TO WHOM IT MAY (OR MAY NOT) CONCERN

[Selene]

I can't stand Peggy Lee, and that song is boring. Over-informed musical "experts" will probably ruin this forum, she said dolefully.

Better now?

No. I need one more over-the-top, heavy handed, depressing song. This metaphysical monstrosity is from a pretty good 1961 movie with the same name, starring Kirk Douglas. Just think of OL as the town in question.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/va5lliDnSj0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

It isn't very pretty!

[caroljane]

I can't stand Peggy Lee, and that song is boring. Over-informed musical "experts" will probably ruin this forum, she said dolefully.

Better now?

No. I need one more over-the-top, heavy handed, depressing song. This metaphysical monstrosity is from a pretty good 1961 movie with the same name, starring Kirk Douglas. Just think of OL as the town in question.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/va5lliDnSj0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Ghs

Say not a word against the glorious glowering Gene. He didn't write the song. Whoever topped the depths or plumbed the heights of the adolescent soul as he did in "Half Heaven, Half Heartbreak"?

I would mention Mecca but it might bring the Infidel down on us.

[Selene]

In the spirit of Jewish, Brooklyn, progressive, depression, with a touch of inter-racial hypocrisy thrown in, we have Janis Ian's Society's Child...

This is dedicated to all the Jewish Brooklyn girls that I "dated" in the '60's and had to change my name to get into the "door" er ...well you know.

Adam

[Xray]

If Xray asks me a question, why am I supposed to assume that anyone else is interested in reading what I might reply to such a question? If another person, who is not Xray, asks me the same question, I'll answer it. But if I have no reason to believe that anyone is interested in the answer, why should I bother to write it?

I'm surprised that you seem to believe nobody reading here at OL is interested in e. g. your demonstration of the literary techniques Rand uses in AS.

Jeff is far more reticent than I to go into detail about his opinions without being asked. Jeff made this point, if in a roundabout way, when he said that he has no interest in responding to Xray's questions unless he thinks other people are interested. So ask.

But public forums also have quite a few unregistered guest readers who cannot ask directly.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> Coates, Can't you backslide just a little? Just one eensy-weensy itty-bitty relapse?

> Can ya'all feel the love?

Hey, I didn't say I was going to become warm and cuddly. Or have a personality transplant. Or start using the quote function.

[George H. Smith]

If Xray asks me a question, why am I supposed to assume that anyone else is interested in reading what I might reply to such a question? If another person, who is not Xray, asks me the same question, I'll answer it. But if I have no reason to believe that anyone is interested in the answer, why should I bother to write it?

I'm surprised that you seem to believe nobody reading here at OL is interested in e. g. your demonstration of the literary techniques Rand uses in AS.

Jeff is far more reticent than I to go into detail about his opinions without being asked. Jeff made this point, if in a roundabout way, when he said that he has no interest in responding to Xray's questions unless he thinks other people are interested. So ask.

But public forums also have quite a few unregistered guest readers who cannot ask directly.

I don't understand what is going on here at all. You seem to think that Jeff needs to justify, or at least explain, how he reaches decisions about when to write posts. Jeff is a professional writer; that is how he makes his living, and I know for a fact that he has been very busy recently. How Jeff decides when to write posts in his spare time (such as it is) is his business and his business alone.

Literature has always been Jeff's primary interest and his chief area of professional expertise. A writer's standards are typically much higher in his fields of specialization. For example, two of my books contain substantial discussions of Locke's philosophical and religious beliefs. In addition, I wrote a 100 page manuscript on his Two Treatises for Knowledge Products years ago, I have conducted numerous graduate level seminars on his political philosophy, I have given private tutorials on the same, and I wrote over 100 pages of new material in my forthcoming book from Cambridge University Press. I can say without exaggeration that I have read the Second Treatise at least fifty times during my career, and the First Treatise around twenty.

In short, it is safe to say that John Locke is one of my areas of professional specialization. Yet if someone asked me questions about John Locke on OL that involved more than common knowledge to answer, they would probably take me more time to answer than comparable questions about another political figure with whom I am less familiar. This may seem paradoxical, but it is not. With greater knowledge of a subject can come greater knowledge of its complexities, greater appreciation for subtleties and nuances, and higher standards imposed on oneself.

