Once again, Beery -- shallow accusations based on inadequate research, with a refusal to discuss issues of substance, does not constitute rational discourse. I've raised several issues here and you've yet to address anything but phones in rural America and cars in Russia. Your attempt to be critical of Nard is just a lazy attempt to avoid dealing with issues I've addressed to you.
You say you want rational discourse, and I've opened that door for you many times in this thread. My last two posts, in particular, are clear, direct, and fair invitations for you to address the issues you have expressed an interest in and an opinion about. Your response? To accuse Nard of being a religious fundamentalist! Excuse me, Beery, how does that indicate a rational response to my issues?
The fact that you refuse to honestly engage in rational discussion about Ray's politics is not the fault of Nard, myself, or Ray.
You want to toss out cheap shots? Fine. That's all you've done so far.
Engage in real rational discourse. That's what I'm inviting you to do. This is not sycophancy. It's a call to objective, honest assessements based on research, thought and fair and honest reflection.
So far, in this thread, you have consistently been unwilling to rationally discuss the issues you yourself have raised.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 04-18-2004).]
Mr Dark, I appreciate that you are open to a rational conversation about Ray. Beery, why don't you engage in that conversation? You seem to have the mental capacity and linguistic refinement to be of match to any of us here gathered. Put it to good use and take up the challange.
Years ago, Bradbury mentioned something that I think would give a clue as to where he is coming from. Now...I...may not have all the facts straight on this story, but the essence of the story is true, and is pretty much how it happened. Again, I heard this probably around the late 1970's.
Goes like this:
It had to do with one of Ray's daughters, who was just a few years old at the time. She had been listening to either the radio, or something on the TV, and ran into another room where Papa (Ray) was...and was very excited about what she had been listening to. Supposedly, she was '''really''' estatic. So Ray goes into the other room. And what is it that she is listening to? Readings of Gerard Manley Hopkins, the Catholic poet.
Now Ray said, in so many words... we didn't know what the heck he was talking about...but...it sounded SO good.
Ray had made special mention, that even a child, like his daughter, could pick up on something that was wonderful, even tho she didn't have the faintest idea of what was being said....
So, where is the logic? Where is the rational? I don't know. Here's a few poems from Hopkins. You tell me....!!
[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 04-18-2004).]
If Mr. Dark was truly open to a fair and rational conversation about Ray Bradbury, I would do so. But I fear that Mr. Dark cannot, without attacking my character in the process, even go so far as to admit that Bradbury's assertions about telephones, TVs and Russian automobiles were at best ill-considered and flawed. The freedom to engage in any conversation which touched on those issues would be constrained by Mr. Dark's (and others') inflexibility and unwillingness to see Ray Bradbury in any but a flattering light. Not only that, but rather than admit that Ray's words might have been the least bit fantastical, Mr. Dark and others prefer to attack my sanity in criticising these issues. I don't think that's a sound basis from which to launch into a mutually-respectful conversation. Mr. Dark has used various methods of sophistry: evasiveness, straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, to pursue his agenda. I've found it is folly to waste time engaging anyone who uses such low forms of argument in conversation. If you, Translator, wish to discuss these issues with me, I will gladly do so. But I'm afraid Mr. Dark's ability to converse fairly has long since shown itself to be absent. I feel I gave him enough time to discuss these matters properly, but he failed over and over again. So I've given up reading his replies - I have better things to do than to feed a bully's ego. The fact that this particular bully is also a fanatical supporter of someone who I choose to criticise makes the task doubly impossible. In order to have a meaningful discussion, both parties must be willing to be persuaded of the opposing viewpoint. I fear that Mr. Dark and Nard (the current batch of Ray Bradbury cheerleaders) are both incapable of this.
[This message has been edited by Beery (edited 04-18-2004).]
Beery--But several posts back Mr. Dark asked three solid questions of you. These were all in reference to previous statements you had made. Basically, it seemed he was looking for you to give actual proof for your statements about Ray. I don't see bullying there--just someone asking for concrete evidence. Posts before that had seemed nasty, loaded with unnecessary name-calling, condescending comments, etc. (I'm not saying from whom, just speaking in generalities here.) But then it seemed like the dust had settled and that perhaps this could be a good debate after all. Some legitimate questions were posed, but you have yet to respond to them.
[This message has been edited by lmskipper (edited 04-18-2004).]
Why didn't you 'get' my above post?
Was answering Beery's question as to ''why'' Ray is off on some of the stuff Beery feels is monumental to mental viability......
Romanticism in an author's work and life often defies logic. Ask someone head over heels in love.
I've never attacked your sanity.
You have still failed to respond to anything of substance.
Must have been after I'd generally decided to ignore him. His prior responses indicated to me that he was all too willing to engage in sophistry. I won't converse with someone who uses ad hominem attacks. If he did it before, he'll most likely do it again. It's a bully's tactic to appear to want to be mature after behaving poorly, and I'm just not going to get drawn in simply to have my argument treated with disrespect again. He had his chance.
How is asking you questions about your claims "sophistry"?
You have yet to make an argument. You've just made loosely substantianted claims.
If you don't want to engage in rational discussion, that's fine. Just don't blame me for your refusal to discuss this stuff.
Give up on him. The guy is just out looking for trouble....
You're probably right.
It would be interesting to know more about his political views. Are YOU aware of any sustained (fair, rational) treatment of his politics?
I wish I would have known about the appearances on "Politically Incorrect," as I certainly would have taped them. I believe the only tape I have is a very brief appearance on "Late Night with Conan O'Brien" one Halloween. Presumably they all occurred before this board was up, because it seems people here are pretty good about posting things in advance? I remember the host caught hell for his remarks after September 11, which was in 2001; this board wasn't up until October 1, 2001, and I didn't find it till December, so maybe the show was cancelled by then? The host made a habit of inviting outspoken people, so Ray must have been a favorite.
When Bill Maher, of ''Politically Incorrect'' said, seriously....that he would rather wait until an atom bomb was dropped on an American city, and THEN...go after the people that did it...than invade Iraq because of a 'threat'... I not only never watched his program after that... I think Bill Maher is a nut case !
Ray Bradbury appeared on the program long before Maher made that insane remark, when the program held out promise to evolve into something really interesting....
[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 04-19-2004).]
I would love to go into a discussion on this with you, Beery, but I simply don't know that much about Ray. I came to this board to learn something about the man, something I might use in my phd dissertation (look for my original post about Bradbury and Stanislaw Lem), and in the process stumbled on some assertions of Ray's which I thought were somewhat bizarre (hence the post that started it all). Do you happen to know anything about this issue? If yes, let me know.
Sorry, I was a bit vague in my last post - I had to leave the computer. From what I gathered here, Ray is a conservative. 1) why would Ray be classified as a conservative? 2) What is the nature of his conservativeness - ie, is he a "rough em' tough em' USA is # 1!" sort of guy, or more of a refined conservative who argues and debates things with people who don't exactly see things the way he sees? After answering these questions, and with the appropriate proof provided (sorry about the alliteration), we can then try to disseminate what he really means and what he is joking about. The reason for me doing this is so that I actually know who is the person behind the great novels.
|Powered by Social Strata
|Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7