tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post9107298710551712042..comments2024-01-02T09:18:23.893-05:00Comments on Written World: This one amuses me.Ragnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-67192912578932941172007-06-30T23:46:00.000-04:002007-06-30T23:46:00.000-04:00is it, i mean. (feel free to start a whole thread...<I>is</I> it, i mean. (feel free to start a whole thread about the typo though, if y'all want.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-4243765098661649292007-06-30T23:44:00.000-04:002007-06-30T23:44:00.000-04:00so i've gone back through a few chapters of this, ...so i've gone back through a few chapters of this, and i still can't tell: was this whole back-and-forth ever actually <I>about</I> anything, or it it just an all-you-can-eat troll-feeding?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-46439528815876656192007-06-27T19:58:00.000-04:002007-06-27T19:58:00.000-04:00Nah,All I was going to say was the resurrecting de...Nah,<BR/>All I was going to say was the resurrecting dead threads seemed to be fairly troll-ish, but I think Rob made that point more eloquently than I would have.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786191159587989377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-383430841706174702007-06-27T19:21:00.000-04:002007-06-27T19:21:00.000-04:00Oh, Christ. Here we go again...Oh, Christ. Here we go again...Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-78992104487488849662007-06-27T13:06:00.000-04:002007-06-27T13:06:00.000-04:00Hey, troll in the thread who's name starts with a ...Hey, troll in the thread who's name starts with a D!<BR/><BR/>If you think you're so better than us, why don't you GET A LIFE!<BR/><BR/>After all, through inductive deductive reasoning, I can easily guess you're saying that female comic book fans are stupid and shouldn't post. Or something.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-47333569265100865542007-06-25T20:52:00.000-04:002007-06-25T20:52:00.000-04:00"The moment Dan made use of the adjective "Ciceron..."The moment Dan made use of the adjective "Ciceronian" I knew this thread would be good for a chortle. "<BR/><BR/>Aw, man, Dan better watch out or Scipio will come by and drop a load of classics major whoopass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-2870497533156070862007-06-25T14:05:00.000-04:002007-06-25T14:05:00.000-04:00There are few things funnier than the pretentiousn...There are few things funnier than the pretentiousness of the overly well-read (myself included). The moment Dan made use of the adjective "Ciceronian" I knew this thread would be good for a chortle. Thanks. ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-39382051111648430452007-06-24T23:55:00.000-04:002007-06-24T23:55:00.000-04:00Jon,I didn't say it was bad to be guileless, I sai...Jon,<BR/>I didn't say it was bad to be guileless, I said that guileless mockery would not make me leave.<BR/><BR/>Guileless has a number of meanings including "artless" and "direct"--and it is rather in that sense that I was using the word. That is, simply engaging in mockery of me doesn't make me feel compelled to go. I have a healthy sense of humor and can laugh at myself. I am a pedant, I am long winded, I am stubborn. I can be an intolerable ass. These things I know about myself. Your pointing them out to me do not wound me or bother me in the least.<BR/><BR/>I like that you used the modifier "more" in front of unacceptable. It shows that, at some level, you understand that mocking someone's post is a bit unacceptable, just not as unacceptable as mocking their appearance. Here we agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-26734975922428311422007-06-24T23:23:00.000-04:002007-06-24T23:23:00.000-04:00Dan wrote: "I argued that it was, while potentiall...Dan wrote: "I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "low" because it was an attempt at deriving humor from mocking another person--schaudenfreude, or more likely derision, if you will."<BR/><BR/>I think the general attitude on the internet is that it's entirely fair game and acceptable to mock people for what they post.<BR/><BR/>What's more unacceptable (thus, 'low') would be to mock, say, their appearance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-33540337741029974302007-06-24T23:19:00.000-04:002007-06-24T23:19:00.000-04:00I'm still trying to figure out how mockery with gu...I'm still trying to figure out how mockery with guile is better than 'guileless mockery'.<BR/><BR/>guileless = 'innocent and without deception'.<BR/><BR/>I suppose everyone's supposed to mock Dan behind his back while professing friendship 4 evah?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-82002938228976556472007-06-24T23:09:00.000-04:002007-06-24T23:09:00.000-04:00"A well-balanced person is one who finds both side..."A well-balanced person is one who finds both sides of an issue laughable. "<BR/><BR/>-- Herbert ProchnowAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-35305010178177245262007-06-24T20:52:00.000-04:002007-06-24T20:52:00.000-04:00urgh. That should be "manhole".urgh. That should be "manhole".Rob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-20658078945122311742007-06-24T20:51:00.000-04:002007-06-24T20:51:00.000-04:00"Tragedy is when I slip on a banana peel. Comedy i..."Tragedy is when <I>I</I> slip on a banana peel. Comedy is when <I>you</I> fall down an open manhol and break both legs."