Existential Musing.

[Joe Wordsworth]

As I said, it's only words. It's not like he called you a dualist. Take ten paces, turn and fire your rhetoric.

Pure is not likely to acknowledge this post but he is sometimes amusing. I thought Wordswidth a very witty soubriquet. Although repetition makes a dull blade.

What is it that hurts though Joe? Your pride at having a nom-de-plume made fun of? Wherefore pride in a nom-de-plume?

The best he could do with mine (those many months ago) was gouache. I laughed at that too.

Well, I laughed at the weakness of it.

Fine.

Forget I said anything.

Later.

 

[English Lady]

Oh come on *L*


Gees guys we all have things that get on our nerves, this is Joes.


Respect? Anyone?

 

[CharleyH]

In a previous thread, I had asked Pure not to call me things like "Wordswidth" or other such mockeries of my name. That, as I found it rude. As yet, his insistance on doing so is impolite.

Well, yes. It is rude. And, Pure is a big boy, so should respect your name whether he agrees with you or not, as you respect him in addresses. I have seen him go thru the same thing on many threads, forgive him, Joe, he is him, and good, not always agreeable, as you , and will get it one day. Yet? If he does not, do you care?

The beauty of us existentialists is that we accept , and dont give a fuck , and thats another thread.

 

[CharleyH]

deleted

DAMMIT JOE! STOP FUCKING DELETING YOUR POSTS. Offensive or not leave it. ARE you going to be censored? Or allow it as you are. I just dont get deleted posts

 

[English Lady]

I think you'll find Joe's just had enough.

 

[CharleyH]

I think you'll find Joe's just had enough.

Of what, EL? You think I have not?

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

There's one quote I like about existentialism: "The only way to be an existentialist is to not be one."

The point being that much of existentialism is based on the personal search for truth, understanding one's true self, and forging your own philosophy in certain interpretations of it and thus associating that with a philosophic identity voids the whole exercise.

Unfortunately, this breeds the thinker of my type who looks at all of philosohy, goes "what a load of big-word stuffed bollocks" and just goes and looks and puts together and always keeps one's eyes open. It's not as fun, I don't get shiny books filled with new and exciting terms, and I certainly don't get to pretend like I'm smarter than everyone for pursuing such a course, but I like to pretend I'm getting some interesting things down this way and hey, it's helped juggle four disparate personalities through adolescence.

And the greatest joy: free candy. Always pick a personal philosophy that gives free candy. Or was that extreme violence? One of the two.

 

[Pure]

Burleque

Good stuff, Luc. Some philosophies are best lived**. Complaints about their makers' neotermages are nonpendulous. At least that's what a finite, Marino sociobiologist once told me. Or was it Martin Headwagger?

It seems Wiredword is deleting postings; English Lady, some of your agape, your re-iterated "I will always love you," appears necessary for the distraught. Or those who believe their identity 'really is' that of an English romantic poet. Your ministry is crucial.

Myself, I don't understand this high dungeon, 'love me, love my words'--I guess it's my lack of familiarity with Marino culture.

---
**Oh, definitely free violence... but on the virtual plane.

 

[TheEarl]

Good stuff, Luc. Some philosophies are best lived**. Complaints about their makers' neotermages are nonpendulous. At least that's what a finite, Marino sociobiologist once told me. Or was it Martin Headwagger?

It seems Wiredword is deleting postings; English Lady, some of your agape, your re-iterated "I will always love you," appears necessary for the distraught. Or those who believe their identity 'really is' that of an English romantic poet. Your ministry is crucial.

Myself, I don't understand this high dungeon, 'love me, love my words'--I guess it's my lack of familiarity with Marino culture.

---
**Oh, definitely free violence... but on the virtual plane.

Pure: I've come in at the end of this argument, but it appears that you are being a prick.

