Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

0

2,931 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. walto,

    And keiths told me I was wrong about that. The headline of the interview is

    There’s a ‘one in billions’ chance our reality is not a simulation

    I said I’d call that a billions-to-one shot. Keiths felt it important to correct me on how I’d put that.

    You said:

    I was curious what the basis for the “billions-to-one” estimate (that we are not living in a simulation) in the interview linked in the OP to this thread.

    The odds you stated were off by a factor of billions, so yes, I thought that was worth a correction. I dedicated an entire two sentences to it…

    It’s the other way around. Musk is saying the odds are billions-to-one that we are living in a simulation.

    …and then moved on to responding to your muskrat joke.

    Why couldn’t you simply accept the correction and move on?

    0
  2. Alan Fox:
    @ Keiths

    That you pepper your comments with snark and insult means people avoid dialogue with you. It also loses TSZ members. I’m sad about that.

    Really? I’d guess that some of the seagull commenters from UD would be more likely to dissuade people from participating here (aside from those of us with the particular character flaw that compels us to respond to them). It seems to me to be easy enough to scroll past comments that aren’t to your taste, plus we have the “Ignore Commenter” option.

    0
  3. Patrick,

    It”s not about me. I care about thé aims of thé site. How is understanding fostered by ignoring each other or causing others to move on?

    Eta bloody spellchecker and bloody smartphones!

    0
  4. Alan Fox:
    Patrick,

    It”s not about me. I care about thé aims of thé site. How is understanding fostered by ignoring each other or causing others to move on?

    Eta bloody spellchecker and bloody smartphones!

    I’m mostly curious if you knew of anyone in particular who has left the site because of “snark and insult” or if it’s a more general concern.

    0
  5. Patrick,

    Well, hotshoe has left the site because of snark, insult (and, in her case, due to your absurd and biased moderation techniques as well). I think sophisticat may have done so too. KN has left a couple of times, as have I.

    0
  6. walto,

    Well, hotshoe has left the site because of snark, insult (and, in her case, due to your absurd and biased moderation techniques as well).

    Hotshoe, by her own admission, is one of the snarkiest people here. You’re telling me she actually left because of “snark and insult”?

    Too funny.

    0
  7. She is indeed snarky and she did indeed leave. I guess we can thank patrick.

    0
  8. walto,

    She is indeed snarky and she did indeed leave. I guess we can thank patrick.

    We can thank hotshoe. Her decision, her responsibility.

    0
  9. Alan,

    You still haven’t responded to this:

    Alan,

    You wrote:

    He [Neil] was mistaken in attempting to discuss perception with you.

    I asked:

    Why was it a mistake? I’ve quoted his claims in his own words and responded to them, carefully explaining where I agree with him and where I disagree, and why. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

    Other than the fact that he wasn’t prepared to defend his position, why was it a mistake for him to discuss perception with me?

    You replied:

    To tell you what I think without restraint, I need to move to Noyau.

    And I said:

    OK. See you there.

    Well, here we are, and now you don’t want to answer the question.

    There must have been something about my exchange with Neil that prompted you to write this:

    He [Neil] was mistaken in attempting to discuss perception with you.

    What was it? Quote, please.

    0
  10. keiths: Well, here we are, and now you don’t want to answer the question.

    🙂 Real life takes precedence. May find some time over the weekend. Not really interested in semantic arguments, though.

    0
  11. keiths:
    walto,

    We can thank hotshoe. Her decision, her responsibility.

    And probably one she won’t regret.

    0
  12. Not really interested in semantic arguments, though.

    What semantic arguments?

    You were the one who made the claim, and you were the one who suggested that we come to Noyau so that you could answer my question “without restraint”.

    Why the sudden shyness? I’m beginning to suspect that you once again made an impulsive claim that you can’t back up.

    0
  13. keiths,

    You have a suspicious mind. Sure semantics is thé argument. Not going to elaborate till I have time and a proper keyboard. Learn patience, young jedi.

    0
  14. keiths: Other than the fact that he wasn’t prepared to defend his position, why was it a mistake for him to discuss perception with me?

    I think you are more interested in winning arguments than in communication. You’ve demonstrated that many times here over the last few years. Your latest exchange with Neil was just one more example. It’s pointless to try and have a discussion with you.

    0
  15. keiths: You were the one who made the claim, and you were the one who suggested that we come to Noyau so that you could answer my question “without restraint”.

