Where have I argued that "truth is subjective" or argued generally for hallucinations being true? It seems to me that I was relying on the premise that truth is, and can only be objective (objectivity is necessary for the game of truth to be played at all - i.e. there is no such thing as "subjective truth"; one knows what people are getting at, but it's the wrong way to put it).

You - and Crowley - are confusing "knowledge" with "perception". He often talks about "truth" and "understanding" to refer to non-rational processes, but this is a mere misuse of language, and serves to confuse many, many people, as we can see.

I agree that Crowley makes that confusion - but come on, most philosophy roundabout his time had that same idea of perception or even the sheer presence of a sensory datum, being itself knowledge (the "myth of presence", and many other names in contemporary philosophy it has). It wouldnt' be fair to single him out.

But I don't think I'm making that mistake. Think about the two examples I gave: in both cases (I agree with you) perception in and of itself doesn't give certainty of knowledge, doesn't have anything to do with making the thing proposed true. The thing proposed is true contingent on the rules of language (which are sort of "apriori", or "grammar" in Wittgenstein's sense, relative to any given proposition), and the way the world happens to be.

It has nothing to do with the perception of the mystic, certainly, since such perception is entirely unrelated to either "truth" or "knowledge". It does have everything to do with "truth" and "knowledge", however. As I've said before, neither mystical experience nor any other kind of experience can convey knowledge - it's rational analysis after the experience which does that.

Well as usual, I kind of agree with you and disagree at the same time. We're not willing to CALL something a piece of knowledge without it having gone through the mill of reasoning (and here I'd say I'm pretty much a falsificationist - i.e. that's the process I'm plumping for, the test something has to pass for me to call it knowledge); but whether it IS OR IS NOT a piece of knowledge is quite outside our hands - that, as I say, is down to the relative (and, to us, supervenient) fixity of the rules of language, combined with the world being however it turns out to be.

And we may call it wrongly. Perennially, we may call it wrongly, at any given moment - and this, too, this ever-hovering possibility of amartia, is included in the concept of objectivity.

So yes, mystical perception isn't a "hotline" in any special way, but it can happen to reveal truth, just like ordinary perception can. (And in fact, the truth it reveals is merely highly abstract, at the level of tautology - what is, is, that kind of thing - only we are too preoccupied normally, to really notice the enormity of such things, and they seem "trivial" in not just a logical sense).

Oh dear, Erwin. You want to argue about when, exactly, I noticed the flaw that you have already admitted is "fatal" to your argument? Or why, exactly, the fatal flaw in your argument means you can't criticize the knowledge paradox on that basis? Sometimes it's better to realise when to give up.

I'm not arguing with you - I'm telling you. Conveniently, the evidence is still up there for everyone to see, so nobody has to take my word for it. Online discussion is neat, like that.

There you go with that "magical" imagination of yours, again.

Still, we can look on the bright side, as ever. At least this thread has demonstrated to anyone contemplating humouring your regular clamouring for "rational debate" - as we saw following your review of Grant's OTCOT, for instance, and as we saw shortly before your hilarious meltdown on the other recent thread - exactly what they can expect from you if they do. You're clearly a total fruitcake.

93, Erwin!

I am not sure if I was able to follow both of you, but one thing seems clear to me: The "knowledge paradox" is still unchallenged. And why not? It's been there for thouands of years, and I don't think you or Ian have brought anything new to the debate.

But be that as it may, I would like to ask you why you think your conception of "knowledge" would be better suited for a Thelemite? Do you think it reduces the danger of "fancy pictures"? So far as I can see there is only a qualitative distinction between both concepts, "yours" seems to avoid fancy pictures of some supernatural nature, but what about the fancy pictures you produce about your own self? Aren't they much more dangerous to the knowledge of thyself? Where is there any advantage over other concepts of knowledge, besides those that you assert "a priori" and which are part of the paradox? Where is "your" knowledge about your True Will, about your Holy Guardian Angel and what not, all of which are absolutely inpenetratable by empiricism, objectivism, rationalism and what not, better suited than a knowledge which does not count out - for example - otherworldly (or whatever) influences? Since dislike for spinache, icehockey or occultists cannot be measured, where is the difference to a experience of the presence of - for example - some consecrated course of all our lives?

Thanks

Love=Law
Lutz

OK, that's a fair one. I just reread your two cases, and now see that I missed the "there actually happens to be a cat there" in your first one the first time round, which obviously makes a significant difference to your argument.