Much as I'm sure you must find great enjoyment out of getting a rise from Joe, it makes you look like a complete wanker who is creating confrontation just because he's bored, ie. a troll. Do quit it.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

confrontation? Shirley, you gessed.

 

[English Lady]

Pure, you should ask to borrow Haldir's spirtle.

It might aid in your stirring


Earl -you're a gentleman!


LC...free candy is always good *nods*

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

TheEarl,


Just because Joe has deleted all his posts, don’t overlook the fact that Joe was the instigator, and main participant in this thread.

While, to this moment, I still can’t decide what it was that set Joe off on what I thought from the start [see my first post] a very vitriolic post, we all post things we later regret. All he needed to do was admit that while in a heat, he had overstated his opinion.

Instead he used Triple B Debating Technique (Bullshit Baffles Brains) and Pure called him on it.

Still nothing unusual.

Then, Joe deleted all his posts, so — lacking his provocative posts — you assume that in this case, Pure is the “wanker” and the “Troll.”

Let me assure you, it is quite the opposite.

While I still don’t know what set off Joe, why he tried to justify himself, or what his objection to spoofing his Nom might be, one thing is clear.

Whatever may be Pure's contribution, for deleting 10 of his 11 posts in a 61 post thread, this award . . .

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/100860.jpg​

goes to Joe Wordswoth ... aka ... Joe Wordswidth

 

[English Lady]

Ok so maybe Joe hasn't done himself any favours by deleting his posts, but it doesn't hold up your argument any either *L*

the original post was written in frustration and continued in a bantery kind of way, people having a giggle, banter and the odd flirt ruling the roost.

Then Pure came in,sirring up the thread that had settled into friendliness as is his wont to do and threw in the name thing as well and it got up Joe's nose. I can see why.


Repeatedly Pure has been asked not to fiddle with Joe's name. I think it's pretty inmature and pettyto repeatedly NOT respect that.



Anyhow, at the end of the day it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other, you can argue it from any damn direction youlike and really it is no ones fault.

Words on a screen are easily typed, easily erased from the screen but not from peoples memories. Words get misinterpretated, misspelt and generally bandied about alot freeier without the eye to eye meeting thing.

Lets put this down to a flurry of emotion eh and start anew?

EL -sending out the Dove as she is wont to do *L*


I suggest we let it die. Although somehow I don't think that will actually happen.

Shake hands and call it quits eh?

 

[TheEarl]

confrontation? Shirley, you gessed.

Confrontation's fine. You wanna argue a point; I'm happy with that. What I don't think is right is you playing on someone else's pet peeve for your entertainment. It's degrading to yourself, as it makes you look as though you're incapable of winning an argument any other way.

I don't know why Joe doesn't like people pissing about with his screenname, but it appears to get on his pecs. Anyone and everyone who decides that the best way of having a laugh is to use that to get a rise from him really should find better uses of their lives. Will you all start using everyone's pet peeves against them whenever you get into a debate? That's slightly schoolyard and really doesn't reflect well on you.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

guilty: disrespect toward pseudonym

the one you advocate for is widely known for disrespect of almost all his interlocutors.

 

[TheEarl]

guilty: disrespect toward pseudonym

the one you advocate for is widely known for disrespect of almost all his interlocutors.

Possibly true. However, "He started it" still doesn't hold up beyond the playground.

The Earl

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

In the light of Joe's ostentatious use of polysyllabic words from a specialized field on a general interest board, I for one find Wordwidth both a humorous and appropriate misuse of his Nom.

If Joe TRULY dislikes it, he can do like Svenskaflika, and threaten to put on Ignore anyone who uses it — then follow through with the threat.









And Earl

He not only started it, but he kept it up, until he could no longer obscure -- through obfuscation -- the fact that his argument was unsuportable.

Then, rather than admit he was wrong, he started deleting posts.



Where's the Bronx Cheer Icon

 

[impressive]

Hurling words to hurt, regardless of the provocation, is indefensible. There is more than enough hurt in the world without adding to it.