    No, you are mistaken. 😉 I said I would need to say what I think in Noyau. Obviously, if I wanted to discuss perception, I could do that perfectly well in a thread where the rules apply. There is an implied “about you” there that I’m surprised that you with your mighty intellect missed.

    0
  16. One of the things I’ve learned across the many, many, many arguments I’ve engaged in on the Intertubes is that there is no such thing as winning an argument. I mean, aside from an opponent outright stating and demonstrating he or she now agrees with you, what would winning an argument look like? How could such a thing be measured?

    Personally, I’ve now adopted the Nick Naylor approach to arguments. It’s not about convincing my opponent of anything or getting him or her to even acknowledge anything; it’s about making my opponent look like an idiot to convince some audience that my opponent is either wrong, absurd, or insane.

    0
  17. Robin: …what would winning an argument look like? How could such a thing be measured?

    People who like to win arguments also like to declare victory. I guess that settles it for them. Additionally, there is the Barry Arrington way of winning arguments. Ignore counter arguments, misrepresent, insult and silently ban. Works every time!

    0
  18. Alan:

    I said I would need to say what I think in Noyau. Obviously, if I wanted to discuss perception, I could do that perfectly well in a thread where the rules apply.

    My question wasn’t about perception, it was about your claim regarding Neil’s decision to discuss perception with me.

    Your response was:

    To tell you what I think without restraint, I need to move to Noyau.

    0
  19. Alan Fox: People who like to win arguments also like to declare victory. I guess that settles it for them. Additionally, there is the Barry Arrington way of winning arguments. Ignore counter arguments, misrepresent, insult and silently ban. Works every time!

    While I understand what you’re indicating here and while I think you’re right to a certain extent about some people feeling like they won an argument, I think if push came to shove by some 3rd party’s inquiry, the vast majority of people if asked if they really “won” would shrug and say, “what do you mean?”

    Take the Barrynator (please!)…he may well declare some victory on his blog, but in what sense has he actually won some argument? Banning people isn’t winning. Ignoring comments isn’t winning. Insulting folks isn’t winning. Any of those things may well make him feel more comfortable in his own little pond, but even he isn’t so much of an idiot that he thinks he actually won anything.

    Actual winning requires some comparative metric; A got more Xs (points, goals, body hits, money, kisses, territory, quotes, likes, convictions/not guilties, hellos, billing, etc.) than B, A got to X location quicker than B, and so forth. Unless you have some point of comparison, what does “winning” mean?

    That said, I’m well aware that for some people like the Barrynator, it’s not about “winning”; it’s about the PR and Bait n Switch for Jesus. Barry an other IDists likely don’t even really care about the arguments; they can’t actually compete with science using any kind of argument. But that’s not the point. The point is try and the faithful that atheism/evolution/science/naturalism/sin/secular society/etc is slowly being eroded, Christians are winning the culture war, and Jee-a-zeus will eventually be the Grand Victor of Everything, methods be damned. All that noted, Barry et al know there’s no such thing as winning any argument in that culture war, particularly in their little corner of the Interwebs. And I still bet if some 3rd party unaffiliated with either TSZ or UD were to ask Barry if he really won some argument on UD, he’d likely says something like, “I doubt it, but who cares.”

    Keep in mind, Barry’s has some training as a lawyer. He likely knows what winning an argument means from a legal standpoint. I’m sure he’s well aware that he can never attain such on UD.

    0
  20. Alan,

    You finally got around to answering my question here:

    keiths:

    Why was it a mistake? I’ve quoted his [Neil’s] claims in his own words and responded to them, carefully explaining where I agree with him and where I disagree, and why. That’s how it’s supposed to work.

    Other than the fact that he wasn’t prepared to defend his position, why was it a mistake for him to discuss perception with me?

    Alan:

    I think you are more interested in winning arguments than in communication.

    I certainly don’t mind winning arguments — who does? — but ideas are more important than winning. If winning were the point, I wouldn’t admit my mistakes so readily. (And don’t forget what happened the last time you accused me of refusing to admit my mistakes. I easily provided examples from the previous few days, and it made you look rather foolish.)

    You’ve demonstrated that many times here over the last few years. Your latest exchange with Neil was just one more example.

    Then you should be able to quote from that exchange to justify your claim:

    He was mistaken in attempting to discuss perception with you.

