quote:
We were all impressed when Tyewa Dawnsister wrote:
Used my pepper spray, blown my whistle, and run like hell. What do you think I would have done? Do you really think I would have tried to reason with him and said something like this, "Heh man with a knife do you really wanna kill me for the 40$ in my purse? I know you really don't want to, here is all the money I have, you can go along your way now." Do you think I would have tried to use my limited self defense knowledge to try and disarm and disable the man? Get real, I would have done the smartest thing I could, draw attention to the situation and gotten the hell away. I'm no hero, and neither is anyone else who cannot feel secure unless they are carrying a loaded firearm.You haven't described the situation in which this happened, so tell me, could this have been resolved in any way without the use of that firearm, either as a weapon used to kill or simply an impowerment device for intimidation. Could a non lethal method have been used to defend yourself from your attacker?
I was backed into a corner. They were between me and my car. Blowing a whisle? Please that would have done what? Nothing you idiot...
Mace? Guess what. They caught the guys a few weeks later. They had to be beat down by about 5 cops;.. Macing them pissed them off. Turns out they had already stabbed three people before they tried to rob me..
I did describe the incident.. In fact I am pretty sure you posted on the thread.. Maybe if your removed your head from your arse you would remember it.
"He that has no sword shall sell his garment and buy one."
Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36.
"When a strong man, armed keepeth his palace, his goods are at peace."
Jesus Christ, Luke 11:21
"I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." -Mohandas Gandhi
Sorry. I have this thing for throwing famous quotes into arguments, and thought three from two of the biggest pacifists in history were appropriate. 
quote:
Comrade_Snoota wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
Sorry. I have this thing for throwing famous quotes into arguments, and thought three from two of the biggest pacifists in history were appropriate.
Wow. Those are damn good quotes. Mind if I steal em? [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: D ]
quote:
Bloodsage stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Additionally, your latest jab descends yet further into the irrational realm, as it seeks to counter my argument by spurious reference to alleged behavior elsewhere. That's what's known as ad hominem reasoning, and it's a logical fallacy.If you can't address my points on their merits, then you have, de facto, conceded the argument.
Thanks for playing.
{And, in case you're thinking about charging me with the same thing vis a vis my use of the term "irrational" to characterize your argument, I suggest you take a moment to look up the term; I used it quite advisedly, and in it's logical meaning rather than the pejorative sense.}
Actually this reminded me of a quote from a very good book.
...Now one rather annoying thing about scholars is that they are always using Big Words that some of us cannot understand and one sometimes gets the impression that those intimidating words are there to keep us from understanding. That way, the scholars can appear Superior, and will not likely be suspected of Not Knowing Something. After all, from the scholarly point of view, it's practically a crime not to know something...
From "The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff, it comes highly recommended to all readers. Bloodsage you can show off your flashy vocabulary all you want, it doesn't in any way make you look more intelligent.
So as per request, I went and looked up the word irrational. So as it is printed in the Thorndike/Barnhart Dictionary, minus the context statments.
Irrational, adj,. n - adj 1. not rational; contary to reason; unreasonable; illogical 2. unable to think and reason clearly 3. Mathematics a. involving radicals or fractional exponents b. of or relating to an irrational number c. (of functions) that cannot be expressed as the ratio of two algebraic polynomianls in its variables. 4. in Greek and Latin parosody: a. designating a syllable that is long instead of short, as the conventional metrical patter requires. b designating a metrical foot containing such a syllable.
-n. 1. that which is irrational or unreasonable 2 an irrational number.
Ok now that we have that out of our way I will counter your point of contention that I am irrational.
1. I am not contary to reason, I am willing to argue points. It is not at all hard to reason with me if a person remains civil, but I will not allow my beliefs to crumble just because someone disagrees with them.
2. I am most certainly able to think and reason clearly, otherwise I wouldn't be able to write this rather comical post.
3. I'm gulty if you say I am, I was always horrid with math.
4. Ahh the base of the word, isn't it interesting how we can turn a word used to describe a fault in speech into something so much more colorful. I have indeed been guilty of this on occasion, but not in this thread as we're typing and not speaking.
I believe the use of irrational as a noun does not apply here as you were not using it as such.
And thus begins the argument on if I am indeed irrational or just slightly peeved by pompus assumptions of a cantankerous know it all.
I know I managed to misspell something in there, please don't hold it against me.
I do have the right to defend myself don't I Azizza?
