"I am always impressed by the cowardice of the word "perhaps." "Perhaps"
is the cop-out of those who decline to "put their money where their
mouth is," as the Americans say. In the case of this particular posting,
you may appreciate that you move full circle, first asserting baseless
authority, and then, with the word "perhaps," erase any trace of
authority. You have not done the work of "bombarding," so you have no
right to assert the preceding remarks. You have no right because you
have not earned it.

Best regards,

George", george

G, you are topped off with shiesse. And you "don't read too good, no"
( comparing what I wrote to your 'comments' ) , but i'll give you that
you type better than I . For the rest , you have a perspective ( one
quick to the ad homs ) just like the blind men ( and the elephant ),
but little wit that I can see. Don't like qualified statements ? I
have friends who don't like the inflections of "is", perhaps you
should join them so you can spread your overbaked fudgementalism
around some more. A True Believer? ( S.H. ? ), dyspeptic ? Does the
world march to your beat? How bout wife and kiddies . Look up the
derivation of "analysis"... N.B., it doesn't mean eating ani.
Sorry lads but the previous post was trasho puro, though I can see why
I might draw fire from the lesser mids here ( Looking as I do like
"easy pickin's" ) and ire from those who hold their beliefs alittle to
tightly to recognise that one sometimes needs a pickaxe to dig ( i.e.
one sometimes needs to be a _little_ provocative to get the base
material exposed and to develope understanding ). And notice how those
tentative taps were elided here .

Leave it off g'g'g', you don't "get it" and I don't have time, to type
you an education in how wide the world is .
This is my last post in this tone. I will not continue this "debate".
Sorry about the multiple postings.
--- In strauss-reading@yahoogroups.com, George Gregory <2903-425@o...>
wrote:
>
> wblakesx wrote:
>
> >I came sceptical but open to LS, nuetral but well disposed ( much
> >sounds patently absurd but I was prepared to see that as a failing in
> >me )towards P. Now I find P more absurd and wonder how it could be
> >that this student of S teacher of A could harbour such thoughts, like
> >applying bufurcation like a kid with a hammer. For both it seems
> >that too many people take too much on faith from those whose palpable
> >errors are so obvious and egregious.
> >
> Mr. wblakesx,
>
> Sometimes there are postings that have the initial effect of prompting
> me to ask whether it is appropriate for me to respond, but I do
> generally respond to any and all posts that are directed to me or in
> response to what I wrote.
>
> Were we both in Germany and writing in German, I would say to your
> above-cited remarks that "Sie haben sich disqualifiziert." -- You have
> disqualified yourself. I make that remark for the record. It may be
> useful to others if I explain it.
>
> You have reached the conclusion that Plato is absurd, and his errors
> obvious and egregious. You have not identified an absurdity, nor
errors.
> You have not even identified a Platonic "thought" or what you
understand
> to be one. You assert an authority that requires that authority be
> recognized by others or at least some one else, but you have written
> nothing that asked anyone to recognize your authority. Your conclusion
> asserts the premise that you have understood Plato. You have not been
> sufficiently patient with yourself nor sufficiently kind to others to
> state what your understanding is. Thus, your stated willingness to
> consider your own failing is contradicted by your assertion of
authority
> and is likewise disqualified, as a rhetorical assertion belied by the
> deed of the assertion of authority.
>
> You, or someone else, might ask, 'why deal with this matter at this
> level at all?' -- The reason is, firstly, that your attitude and
> orientation is, sociologically speaking, all too normal, and, secondly,
> that Socratic conversation and Platonic writing address themselves as a
> challenge to just that attitude and orientation. Perhaps the
possibility
> that Socrates and Plato already know "where you are coming from"
will be
> intriguing enough to you to bear fruit in the future.
>
> > I fear it's secret decoder rings
> >all round. LS is clearly an interesting thinker but so am I as are
> >millions of others. His position as teacher to the neocs, as a intense
> > neoc leaves it difficult to repose "belief" in him when he steps
> >around the corner
> >
> Mr. wblakesx, you manifest an inquisitional faith in gossip and rumor
> and accept such as fact. That, once more, is all too normal. Perhaps
you
> will think again, and think about the fact that such nonsense
> disqualifies you as a thinker, and therewith disqualifies your
authority
> to have made the above-cited assertions. I suggest that you think
> through what you currently believe you know about science as well,
> because what you have written indicates that, here too, you accept
> gossip and rumor as fact. I further recommend that, before dealing with
> a work like the *Minos*, you or others would fruitfully begin their
> confrontation with Plato with the *Apology*. I suggest that you, in
> particular, would recognize yourself to be one of Socrates' killers,
> precisely and solely because of your faith in gossip and rumor. If you
> find that your thinking makes you one of Socrates' killers, then argue
> your thinking in the agora. I do not say that I think that such
thinking
> is legitimate, nor do I respect it, but I respect those who operate
> openly in contrast to those who whisper behind some marble columns.
>
> > ( incidently the previous comment re: belief, in the
> >thread reminds of the idealism that attempted to suppress the
> >enlightenment by silencing Copernicus, Gallileo, Leonardo, ..., ad
> >nauseum ). In light the positions of his students, his reputed intense
> >networks, and his conciets and affectations one might well place him
> >under very intense analysis, perhaps bombarding him with shots to see
> > how he breaks.
> >
> Mr. wblakesx, the agora is wide open: anything goes. I recommend that
> you take yourself seriously and enter the fray.
>
> I am always impressed by the cowardice of the word "perhaps." "Perhaps"
> is the cop-out of those who decline to "put their money where their
> mouth is," as the Americans say. In the case of this particular
posting,
> you may appreciate that you move full circle, first asserting baseless
> authority, and then, with the word "perhaps," erase any trace of
> authority. You have not done the work of "bombarding," so you have no
> right to assert the preceding remarks. You have no right because you
> have not earned it.
>
> Best regards,
>
> George
>