    Evidence instead of assertion, please.

    For your convenience, here is a link to the beginning of the exchange.

    It’s pointless to try and have a discussion with you.

    Take a look at the Elon Musk thread. Viewpoints are being stated, arguments are being exchanged, ideas are being analyzed. It isn’t pointless at all — it’s exactly what TSZ is meant for!

    0
  21. Robin: While I understand what you’re indicating here and while I think you’re right to a certain extent about some people feeling like they won an argument, I think if push came to shove by some 3rd party’s inquiry, the vast majority of people if asked if they really “won” would shrug and say, “what do you mean?”

    Take the Barrynator (please!)…he may well declare some victory on his blog, but in what sense has he actually won some argument? Banning people isn’t winning. Ignoring comments isn’t winning. Insulting folks isn’t winning. Any of those things may well make him feel more comfortable in his own little pond, but even he isn’t so much of an idiot that he thinks he actually won anything.

    Actual winning requires some comparative metric; A got more Xs (points, goals, body hits, money, kisses, territory, quotes, likes, convictions/not guilties, hellos, billing, etc.) than B, A got to X location quicker than B, and so forth. Unless you have some point of comparison, what does “winning” mean?

    That said, I’m well aware that for some people like the Barrynator, it’s not about “winning”; it’s about the PR and Bait n Switch for Jesus. Barry an other IDists likely don’t even really care about the arguments; they can’t actually compete with science using any kind of argument. But that’s not the point. The point is try and the faithful that atheism/evolution/science/naturalism/sin/secular society/etc is slowly being eroded, Christians are winning the culture war,and Jee-a-zeus will eventually be the Grand Victor of Everything, methods be damned. All that noted, Barry et al know there’s no such thing as winning any argument in that culture war, particularly in their little corner of the Interwebs. And I still bet if some 3rd party unaffiliated with either TSZ or UD were to ask Barry if he really won some argument on UD, he’d likely says something like, “I doubt it, but who cares.”

    Keep in mind, Barry’s has some training as a lawyer. He likely knows what winning an argument means from a legal standpoint. I’m sure he’s well aware that he can never attain such on UD.

    He does seem to be afraid that they’re losing, in fact.

    That’s all the more reason to insist on the “right way,” and to banish those who won’t accept his premises. You just can’t let them win, after all.

    Glen Davidson

    0
  22. Also, I’d be remiss in not pointing out the irony of hearing something like this from Alan, of all people…

    I think you are more interested in winning arguments than in communication.

    …when Alan is known for pretending not to hear something that was repeated to him literally more than 20 times, all so he could avoid admitting a mistake.

    0
  23. Robin:
    . . .
    I mean, aside from an opponent outright stating and demonstrating he or she now agrees with you, what would winning an argument look like?
    . . . .

    Crush your enemies. See them driven before you. Hear the lamentations of their women.

    ETA: I mean, ideally.

    0
  24. keiths: Take a look at the Elon Musk thread. Viewpoints are being stated, arguments are being exchange, ideas are being analyzed. It isn’t pointless at all — it’s exactly what TSZ is meant for!

    It hasn’t been bad. But insertions of remarks about how an OP is needed to discuss the psychological problems people who disagree with you about something do not improve things.

    0
  25. walto,

    The OP I’m writing is about the psychology of not admitting mistakes. You and Neil provided two vivid examples of that, so of course it reminded me of my OP.

    0
  26. Right. That’s exactly the kind of remark that makes this a hostile environment. If you could stop acting like an asshole, that would be to the good.

    0
  27. walto,

    That’s exactly the kind of remark that makes this a hostile environment.

    Right. You’d prefer an environment in which you could habitually make false claims about others, and habitually refuse to admit your mistakes, without anyone pointing it out.

    You got the odds backwards in the Elon Musk thread. I corrected you. It was just a mistake, and just a correction. Why did it precipitate such a crisis for you that you felt compelled to deny an obvious mistake?

    0
  28. I am trying to explain to you that those types of posts are obnoxious to pretty much everyone. I’ll leave it at that.

    0
  29. walto,

    I am trying to explain to you that those types of posts are obnoxious to pretty much everyone.

    Your false accusations and your refusal to admit obvious mistakes are more obnoxious still. But as I said:

    You’d prefer an environment in which you could habitually make false claims about others, and habitually refuse to admit your mistakes, without anyone pointing it out.

