Simon, you're a programmer, for God's sake. You of all people have to deal every day with the reality of "garbage in, garbage out". DannyBear is inputting garbage, and so garbage is coming out. The garbage is the insinuation that I and certain others have made 'elitist' remarks about our work. You obviously agree with the garbage input. I asked you to provide facts to back up why you agree. Where are they? With no facts, you cannot logically agree with these people, can you?
Now I'll comment on your latest post to me:
: DannyBear said:
:: Here on jw.com for any poster to even suggest that certain 'worthy', or 'accomplished ', tenured participants deserve special consideration, is restricting and trampling on other's free will and spirit. For an author to ascribe his works, as worthy of such recognition, is pure absurdity. Common sense, not to mention the vast diversity in thinking, should assure any writer, that not everyone will agree with his/her conclusion's on any given matter.
:: There is also an attitude displayed by those who have adopted this course of 'power' and 'control', they believe that because they offer an answer or explanation for their particular stance, that anyone who does not accept their answer, as gospel, as the end of the matter, is thick, or unable to reason. Again the heighth of arrogance and conceit.
: Perfectly sensible to me.
In a general sense, the first paragraph is perfectly sensible. It's the insinuations that are ridiculous, and are lies. The insinuations are expanded upon in the second paragraph, which asserts that such horn-tooting people exist on this board. Because DannyBear and other great thinkers on this board have named names, we all know perfectly well who he is talking about. Do you not know who he is talking about, Simon? Of course you do!
Now, has DannyBear or you or anyone else come up with a single example of anyone on this board doing what the insinuations claim? No. So the claim is without foundation. And you will not find examples of anyone besides, perhaps, the self-proclaimed "Messiahs" doing so. So the insinuations are lies.
: AlanF said:
:: A chain of reasoning dies if its main premise is false. Your post, DannyBear, is largely wrongheaded because your main premise is false ...
:: Your premise is false because no one I am aware of has suggested that anyone deserves special consideration, nor am I aware of anyone who has described his own works as worthy of special recognition.
: I'm not sure I understand ... is this basically agreeing that no one should assume their posts are more important (and that no one has) or saying that no one has (with the unspoken assumption that they are better even if they are not claimed to be)
I can't quite parse your sentence, but the point of what I said is that no one I know of has said that others deserve special consideration and no one I am aware of has claimed that his own posts are worthy of special recognition. Again, Simon, if you don't agree, please provide counterexamples.
: One is agreeing with DannyBear and one isn't.
I agree with DannyBear's general statement but have proved that his application is a lie.
: Could you put it clearly and plainly: Do you think some peoples posts and / or some posters are better or more important than others?
Absolutely -- in a certain sense which I have taken some pains to explain. Let me try again, using some examples.
Hawkaw has done a great service by tirelessly researching the U.N. matter. I think that everyone on this board except for the JW defenders will agree. He presents his results in posts. His posts are competent and effective, and therefore important to the cause of exposing the Watchtower. I think that most people will therefore agree that Hawkaw's posts are very good.
Now think about Fredhall's posts. Do they accomplish anything useful? No. They only pick at, in a thoroughly infantile manner, the posts of others who post substantive material. They never contain reasoning; they contain only small-minded potshots.
So, Simon, do you consider Hawkaw's posts better than Fredhall's posts? Why or why not?
Now let's look at the personalities behind the posts. What do the posts say about the posters themselves?
Hawkaw was never even a JW, so why should he be interested? Don't you think that there is a component of selflessness, of goodness in the man because of his work? What about all the work he puts in his research? Don't you think that he could be doing more fun stuff? Don't you think this shows that Hawkaw is a pretty decent human being? What is your personal opinion of Hawkaw, Simon?
Now what about Fredhall as a person? Can a person who only takes nasty, infantile potshots at others be anything but the sort of person you would not want to associate with? Or be other than an inferior sort of human being? What is your personal opinion of Fredhall, Simon?
So, Simon, do you consider Hawkaw as a person to be better than Fredhall as a person? Why or why not?
Now let's go beyond the small confines of this board.
We could just as well substitute the words "write" and "writer" for "post" and "poster". Do you think that some writers are better than others? Why or why not?
If you think that some writers are better than others, do you interpret that to mean that some writers write better than others? Or that some writers are better human beings than others? Be careful, because this applies to use of "post" and "poster" on this board.
Now what about specific writers? Do you think that Ray Franz is a better writer than most Watchtower writers? Why or why not? I'm sure you do, and I'm also certain you consider him to be a better human being than, say, the Watchtower leaders who conspired to bring false charges against him and disfellowship him. Am I right, Simon? Of course I am.
So, Simon, if you can understand what I'm getting at here, then you should also be able to understand my irritation when morons like DannyBear tell lies about me and my friends.
: Because AlanF claims:
:: I think you get my point, DannyBear. But you're too proud to admit that it blows your 'theory' out of the water.
: I assume you are not agreeing with DannyBear and so are saying that people haven't claimed it but they are better.
I think you've entirely missed the point of our little exchange, Simon, even though DannyBear himself seems to have understood what I said. I was replying to DannyBear's statement, "If what I said was of worthless content, a lie, why did it arouse your ire?" with a rather clear counterexample. A nasty lie will often arouse someone's ire. DannyBear's lying insinuation was that I was irked because his insinuation was true, but I'm irked because the insinuation is false.
: Also, AlanF said:
:: DannyBear, I just found out that you spent five years in jail for child molestation. I'm going to spread that all around the Net and I'm going to hound you until you admit it.
: If this is the level of your 'argument' or proof of any superior intellect then I have news for you - people will probably think you are a grade A idiot as this sort of crap just makes you look stupid.
Only those who don't understand the point will think it makes me look stupid. Since even DannyBear got the point, I don't understand why someone as intelligent as you did not.
Let's look at shortened version of the unadulterated, de-insinuated content of this exchange:
DB: AlanF and others toot their own horns.
AF: That's a lie.
DB: If it's a lie, why are you mad?
AF: Here, I'll show you: You're a child molester.
DB: Ok, I see.
Get it now, Simon?
So if you disagree with my above comments, all you have to do is give examples that prove that DannyBear's and others insinuations are right. Unless you do, you'll have to agree that they remain insinuations, and false accusations.
As for calling morons morons, that's no different in my book from calling hamsters hamsters and criminals criminals. I think you'll agree with these little maxims: "You are what you are because of your actions." "If you don't like the label, don't wear the clothes."
AlanF