He wont do that, Conrad, because he knows as well as you do that it can't be done. He's very clearly a binary thinker, in stark terms of black and white. Like a pendulum, he's swung all the way over to the FDR side, and he'll have to expend all that momentum before he can even start to come back to the middle.

I think that mmvrs will convince people that we're biased against FDR because, get this, we are. I think it's no secret to anyone that knows about us that we aren't fans of FDR and we disagree with him quite a bit. Of course we don't like him, sheesh.

But in general, most people don't give a damn about FDR or us at LiMi. And if they do, I highly doubt that most people agree with this whole emotional restitution = forgiveness jazz.

M.V.--

Like I said earlier, our entire disagreement traces back to the definition of "forgiveness." Nothing said after that matters, because your subsequent arguments are based on a mis-definition of the term. You can insult my motives, declare my argument weak, and take your stand as often and as loudly as you like, but every English dictionary is on my side. The idea that the definition differs based on emotional or material forgiveness is stuff and nonsense.

Guest wrote:

Your consistent attempts to discredit this source of information in such extreme ways as calling it a cult and his theories sick etc. (especially on the basis of such weak evidence and analysis)...

I know you'll never believe this, but I spend a great deal of time working with that site to ensure that it is respectful to Molyneux and free of unfounded claims.

You may not like what I write about him, but you are just as likely to encounter lines such as "Make no mistake, Molyneux is a brilliant man and an extraordinary teacher. He is very engaging and many people tend to connect with him on a personal and emotional level" as you are critical ones. The site exists because he is a brilliant, sophisticated thinker.

While the site often points out disconnects and logical non-sequiters in Molyneux's philosophy, I try to be very careful to make sure the reader knows when I'm expressing my opinion vs. fact or reason supported by evidence.

In fact, a week go--in the article in question--I still had a line that was in the earliest draft about a psychologist being able to "crack open Molyneux's head like ripe melon." Over time, I came to believe it was disrepectful and I changed it at that time.

Coincidentally, I felt the same thing about the "sickness" word you mention above and changed that during the editing session. Later on in the article, I also discovered I had used the word "cult" in a way that seemed like an unfounded accusation and I removed it as well.

I consistently re-read my little articles for language I think is outrageous or unfounded. Although the original article still exists here, I'm thinking about deleting it and replacing it with a link to the newer version on the web site.

I sense your emotional reaction to me at this point is so negative that you won't buy any of that. I'm not really trying to apologize or gain your favor now. I am, however, very proud of the conscientous approach I take with fdrliberated. I hope you will do the same with your work.

_________________
-Q.E.