Jump to content






Photo

Garbage from Seymourblogger


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 seymourblogger

seymourblogger

    $$$$

  • Banned
  • 387 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Springfield MO
  • Interests:post modern philosophy reading through media

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:10 PM

(NOTE FROM MSK: This pearl of wisdom came from another thread right after this post.)





If that's the truth, should it be spoke or just inferred?

Brant,

My concern is not with that poster, but instead with OL.

Should truth on OL be spoken or just inferred?

Think about it.

I don't mind teasing readers to jazz up a payoff for them, but I don't like teasing readers with BS. So I just blurt it out when a tease like that starts.

Michael

She sure hit SOLP like a blunderbuss. She's really scattered, replying to posts I didn't make as if I did. After seeing that, maybe you should have restricted her to three a day. I couldn't do what you do in running this place even if I had the time. I'm actually less tolerant.

--Brant


And much more of a hothead who smears Foucault with slander because you don't have the knowledge, nor the persistence to get it as Shenck (sp?) has said, you need to address his work intelligently. It's "yellow journalism" of the kind Rand wrote about in her Journal, while she was researching Hurst for the character of Wynand. In fact your slur on Foucault was to attack me and make him seem like an unprincipled virus murderer of Mexican boys. Therefore anything he wrote that Seymourblogger quoted was worthless. Turn Foucault into a scumbag and get me at the same time. Kill 2 birds with one stone eh.

That's another shoddy tactic of yours and shows your lack of integrity, something I have known all along. I am glad it is out in the open for all to see, even MSK sees it now. I am pleased and proud to be someone you dislike so much you would smear someone I was intellectually admiring and quoting.

It seems Foucault was aware he was dying and yet in denial. He finished the last two volumes of his History of Sexuality that he had been planning and talked about for almost 2 decades after he published vol I. The final manuscript went to his publisher just days before he went into the hospital where he died shortly after. He left no formal will. His longtime lover and partner was agonizing over the fact that his family might get control of his writing and only by diligent searching in their apartment did he find a letter leaving everything to him, Daniel Defert. And in the letter very strongly put was : No posthumous publication. None. Defert has respected his wishes while everyone has screamed. Much like Peikoff and Rand. All Foucault's notes are in the archive at the Bibioteche (sp?) where they remain. There were boxes and boxes of genalogies he was working on. Transcripts from tapes at his lectures at the College de France have been transcribed and published.

He was loved, admired, respected, feared by students all over the world. And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back. I also think they were intelligent and not nasty little motherfuckers who like to smear people with gossip.



I especially noticed you just had to mention that roman faux sort of novel a friend of his wrote. Nasty nasty person that you are..

Is that the truth now--finally?

You may have a legit beef about my Foucault comment. I do wonder what is consensual age for a boy? Did he love them knowing he had AIDS?

As for my integrity and Michael, I've not gotten anything from him about that. Did you infer an intimation from him? That's not how he works.

What novel are you talking about? I don't remember it.

It's now blatantly obvious you care nothing about Rand except as a pony for your pomo ride. We're supposed to respect your feelings about Foucault while you do nothing but throw her into your Foucaultian Brier patch?

--Brant


Are you such an idiot that you don't know people with AIDS have sex without murdering someone or infecting someone.
DID YOU EVER HEAR OF CONDOMS!

You are the one who used the term roman faux. Actually it was a novel and it had real elements in it about Foucault, his lover and his death. You probably pasted it from somewhere because you didn't know what you were talking about. I am sorry your life is so complicated. I would be surprised if it weren't.

Nasty motherfucker.

And MSK saying he was not above a tease for excitement - paraphrasing paraphrasing - no wonder we have a bunch of adolescent minds running loose around here.
Banned for trolling and using multiple bogus accounts.

#2 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,197 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:32 PM

I'll use this thread as a place to throw the other posts from this poster if and when she goes trollish again.

Michael

Know thyself...


