Re: New X-humanist forums (was/is: Not all>H'sareExtropians(was RE: >H SLASH: Current topics.)

From: Brian Manning Delaney (
Date: Sat Jun 24 2000 - 10:15:22 MDT

Natasha Vita-More wrote:

> >>>Goodness, Natasha, it was a joke, quite obviously so, going by
> >>>the reactions of others. The point was: under the assumption
> >>>that these emails have no basis in fact, there has to be
> >>>something highly irrational going on.
> >
> >[....]

> >>> Why on Earth would I know
> >>> the particular person you happened to be
> >>> involved with pre-Max?

> >> I wouldn't expect you to know; that is why your
> >> asumption was so strange and irrelevant.

> >Not an assumption -- that was corrected earlier, yes?

> No, it was not corrected.

Yes it was. You obviously didn't check with Max about the
reference problem, or look it up in dictionary of philosophy.
(It was corrected previously, too.) I don't have time to do
homework for hostile interlocutors.

> Your trying to use
> me as a side kick was mean
> spirited. I don't take jabs like this lightly.

A "side kick"?

> >>> Before pulling out the barf bag, check alternate
> >>> assumptions -- may I suggest.
> >
> >> And what might that be?
> >
> >Already mentioned one (a jesting attempt to show just how
> >extreme one would have to reach to make sense of this guy's
> >motivations); Max can probably explain the other more easily:
> >Ask him about the old "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" question --
> >you suffered a reference trauma (for which I think I'm slightly
> >responsible, but not mostly).

> Your so called jest was not stated in a fun way, Brain.


> I don't know who
> this guy or gal was. But making a remark
> that it was a past romance of
> mine was quite rude.

That's NOT what I did.

If you're not simply trying to score debating points (badly, I
might add), I can only conclude that English -- or, certainly,
American English -- is not your native language (your odd
assumption that "boyfriend" has to refer to a lover who is boy
is the more obvious ex.). If so, please slow down before

> The above paragraph is another of your
> snide remarks.


>> I'm not absolutely certain it is, though I
>> feel fairly confident it is. The same tactic
>> was used in both cases: an attempt to get
>> me on his side by constant reference to Max's
>> having "stolen" my
>> "ultrahumanism" term

> I now don't think it was your term at all.

Who cares?! That wasn't the issue AT ALL. I can't believe the
lack of subtlety of your thought here.

>> Towards the Good,

> I don't believe this.

Then you a petty, blindly tribal, small-minded human being --
or, at a minimum, are acting like one.

Towards the Good (with not everyone on board, unfortunately),

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:13 MDT