Solving a Puzzle-- Understanding Some People's Reactions


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 358
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Anyone who thinks that groupthink doesn't occur in an Objectivist website like OL or elsewhere or among the ortho wing or the reformer wing is dangerously naive.

Phil,

Gimme a break.

Whenever I boil down your gripes to the essence, they always come down to you wanting to instill groupthink in others. You're perfectly happy with the idea of groupthink and actively seek it.

You just sound frustrated a lot of the time because you are being ignored. So you goad people by pretending you are the schoolmarm and they are your pupils. And that gets you attention.

One of the main themes of OL is for each person to think for himself or herself. Look around at the richness of topics to get a clue. They go from Rand to politics to QM to neuroscience to (now) looking at post modern stuff to fiction writing to child psychology to... need I go on?

And there is no party line in any of this.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?

George,

It's plumage.

:smile:

Michael

You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink:

Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?

George,

It's plumage.

:smile:

Michael

I guess I don't understand. seymourblogger is too long? That doesn't seem right. Is the software adding something I can't see? Tell me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your signature line appears with every post. If you don't come here but do your work thru email you may not see it.

--Brant

if you delete it all that info will disappear--which I don't want--from all your previous posts--you need an OL place to park it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?

George,

It's plumage.

:smile:

Michael

You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink:

Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers.

Ghs

I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance.

You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your signature line appears with every post. If you don't come here but do your work thru email you may not see it.

--Brant

if you delete it all that info will disappear--which I don't want--from all your previous posts--you need an OL place to park it

How do I park it? I still don't get it but will try to figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't given you a chance to dump all over my fiction. I am sure you won't like it.

Sigh...

You're sure sure of a lot of things.

I'm not that superficial.

I used to think you weren't, either.

Michael

Are you baiting me? I'm very very superficial. I'm even more superficial than Andy Warhol. (This is called mirroring.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand. seymourblogger is too long? That doesn't seem right. Is the software adding something I can't see? Tell me.

Seymourblogger,

There is a part of your settings called "signature." This is a technical term. It can be your name or not. It's a space where you put text.

You have put an entire article in yours in addition to the links to your blogs.

This makes posters have to scroll over and over the same stuff just to see the new stuff you post.

The psychological effect on the public over time of that amount of text in the signature space is irritation. It doesn't matter what the text is.

That's the effect. And that's for all online forums. You decide if irritating your readers through essentailly clunky formatting is the response you are seeking and change it or not.

(We have one poster, for instance, who prefers irritating folks in a similar manner. The discussion of this often flares up into snark and derails the actual topic. But he seems to like interacting that way.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janet and I are talking about ideas, not forum space occupied. Different kind of problem. You and I et al. remember how X-Ray was at first. It wasn't her ideas per se but how she swarmed into and over everything on OL with them.

--Brant

Whaaaaat! I am still figuring out my Toshiba which I hate because it is not an Apple. Replying on it is a big challenge for me. But my young nerdy bf insists, as this is what he did when my apple desktop said goodbye to me. I'm still in mourning, so be kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand. seymourblogger is too long? That doesn't seem right. Is the software adding something I can't see? Tell me.

Seymourblogger,

There is a part of your settings called "signature." This is a technical term. It can be your name or not. It's a space where you put text.

You have put an entire article in yours in addition to the links to your blogs.

This makes posters have to scroll over and over the same stuff just to see the new stuff you post.

The psychological effect on the public over time of that amount of text in the signature space is irritation. It doesn't matter what the text is.

That's the effect. And that's for all online forums. You decide if irritating your readers through essentailly clunky formatting is the response you are seeking and change it or not.

(We have one poster, for instance, who prefers irritating folks in a similar manner. The discussion of this often flares up into snark and derails the actual topic. But he seems to like interacting that way.)

Michael

Well thank you. All the rest of them were whining babies over something I couldn't figure out. It's been annoying me too but I thought it was just the software and that I was the ony one seeing it as it was mine. OK. Now if I can just find "signature" and fix the problem. On my T that will take all fuckin day. I'm trying to be funny but I am really crying. Sobbing even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?
George, It's plumage. :smile: Michael
You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink: Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs
I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said.

You are free to drop any names you like.

Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage.

As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure.

If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't understand. seymourblogger is too long? That doesn't seem right. Is the software adding something I can't see? Tell me.

Seymourblogger,

There is a part of your settings called "signature." This is a technical term. It can be your name or not. It's a space where you put text.

You have put an entire article in yours in addition to the links to your blogs.

This makes posters have to scroll over and over the same stuff just to see the new stuff you post.

The psychological effect on the public over time of that amount of text in the signature space is irritation. It doesn't matter what the text is.

That's the effect. And that's for all online forums. You decide if irritating your readers through essentailly clunky formatting is the response you are seeking and change it or not.