I spent more time explaining this than I intended, but my point about Jeff is this: For him to embark on a discussion of Rand's literary technique in AS would probably involve a substantial commitment of time, even though this is an area that he knows extremely well.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> Coates, Can't you backslide just a little? Just one eensy-weensy itty-bitty relapse?

> Can ya'all feel the love?

Hey, I didn't say I was going to become warm and cuddly. Or have a personality transplant. Or start using the quote function.

Numerous people have told you how inconvenient they find your "snippet" method, primarily because it can make it difficult to locate the source from which you are quoting. Yet you won't budge; you won't even give the quote function a trial run and see if it works out. (If you still want to address snippets and nothing else, it is an easy matter to delete unwanted material from a quotation box.)

The irony here is that you frequently preach that OLers should show basic consideration for other posters. Yet you won't exercise the basic courtesy of using the quote function. You won't even try it. Is it any wonder that I and other OLers don't take your own pleas seriously?

Another thing: You have the habit of ignoring posts that contain legitimate points that would prove awkward for you to discuss. The most recent example of this occurred on this thread, after you said that you engaged in personal attacks against me only after I had personally attacked you earlier on this thread. I then posted the following -- once on this thread and once on the sister thread:

What's disruptive is when people decide they enormously resent my criticisms and then launch post after post trying to "bring me down". Consider this thread as proof. Go back and read it. It's short enough. I didn't start off by attacking individuals but by critiquing a pattern and what consequences follow, I took the high road and talked about civility, etc. It was George, Shayne, Jeff, etc. who decided to attack me personally. And so then, I responded to them personally.

You should follow your own advice. Go back through this short thread, and then quote even one instance where I attacked you personally. I want to see the remark. I want to see what you regard as a personal attack.

Talk about a pattern. You often complain about personal attacks when there haven't been any. Consider this thread as proof.

Ghs

Not only did you ignore my request, but after I posted it you demanded "documentation" for my remarks about Ted. My request was a perfectly legitimate one: I wanted (and still want) to know what I wrote earlier on this thread that you construed as a personal attack. Do you ever plan on answering my question, or do you plan to ignore it forever? -- in the hope that I will forget about it, so you can continue to make unsubstantiated allegations as excuses for any personal attacks you feel like making against others. .

If you are going to appeal to the "He hit me first!" rationale for your own personal attacks, then how about letting us know when the first punch occurred? Or must we assume that anything your delicate sensibilities might construe as a personal attack is, in fact, a personal attack?

Ghs

Note to Michael: You may want to get that template finished and ready to go. I think it is about to become relevant once again.

[Philip Coates]

> You have the habit of ignoring posts that contain legitimate points that would prove awkward for you to discuss.

George, I don't have time for these endless fights.

You've attacked me on this thread and on many others. No, I'm not going to go hunt up quotes to prove or debate it. I don't really care whether you or anyone else agrees. And, yes, with me you generally -do- initiate the departure from the issues into personal attacks, insults, ad hominems and the like. No, I don't try to address every statement you might consider "legitimate points". It would take too long and I have better things to do. No, the reason is not that it they are 'awkward' for [me] to discuss. Yes, I've already explained why I think the quote function is a clumsy and unnecessary idea and why many sites avoid it. No, it's not relevant to this discussion - just another bone for you to pick at.

And no, I don't care to continually debate it with you. Or anything else.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Philip Coates

[sjw]

I told you he was a troll.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

> You have the habit of ignoring posts that contain legitimate points that would prove awkward for you to discuss.

George, I don't have time for these endless fights.

You've attacked me on this thread and on many others. No, I'm not going to go hunt up quotes to prove or debate it. I don't really care whether you or anyone else agrees. And, yes, with me you generally -do- initiate the departure from the issues into personal attacks, insults, ad hominems and the like. No, I don't try to address every statement you might consider "legitimate points". It would take too long and I have better things to do. No, the reason is not that it they are 'awkward' for [me] to discuss. Yes, I've already explained why I think the quote function is a clumsy and unnecessary idea and why many sites avoid it. No, it's not relevant to this discussion - just another bone for you to pick at.

And no, I don't care to continually debate it with you. Or anything else.

This is not an endless fight. All you need do is point out the passage in which I personally attacked you, and that will be that.

Or do you get to lie as much as you want and then, when called on it, reply that you don't care to discuss the matter? Okay, so long as I know the rules.

As for the task taking too long, you didn't think this when you instructed Michael::

What's disruptive is when people decide they enormously resent my criticisms and then launch post after post trying to "bring me down". Consider this thread as proof. Go back and read it. It's short enough...