Practice tolerance. It's painless. If it eludes you, practice clicking the "ignore" button.

 

[English Lady]

You cannot put Pure on ignore because of the moderator status.

 

[English Lady]

Hurling words to hurt, regardless of the provocation, is indefensible. There is more than enough hurt in the world without adding to it.

Practice tolerance. It's painless. If it eludes you, practice clicking the "ignore" button.

Amen Imp

 

[TheEarl]

In the light of Joe's ostentatious use of polysyllabic words from a specialized field on a general interest board, I for one find Wordwidth both a humorous and appropriate misuse of his Nom.

If Joe TRULY dislikes it, he can do like Svenskaflika, and threaten to put on Ignore anyone who uses it — then follow through with the threat.

So you're saying that it's okay for a person to be deliberately obnoxious as long as their target has an ignore button? That doesn't say much about that person's character.

And Earl

He not only started it, but he kept it up, until he could no longer obscure -- through obfuscation -- the fact that his argument was unsuportable.

Then, rather than admit he was wrong, he started deleting posts.



Where's the Bronx Cheer Icon

So? Maybe he did start it. I never said anything about whether Joe was right, wrong, justified or unjustified. As you've said to me, I can't do that with only half the evidence. That's not and never was my point.

My point is that, although you can win an argument by making personal jibes and off-topic jests at pet peeves, it seems to me to be a Pyrrhic victory. You win the argument, but you debase yourself. You could try and win an argument with me by posting a picture of a spider in the thread, or you could follow Brinnie's example and post scat whenever someone says something that you don't like. It just wouldn't make you seem like a very nice person.

The Earl

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

For a summation, VB... you're not entirely accurate.

My initial post was my letting off steam (see why on the "I'm Exhausted" Post shortly before it) about finals and having a fun go of it. Which resulted in joking with Imp about burying with shovels and existential people and God--as I don't get into joking very much here and have been stressed lately due to finals time, I didn't take the recurring insult of my name being taken in mockery well and made a point about it. This was returned with further mockery and rudeness--instead of a polite aknowledgement.

Had you or Pure cared to have read (I deleted everything when it became evident to me that neither of you cared to read it at all, rather impressed with your own joking at my expense), I had included a brief history of the word I used in my initial post starting with Gordon Marino (Basic Writings of Existentialism, New York 2004), through A.J. Grayson (Symposium of Stem Cell Research Abstract, Oxford), James Rachels (in either Sensibility or Conduct and Character anthologies).

At the worst, you could have assumed I was wrong about my use of a word--to which a clear response could have been either not caring about the thread or telling me you don't believe it a real word. How that has anything to do with justifying being rude to anyone else is beyond me. Remarkably, though, I have never mocked anyone. I have never been rude. The most I've been on these boards is argumentative, but always insisting on people being polite about it. I don't see what you feel you gain, except base pride or selfish joy, at trying to insult me.

 

[neonlyte]

Where is Sun-Lover61 when you need him (or her).

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

How that has anything to do with justifying being rude to anyone else is beyond me. Remarkably, though, I have never mocked anyone. I have never been rude. The most I've been on these boards is argumentative, but always insisting on people being polite about it. I don't see what you feel you gain, except base pride or selfish joy, at trying to insult me.

You know this is an outright fabrication. You have been more than rude more than once. You have been an asshole, an empathyless demon, and a real flamebaiting shit in your past. You have more than your share of demons that you have tried to hide beyond big words. I do not say this to justify Pure. Lord knows, he's being an ass for his own pleasure.

(The neccesary) However, I warned you months ago as you pushed my last button that I was tired of trying to get you to wake up and acknowledge your nature and that you were ill-equipped for the one day to come where you met a bigger asshole than you that wouldn't have empathy, would make you hurt inside or out. That day has partially come and while I have no love for Pure's methods on this day, I can't feign either surprise or empathy as this day comes to pass.

