George H. Smith Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If you like my being chastised for my caustic one-liners, then why do you keep baiting me? Does that mean you want more? Or is your thank you to Michael act as a "floating sign" saying you are glad he told me to stop but denying what you said and meaning the opposite, that you want more? Jes sayin'.There is nothing "caustic" about your one-liners. They are on a par with So's your old man and Takes one to know one. If they showed a spark of intelligence or wit no one would object to them. You use juvenile one-liners for no purpose other than to avoid responding to criticisms.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs Janet, What do you think Ayn Rand would have replied to that? Joan Baez handled that kind of comment perfectly in her early memoir Daybreak. Go read it and get your answer. Ms. Abbey: Rather than play the go find out yourself bitch game, perhaps you could paraphrase how Joan "handled" that order of question/interrogation. Adam Only since it's you: she was being interrogated on her pacifism. If she were driving down the road and a car was coming at her and there was someone in the way that she would hit if she swerved. So she responded that she would try to avoid the oncoming car and avoid hitting the person when she swerved. So then the question ante was upped. Well suppose you were on a two way road and there was a cliff on the side where you would go off if you swerved to avoid the car and the woman. Then she said I would probably go off the cliff and land on a farmhouse and kill all the people inside. I am paraphrasing but she upped the ante on the response to shut the questioner up. And this was exactly what was going to happen in the above example and I was going to have to spend all the rest of the day answering reasonably and logically, while the ante was upped. And then I would start my caustic one-liners and daunce would have another nail to pound in my coffin and the rest of them would jump in and and and....... Nope. Joanie had it covered.In other words, you can completely distort and/or lie about the ideas of Ayn Rand -- as you did when linking Rand to the the comment by Burroughs -- and then when asked to explain your position. you will refuse on the grounds that people might "up the ante" by demanding additional explanations.Well, I have news for you, hon: Arguments are the lifeblood of OL. We don't need authoritative pronouncements by a woman who uses incomprehensible jargon and drops the names of philosophers she doesn't even understand.GhsDon't rant at me then. Ignore me. I won't feel offended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 If you like my being chastised for my caustic one-liners, then why do you keep baiting me? Does that mean you want more? Or is your thank you to Michael act as a "floating sign" saying you are glad he told me to stop but denying what you said and meaning the opposite, that you want more? Jes sayin'.There is nothing "caustic" about your one-liners. They are on a par with So's your old man and Takes one to know one. If they showed a spark of intelligence or wit no one would object to them. You use juvenile one-liners for no purpose other than to avoid responding to criticisms.GhsCaustic was not my adjective. Or if it was it was daunce who used it. Or dance, or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 In other words, you can completely distort and/or lie about the ideas of Ayn Rand -- as you did when linking Rand to the the comment by Burroughs -- and then when asked to explain your position. you will refuse on the grounds that people might "up the ante" by demanding additional explanations.Well, I have news for you, hon: Arguments are the lifeblood of OL. We don't need authoritative pronouncements by a woman who uses incomprehensible jargon and drops the names of philosophers she doesn't even understand.GhsDon't rant at me then. Ignore me. I won't feel offended.As I told you before, if you persist in your troll-like behavior, if you refuse to deal in an honest manner with comments and criticisms, I will hound you unmercifully. You are either addled or you are playing games, or both.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 In other words, you can completely distort and/or lie about the ideas of Ayn Rand -- as you did when linking Rand to the the comment by Burroughs -- and then when asked to explain your position. you will refuse on the grounds that people might "up the ante" by demanding additional explanations.Well, I have news for you, hon: Arguments are the lifeblood of OL. We don't need authoritative pronouncements by a woman who uses incomprehensible jargon and drops the names of philosophers she doesn't even understand.GhsDon't rant at me then. Ignore me. I won't feel offended.As I told you before, if you persist in your troll-like behavior, if you refuse to deal in an honest manner with comments and criticisms, I will hound you unmercifully. You are either addled or you are playing games, or both.GhsA threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Janet,Two simple questions: Why did you join OL? What did you hope to find here?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 George, you key off data, Janet off stories. To have a real conversation with her you have to jump into her stream of consciousness and mutually celebrate, with nit-picking discussions, how wonderful the water is. You see, it's her Dominating Discourse or yours. Of course, hers is all about smacking up yours but not with arms that you might be able to defend yourself from. Of course, she doesn't admit to having a DD of her own. I think what's really going on is projection. She has one so you must have one. Recognize yours and forget why it is recognizable.