Existential Musing.

[TheEarl]

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.

Don't know what Joe wrote. Not really sure what you wrote there. Not really that bothered.

What I did notice is that, despite it being pointed out to you that it's extremely annoying to Joe, you called him Wordswidth, or some other witticism at least three times in that opus. You know it's his pet peeve. You know it's a low blow. Yet you continue to do in order to seek a reaction.

Yet you're complaining about being called immature.


I do feel like the headteacher now. I don't care who started it. I don't care what nasty things Joe said about you or what his point was, or how well he argued it.

For all your talk of Joe using bafflegab, you appear fairly adept at trying to switch the focus yourself. We're talking about you Pure. Not the argument, or what mean, horrible thing Joe said to you, but the way you cannot even attempt to be the bigger man.

The Earl

 

[Poussin]

.....

 

[Pure]

The advantage of vacuum

Hi Earl,

I see you've now spent more than 500 words enlightening me and others. We are all so blessed.

Nonetheless, as you more or less state directly:

1) You have nothing to say about the thread topic, the alleged failings of 'existential thinkers', nor about Wordwidth's claim of 'neotermage' which he recently purported to document.

2) You haven't read the exchanges of the parties, one having deleted his.

3) You want to focus on one side's moral stature, as a preferred topic.

You seem to think I complain of English L's 'immature' label. I don't (didn't). She may say whatever she pleases, I just wonder how the insults comport with the release of doves.

The above facts speak for themselves,.

I welcome your lofty perspective on my moral stature. High principle is often most secure in factual vacuum.
-----------


Pure had said,

Originally Posted by Pure
//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.//


The Earl Don't know what Joe wrote. Not really sure what you wrote there. Not really that bothered.

What I did notice is that, despite it being pointed out to you that it's extremely annoying to Joe, you called him Wordswidth, or some other witticism at least three times in that opus. You know it's his pet peeve. You know it's a low blow. Yet you continue to do in order to seek a reaction.

Yet you're complaining about being called immature.


I do feel like the headteacher now. I don't care who started it. I don't care what nasty things Joe said about you or what his point was, or how well he argued it.

For all your talk of Joe using bafflegab, you appear fairly adept at trying to switch the focus yourself. We're talking about you Pure. Not the argument, or what mean, horrible thing Joe said to you, but the way you cannot even attempt to be the bigger man.

The Earl

 

[English Lady]

Pure love, I don't call it flaming, I call it pointing out how it looks to me.

Inmature and petty.

I was called to love my enemies, called to stand up for my beliefs and called to stand firm. I think I'm doing the things I was called to do.

Anyhow, I'm not a door mat. I'm not always right, I'm not always calm and peceful. I am however sick of this.

Your trying to wind me up now because Joe's done the sensible thing and butted out. I think EL is going to have to join him.

bye bye!

 

[TheEarl]

That's a fairly accurate summary, I'd agree. This point interested me:

3) You want to focus on one side's moral stature, as a preferred topic.

Not really. Stature would suggest that I was comparing you to somebody, ie Joe. As we have established (many times already), I cannot compare you to Joe as Joe's posts are into the ether. Which brings us onto your line of:

I welcome your lofty perspective on my moral stature. High principle is often most secure in factual vacuum.

But then we have:

Pure love, just go on, for once do the big thing and play nice. The guy's asked nicely and really,what are you getting out of being perverse?

Nobody has EVER made malicious fun of my name.

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?

I'd call that three facts:
1. EL asking you not to call him Wordswidth
2. VB responding to Joe's post (partially quoted in her post) and acknowledging that he sees Wordswidth as a snipe.
3. Gauche saying that Joe is hurt by your use of the name.

And then we have a fourth fact:

1) You have nothing to say about the thread topic, the alleged failings of 'existential thinkers', nor about Wordwidth's claim of 'neotermage' which he recently purported to document.

4. You referring to Joe as Wordswidth, well after you'd been asked not to and told that it was aggravating him.


Not exactly a 'factual vacuum' for the discussion which we were having, that of your insistence on low blows. Not comparing you to Joe, not even asking you to apologise, or to play nice. Just pointing out that it's a playground bully tactic to find a nickname that someone hates and apply it to them repeatedly and one that I don't think does you any favours as a debator.

The Earl

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Let it go, Earl.

It's just not worth it.

