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you have changed your spots, but I'm really not very interested.

"An honest whore is less of an insult to humanity than a sanctimonious
prig who ignores the truth and fosters error and illusion."

--HP Lovecraft, letter to Maurice Moe 1/4/30

[maccabee.livejournal.com]

Funny, I don't recall it that way. Neither do others from Enigmachat I remain in touch with. So, well, what that means is you think that your opinions are the only ones that have facts and evidence to back them up. Who is being intellectually dishonest?

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Funny, I don't recall it that way.

That's because you're intellectually dishonest or self-deluded (take your pick).

what that means is you think that your opinions are the only ones that have facts and evidence to back them up.

No, what I mean is that you frequently failed to provide facts and evidence to support your position.

Let's visit the enigmachat archives:

Adam: Even back as far as the founding of this country, we had not
only a much higher literacy rate, but we also had a much higher civic
knowledge rate!
(Source: Adam's ass)

Mike:
In 1920, the Census reported a US illiteracy rate of 6.0%
In 1930, the Census reported a US illiteracy rate of 4.3%.
The Census defines an illiterate as "one who cannot write in any language".
The 1970 Census figure is 1%
(Source: US Census data)

Scott:
Percent Illiterate in the Population (p.382)
1870 20
1900 10.7
1930 4.3
1969 1.0

High School Graduates -- percent of persons 17 years old (p.381)
1870 2.0
1900 6.3
1930 28.8
1969 75.9
(Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, _Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970_.)

Adam: I wonder what was meant by "illiterate" by these standards, since the info I've seen is different.
(Source: Info Adam has seen.)

[maccabee.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, that was not the sources. deTocqueville wrote about the high rate of literacy in "Democracy in America" and there was other similar data I had gleaned from when I was doing research work for the president of the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. I'd have to go back over the records of that research to find where I gleaned that from. If you really want me to, I can check on it. But the fact is, it's not stuff sourced from my tuchus. And this is the point: I know for a fact that I mentioned both "Democracy in America" and the Alliance research at the time, and yet you still credit this only as coming from my nether regions. That means YOU are the intellectually dishonest one, not wanting to admit that other data exists.

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Since Democracy in America was written 170 years ago, I don't think anything De Tocqueville had to say can bear on the question of the current state of public education and literacy.

Regardless, it remains a fact that you did not then, nor have you now, offered any data.

[maccabee.livejournal.com]

De Tocqeville had something to say on the state of American literacy at the time he toured America. We can then compare it to now. Sheesh.

I have offered the source of it. I can dig for the specifics, if you are willing to hear it. I don't dig out old info for it to fall on deaf ears.

[hagdirt.livejournal.com]

Neither do others from Enigmachat I remain in touch with.

You mean Dan, who is your friend. He's a good friend.

However, the majority of the list thinks different: myself, Mike, Scott, Ray, Rebecca, Ian, and all the other people who voted to take you off the list because you were being an obstacle to honest debate, and annoying to boot.

The ironic thing is that I've met you in person, and you're not nearly as obnoxious as you are on email and blogs. Perhaps you should bring the standards of decency you use in face-to-face conversation along with you when you post? Might not have to worry about what people say about you then.

[maccabee.livejournal.com]

Neither do others from Enigmachat I remain in touch with.

You mean Dan, who is your friend. He's a good friend.

And others.

Perhaps you should bring the standards of decency you use in face-to-face conversation along with you when you post?

Funny, I think I do.

[aaronjv.livejournal.com]

And others.

Like whom? Why don't you present your evidence right now, on this question?

Or are you a lying coward?

Funny, I think I do.

Funny, many other people (names mentioned above, and the people listed here, and count myself in that number), don't think you are decenct in your online discussions.

So, what do you think this means?

1. We are all lying to you. We really do think you're a swell guy, but the dybbukstwitch their tentacles around our brains, and we spew forth venomous bile.

2. We are all wrong in our opinions. We don't really know what we think or feel about you.

(This one is pretty radical, so hang on to yourself)
3. YOU are wrong about the way you handle yourself. Your own self-image is distorted, perhaps by gravity, into thinking that the arguments you engage in are really kind and respectful of other human beings, when in fact they are malicious and fallacious.

You can say that you don't give a fuck about what other people say/think about you (my MO), but you can't say that you have decent respectful conversations when so many people think you don't.

Weren't you kicked off the Enigma chat list? To my knowledge, that has only happened to TWO people in it's decade-plus long history (although there might be a third soon).
And HUNDREDS of people there have had many vehement discussions about everything. Yet it is a rare thing to get booted off, an action reserved only for the most heinous, pig-headed, villainous of souls.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Benjamin Franklin