AB debates? are you joking? these are childish arguements that happen here, a lot of back bitting crap.

1) It would not be avoidable, according to this text. 2) This quote is widely spread on English webpages. I wanted to find the original French quote (I am French). As far as I could find, there is not really any original quote for this. The only quote that I found was this one: "La sottise qui consiste à prendre une métaphore pour une preuve, un torrent verbeux pour une source de vérités capitales, et soi-même pour un oracle, est innée en chacun de nous" However, where I found it, the reference given was Fahrenheit 451 (Ray Bradbury), which gives the quote also in English: so a back translation. For instance in this French translation: http://sami.is.free.fr/Oeuvres/bradbury_fahrenheit_451_fr.html 3) The quote appears in English originally in Thomas MacGreevy's translation of Valéry's work: "He also published a translation of Paul Valéry's Introduction à la méthode de Léonard de Vinci as Introduction to the Method of Leonardo da Vinci." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_MacGreevy As far as I could find, it would be on page 9 of that translation, here some excerpts of that page: "OF LEONARDO DA VINCI" (This looks like the title!!! So page 9 would possibly be quite at the beginning) "its principle rather than its products. The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us." "But if it be understood that it is with our greatest intuitions that we run the gretest risk of going wrong, and that the norm of our thought is of little significance, then that in us which chooses, that which construct anew, has to work with-" "Amongst the many idols from which we may chose - since we have to adore at least one - he set up before his eyes that Obstinate Rigour which is avowedly the most exigent of any. It must be the least gross of them all since they are all united" "- it is as useless to call on that as to call down rain. We baptise it, deify it, torment it - in vain! The only result is further falsity and deception - things so naturally bound up with intellectual ambition that one may wonder whether they are not" Source and further information: http://books.google.com/books?id=ofLVAAAAMAAJ&q=The+folly+of+mistaking+a+paradox+for+a+discovery#search_anchor Please notice the authorship given for this book: "Title Introduction to the method of Leonardo da Vinci Authors Paul Valéry, Thomas MacGreevy Translated by Thomas MacGreevy Publisher J. Rodker, 1929 Original from the University of Michigan Digitized May 21, 2009 Length 68 pages" Source and further information: http://books.google.com/books?id=ofLVAAAAMAAJ This could mean that this is more than a literal translation. For those who would try to make some comparisons, the French original text can be read here: http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Introduction_%C3%A0_la_m%C3%A9thode_de_L%C3%A9onard_de_Vinci I could not find in the original text any sentence that could literally be translated that way. (by the way, this text would be extremely difficult to translate anyway) 4) I found also some information about this translation: "Also in 1928, Thomas MacGreevy approached Sturge Moore, through T. S. Eliot, for a preface to his translation of Introduction a la methode de L. de Vinci (see letter of Eliot to. Sturge Moore, 4 April 1928, HRC Texas). Sturge Moore told Monod (and presumably. Eliot as well) that this was impossible, the translation being, he claimed, 'chock full of the least forgiveable gallicisms' (I5 April 1928, Fonds Valery: 'Il me semble qu'il n'y a peut-etre pas lieu de rien dire a Valery - mais de prevenir McGreevy [sic] de votre opinion qui suffira peut-etre a le decourager?'" Source and further information: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3732425 (Translation of the last sentence: "I think that there is maybe no reason to talk about this with Valéry, but rather to warn McGreevy with your opinion, which might be enough to discourage him")

I have noticed them in *all* debates. :) (Been guilty of a few of them myself)

Nope. This guy is full of it. Another perfect example of profundity gone awry...sounds good until you examine the components and then it is more gibberish, only packaged prettier than most gibberish. Sorry. :(

just part of psych-ops profiling ;(