[lit-ideas] Re: For Paul (long)

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 12:22:52 -0400

At 12:08 PM 8/11/2006, you wrote:

At least you admit your opinions have no substance beyond pure emotion and the love for beating somebody up.

What is that supposed to mean? and where did I admit it? You'll be hard-pressed to find someone who exercises reason more frequently than I. One of the reasons that a lot of people think my views are so inconsistent and 'distasteful' is because I'm being logical, not emotional. I'm trying to draw conclusions from the evidence that is presented. The problem is, the evidence keeps changing.

I don't have any real personal feelings about a jerk like Hamzi. I just know that, logically, the world would be a better place if he would have finished the job when he blew his hands off. That's stark, it's perhaps brutal, it's probably uncaring, but it's not an 'emotional' opinion. It is devoid of any emotion on my part.

If you think Susskind is hard to read,

it's not hard to read... it's just not something I WANT to read when it's nice out and I'm trying to relax. Now, that is an emotionally arrived at conclusion, but don't worry, I'm not shirking my responsibility -- whatever that may be -- I'll get to it and probably in the next week.

try Tom Ricks.

Maybe I will. I bought the Susskind book because you mentioned it. But i don't trust Ricks -- he's got a beard. How's that for an emotionally stupid statement?

Or don't read it, as the case may be.

You are so dismissive.


Paul Stone
Kingsville, ON, Canada

Other related posts: