Terrestrial comments from Will Schryver thread

[_RockSlider]

Ok, first I must apologize to a good friend that emailed me and asked why I was lowering myself to all the personal attacks of late.

After a partial day of good behavior, another good friend emailed me and related how they almost signed up and posted the following after silently following the Schryver thread, but thought the better of it.

Well the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, so I'll try the Golden Kimball approach and repent as quickly as possible:

For a bit of a compromise, I'll not address this to anyone in particular, but suggest - "if the shoe fits, wear it".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjCX8ud ... r_embedded

[_Kishkumen]

Because a mind is a terrible thing to develop without help.

[_RockSlider]

wow, two shoes have now been presented ... do we have two sets of feet around here that might fit them????

[_Kishkumen]

wow, two shoes have now been presented ... do we have two sets of feet around here that might fit them????

Hmmm... one wonders.

[_Ceeboo]

:)



Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Buffalo]

Because a mind is a terrible thing to develop without help.

Oh snippity snap!

[_Runtu]

Because a mind is a terrible thing to develop without help.

I was definitely flummoxed by his thick prose.

[_Will Schryver]

Will just strikes me as someone who likes to talk trash and push people's buttons.

I think this is a fair observation--but it calls out for qualification.

In my posts on that "other board," the ratio of substance to snark is probably on the order of 20 to 1, if not higher.

On this board, that ratio decreases to about 5 to 1, more or less. The point being that for every post wherein I opt to employ the rhetorical device of "talking trash" or "pushing people's buttons," there are at least five posts where I do not.

Furthermore, of the more than 10,000 message board posts I have made over the course of the past five years, fewer than 1/10th of 1% could be construed as containing anything "off-color" or remotely "vulgar," etc. These people have been, for the past few years, trotting out the same collection of a dozen or so cherry-picked posts in order to establish my bona fides as a vulgar misogynist. Any objective assessment of my posting history would quickly reveal that there is virtually no evidentiary basis for the propagandistic smear campaign that has been waged nonstop against me in these precincts--at least since it was learned I was scheduled to speak at the 2010 FAIR Conference.

[_Buffalo]

Will just strikes me as someone who likes to talk trash and push people's buttons.

I think this is a fair observation--but it calls out for qualification.

In my posts on that "other board," the ratio of substance to snark is probably on the order of 20 to 1, if not higher.

On this board, that ratio decreases to about 5 to 1, more or less. The point being that for every post wherein I opt to employ the rhetorical device of "talking trash" or "pushing people's buttons," there are at least five posts where I do not.

Furthermore, of the more than 10,000 message board posts I have made over the course of the past five years, fewer than 1/10th of 1% could be construed as containing anything "off-color" or remotely "vulgar," etc. These people have been, for the past few years, trotting out the same collection of a dozen or so cherry-picked posts in order to establish my bona fides as a vulgar misogynist. Any objective assessment of my posting history would quickly reveal that there is virtually no evidentiary basis for the propagandistic smear campaign that has been waged nonstop against me in these precincts--at least since it was learned I was scheduled to speak at the 2010 FAIR Conference.

What does frequency have to do with anything? I'm sure the mob that killed Joseph Smith very rarely killed anyone.

[Guest]

No one is flummoxed by your pretentious "thesaurus-centric" writing--at least not in the way you think.

Historically, its been the way they think.

You have never used a single word that wasn't in my vocabulary but you have used plenty of words that I would only use rarely for the reason that if words of that sort are used too often on a given occasion, they give rise to a pretentious and affected tone.

Tarski's vocabulary:

"Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now."

You cram into each sentence as many of these kind of words as possible and the effect is not what you think it is. It is a matter of good taste and moderation more than a question of the difficulty of the vocabulary.

Is that what I do?

"Turbid, addelpated postmodern." LOL
None of these words are difficult but, in this conversational context, using them all in a row is just lame and distracting.

I rather like the connotations, given the subject...

Your ideas (such as they are) are never complex and you mistake florid prose for complex argumentation. In fact, when the verbiage is cleared away, we see no actual argumentation at all but rather mere dressed up assertion.

Tarski's vocabulary and range of intellectual creativity:

"Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now.
Global Warming is here, its real, and we must act now."

Actually Tarski, I'd rather talk to a dead cat.