Sad News: Bruce Dorskind Died

[Exhibitman]

I have never fathomed the idea that death insulates a person from negative comments. Nothing about dying makes a mean person nicer than he was in life. I suppose it is rooted in ancient superstitions about vengeful ghosts haunting people who speak ill of the dead. I and many others here have no interest in participating in constructing a hagiographic thread about a man who was openly contemptuous of so many of us and so privately venomous to so many here. He does not get a free pass simply because he died. Had I ever met the man I'd have told him to his face precisely what I thought of him and I see no reason to pull my punches now. If that is distasteful to some, well, sorry, but that comes under the heading of sowing what you reap.

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

I have never fathomed the idea that death insulates a person from negative comments. Nothing about dying makes a mean person nicer than he was in life. I suppose it is rooted in ancient superstitions about vengeful ghosts haunting people who speak ill of the dead. I and many others here have no interest in participating in constructing a hagiographic thread about a man who was openly contemptuous of so many of us and so privately venomous to so many here. He does not get a free pass simply because he died. Had I ever met the man I'd have told him to his face precisely what I thought of him and I see no reason to pull my punches now. If that is distasteful to some, well, sorry, but that comes under the heading of sowing what you reap.

Isn't it reaping what you sow?

[travrosty]

Originally Posted by Leon

Isn't it reaping what you sow?

yoda.

[cyseymour]

The common expression, is "reaping what you sow", but it would also be possible to sow what you reap if what you were reaping were from the previous harvest. Then you sow it afterwards with new seeds and henceforth sow what you reap.

It is sort of like the "chicken and the egg" conundrum... whether you believe the chicken or egg came first depends upon your philosophical perspective. If you believe in God, then you would believe that the chicken came first because the chicken would be the object of God's creation. You could say that the chicken was created as a miracle, or that the egg was not of a chicken egg and maybe was laid by a salamander or some other egg-laying species.

Inversely, atheists would generally choose the rational/scientific perspective that a chicken cannot be born without some sort of egg, which must be therefore a chicken egg or some sort of evolutionary equivalent void of miracles of God, springing from some sort of scientific explanation for evolution and creation.

In this scenario, perhaps people really are sowing what they reap, because Bruce, however he may have been in real life, was a quite despicable poster. So if what we all reaping were hateful posts and emails , then postmortem what is being sown is a picture of Bruce as a kinder and gentle human. But clearly there are those who rightfully object to that personification.

My personal view is that Bruce was a nice guy who was poisoned by a rather large amount of social anxiety which manifested itself in bizarre ways on the internet. That in no way justifies his behavior, however. I don't think it's fair to take shots at someone postmortem, but to recognize that someone was less than a perfect human being is fair game.

[Runscott]

I think there was some sort of chicken-like creature born with a very thin shell, that was practically a membrane, but you could still call it a shell. The chicken before it had more of a membrane around it, so you wouldn't call it a shell. But when that occurred would be subjective, and the differences between the membrane-shell and the shell-membrane would be so slight over the generations, that it's unlikely any two people would choose the same exact chicken/egg combination to answer the riddle. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think there was some sort of chicken-like creature born with a very thin shell, that was practically a membrane, but you could still call it a shell. The chicken before it had more of a membrane around it, so you wouldn't call it a shell. But when that occurred would be subjective, and the differences between the membrane-shell and the shell-membrane would be so slight over the generations, that it's unlikely any two people would choose the same exact chicken/egg combination to answer the riddle. Sorry I couldn't be of more help.

Yes, but if it still had a shell, no matter how thin it may be, that would still be considered an egg, no?

[Leon]

Guys, let's be respectful of Barry's thread and request, if nothing else...thanks.

and I should quickly add, that I am at fault too, but no more.....

[cyseymour]

Originally Posted by Leon

Guys, let's be respectful of Barry's thread and request, if nothing else...thanks.

and I should quickly add, that I am at fault too, but no more.....

Good point. You're correct that we should respect Barry's wishes. Like Scott, I will adhere to your request.