Well, I'm singling him out because this is the home of the Aleister Crowley Society and this thread began, at least, with a comment on Crowley's idea. That all kinds of people made and continue to make the same mistake is indisputable.

After rereading your two cases, I don't think you are, either.

Well, I don't think mere perception* gives any indication of knowledge, at all. Knowledge - propositional knowledge, at least - is derived, ultimately, from rational interpretation of perception, whether that interpretation is conscious or unconscious. Perceptions themselves are bare perceptions - they have to be interpreted in the context of other perceptions before they can become knowledge. One piece of data, in isolation, can never comprise "information".

* I should point out, by the way, that by "perception" in this context I'm referring to simple reception of sensory stimuli. I'm aware that "perception" can also mean the preparation of information from those stimuli - i.e. we may see a circular glowing red thing and "perceive it as a stop light", indicating that some conclusions have unconsciously already been drawn, rather than perceive it as some disconnected stimuli and only then process it - but since that "loosely rational" processing is important to the topic at hand, and since "ordinary perception" and "mystical perception" would share that processing faculty, it's important to make the distinction clearly.

I basically agree with what you're saying, but we have to be careful. In one sense, the truth of "there is a cat there" is absolutely independent of language, and is either true or is not true independently of whether any sentient beings exist in the universe at all (except the cat, obviously). In another sense, if we want to assert that something is true, then we're inevitably bound up in language, because in order to assert something to be true we first have to frame that statement in language.

So in the sense that "truth" is a mere quality ascribed by the intellect to statements - which I think is the only sensible usage of the term - then I think you're absolutely right. But this doesn't mean that reality itself is somehow dependent on language, even if our representations of it are. I don't think this is what you're saying, but it's important to be clear on it.

Well, I think we are, in some cases at least, if by "mill of reasoning" we're referring to a conscious logical process. I'm perfectly happy to call "there is a dog sitting next to me" knowledge without going through any conscious "mill of reasoning" at all - other than simply labelling it "knowledge", of course - even if unconsciously my brain has gone through the kind of "loosely rational" process I've been describing - and which Ian bizarrely thinks is somehow "magical" - to get me to that conclusion. Knowledge is ultimately a process of extrapolating - in either a strictly or loosely rational way - from observed evidence, and in simple cases like this not much extrapolation is required, and practically no conscious extrapolation at all.

Obviously if we want to assert the type of knowledge that tells about us how computers work, or about how spacetime can warp, then we need to go through a far more rigorous "mill of reasoning" than that, but the principle is the same in both cases.

Again, I'd basically agree, but I don't like your terminology much. I don't think either mystical perception or "ordinary perception" can "reveal truth" at all, since truth is a product of the intellect and not a product of perception - they can just reveal data which is then converted into truth, or statements of it, by the intellect. What you are calling "highly abstract [truth], at the level of tautology" is, I think, just the kind of "knowledge of" that I've been describing, and is a completely different order of knowledge altogether. I think the confusion between "knowledge of" and "knowledge that" is responsible for a lot of the errors we're seeing, including the mistaken idea that "gnosis" conveys any facts about the world and that it can somehow be a replacement for actual knowledge. It doesn't do and cannot be any such thing, any more than knowledge of how to ride a bike gives you any information about what a bike is made of. The fact that we have the same word to label at least three very different things leads to much mischief.

Erwin,

This is a completely pointless discussion now, but where I first pointed out the flaw you now admit is “fatal” was in my first post on this topic, penultimate paragraph, which I had to refer you back to over and over again.

The OTCOT discussion was notable for its general absence of engagement with the points I made in my review of Grant, but that certainly wasn’t for want of trying on my part. As for what you call my “meltdown” on another thread recently: I gave my opinion of you for picking on a newbie over the same thing you’ve been arguing here, and which you have been arguing ad nauseam for years now, always abusively, and apparently rooted in religious convictions coming from your presumed 8=3 status. You have now admitted to me that this general argument is fatally flawed. The lesson is hardly that I am incapable of reasoned debate – I believe I have shown the contrary in this discussion, and on many previous occasions – but rather that if you constantly needle and provoke people with the most hateful vitriol (e.g., calling me a "slow-witted troll" and the like), constantly talking yourself up and misconstruing other people’s remarks (as you have done to the nth degree in your last few posts today), then eventually someone will give you some back. You might wish to ponder that, whilst you call me a “fruitcake” (could we call this a “meltdown”? -- it seems like a regular occurrence, so I suppose not).