If the system exists in such a way that I cannot put him on Ignore, and such that there is no accountability for him being rude other than that, I find that I'm left with no options at all and I'd hate to see you get into it over something that isn't more serious than him being a dick to me because he chooses to.

Truth be told, amongst the reasons I take it personally (something as silly as making fun of my handle), is that my girl has sort of been thinking about becoming a part of Lit. She's already written a story (Pure chose to be a little rude to her in comment about it) and she picked the name "Wordsworth" as a sort of honorific.

So, it's a handle... but a meaningful one I share with someone I care about. It's more than just a word, at that point and I don't appreciate it being mocked. There's nothing either sinful or wrong about feeling that way. But, I prefer it doesn't happen... and if its apparent that none but a few (yourself and EL included) care about what passes for decorum around here, than I'm just not going to bother.

You shouldn't either. But I appreciate the stand-up.

 

[Liar]

So, it's a handle... but a meaningful one I share with someone I care about. It's more than just a word, at that point and I don't appreciate it being mocked. There's nothing either sinful or wrong about feeling that way. But, I prefer it doesn't happen... and if its apparent that none but a few (yourself and EL included) care about what passes for decorum around here, than I'm just not going to bother.

Oh, I wouldn't say that it's "none but a few" that don't know how to behave in here. Methinks it's a minority that takes to the sandbox.

Anyway, nothing wrong with being seious about the handle. Just look at Svenskaflicka, she's hardcore about that kinda thing. Three strikes (or Svens) and you're out.

 

[Guest]

I miss this kind of thread.

Ahhhh... nostalgia.

Thank you, one and all, especially Pure.

You rock!

Everyone else, grow a thicker skin, step back and take a look at it all for what it really is, or bugger off. It's as simple as that. Well, not everyone else, but well, I think you get me.

Lou - giggling and chilling.

P.S. Earl, you can start hurting me now.

 

[impressive]

Everyone else, grow a thicker skin, step back and take a look at it all for what it really is, or bugger off. It's as simple as that.

In other words ... be existential about it all & find your own damned personal truth.

 

[Guest]

In other words ... be existential about it all & find your own damned personal truth.

Indeedy!

 

[Pure]

Last call on the issue

To Joe of many words of extreme width.

Now that you've won the 'non rude' referendum with your friends, I'll ask you one last time to address the issue I raised a couple days ago, Are the existential folks, as you said (lately deleted) prone to 'neotermage.'

Yesterday you began to supply actual citations, by revealing the full names of those you mentioned, e.g., Gordon Marino, A.J. Grayson, and James Rachels. You were even so gracious as to give some titles. Much appreciated.

Now please supply quotes and page references for their use and definition of the word 'neotermage.' Also, since you take it as a point for complaint, please supply quoted material (page, etc.) that indicates whether Mr. Marino shares your complaint or merely uses a term that you're attracted to.

Oh, and you might state why material from the Symposium of Stem Cell Research [Grayson]--if indeed it's there-- is relevant to your 'analysis' and complaint about 'existential thinkers.'

Perhaps you can deal with this issue--scholarly citation-- in the philosophical mode in which you've been trained and elsewhere demonstrated such excellence.

It's possible you were just blowing off steam in your unique manner, from your unique, hitherto unrevealed lexicon, intending that any content be ignored.

I guess we'll have the evidence, soon.

 

[TheEarl]

To Joe of many words of extreme width.

Now that you've won the 'non rude' referendum with your friends, I'll ask you one last time to address the issue I raised a couple days ago...

Joe hasn't won. T'was never his argument; it's ours. And, much as I admire your equivocation and slipperiness, you are once again dodgind our point.

Nicely done by the way. I have work to do, so I may not see if there is a reply. Do consider my advice because I don't think playground tactis reflect well on you a debator. You're much better at the side-slipping.

The Earl

 

[Pure]

you'll have to discuss manners on your own time, earl. if it helps, I'll stipulate you're infinitely more one of refined manners, if somewhat content-free. indeed, here's the Author's Hangout weekly Manners Prize:



the self-deleting Joe has never ever clarified his original complaint about the 'neotermage' of the existential thinkers, and I can't find the damn word in any dictionary.

if and when he clarifies his position, it would be possible to debate it. his position appears to be based on research into stem cells, but he hasn't deigned to share his biologic insights with us layfolk.

i can't recall seeing you partake of any debate lately, but if you change your mind, set up a debate thread on any topic, i'll be happy to engage you.

