Super Quotes DISCUSSION thread?

[eye2i2hear]

** addendum: nothing' "personal" there Darren ref the "dirt" slinging; afterall, we all know "mud" is sagas' code name; if it was NonE ya thought, no, that would be "mud wrestling"... ;D **

[NonEntity]

I just want to point out the sad news: Tharrin and NonE (and a few other disillusioned whackjobs) have posted more blather and stupidity than the entire collected wisdom of all the contributors to the SPECTACULAR MOMENTOUS WONDERIFIC QUOTES thread.

I personnally find this very embarrasing. Please, people, we need to think up more smart stuff to say so we can quote each other before we get lost in a 'C' of mediocrity. (Oh, wait, that's what 'C' stands for. Never mind.)

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

Alright NonE, who hacked into your account and is posting in your name...

[NonEntity]

What do you mean, Darren?

- N(there is no one here)on(pay no attention to the man in posting in the name)E

[NonEntity]

note: "Nonsense" not to be confused with "NonE" (no matter how natural it might seem... ;D

notice that I'm posting this in the DISCUSSION thread, not the QUOTES thread. (that is the dictator part of me, not the nonsense part of me. the nonsense part of me enjoyed the above quote, but the dictator part of me was TOTALLY APPALLED!!!! at it's placement in the wrong cubicle. TOTALLY!!!!)

- NonE (or someone else, maybe?)

[Darren Dirt]

freeborn said:

"He dreamed that he stood in a shadowy Court,
Where the Snark, with a glass in its eye,
Dressed in gown, bands, and wig, was defending a pig
On the charge of deserting its sty.
The Witnesses proved, without error or flaw.
That the sty was deserted when found:
And the Judge kept explaining the state of the law
In a soft under-current of sound.
The indictment had never been clearly expressed,
And it seemed that the Snark had begun,
And had spoken three hours, before anyone guessed
What the pig was supposed to have done.
The Jury had each formed a different view
(Long before the indictment was read),
And they all spoke at once, so that none of them knew
One word that the others had said.
'You must know--' said the Judge:
but the Snark exclaimed, 'Fudge!..."

The Hunting of the Snark by Lewis Carroll

You apparently left out the "best" part

"You must know -- " said the Judge: but the Snark exclaimed "Fudge!
That statute is obsolete quite!
Let me tell you, my friends, the whole question depends
On an ancient manorial right.

"In the matter of Treason the pig would appear
To have aided, but scarcely abetted:
While the charge of Insolvency fails, it is clear,
If you grant the plea 'never indebted.'

"Fit the Sixth -- THE BARRISTER'S DREAM"


see also: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunting_of_the_Snark

[eye2i2hear]

ayanrand said:

"Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot."

-Adolph Hitler

And "The State" wasn't/isn't (just) Hitler's Germany!

[Darren Dirt]

I wonder if when Ahnold becomes [vice?] pRez he will copy his hero Hitler and make home-schooling illegal (Can't let the potential brainwashing victims roam free with potentially anti-state thoughts now can we? Or as "Uncle" Joe Stalin famously said, "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don"t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?")

[NonEntity]

Or as "Uncle" Joe Stalin famously said, "Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don"t let our people have guns. Why should we let them have ideas?")

Wow. Is that a real quote?

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

Wikiquote has this version, but also has it as "unsourced"*:

"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas?"

where of course how one defines "enemies" is central (see U.S. Trading With The Enemy Act/War Powers Act, and 14th Amendment "citizen" = "subject"); and so this quote may actually be the more poignant?!?

* my admittedly brief (10mins or s0) web search leaves me with ** the impression ** this may be more urban legend than a factual quote; much less Stalin's, as I turned up not one referenced source for it-- "fwiw"

none the less, its classic Statist-think!!

here's one that has a source link:

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."

— Joseph Stalin, reply to the discussion on the Political Reports of the Central Committee, Dec. 7, 1927. Stalin, Works, Vol. 10, p. 378.
source: FreeRepublic.com "FREEDOM & LIBERTY Quotes about GUNS"

[eye2i2hear]

I found myself wondering in my wanderings... what is it about many quotes that makes quoting the author significant? Of course certain quotes might carry a context interest/significance and even a qualification [see quote & source below], etc. Granted too, giving credit where credit is due [so do i need to quote reference here?!] seems honorable and respectful with some quotes it seems.

But what I'm after here is in the likes of the "unconfirmed" Stalin quote; does it really matter if he said it or not? Isn't the quote itself-- and then any others like it-- of value simply on its insights or perspectives? How significant is "valid" source relative to simply looking at the actions? [noting, too, the tendencies of the likes of the Gossip Game principle]

I suppose I find myself wondering if too often this "quoting" biz is more "celebrity = credibility" think, with a subconscious undertone of "who am I to establish value?" (insignificant, peons that we are, etc).