Essentially, yes. Once you start believing that "knowledge is impossible" or such nonsense then you give yourself license to go skipping blissfully right down the garden path. If you manage to confuse yourself as to what knowledge is, then you're going to come to some stupid conclusions, and those conclusions are - obviously - going to lead you very much astray.

They absolutely would be, if you made fancy pictures about yourself. This is an important topic to many of my writings as I'm sure you know. The type of knowledge that I've been discussing is in every way relevant to this idea of "fancy pictures", as we shall shortly see.

I think you are confusing some ideas here, and this is a good example of why this idea of knowledge is useful (useful to those who might otherwise confuse themselves, at least). Just because one's dislike for icehockey, for instance, "cannot be measured", this is no way whatsoever makes it "absolutely impenetrable by empiricism". We can determine, objectively and empirically, whether we do or do not like icehockey, even if we are the only person in the world who can determine that in such a way. This type of conclusion is going to be "impenetrable" to anybody who insists, for instance, that the ability to distinguish between real things and imaginary things is a "magical" process. There's another guy who recently said (perhaps on this thread, perhaps on the demons one) something to the effect that, despite calling himself a Thelemite, he'd never seen anything to suggest that the "true will" was "real", and if you're unable to understand the distinction between real things and imaginary things then this kind of conclusion is precisely what is to be expected, and it's absolutely poisonous to any kind of meaningful progress as far as Thelema is concerned.

The very essence of Thelema is distinguishing those observations of the self which are objectively observable from those "observations" of the self which have been invented by the imagination, which are merely "fancy pictures". These "properties", if you like, of the self, or these "true preferences", absolutely can be objectively determined, even if they can't be "measured". Anyone who insists - as Ian seems to do - that we are reduced to a choice between "science" or rigorous "logic" on the one hand, and "magic" on the other, and that whenever we look for knowledge we're faced with an insoluble "paradox", has pretty much no hope at all of getting anywhere with this subject.

This sort of woolly and absurd conclusion is exactly the type of one which will lead you to the idea that "experience of the presence of - for example - some consecrated course of all our lives", as opposed to actually being able to objectively investigate the nature of the self, is the best we can hope for, and this is absolutely fatal to any serious engagement with Thelema. If one accepts the type of sloppy idea of knowledge that Ian exhibits and thinks that if it's not "science", it's "magic", then they are preventing themselves up front from being able to even begin any kind of serious Thelemic practice, let alone from being able to get anywhere with it.

And that's where the advantage is.

Ian, of course, denies being a Thelemite, but he has the advantage of being able to make this kind of mistake a lot more articulately and transparently than a lot of other people can, so he makes a good example.

Yet still you insist on continuing it.

There's that wild, "magical" imagination of yours again.

And that's what I had to explain to you again and again was completely irrelevant. We finally got you to accept what the actual point was, and then, when faced with actually addressing it, you reverted to your regular trick of running away and claiming that knowledge is "magical", as if none of the preceding discussion had occurred. After having accepted that what you thought was the fundamental point was not, in fact, the fundamental point at all, you revert immediately back to the assertion that it is as soon as you're in a position where you have nothing left to do but engage with the actual fundamental point. You appear to be totally resourceless to deal with any kind of remotely unfamiliar idea. As I said way back when, this stuff is clearly going way above your head, and, wouldn't you know, I was right all along.

As I said, you're clearly a total fruitcake. With a plum on top.

And, hey, what do you know? This discussion here is notable for your total failure to engage in the points that I made, which certainly wasn't for want of trying on my part. I gave you a chance, I exhibited patience with you, and I put some time into overcoming your resistance and finally leading you to understand a simple argument, but when it came to actually dealing with that argument, you couldn't do it, not even a little. For a short while you appeared as if you were honestly engaged in trying to understand the point, but that's as far as you could go. Once you actually got the point, you couldn't do anything with it, and this is not the first time you've done it, although it is the first time it's been exhaustively demonstrated, so I don't consider myself to have completely wasted my time.

As I said, what's happened here is that people now know what they can expect from you if they do attempt to engage you in rational debate - i.e. your total failure to engage with the points at hand, and ultimately utter nonsense.

See? You're way out there in space, somewhere, probably with a tinfoil hat on. You're absolutely crackers.

You believe wrongly, then. What the lesson here is is that even when you finally encounter someone capable of compelling you to understand a simple point, as soon as you have understood it, you immediately retreat from engaging with it. That's what we've seen several times on this thread. You become reduced to simply pretending people have agreed with you, pretending that you understood the argument from the beginning when you evidently did not, and arguing that any position which doesn't coincide with yours must be "magical". If this is your idea of "reasoned debate", then once again, you're clearly a total fruitcake.

