Not Good - Iran Escalation (flame war)

[anthony]

9 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

It's about seeing a situation, one you don't see in the same manner Tony doesn't see mechanical drawings in full.

It's a kind of blindness. Like I said, Rand had this same kind of blindness.

Michael

Michael, Nice, I see a tie-in there with what's going on now: a drawing is 'real' but not a real thing (it's a "representation" of what is real, or perhaps to be realized). That's what happens with words especially ones which hurt, and particularly online where you don't see the 'person' and physical reactions of one's respondents. So we get "sticks and stones .. but words will never hurt me". But they do, of course. To be kept in mind, certainly.

The word-symbols i.o.w are unreal (abstract) and also 'real'. Goes for cyber-reality also . Keeping the connection is the trick. Like some of us wrt mechanical drawings who tend foremost to see the wheel- reality behind the representations, for whom wheel-drawings stand for the real thing, not e.g. a puzzle in geometry. Anyway, you got me on about something fascinating I've observed about different individuals. There was a 'literalness' about Rand, too - e.g. to her, visual art represented/recreates (as some artist's mind images it) the "real" - and should, or can only, be taken as such. As directly real as words, to her. Anyway thanks...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

Like some of us wrt mechanical drawings who tend foremost to see the wheel- reality behind the representations, for whom wheel-drawings stand for the real thing, not e.g. a puzzle in geometry.

Tony,

For the record, you saw one wheel reality behind the drawing and decided that was it. You didn't see the other wheel reality even when they showed you videos of actual real wheels working as they said.

I don't think you were play-acting, either. It's a blind spot.

I believe neuroscience ultimately explains this (the fractal from the grid cell thing).

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

4 hours ago, anthony said:

Wow, you have been on a roll Jon. No prob, Ive been told worse.

Oh, sorry, about that Tony. That is the sort of language that Peter likes to pretend is light, warm and humorous. I was testing how it on lands on people here. How did it land? Was it as light, warm and humorous as advertised?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Prescript:

I had the surgery.  The Novacain is just starting to wear off, so I'm not in much pain yet.  Tonight isn't likely to be fun.

I want to answer something Michael said before I read further.

I'd written:

"I'm just now reading through it, and I'm having a good laugh at the skill of Jon's parody of Peter."

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

So, I n your opinion, Jon wasn't trying to humiliate Peter with his parodies?

He was merely palling around with banter?

Come on. You know you liked it because you don't think much of Peter--for a long time, at that

In my opinion, Jon was trying to give you a taste of what being on the receiving end of Peter's stuff is like.  You weren't enjoying it.

What I know is that that isn't the reason I liked it.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

In my opinion, Jon was trying to give you a taste of what being on the receiving end of Peter's stuff is like.  You weren't enjoying it.

Ellen,

I've seen Jon do that a lot (it's his most used rhetorical trick, not counting simple name-calling), but doing that to the same person over and over is like when someone tells a joke, then keeps telling the same joke over and over. So you are right that I wasn't enjoying it. But to be clear, since this might imply that I was feeling bothered by it, I wasn't. Emotionally speaking, indifferent would be more accurate. 

Granted, I get irritated when I see the forum get damaged, meaning when readers get chased away by escalating and repeated condemnations that do nothing but escalate and repeat in the same manner nonstop (remember Phil Coates?), but that's a separate issue. And granted, a brawl calls an audience. But when a brawl turns into nagging and it doesn't stop, people leave.

To give an idea about the kind of emotional state I feel with overused rhetorical devices, it's like when I hear someone say, "at the end of the day." Do I find that to be a clever metaphor? Do I enjoy it? Does it bother me? Does it do those things to you? Nah... It's a cliché. I don't feel anything about it. It's commonplace.

If there's any substantive meaning or any importance to be garnered, it lies elsewhere, not in the cliché. Not even in what the cliché is intended to mean.

I know you said not having a high opinion of Peter is not the reason you enjoyed Jon's rhetoric, but I can't not see things. When I see verbal cues like "receiving end," and "give you a taste," I begin to hear echoes like "give him a taste of his own medicine."

To get down to brass tacks, that sounds like there may be a bee in your bonnet, though, when all is said and done, I wouldn't take that to the bank. But let's call off the dogs and bury the hatchet, shall we? At the end of the day, nobody has to face the music and, besides, a rolling stone gathers no moss. So I don't think we should cry over spilled milk, do you? I mean, you just can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

I think it time for Peter to provide his part in this DEBATE about Iran. Didn’t he use all caps? I think he did. Our spat is behind us, Peter, let’s hear what you have to say, it’s been days with no input from you.

 

The “Iranians” attacked two oil tanker ships, (one Japanese–owned, while the Japanese premier was visiting Iran)

The “Iranians” shot down a $130,000,000 unmanned aircraft of ours.

Then you said that suspicion of CIA doing anything nefarious or standing in the way of peace is petty thinking.

Then you and I had a spat.

Then Iran executed an agent of the CIA in their Air Force.

 

Show us now that your urged wish for a DEBATE to ensue here was sincere.

Now that you are finished telling me to get back to the looney bin, show us what you’ve got. Show us how sincere you were and are and give us some DEBATE.

[Jon Letendre]

20 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I've seen Jon do that a lot (it's his most used rhetorical trick, not counting simple name-calling), but doing that to the same person over and over is like when someone tells a joke, then keeps telling the same joke over and over. So you are right that I wasn't enjoying it. But to be clear, since this might imply that I was feeling bothered by it, I wasn't. Emotionally speaking, indifferent would be more accurate. 

