David Brooks finally succeeds in clarifying something. I have long insisted that Democracy is a religion. Brooks convincingly argues that Democracy is Catholic.
It’s mostly because more people are cynical and like to pretend that they are better than everything else around them. Vanity has more to do with rising distrust than anything else.you prolly think this song is about you.
It's a start. At least they're aware no one is swallowing their bullshit. I'm touched that he acknowledged my existence, but I'm wondering what the penance is for the sinners.
It is important to note that Brooks never mentions Caetholicism.Which WOULD lead me to elaborate on a very important observation concerning M'sieur's psyche, except I can't remember whether it's his Dad who's Catholic and his Mom who's Jewish, or vice-versa.Well, no matter - I'll elaboate anyway.If it's his Dad, then M'sieur's post clearly indicates authority conflicts with his DAD.And if it's his Mom, then M'sieur's pos clearly indicates authority conflics with his Mom, which, since they're too painful to confront, he's transferred to his Dad.
rejoice! he's inviting you to the conversation where heretofore you've been irrelevant.
good one el, you're able to trap ioz back in his own little oedipal triangle. it's always daddy, mommy and me, right?what year is it?
Nonny@10:51am:I believe that in a prefatory note to Justine (1st volume of his Alexandria Quartet), Durrell quotes Freud as saying:"I am becoming accustomed to thinking that there are always four people involved in any sexual encounter."Or something like that.Can't recall if Freud coined the term "Electra" complex for the "daughter/daddy/mommy" version of the "son/daddy/mommy" triangle.But if Durrell is quoting Freud correctly, he appears to have at least implicitly conceptualized the "daughter" version as well as the "son" version.But shit, man, what the hell is a tranny supposed to think? Does he (or she) have an Oedipal or an Electra complex? The mind reels.
How long has it been since Democracy's last confession?
only if we proceed diachronic-ally, lolif not a or b, then c. or some shit.
i think we confess to democracy ...for give me democracy for i have sinned, it's been 10 years since the last time i voted
.. a pretend .. cease resistance of submissive .. letter to the times,ny, - i'm not a .. follower .. of the nytimes ,david b. , so i don't know much about him beyond this bit of writing here , the beyond, of how they like to knock him , of the little ( is he short she wonders .. ) mentions of .. over on the blog .. of an io z / it's all in the wording .. . it really is best not to say follow , or suggest that one person is more than just good at bringing .. a to gather ..together , in whatever ways that they are good at this .. .
anne's mother was apparently scared by a preposition when she was in the womb ... according Jewish old wives' tales, it's a damn good thing for anne it wasn't a lobster instead of a preposition ... she's very vain about her hands, you know ... they are integral to the way she flutters ...
Outside our elites there is no salvation.
oh eerily .. , of what happened with my mother .. of my in the womb , .. of something of your autumn south of in the late summer 1963 , of how what happened ,of effect on how i was born in late february the following year ,.. of it's part in what is now my flutter .. . , a telling / eer' , i think it was something of his father ,of ioz ,and the naming of this post ..
i don't get it.
puppy, what is it that you don't get about ioz's post ?
anne, "religious", "catholic"?
'lander , perhaps .. because there is no catholic in your jewish , of like ioz and eerily and pen j and more than a few others here ..
At last, M'sieur, at last!Here is your chance to be recognized!http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/14/new-republic-new-york-times-magazine_n_1597153.html?utm_hp_ref=mediaOh my - I feel like Remy in Ratatouille! With me in your toque, how can you not succeed?
That's just the sort of thing that makes me refer to the dullest of sycophants as lumpenasslapperiat
@653Scrii 'pula' pe perete si-o rupi la fuga?The (papist) dull sycophant
nonny@653 -tell me it's really never occurred to you that by deliberatelty occasioning the interaction with your type, I succesfully mock it, i.e. mock your very predictability.
That article reads like a Leonardian wet dream.
What the shit is happening in ioz' comments section these days? It's like ioz took a hiatus and the commenters took acid. Way too much...
Just Authority. That's awesome.
