From: Silly Questions for Atheists.
March 31, 2000
Beldin the Sorcerer wrote:
On what planet do you live?
Some alternate reality, then?
I see you have no interest in civil discussion.
He [James Randi] also makes all sorts of factual errors in his work, he's a known plagirist and he has a very poor grasp of philosophy of science.
I beg your pardon? Are there two James Randi's?
Not that I know of.
Those too stupid to see spoon-bending is faked are indeed worthy of scorn.
Right and people aren't as careful as they should be deserve to die (remember the "Darwin awards" thread
Don't take comments out of context like that. Feel free to quote the whole thing if you want.
It's amazing how oblivious you are.
To what? The fact that some people are fools?
To the fact that you exhibit a much more extreme version of a character trait that you frequently whine about in other people.
Several posters on this group have concluded that you are incapable of intelligent or civil discussion and have killfiled you.
Some of them are incapable of civil discussion with anyone who disagrees with them . Doesn't bother me if they wanna be wrong.
I invite anyone reading this to read through TJ, Tim or Eric's posts to see if beldin's claim is true.
You respond by calling them "elitists", yet you openly argue that people *you* consider to be as dumb as most people here think you are deserve to be abused and even killed.
Excuse me? I NEVER said anyone deserved to be killed.
True, but you said that the deaths of a group of people you consider to be "stupid" were "funny" and "improve[d] the gene pool." Do you not see any inconsistency?
Thinking it is possible to bend a spoon with your mind is not the same as debating the relative merits of Reaganomics. (To pick a topic that some of the group here thinks me "dumb")
Well, of course you're gonna say that. You believe in Reaganomics. Ask someone who believes in PK if they like being compared to supply-siders or creationalists if they like being compared to ufologists.
There are differing degrees of knowledge and lack thereof. The fact that you can't understand economics doesn't make you deserving death.
Your second sentence implies an absolute split between "understanding economics" and not, contradicting your first sentence. Could it be that you only wrote it to score cheap rhetorical points? Is there anyone reading this who doesn't know the answer to my question?
If I ever express exhaltation for some idiot using mind power to change the shape of cutlery, I hope someone bitch-slaps me too.
You find the image of me being slapped lovely?
No. I was being sarcastic. I find the image of what you think the proper course when dealing with someone with possibly misguided views to be anything but lovely.
From: What's your Position?
Dec 15, 1999
"Beldin the Sorcerer" wrote
They don't like it as an evaluation tool.
That doesn't mean they are against productivity.
Yes it does.
So if they were opposed to height being used as an evaluation would they be against tall people?
They dislike having to work for a living, convinced that "the company" is out to "get" them.
And you think that, as a result of that, they are "out to get" the company? It seems to be that your conspiracy theory is even more out there than the one you claim they have.
What are you talking about?
This indicates that they value other things above productivity, not that they are opposed to productivity as such.
That's a backpedal.
How? That's almost exactly what I orginally said. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "backpedaling".
The "as such" grants that there IS some opposition to productivity.
No. It means that there is no philosophical opposition to productivity, although there may be opposition to productivity-increasing measures for other reasons.
It's also an obscurement of the truth,. that they don't want productivity even discussed, and want it to have no effect on their income.
Because it's not as important as security. I'm sorry, but I don't see what's wrong with thinking your own security is more important than your company's productivity.
Not "Your company's" productivity, "Your" productivity. In any rational world, if your productivity dropped so would your income.
That's not a matter of rationality, it's a philosophical question. You think wages ought to be tied to productivity. Just because you accept a philosophical view without thinking about it doesn't mean it's not a philosophical view.
Do they teach mind-reading at LSE? Oh wait, you didn't go to LSE. What is your economic training again?
You no doubt worship Uri Geller.
See, this is another example of why I think you're mentally unbalanced.
Several years working for an accountant/financial consultant
Would that be your father?
and assorted accounting, business and economics courses.
You want to list these "several" courses? If you're really trained as an economist, why do you make sandwiches for a living? At least you didn't mention that you read Business Week as a credential...
You also attribute all sorts of weird motives to people you dislike or disagree with.
No, I don't attribute motives. I speculate as to root causes.
Oh. Okay. That's much different.