Simon wrote:I choose, sanely enough, to forget "defending" the new works on this site. What's the point? More name calling? As I told Freak, no matter how good I think my defense is, no matter how well prepared, some things you gents find fault in are indisputable. As for the rest, the items which don't involve strict error but are a matter of taste, it will always come back to the often repeated line "Bullshit Simon!".
There are several things wrong with this, primarily a false dilemma. You say that there are some indisputable problems, and then there are matters of taste - effectively cutting off all discussion because this would imply that we either agree from the start (though not necessarily on the importance of the issues) or we never will.
You comments that some unspecified 'we' will only respond with namecalling and 'bullshit Simon' is, in its own passive-aggresive way itself namecalling - I certainly resent those comments and would ask you to kindly forego making such statements in the future so sweeping as to encompass me.
Simon wrote:Hence I've chosen the path of respect (which I feel is essential to a meaningful dialog). I won't pollute your board with sentiment you've no regard for. I'm not going to defend BH and KJA. If they want a defense or feel the need to defend themselves, let them do so. If it isn't their concern, why on Earth should it be mine? If anyone wishes to talk "classic VS. nu" bring it to the PM, where we can talk civilly without the hoopla. If that doesn't work for you, then it didn't matter any way.
This is completely nonsensical, I am afraid. Out of respect for the dialogue you chose to... not have the dialogue. We may not have any inherent respect for 'your sentiments', but I for one have enough respect for my own that I am willing to stick up for them - I welcome the dialogue and debate and would love to hear from those who believe differently from me. The worst that can happen is that I learn something!
Now, KJA&BH (have declined to defend the new books. You have entered discussions on the matter before, and unlike Byron (who ignores questions he does not like and ban people), Arnoldo (who believes he can throw around terms like 'ad hominem' randomly and thereby win discussions), and Fantomas and other (who simply resort directly to namecalling), you have been doing it rather respectfully and intelligently.
Simon wrote:IMO: This "defense" thread is laughable. It's like a kangaroo court. If you want to chase my tail just yank items you think fool hardy from DN, I'm sure you'll find something I've said you disagree with and wish to kick around amongst yourselves for petty amusements. I'm no longer a contributor in regard to defenses on this site. It is a waste of our time.
I respectfully disagree.
You are correct that taking snippets from DN and pouncing on each others not-so-carefully-worded mistakes leads to nothing. But this is not a indictment of the dialogue as such. We could have a serious debate on eg. the Butlerian Jihad according to Frank Herbert - and I have tried to do so. I am not interested in 'he said/I said' commentary on one another, but in a debate regarding how we read Frank Herbert - and I do not believe that serious debate is ever truly wasted, certainly not when dealing with such an interesting subject matter.
Simon wrote:However, as was mentioned in my PM to Freak, I am still going forward with my annotations for the purpose of participation on this board. The goal has changed from "defense" to understanding. I have to concede to the point that the new books do have an effect on a readers view of the Duniverse (ill or nil just a matter of opinion). Thus I'm doing my best to put the shades cast by the new works aside and try and see the Duniverse in a strictly classical light. Avoiding needless, topic derailing, faux pas.
Now if you folks feel that the name "Simon" is sooooo important (:roll:) then by all means put it back on. I just don't care to "up my internet fame" in this manner. I'd rather it be through positive acts than petty bickering. Still, I'll defer to you gents in this. I mean if you just have to have my name on this thread, fine by me. Any press is good press.
I care not one bit about the thread name, personally.
But you did tell me at one point that you would return to the debate (re. some point I made) and now you seem to be saying you won't. You are, of course, free to change your mind...
If you do not want to have the debate here, because of the general behaviour on this board towards <sarcasm> 'your kind' </sarcasm>, I am sympathetic towards that. You mention using the PM system - that would be fine by me.
I have summed up my stance here:
viewtopic.php?p=14668 and would like to hear especially how you read Alia's comments that machines were trustworthy and Leto II's statements on the reasons behind the Jihad. I believe this is an instance of something which is in no way a minor nitpick (the reason for why the universe is as it is at the time of Dune, a parallel to Paul's prescience, an exploration of FH's views on politics, etc.), nor that it is simply a 'matter of taste' (it is a matter of reading the books, not of liking part X or getting a certain impression of part Y).
I hope to hear from you one way or another...