Btw I would like to read those facts in more detail. They have been used as a weapon against me in this argument yet I haven't had a chance to study them, and for that matter neither have most the people who have said I am contary to the facts. Could you please provide a few links so that we might educate ourselves further on these facts and might debate if they are indeed facts or merely more opinions?
Thanks again for playing.
I've read The Tao of Pooh, and even gone that one step further than you: I actually understand it. Your hyperbole regarding the "highly recommended by all readers" is noted--I found it a rather simplistic and dumbed-down explanation of the Tao, suitable only for those already accustomed to reading XX for Dummies books.
You've misused that quotation rather badly. Oddly enough, you also (look out, Snoota!) use it as part of an ad hominem argument attributing base motives to my use of words you consider extraordinary.
The value of "big" words, as you ought to know, is an extra level of precision lacking in constructions like, "Yeah, and you were wrong when you said that stuff, 'cause, like, I've seen it, man, and it's not that way at all."
Given the first part of your post, there are two possibilities:
1. You are pleading ignorance or stupidity as an excuse for your logical fallacies
2. You are claiming that I hide behind large words to disguise the fact that I'm actually spouting nonsense
If the first proposition is true, you've no place in this, or any other argument. Giving you benefit of the doubt for a moment, we'll proceed to the next proposition.
If the second is true, then but a few moments with a dictionary will show that I'm misusing the terms to hide the flaws in my argument. While you've made the accusation, you've yet to show where I've misused any of those horribly big words with which you seem to have trouble.
Feel free to show where I've done so; else, we're left only with proposition 1 to explain your objections.
Further, you've done me the favor of proving my point regarding your irrationality. Beliefs, by definition, are a matter of faith rather than rational thought. It's rather telling you continue to speak of your beliefs rather than your opinions--and it proves my point.
If you're arguing beliefs, you need to leave the thread, because there's no point.
If you have an opinion, then you need those pesky little things called "logic" and "fact" to bolster your argument.
Finally, thanks again for the proof of your narrow-minded bigotry. Just as assuming everyone driving a nice car or wearing an expensive suit is a stuck-up, greedy snob, or assuming everyone wearing loose bell-bottom jeans is a gangsta proves base prejudice, your assumption anyone casually using words you don't (use? know? understand?) must be a poseur speaks volumes.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Thanks Azizza, I look foward to it. =)
I shall return Bloodsage, this requires some small amount of thought. Which if 1. is true, I should not be able to do, but if 2. is correct, probably isn't worth the time you will spend to read it. Or perhaps neither is true and you truely do know not of which you speak, I think that has yet to be determined.
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister had this to say about dark elf butts:
Greetings,Thanks Azizza, I look foward to it. =)
I shall return Bloodsage, this requires some small amount of thought. Which if 1. is true, I should not be able to do, but if 2. is correct, probably isn't worth the time you will spend to read it. Or perhaps neither is true and you truely do know not of which you speak, I think that has yet to be determined.
Well, if you can find a third possibility that fits the facts as stated, be my guest.
Potentially, this would be a candidate:
3. Bloodsage is using the words correctly, regardless of his motive
Unfortunately, that still leaves you in the position of whining about the form and ignoring the content.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I am going to quote inside of your quotes, I'll use bold text just so you can tell which is which. =)
quote:
We were all impressed when Bloodsage wrote:
Tyewa,Thanks again for playing.
You are quite welcome Bloodsage, I love games.
I've read The Tao of Pooh, and even gone that one step further than you: I actually understand it. Your hyperbole regarding the "highly recommended by all readers" is noted--I found it a rather simplistic and dumbed-down explanation of the Tao, suitable only for those already accustomed to reading XX for Dummies books.
Ok this paragraph brought a smile to my face, just by the audicity of it. Please tell me what you understood from "The Tao of Pooh" that I did not. The Tao isn't about understanding, in fact it's not understandable at all by it's very nature. Dumbed down and simplistic? I'm sure the author would consider that a compliment of his work, I would suggest that you read this book again. Oh and thanks for pointing out my typo I'm glad you caught that, I would hate for people to get the wrong idea. It should have read, 'highly recommended to all readers.' As always I await enlightenment of my ignorance O Great One.
You've misused that quotation rather badly. Oddly enough, you also (look out, Snoota!) use it as part of an ad hominem argument attributing base motives to my use of words you consider extraordinary.
The value of "big" words, as you ought to know, is an extra level of precision lacking in constructions like, "Yeah, and you were wrong when you said that stuff, 'cause, like, I've seen it, man, and it's not that way at all."
