Subj : Re: puzzle To : comp.programming From : blmblm Date : Sat Jul 23 2005 01:57 pm In article <1121852958.908155.218430@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, wrote: > > >blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: >> In article <1121652167.553346.183640@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, >> wrote: >> > >> > >> >blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: >> >> In article <1121343478.738610.306570@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >blmblm@myrealbox.com wrote: >> >> >> In article <1121153778.670218.189680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >CBFalconer wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> [ snip ] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I.E. you consider his output a hedonic experience? You will be >> >> >> >> pleased to know that we have a poster in alt.folklore.computer who >> >> >> >> can easily exceed the Nilgean volume. She tends to be somewhat >> >> >> >> repetitious, but at least makes some sense. >> >> >> >> >> >> Word -- though she has her own irritating quirks (the "quotation >> >> >> marks" ... the ellipses ... the SHOUTING!). >> >> >> >> >> >> >Oooh, lesgo bully her ass until she leaves in tears! Let's fucking rape >> >> >> >her online (as has happened on usenet)! >> >> >> >> >> >> Two questions for Mr. Nilges: >> >> >> >> >> >> (1) Do you follow alt.folklore.computers enough to recognize the person >> >> >> and/or discussion CBFalconer is talking about? >> >> > >> >> >No. >> >> >> >> But that's not stopping you from commenting. Why am I not surprised. >> > >> >Sorry, I am not going to plow through depressing flames because I have >> >quite enough data to conclude that in most such encounters, someone is >> >being less flamed than bullied. >> > >> >To be theoretical is not to deny the worth of data. It's instead to >> >realize when one is fed up with data and quite ready, thank you, to >> >draw a conclusion. >> >> I would think that a reasonable person would always be prepared to >> say "but perhaps this particular case is the exception to the general >> rule I have formulated based on observation." You don't seem to be >> doing this. > >No, and I won't start, because we're talking (you seem to forget) about >a person on comp.folklore with feelings who I have tentatively >concluded is the victim and not the perpetrator. Say what? My point is that you have drawn this tentative conclusion without knowing the facts in this particular case. I am saying that your identification of the long-winded poster as a victim and not a perpetrator may be mistaken, and that if you had followed the many threads over in alt.folklore.computers that prompted CBFalconer to comment, you might draw a different conclusion. [ snip ] >> Anyway, I understand you to be saying that if you find a Usenet >> poster irritatingly long-winded, there is no point in attempting to >> persuade him or her to be otherwise; your choices are to wade through >> the drivel in search of the gems, or just skip the whole thing. >> I think on occasion it might be worthwhile to try saying "you know, >> more people would probably read your stuff if it were briefer." >> I'll admit, though, that I haven't encountered too many Usenet >> discussions in which any party appears to change his/her mind about >> anything, so perhaps you're right that it's a waste of time. >> >What's the benefit of more people reading my stuff? Perhaps I prefer to >be a cult figure like Hollywood director Ed Wood. Noted. >If brevity changes the meaning, then the hell with brevity. Furthermore >I have to tell you that there are some thoughts so complex as to demand >what seems to be prolixity. Read Henry James. If you can stay awake. You and the person in a.f.c. agree about that (that verbosity is not always to be avoided). (I notice that you have found your way to the group. The person in question posts as Beth something, in case you aren't figuring that part out. a.f.c. resembles, IMO, a maze of twisty passages, all alike, though, so that limited information may or may not be of help.) [ snip ] >> None of this really has anything to do with whether you would have >> used the same terms to describe an interaction in which a man was >> being bullied. I'm skeptical, but if you want to claim you would, >> I can't think of any way to convince anyone otherwise, short of wading >> back through several years' worth of Usenet posts in search of >> patterns of allegedly sexist writing on your part, or something. > >OOOoooo patterns of allegedly sexist writing. Whyncha use Prolog? Gimme >a high score if I use a lotta bad words like poo. For this is the >infantilism that any analysis that starts with the VERY IDEA that one >can reify or hypostatize or fetishise "sexist writing", and that one >can draw any conclusions therefrom. I don't mean to imply that if I searched for such a pattern I would find it. I sometimes infer a patronizing tone about two-X-chromosome types in what you write, but that may be just me. [ snip ] -- | B. L. Massingill | ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor. .