|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jan 16, 2007 15:53:31 GMT -5
in my understanding, rage is anger elevated to a higher level. the difference is one of magnitude, not substance.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jan 16, 2007 18:37:51 GMT -5
eye2i2hear pondered: reminded me of a melodically kewel song by the prog rock group Spock's Beard ... the group has a song titled "Stranger In A Strange Land"... (but not having read the book mentioned, I have no idea if its just coincidence)Nope -- completely unrelated to the book. Pretty deep song, though.  |
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on Jan 16, 2007 19:14:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Apr 18, 2007 10:48:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lummox2 on Apr 18, 2007 11:10:01 GMT -5
Good stuff!
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 24, 2007 18:41:19 GMT -5
I proudly announce that Marc has chosen to host [url=http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/66/27/[/url]my latest article, "Ayn Rand is a Racist"[/url] on the AdventuresinLegalLand.com web site.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 25, 2007 10:39:28 GMT -5
from The Critic's Corner*: Did a wee bit of Randian writing style-- perhaps attributable to a possessing spirit (a ever past but ever presiding NonEyn), as noted a "revisit" has been in progress-- take over with this article? Or is "she" just contagious? Or perhaps emulation is a desired form of flattery? The "point" (individualism good, group-thinkism bad) is well within the "article" imo, but gadzooks, what a stretch getting there? [not in any means seeking to dishonor the author personally; hey, what are critics for? anyone reading meye writings should clearly see I have no room to criticize communicative writing style-- and so what am eye doing here?! what's that "they" say about the pot calling the kettle black...? Intended rather as a mere challenge; or simply aHO (hey, that's "another Humble Opinion, you Johns!)] I do applaud the point-- and as well the effort exerted; you're a good man, NonCharlie Brown. Just questioning whether you've been Randized or eye2ied. I'm sure they have shots for that. Well, not "they", but the individuals in the field of...  * [where fwiw, it could just as well be The Critic's Carnival]
============================================================= for entertainment purposes only; the names have not been changed to protect the innocuous; any resemblance to NonEntities both past and present is clearly intentional, slanderous, and accusatory...======================================== |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 25, 2007 11:28:14 GMT -5
Hey 2i2, I have no problem whatsoever with criticism. Wail away! That's how I learn.
So are you saying that the pot is calling the kettle black?
As I point out at the bottom, I'm doing exactly what I criticize her for. The only difference is that I'm trying to be aware of this problem and attempting to at least recognize it. Whereas she seems (seemed) to hold herself above all others and not recognize that we are all human and we all must learn one step at a time.
Without exception, the Objectivists that I've had serious discussions with all refer back to what Saint Ayn said when they really get into the sticky questions. Rather than being "objective" and trying to determine truth from the issues at hand, they have all chosen NOT to think, but rather to be led. So in this regard I can lump them all into one group as that has been my experience. As a result of this I find that I rarely give a good god damn about talking with an "Objectivist" anymore. So there is this interesting conundrum. I've made this generalization because it works and helps my life flow more smoothly, and yet at the same time I may be falsely judging someone who calls him or herself an Objectivist. If I can be aware of both of these conflicting truths and keep them alive in my mind I am perhaps better off.
I seem to have gone off on a little rant here. Now, just what was it that you were saying?
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 25, 2007 11:33:15 GMT -5
And perhaps the REAL lesson here is to not use the verb "to be" in one's thinking, as that guy who developed the almost-impossible-to-implement language e-prime figured out. I highly recommend looking up e-prime and considering it's ideas even if you don't actually use that method of communication.
If we describe actions rather than define them we are less into the grouping thing. I am a person who does plumbing at times; I also fix cars, and write articles, and cook. I am NOT a plumber, writer, mechanic or cook. Those are just some of the things that I do.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by eye2i2hear on May 25, 2007 13:17:48 GMT -5
So are you saying that the pot is calling the kettle black? Upon reflection, and what you've clarified further now, I could see where you might take that as my intent with that allegorical reference. Actually tho, it was more me as a "writer", negatively critiquing you're writing regarding ineffective communication.  [doG, but what irony?! me, having to do yet another clarification regarding something I've written?!]  eyePot; NonYou kettle. [is calling NonYou "black" then equivalent to using the "N" word?!? wait, tho, we're both "black" and bro's can use the "N" word-- and the "Ho" one...] ;D I grasped that from the original. Both in its actual occurrence in the writing, but also in you being aware of it and saying so. What was I trying to say? Only that for me, that overall it did not communicate very efficiently. Much like Rand's 1200 or so pages didn't-- or might we express it as "didn't have to"?. I'm waiting to re-read your's a third time, later, to see if I can better grasp what that was (or wasn't?) for "me" individually. As someone I tend to appreciate once reminded me: its about process... |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on May 25, 2007 13:36:47 GMT -5
Okay. Good. If you have anything specific that you can point to, please do. I certainly can stand improvement, of course. Some times I'm vaguely coherent, others not. And of course it is hard to see what you don't see, and then, once it's pointed out it often becomes, like the young woman in the other thread, glaringly obvious.
- NonE
|
|
|
|
Post by Darren Dirt on May 30, 2007 10:26:10 GMT -5
I proudly announce that Marc has chosen to host [url=http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com/index.php?/content/view/66/27/ [/url]my latest article, "Ayn Rand is a Racist"[/url] on the AdventuresinLegalLand.com web site. - NonE[/quote] I Object! And perhaps the REAL lesson here is to not use the verb "to be" in one's thinking, as that guy who developed the almost-impossible-to-implement language e-prime figured out. I highly recommend looking up e-prime and considering it's ideas even if you don't actually use that method of communication. - NonE linkified. enjoy your visit to Wikipediaworld, " semantics/ linguistics" department -- buckle up and have a beverage handy; expected duration of stay = 3+ hours. Okay. Good. If you have anything specific that you can point to, please do. I certainly can stand improvement, of course. Some times I'm vaguely coherent, others not. And of course it is hard to see what you don't see, and then, once it's pointed out it often becomes, like the young woman in the other thread, glaringly obvious. - NonE better to be "vaguely coherent" than "clearly incoherent" |
|
wade
Junior Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by wade on Jun 1, 2007 17:40:59 GMT -5
Good article NonE. Thought you guys would like this, it goes well with NonE's article.   ;D I have to have a bumper sticker and t-shirt of this. |
|
|
|
Post by NonEntity on Jun 4, 2007 10:28:33 GMT -5
Say "Bingo!"
by NonEntity
"I don't normally play Bingo," she explained, "but they've got these new machines at the casino and my friends talked me into going."
My neighbor was making with the polite chit-chat as we met outside of the mailbox.
"They're boxes with lights and bingo cards on them and they do all the work. You just watch and as the numbers are read off you can see the machine play the game for you. You don’t have to do anything.
"If you win, a message lights up on your machine that says, 'Say BINGO!' "
I turned and slowly beat my head against the wall.
I'm sure that Thomas Jefferson & Co. would be proud of having risked lives, fortunes and sacred honor.
Oh yes, as always, remember to vote; like bingo, we couldn’t do it without you.
|
|
[doG, but what irony?! me, having to do yet another clarification regarding something I've written?!] 
