By continuing your visit to this site, you accept the use of cookies. These ensure the smooth running of our services. Learn more.

« Comparative medical technology | HomePage | Preparing for a new Experiment Interface »

Thursday, August 02, 20071186055536


Got to love how John Robb responds to intellectual criticism with a "LOL" and a defensive smear.

06:52 Posted in John Robb | Permalink | Comments (12)


the Robb/tdaxp detente didn't last long ;-)

Posted by: Sean | Thursday, August 02, 2007

oops, sorry. probably should have been 'the tdaxp/Robb detente' ;-)

Posted by: Sean | Thursday, August 02, 2007

I'm still a sucker for compliments [1] though! :-)

[1] http://www.shloky.com/?p=762#comment-33210

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, August 02, 2007

Kissinger's quotation comes to mind. "The feuds are so vicious because the stakes are so low."

Posted by: Adrian | Thursday, August 02, 2007

I tried to draw him out into something constructive but I guess us little people are beneath him and worthy of that.

Posted by: PurpleSlog | Thursday, August 02, 2007

Oops --> "worthy" = "not worthy"

Posted by: PurpleSlog | Thursday, August 02, 2007

Hey guys. I'm just really busy working on lots of new stuff. So I take a sec and stop by Shlok's site and find Curtis reaming me a new one. Since I wasn't even involved in any of the previous conversation, not sure how I was even in line for this. It just seemed pretty unfair.

Posted by: John Robb | Thursday, August 02, 2007

Ok, point taken. I have been busy too and not fully participating in things.

I should not have made a snarky remark.

Posted by: purpleslog | Friday, August 03, 2007

I think Adrian's right. It's easy to escalate things when all that's at stake is perceptions. Snarky "lol's" certainly are one way. Guessing someone's motives probably another.

That said, Curtis's original point does seem fair. (Unless we are both misunderstanding something?)

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, August 04, 2007

"Snarky" ? Not nearly. More of a laugh to deflate the steam rather than anger after reading in a post that I had "misrepresented" my work.

Granted, I totally understand that you guys approach my work from the Barnettian camp, so it's natural that you will have problems with it. I don't consider that to be a problem in the slightest. We don't think along the same lines and there is unlikely to be a way to resolve that.

However, despite that difference, I would be more than happy to discuss/participate in constructive critiques of GG theory. In fact, a difference is approach is exactly the best way to accomplish this.

Posted by: John Robb | Saturday, August 04, 2007


Different perspectives are very valuable. You are right on that.

However, a comment reading in full:

"LOL. Curtis, why do you always answer the critics of your theoretical constructs with attacks and/or gross misrepresentations of my work?"

Is neither informative nor does it deflate steam. Further, following it up by accusing an honest questioner of reaming you a new one does not deescalate, either.

That said, a three way D5GW/GG/tdaxp blog series would be interesting...

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, August 04, 2007

Hi there!
My first post at this great blog!
I wanna show u my dayly updated blog: Black Amateur Fuck Video
Have a nice day!

P.S. if you don't want to see this message please write me to no.ads08@gmail.com with subject "NO ADS" and URL of your forum
Thank you for cooperation!

Posted by: KurmanAhlabm | Friday, November 07, 2008