<BR/><BR/>--Mel BrooksRob S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07331286524477806963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-22101371125399961012007-06-24T20:34:00.000-04:002007-06-24T20:34:00.000-04:00I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "lo...<I>I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "low" because it was an attempt at deriving humor from mocking another person--schaudenfreude, or more likely derision, if you will.</I><BR/><BR/>"All comedy is rooted in pain."<BR/>--Al CappChris Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08320487883818314339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-90228880679617780362007-06-24T19:35:00.000-04:002007-06-24T19:35:00.000-04:00Oh, and here I thought Ragnell was a reference to ...Oh, and here I thought Ragnell was a reference to the extremely wealthy Ragnell clan who lived in Chesterfield, Missouri.<BR/><BR/><B>Major</B> assumption on my part.<BR/><BR/>Shan't happen again.Gordon Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01048644813784102126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-83621966722994240892007-06-24T15:30:00.000-04:002007-06-24T15:30:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, none of you were right, no-one gets the...I'm sorry, none of you were right, no-one gets the points. The answer was "A potato". Good try everyone, I'm sure you'll do better next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-80545902775680664442007-06-24T11:52:00.000-04:002007-06-24T11:52:00.000-04:00"Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have ..."Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have to be so... so pink?<BR/><BR/>Of course.<BR/><BR/>She's a girl!<BR/><BR/>Duh! "<BR/><BR/>Brilliant!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-48170374161650769902007-06-24T05:38:00.000-04:002007-06-24T05:38:00.000-04:00kalinara,donekalinara,<BR/><BR/>doneDanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786191159587989377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-22182428479248896072007-06-24T04:13:00.000-04:002007-06-24T04:13:00.000-04:00I think we're pretty much doomed to argue in circl...I think we're pretty much doomed to argue in circles. I think your "contextualization" is useful in academia (since the readers of a thesis probably is not going to go hunting down every footnote to understand the context of the quotes) but meaningless in a case like this where the original context is clear, quick and easy to read. Much the same as your bullet points really, since the thread linked is fairly short and we can read it for ourselves. No matter how much you defend your claim, my counter will always be "read the post again."<BR/><BR/>I'm sure some people have read your accusation, reread the original post and said "wow, he's right." Just as others probably did the same and went "err...no." Your subsequent defenses of your claim really aren't going to have any real affect on your audience, as they've already reread the post and made up their minds. (Much the same with my accusation against you. Anyone interested will have already read the linked thread and decided for themselves.)<BR/><BR/>I'm enjoying the discussion honestly, but at this point it's mostly been the two of us going back and forth. I'd like to respectfully offer to continue this conversation via email (kalinara@gmail.com) or AIM (username: kalinara) instead.kalinarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417686761943716312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-79744497471972471262007-06-24T03:35:00.000-04:002007-06-24T03:35:00.000-04:00Oh my, you're funny.Thank you.I'm not asking for c...<I>Oh my, you're funny.</I><BR/>Thank you.<BR/><BR/>I'm not asking for context so much as contextualization. That is, if you want to claim I am taking her words out of context, by all means make the argument. You seem to do a wonderful job of implying an argument without actually expressing it. Your time in academia should have corrected that problem. As well as letting you know that any use of another's words is a "taking" out of context--which is why we contextualize quotes as much as possible.<BR/><BR/>I think my behavior in that thread speaks for itself as well. <BR/>*I apologized to the linker for bringing any untoward attention to her and her page. <BR/>*I told her and others NOT to come here and defend me (thus I specifically asked them to avoid any accusation of trolling). <BR/>*I took blame for raising people's ire. <BR/>*I repeated the bit about "low" that is posted here. <BR/>*I said that people on this site seemed to be overly defensive about being called "low." <BR/>*I said it was within your rights to link, but that right doesn't exempt you from argument. <BR/>*I confessed to an argumentative streak. <BR/>*I suggested that others (myself included) should probably think more before posting. <BR/>*I suggested that this whole post and kerfuffle will be forgotten in a few days. <BR/>*Oh, and mentioned the "cute comment"="warning" tactic.