    There’s a solution, however. If you stop making false accusations, I’ll never have a reason to chide you for it. Likewise with refusing to acknowledge your mistakes.

    Wanna give it a shot?

    P.S. I want to pause and offer you a genuine compliment here. You’re expressing anger and annoyance on this thread, but at the very same time we are calmly discussing technical issues on the Elon Musk thread. I appreciate your ability to separate the two. Not everyone can do that.

    It goes to show that productive, rational discussion is possible even with someone you’re pissed at.

    0
  30. It’s a genuine compliment, walto.

    For a lot of people, the fact that they’re highly pissed at someone makes it hard for them to have a rational discussion with that person on any topic.

    That isn’t so with you.

    I’m not nominating you for the Nobel Peace Prize, but I do think that’s an admirable and useful quality.

    0
  31. And to add a more constructive comment, I think the Elon Musk discussion would be better if you would respond to questions and objections rather than regularly moving on to your own questions and objections. You don’t like it when Neil or Alan don’t respond to you: maybe you should consider attempting to respond to questions yourself–even the hard ones.

    That tack of yours also contributes to making the place into a battleground rather than a discussion area.

    0
  32. walto,

    I have been responding to your questions and objections in that thread. Read it again and you’ll see.

    There was a case where I declined to answer your questions because we were already in the middle of an exchange. I was awaiting a response from you to a question I had posed and I didn’t want to change the subject.

    But by all means, if you have an unanswered question or objection you’d like me to address, bring it up again!

    That’s what I do.

    0
  33. Ok, thanks. Here are some questions/comments of mine that I couldn’t find responses to:

    keiths How can a belief be justified and true if you have no idea how likely it is to be true?
    Walto:
    How likely are any of your own beliefs to be true? What does that even mean? When is it knowledge? At 78 percent? Elon Musk
    ********************

    What has being able to estimate a likelihood of being true got to do with justification?
    *******************
    keiths:
    walto,
    Those aren’t mutually exclusive.The fact that knowledge depends on justification doesn’t mean that belief can’t (or shouldn’t) depend on it also.
    The belief is unjustified in that case, just as the knowledge claim is unjustified in exchange #1:

    Me: You’re missing the point. The knowledge remark is weird (only) BECAUSE the belief remark is weird. Knowledge involves justification and belief.
    ETA: One other point. Belief doesn’t “depend” on justification except causally, sometimes. That is, while one can’t know anything without justification, one can believe things without any. So when there’s “dependence”–like when we come to believe something after hearing more evidence–it’s causal, not conceptual.
    **************************************

    A final point on the likelihood biz.
    “Jones is justified in believing that it will rain tomorrow but he still doesn’t think it’s likely”
    seems perfectly fine. But
    “Jones believes that it will rain tomorrow but he still doesn’t think it’s likely”
    is problematic.
    So, again, the legitimate connection is between BELIEVING something and thinking it’s likely. And since knowledge that p requires belief that p, there is a connection between KNOWING that p and thinking that p is likely. In fact, one entails the other. But this isn’t a function of any necessary connection between justification and probability–its a function of a connection between belief and subjective probability.
    ***************************
    Really, you think I have evidence other than that I’m seeing a tree for the claim that either I’m seeing a tree or I’m being deceived by an evil demon? Please tell me what is the evidence that I’m being deceived by an evil demon.
    ***************************
    I don’t think evidence for the tree is evidence for the demon hypothesis, perhaps because I don’t think that anything that ‘matches the predictions of a hypothesis’ is evidence for that hypothesis–assuming ‘matches’ means ‘is consistent with.’ Or my evidence that i’m typing now would be evidence that you’re blonde.
    Maybe you mean something else by ‘matches’? If so, what is it?
    *******************************

    I have a couple of questions about that conception. First, what’s the basis for thinking that we infer the tree from our “sense-data”? Second, why do you not (as Russell suggested one always ought to do) construct rather than infer? I take it that’s what you do with values: you take them to be constructs out of your feelings and deny an inferences to “another realm.” Why not do the same thing with with your sensa?–say that if a bunch of people have the right conglomeration of them, that’s just what being a tree is? That makes the demon hypothesis vanish (and I think that’s what Neil does). Phenomenalism would seem to beckon!