#3 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:38 PM

Seemore Buggers wrote:
And MSK saying he was not above a tease for excitement - paraphrasing paraphrasing - no wonder we have a bunch of adolescent minds running loose around here.
end quote

You have toes? And someone stepped on them? I thought you were from your eye avatar, a whale. Or a bad meme. So, calm down Seymour. The Sea World people will be around with your bucket of squid any minute now.
Peter




Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#4 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:42 PM

Seemore Buggers wrote:
And MSK saying he was not above a tease for excitement - paraphrasing paraphrasing - no wonder we have a bunch of adolescent minds running loose around here.
end quote

You have toes? And someone stepped on them? I thought you were from your eye avatar, a whale. Or a bad meme. So, calm down Seymour. The Sea World people will be around with your bucket of squid any minute now.
Peter




lolol, Peter. Your best this year. The Committee has its eye on you.

#5 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:52 PM

Ah, He, She. or It gets me. Will you please fall off the French bandwagon? Though, have you ever noticed that Saint Michael’s Castle is the prototype for Disney’s?
Peter
edit edit edit. oops. I though that was Seymour. Still Daunce is French Maritime, aren't you?
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#6 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 14 February 2012 - 06:57 PM

(NOTE FROM MSK: This pearl of wisdom came from another thread right after this post.)






If that's the truth, should it be spoke or just inferred?

Brant,

My concern is not with that poster, but instead with OL.

Should truth on OL be spoken or just inferred?

Think about it.

I don't mind teasing readers to jazz up a payoff for them, but I don't like teasing readers with BS. So I just blurt it out when a tease like that starts.

Michael

She sure hit SOLP like a blunderbuss. She's really scattered, replying to posts I didn't make as if I did. After seeing that, maybe you should have restricted her to three a day. I couldn't do what you do in running this place even if I had the time. I'm actually less tolerant.

--Brant


And much more of a hothead who smears Foucault with slander because you don't have the knowledge, nor the persistence to get it as Shenck (sp?) has said, you need to address his work intelligently. It's "yellow journalism" of the kind Rand wrote about in her Journal, while she was researching Hurst for the character of Wynand. In fact your slur on Foucault was to attack me and make him seem like an unprincipled virus murderer of Mexican boys. Therefore anything he wrote that Seymourblogger quoted was worthless. Turn Foucault into a scumbag and get me at the same time. Kill 2 birds with one stone eh.

That's another shoddy tactic of yours and shows your lack of integrity, something I have known all along. I am glad it is out in the open for all to see, even MSK sees it now. I am pleased and proud to be someone you dislike so much you would smear someone I was intellectually admiring and quoting.

It seems Foucault was aware he was dying and yet in denial. He finished the last two volumes of his History of Sexuality that he had been planning and talked about for almost 2 decades after he published vol I. The final manuscript went to his publisher just days before he went into the hospital where he died shortly after. He left no formal will. His longtime lover and partner was agonizing over the fact that his family might get control of his writing and only by diligent searching in their apartment did he find a letter leaving everything to him, Daniel Defert. And in the letter very strongly put was : No posthumous publication. None. Defert has respected his wishes while everyone has screamed. Much like Peikoff and Rand. All Foucault's notes are in the archive at the Bibioteche (sp?) where they remain. There were boxes and boxes of genalogies he was working on. Transcripts from tapes at his lectures at the College de France have been transcribed and published.

He was loved, admired, respected, feared by students all over the world. And yes, he did like boys. Of consensual age. And I bet they just loved him back. I also think they were intelligent and not nasty little motherfuckers who like to smear people with gossip.



I especially noticed you just had to mention that roman faux sort of novel a friend of his wrote. Nasty nasty person that you are..

Is that the truth now--finally?

You may have a legit beef about my Foucault comment. I do wonder what is consensual age for a boy? Did he love them knowing he had AIDS?

As for my integrity and Michael, I've not gotten anything from him about that. Did you infer an intimation from him? That's not how he works.

What novel are you talking about? I don't remember it.

It's now blatantly obvious you care nothing about Rand except as a pony for your pomo ride. We're supposed to respect your feelings about Foucault while you do nothing but throw her into your Foucaultian Brier patch?

--Brant


Are you such an idiot that you don't know people with AIDS have sex without murdering someone or infecting someone.
DID YOU EVER HEAR OF CONDOMS!