Okay, it's never occurred to me lumpenasslapper. Do you attribute your obsequious nature to the lack of attention paid you by your mother, or was it dear old dad who didn't have the time for you?
nonny@9:54:Oh - I see. You're one of the unimaginative types who think that a desire for attention is the sole possible motivation for those who simply like to fuck with the web sociodynamic assumptions of the "herd". (There was a guy at the old Slate BotF board who was a member of the same "herd", perhaps the "charter" member - everyhing reduced to "attention" for him, and he never once noticed the correlation between this reductio ad absurdum position of his and the fact that he himself was very much a middle child in real life.)Look, stupie - the "prime directive" of you and the rest of the lumpencommentariat here, web-sociodynamiclly speaking, is to be "cool", without the slightest realizeation is that all you're achieving is to be "brittle". So to mock this "prime directive" of your herd, I deliberately do uncool things, knowing that it will get on your last nerves because it contradicts a basic assumption that you hold so dear (the need to be "cool".)In this sense, I am fucking with your heads the same way High_Arka does, except I choose not to mix my fucking around with serious matters, as she does. Have I expanded your Weltanschauung at all, lumpencommentarian? It's all about a love of "meta", not about a need for attention.
AMAZING.You end up with movements like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Parties that try to dispense with authority altogether. They reject hierarchies and leaders because they don’t believe in the concepts. The whole world should be like the Internet — a disbursed semianarchy in which authority is suspect and each individual is king.The horror!Each individual is king... that does ring a bell... oh right, that was the rhetoric used by Washington and Jefferson to justify their revolution.Such a strange man, with such profound daddy issues.
PS - it's funny that the notion of the "herd" behavior of nonny@9:54 and the rest of his lumpencommentarian comrades is actually quite relevant to M'sieur's top-post on Brooks' cri de coeur for "followers".All Brooks has to do is come here and find dozens of followers - a whole herd of them, in fact, who follow the principle that "brittle is best".
eerily, .. of something else to add to your mention of arka , i think that she is actually something of ..a calm ,as she talks at length , compared to the brittle swearing of some of the anonymous .. , army dreaming ..
Oh please. Don't be such a dissembler. It's not complicated at all. You don't desire attention, you have a burning need for it. Just look at what you do to these comment threads. Like watching a needy parasite, bleeding the life from its host. Really rather pathetic to watch lumpenasslapper, but don't blame mommy and/or daddy. Obviously they had very little with which to work.
nonny@10:58I really feel bad you took the time to type all that, when all you really had to type was:"moo...moo"or "baa...baa" (if you prefer flocks to herds and lamb to veal.)Really - save your fingers for the important brittle repartee. Moo-moo or baa-baa will clearly suffice as a response to any of my posts to which you take future exception.
habemus to habermus (foodie ), now playing the part of st hildegard of bingen ..in her always trying to direct the commenting back to something of io z's posts .. .
anne@11:17 -in this particular case, actually, the sidebar commentary has EVERYTHING to do with M'sieur's top-post on Brooks' cri de coeur.What High_Arka loves to point out (and KFO also, to give the devil is due), is that right here in this nest of so-called "anarchists", social norms and obedience thereto are of critical importance.How the hell can the anarchist goal of maximal self-expression be achieved when social norms are still of import?When social norms are of import, a society has achieved the stasis of which Brooks is so desirous ...
oh i know all of that eerily , .. i've just been humming ,as i wander in here .. , of something of hildegard ..since first looking in at io z's post ..
I would find EL interesting....if he were at least interesting. Or witty, or something.
Poll time!How brittle, on a scale of 1 to 10 was nonny@11:48's post?
brittle is a fair cop. but enforcement of obedience to social norms? huh? what is the enforcement mechanism?do you mean the occasional cajoling from the suffering gallery about a someone's incessant pretentious douchebaggery? light shunning? no one's been silenced here.
