It was a joke, it was a silly self-mocking joke.
I was also, if I recall, suggesting ironically
that the standard of discussion could be
lifted above the sort of bashing I
was pretending to do.
I get it now, at the time I was being attacked on a couple of flanks and misconstrued it for more of the same. My mistake. I suppose as I get to know people better in here the less chance there is of that sort of error.
Take everything I say literally and youāll think Iām
a lunatic. Youāll be right, of course.
I work in a profession in which Iām often
in combat of a sort. With people smarter than
myself, too; so we develop a lot of professionalism.
My ego is just as big as everybody elseās
though smaller than it used to be when
I was young, but Iāve generally got it under
control. When people go for me personally,
which, among professional philosophers,
seldom happens, I ignore it.
The name of the game is to get control of
oneās ego; nobody is going to be a selfless
saint, but professionalism is a way for
mere mortals to do it. One loves something,
the truth, the discipline one studies, more
than one loves oneself, and the price
of doing it well is self control.
I mean, look, youāre clever, you write well
and youāre informed. I disagree with you about
all sorts of things, but thereās no way Iām going
to write to you as if you were a deluded moron.
And if people like myself, a right winger and so on,
are close-minded brainwashed so and sos, thereās
no point in talking to us. Why waste your
breath?
So, the way I see it, one seeks common ground,
and tries to have a reasonably respectful conversation
in which we all get a deeper understanding of
whatās happening, about which weāre probably
all mistaken to some extent; also we get
more information, even if we never agree.
Certainly I may try to convert you to my
perspective, something all right thinking people
should share (joke); still youāre entitled to your
view of things, I respect that and own that,
ultimately you may be right.
Cordial, informed, respectul, intelligent
discussion, consistent with vigorous argument,
but not personal stuff,
which tries at least sometimes
to find common ground from which to
continue.
Youāre a fine diplomat, Jim.
Kind words much appreciated.
Does that include or exclude mixing post-Wittgenstein epistemology with pre-Spinoza scholastic arguments? 
Iām not sure what the proportions would be but I think itās wrong to just see the Unionists as simply Scots. The Scots transplanted to Ireland were, I think, predominantly lowlanders and in many cases border Scots considered unruly by both lowland Scots and the English. For a variety of reasons, many would have been considered troublemakers where they came from for ethnic or sectarian reasons. This kind of transplantation is something of an art form amonst imperialistsāmastered by Stalin, for example, and evident in the recent troubles in the Ukraine. I suspect many settlers were chosen for their anti-Catholic sentiments.
Iād be rather surprised if a great many highlanders setttled in Ireland. One reason for settling Ulster was to break links between the Highlands and the Isles and Ulster which prospered independently of, and in defiance of, the English and Scottish crowns. Traditionally, the OāNeills of Ulster and the Lord of the Isles had an understanding that simply bypassed the authority of the Scottish and English monarchs. Both groups were Gaelic speaking and continued to share a culture even after some of the highlands converted to Protestantism. Gaelic language and culture was suppressed in the Isles and highlands by the English and by lowlanders quite independently of whether the Gaels in question were protestant or catholic.
I didnāt say there were any Highlanders, Wombly. The Ulster Scots were most definitely the mostly landless Lowlanders from specific areas. I mentioned āThe Scots Irish, A Social Historyā by Leyburn earlier. He describes exactly who they were, what their conditions were prior to departing for Ireland, the conditions prior to departing for America and that eventual migration (so he basically leaves the Orangemen behind in his account because its about the final group of what we call Scots-Irish in America). In Scotland they were like the Elbonians in Dilbert, to read his account. They didnāt even have the know-how for draining swampy areas, had homes built by stacking rocks then using precious tree-beams to hold up their ceilings. There were few substantial towns and people had little knowledge of what lay beyond their areas.. They were subject to landlords who at free will, would literally āpull their houseā down (yeah, this happened to the Highlanders too). Prior to the Presbyterian spread, they had absolutely no education, unlike some of the Highlanders at least. Itās actually a pretty interesting storyā¦
I have never read of any Highlanders going to Ireland in that particular and purposeful migration (to replace native Irish for the Ulster plantations). I think MAYBE some minor royalty who were in with the Brits might have gained some estates in Ireland, but I am open for correction on that one. I also have read that over the centuries, some Highlanders have gone over there, seeking different fortunes or escaping bad fortunes at homeā¦
No you didnāt. Sorry my first sentence looked like I might be correcting you, Weeks. I was just elaborating for the benefit of those who donāt realise that Scottish and Irish Gaels were part of the problem, as far as both Scottish and English crowns were concerned. The religious aspect seems to me to have been more a matter of opportunism than anything else, except of course to people like Cromwell. But even he was an opportunist.