Granted, I get irritated when I see the forum get damaged, meaning when readers get chased away by escalating and repeated condemnations that do nothing but escalate and repeat in the same manner nonstop (remember Phil Coates?), but that's a separate issue. And granted, a brawl calls an audience. But when a brawl turns into nagging and it doesn't stop, people leave.

To give an idea about the kind of emotional state I feel with overused rhetorical devices, it's like when I hear someone say, "at the end of the day." Do I find that to be a clever metaphor? Do I enjoy it? Does it bother me? Does it do those things to you? Nah... It's a cliché. I don't feel anything about it. It's commonplace.

If there's any substantive meaning or any importance to be garnered, it lies elsewhere, not in the cliché. Not even in what the cliché is intended to mean.

I know you said not having a high opinion of Peter is not the reason you enjoyed Jon's rhetoric, but I can't not see things. When I see verbal cues like "receiving end," and "give you a taste," I begin to hear echoes like "give him a taste of his own medicine."

To get down to brass tacks, that sounds like there may be a bee in your bonnet, though, when all is said and done, I wouldn't take that to the bank. But let's call off the dogs and bury the hatchet, shall we? At the end of the day, nobody has to face the music and, besides, a rolling stone gathers no moss. So I don't think we should cry over spilled milk, do you? I mean, you just can't squeeze blood out of a turnip.

 

Michael

I will stay from away from my “most used rhetorical trick” from now on Michael, and use only the OL-accepted, light, warm, non-humiliating of another method of alluding to their mental illnesses. Now go take your pills.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I will stay from away from my “most used rhetorical trick” from now on Michael...

John,

Why?

I think you need the practice.

Right now it doesn't persuade anyone. It merely does a huzzah for the team.

With practice, you could possibly improve and make it mean something outside of one niche. Maybe even change a mind or two, if that should be of any value to you.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

John,

Why?

I think you need the practice.

Right now it doesn't persuade anyone. It merely does a huzzah for the team.

With practice, you could possibly improve and make it mean something outside of one niche. Maybe even change a mind or two, if that should be of any value to you.

Michael

It’s Jon.

Get back to me after the pills, I like you better then.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

... use only the OL-accepted, light, warm, non-humiliating of another method of alluding to their mental illnesses. Now go take your pills.

Jon,

You're working too hard at proving my point about some people not having much of a sense of humor.

Don't forget, your words are not just propositions and barbs for readers. They're also examples. (Like I said, OL readers are smart, so they perceive in this manner.)

It's not about attack or one-upmanship. But, from what I can tell, those are the only humor grooves you travel.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just now, Jon Letendre said:

It’s Jon.

Oops...

Sorry...

I must be losing interest...

(How's that for one-upmanship?  )

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

You're working too hard at proving my point about some people not having much of a sense of humor.

Don't forget, your words are not just propositions and barbs for readers. They're also examples. (Like I said, OL readers are smart, so they perceive in this manner.)

It's not about attack or one-upmanship. But, from what I can tell, those are the only humor grooves you travel.

Michael

Blah, blah, blah.

pills, please.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

4 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Blah, blah, blah.

pills, please.

Jon,

You're not going to rope me in again.

I already wasted a whole day on this bullshit.

What did I gain?

Nothing of any value to me.

So it's not worth it.

Enjoy, since you value this stuff so much.

Gotta find a different playmate, though.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

6 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jon,

You're not going to rope me in again.

I already wasted a whole day on this bullshit.

What did I gain?

Nothing of any value to me.

So it's not worth it.

Enjoy.

Michael

Rope you in again, when did I rope you into this, or any personal dispute at OL?

I am delighted to hear that you will not be jumping in next time Peter decides it is time to light me up with some light, warm, humor.

[Jon Letendre]

On 6/22/2019 at 11:17 AM, Peter said:

To Michael and all others reading this. I’m thinking about taking another month off from communicating and supporting OL. I would hate to see such a wonderful site become a toxic waste dump. Are those posts conducive to living like an objectivist? Peter

Then, Peter, Posted Saturday at 11:00 PM “Civility indicates civilization. Is OL in the boondocks Brant? I will drop my support of OL, as of now.”

Then you jumped in.

That was Peter, not me. I never asked you, let alone “roped you” in. That was Peter.

It’s a big difference, so I trust you agree on the importance and fairness of my pointing it out.

[Peter]

My flip flop on staying was because I was fairly sure the posting guidelines would be followed. I am still fairly sure they will be after rereading the guidelines just now.

Attributing dialogue to a person who did not say that dialogue is defamation of character. Now Alex Baldwin playing President Trump in a satirical style is familiar to anyone who watches SNL but everyone knows that is not President Trump saying those words. But, re-dubbing a person as they are speaking in front of a camera is another instance of defamation of character. That is more than just a lie. It is immoral and though the OL posting guidelines do not expressly discuss this issue, it is worse than cursing.   

Posters on OL are not news people but just imagine if they made up horrible dialogue to make you think those were the President's words. If any newscasters showed President Trump saying he was declaring war on Iran and if Iran believed those were his words, a horrible injustice would occur. Attributing false words to someone is a propaganda tool. 

Peter
 

[Peter]

The only person since 2014  who has used the word "roped" on OL is Jon. Oh, and Michael just now.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 6/13/2019 at 2:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

NOTE FROM MSK: A flame war erupted on this thread that got mixed with the substance, but ultimately hogged the topic, so rather than spend a couple of hours separating this from that and keep it all trying to make sense, I've thrown the entire thread in the Garbage Pile and locked it.

Michael