(lucid, if you come back around .. what instrument/instruments do you play ? mine is my voice .. . ) ( and .. . NIh, i'd still like to know what your schooling was , of reading those drawings .. )
Thanks for raising the question, cnihilist@12:27, and thereby giving me the opportunity to clarify.You are absolutely correct in pointing out that there is no enforcement of social norms, thanks either to: i) M'sieur's complete lack of interest in the comment threads; ii) a philosophical position he feels compelled to adopt with respect to them. (Regarding the latter, recall the point I made a while back on how Chomsky was philosophically compelled to stand by and watch the destruction of his and Halle's department by an inside 5th column of Lakoff-ites, the chief one of which (John Robert Ross) was eventually given the choice of resigning his tenure or being fired for cause.)But what you appear to be giving a hall-pass to is: a) the desire for enforcement of social norms expressed by some commenters heere; b) and just as bad, the very PREFERENCE for observance of social norms expressed by many here.To my way of thinking, there should be, among "anarchists", neither desire for enforcement of social norms nor even preference for them.Final point: I learned from years of posting at the old Slate BotF board that what folks do NOT want in the macrocosm they may well want in the microcosm - and I see the same thing here - anarchists yearning for self-regulation according to some set of social norms.Personally, I am fascinated by the capability for cognitive dissonance exhibited by those who do not want in the microcosm what they laud in the macrocosm - in fact, it is probably this aspect of web-sociodynamics that keeps me reading and posting at sites such as M'sieur's (other than his overall panache and sometimes novel ways of looking at current events.)
11:48All I said was he's needy, which suggests mommy/daddy issues. That's obvious (note the subsequent leg humping with anne) and (as you say) exceedingly not interesting. Come to think of it, books have been written on the subject. We've all seen people/posters whose goal it is to be a thorn in the side of society. Often they're interesting, or funny, or both. EL is neither, which is why his appearance in IOZ's comment threads invariably devolve into inane slap-fights, also not interesting. As I've noted in other threads, the only reason he's at this blog is for attention (and to be a lumpenasslapperian, fawning over the host while simultaneously driving away readers.) He can dissemble all he wants, but the reality is that he's an attention whore. Probably didn't get enough attention from mom and/or dad.
Elegy written in a Country Churchyard THE Curfew tolls the knell of parting day, The lowing herd wind slowly o'er the lea, http://www.bartleby.com/101/453.html
But what you appear to be giving a hall-pass to is: a) the desire for enforcement of social norms expressed by some commenters heere; b) and just as bad, the very PREFERENCE for observance of social norms expressed by many here.wanting someone to shut up, isn't the same as wanting the power to force someone to shut up, or wanting someone to shut up as a rule.now i've written and rerased several paragraphs in mulling over your microcosm/macrocosm point. but suffice it to say: people is people.it seems groups of humans will only endure so much chaos until surrendering to some sense of "normal" starts to feel like a good idea. cognitive dissonance is the human condition.that said, i don't think the stakes are quite high enough in this comment section that cognitive dissonance has come into play. people's annoyances are just people's annoyances. speaking them is simply an example of the lauded anarchist goal of maximal self-expression.i do think a few people have voted with their feet, though. where's mr. fundamental when you need him anymore?
eer' , of to the thomas gray of verse now .. , .. just stop with the trying to buy ioz , and i'll put up with your humping my lovely leg with the suggest that you somehow know me better than anyone else here ,.. leg now out of its wintery, then spring cotton to thigh ,
c nihilist @ 1:50 pm - You wrotewanting someone to shut up, isn't the same as wanting the power to force someone to shut up, or wanting someone to shut up as a rule.But actually expressing the thought (of wanting someone to shut up), as opposed to merely ignoring the "offending posts", is contra-anarcharian.I mean - nothing has almost compelled me to leave off visiting chez IOZ than having to watch Crow or lucid (or you, for that matter) take the bait that KFO and Leonard routinely lay down.But do I remonstrate with you and Crow and lucid to stop lowering yourself to the occasions that KFO and Leonard are always happy to provide?No - I merely ignore their posts and yours.And by the way, I suspect the tedious predictability to which argumentation here has sunk has a lot more to do with former readers voting with their feet than any posts of mine ...
also, expressing the opinion that someone is full of bluster, isn't *necessarily* the same as expressing the desire that they shut up.which is the crime against anarchism, having the thought, or speaking the thought? why speak at all, if uttering thoughts aloud is an undue exercise of power?
It should come as no surprise to anyone here that the poster of the most tediously predictable posts, which cause the discussions to devolve into inane slap-fights, doesn't understand that he's tediously predictable. And his claim to "ignoring" other posters here is, obviously, contradicted by his description of the other posters here (in the very same post.) No surprise either as the tediously predictable rarely display any degree of self-awareness. But again, none of that would be insufferable if he at least showed some cleverness or offered even a smidgen of entertainment value.
cNihilist@ 3:23pm:the crime agaisnt anarchism is speaking the thought, I would think.there is perhaps a deeper crime in having the thought, but it is not specifically a crime against anarchism ...
