I'm still something of a newbie to this blogging thing, but one of the most fascinating (and irascible) characters I've come across is this fellow Caledonian: terse, tart and contrarian, he has a positive gift for bon mots, often mixed with invective.

( The link on his name gives you a taste, starting around post #11. )

He often says things that are stark and unsparing not just of other's feelings,but against any and all sentimentality or accomodation to what is fashionable or commonly-accepted. That strikes me as valuable and useful. Problem: rather than explaining his views in full, he often acts as if his (minority) views are self-evident, and that the (majority) which can't seem to realize it are idiots. That's not a helpful stance, even if it's true! I recently sent him the following message over at Pharyngula:

"You invite misunderstanding by choosing name-calling and insult over explication. I'm going to make you the same offer I made you before, which is that I would love to read a synopsis of your views. Where, for example, do you think (Ayn) Rand got it right? Where did she get it wrong? I'd love to hear it. I have no agenda, other than an honest desire to understand your point of view.

So, tell you what, I'm going to create a thread on my blog just for that purpose. It'll be your show, old Scot. This is a friendly challenge to put up or shut up. Some people confuse my measured tone with insincerity or lack of resolve. You should be sufficiently perceptive to realize otherwise at this point! Hoping to hear from you!"

So, here it is, as promised. I'm hoping that he will grace me with his presence here....in a substantial way. If otherwise, then those of you who haven't had the pleasure will get an inkling of what I've been talking about!

No comments: