To the people that insult Moonbeam

[Maetryx]

Seriously:

How many of us would silently accept the name-calling (and name mangling) abuse that Moonbeam undergoes constantly? The replies to his writings almost always start off with "Moonie" and typically insult and attack him personally.

If you have a logically superior response to his position, please present it. I get tired of people blowing off Moonbeam, and I honestly think it stems from an inability to formulate a reasoned response.

Don't even kid yourself. Moonbeam is SMART. If you don't think his writings makes sense, YOU are the underacheiver. Build a better argument, then spout off. Stop embarassing yourself.

In reference to this thread and many others...

Note: gender assumed (and then confirmed by luv2chill)

edit: It appears that "Moonie" is also a term of affection or familiarity by some members. /edit

 

[Hamburgerpimp]

He has my respect. Even if he gets a little childish in his posts. It's sarcasm to all the real children in here.

 

[StageLeft]

He is smart and I'm sure he is smarter than I am. Sometimes people just cannot formulate a reasonable answer but sometimes I think his writings are deliberately constructed such that there is no response and so people give one word answers instead *shrug*.

 

[CPA]

I generally respect what Moonbeam is trying to say, but the mere fact that he can put a bunch of "big words" together in a somewhat cerebral statement does not make him smarter. His arguments are not always factual confutation, but rather feelings. And Moonbeam also does his share of bashing, both in defense and offense.

 

[Tab]

This is the internet, if your feeling gets hurt over a computer message board. Your one damned sensitive person, or crazy.

 

[SoylentGreen]

Well, all his posts say this with different wording:

"Love yourself and the world will have no problems"

 

[Maetryx]

Skoorb,

There are time when I know I can't debate his position without putting a lot of time into it, and I just don't feel like it. On those occasions, I simply withdraw (stop responding... or never start). For the record, I am usually "opposed" to his positions.

 

[datalink7]

He is smart, but most of the time he is one of the following (which I don't know which):

A) Copying of of a Thesaurus (sp?)
B) Totally Clueless
C) Totally Sarcastic/pulling our collective legs <--I think this one most likely

I enjoy reading his posts most of the time, and when he actually takes the time to write something intelligent it is quite enjoyable. But a lot of the time he writes a bunch of words that, at the end of it all, he hasn't said a damn thing. Seriously read some of it. I read this one HUGE paragraph that he wrote once and "translated" it (he was going to extremes here. I usually can understand without a dictionary but this time I needed one). Everyone in the thread was saying "can't read moonbeams post because it is giving me a headache." Well, after translation I realized it didn't say anything:Q I'm serious here. He could have said what that huge paragraph said in one sentence.

So, in conclusion, I think most of the time he is pulling our leg.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
Skoorb,

There are time when I know I can't debate his position without putting a lot of time into it, and I just don't feel like it. On those occasions, I simply withdraw (stop responding... or never start). For the record, I am usually "opposed" to his positions.

hehe. Well sometimes like datalink is saying moonbeam will post something long and it's not really getting a heck of a lot across. I know that when he tries he can but sometimes I think he deliberately clouds our minds, partly to make us think on the topic more, and partly for his own fun. I generally either try and agree with himor withdraw also because god it's a headache trying to figure out a response But like I said for the record I think he's a smart guy.

 

[AreaCode707]

Moonbeam's apparent purpose is to make people think. That scares some people, amuses some, and ticks off others. And there are a few people who divine his purpose and gain something from his posts. People can say what they want.

Moonbeam for Elite! er - again

 

[vi edit]

In PM's and in passing I usually call him Moonie. It's in the tone in how you use it.

 

[Squisher]

I don't think I would respond to Moombeam's psycho-bable if I didn't respect him.

 

[Miramonti]

Even tho it often takes an extra dose of ritalin to get through some of his soliloquies I have no problem with him or his posts.

 

[Maetryx]

datalink7

I'm not so sure (about the pulling the leg thing). Sometimes... undoubtedly. But his posts are internally consistent. Moonbeam is a philosopher first IMHO. He is not a loose bag of unrelated issues and opinions (the way political parties seem to be). I am convinced that he always writes from the deepest level of his worldview, and generally avoids particulars.

 

[Mill]

No I see him for what he is and I respond in like. I don't pick a specific person to target nor do I pull punches. I feel a lot of the time that he makes a big use of search engines and dictonarys. Big deal. Anyone can use google or dictionary.com. I don't feel his viewpoint is anymore sacred than anyone elses.

He doesn't silently accept the "name calling" and "personal attacks" because he hits right back. Don't delude yourself into thinking he is some peacnik hell bent on making the world a better place.