Have you ever heard of psychological "projection", Erwin?

As an example of how twisted your accusations are, the "magical" remarks referred to the weakness of your argument, dear:

You seem to be trying to backtrack on your admission of the fatal flaw in your argument, which you have clearly accepted already:

Most people would just accept it. But oh no, you have to start with the insults and the slanted re-writes...

My goodness! You have some really, really, serious problems with reading, don't you?

How about we try - a controversial suggestion, though it may be - actually reading what you have quoted? I know you feel that "magic" must somehow be involved in distinguishing between when I actually said and what you imagine me to have said, but just humour me for a moment.

Such a fantastic endeavour might go something like this:

1. "Why" - a question

2. "Why you've suddenly decided" - a question about something you've suddenly decided, and why you've suddenly decided it.

3. "Why you've suddenly decided that what I've been saying all along is somehow fatal to my argument" - a question about why you - note, the important pronoun, you - have decided that something is somehow fatal to my argument.

4. "Why you've suddenly decided that what I've been saying all along is somehow fatal to my argument - other than the very foundation of it, which it actually is" - a question about why you - again, note the important pronoun, you - have decided that what is actually the very foundation of my argument is somehow fatal to that same argument.

5. "Why you've suddenly decided that what I've been saying all along is somehow fatal to my argument - other than the very foundation of it, which it actually is - is a question that presumably only you can answer" - as before, but with the added implication, becoming more apparent by the minute, that you're clearly some kind of fruitcake.

So, here we have a question about why you have suddenly decided that the point upon which my argument is founded is actually "somehow fatal" to it.

And what do you do? Claim that I said it was "somehow fatal" to it! And you have the nerve to accuse me of "misconstruing other people’s remarks"! I guess that's the kind of thing one can expect from someone who thinks distinguishing fantasy from reality is "magical".

I've indicated to you at least three times that you were dreaming when you claimed that I said this, and that's at least three times you could have gone back and realised your error. Instead, you make it again, and attempt to support it with the very words that reveal your mistake! Your difficulties with reading comprehension have been a regular feature of this thread since you started engaging in it.

Absolutely amazing. As I said, it's pretty clear to everyone what kind of thing they can expect from you, now.

The point is very simple. In that quote, you admit that what you have been saying all along is actually (your word) fatal to the foundation of your argument:

To say once again: you are saying that the flaw I identified is actually a fatal one, regardless of the fact that you state this in a sub-clause of a declarative sentence (not actually a question, as you seem to want to argue now, which perhaps explains why there was no question mark at the end).

This the flaw, (as I put it in the way that prompted your response): "You have, and do, accept that there is no rational way to distinguish these ideas [i.e., 'simple cognitions'] from mentally-recalled ideas or ideas conjured by the mind".

There is really no argument left for you to make, Erwin.

Somehow I doubt that. I' sure the both of you can still come up with pages of this stuff.

You're absolutely nuts. Absolutely, incontrovertibly, nuts.

"other than the very foundation of it, which it actually is"

I'm saying that it "actually is" the very foundation of it, not that it "actually is" a fatal flaw. It's right there in front of you. Just read it, for goodness' sake.

You're absolutely nuts with a strawberry sauce topping.

It is precisely the very fact that there is "no [strictly] rational way" to distinguish them that causes any attack on knowledge which requires an infinite chain of [strictly] rational inferences to fail. You keep asserting this as a "flaw" when it's in fact the very foundation of my argument, as I've repeatedly told you. I've been saying, from the beginning, all the way back to the Go-go-Godel thread, that this is the case. Knowledge is not and endless chain of rational inferences all the way down to the ground. The ability to distinguish fantasy from reality, even if not "[strictly] rational", is still a very real ability, and it is no more "magical" than a steam engine is magical because it doesn't simply "reason" the steam into moving a piston.

If there were a "[strictly] rational way" of distinguishing these ideas, then my argument would fail, but because there isn't, it doesn't. If there were a "[strictly] rational way" of distinguishing these ideas then your analysis of knowledge which concludes it is impossible could be relevant, but because there isn't, it isn't, and your "paradox" is a complete fantasy.

