tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post2462832525448554781..comments2023-10-26T22:06:11.166+11:00Comments on Metamagician3000: "Tom Johnson" outedRussell Blackfordhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-72466743798284738992011-03-10T15:58:39.669+11:002011-03-10T15:58:39.669+11:00Thanks. When I found the Wikipedia page for Phoeb...Thanks. When I found the Wikipedia page for Phoebus, I thought it was an elaborate hack the mods hadn't deleted yet. But then I realized, it's true -- the Phoebus cartel (1924-1939) was the origin of our present-day planned obsolescence, and Pynchon was making an obscure reference to <i>reality</i>. And I found it apropos of accommodationism, because they can <i>sell</i> progress, but their product is <i>no</i> progress.<br /><br />By the way, I bet you'll enjoy this obscure reference to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mfjuIUPRWo" rel="nofollow">Salman Rushdie</a> -- because I'm not just intellectual, I'm <i>pseudo</i>-intellectual.Dave Ricksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-56624239974197143532011-03-08T21:00:58.691+11:002011-03-08T21:00:58.691+11:00I've gotta love a commenter who makes obscure ...I've gotta love a commenter who makes obscure references to Thomas Pynchon.Russell Blackfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12431324430596809958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-29466654828354753072011-03-08T18:01:20.110+11:002011-03-08T18:01:20.110+11:00"Oswald acted alone" may account for the..."Oswald acted alone" may account for the JFK assassination, but "Wally acted alone" would not account for the Original Posters and their commenters who were happy to rebroadcast Wally's lies about gnus. I'll refrain from criticizing anyone in this post by name -- but we still need a model for the interests involved.<br /><br />I suggest the gnus are like <a href="http://www.cse.psu.edu/~dhking/byron.html" rel="nofollow">Byron the Bulb</a> disrupting the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoebus_cartel" rel="nofollow">Phoebus cartel</a>. The cartel is comprised of more than one kind of person or career. Of course, we recognize the accommodationists (asserting religions are compatible with science). But more generally, the cartel may include people who created their careers to work in the status quo of the '80s, '90s, and '00s (so this is partly about branding, reputation, and job security). And with good intentions, some cartel members may be acting on their ethical intuition, assuming a believer <b>B</b> "should" remain a believer <b>B</b>, and if science education changes the belief of a believer <b>B</b> (even accidentally, in a non-confrontational way), that education violates the Starfleet <a href="http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Prime_Directive" rel="nofollow">Prime Directive</a> (which happens almost every episode anyway). The gnus have a more progressive view that a person <b>P</b> can change, and change can be <a href="http://richarddawkins.net/letters/converts" rel="nofollow">positive</a>.Dave Ricksnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-28073269979255898812011-03-07T04:10:18.136+11:002011-03-07T04:10:18.136+11:00"We" can move on from it (once Wally [an..."We" can move on from it (once Wally [and possibly others] stop[s] playing silly buggers), but I'm in somewhat less of a hurry. (At the same time I am in a hurry, because there are some areas that still have to be left in shadows, so too much attention is a source of unease.) It's partly personal. Wally's tried hard to trash any reputation I might have; I resent that; I have an interest in exposing all his works.Ophelia Bensonhttp://www.butterfliesandwheels.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24761391.post-4955520520569589992011-03-06T13:14:18.614+11:002011-03-06T13:14:18.614+11:00I was hoping that if he was ever outed it would so...I was hoping that if he was ever outed it would somehow bear a rational relation to the goal of correcting misperceptions spread by that same person.<br /><br />I think we can move on from this with a little-reference icon of intellectually bankrupt claims of shrillness from new atheists and the lengths that were taken by one person to make these arguments.<br /><br />At least, that's the productive lesson I'm hoping comes from it. And it is a (very) extreme example of a wider phenomenon- seeing more atheist shrillness than is there, and seeing more relevance in it than is there.<br /><br />The risk at the opposite end of the spectrum is taking it to mean more than it did and to wrongly stigmatize critics of atheists.josef johannnoreply@blogger.com