I gotta agree that democracy is a religion because it takes a leap of faith to believe that democracy is good. Democracy is not good. It’s nothing but a con that creates an illusion that individuals have a say in what the government does in contrast to a more overt tyranny where there is no illusion of any such thing. At least the latter is more honest though it does seem to me that federal government has been becoming more overt starting with Bill Clinton and on through Bush and now Obama with his death lists and other such declarations of emperorhood. Regarding Brooks he is actually rather unimportant even if he writes for the Times. I suspect that the only people who read his pap on a regular basis either do it for a laugh or because they would agree with him anyway. Brooks essentially writes pornography.
Anne - I grew up a classical pianist, but am now primarily a guitarist. I play a zillion styles. Here is a streaming link to the album I just released two weeks ago with my bluegrass/Americana act. Here is a streaming copy of most of the album I released with my rock/jam/prog/electronica band in February. I also have a semi-defunct hard rock/prog act with he singer from the first band & am working on a solo jazz album that I plan on releasing next year including the bassist, keyboardist and singer from the first band. I also do all of the production and engineering.Eerily - did it ever occur to you that I might get some masochistic pleasure from engaging Lenny? He reminds me of my relatives.
I told that kraut a fucking thousand times that I don't roll on Shabbos!
lucid, thanks , i'm listening now , enjoying ./ my voice is something of what i mentioned being up to of humming this morning ,above there somewhere , something of that ancient , of hildegard .. about it / the type of music that i enjoy listening to the most , is something of moody folk, very alternative , also of a mention of someone else here , i enjoy davidly ,
lucid - you wrote:"Eerily - did it ever occur to you that I might get some masochistic pleasure from engaging Lenny? He reminds me of my relatives."Fair enough, lucid. I myself miss those Thanksgiving dinners where my mother wound up swearing never to speak to my father's younger brother again, because he insisted on maintaining that Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia solely in order to crush Fascist counter-revolutionaries ...
My favorite was the only thing my grandmother told my brother, just before he left for the Peace Corps, "Don't come home with a brown woman."I'm sure the other 3 grandparents would have said the same had they still been alive.
Come Monday morning, the team of MIT ABDs that is currently IOZ will be squealing with glee at how they produced such a productive social dynamic without even having to throw together more than a sentence the previous week. 'Course, it would be worse if they had actually done it on purpose. Eerily, notice how the dynamics are much like the doctor's waiting room. Because the doctor is too important to answer his phone, appear on time, or linger too long in the sterile cubicle linking presentations to causes to make sure nothing is missed, the needy mind attributes to that void a mystical quality, on the order of courts, rain dances, or Congress debating something. If the doctor answers the phone, even once, she can be the most capable ob/gp in the world, but instantly, patient retention drops somewhere on the order of 40%. Who can trust that nut? Someone important enough enough would clearly be too busy to answer a call, greet you at the front desk, etc. Ergo corporate customer support and town hall meetings with representatives of the people. (Nach, close observation is better medicine, but arch symptom-checking is what people want; they didn't come here for a psychiatrist, dammit!) Continuing to destroy mother-child relationships leaves timid adult individuals to find reassurance only among groups who adhere to the same semi-absent authority figure, who--they forever and desperately need to convince themselves--really did love them. The effers really want to be brushed off by (1) "John" from New Delhi, (2) the junior legislative staffer to Vice Representative Kilroy, and (3) a one-line citation to the Minitru's newsreel. Oh, and Sexy Teenage Vampires IV (c) to read on the plane.
Now this, Arka:"The effers really want to be brushed off by (1) "John" from New Delhi, (2) the junior legislative staffer to Vice Representative Kilroy, ..."is an observation worthy of M'sieur himself (notice I'm still fucking around here with the "sycophancy" motif).Seriously, I never thought to connect the loopy-groupy-ness here with the absenteeism of the love-object - there's real explanatory power in that connection, and I've learned something from your having drawn it for us.I have to confess that I don't understand your last two examples:"and (3) a one-line citation to the Minitru's newsreel. Oh, and Sexy Teenage Vampires IV (c) to read on the plane."But no matter - your basic point was clear.
