Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • INCOMPREHENSION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR LACK OF ABILITY –

    INCOMPREHENSION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR LACK OF ABILITY – REALLY.

    > Robert Laird

    Incoherent nonsense.

    > Curt Doolittle

    Not an argument. A dunning kruger assertion.

    > Robert Laird

    Friends with Yuri N Maltsev and 4 others

    Not an argument. You’re right. Just my judgment that you’ve produced incoherent nonsense. Lots of people think they know how to write. Almost all of them are wrong. You’re in that bunch.

    > Curt Doolittle

    I do my craft in public like an old village smith. People can watch the process. FB is not my end result but my sketch pad. And people can join along in the journey with me.

    So, you know, I don’t ‘compose’ every idea I put down. …See More

    > Robert Laird

    I’m twice the writer you’ve ever been. You’re pretentious, sententious, and a bore. Don’t patronize me, or I’ll have a real fling at you.

    > Curt Doolittle

    I’m baiting you as I bait all critics, in to making a substantive argument. I have never claimed to be a great writer… I claim only to be right. 😉

    So dish it if you can. 😉

    > Robert Laird

    Village smith. What a joke. You drape words around half baked ideas. I really am a great writer. My wife asks, “Why bother with this guy?” I tell her I have a duty to mess with the incoherent poseurs. I’m probably wrong. Don’t care how many “follow” you. You’re a fool on a fool’s mission. You can’t write a single paragraph. Why I poked at you in the first place. Go away now. You haven’t earned another word.

    > Curt Doolittle

    Now, any sophist of any scale will argue quite obviously that you make no argument whatsoever. But then intuitionistically accessible prose illustrating the mundane, is quite different from the composition of novel argument.

    So. Given that ‘incomprehensibility’ has been a sophist’s criticism that I’ve lived with for decades, and yet there are plenty of people (demonstrably) who can grasp the insights, and who are ‘moved’ by them, it’s just an empirically demonstrated fact that I’m producing novel content.

    Now if you have an argument (I know you don’t, or you would make one, like those who do form criticisms) then please make one.

    As far as I know I have NO, meaning ZERO material critics, but many empty hats railing against that which they cannot grasp.

    What I have done here is profound. And until you can construct an argument against one of the central propositions you’re just a poser. (which is common.)

    Dunning Kruger rules you. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 12:55:00 UTC

  • Incomprehension Is Not An Argument To Anything Other Than Your Lack Of Ability – Really.

    > Robert Laird Incoherent nonsense. > Curt Doolittle Not an argument. A dunning kruger assertion. > Robert Laird Friends with Yuri N Maltsev and 4 others Not an argument. You’re right. Just my judgment that you’ve produced incoherent nonsense. Lots of people think they know how to write. Almost all of them are wrong. You’re in that bunch. > Curt Doolittle I do my craft in public like an old village smith. People can watch the process. FB is not my end result but my sketch pad. And people can join along in the journey with me. So, you know, I don’t ‘compose’ every idea I put down. …See More > Robert Laird I’m twice the writer you’ve ever been. You’re pretentious, sententious, and a bore. Don’t patronize me, or I’ll have a real fling at you. > Curt Doolittle I’m baiting you as I bait all critics, in to making a substantive argument. I have never claimed to be a great writer… I claim only to be right. 😉 So dish it if you can. 😉 > Robert Laird Village smith. What a joke. You drape words around half baked ideas. I really am a great writer. My wife asks, “Why bother with this guy?” I tell her I have a duty to mess with the incoherent poseurs. I’m probably wrong. Don’t care how many “follow” you. You’re a fool on a fool’s mission. You can’t write a single paragraph. Why I poked at you in the first place. Go away now. You haven’t earned another word. > Curt Doolittle Now, any sophist of any scale will argue quite obviously that you make no argument whatsoever. But then intuitionistically accessible prose illustrating the mundane, is quite different from the composition of novel argument. So. Given that ‘incomprehensibility’ has been a sophist’s criticism that I’ve lived with for decades, and yet there are plenty of people (demonstrably) who can grasp the insights, and who are ‘moved’ by them, it’s just an empirically demonstrated fact that I’m producing novel content. Now if you have an argument (I know you don’t, or you would make one, like those who do form criticisms) then please make one. As far as I know I have NO, meaning ZERO material critics, but many empty hats railing against that which they cannot grasp. What I have done here is profound. And until you can construct an argument against one of the central propositions you’re just a poser. (which is common.) Dunning Kruger rules you. 😉

  • Incomprehension Is Not An Argument To Anything Other Than Your Lack Of Ability – Really.