<BR/><BR/>Bullet pointed for ease of reading. You may feel free to add anything you think is of value or interest. <BR/><BR/>I am not here to tell you how to think or what to think. At this point I am simply defending the claims I made and engaging in as peaceable a conversation as I can.<BR/><BR/>As I have said countless times, I will take your posts in the spirit with which they are given.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786191159587989377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-61581789753086719312007-06-24T02:57:00.000-04:002007-06-24T02:57:00.000-04:00Oh my, you're funny. I don't need to provide you ...Oh my, you're funny. I don't need to provide you with the context of Ragnell's argument. It's on the top of the page.<BR/><BR/>Ragnell linked it herself even.<BR/><BR/>You can provide quotes and presentations all you like. I've spent enough time in academia to realize that through the right selection of quotes you can argue pretty much anything. However, your quotes and mis-interpretations mean absolutely nothing. The context is <A HREF="http://ragnell.blogspot.com/2007/06/public-service-announcement.html" REL="nofollow">right here</A>. We can all see exactly what Ragnell did or didn't argue for ourselves.<BR/><BR/>As for your behavior on that linked thread, well, I think it speaks for itself. And anyone who follows that link can judge for him or herself.kalinarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01417686761943716312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-5630852795010539972007-06-24T02:47:00.000-04:002007-06-24T02:47:00.000-04:00Oh and the crux of my argument was this: (cut and ...Oh and the crux of my argument was this: (cut and pasted to avoid typing it again)<BR/><BR/>My particular argument was about the following two sentences:<BR/><I>...if the matter consists solely of linking and mocking, its hardly "really low" or "messed up."</I><BR/><BR/>I argued that it was, while potentially funny, "low" because it was an attempt at deriving humor from mocking another person--schaudenfreude, or more likely derision, if you will.<BR/><BR/><I>But <B>don't</B> make generalizations about "Bloggers" (Especially if you are one, and if you have a livejournal, you are one too. Deal with it) and <B>don't</B> make bitter statements about them linking public posts.(emphasis mine)</I><BR/><BR/>I felt then, as I do now that in a post about how open and wild the internet was, making such a proclamation was a bit overboard. So I did what it seemed the original blogger requested and I argued the point.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786191159587989377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-76454452462774373022007-06-24T02:46:00.000-04:002007-06-24T02:46:00.000-04:00Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have t...<I>Well I'm certainly Anti-Ragnell! But did it have to be so... so pink?</I><BR/><BR/>Of course.<BR/><BR/>She's a <B>girl</B>!<BR/><BR/>Duh!Dorianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14754097613320749614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-43615445655688946342007-06-24T02:43:00.000-04:002007-06-24T02:43:00.000-04:00Kalinara,Nice try but wrong again.Look, if you wan...Kalinara,<BR/>Nice try but wrong again.<BR/><BR/>Look, if you want to say I am taking her words out of context point to it. Show me the context. I have made a good faith effort to show how I interpreted them. Complete with quotes. If it was too fast for you, I could arrange a powerpoint presentation or something, I guess.<BR/><BR/>Oh noes. I am a hypocrite?<BR/><BR/>Maybe.<BR/><BR/>But I was here because of linking to other people without warning them <B>solely for the purpose of mocking them.</B> See that bit? The bit about mocking? Did you miss that? Have you seen me ONCE, one time, argue that I thought linking was verboten? Oh in fact, here is a quote from me in that thread:<BR/><I>Was it wrong of them to link to (name removed)'s page? <B>No.</B></I> <BR/><BR/>Oh and, if you'll notice my participation in that thread happened AFTER Ragnell posted there. <BR/><BR/>Please, please try to read and comprehend what you are reading before you go about attacking me for something I did not say.<BR/><BR/>See, I can actually find quotes of where you are taking me as saying something I didn't say. You can't even find anything to contradict my argument in what Ragnell said.<BR/><BR/>Reading is, as they used to say, FUNdamental.<BR/><BR/>I am glad to provide you with a source of entertainment. I don't mind being mocked or ridiculed, frankly.<BR/><BR/>And I may well be a bully, but I doubt it. I haven't told Ragnell what to say. I have disagreed with it. I never said "Don't do" this or that. That would be Ragnell, not me.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02786191159587989377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16538843.post-82692265703448809862007-06-24T02:42:00.000-04:002007-06-24T02:42:00.000-04:00Shut up, Sperm Bank....hey wait a second...Shut up, Sperm Bank.<BR/><BR/>...hey wait a second...Chris Simshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08320487883818314339noreply@blogger.com