Oh wait a sec, High_A - I think I do understand the "newsreel" example.Back at Slate's old Fray (discussion forums), one "Fray Editor" came up with the idea of a "Fraywatch" oolumn, where she would excerpt bits from the forums that she thought were worthwhike.Well - you should have seen the pride that would ween when a poster's post got mentioned with the poster's name in "Fraywatch".Exactly what you're talking about it.The same editor also came up with the idea of "starring" certain posters (making sure their posts appeared with a leading star.)Well - you wouldn't BELIEVE the kertouffles over who was "starred" and who "wasn't", particularly when one editor took them all away and announced he would decide who to reaward them to.It was a Phillip Zimbardo dream-zoo, I can tell you.And of course, M'sieur was starred very early on (sorry - can't stop toyin' with that "sycophancy" motif" ....)
Ye gods, you're not "toying around with that sycophancy motif", you're showing off how badly you want to be punked. Your discourse is boring, pedantic, self-congratulatory, useless, and shallow. I've read freshmen essays on gun control written with more panache. You're an armchair psychiatrist's second-hand booger rag. I hope you catch a flesh-eating virus and die. Also, I'd like you to know that exactly one person in the world reads and considers the stupid words you type. The rest of us feel our eyes glaze over as we scroll through your merde looking for something more interesting. IOZ, your salon has become a crackhouse. Maybe hiatus wasn't so bad after all.
Neither A nor B mistakes silence for agreement and concludes that he's "wining." You're just a tedious, status quo-humping little ninny. Not so much objectionable as too unimportant to engage with. Most folk do the decent thing here, and just skip anything you've written. We need to initiate a killfile in these parts.
Things I have learned from this thread.1. Telling some asshole to shut up on the internet is EXACTLY THE SAME as establishing a government. Were you even listening to...aw, fuck it.
Yes, fuck it! That's your answer to everything!
I can attest to the fact that EL is merely "toyin' with the sycophancy motif." The tell is the way he uses the slangy "toyin'" rather than the more formal, toying. He's been toyin' with the IOZ sycophancy for years now. Seems as though not a day would go by on the old Slate message boards without at least one mention from him about what a swell blog IOZ has here. He'd toy around with the IOZ flattery to the point that people grew somewhat uncomfortable with his repeated mentions of IOZ and his blog. Now that I think about it, I started an offshoot message board there, and after a few weeks of peace and quiet came the inevitable appearance of EL talking about IOZ's blog. It got so bad that I started greeting his posts with "Slow day over at IOZ?"...he didn't care for those questions, but hey they guy was intruding and all he talked about was IOZ. Well, that's not entirely true, occasionally he'd get caught in an obvious lie about one thing or another, and that drama would last a few days, but then it was always back to toyin' with the IOZ sycophancy motif. It's his bread and butter. Has been for years. But again...he's just toyin'.
Why wouldn't some pretentious pose-fuck take the Uncle Josh's-mobbed Rapala that I sling 3x into the deep muddy to snag me a slime-covered trash-fish?"Well I'm a pisciform pontificator prostrate in the lowest laminary of this oceanic tributary. I'm down there with all the trash proving my riverbottom cred! I'm lecturing the eels and snails with highbrow language that they don't care to hear, and they're ignoring me, but I am ignoring their ignoring for the sake of my blimp-sized ego. Yes, I am the Original Anarchist Who's Never Made an Anarchic Move in His Life but Has Read Plenty And Has Been Fated with Adopting the Professorial Mantle."
I suspect the tedious predictability to which argumentation here has sunk has a lot more to do with former readers voting with their feet than any posts of mine ...The more pretentious the posters comments are, the quieter it gets here. The more someone is lecturing anonymous readers with standards for living, the more static it gets here. The greater the % of posts saying nothing useful but regurgitating some bullshit post-post-posterboy-of-modernism fake-scholar "analysis" of irrelevant apocrypha, the duller it is.You can tell yourself whatever you like, though. So many dorks who think pretentious talk/post-ing makes them look like...whatever it they want to look like.
KFO - You wrote:"I suspect the tedious predictability to which argumentation here has sunk has a lot more to do with former readers voting with their feet than any posts of mine ...The more pretentious the posters comments are, the quieter it gets here. The more someone is lecturing anonymous readers with standards for living, the more static it gets here. The greater the % of posts saying nothing useful but regurgitating some bullshit post-post-posterboy-of-modernism fake-scholar "analysis" of irrelevant apocrypha, the duller it is.You can tell yourself whatever you like, though. So many dorks who think pretentious talk/post-ing makes them look like...whatever it they want to look like."From which I conclude you are well-placed in some corporate nook somewhere, inasmuch as your post exemplifies the maxim:"When the going gets tough - change the topic from substance to style" ...