(We have one poster, for instance, who prefers irritating folks in a similar manner. The discussion of this often flares up into snark and derails the actual topic. But he seems to like interacting that way.)

Michael

I just clicked cancel sig in profile, so I hope that does it. BTW your comment to me was post modern, Baudrillardian thinking derived from Nietzsche! Something in excess, no matter how good, just becomes irritating! The way to get rid of anything is excess. This is Eric Packer in Cosmopolis. This is how to get rid of any evil. This is what Wynand was doing with the Banner. This is what Rand did with NBI. And so on as Vonnegut says.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?
George, It's plumage. :smile: Michael
You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink: Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs
I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said.

You are free to drop any names you like.

Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage.

As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure.

If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you.

Ghs

Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?
George, It's plumage. :smile: Michael
You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink: Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs
I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said.
You are free to drop any names you like. Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage. As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure. If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you. Ghs
Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake.

Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his life.

I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Foucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just clicked cancel sig in profile, so I hope that does it.

You ain't getting it.

I'll fix it. I'll leave the links to your blogs and conserve your text in a different space.

Michael

EDIT: Done. Your text is in "About Me" in your profile, so you didn't lose anything.

Merci merci merci Now why the fug couldn't I have figured it out. Dumb I guess. Now for the avi. I want to put up the one darren did on me at solo. It is rique. Naked. Can I use it or should I choose the bathing suit one he did to ridicule me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?
George, It's plumage. :smile: Michael
You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink: Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs
I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said.
You are free to drop any names you like. Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage. As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure. If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you. Ghs
Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake.

Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his life.

I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Fpucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means.

Ghs

So you want to do a pro and con. Nope to that trap. Come up with something better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Senor Idiot wrote:

Merci merci merci Now why the fug couldn't I have figured it out. Dumb I guess. Now for the avi. I want to put up the one darren did on me at solo. It is rique. Naked. Can I use it or should I choose the bathing suit one he did to ridicule me?

End quote

Michael wrote:

You ain't getting it.

end quote

Maybe Seeless Seymour needs a horse whispererer to translate? That last “er” is short for the emergency room at Bellevue Mental Hospital. What drivel. Get thee to a nut house.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you use that ridiculously long "signature" in very post?
George, It's plumage. :smile: Michael
You call it plumage. I call it excess baggage. :wink: Foucault, of all people, is mentioned several times. He is one of the most overrated thinkers of the past century, and a favorite of undergraduate name-droppers. Ghs
I will fucking name-drop Foucault anytime I want. I have gone to boot camp with him reading all the difficult books he ever wrote and they are difficult. HIs thinking is precise and incredibly powerful. Your statement comes from a read-made sound bit from those who only read about him. He can be criticized but you had better be an expert to do it. I recommend Baudrillard's <b>Forget Foucault</b> for you. He was so great at destroying Foucault that Foucault refused to consider the essay when it was sent to the zine he was the editor of. If was suppressed until Foucault died and not translated into English for 20 years to maintain Foucault's academic predominance. You read him then you come to me to say things like you just said.
You are free to drop any names you like. Over the years I've read four books by Foucault (in translation). Of those, only one -- The Order of Knowledge: An Archeology of the Human Sciences-- was worth a damn (I still have a copy), and even that one contains its share of pretentious garbage. As for your claim that I need to be an "expert" on Foucault before I dare criticize him -- well, I don't need to be an expert on manure to know that I burrowing through a pile of manure. If you want to play the game of academic one-upsmanship, be my guest. I've skinned rabbits more formidable than you. Ghs
Bring it on, hon. What part of Foucault do you disagree with, as long as you replied in the dialectic, which was your first mistake.
Why would I want to discuss the details of a thinker that I regard as a waste of time, for the most part? Moreover, it is difficult to zero-in on the specifics of a thinker who never seems to have formulated a clear idea in his life. I tell you what: You start a thread on Foucault explaining why he was so brilliant, what you regard as his best ideas., etc., and I will be glad to join in. I haven't read Fpucault in years, but I would be willing to slog through some of the same swamp over again -- just for your sake, hon. I love debating people who throw around the term "dialectic" with little awareness of what it means. Ghs
So you want to do a pro and con. Nope to that trap. Come up with something better.

If you regard it as a "trap" for someone to suggest that you explain what you like about Foucault and regard as his best ideas, then you are probably a tin-plated phony. It is a perfectly reasonable request.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your signature line appears with every post. If you don't come here but do your work thru email you may not see it.

--Brant

if you delete it all that info will disappear--which I don't want--from all your previous posts--you need an OL place to park it

How do I park it? I still don't get it but will try to figure it out.

I'd start a thread consisting only of your signature line with all that info for a point of base reference. Maybe an additional comment or two.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now