Let me just preface this by saying "Budiansky is a jerk."

Let me quickly add that if that were all my comments, then that statement
would constitute an ad hominem of the depreciatory variety (presumably one
of the "Heinz 57").  If instead, I were to say simply, "Budiansky is a
saint," and *nothing* more, then that would also constitute an ad hominem,
albeit of the appreciatory variety (again, one of "57").

In the first instance, calling Budiansky a jerk is an insult; in the second
instance, calling Budiansky a saint is a compliment.  Both are ad hominem.
I suppose then that the two conflicting ad hominem accounts of Budiansky
the man might complement each other, at least in John Foster's sense of the
word "complement":

>> > > >Is that not an ad hominem argument?
>> > >
>> > > No. Not from you Steve. Any comment from you is complement.

Okay.  enough about the ad hominem fallacy.  Perhaps one of the logic prigs
in the audience will call attention to something I've said here in error.
:-)

********************

Hi Maria-Stella!

I note below that you are looking for opinions on Budiansky's book, which
just happens to be one of my favorites!  <devilish grin>.  <insert
conspiracy suspicions here>.  <for the humor-impaired, that is intended to
be funny>.  <but I'm not saying it *is* funny, in any intrinsic sense>.

Maria-Stella wrote:

>I am asking everybody
>
>MS

I gather that since you are asking "everybody," that my humble opinion on
Budiansky's book might democratically count as well.  For that I am truly
grateful.  I have posted previously on the subject of Budiansky's book,
*Nature's Keepers*.  Rather than rewrite some of what I've already posted,
I can provide some pertinent links here, in true "Humberto" self-reference
theory fashion.

(As an aside, in my newly-found sense of shame and guilt at never having
heard of the great "Humberto's" theory of self-referencing, I have decided
to implement a crash program of self-referencing my own writings in
attrition for my appalling and disgraceful prior ignorance about
"Humberto," the man.  This is intended in the spirit of applying the great
man's theories to my own life and ethical practice.  After all, I would not
want to appear to negate the man, Humberto.  So from now on until further
notice, you all will be receiving links to my previous posts on certain
topics.)

(Consider this the email list equivalent of television "reruns."  I prefer
to think of them as my "greatest hits.") <grin>

<HUMOR MODE BACK ON>  And again, for the humor-impaired (hi), the previous
parenthetical public service messages were brought to you by your friendly
resident sarcastic and humor-intending evil anti-environmental corporate
propagandist, Jim T. <HUMOR MODE OFF>

Okay, at any rate.  Maria-Stella, here are a few links to some of our prior
discussions on Budiansky in case you missed them the first time around.
Scroll up or down within the archived threads to get the context of the
full discussions.
best,
Jim T.

http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/1999-04/0117.html on the
community concept;
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-03/0055.html on Budiansky
on dogs;
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-05/0128.html Budiansky on
E.O. Wilson;
http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/enviroethics/2000-05/0149.html on
Budiansky's credibility;



>> > I am reading an interesting book right now, Nature's Keepers, by Stephen
>> > Budiansky.
>> >  Do you have any ad hominem or not comments to make about him?
>> > I want to use some things for my thesis, so i want to know ALL the
>> > gossip.
>> >
>> > Maria-Stella
>> >
>>
>>
>> =====
>> "In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe
>>in a
>> 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
>> --Jamey Lee West
>>



%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%