But, KFO - this kind of thing:"Why wouldn't some pretentious pose-fuck take the Uncle Josh's-mobbed Rapala that I sling 3x into the deep muddy to snag me a slime-covered trash-fish?"is your saving grace.
"When the going gets tough - change the topic from substance to motif"- There, fixed that for you.
nonny@1:41 -You wrote:"When the going gets tough - change the topic from substance to motif"- There, fixed that for you.to which I respond:1) it is flattering to have someone who subjects TWO of my posts (separated by a fair number of intervening posts) to a reading sufficiently close as to be able to come up with a beau geste like that;2) if one member of a jazz group lays down a theme and another riffs on it excellent well, must not the excellence of the riff be at least partly attributable to the excellence of the theme?In which case, was not your beau geste at least partly dependent on mine?
Defining religion isn’t easy. Not everyone agrees with various attempts to define religion. What all or most religions have in common is that they contain an origin myth in their dogma. Another thing most share is a belief in higher beings (gods) or a single higher being. For me it seems obvious that religion is a reversion to a young child’s need for its parents though I suppose that is an oversimplification. From my view the god figure replaces the parent figure as something people find comfort in— in the predatory world we find ourselves inhabiting which is similar to the belief of the goodness of democracy. Religions have their symbols such as crosses, various statues and paintings, as well as architecture such as cathedrals. Democracy (as do most other types of governments) has its symbols which also take the form of statues, paintings, as well as architecture which often are monumental in nature in order to impress those who visit such buildings. The buildings are large in order to make us feel small and impressed. Even Brooks acknowledges the importance of monumental architecture, and art in his rather spastic style of writing. Proponents of democracy certainly have other more mundane symbols such as equality and fairness even though many individuals in a given democracy are quite racist and not shy about expressing this. People believe that democracy is there to protect them just like the belief in deities that watch over us (angels, gods, god watches over every little bird in the forest even when they are killed and eaten by predators) and supposedly provide us with guidance. People often say democracy isn’t perfect but that it is the best we have though they never provide proof of such wild claims. Religion also provides wild claims that must be accepted on faith. This may be because there is little or no proof to be had. Our fledgling democracy was brought to us by the wealthiest of colonists that were also slave owners and land owners. Democracy has not provided us with a satisfactory social net for the aged and sick. Social security provides a pathetic amount of money for the many that end up relying upon it. Our democracy has entered us into an almost unending parade of wars for over a century which only benefits a few wealthy people. Looking at OWS we see that the laws of the land are there to protect the wealthy (like the wealthiest of colonists that instigated the American Revolution) not the little people who are constantly being screwed. So in the end – just like religion – we must blindly and faithfully believe in the righteous goodness of democracy with no proof at all that this is true.
"Aren't you aware that everyone hates you for being different?" is a question asked with such astonishment. Though they always cover it by citing their previous experience dealing with "bitches" or "dicks," who are everywhere these days, the askers are, inside, genuinely befuddled that the desire to conform does not shock deviants back into line, the way it so powerfully does to them. And then there's IOZ, the more advanced state, who so wishes to give back to his community that he provides the environment where others can demand the conformity. Hey, any good labor needs managers. Which brings us to the jam session, EL. Is, or isn't, yozzers so right in his satisfaction that he created everything you see before you, even your own words, as Jehovah was responsible for even the smallest doings of the Israelites? Perhaps, yet that's where the absenteeism comes in. Real "c level" managers are marked by how others do their work for them, and real anarchy turns the same way. All rents ultimately flow to the one who came up with the idea of owning. While it's not true in the sense we might sometimes like to believe that there's a pair of eyes of truth out there, it's true enough that tenured execs can be very comfortable in believing that they are lord of all they see.
Shorter Lady Maclongwinded-There'd be no fart jokes without the fart.
spending some quality time with my fanning air in my room today , / now thoughts of going to one my sister in laws mask gatherings in aug. as something of myself .. with seven dwarfs , eer the cab, rob as a grumpy (not sure on your height there rob ), pen k , .. . now i'm going to have a talk with my pillow about the rest ,.. and thoughts about penk's train .. going in .. . of the last post was it ..
