🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C17rAJ.HFL@umassd.edu>, pmsc13sg@UMASSD.EDU (Stephen
Grossman) writes:
|> In article <6owNXB1w165w@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, betsy@quake.sylmar.ca.us 
|> (Betsy Speicher) writes:
|> 
|> >Any resemblance between S. Grossman and a real, nice, reasonable
|> >Objectivist like me is purely coincidental.
|> > 
|> >I welcome suggestions as to how Grossman might be persuaded to
|> >pick on somebody else's philosophy.
|>
|> 	It would be nice if my intellect were necessary to deal with others' 
|> posts but the level of "argument" and even insult is, for the most part,
|> so low that I can let my subconscious do the work.

Though I agree with Betsy's sentiments regarding Grossman, I think
the best way to act is not to "slander Grossman's reputation" or
anything like that, but simply to point out what mistakes he actually
makes.

MY misgivings about Grossman's postings are that he makes grandiose
claims, or very hard attacks on other philosophies, without being
able to back them up. It appears that his knowledge is at best
second-hand, and that he has more copied other people's thinking
than performed it himself.

This goes in particular for one attack on this person on one list
dedicated to discussion of Objectivism, where Grossman's "information"
about the subject at hand (Stirner) was via statements by alleged
Nietzscheans/Stirnerites as rendered and evaluated by Nathaniel
Branden. That is: Third hand rumors counted for him as evidense.

But I still respect Grossman's right to live, breathe and speak,
and will like Voltaire defend even his right to be met by proper
argument, and not simply abusive language.


Solan