(urth) the prime calcula/his citadel and other quotes

[Son of Witz]

Lee, you've been harping on Gerry for months, repeating your complaints ad nauseum.
PLEASE move on already. Ignore Gerry's comments if you don't like them, but he seems reasonable in his posts and replies to you and you seem insecure and whiney in your complaints. Just stop it already, please, it's sooooooooooooooooo fucking boring, and it's making you look bad. We like your imaginative contributions, even if we find flaws.  



On Jan 18, 2011, at 1:08 PM, "Gerry Quinn" <gerryq at indigo.ie> wrote:

> 
> From: "Lee Berman" <severiansola at hotmail.com>
>>> Gerry Quinn:
> 
>> > The block towers of small children were not the metaphor.  Nor do I > delight
>>> in knocking them down.
>> 
>>> When some adult constructs something which they intend to be part of a
>>> load-bearing structure, I consider that I'm doing them a favour pointing out
>>> reasons why it needs to be modified befure being usable as such.
>> 
>> Gerry I will take your word that you do not feel delight in criticizing the theories of others
>> but rather feel you are performing a public service. I think if you could be truly honest here
>> you could admit to other human emotions than pure altruism in your motivation.
> 
> If you are going to call me a liar, there is no need for a preamble telling me that you will take my word.
> 
> As for my motives, I'm here because I'm interested in discussing the works of Gene Wolfe, in the interest of better understanding of them.  I claim no particular altruism in this regard; this understanding will benefit me as much as others.  I am not here to trample on peoples' ideas.
> 
> 
>> You see your role as something like that of a building inspector. I get that. Still I hope you
>> understand that the inspectors also need inspecting. I have not, as of yet, noticed that you find
>> any theory (other than your own) to pass inspection. They start at "highly questionable" and descend
>> downward from there. If I have missed your evaluation of some (other than your own) theories as "good"
>> or higher, please let me know. Otherwise I'm sure you can understand the need for an inspection of
>> the inspector with such relentlessly negative evaluations.
> 
> It is possible that my interpretive skills, such as they are, are biased towards the analytic and that this makes it look to some people like I am always picking flaws in their grand schemes.  In my defence I will point out that the elements of the text I find that seem to contradict these schemes were placed there by Gene Wolfe, and not by me.
> 
> Also, it may be old fashioned of me, but I do not believe in cluttering mailing lists with "+1"s and equivalent. Probably I should be more forthcoming in praising ideas that seem good to me.  However, I do not believe that your characterisation of my posts as "relentlesly negative evaluations" is correct.  Furthermore, I try to keep my observations specific - when I find something that is unworkable in a theory, it may be that the theory can be modified to find a way around it, and I have noted this on more than one occasion.
> 
> When it comes to posting oleagineous congratulations, your abilities certainly exceed mine.  But frankly, I would be perturbed if you praised my ideas, because in my opinion your encomia tend to be inversely correlated with the usefulness and plausibility of the ideas you laud.
> 
> - Gerry Quinn
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net