Philip Coates

Members
  • Content Count

    3,569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Philip Coates

  1. Thanks PDS, I used to teach literature, composition, and history mostly but I've gravitated more and more to literature. One reason is that unlike most subjects, literature courses keep changing a little bit (for those teachers allowed to select their own curriculum.) I'm teaching two other courses this term as well...I can explain**. > Go Blue. I was only at Michigan for a year, so it took me a second...Did you go there? Ann Arbor was a lovely college town. ** Actually no I won't. I always knew Michael would eventually prove to, like Linz and Diana, kick me out or start deleting posts of mine he didn't like. And that just started today. So he just crossed the line for me: Sayonara.
  2. Here's the course catalog blurb for a course I'm teaching starting in several weeks: COURSE DESCRIPTION: America doesn't have a Shakespeare, but we do have a Mark Twain. Many consider him the greatest quintessentially "American" writer. He is arguably the most influential across the last century and a half. He simplified language, brought about a more natural way of writing, wrote books that generations of school children and adults warmly remember, was a great satirist. Twain is often not only deeply perceptive about people and their ways, but is enormously, laugh-out-loud funny as well. As a work of social criticism masquerading as a simple adventure story, "Huckleberry Finn" may have swayed more people against racism than almost anything else in American literature. In addition to readings from his novels, essays, stories, and speeches, we will view parts of "Mark Twain Tonight", the celebrated DVD reenactment of Twain on stage in his travels across America starring Hal Holbrook, in his white suit and cigar bringing Twain to life. The anthology we will use is "The Portable Mark Twain" (to be supplemented by class handouts). Please order a cheap used copy from Amazon.com -two weeks- before class starts, then read the introduction and the first three items. Get the Penguin edition edited by Tom Quirk, not the one by Bernard de Voto. BRIEF BIOGRAPHY: Philip Coates is a graduate of Brown University. He has a Master's degree from the University of Michigan. He has extensive teaching experience -- in the business world, as a corporate trainer at Hewlett-Packard, as a tutor, and in the classroom at multiple levels. Phil is also a published writer and a popular lecturer. He has taught, been involved in workshops, or done research in a wide range of subjects over the years. These include literature and language, oral and written communications, self-improvement and leadership, thinking and persuasion, and philosophical psychology.
  3. > What exactly prevents your from using the simple, clear and informative quote function? Asked and answered.
  4. Note from MSK: Text deleted. It's easier. I'm tired of babysitting this poster and moving his crap to the Garbage Pile.
  5. Note from MSK: Text deleted. It's easier. I'm tired of babysitting this poster and moving his crap to the Garbage Pile.
  6. Subject: Locked into Delusions and Imaginary "Facts" > nobody takes you seriously...your credibility is shot to hell right now Michael, what's the weather like in your imaginary universe? I'm amused that 'nobody' means people outside of your tiny little circle of homeboys here. You have sort of delusions of grandeur thinking your minuscule little crowd of insult boys and misfits represents everybody. And it's laughable that I should take you or them and your opinions seriously. > I've seen you try to teach an expert elementary-level stuff in his field Another sign of delusion that you consider Jeff R and expert or consider literature "his field" more than it is mine. I have taught more courses in literature (not just sci-fi) than Jeff could even imagine. Did you buy his bluster that he's an "expert' who should not be questioned. > until your posting behavior improves And this is -fantastic- coming from you, ND, George, etc. One of youi is a serial psychologizer, and the other two think ridicule is a substitute for careful point-by-point argument.
  7. Show me where I actually changed the meaning in a paraphrase.
  8. Subject: being patient and pleasant and diplomatic and tactful (people and teaching and conversational and debating skills) Related to this is the question of when irritability and lack of tact occurs. For me and for most people, obviously when you are personally attacked as opposed to having your ideas treated with precision and respect. But in the OWL case WSS quotes, while the whole back story was not snipped, it seems as though it was the overall style of discussion that was an irritant for me - "academese" and nit-picking have always annoyed me. Where I'd like to improve is in dealing with these latter kinds of issues -- annoyance with the method or tenor of conversation. (When it is personal attacks and uncivil, there I don't have any desire to improve my style of response - when kicked in the teeth it's appropriate to kick back.) (Like many others, I'm a lot more patient, benevolent, less irritated, "in a good mood" in person. Usually repetitiousness of dealing with the same issue over and over and getting nowhere has not set in and there is no memory of past incivility or missrepresentation and so on. I've been told that as a teacher I'm very thoughtful, very accepting, very patient, a good listener, non-hectoring. And when people meet me and have a conversation or disagreement with me and sit down for a cup of coffee, I think they think they also have a thoughtful or pleasant and friendly interaction.)