You are the one who used the term roman faux. Actually it was a novel and it had real elements in it about Foucault, his lover and his death. You probably pasted it from somewhere because you didn't know what you were talking about. I am sorry your life is so complicated. I would be surprised if it weren't.

Nasty motherfucker.

And MSK saying he was not above a tease for excitement - paraphrasing paraphrasing - no wonder we have a bunch of adolescent minds running loose around here.

I would think that you would not ____ a boy even using condoms if you had AIDS even if we lived in a world where it was culturally acceptable for men to ____ boys.

Are you aware your train has gone completely off the tracks?

--Brant
edit: WWS used "roman faux" on the other thread Feb. 12--go run him down

Edited by Brant Gaede, 15 February 2012 - 12:12 AM.

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism


#7 BaalChatzaf

BaalChatzaf

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 11,360 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Currently residing in New Jersey, the Bad-a-Bing State.
  • Interests:mathematics, physics, alternative energy sources.

    I am also involved in preparing recorded books for blind and dyslexic folks.

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:24 PM

^ ^ ^

Yuchhhhh!

Ba'al Chatzaf
אויב מיין באָבע האט בייצים זי וואָלט זיין מיין זיידע

#8 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 14 February 2012 - 07:35 PM

Ah, He, She. or It gets me. Will you please fall off the French bandwagon? Though, have you ever noticed that Saint Michael’s Castle is the prototype for Disney’s?
Peter
edit edit edit. oops. I though that was Seymour. Still Daunce is French Maritime, aren't you?


Close, I speak French and am a Maritimer but from the south anglo part.(Bay of Fundy)

#9 seymourblogger

seymourblogger

    $$$$

  • Banned
  • 387 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Springfield MO
  • Interests:post modern philosophy reading through media

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:22 PM

George,

I just went there and got quite a kick out of her bluffing.

Imagine a hacker with the massive smarts and equipment needed to hack Google (Blogger), but stupid enough to leave "cookie trails" all over the place.

This lady should teach hacking, she should...

:smile:

Michael


EDIT: It just occurred to me that hacking her and somehow getting her Google password would not be too hard for a person used to doing that sort of thing. Then the hacker could simply log into her account and delete her blog from there. That's actually plausible.

FURTHER EDIT: I just ran a test to see if my hunch was right and it was. I'm almost 100% sure Google deleted her blog. Here's proof, but people interested can only check it for the next couple of days or so.

This dork has 5 different websites in her signature. For those interested, type the following commands into a normal Google search, one after the other. All you have to do is copy and paste exactly as I have posted them.

site:http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/
 
 
site:http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://focusfree.blogspot.com/
What you will find is only one result for the first one (intellectualterrorist2) and that will be for the current empty blog registered under Selene.

You will find several pages for each of the others.

Now here's what happens. If someone deletes a blog (or a hacker logs into another person's account and deletes a site), there will still be several days before the search engine results disappear from Google's index. This means that the pages would still appear in the search results as if the blog still existed. So even though the links to the site from Google's search results would no longer work, the search results would still be displayed just like they are for the other four blogs.

They would only disappear after Google's bot crawled the site again and detected that there was no site there. Even then, I don't know how long it would take for the search results to disappear. I have seen results for inner pages endure for several days after the home page address disappears from the index.

Now, if Google itself deletes a Blogger blog, it scrubs the search engine results of the entire site right then and there. Kablooyee. It has decided that the offending site is garbage and wants it totally out of its system pronto.

No results left over is precisely what is currently showing for the intellectualterrorist2 url. Or not showing to be exact. And this leads to the conclusion that Google had to have done it.

Like I said, after a couple of days or so, this test will no longer be valid as the bots will charge forth to do their spidery crawling.


Interesting analysis MSK. Faux site was put up again. H-E-R-E and of course will appear in google search for awhile. But the originnal is still fine and well and receiving hits from elsewhere, just not from here anymore. God forbid anyone at OL could link directly or paste to my blog and read a different opinion fr9om the party line. and if you past the original in google search you get the more recent nintellectualterrorism2.blogspot.com

Now who do you suppose would put up a faux site and put an n in front of Intellectual? A pun on Not?