 

[Maetryx]

Millenium,

If I was convinced he was a beatnick hellbent on bringing peace on earth then he wouldn't have my respect. My respect comes from his intelligence, consistency, and the fact that he doesn't appear to be an activist.

But I grant that Moonbeam does hit back, even in the thread that I linked at the top of this thread.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: Maetryx
datalink7

I'm not so sure (about the pulling the leg thing). Sometimes... undoubtedly. But his posts are internally consistent. Moonbeam is a philosopher first IMHO. He is not a loose bag of unrelated issues and opinions (the way political parties seem to be). I am convinced that he always writes from the deepest level of his worldview, and generally avoids particulars.

For sure, he generally has something to say. And you can generally glean some meaning from each of his posts. Maybe I should clarify a bit. While he says something in each of his posts, I'm not so sure he is totally focusing on saying something, as opposed to the way he says something. What I mean is, he says something but finds it amusing to say it in a complicated mannar where he really didn't need to. Bringing the level of a argument above the usual grade school level of speech that goes on around here much too often is great, but making something complicated just for the sake of complication is something that I think he does, instead of for clarifycation.

That is more what I meant (if I even explained myself clearly here).

 

[Kev]

Speaking in first person plural and using a lot of infinitives in your writing does not necessarily make you smarter than everyone. If you equate big words with smart, then I would recommend you take an english course, my friend.

 

[klah]

If we do not push our questions beyond the limits within which possible experience can present us with its object, we shall never dream of seeking to inform ourselves about the objects of our senses as they are in themselves, that is, out of all relation to the senses. But if the individual takes appearances for things in themselves, and as existing in and by themselves, then whether he be a materialist who admits into his system nothing but matter alone, or a spiritualist who admits only thinking beings (that is, beings with the form of our inner sense), or a dualist who accepts both, he will always, owing to this misunderstanding, be entangled in pseudo-rational speculations as to how that which is not a thing in itself, but only the appearance of a thing in general, can exist by itself.
- The Philosophy of Moonbeam

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: klah
If we do not push our questions beyond the limits within which possible experience can present us with its object, we shall never dream of seeking to inform ourselves about the objects of our senses as they are in themselves, that is, out of all relation to the senses. But if the individual takes appearances for things in themselves, and as existing in and by themselves, then whether he be a materialist who admits into his system nothing but matter alone, or a spiritualist who admits only thinking beings (that is, beings with the form of our inner sense), or a dualist who accepts both, he will always, owing to this misunderstanding, be entangled in pseudo-rational speculations as to how that which is not a thing in itself, but only the appearance of a thing in general, can exist by itself.
- The Philosophy of Moonbeam

You don't say!

 

[linuxboy]

Wait, so you say my endearing and affectionate term of 'Moonie' is somehow deragatory? Surely, such an exaggerated statement by a biased observer of seemingly unrelated conversations between pseudo-real characters on a communication medium could not warrant the decidedly authoritarian tone of arbitrary worth that prompts my resulting banter !

Reasoned responses to Moonie? Okay, I have the single best rational response (to you) right here:

Have a banana. Love ya


Cheers !

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: klah
If we do not push our questions beyond the limits within which possible experience can present us with its object, we shall never dream of seeking to inform ourselves about the objects of our senses as they are in themselves, that is, out of all relation to the senses. But if the individual takes appearances for things in themselves, and as existing in and by themselves, then whether he be a materialist who admits into his system nothing but matter alone, or a spiritualist who admits only thinking beings (that is, beings with the form of our inner sense), or a dualist who accepts both, he will always, owing to this misunderstanding, be entangled in pseudo-rational speculations as to how that which is not a thing in itself, but only the appearance of a thing in general, can exist by itself.
- The Philosophy of Moonbeam

HEHEHEhahahahahahahahahaha

 

[Bleep]

What a bunch of crap.
Maetryx, do you think that Moonbeam is unable to defend himself and you have to do it for him? This is the ultimate insult to Moonbeam, you are emplying that he/she is not capable or smart enough to defend themself.

Bleep

 

[DougK62]

Moonbeam rocks my world. I don't always agree with him, but he's certainly entertaining and good at expressing himself. His stuff on the recent "prove evolution" thread is right on the money.

A question for Moonbeam: what is your background? I ask because many of your writings take on a "classical" philosophical tone. Just curious.

 

[yllus]

I appreciate the uniqueness he brings to the AnandTech Forums, but as he seems to be locked into a pattern of verbal diarrhea at the end of which you have gained nothing from reading. And I'm usually on his (liberal) side, too...