  9. Subject: being patient and pleasant and diplomatic and tactful In #161, WSS reposts something from OWL of mine in which I'm in the middle of a debate on the rights of children. What's notable is how irritated debating with 'academic' types made me. I can certainly see how my crankiness and disrespect for the 'academic style' would piss them off. [WSS helped me see it just now by bolding the cranky or condemnatory parts]. Maybe there is a more diplomatic way I could have made the same points I did, but my style is not as diplomatic as it could be...especially as frustration builds up over time. I guess that's a flaw of mine. (I know there are many admirers of my writing style on this board who would be shocked because they thought I was perfect... ) The thing I need to think about is when I ruffle feathers with a side comment on bad writing or bad thinking or too much needles-on the-head-of-a-pin academic minutiae style, the reader who is angered will be distracted from *actually carefully considering* my serious points or insights. It's the old catch more flies with honey than vinegar principle. And I'm hardly the only person in the Oist movement who needs to learn it.
  10. > What post are you quoting from? I've searched but I cannot find it. This is very annoying. If you will not use the quote function, you could at least give a post number, especially when posts have been appearing at a rapid rate, as they have tonight on this thread. [GHS, 157] Sorry. I almost always give a post number, unless it was just above (one of the one or two posts the reader has just read). I forgot this time.
  11. William, thanks for reposting that long post of mine from OWL. I had forgotten it and I think it's one of my best posts. Certainly a pretty thorough discussion of the issue of the importance of method and of why it's important to critique it, learn about it in an intellectual movement or discussion forum. I don't like to repeat myself and when I've said the same things more recently I'm not likely to take as much time to lay out my view and my reasons in that much detail. So, that's helpful - it shows with crystal clarity where I'm coming from and that I was dealing with the very same issues of resentment when one's deep-seated 'thinking methods' are criticized (which I'd forgotten).
  12. > There is no proper use of quotation marks for a paraphrase unless you are quoting someone paraphrasing. [brant] Give it a rest, pal. > Here’s a plum example of you making one of your ignorant attacks, then not following through when challenged. [ND] Not it's not: You can't even read.
  13. > "Also on thedailykos are my embarrassing awful posts on Obama that I wish I could gt back...But as long as past dirt is being scummed up I'll give you the worst. "[seymour] Don't worry about it. The proper way to view posts is an -informal- form. Like emails, a bit. You are not writing for the ages and people understand (or ought to) that you will revise, change your mind, say things too strongly. Or not strongly enough. > "I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?" Carol, rather than judge her qualifications or compare credentials, it would be interesting to hear your answers to my questions about what makes a good bio and what were the best you've read. Your posts and opinions are always worth reading. "> Foucault this > Foucault that >Foucault the other thing....> Foucault oui > Foucault non." Fouc dat. I haven't read him. So I can't even Derride him, even in a Laconic way. I wish I were Mao knowledgeable so I could make my Marx in this discussion. I can't even find the meaning Heideggering in some of these posts, so I have to plead for Lenincy and a lack of Deconstructive criticism of my ignorance. I been Habermasing a hard time with all this jargon. But maybe that's because there is just nuttin' honey outside of da text?
  14. That's a nice picture. (It's hard to say exactly why since I've known Robert since back when he was only Bob Bidinotto. But if I were looking at a stranger I'd never met, I think I'd probably say the face has a certain calm or satisfaction or serenity. Holding what he's achieved in front of him....does anyone else get that sense from a photo? Especially if it is of a stranger?)
