Good afternoon, Stowe. I do not let anyone tell me what I should or should not read. No one controls my life. The only person who had a part of my life passed away seven years ago this Wednesday, and even she never made suggestions on what I should read. I purchased my own books, much as I am sure you do. For that matter, I could hardly care less what St. Thomas had to say, as I do not found my life upon the religion of others, so you keep St. Thomas in your head, and I shall keep him out of mine. I was merely suggesting that in your educational pursuits you could have subjected yourself to the intellectual rigor of these works. One can read the writings and a person of intellect should want to read the works of people with whom one might not agree on the substance, but just to learn the intellectual rigor they use in their thought process.
As for Psych 101, I am degreed in Educational Psychology, so save your barbs for someone who appreciates them; I assure you I am not the one. Educational psych does not expose you to the same philosophical rigors and thought discipline as Aritotleian Logic, Epistemology, and philosophical psyschology. I do, however, feel the need to tell you it is obvious what I said held some merit, as your response was a poor counter.What you wrote in your post held no merit, and I answered only because you attributed to my post a purpose which was false. If my counter were poor, I doubt you would have taken time from your fiction writing to respond.
As for your posting, I did read it thrice (that means three times), and the words did not change, nor did their meaning or my personal concern for them. I'm glad you defined "thrice" because I wasn't sure you knew what it meant. But since you did know what it meant, it underscores even more your lack of comprehension of what I wrote.
I must aver, however, I am impressed you know Blain. So be it.Believe me, when I post, what you think of it or whether or not you are impressed never enters or would enter my mind. I respond only when you misrepresent what I said or give it an implication that is not supported by the language of the post - and that is for the benefit of accuracy. Or when you make an egregious statement such as wishing Paul would be euthanized.
However, you might want to consider what the old saying you expressed may say about you. My late wife always said, "People who pretend to be better than everyone else make it far more difficult for those of us who really are." Your wife was obviously a wise woman and knew you very well because her saying fits you perfectly.
BTW, in your signature, you misquoted Kennedy. Try again.You are right, Mr. Egg, and thank you for pointing that out. Back in the Spring of 1961, I bought a limited edition parchment print of a hand engrossed calligraphy of the Inaugural Address done on by John Ashmore of Seattle; I had it perma-sealed and framed to protect the parchment and thus, I've had it for 53 years. When I did the signature line, I took it from that and in it the quote does say "if the free society...". I never had a reason to question it until you pointed it out and in checking with the JFK Library, the President does in fact say, "If a free society ..." and that is also the official transcription in its Archives. I can only guess that guy who did my calligraphy did it from a copy of the text as released by the White House prior to the actual speech. But that is just speculation on my part. I always thought the use of "the" was strange as opposed to "a", but JFK had his own syntax peculiar to his education and background. So thanks for pointing that out. Correction made.
Enjoy your crow.In this case, I dine on pheasant; the crow is for you!