In other words, the thread was "short enough" to demand that Michael scan the earlier posts, but for you to do the same thing would be too much trouble. Your time must be oh-so-much more valuable than Michael's.

I think I had posted only three messages (maybe four) prior to your post. If you are too lazy to find my posts, I will happily provide links for each one. Then all you need do is click on the links and find the part (or parts) in which I attacked you personally.

Deal?

Ghs

[Selene]

Yes, I've already explained why I think the quote function is a clumsy and unnecessary idea and why many sites avoid it.

Phil:

Humor me. Provide me, please, with your rationale for refusing to use this function.

You posit that you do not have the time to waste answering George because you have "...better things to do." OK. Using the quote function appears to be a tremendous time saver for the poster, and, the readers.

It took me a while to learn to use the quote function. To myself and most others on OL, it is extremely valuable.

Therefore, since I must have missed your original rationale, can you succinctly restate it for me, please?

Remember, I do not post on any other forums, so my total experience is with OL. Whether or not other fora do, or do not use a quote function is, basically, irrelevant to me.

Adam

an inquiring mind

Edited April 7, 2011 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

Yes, I've already explained why I think the quote function is a clumsy and unnecessary idea and why many sites avoid it. No, it's not relevant to this discussion - just another bone for you to pick at.

I think you want to make it as difficult as possible for readers to locate the sources of your snippets. I've lost count of the number of times when you quoted snippets out of context. This can be quickly ascertained if readers only need to click on an arrow. But if they have to scroll up looking for a snippet, they are far less likely to take the trouble.

If I am wrong, then you could at least provide the number of the post from which you are quoting. Or would typing a number be too much trouble for you?.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Yes, I've already explained why I think the quote function is a clumsy and unnecessary idea and why many sites avoid it.

Phil:

Humor me. Provide me, please, with your rationale for refusing to use this function.

You posit that you do not have the time to waste answering George because you have "...better things to do." OK. Using the quote function appears to be a tremendous time saver for the poster, and, the readers.

It took me a while to learn to use the quote function. To myself and most others on OL, it is extremely valuable.

Therefore, since I must have missed your original rationale, can you succinctly restate it for me, please?

Remember, I do not post on any other forums, so my total experience is with OL. Whether or not other fora do, or do not use a quote function is, basically, irrelevant to me.

Adam

an inquiring mind

Phil will patiently inform you that his snippet method is actually more convenient, not less convenient, for readers. This is for our benefit, you see. Will you and many others say that the snippet method is a pain in the ass? Well, that's too bad. Phil knows best. Just as he knows best how people should write posts, so he knows best what is most convenient for them.

I used the snippet method for over a decade on various elists. It works only if the earlier messages are appended below, so the reader can review what went before. When the snippets stand alone, as they do in Phil's posts, the reader who hasn't been following the thread closely often has no idea of the context. And if there are lots of posts on the thread, locating a snippet can take a lot of time.

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

Ghs

[sjw]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

Ghs

Either Phil is a dogmatist or he is a troll.

Shayne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

Have you tried offering a foot-rub and grapes?

(I couldn't resist that. )

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

Ghs

Either Phil is a dogmatist or he is a troll.

Shayne

Phil is not a troll. The snippet method has become his mark of independence, of his unwillingness to capitulate to the sweaty OL masses. When Phil stands naked on the edge of a cliff and laughs, he is thinking of the snippet method.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

I think it's stubbornness. If he started using the quote function it would mean admitting he'd been wrong all this time. I think at some point I typed out a tutorial on it for him, geez that must have been over a year ago. It's like some barbarian not wanting to learn to use toilet paper.

Ugh, that just made me think of someone I worked with, a Russian immigrant. Somehow the subject of the availability of feminine hygiene products during the Soviet years came up, turns out they didn't have, well y'know. So I (or someone) asked "what did you do", "Vhat doo yoo tink vee deed!?"

[sjw]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

Ghs

Either Phil is a dogmatist or he is a troll.

Shayne

Phil is not a troll. The snippet method has become his mark of independence, of his unwillingness to capitulate to the sweaty OL masses. When Phil stands naked on the edge of a cliff and laughs, he is thinking of the snippet method.

Ghs

Well if that's not on Daunce's Best of the Week next week I think her credibility will drop through the floor ;)

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

George,

Have you tried offering a foot-rub and grapes?