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 George, you key off data, Janet off stories. To have a real conversation with her you have to jump into her stream of consciousness and mutually celebrate, with nit-picking discussions, how wonderful the water is. You see, it's her Dominating Discourse or yours. Of course, hers is all about smacking up yours but not with arms that you might be able to defend yourself from. Of course, she doesn't admit to having a DD of her own. I think what's really going on is projection. She has one so you must have one. Recognize yours and forget why it is recognizable. --BrantMy Dominating Discourse is clarity of thought and language. No wonder Janet cannot understand it. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 As I told you before, if you persist in your troll-like behavior, if you refuse to deal in an honest manner with comments and criticisms, I will hound you unmercifully. You are either addled or you are playing games, or both. Ghs A threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help!Is my discourse too dominating for you, hon?Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 cocks and pussys fight it out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Janet,Two simple questions: Why did you join OL? What did you hope to find here?GhsI thought I said why. Again then.My purpose is to place Rand in the pantheon of post modern philosophers. She is one who happens to be a writer of fiction. Cronenberg is one who makes films. Zizek, well, he is unclassifiable. So is Baudrillard. My POV is that Rand fictionalized post modern thinking over 70 years ago.Foucault got his inspiration from Klossoski (sp?), Raymond Rousell (sp?) and Baudrillard originally from NIetzsche, then he was a geneaologist before he wrote Foget Foucault, and pushed the limits to expose simulation. You may have seen The Matrix, which was loosely based on the writer/directors screenplay inspired by Baudrilard's book Simulation and Simulacra.Rand will never have Objectivism taken seriously by serious philosophers. Her fiction is a different story IMO. Stephenie Meyer will never have Twilight taken seriously. Warhol was another outsider who cut into the Discourse. If you are going to use the term Dominating Discourse or Discourse, then it would be a good idea if you used it correctly. I do not come from an established Discourse. You do. The dialectic, that you argue from, is established and has been for a few hundred years now. It is finished, but its ghost will stay around for some time to come. It is limiting.All opening up Rand's Objectivism has done is produce a folly of different opinions and thoughts and more arguments. High level ping-pong. Wittgenstein silenced this quite awhile ago, before Foucault. Foucault just tied the string around the box and knotted it. Rand's fiction is respected. Her philosophical mutterings are not. Not where it counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 I think Janet is advocating a philosophy for babies for adults.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 A threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help!Seymourblogger,Look under George's picture. You will see three letters: VIP.MichaelEDIT: I just saw this. (In the quote, Seymourblogger is talking to George):I do not come from an established Discourse. You do.This is said to the author of Atheism: The Case Against God.Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William BurroughsJanet,What do you think Ayn Rand would have replied to that?Joan Baez handled that kind of comment perfectly in her early memoir Daybreak. Go read it and get your answer.Ms. Abbey:Rather than play the go find out yourself bitch game, perhaps you could paraphrase how Joan "handled" that order of question/interrogation.AdamOnly since it's you:she was being interrogated on her pacifism. If she were driving down the road and a car was coming at her and there was someone in the way that she would hit if she swerved. So she responded that she would try to avoid the oncoming car and avoid hitting the person when she swerved. So then the question ante was upped. Well suppose you were on a two way road and there was a cliff on the side where you would go off if you swerved to avoid the car and the woman.Then she said I would probably go off the cliff and land on a farmhouse and kill all the people inside.I am paraphrasing but she upped the ante on the response to shut the questioner up. And this was exactly what was going to happen in the above example and I was going to have to spend all the rest of the day answering reasonably and logically, while the ante was upped. And then I would start my caustic one-liners and daunce would have another nail to pound in my coffin and the rest of them would jump in and and and.......Nope. Joanie had it covered.Sorry I messed up on this answer of Joanie's. She said she would probably crash into the oncoming car, kill the driver, then swerve to miss the person but kill them too, then go over the cliff, land on the roof of the farmhouse and kill the entire family inside.In 05 at Camp Casey she played and told stories. She was on a beach with some people and some boat people came to come ashore. The police or military that was there told them to get back in the boat and leave. Joan asked him what it would take for him to let them stay.He said, "A song."So she played and sang a song and that's the one she played for us. I forget the name. Sorry. My bad. Oh, how could I make such a mistake as to forget the name of that song! