It doesn't matter to me what they are off the page. Maybe you don't get that. All the impact they have is in print, here, via their ideas. No judgment need be expressed beyond a judgment of what is in the post- and if only for economy, I would suggest limiting oneself to the post is best. But from a perspective of error, it is also wise to limit oneself to the evidence, which is the post. Much of the other things people write about, in terms of their reactions to the person, rather than the post, are fantasy. I guess there is nothing wrong with fantasy, but it does impede discussion (if one assumes discussions are to be logical, rather than fanciful). I also think when you go off on personal fantasies, even if you can get a few other people to buy off on them, what you really have is a "religion" about a poster, a belief system, a made up schema, rather than anything real.
A post and its ideas have a certain reality. The person behind the posts has very little, imo. You can certainly imbue a poster with any reality you like, but I doubt you will get it right very often. I've sure seen many whopping mistakes made on SI, and I expect to see many more. |