Someone from OL put up a faux site. I certainly didn't. Wait, maybe I could have just to throw you a floating sign to act as a mask? What is true and what is false in this simulated reality of ours.

Are you in on it MSK or have you been had? And how can we ever know the objective truth?
Even if you tell us the truth, will you be telling the truth or will you be lying?

Here's Guy de Maupassant in Bel Ami on that. Advice to Duroy:

Following Baudrillard in the instructions given to him for his journalism:

Things should be hinted at in such a manner as to allow of any construction being placed on them, refuted in a manner that confirms the rumor, or affirmed in such a way that no one believes them. (BA 120 1910 ed)

[/left][/left]

Not even to mention Rand's Journal entries on researching the character of Wynand by reading through W.R. Hearst. How Hearst made the news, not reported the news.

[/left][/left]

This is far from over.

[/left]
Banned for trolling and using multiple bogus accounts.

#10 seymourblogger

seymourblogger

    $$$$

  • Banned
  • 387 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Springfield MO
  • Interests:post modern philosophy reading through media

Posted 17 February 2012 - 05:39 PM

George,

I just went there and got quite a kick out of her bluffing.

Imagine a hacker with the massive smarts and equipment needed to hack Google (Blogger), but stupid enough to leave "cookie trails" all over the place.

This lady should teach hacking, she should...

:smile:

Michael


EDIT: It just occurred to me that hacking her and somehow getting her Google password would not be too hard for a person used to doing that sort of thing. Then the hacker could simply log into her account and delete her blog from there. That's actually plausible.

FURTHER EDIT: I just ran a test to see if my hunch was right and it was. I'm almost 100% sure Google deleted her blog. Here's proof, but people interested can only check it for the next couple of days or so.


site:http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/  This is not CODE This is a straightforward copy/past instruction
 
 
site:http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://focusfree.blogspot.com/
What you will find is only one result for the first one (intellectualterrorist2) and that will be for the current empty blog registered under Selene.

You will find several pages for each of the others.

Now here's what happens. If someone deletes a blog (or a hacker logs into another person's account and deletes a site), there will still be several days before the search engine results disappear from Google's index. This means that the pages would still appear in the search results as if the blog still existed. So even though the links to the site from Google's search results would no longer work, the search results would still be displayed just like they are for the other four blogs.

They would only disappear after Google's bot crawled the site again and detected that there was no site there. Even then, I don't know how long it would take for the search results to disappear. I have seen results for inner pages endure for several days after the home page address disappears from the index.

Now, if Google itself deletes a Blogger blog, it scrubs the search engine results of the entire site right then and there. Kablooyee. It has decided that the offending site is garbage and wants it totally out of its system pronto.

No results left over is precisely what is currently showing for the intellectualterrorist2 url. Or not showing to be exact. And this leads to the conclusion that Google had to have done it.

Like I said, after a couple of days or so, this test will no longer be valid as the bots will charge forth to do their spidery crawling.


For the uninformed the faux site is what is known as a "MIRROR SITE" in which the link goes to a fake site.


Google wasn't hacked. That was just what I said in an email that the hacker read. It disappeared after the hacker read it but it's back again because the hacker now knows that I was lying. Because I knew my email was being hacked and read.

How come you know what I said in an email MSK?

I like your damage control MSK. Either you were in on it or you were had? You are following Guy de Maupassant's advice to Duroy in Bel ami (late 19th century)

Following Baudrillard in the instructions given to him for his journalism:

Things should be hinted at in such a manner as to allow of any construction being placed on them, refuted in a manner that confirms the rumor, or affirmed in such a way that no one believes them. (BA 120 1910 ed)

[/left][/left]

And of course Rand in her JournaAl, the part where she is researching the character of Wynand through W.R. Hearst, showing that he did not report the news, he made the news.

[/left][/left]

This is far from over.

[/left]
Banned for trolling and using multiple bogus accounts.

#11 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,197 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2012 - 06:24 PM

I moved the two posts above to here because they make no sense to me, but the tone is like a kindergarten spat.