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 A threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help!Seymourblogger,Look under George's picture. You will see three letters: VIP.MichaelEDIT: I just saw this. (In the quote, Seymourblogger is talking to George):I do not come from an established Discourse. You do.This is said to the author of Atheism: The Case Against God.Heh.Oh wow! I had no idea! Do I genuflect now or tomorrow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 A threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help!Seymourblogger,Look under George's picture. You will see three letters: VIP.MichaelEDIT: I just saw this. (In the quote, Seymourblogger is talking to George):I do not come from an established Discourse. You do.This is said to the author of Atheism: The Case Against God.Heh.Oh wow! I had no idea! Do I genuflect now or tomorrow!NOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 GOD! The Case Against Atheism! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 A threat! Michael he's threatening me! Help! Help! Intervene, intervene! He's like a tick that just keeps sucking blood. Help help!Seymourblogger,Look under George's picture. You will see three letters: VIP.MichaelEDIT: I just saw this. (In the quote, Seymourblogger is talking to George):I do not come from an established Discourse. You do.This is said to the author of Atheism: The Case Against God.Heh.No wonder he raves against Foucault.For 3.52 it can be yours. Plus postage of course.You can buy his book on half.comAtheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith (1980, Paperback): The Case Against GodGeorge H. SmithPaperback, 1980Buy: $3.52http://www.ebay.com/...+god&_sacat=267 14 for sale!8 completed lilstings on ebay with ONE BIG SALE during January 2011. Get yours hot off the press from 1980. That's only 31 years ago. What are you waiting for.Oh I forgot I'm old and my memory is lousy. I already forget how much they are asking for the book. Sorry. My bad.And here's an excerpt from the best critical review at amazon:When I was in law school, I learned that one should not use words like "clearly" to bolster an argument. Use of such words is a dead give-away that the point is anything but clear. But that is exactly what Smith all too often does here. When he comes to a point where he wants to press forward far beyond what his argument will support, he begins using vituperative language and hand-waving to imply that anyone who disagrees with him is dishonest or an idiot.Yup. That's what he do.46/56 rated this one and found it helpful. I did. Boy I surely clearly know what Smith's hand waving and vituperative language is first hand.Here's the link for the rest of it: http://www.amazon.com/review/R30XOBXGPCOL9Y/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R30XOBXGPCOL9Y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not bad, Janet. We might extend you a scholarship yet.--Brantramp it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Seymourblogger,Is that more of what howling looks like?I'm trying to learn this skill...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Seymourblogger,Is that more of what howling looks like?I'm trying to learn this skill...MichaelStick around. I'll help you baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not bad, Janet. We might extend you a scholarship yet.Brant,What impresses me is all those blogs without any traffic.You have to have a lot of grit to be a perfect nobody on your own and belittle with snark the public of rather famous authors.Wooh...Light bulb time...This is just like Phil.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not bad, Janet. We might extend you a scholarship yet.Brant,What impresses me is all those blogs without any traffic.You have to have a lot of grit to be a perfect nobody on your own and belittle with snark the public of rather famous authors.Wooh...Light bulb time...This is just like Phil.MichaelShe has neither the staying power of Phil nor the basic honesty of Xray.-- Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not bad, Janet. We might extend you a scholarship yet.Brant,What impresses me is all those blogs without any traffic.You have to have a lot of grit to be a perfect nobody on your own and belittle with snark the public of rather famous authors.Wooh...Light bulb time...This is just like Phil.MichaelWhat gives you the idea there is no traffic? One posting from 9-5 (5 months now) has 12, 451 hits and is still going strong. I'll leave you to search around to see if you can find that one. I have no idea why. I can't come up with any reasonable reason. Someone checked and told me that post is on page 4 of google on a search showing 40,000,000 results. don't ask me why.I know I go viral. I post something and not too long after when I do a back search on it I see where there was dnothing when I first posted now there are 4 or 5 on that subject.Colbert + Foucault + parrhesiaFoucault has a genealogy of parrhesia in his little book Fearless Speech done just before he died. This was what he was working on as Death was stalking him. It's nice to see your original ideas go viral. You do know Malthus's work, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Not bad, Janet. We might extend you a scholarship yet.Brant,What impresses me is all those blogs without any traffic.You have to have a lot of grit to be a perfect nobody on your own and belittle with snark the public of rather famous authors.Wooh...Light bulb time...This is just like Phil.MichaelShe has neither the staying power of Phil nor the basic honesty of Xray.-- BrantWell Brant, isn't that a blessing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now