[mdlug-discuss] [mdlug] OT was: Re: Open source MySQL - MySQL Creator: Oracleto Purchase Sun which Owns M ySQL

[Raymond Ingles]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Aaron Kulkis <akulkis00 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ingles, Raymond wrote:

> 2. Generally, when someone makes accusations with no actual
> evidence that the person or people accused are doing any such
> thing,

 I'll be happy to provide non-anecdotal, statistical evidence of what
I said as soon as non-anecdotal, statistical evidence is produced for
the earlier claims about "A lot of American women". Until then, I fail
to see why I should be held to a higher standard...

> ...it's indicative of the skeletons in their OWN closet.
> [See: "Projection"]

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he
is wrong... Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a
large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether
this belief of mine is 'wishful thinking.' You can never come to any
conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance
of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself... If
you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my
psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you
find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain
psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic..." - C.S.
Lewis

 Even *if* I had "skeletons in [my] closet", how would that
automatically make what I said *wrong*? The two things are logically
distinct.

 (BTW, what evidence, specifically, would convince you that I was
*not* projecting in this case? If there's no way to disprove it, such
a claim - or, in this case, implication - is veridically worthless.)

> 3.  What does ANY of that have to do with a) current women's
> attitudes towards perfectly decent men,

 I was pointing out how well-sourced and well-supported that claim
was. Should be obvious, really.

 (Though I will *also* point out that, if you're basing it on your
experience, one of the common factors involved in all of your
encounters with women has been *you*. Food for thought.)

> b) divorce laws which
> allow a woman to both cheat on her husband AND THEN add to the
> insult by walking out with half of his stuff and the kids and
> c) the family co^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hstarchamber system which
> perpetuates this chicanery.

 I didn't address those; they are logically distinct topics. That
doesn't mean I agree with your characterizations, or disagree. Maybe
we'll talk about them later; I figure, one thing at a time.

> 4) how did the old "fault-needed" divorce system NOT serve
> women who were the victims of physical abuse and unlawful
> imprisonment?

 Well, for example, up until fairly recently it was legally impossible
for a woman to prosecute her husband for rape. But we're getting
off-topic again.

>>  And what "place" is that, exactly?
>
> Why don't you ask the woman who said that she needs to be
> put in her place?

 Produce her and I'd be happy to ask. Since no contact information was
provided, I figured asking in the same forum the statement was made
was in order.

 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles

 "Before impugning an opponent's motives, even when they legitimately may
           be impugned, answer his arguments." - Sidney Hook