  15. Notice how ND only jumps in to post another brief insult. He doesn't have the intellectual wherewithal to offer more on this thread or most others. And he never graduated from the cartoon channel.
  16. > I liked Moneyball a great deal; in fact, I watched it twice, even though I'm not much of a baseball fan. But I don't recall the "Foucauldian Grid of power/knowledge in linguistic action." I thought it was a just good sports movie that happens to be true. [GHS] Seymour, George can be a bit of a jerk sometimes and the quality of his intellectual offerings vary wildly, but he often makes good points and here his advice would probably be --> get rid of the jargon and explain things in simple English; we don't know the people you are quoting (like Foucault). At least that would be my advice, no offense. Keep it short, simple, and unambiguous. [Apologies to his majesty, podium boy king george if I'm putting ideas in his mouth.]
  17. > How would you like it if you quoted "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" in aid of the point that you have to start somewhere with a simple step, and someone asked you if you had any other quotes from mass murderers? [Me] > You are obviously unaware of Foucault's "Maoist period." Do you think it is just an accident that Janet quoted Mao? More than a few fans of Foucault are also fans of Mao. [George] That's not really relevant to my point George. I don't know whether its an accident and neither do you.
  18. > please try to recognize what a loon you've been coming across as. [ND] Insult boy. Once again. > I'm not critiquing Passion I have gotten myself sucked into this mess about BB. Evidently no one is supposed to say anything negative about her. [sB] You're likely to encounter a great deal of hostility [ND is one of the worst offenders but there are five or six of them, a minuscule fraction of the Objectivists movement]. Remember this is the "open" wing of Objectivism. The one thing this small subgroup of a half dozen regulars is not "open" to is criticism of them or their heroes. Just like the "closed" wing. I haven't read Passion. I'm likely to because in other things she has written, I have develope great respect for Barbara Brandden. I have found her to be a very good writer and one of the more insightful people in Oism. (It's unfortunate that she, like so many others, has bailed in the sense of being absent from this site now.) But would you like to place any bets on whether I will hold back from posting my views if I -were- to find Passion to be badly written or not insightful? (Aside: I don't mind the hostility and silly psychologiziing about my deepest psychology, personally. This minuscule group of a half dozen or so regular posters are not my friends and I don't expect to encounter most of them in the real world.) Seymour, you say many things I disagree with or often find turgid, post-modern*, or hard to follow. But I find your deviatiion from the collective wisdom here to be refreshing. You just have to be thick skinned. And occasionally the criticism you encounter on your writing, or on being more clear (or on deleting that long 'sig file' after every post) will be good. So don't swing to the opposite extreme and "dis" any and all comments from adversaries. *for me, that is not a positive, I'm sorry to say
  19. > Subversives must swim in the sea like a fish - Mao [sB] > I love pearls of wisdom by mass murderers. Do you have anything by Hitler or Stalin that might fit the occasion? [GHS] That's a sleazy "debater's" answer, George. How would you like it if you quoted "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" in aid of the point that you have to start somewhere with a simple step, and someone asked you if you had any other quotes from mass murderers?
  20. Subject: Nice Try, George > why the same four or five people are usually hostile to your posts...the reasons have been explained many times before [GHS] Yes, and the "reasons" given are not the real reasons. They are i) rationalizations, ii) psychologizing, iii) personal insults and other ad hominems, iv) evasions, etc. And I've explained -that- many times before. E.g., saying you're a schoomarm who needs attention just because you are not willing to hear a criticism -or- that I have a "hole in my soul" is not a well-meaning, benevolent 'reason' from a thoughtful unbiased source that I'm just "unwilling to hear." What you guys are doing is that you are furiously trying to paint the messenger as at fault because you deeply resent the message. You've been trying to do that for several years.
  21. > If you refuse to use the quote function, at least quote me accurately. Neither of the above passages in quotation marks is what I wrote. [GHS] Accurate paraphrase, though. I didn't misrepresent you so you're being picky over a minor point. I was in a hurry so I used quote marks for paraphrasing informally - probably better to use italics. And I did respond to the essence of your viewpoints.
  22. Thanks, Michael. For some reason it only occurred to me recently. sincerely, phil brown of underfed