You have been arrogant and assholic and that path has one and only one ending and that is the tailspin crash. This was a minor fire across the bows Joe and I pray for your soul that you use it as a wake-up call to be more human, more empathetic, less of an unconscienable ass, though I know the only thing you seem to have taken from it is the victimization cop-out you accuse so many others of having.

Joe, you are on a bad path in your life, built up too much bad karma, blackened your aura, dissolved your soul, whatever the hell you want to call it. You have built a personality of straw that is inches from tailspin at any time, at any moment that isn't consistent with your unbelievable string of good fortune. And despite my better judgment, I worry about you.

You were dealt the short-end of the straw today, Joe, and I aint gonna deny that. But denial and persecution complexes aren't the answers. A hard honest look at oneself and the impetus to change is what's needed and I pray for once you actually fucking listen to that warning and follow it or else more of these days are sure to crop up and many will be far worse than some guy pushing your buttons for a rise.

-LC

P.S. Please Joe, an honest look for once. That's all I ask.

 

[Pure]

Creative deletions and fabrications

In response to some creative deletions and fabrications:


Joe W said,
I hate Existential philosophy, wrought with an unhealthily high percentage of intellectual charlataans and neotermages. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all. Fuck 'em with a shovel and then bury them with the shovel and then bury the shovel.

Asked to explain, 'neotermages'

Joe (aka) Wordswidth said,

Quote A: "neotermages" is a Marino term, also used by Grayson after Rachels used it once when talking about socio-biological evolution of altruism. It means something like (and this is a paraphrase) "to take a concept, finite in being, and then through exposure of its non-meanings, develop a new concept that is both distinctly not-the-original and at the same time related to it". Heidegger did this a lot with just the idea of "being" when he started pulling through ideas that being is a subjective state, and not-being-there can be an objective state., develop a new concept that is both distinctly not-the-original and at the same time related to it". Heidegger did this a lot with just the idea of "being" when he started pulling through ideas that being is a subjective state, and not-being-there can be an objective state.

As of today, Wordwidth says,

Quote B: Had you [VB] or Pure cared to have read (I deleted everything when it became evident to me that neither of you cared to read it at all, rather impressed with your own joking at my expense), I had included a brief history of the word I used in my initial post starting with Gordon Marino (Basic Writings of Existentialism, New York 2004), through A.J. Grayson (Symposium of Stem Cell Research Abstract, Oxford), James Rachels (in either Sensibility or Conduct and Character anthologies).

At the worst, you could have assumed I was wrong about my use of a word--to which a clear response could have been either not caring about the thread or telling me you don't believe it a real word. How that has anything to do with justifying being rude to anyone else is beyond me.
=================

Ya gotta admit this, Luc, Virtual B, our Wordswidth has chutzpah.

Asked to explain 'neotermage' a couple days ago, he had the above bafflegab quote "A" and absence of citations.

Now he supplies some citations (quote B), never there before, and wonders why all the 'rudeness'-- having deleted his 'jerk' posting to me.

He's right: the word 'rude' is inadequate to characterterize such complex manoeuvres.
------

Moving to the actual content, Joe wanted to comment on existential thinkers unnamed, and their 'neotermage', and said it's concerned with

JW: take[taking] a concept, finite in being, and then through exposure of its non-meanings, [etc]
---

This is now explained in terms of an abstract from a Symposium on Stem Cell Research,, unreferenced, where biologist Grayson is alleged to have proposed such a term and meaning!

What Widsworth ignores, is that the Grayson paper at that Symposium, was decisively refuted with Scheissender's publication of new data, in the Archives of Internal Paleodentistry,1(3), 2003.

-----

Thanks to English L: I was unfamiliar with the fine art of Christian flaming here at Lit., till you and Joe appeared. Labelling the opponent 'immature' and 'petty' and calling for peace is a piece of paradoxical creativity worthy of Tertullian.