    > Robert Laird Incoherent nonsense. > Curt Doolittle Not an argument. A dunning kruger assertion. > Robert Laird Friends with Yuri N Maltsev and 4 others Not an argument. You’re right. Just my judgment that you’ve produced incoherent nonsense. Lots of people think they know how to write. Almost all of them are wrong. You’re in that bunch. > Curt Doolittle I do my craft in public like an old village smith. People can watch the process. FB is not my end result but my sketch pad. And people can join along in the journey with me. So, you know, I don’t ‘compose’ every idea I put down. …See More > Robert Laird I’m twice the writer you’ve ever been. You’re pretentious, sententious, and a bore. Don’t patronize me, or I’ll have a real fling at you. > Curt Doolittle I’m baiting you as I bait all critics, in to making a substantive argument. I have never claimed to be a great writer… I claim only to be right. 😉 So dish it if you can. 😉 > Robert Laird Village smith. What a joke. You drape words around half baked ideas. I really am a great writer. My wife asks, “Why bother with this guy?” I tell her I have a duty to mess with the incoherent poseurs. I’m probably wrong. Don’t care how many “follow” you. You’re a fool on a fool’s mission. You can’t write a single paragraph. Why I poked at you in the first place. Go away now. You haven’t earned another word. > Curt Doolittle Now, any sophist of any scale will argue quite obviously that you make no argument whatsoever. But then intuitionistically accessible prose illustrating the mundane, is quite different from the composition of novel argument. So. Given that ‘incomprehensibility’ has been a sophist’s criticism that I’ve lived with for decades, and yet there are plenty of people (demonstrably) who can grasp the insights, and who are ‘moved’ by them, it’s just an empirically demonstrated fact that I’m producing novel content. Now if you have an argument (I know you don’t, or you would make one, like those who do form criticisms) then please make one. As far as I know I have NO, meaning ZERO material critics, but many empty hats railing against that which they cannot grasp. What I have done here is profound. And until you can construct an argument against one of the central propositions you’re just a poser. (which is common.) Dunning Kruger rules you. 😉

  • “general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

    —“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”—

    Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true.

    Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations).

    So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.)

    People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 11:43:00 UTC

  • “general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

    —“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true. Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations). So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.) People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).

  • “general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non a

    —“general criticism: accusations of reductionism”— Isn’t that a sophist’s non argument? It’s science. It’s true. Now you might make the traditional argument that DEFLATION of the experiential dimensions (reaction) such that we understand the CAUSAL dimensions is precisely the function of testimony (personal), science(natural), and mathematics(relations). So conversely, isn’t the attempt to attribute cause to effect merely an error? (or a deception.) People will make excuses for the preservation of the intuitionistic (animal) in order to avoid the rational (human).

  • The Doolittle Policy Spreads: Quality.

    —“And, as I have adopted the Curt Doolittle high quality policy of blocking people who lie, slander, and refuse to stay on topic and debate with facts, you are blocked.”— Al Freeman

  • The Doolittle Policy Spreads: Quality.

    —“And, as I have adopted the Curt Doolittle high quality policy of blocking people who lie, slander, and refuse to stay on topic and debate with facts, you are blocked.”— Al Freeman

  • THE DOOLITTLE POLICY SPREADS: QUALITY. —“And, as I have adopted the Curt Dooli

    THE DOOLITTLE POLICY SPREADS: QUALITY.

    —“And, as I have adopted the Curt Doolittle high quality policy of blocking people who lie, slander, and refuse to stay on topic and debate with facts, you are blocked.”— Al Freeman

    Source date (UTC): 2017-11-27 11:22:00 UTC

  • The secret to deflation through limitless criticism (falsification) is to find t

    The secret to deflation through limitless criticism (falsification) is to find the truth, and from their rebuild our narratives, categories, relations, and values brick by brick into a permanent edifice that endures as a monument to us.