• entries
    209
  • comments
    2,715
  • views
    27,999

At war with Oceania, again . . .

Sign in to follow this  
william.scherk

103 views

I am testing a notation scheme in my text-aloud program. Please excuse the clutter. I will delete this later. For an aural treat, listen to the forthcoming mp3 test. I will award a gold disc version to the person who can tell me about Mitsou`s big hit and the city it dominated.

[Q.1]What are you talking about?

[ . . . ]

[s.1-2] often I disagree with Daniel. I have perceived that he does not like to be proven wrong and when he is proven wrong, he gets really uncomfortable.

[ . . . ]

[s.3-4] He mentioned that I was contradicting the definition of a word (as if there were only one meaning), then gave a link to an online dictionary. When I went there, I encountered 27 definitions and my understanding was included in several.

[ . . . ]

[s.5] Sometimes during an attempt to understand (or clarify), I perceive that he gets into a sort of semantic maze where he [barnes] criticizes a topic or a person (with Rand usually being the final target), then the terms or arguments he uses morph into other meanings during a discussion.

Look:

[E.1]QUOTE(Daniel Barnes @ Jun 19 2007, 05:06 AM) *

Mike:

[sug.1,S.6]>Let's talk about an actual idea. That other stuff is boring.

[P.1,S.7,S.8,P.2,S.8-9,A.1,Pol.1]]If you were really interested in the actual ideas behind mathematical epistemology, Mike, I think you would have read or genuinely tried to learn at least something about the subject at some stage in your life. But it's quite clear you haven't, so I can only assume that at bottom you aren't all that interested. This lack of both knowledge and interest, however, does not seem to stop you holding some strong and even highly dismissive opinions on the subject. Who knows why you do, but you do. So given all that, I'll sit this one out, thanks anyway.

[s.10-12]Not only was I told what I think and how much I know (which are bad habits with anyone, and I even admitted several times that I needed to learn more about the traditional stuff before I could answer any more than I did), I was dismissed for both.

[ . . . ]

[s.13] With Daniel's preceding arguments, I learned nothing except that he doesn't seem to like Rand very much.

[ . . . ]

[O.1] Read his posts during that exchange starting with his question to me—look at the content

[ . . . ]

[O.2] See if you can find any idea he presented other than a negative opinion of Rand (or her followers by insinuation).

[ . . . ]

[Char.1,S.14] "a gratuitous belittlement of Rand come out of the blue for the gazillionth time"

[ . . . ]

[Char.2,S.15,16]"and engaging in one more bout of verbal spar[r]ing that doesn't seem to go anywhere except to play verbal morph games"

[ . . . ]

[Char.3,Psy.1,S.14]"to try—in the end—to show what a fool Rand was, that gets boring."

[ . . . ]

[Epith.1,S.15]"Yada yada yada full of sound and fury signifying nothing"

[ . . ]

[E.1]QUOTE(Daniel Barnes @ Jun 19 2007, 1:03 AM)

Do you seriously think the various problems of epistemology were just there when Ayn Rand woke up in the morning?

[Q.2]What do you think it means?

[ . . . ]

[s.17-19 (PsyM.1), ~S.14bis] I find that stuff sooooooooooo tedious. I want a real discussion. Daniel has a good mind and he is better than that.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I will post some responses to these plainly stated questions later tonight. In the meantime, I will see if I can practice what I preach, oh mealy-mouthed William:

I note that in your continuing discussion with Daniel, a problem of linguistic charity rears its head again. In an earlier exchange you suggested, with humour, that your and Daniel's mutual goal was 'Free Entertainment," whereas Daniel answered, "We are both trying to correct some underlying historical mistakes." Would you please leave off the smileys and give us a sincere answer?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[(PsyM.2),S.20, Q.3-4,S.21,R1] I know you like Daniel (and so do I), but how do you miss this kind of stuff and misinterpret my call to get on topic as "shitting on someone"?

[ . . . ]

[s.22-24] I don't know what you mean about the other discussion with Daniel (as in "the last two"), but I have spent far too much time on this one. I only did it because I like you (a lot).

[ . . . ]

[Q.5] But honestly, did you gain anything with this?

[ . . . ]

[Q.6-7,S.25] do you want to discuss some of Daniel's good qualities? Or your own? I'm more than game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As usual, Michael is one-up on me. I am merely game.

Sign in to follow this  


2 Comments


Recommended Comments

I object to your describing the work of Butler as "opaque sludge". She is a leading artist in the Acadien Folk tradition and if her lyrics are opaque to you, brush up your French.

Oops, thought you said Edith Butler.

Share this comment


Link to comment

Edith Butler could clean Judith Butler's clock, I am sure of it. And I love the sound of Acadian French, having worked with a young lady in Montreal. J'allons et fi-ah-ire, mweh.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Guest
This blog entry is now closed to further comments.