You keep on asserting that you've "understood from the beginning" my argument, but on your own evidence you clearly haven't, as you repeatedly demonstrate. If you had understood it, you'd know what I'd been saying all along, that what you've "suddenly decided" is a "flaw" is - "actually is", in fact - the "very foundation of" that argument.

Honestly, I feel like I'm talking to a simpleton, here. You are a great example of where believing in a "magickal [sic] universe" and other tommyrot is going to get an otherwise reasonably intelligent person.

You repeatedly and egregiously misread my words and then have the gall to accuse me of "misconstruing other people’s remarks". You have a public meltdown and call me a "complete fucking twat" and then have the gall to accuse me of "provok[ing] people with the most hateful vitriol". You say that "the lesson is hardly that I am incapable of reasoned debate" while repeatedly failing to grasp the plain and simple point that I've been trying to hammer into your brain, and which you at least at one point claimed to have understood.

Just like on the other thread, your behaviour is quickly becoming more and more bizarre and dissonant by the moment. You're an absolute nutcase; a complete barking loon.

There isn't. That argument has already been made. The only thing "left" is for you to engage in that argument, which you've steadfastly refused to do.

It seemed obvious to me that "which it actually is" was intended to modify "the very foundation of [my argument]" -- if for no other reason than the fact that they both appear enclosed in dashes that interrupt a complete sentence. [And that, given the context, it's incredibly unlikely that Erwin could possibly have meant "which it actually is" to modify "fatal to my argument"]

Regardless, I could see how someone could make an honest hasty reading error, and I think it would be unfortunate to abandon the thread at this point, as I would very much like to hear Ian's refutation of the point that Erwin's making.

Erwin's simply saying that the ability to distinguish fantasy from reality or the ability to categorize something, like classifying a picture as a cat, doesn't rest on a strict series of logical statements proceeding from one to another. In other words, he's saying that knowledge -- as it actually is, in the real world as we actually experience it -- doesn't rest on the premises that the "knowledge paradox" assumes that it does.

Erwin,

So you’re saying that instead of:

where the sub-clause clearly refers to where the “fatal” flaw is, what you intended to say was something like this:

i.e., using "rather than being" instead of "other than", where the sub-clause would have been distinct and would have refered to "what [you]'ve been saying".

English is one of my strong suits, Erwin – it’s not a matter of reading comprehension in this case, but rather poor sentence construction on your part. It would have been acceptable for you to say that you had made an error, or even to have tried to stick to your guns and point out how you thought that sentence ought to have been read, but instead you spent the time shovelling insults my way. I think it would be inappropriate to continue this discussion – which would only serve your vanity – after such an unpleasant tirade, and note that I have already made my argument clear over the preceding pages and don't need to use argumentum verbosium.

"A Critical Point
The things that we criticize in other people are very often related to flaws that we ourselves are conflicted about, or hesitant to acknowledge.

This is an interesting point. It’s easy to dismiss, because it so often gets used as a sort of cheap “I am rubber, you are glue” rhetorical device to write off criticism without taking it seriously. “Oh, you have a problem with the way I’m doing things? Well that must be a problem you have as well.” That might help you score a point in an argument, but it’s also tantamount to admitting that that criticism is valid. People don’t usually pick up on that.

I find myself attracted to critics. I have a very critical perspective myself, but part of doing that honestly means taking the above point very seriously.

Nietzsche’s critique of Christian eschatology, which he damns in no uncertain terms in The Antichrist, is that it is used as a device of social control. He quite correctly recognizes that this “judgment” is the vehicle for the reward/punishment model of the afterlife that is the essential point of such a device. This is what leads him to characterize Christianity as a religion that “promises everything and fulfils nothing,” which he contrasts with Buddhism that posits non-being as the most desirable afterlife model, as a religion that “promises nothing, and is fulfilling.” To label all of Christian eschatology as a creation of Paul’s is, I think, a narrow and unfair view. Nietzsche is far too quick to dump Revelations as a concocted document, which is a hasty move that weakens his argument overall. Equally, I think his love affair with Buddhism would quickly evaporate to see it in practice in a Buddhist country, but that’s a subject for another post.

