Renee, thanks for the review! Although it's not really on topic I'll type this reply and let the mods decide what to do with it.
Renee wrote:... this member's position is that you, Ormond, have a horribly low underestimation of other members, (which lot includes me), and you therefore seem to be elitist.
Well, let's keep in mind this is an environment which accepts pretty much anybody. That's very democratic and inclusive, but it also means lots of very different people are tossed in to together in a random manner, and then presumed to be more or less the same with generic labels like "members". Some on the forum have been considering these issues for 50 years, while others are encountering them for the first time, and everything in between. If you wish to label me elitist I don't object, but it might just be that I'm a lot older than many here, which I can take no credit for obviously.
You cling desperately to being different. You try so desperately to being original.
Yes, that's my goal as a typist, to at least try to say something that hasn't already been said 10,000 times. My thinking philosophy is, "if the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there." Thus, I look for the things readers haven't heard, and don't want to hear, and explore in that direction.
But you don't have the bang-power behind it, and therefore you seem at best odd.
I assure you I am indeed odd, and I seek no higher title, so no problem here.
Which is not to say you are not worthy of the forum. You are a smart man, no denying it; on the other hand, you have some aspirations that force you to think in a weather-vane fashion, pointing always against the wind, so to speak, and it is actually very, very tiresome. To some others. Which lot also includes me.
I do have a point of view which does not depend on anybody else's perspective, and I've shared it all over the forum in too many posts to count. My own assertions are there if you want them, though perhaps you will not find them worth the digging.
I remind you that this is a philosophy forum, and philosophy depends to a great extent on a back and forth challenge process, which I am hardly alone in pursuing.
One of my assertions is that if this challenge process is followed faithfully all sides of the God topic can be ripped to shreds, leaving us with nothing, which I propose to be a huge step forward. It's true that those clinging to one side or the other of the God debate eventually come to experience the systematic dismantling of their world view as tiresome. I've been banned from more forums than most people have ever considered visiting, so I'm aware of this reaction.
You'd sell your soul, so to speak, for shock value.
Forums are a form of show business. You're writing an extensive review of my antics because I've succeeded in engaging your attention. Sometimes I'm the Donald Trump of philosophy forums, I can agree to that.
I can't say you're unkind.
I often am unkind actually, but thank you for not noticing. Honestly, I'm not overwhelmingly interested in protecting the self images of anonymous strangers I meet on the net. It seems wiser and more rational for each of us to manage our own brains and not depend on strangers to do it for us.
and this is my own private opinion, your posts lack substance and they are tiresome.
Ok, fair enough. Thanks for your opinion, appreciated.
I felt compelled to write this only in order for you to see your own refection on how you affect others. Maybe you'll find some usefulness in my post here. Maybe you won't. But I feel better, because I gave an honest account of the ongoing impression you give, and I am not sure if what I see of you has been your original or evolving goal to appear as. If the impression you read here covers fairly well the impression you've been attempting to give, fine, well done. If the two are different, the two being the attempted and the actual impressions, then you know there is room for improvement.
Thank you again for the review. Salman Rushdie once said that when writers are young they measure themselves against other writers and try to evolve but once they mature they just do whatever it is they do, write whatever it is they write, and let the chips fall where they may. If I were to change my writing style to satisfy one reader, I'd just be creating another reader somewhere who would then become dissatisfied. Given that there's nothing I can do that would make everyone happy, and that's not really my goal anyway, I just do what it is I do.
If the things we want to hear could take us where we want to go, we'd already be there.