(I couldn't resist that. )

Michael

It is only a matter of time until the dialogue on this thread repeats itself in a somewhat different form. And when Phil resorts, as he inevitably will, to the "He hit me first!" excuse for why he personally attacked me or someone else, I want to be able to cite a clear-cut case that exemplifies his sleazy tactics. Phil is now in the process of providing exactly this kind of paradigmatic precedent.

I will let the matter drop after Phil entertains us with another round or two of his Slip 'n' Slide routine. Then I will tuck the incident away for later use.

To quote a great American philosopher, "Ain't I a stinker?"

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

I think it's stubbornness. If he started using the quote function it would mean admitting he'd been wrong all this time. I think at some point I typed out a tutorial on it for him, geez that must have been over a year ago. It's like some barbarian not wanting to learn to use toilet paper.

Learning to use the quote function can be a little tricky at first, especially when dealing with nesting quotations. But if Phil only wants to respond to brief snippets, all he needs to do is retain the outermost html tags and delete everything else except the snippet. Pretty simple.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Learning to use the quote function can be a little tricky at first, especially when dealing with nesting quotations. But if Phil only wants to respond to brief snippets, all he needs to do is retain the outermost html tags and delete everything else except the snippet. Pretty simple.

Ghs

Speaking of html tags, what is the one that hides the text until you click on the icon?

Ghs

Never mind; I just remembered: "spoiler" in brackets.

Is there an internet site with a convenient list of these lesser known tags?. I did a couple searches, but I ended up with a bunch of technical stuff that I would never use.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

It's called BBCode.

There is a set of basic commands (quote, code, indent, normal formatting like b, i, u,--bold, italics, underline--etc.), then it varies forum by forum. I was surprised "Spoiler" worked here.

I suggest you Google it, find a list, then start testing what tickles your fancy and see what works if you want to play with it.

You might even uncover some cool stuff.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

Ghs

Either Phil is a dogmatist or he is a troll.

Shayne

Phil is not a troll. The snippet method has become his mark of independence, of his unwillingness to capitulate to the sweaty OL masses. When Phil stands naked on the edge of a cliff and laughs, he is thinking of the snippet method.

Ghs

I hope there's water down there.

After Roark went to NYC, did he join the YMCA? Rand never told us.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Either Phil is too stupid to learn how to use the quote function, or he is too inconsiderate to give a damn.

Ghs

Either Phil is a dogmatist or he is a troll.

Shayne

Phil is not a troll. The snippet method has become his mark of independence, of his unwillingness to capitulate to the sweaty OL masses. When Phil stands naked on the edge of a cliff and laughs, he is thinking of the snippet method.

Ghs

All the things that we complain about about Phil are his exoskeleton. That's why he doesn't change. I hasten to add that people generally are hard to change, people like moi, but people who have exoskeletons are almost impervious to any change. However, Phil has changed and has tried to cut back on his general assaults on others' redoubts and I don't see any reason to keep hitting him over the head with the quote function unless we are at war with him. Sadly, I long ago started ignoring his quoting and his posts depending on his quoting. Not all of it, but it's too much work.

--Brant

Edited April 7, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

Learning to use the quote function can be a little tricky at first, especially when dealing with nesting quotations. But if Phil only wants to respond to brief snippets, all he needs to do is retain the outermost html tags and delete everything else except the snippet. Pretty simple.

Ghs

It's actually the "Reply" function which Phil is requested to use. The "Quote" function doesn't provide the little link (the arrow) which "Reply" provides at the left of the top bar.

The reason Phil is requested to use "Reply" is so people can click the little link which takes them to the post from which he's quoting so they can check the context of what he's snipped.

Several times when the considerateness of providing readers with an easy way to check the faithfulness to context of his snippets has been pointed out to Phil, Phil has responded that people should be able to remember the post he's quoted from and that there's no need to check his accuracy. But sometimes people are reading backward up a thread starting with the most recent post. Or there might have been a lapse in time -- and a number of other posts intervening -- since the post being quoted. Plus Phil frequently misrepresents context with what he snips. And even if he were always fully faithful to context in his snipping, a reader might still want to see more of the original post than Phil quotes.

A compromise method, which would be better than snippets from unidentified posts, is if he would make a practice of at least giving the number of the post from which he's quoting.

Ellen

Edited April 7, 2011 by Ellen Stuttle