    0
  34. walto,

    I’ve addressed all but one of those already.

    Item #1:

    How likely are any of your own beliefs to be true? What does that even mean? When is it knowledge? At 78 percent?

    That one I answered at least four times. Here’s the fourth answer:

    For the fourth time, I am not talking about numerical probability estimates, though they qualify. I am talking about subjective likelihood assessments, whether or not they involve numerical probabilities.

    Take belief X. Some things (facts, arguments, realizations) increase the subjective likelihood of X’s truth; other things decrease it.

    To claim knowledge of X makes sense only if you regard X as likely to be true — that is, if the subjective likelihood is high enough, whether the threshold is explicit or implicit. If you think that X is unlikely to be true, or if you lack the knowledge or resources required to decide whether it is likely true, then a knowledge claim is inappropriate because you lack justification — you can’t confirm that X is likely to be true.

    Item #2:

    What has being able to estimate a likelihood of being true got to do with justification?

    See answer to item #1.

    Item #3:

    You’re missing the point. The knowledge remark is weird (only) BECAUSE the belief remark is weird. Knowledge involves justification and belief.
    ETA: One other point. Belief doesn’t “depend” on justification except causally, sometimes. That is, while one can’t know anything without justification, one can believe things without any. So when there’s “dependence”–like when we come to believe something after hearing more evidence–it’s causal, not conceptual.

    I answered those points here:

    walto,

    You’re missing the point. The knowledge remark [in exchange #1] is weird (only) BECAUSE the belief remark is weird.

    No, because the exchange remains nonsensical even when you remove Yolanda’s belief remark:

    Exchange #1a:

    Xavier: Do you believe X?

    Yolanda: I know X.

    Xavier: How likely is it that X is true?

    Yolanda: Extremely unlikely.

    walto:

    One other point. Belief doesn’t “depend” on justification except causally, sometimes. That is, while one can’t know anything without justification, one can believe things without any. So when there’s “dependence”–like when we come to believe something after hearing more evidence–it’s causal, not conceptual.

    That’s why I wrote this:

    The fact that knowledge depends on justification doesn’t mean that belief can’t (or shouldn’t) depend on it also.

    Item #4:

    A final point on the likelihood biz.
    “Jones is justified in believing that it will rain tomorrow but he still doesn’t think it’s likely” seems perfectly fine. But “Jones believes that it will rain tomorrow but he still doesn’t think it’s likely” is problematic. So, again, the legitimate connection is between BELIEVING something and thinking it’s likely. And since knowledge that p requires belief that p, there is a connection between KNOWING that p and thinking that p is likely. In fact, one entails the other. But this isn’t a function of any necessary connection between justification and probability–its a function of a connection between belief and subjective probability.

    I responded here:

    walto,

    So, again, the legitimate connection is between BELIEVING something and thinking it’s likely. And since knowledge that p requires belief that p, there is a connection between KNOWING that p and thinking that p is likely. In fact, one entails the other. But this isn’t a function of any necessary connection between justification and probability–its a function of a connection between belief and subjective probability.

    Subjective probability is what’s relevant in discussions of Cartesian skepticism. Whether KN is being Carteased at time t is either true or false in reality, with probability 1. It’s the subjective probability that can take on a range of values.

    KN claims to know that he is not being Carteased, whether in Bostrom’s scenario or any other. That only makes sense if he regards it as unlikely that he is being fooled. But as he admits, he lacks the information needed to decide whether it’s likely or unlikely.

    His belief isn’t justified. It isn’t knowledge.

    Item #5:

    Really, you think I have evidence other than that I’m seeing a tree for the claim that either I’m seeing a tree or I’m being deceived by an evil demon? Please tell me what is the evidence that I’m being deceived by an evil demon.

    I answered that here:

    Evidence for the tree is evidence for the demon hypothesis. That is my answer to your question. It’s why I keep mentioning “underdetermination of theory”, and it’s why I wrote this:

    Evidence provides support for a hypothesis if it matches the predictions of that hypothesis. There’s no rider that says “and some other particular hypothesis, too.”

    If you disagree with my answer, fine — present a counterargument. But don’t pretend I haven’t answered your question.

    Item #6

    I don’t think evidence for the tree is evidence for the demon hypothesis, perhaps because I don’t think that anything that ‘matches the predictions of a hypothesis’ is evidence for that hypothesis–assuming ‘matches’ means ‘is consistent with.’ Or my evidence that i’m typing now would be evidence that you’re blonde.
    Maybe you mean something else by ‘matches’? If so, what is it?

