The real enemies of the poor

[Faustine]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, Faustine wrote:
Jim wrote:

> Agh, not personality, it comes back to the matter of not wasting time: 
>Some 
> people seldom have anything to say that I find remotely interesting, so 
> I've learned it's in my best interest to skip them.
>'wasting time' is 'personality'. 

In this context I meant "personality" as in demeanor and attitude, not 
scholarship and competence. Frankly I don't really care if someone is rude, 
cranky, disrespectful, flippant, etc. around here as long as they can put 
together a halfway decent argument more often than not. If they can't, too 
bad. And on the other hand, if people want to reasonably mull over 
something they find utterly fascinating that bores me to tears, more power 
to em.  I can't see how my not going out of my way to involve myself in the 
discussion is indicative of some great moral failing. 


>Your waste of time is somebodies
>jewel of the Nile (I have these images of Creationist books I've read 
>flashing through my mind, very unpleasant).

So do you keep on finding more of the same or have you got on to something 
of more value to you?


> >I'll make an observation, at the risk of offending sensibilities, from
> >your past commentary you look for work that goes along with what you
> >believe/want.
> 
> Look for? There's reading and then there's recommending. ;)

>And there's looking for corroborating evidence... :)

Well we all do whether we intend to or not: no matter how much you try 
there's no getting out from under your experience. You wouldn't 
be "yourself" without it. If something interests you, it's only natural 
that you want to know more about it: not to ever accept anything blindly, 
but to avoid re-inventing the wheel. "If I have seen further than
others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants." you know?

Recommending books, on the other hand, has to do with getting people to 
share an aspect of your mental context. Like that book I recommended on 
MOUT awhile back: it's not that I agree with its conclusions or the 
ideology behind it--it's just that it made a powerful impression on the way 
I think about some of the issues that are most important to me, and went a 
long way toward providing valuable information I didn't already have. Why 
wouldn't I be interested in spreading it around.  


> No, not at all actually. Believe it or not, I'm not so arrogant and self-
> assured that I have to agree with someone to be able to admit when 
they've 
> got their opposition thoroughly outclassed in terms of sheer knowledge of 
> the subject.

>That wasn't where I was going with my commentary. I was simply pointing
>out that the way you had worded it made it look like you were choosing
>reading/research material based on POV/personality instead of logic of
>argument. That you chose reading material based on pleasant past
>experience and familiarity rather than raw subject matter relevancy.

Maybe it came across that way, but if you knew me you'd know I read a lot I 
don't recommend. And if I recommend what I find valuable and/or agree with? 
Anything less is wasting everybody's time.

>As to the general commentary, now it makes more sense with 
>clarification...I even agree for the most part.

I'll get around to issues in that other half sometime, it ought to be 
interesting...

~Faustine.