There is one point I do want to mention, though. Seymourblogger added a comment in my post as quoted below (her part starts with "This is not CODE...").


site:http://intellectualterrorist2.blogspot.com/  This is not CODE This is a straightforward copy/past instruction
 
 
site:http://cosmopolisfilm2.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://moviesandfilm.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://guerrillablog2.blogspot.com/
 
site:http://focusfree.blogspot.com/

The following explanation is for the forum users as you may need to use this resource.

It is obviously for copy/paste, which is why I said copy/paste in my instructions for using these search terms in a normal Google search. (The "site:" part is called a "search operator.")

What dork is referring to, though, is the word "CODE" that the software puts before the quoted section. (Apparently it doesn't show up on a nested quote, only on the original post.) What this means in forum-speak is that the links will not be automatically turned into hyperlinks. Anything within code tags stays as plain text. Otherwise a written URL will be changed over automatically. I didn't want the hyperlinks because I wanted plain text for copying and pasting, so I used the code tags.

This resource, code tags (used mostly to keep php files from operating when discussing technical matters, but also to keep other mini-programs like automatic hyperlinks from running), has been a normal resource for forum software for about as long as there has been forum software.

It's irritating (but not a whole lot) for an ignoramus to lecture others on stuff like this when she makes such elementary mistakes.

It reminds me of someone else...

:smile:

Michael

Know thyself...


#12 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,197 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 February 2012 - 07:45 PM

For the record, this other blog thing has been resolved. Seymourblogger has been giving out information with misspelling in it.

I should have seen it, but WSS was the one who caught it (see here).

Michael

Know thyself...


#13 Peter Taylor

Peter Taylor

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 2,282 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Land of Sky Blue Water

Posted 17 February 2012 - 10:03 PM

Strange. Unfathomable. It is like a StarTrek episode where Captain Picard is trying to communicate with a race so alien, the Universal Translator is confused: “Ugly bags of mostly water,” Does that translate to bipedal, hierarchical command structure, common DNA from multiple planets, sentient, warp driven, *us*?

OK. I admit is fun trying to decipher an alien species. At some point will it not be fun anymore? For now, bring on the code for OL to decipher. We are intrigued. I just wonder what pain is driving Seymour? She is seeking solace. I would throw her a life preserver if I could. Wherever the unhappy, dangerous place she is in, “Beam her up Scotty!” We have a safe place for the weary here. Just be honest, Seymour.
And so to bed.
Peter Taylor
Semper cogitans fidele,
Independent Objectivist,
Peter Taylor

#14 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:04 AM

Strange. Unfathomable. It is like a StarTrek episode where Captain Picard is trying to communicate with a race so alien, the Universal Translator is confused: “Ugly bags of mostly water,” Does that translate to bipedal, hierarchical command structure, common DNA from multiple planets, sentient, warp driven, *us*?

OK. I admit is fun trying to decipher an alien species. At some point will it not be fun anymore? For now, bring on the code for OL to decipher. We are intrigued. I just wonder what pain is driving Seymour? She is seeking solace. I would throw her a life preserver if I could. Wherever the unhappy, dangerous place she is in, “Beam her up Scotty!” We have a safe place for the weary here. Just be honest, Seymour.
And so to bed.
Peter Taylor


Good post Peter. This is indeed a safe place for the weary, as long as you do not sit down next to Adam.

#15 daunce lynam

daunce lynam

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 8,038 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Hockey, what else is there?

Posted 18 February 2012 - 11:10 AM

^ ^ ^

Yuchhhhh!

Ba'al Chatzaf


Baal, I have been wondering for a while, is your current sig line the Hebrew rendering of your old one, the famous last words of Socrates? Or is it about enemy smiting, or slain enemy foreskin counting, or like that? Enquiring minds want to know.

#16 Selene

Selene

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey
  • Interests:Chess, birding, football, baseball, minimalist backpacking, argumentation and debate, politics and philosophy, strategic board gaming, history, Rand, poetry, writing.

Posted 18 February 2012 - 03:33 PM


^ ^ ^

Yuchhhhh!