High_Arka @4:03In a sufficiently sec community, High_A, this "And then there's IOZ, the more advanced state, who so wishes to give back to his community that he provides the environment where others can demand the conformity."would qualify as true stand-up material. Very very funny.I think that you are equal or a close second to IOZ in your ability to end a sentence in an unexpected direction. That's part of his rhetorical bag of tricks, you know, how not to telegraph his punchlines - and you do it equally well.But of course, I'm here again merely toying with the sycophancy motif, doubling-down on it, so to speak. Have you noticed how aspects of web socio-dynamics are amenable to game-theoretic analysis?
eer , i enjoyed that as well , but i don't see it as stand up, and it's a put down to say stand up .. . / ..i'm now making the cloth doll of my eer the cab ..for my pocket in aug. , is a dress okay ?
ane@6:19 - you wrote:"but i don't see it as stand up, and it's a put down to say stand up"and it was precisely a response such as that which led me to preface my remark with the "in a sufficiently sec community".See - this is part of the problem - even you don't want to see that there really are folks out there with sensibilities far more refined than those of others out there. IOZ is one of them - painfully so, for him, I imagine, and that's why the freeloaders in the cheap seats here bother me so much (those I call the lumpenproletariat.)High_Arka is another, though I think she is more comfortable with the fact of her superiority than IOZ.And if the world had enough High_Arkas and IOZ's to fill the seats of a "comedy club", then High_Arka's comment would in fact be considered very fine stand up.At 48-49, you're too young to remember Mort Sahl's or Lenny Bruce's throw-aways, e.g.the Korean War : WWII.5Bobby Franks was a snotty kid.But they also had sensibilities far in advance of their time.
the thoughts that she provokes with comments like that are better than stand up .. / you didn't say about the dress ..
anne @648 - are you saying you want to create a rag doll of me wearing a dress?Hey - whatever floats your boat. I guess I'd be about a size 20, so you can scale from that ...
EL, you seem to have picked up on nonny-badger's theme of KFO-as-Corporate-Lawyer.I laugh. At your wrongness.Not sure what you mean by style vs content. I'm saying that Yozfans equate the two. And perhaps even elevate style well above substance.Metrosexual dandies win every time! Please shave the pubes!
KFO We are in both substantive agreement and substantive disagreement.Agree that too many of the freeloaders in the cheapseats here confuse style with substance.But it does not follow ipso facto from their confusion that there IS merit to YOUR substance, if in fact, you really intend your substance to be taken at face-value, rather than as a socio-dynamic gambit (as for example, I intend my apparent "sycophancy".)If the latter is your intention, then as I indicated in my second follow-up post about your "saving grace", you do very well at it and I applaud you ...
Not exactly clever how you describe yourself (or was it appoint, not describe?) as the arbiter of value. Are you assuming I seek your or someone else's approval here?Ironic that you would follow the nonny-badger's picture of me, while posting @ 10:56 from the perspective of a Corporate Teambuilding Retreat Facilitator.
KFO - you have clearly adopted a variation of Groucho Marx's famous disclaimer ... in your case, it is:I wouldn't have as a friend anyone who would befriend me ...Suit yourself - no skin off my ass either way ...(And note the "pun" on "suit", given your objection to be being perceived as "corporate" ...)
Oh, you're painting me as callous and misanthropic! And the brush is not a brush but a roller. I have actual friends in the physical world people are trying to ignore when they post here from their cubicle or office suite, where they're being paid more than I'm getting paid, to dodge work and read/post at Yozville.My actual friends suit my friendship needs fine. I don't come to Yozville looking to expand my horde of acquaintances and friends.What online university awarded your Armchair Psychiatry degree?
"there really are folks out there with sensibilities far more refined than those of others out there"And there really are folks out there who write sentences that make actual, recognizable sense.
Brooks is a Jew. He atttends neo-con scum bag "Torrah meetings" held by Jonah Goldberg, That one man Jewish "der sturmer"
Shouldn't the title of the post have been NON Habemus Papam -- as Brooks' point seems to be that we are lacking such.
Thank you for the information
Post a Comment