No doubt as well, few of us would want to "steal" another's lines, even by potential pressumption; though I wonder if that's a realistic position in most cases? Toss in both the popularity of authoring urban legend emails and their often never-ending life cycling (called "fwd: fwd: fwd: fwd" etc) popularity in considering quoting, and what are the possibilities?

Your thoughts?

I found this, from the introduction to the book The Quote Verifier, interesting as well:

Discovering who actually said what, where, and when is a challenge for anyone who wishes to quote others. Misquotation is an occupational hazard of quotation. The more we quote, the more likely we are to misquote. This practice is engaged in by the well educated and poorly educated alike, the erudite and the ignorant, those with multiple degrees or with none at all.

Misquotation is at least as common as accurate quotation, and for perfectly good reasons. The primary reason is that when using quotes, the reference we’re most likely to consult is our memory. This is a hazardous form of research. Our memory wants quotations to be better than they usually were, and said by the person we want to have said them.
...
When it comes to quotations, memory is too much the servant of aspirations, not enough an apostle of accuracy. That is why misremembered quotations so often improve on real ones. Memory may be a terrible librarian, but it’s a great editor.
...
Patterns of misattribution change with time and circumstances. As the prestige of another era’s celebrities wanes, so does the practice of putting words in their mouths. In recent years older flypaper figures such as Goethe, Pope, and Voltaire have had to step aside to make way for more recent ones such as Einstein, Gandhi, and Mandela.
...
Misattribution works best if the person quoted is not around to correct the record. Famous dead people make excellent commentators on current events. During George W. Bush’s first term in office, a warning supposedly made by Julius Caesar raced around the Internet. This began, “Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor....” Barbra Streisand quoted Caesar’s warning in a speech she gave to a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee gala. In a Los Angeles Times editorial cartoon, Paul Conrad attributed the advisory to William Shakespeare (presumably because Shakespeare wrote the play Julius Caesar). There is no evidence that Caesar ever said such a thing. Certainly Shakespeare never wrote it.
...
Quotes without citations should be treated with the utmost suspicion. When a quotation routinely shows up in compilations with no source, there probably is none.
...
Even when a primary source is cited in a secondary work, without examining that material one cannot be confident that the citation is accurate.
...
[R]eputable works of reference can’t always be depended upon for the correct wording or attribution of their contents, [so] is it any wonder that we get our quotations wrong at least as often as we get them right? Widespread, longtime assumptions about who said what are virtually meaningless. Familiar quotations are every bit as likely to be misworded or misattributed as ones that are more obscure, if not more so. Quotations that “everyone knows” someone said (but no one knows where or when) routinely turn out to be misquotations. Nor does the fact that words appear in print or pixels make them credible.
...
In the online era, a tsunami of resources for researching the origins of quotations has crashed on our shores. The reliability of those resources is another matter. Even though the Internet hosts thousands of websites devoted to quotations, these sites rarely concern themselves with accuracy. Most simply cut and paste material from each other. That is why most quote sites are barely better than memory when it comes to verified quotations. At best they are good for leads. Moreover, when a source is given for a quotation, it can be less than dependable. Among other reasons, such sources are rarely ones that compilers have actually examined. More often they have simply recycled a citation found elsewhere on the Internet, just as they’ve recycled the quotation to which it refers.

This is one among many reasons that using a search engine to look for an accurately worded, correctly attributed quotation can be problematic. Most of what such a search turns up are variations on that quotation in different forms, attributed to various parties, but seldom with any reliable source cited (if any is cited at all). A few quotation websites do commit themselves to being as accurate as possible in the wording and attribution of their contents. When attempting to verify quotations by searching the Internet, one’s challenge is to sort a small amount of such wheat from a maddening amount of chaff.

[lummox2]

"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone elses opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."

Oscar Wilde.

;D ;D ;D

[NonEntity]

2

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

eye ;)2 (as 1more;) makes eye3)

[eye likes it when guys like Wilde quote my thoughts]

[Darren Dirt]

eye2i2hear said:

"The independently poor, who choose to wander the highways and sleep on sidewalks and in parks, are living denials of the commitments the rest of us have made to the system and take for granted.

While one may remain part of the class of the institutional poor, the Corporate-State alliance wars against people being independently poor. To be independently poor is to be outside the system, unattached to an institution, a walking advertisement that one may reject the established order and its values and yet survive. To be on the outside trying to get in is quite permissible, even if one never succeeds: it demonstrates a commitment to the collective order. But to be on the outside by choice; to be content living without a permanent home, a telephone or television set, an automobile, a computer and cell phone, mortgages and insurance policies, and all those other trappings of the "American way of life," is a threat to the system itself."

Agreed. Dangerous, threatening to the "state". Can't let the sheeple realize there are choices out there now can we?

You know, just this morning I saw Ahnold and a few other Californicators (including Teri Hatcher and Clint Eastwood, the whores...) telling me, personally to come "visit".


Maybe I'll take them up on the offer. I'm sure sleeping in the outdoors in a 20-celsius-all-year-round locale would be better than taking that kind of ultra-antistate stance up here in the Great White North. ;D