Ba'al Chatzaf


Baal, I have been wondering for a while, is your current sig line the Hebrew rendering of your old one, the famous last words of Socrates? Or is it about enemy smiting, or slain enemy foreskin counting, or like that? Enquiring minds want to know.


I think it is Yiddish and has to do with one of his standard aphorisms:

If my grandmother had testicles she would be my grandfather
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice..and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

#17 seymourblogger

seymourblogger

    $$$$

  • Banned
  • 387 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Springfield MO
  • Interests:post modern philosophy reading through media

Posted 27 February 2012 - 02:48 PM


My primary diagnosis: he is a thorough-going agnostic who is highly irritated by the "faith" others have in evolution, and the mental laziness his O'ist adversaries have about the subject. Secondary diagnosis: he is a lapsed randian, well-read in the reasons the movement has been spinning its wheels in the ditch for 40-plus years, and likes to amuse himself by sticking it to people who drove the car in said ditch.

He also holds his booze pretty well, but that's when some nastiness slips out.


The first paragraph is pretty much what I think, too.

But where do you get the idea that Darren's a boozer? Are you partly mixing him up with Brant, who sometimes posts on SOLO while drinking (but who, on the other hand, I wouldn't describe as ever becoming nasty).

Ellen


Ellen:

I come from a household (and generations) of boozers, and, from an unfortunately young age, have long had a radar for these things--albeit a not infallible one, so I may be missing the mark.

My experience in life is that someone that smart is not usually that nasty, or at least not that gratuitously nasty in such an uneven and patchy way, without outside influences, such as booze. For intance, his calling you a gossip-monger and likely therapy candidate back in the day was entirely gratiuitous and out of proportion to anything to anything warranted by your comments. I also seem to noticed his making a reference to Brant in a manner that a boozer might do...So, assuming he is a boozer is actually more benevolent than the alternatives.

That being said, I got a kick out of watching the back and forth. The dude is wickid smart, and that makes up for a lot.


I think he was just fed up with the IQ around here. Darren did/does not suffer fools gladly.
Banned for trolling and using multiple bogus accounts.

#18 seymourblogger

seymourblogger

    $$$$

  • Banned
  • 387 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Springfield MO
  • Interests:post modern philosophy reading through media

Posted 29 February 2012 - 06:50 PM


She's actually damaging SOLO with her multiple nothing postings on multiple threads coupled with that horrible avatar Darren made to mock both her and that site.

She's spiking SOLO's readership because people from here who weren't paying any attention to SOLO are looking to see what happens. :D

This sounds right, for a few reasons. Fresh hot vituperation sometimes spurts and flows, related to the large eruption in 2005, Perigo banished to solo passion with a few bitter cronies, MSK a-building, Joe Rowlands and the couch people sagging deeper into dullness.

Is there an internal rule of Objectivist partings-of-the-way, that any break or subordination comes with nasty effluvia? I know that when Comrade Doctor Diana was having her McCaskey false labour pains, even the normally slumbering Facebook community of Objective-ish came alive, seething and spitting, not to mention all the gnashing and gurning in the usual places.

From time to time wounds from the first SOLO open up, too. When schisms happen (even small peevish ones), I think a lot of folks do go gander, see who gets punished, see who wins or loses anything of value.

Heads thump into a basket, threads get expunged, commentators fall through the trapdoor and are gone. Human drama in all its splendour.

This time our zany Janet got sloppy, unwise and arrogant, got Linz riled, got sharp-toothed Creatures of the Swamp lumbering up onto his beach. He got even more riled at George from the Swamp's unanswerable take-downs -- and when Darren added his own gifts of vituperation, our Linz -- like our Phil, like any aging martinet with waning powers of persuasion -- performed the inevitable self-thwarting fit of amok. Another whack of the hatchet. Another thump in the basket.

Through it all our sweet bemused Janet rowing in circles, unable to form a credible tale of the people with whom she interacts, unable to discern personality, motivation, or decency in her interlocutors, rowing sometimes fast, sometimes slow, sometimes pausing to shout abuse at larger more purposeful boats.