 

[TheEarl]

you'll have to discuss manners on your own time, earl. if it helps, I'll stipulate you're infinitely more one of refined manners, if somewhat content-free. indeed, here's the Author's Hangout weekly Manners Prize:



the self-deleting Joe has never ever clarified his original complaint about the 'neotermage' of the existential thinkers, and I can't find the damn word in any dictionary.

if and when he clarifies his position, it would be possible to debate it. his position appears to be based on research into stem cells, but he hasn't deigned to share his biologic insights with us layfolk.

i can't recall seeing you partake of any debate lately, but if you change your mind, set up a debate thread on any topic, i'll be happy to engage you.

I thought this was a debate. One in which you're not doing particularly well. You accuse me of operating in a factual vacuum and I bring out three facts to back up my point. Your sole response to this has been to make allusions that I think I'm superior to you and to make flippant comments about my quality of manners. Need I remind you again that this was never a debate about anyone but you, no matter how often you try to make it about Joe or myself?

Content-free appears to be something of a vain slight when your above post is considered in the context of our discussion. Have you mentioned anything about why you thought it a valid debating tactic to call someone names to rile him? No?

The Earl

 

[Pure]

earl:
Need I remind you again that this was never a debate about anyone but you,

bzzzzt. wrong again.

start a thread on my iniquities if they're so damn fascinating to you.

 

[TheEarl]

earl:
Need I remind you again that this was never a debate about anyone but you,

bzzzzt. wrong again.

start a thread on my iniquities if they're so damn fascinating to you.

Okay then. My conversation with you was never a debate about anyone but you. As I have said many times:

I don't care what Joe said.

I'm not interested in who started it.

This, as in the debate which you have lost, was never a debate about anyone but you, no matter how hard you tried to drag everyone else's faults and flaws into it.

As for starting a new thread, why should I want to do that? This thread's not being used for anything but your attempts at muddling the issue anymore.

Speaking of which, your accusation of Joe using million dollar words seems a bit hypocritical when you've used iniquities and obfuscate in this thread. but that's by the by. Please, do continue telling me why calling someone a name that gets a rise from them is a valid debating technique beyond the playground.

The Earl

 

[NoJo]

Fuck, there was an existential thread and nobody told me. Oh, well, that's what comes of spending too much time on the General Bored.

 

[TheEarl]

Fuck, there was an existential thread and nobody told me. Oh, well, that's what comes of spending too much time on the General Bored.

Ah well. It only worked if you believed in it anyway.

The Earl

 

[3 Legged Donkey]

I'll believe in anything, if it means I get my leg over.

 

[NoJo]

I'll believe in anything, if it means I get my leg over.

Say three Hail Marys and one Oh..Jesus... Oh My..Fucking..GOD

 

[3 Legged Donkey]

Say three Hail Marys and one Oh..Jesus... Oh My..Fucking..GOD

Atta boy.

(You've been eavesdropping again, haven't you?)

 

[yui]

Say three Hail Marys and one Oh..Jesus... Oh My..Fucking..GOD

And then have a ciggy? http://www.addis-welt.de/smilie/smilie/japan/55875.gif It's all good.

 

[NoJo]

Atta boy.

(You've been eavesdropping again, haven't you?)

No, you left you camera on again, silly ass.

 

[Pure]

Originally Posted by Sub Joe
Fuck, there was an existential thread and nobody told me. Oh, well, that's what comes of spending too much time on the General Bored.

It was somewhat existential, and it appeared an assertive young philosopher had something to say. Myself, I find the denial of a human 'essence' fascinating. As humans, it's said, there's nothing we can latch onto by way of characteristics or qualities.

Friend Earl wishes the thread to take up the hurt feelings of said philosopher, who deleted most all his posts when he--it is said--became the anguished victim of 'playground bullying' about his screenname.

 

[TheEarl]

Originally Posted by Sub Joe
Fuck, there was an existential thread and nobody told me. Oh, well, that's what comes of spending too much time on the General Bored.

It was somewhat existential, and it appeared an assertive young philosopher had something to say. Myself, I find the denial of a human 'essence' fascinating. As humans, it's said, there's nothing we can latch onto by way of characteristics or qualities.

Friend Earl wishes the thread to take up the hurt feelings of said philosopher, who deleted most all his posts when he--it is said--became the anguished victim of 'playground bullying' about his screenname.

And yet Pure, for all his talk, cannot win or even try to argue the debating point that I thought we had going between us. I expected so much more <sigh>.

The Earl