    I responded here:

    walto,

    Ii don’t think evidence for the tree is evidence for the demon hypothesis, perhaps because I don’t think that anything that ‘matches the predictions of a hypothesis’ is evidence for that hypothesis–assuming ‘matches’ means ‘is consistent with.’

    I do think that. This harks back to a long discussion of Hempel’s Paradox we had at AtBC (that Rich will fondly remember), but I think (along with Popper) that a theory’s success consists partly in its ability to survive observations, each of which constitutes a potential falsification. As a hypothesis survives more and more potential falsifications, our confidence in it increases.

    So the demon hypothesis is in fact supported by observations that are consistent with it, and those observations also happen to be consistent with hypothesis (a) — the hypothesis that the tree is really there and that it matches our perception of it.

    Now, you might object that the demon hypothesis is consistent with any observation, and is therefore unfalsifiable, and you’d be right — it is. But here’s what I think you’re overlooking: so is hypothesis (a). The fact that hypothesis (a) survives a particular observation means no more than the fact that the demon hypothesis does.

    I’ll pause here to see if you’re following me up to this point.

    Item #7

    I have a couple of questions about that conception. First, what’s the basis for thinking that we infer the tree from our “sense-data”? Second, why do you not (as Russell suggested one always ought to do) construct rather than infer? I take it that’s what you do with values: you take them to be constructs out of your feelings and deny an inferences to “another realm.” Why not do the same thing with with your sensa?–say that if a bunch of people have the right conglomeration of them, that’s just what being a tree is? That makes the demon hypothesis vanish (and I think that’s what Neil does). Phenomenalism would seem to beckon!

    Of all of those items, #7 is the only one I didn’t respond to.

    0
  35. So in support of your entire accusation…

    And to add a more constructive comment, I think the Elon Musk discussion would be better if you would respond to questions and objections rather than regularly moving on to your own questions and objections. You don’t like it when Neil or Alan don’t respond to you: maybe you should consider attempting to respond to questions yourself–even the hard ones.

    That tack of yours also contributes to making the place into a battleground rather than a discussion area.

    …you’ve located one single comment of yours that I didn’t respond to.

    One single comment. That’s ridiculous, walto.

    What do you suppose we’d find if we repeated this exercise, looking for questions and points of mine that you haven’t responded to?

    What is it with you and false accusations?

    0
  36. keiths: What is it with you and false accusations?

    You often manage to bring out thé worst in people with your regular injections of snark and insult. What saddens me is you seem to acknowledge it is a deliberate strategy.

    0
  37. keiths: For a lot of people, the fact that they’re highly pissed at someone makes it hard for them to have a rational discussion with that person on any topic.

    Here.

    0
  38. keiths:
    Also, I’d be remiss in not pointing out the irony of hearing something like this from Alan, of all people…

    …when Alan is known for pretending not to hear something that was repeated to him literally more than 20 times, all so he could avoid admitting a mistake.

    That you still think this exchange reflects badly on me rather than on you makes me wonder if your problem is genetic. 😉

    0
  39. keiths,

    I think those ‘responses’ are generally of the nature of just repeating the claim I was criticizing. But if that exhausts what you’ve got to say on those subjects, OK.

    Thanks for going to the trouble of doing all that cutting and pasting anyhow. I don’t have the energy to explain why I think those remarks were NOTactually responsive–too much like repeating.

    So I’ll happily concede that my accusation was false to all those who agree that you ‘responded’: you did what you could. I apologize to you here now and will do so again personally to anybody else who may agree that that stuff constitutes responses.

    0
  40. Alan Fox,

    Yes–I think sometimes a poll is required to indicate just who is actually nuts. Unfortunately, I’ve found what strikes me as team play or camaraderie from old battles against the non-infidel trumping honest assessments occurring in such instances. Of course my impression could just be self-regard and paranoia on my own part, and, naturally, those who disagree with me will consider the claim that politics is involved to be an insulting accusation as well as a demonstration of untoward self-assurance. And the poll-takers are so few in any case.

    I’m afraid the moral is that we’ll have to leave it to the unicorns to decide. Unwilling to wait for the unicorns (or Lizzie), hotshoe split.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.