Just think, six years and some months ago, we might have been able to fill a giant ballrooom with folks of the original SOLO. MSK, Perigo and Rowlands might have been able to croak out a few pleasantries about each other on mike from the dais. Barbara may have downed a few Martinis and dished in a corner of the balcony. Even Diana might have stood at the bar slugging vodka and moose milk and heckling.

As our host notes, aren't we happy to help SOLO get some extra eyes while the lava flows.

-- by the way, I think Ghs should receive a Carol-crafted award for his pithy response to Janet's mumble scary mumble very slow swamp fuck she is delivering to mumble mutter victory blah. It raised the hairs on my nape.

From the Swamp we came, to the Swamp we return, teeth sharpened anew. The first Swamp award must go to George H Smith for some fine work this week both in and out of the Swamp. When he does this to Unreason (I must use it somewhere as my avatar):


Posted Image



It seems it is letting me post and I can add 3 more until 6:38 with just 1 more minute to go. then it will stop me. What a smooth auto tech thing it is. The number changes every time and the time slot changes every time. Amazing.

Ah that giant ballroom is getting bigger and bigger as fewer and fewer people are in it. That old Yiddish folk tale with all the farm animals in the house with all the children and relatives.

I like your gif BTW, and it doesn't slow me up. Wonder why?

Brant says it's greased.

What is happening is what is called the "drop out rate" in education. In the public schools now those schools who have a high rate are now referred to as "drop out factories". Well named. So what reamins are little enclaves, much like the Shakers who thru non-fucking diminished to zero. Attrition has descended on SOLO SLOP and Objectivist Dead. It's what happens to closed system religions and cults. As Canetti says in his book on Power,and Groups, every group's goal in to increase.

Well it looks like SOLO SLOP and OD have goals to contract small enough to slither down the drain eh. Now it's very incestual. Your anger at Peikoff for keeping Objectivism a closed system is a projection from your two sites, which themselves are mirrors, in that they also are closed systems. That BTW is what a Discourse is and does. It is why baseball did not change over 150 years until Billy Beane "CUT" into the Discourse and this is what Moneyball says. The jock owners and mangers even knew that it was a change in Discourse and said so. A change in the discourse forces - forces - a change in thinking.

No change here. Keep on moving. Nothing to see here. It's just a commenting site where people who know each other online come to gather over the back fence and shoot the breeze.

However, I found some treasures here. I am a corporate raider incognita!
Banned for trolling and using multiple bogus accounts.

#19 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 20,197 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 February 2012 - 07:47 PM

Janet,

Just so we're clear, you do not have the right or entitlement to come here to OL, call it derogatory names and demean the members.

Some people have that right and entitlement, but not you.

Not trolls.

Your grace period has expired.

Ya' wanna bash this place and the folks around here? Nobody's stopping you. Do it on SLOP or your own sites. Or hell, there's the entire Internet out there. You're just not going to do it here. This last is a statement of fact, not a request.

I moved this last post of yours to the Garbage Pile.

From now on, if you do that trolling crap, I'm going to delete your post instead of moving it.

I already deleted one were you tried to shove instead of nudge.

I'm fine with deleting more. It's easier than moving the post and commenting.

You've got a brain. I suggest you use it.

But it's your brain. Do what the hell you want with it.

(EDIT: I just deleted another. See how easy that is? Poof!--with the click of a mouse. You go from some audience for which to play your mind games with yawp to no audience at all when your yawp becomes troll grunts.)

Michael

Know thyself...


#20 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 15,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 29 February 2012 - 09:29 PM

Well, Michael, if you want to "shove" instead of "nudge" you need some muscle. I'd like to see any of Janet's "shove" without it, or with it--improbable as that might be. I suspect if she had some "shove" you wouldn't be objecting so much, because that'd be interesting. For instance, with five posts a day she can't stop wasting them with one-liners. Xray, though, adapted--and thrived. Now Xray is an intellectual asset. Brains and substance.

--Brant
but she muted her assault for it was just bad manners for her to continue, which I appreciate

Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--limited government libertarian heavily influenced by Objectivism





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users