On Saturday, February 8, 2014 3:41:14 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:52 AM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > >> >> On Friday, February 7, 2014 6:36:21 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:50:39 PM UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 9:09:23 PM UTC, Platonist Guitar Cowboy >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Edgar L. Owen <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Ghibbsa, >>>>>> >>>>>> Boy O boy. Reread my post to you. It was completely complementary, >>>>>> only to be met not with appreciation but with snide remarks and >>>>>> accusations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anyway I officially withdraw it as it was obviously in error... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Then the registrars, board of directors, volunteer representatives, >>>>> unions, bureaucrats, technicians, warriors, and brave souls maintaining >>>>> the >>>>> ring of everything-listers, not including yours truly lazy in this >>>>> regard, *officially >>>>> decree*, with dueness in forthright diligence, AND purposefully >>>>> noting the swearing protocolization of plaintiff's withdrawal of an >>>>> overly >>>>> ardent compliment to himself by himself, due to an error in the >>>>> plaintiffs >>>>> overestimation of himself, projecting his own awesomeness onto critical >>>>> encouragement by the forgiving defendant in form of a normal post outside >>>>> of p-time, as everyone is prone to commit from time to time, is noted and >>>>> archived according to protocols of the appropriate paragraphs and >>>>> sections. >>>>> >>>>> Howeveriver, this official withdrawal marking a landmark turn of >>>>> events on this list, whencewithforthnight for now appeased, the angry >>>>> souls >>>>> of plaintiff's retract-rebuttalized error of unity in >>>>> comradery-mass-dorkification of the rest of the members of this >>>>> noble-bloat >>>>> house of postingoods, unsearchable by any known box or tab, logical and >>>>> otherwise, now cast into the iron lightning of Odin's dong song with a >>>>> single post into the eternity of P-time. >>>>> >>>>> Hencewithtoforthcoming, all will change in the realized >>>>> interpretations of Science because of the gravy gravity of this >>>>> officialized, sealed, notarized, proof-read, nsa devoured, >>>>> spamificationationalizeducation of the rest of the dumb list for we >>>>> all like the gravy bit, unless we are greenitarian, which remains >>>>> solemnly, >>>>> in the light of day, a dark matter of information-urination from black >>>>> holes spun out of standards more than blocks of verses singing in unison >>>>> of >>>>> angry hawks and birds. >>>>> >>>>> All rejoice and thank the Edgar, >>>>> as well and more the forgiver, >>>>> foreverchangeternally p-time of the past, present, future.... and on >>>>> the left. >>>>> >>>>> Seeriousee? Clarification between the real and interpretation has been >>>>> achieved in this thread. Thank you all. From the heart. Officially. PGC >>>>> >>>> >>>> yep...very cool post. I couldn't work out who came out worse in your >>>> judgements. You weren't too happy with me in FoAR so we have form. You do >>>> say I am to be "thanked" as well and more so, but on the other hand you >>>> send him up much more. But hey, that could be because his speciousness has >>>> a lot more substance to send up. Which kind of makes him better in your >>>> eyes. >>>> >>>> One could worry forever, but really one would have to be an asshole to >>>> really that much of fuck....at least for that to matter whether or not >>>> something is a good post. >>>> >>>> What I'd throw back is my perception of you is that you're basically a >>>> snob >>>> >>> > That's like throwing narcissism at people who surf the web. Of course I > have to be snob if I write fiction and compose it musically: I'd have > nothing to say without my own biases. But the same can be said of any > scientific stance, regardless of interpretation (on topic btw): you're > elitist towards some ideas and think other ideas aren't quite your cup of > tea, and so defending your ideas is natural. Welcome to the web. > I don't mind being sent up....and everyone knows resorting to the flat tone gormless "yeah...well...you're a bloody snob aren't you" is the mark of defeat :o)
> > My last post was merely bad extemporaneous non P-time prose, because I'm > bored of giving sincere replies just for getting slapped by another Edgar > comment, when he has taken the floor so often and failed to address basic > objections to his ideas; instead throwing authoritative and infantilizing > insults, always followed by some smiley emoticon to trivialize the > transgression. So fine, he likes to play this game where he pushes > everybody's buttons and then goes "oh, I don't know why everybody here is > so touchy", concerning his book, of all things. > You gave an entertaining post, and everyone always deserves to be sent up. I responded like a big girl's blouse. What can I say. > > Him liking this game, I thought he wouldn't mind some of this, obfuscated > in prose, because "he doesn't take things as seriously as everybody else > here, who have some faith axe to grind instead of being reasonable". What I > got as a reply was simply "You're idea of science is sci-fi" + "you're a > snob". I have no problems with those and partially agree. > Nothing phazes Edgar lol. > >>> p.s. don't worry I forgive you >>> >>> p.p.s. tee hee >>> >> >> Not especially addressing you here PGC but I had to reply to something to >> keep it in this thread. >> >> So something I asserted was that I had tried to study Bruno's >> structure with as little direct knowledge of the contents as >> possible. Between this thread and another where I addressed Bruno directly >> I actually said his was the best structure I'd personally seen, or at the >> top table. >> >> I think that in my choice of wording I definitely acknowledged that my >> judgements could be totally vacuous in some hard light of reality. But >> that's almost a given for all of us. So the question is whether, within my >> own mind, I was passing a measured compliment, or was I gushing, and if so >> falling foul of part of the complaint I was making to Edgar (the other part >> was that he had no right to rope me into a complaint about other people >> that I might not agree with). >> >> That's a legitimate question, particularly as yet another part of my >> complaint to Edgar was that he throwing out a standard that he hadn't yet >> shown himself living up to, since almost all his interactions are about his >> ideas, and almost all interactions to him are people granting him their >> time, despite in many cases it being pretty apparent the personal opinion >> of the individual was that there wasn't any mileage in his ideas. So >> legitimate here in terms of whether I was applying a standard that I had at >> least been trying to live up to previously. >> > > Which most here do, that at least attempt to tolerate, while trying to > wrap their minds around other peoples' ideas and with which I agree with. > This brings tension, naturally. > > But when it gets a bit repetitive, it's no wonder that thankfully, people > will point this out. And this sort of irreverence marks what I like: > freedom with a critical edge, that tolerates its own chaos by addressing > it. > > >> >> Another question is whether it is even possible to study a structure >> without understanding the contents. >> > > And asking how often we may do such. > > >> >> So for that reason I will briefly lay down Bruno's structure as I see it. >> And to the extent it's completely wrong, then I guess that goes a long way >> to answering the question above. And to the extent it doesn't even make >> sense on its own terms, that goes a long way to answering whether or not I >> was blowing smoke up Bruno's ass for some self-serving purpose. >> >> So, partly because I was planning to do so anyway, I shall be doing a >> post in its own thread, where I lay my balls on the trowel regarding >> Bruno's structure. The useful component here, is that it definitely won't >> be controversial with others to suggest I have minimal direct knowledge of >> the contents of the UDA. Since part of the claim is that it's possible to >> meaningfully analyse for a structure without knowing a lot about the >> contents. >> >> It's also obviously implied that I think I'm talking about structure in >> some non-trivial sense that isn't already made clear by Bruno himself like >> "my initial assumptions are simpler". It can be taken as a given I'm not >> talking about something that amounts to simply repeating something that has >> been said simply. >> >> I'm saying this bit here, and saying my analysis there, because this bit >> is only relevant here. >> > > I look forward to it, although the list moves too fast for me to get a > grip on what's going on. PGC > > >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected] <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