It’s interesting to me to see how this critique plays out in practice. Nietzsche writes in no uncertain terms, and he is all about “judgement.” I wouldn’t go so far as to call him dogmatic, but you don’t have to stretch to read him that way. You’d be wrong, but you could probably gather quotes to support your perspective. All it takes is to mistake the letter for the spirit, which is precisely the essence of Nietzsche's critique of “Christianity as a mechanism of social control.” I graduated with a major in Philosophy behind my Honors degree in Religious Studies, so I know the type well. I’m pretty sure that the Philosophy department of every university in the west has one or two of the Apes of Zarathustra. These are people who see Nietzsche’s critical perspective as empowering, are incapable of recognizing the basic contradiction between Nietzsche’s critique of dogmatism and their own engagement with his writing, and generally make themselves relentless pains in the ass to anyone who asks serious questions and expects more than a second-hand quote in response. They judge and condemn, without the necessary information, in no uncertain terms. Nietzsche would not condone this any more than Jesus Christ would condone Jerry Falwell, but he certainly enables this type of personality to use his work in precisely the same way that agnostic Christians use books like Revelations to support their pretty prejudices and political agendas. Interestingly, to restate the crucial point, this is the exact nature of Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity as a form of social control. This is worth thinking about. Do we see an element of the criticized in the critic? I think we do.

I recently had an argument with a friend that turned pretty vicious. The problem was simple: he believed that we live in a nation of Christian fundamentalists. I believed that we lived in a secular society that is basically hostile to anyone who took takes religion seriously. I think that, if his point of view was correct, we would not turn on the television and see cartoons that make fun of Jesus and comedians that mock the Church on an hourly basis, but that’s just me and my sense of reason looking at reality for my perspective. Foolish, I know. My friend had bought wholeheartedly into the myth that there is a secular minority who are the brave rebels against a religious, fundamentalist, Judeo-Christian authority that controls the minds of the majority of people. The funny thing is that almost everyone I know sees themselves as one of these brave rebels. Given that I have spent a lot of time in the upper-middle class environment of a Liberal Arts University, a lot of time in the working class environment of busy kitchens, a certain amount of time among an element which can only be categorized as a criminal underclass, and have found this point of view prevalent in ALL of those cultural scenarios, this is also worth thinking about. Do we see an element of the criticized in the critic? I think we do.

What about me? I’ve been awfully critical of the whole “Promulgate the Law” crowd. There must be a finger pointing back at me, mustn’t there? So what got my goat? It’s not just that it’s a hyperbolic parody of real occultism facilitated by sock puppets and balloon animals, it’s that the promoters of this shady and poorly-thought out façade are out-spoken, obnoxiously aggressive, and use the medium of the internet to spread their garbage. I am also guilty of all three charges. We are essentially using the same medium to promote our agendas. The crucial difference is that I use that medium, and am obnoxiously aggressive, behind the idea that ceremonial magick and yoga is the key to Thelema, and not the other way around. They seem to think those things aren’t important, that that Thelema is simply about quoting the texts without comprehending. My problem? YOU NEED THE MAGICK TO MAKE THOSE THINGS MAKE SENSE. When people tell me that they’re into Thelema but haven’t practiced Ceremonial Magick, I immediately assume that those people are stupid, lying, or crazy. Who just gets up and just “likes” this shit? If you don’t have the experiences that show you why Liber AL and the Holy Books are, in spite of their unpalatable aspects, really on to something, you are not a fucking Gnostic. You’re just an idiot getting told what’s what but someone who knows. This is the fundamental error that makes possible the substitution of “letter for spirit” that is at the root of all error (i.e. the root of all evil).

Do we see an element of the criticized in the critic? I think that we do. I think it’s pretty clear that I also put myself across in no uncertain terms to promote my point of view. And when I see other people doing it clumsily, with the wrong motives, coming at the whole thing ass backwards, it pisses me off. No question about that. If it didn’t remind me of me, it wouldn’t piss me off. Anyone who takes themselves seriously as a critic must always, always, always, remember this very important fact. "

from Granny Wolf on livejournal

No - I meant to say exactly what I said.

No, it really isn't. Your poor reading comprehension has been a constant obstacle for you throughout this thread. That's one of the reasons I've had to tortuously explain things to you over and over again just to get you to comprehend some very simple points.

At least one other person here evidently had no difficulty at all with it, even out of the context which made it obvious in itself. No - I'm afraid it's just you.

Hilarious!

Wow. You're absolutely insane.

Then stop.

And if only you'd dealt with my argument instead of merely repeating yours, then you might have gotten somewhere, instead of making yourself look foolish.

Thanks to all who participated in this lengthy and sporadically very interesting thread.

It's unfortunate that so many posts were marred with impolite and insulting epithets.

I think things have gone on long enough now, way beyond direct relevance to this site's purpose and I've therefore locked the thread - participants are welcome, of course, to continue their discussions offline, via Private Message or email.