Given the first part of your post, there are two possibilities:
1. You are pleading ignorance or stupidity as an excuse for your logical fallacies
2. You are claiming that I hide behind large words to disguise the fact that I'm actually spouting nonsense
If the first proposition is true, you've no place in this, or any other argument. Giving you benefit of the doubt for a moment, we'll proceed to the next proposition.
If the second is true, then but a few moments with a dictionary will show that I'm misusing the terms to hide the flaws in my argument. While you've made the accusation, you've yet to show where I've misused any of those horribly big words with which you seem to have trouble.
Feel free to show where I've done so; else, we're left only with proposition 1 to explain your objections.
ROFL, I wasn't using that quote to describe your rational, rather I was using it to describe you. I think it fits rather well, you seem like a nice and likable guy Bloodsage until you have something to prove. Then the hiding scholar hiding within you leaps out and is unleashed upon the world. You don't speak like this in your every day consversations with friends, family, co workers, etc. If you did they'd give you funny looks and ask you what the hell you were talking about. It isn't about me being confused by your words, or even that you misused the words. The point is that you needed to use those words to empower your speech beyond it's normal ability. That leads to the belief that you are not confident in your ability to argue within the every day confines of the english language. This again points to the quote above, which describes you quite well.
Further, you've done me the favor of proving my point regarding your irrationality. Beliefs, by definition, are a matter of faith rather than rational thought. It's rather telling you continue to speak of your beliefs rather than your opinions--and it proves my point.
If belief is indeed a matter of faith, then my faith demands that I have no opinion. My objections to concealed weapon laws are not a matter of belief, they are indeed a matter of opinion. While I have used the name of God to help add weight to statments, much like the way you enjoy using latin in yours, I have not used the argument of a professed faith as the basis of my opinons. These opinions may or may not be based in fact, depending on who determines what fact is as it has never been absolute, so their merit goes beyond my personal faith and onto something else. This brings me to another quote, oh how I love quotes.
"There is no greater mistake than the hasty conclusion that opinions are worthless because they are badly argued." - Thomas Huxley
If you're arguing beliefs, you need to leave the thread, because there's no point.
Think we covered this.If you have an opinion, then you need those pesky little things called "logic" and "fact" to bolster your argument.
Logic can be applied to both sides of this argument on equal terms. It is logical to assume that better awareness, education, and enforcement of law will reduce crime and thus make it safer for everyone. It is also logical to assume that a concealed weapon could indeed save your life in a moment of crisis. To that end ,logic doesn't help here as it doesn't conflict with itself. It only leads to the argument of which solution is more correct which is what we've been arguing.
Now fact is more tricky, I am assuming you are going on the facts that Azizza presented earlier as the basis for calling my remarks irrational. I am also going to assume that you do not at this time have access to those facts, if you do I apologize for what follows and ask that you post links. If anything the lack of information here creates a paradox in thinking. You are using information, presented as fact, that you yourself have not researched to tell me that my opinion and the way it was presented is irrational. It is clearly not the case here as I have also reported facts to support my opinions. Now nothing so bold as an outright statment that my opinion is fact, but smaller historic details that support yet do not prove my opinion. That alone locks my argument into the realm of the rational. Feel free to ask me to list them, quoting myself is something I really enjoy doing, but I think you will find them easily enough by doing a little backtracking within this thread.
Finally, thanks again for the proof of your narrow-minded bigotry. Just as assuming everyone driving a nice car or wearing an expensive suit is a stuck-up, greedy snob, or assuming everyone wearing loose bell-bottom jeans is a gangsta proves base prejudice, your assumption anyone casually using words you don't (use? know? understand?) must be a poseur speaks volumes.
Oh it's definition time again! Because I'm too lazy to type all this out, I'll provide nice convient links.
First let us look at the words I used.
I'd say those words were used fairly well. Now lets look at some words you used.
Oops didn't mean to describe yourself there did we Bloodsage, oh well it's a true statment for both of us. I just find it slightly hyprocritical for you to use this word here when if taken to it's literal definition it also describes you.
And because Dictionary.com was nice and decided to crash on me I must again go to trusty old Thorndike/Barnhart.
ad hominem, Latin 1. appealing to a person's prejudices or emotions rather than to his power to reason. 2. (literally) to the man
Well guilty as charged, while I have indeed attmpted, poorly it seems, to support my opinions. I also took some cheap shots at you using your well known scholarly discipline to draw you into a debate not on topic, so you have me there. I did indeed have to look up the word, I guess that will probably make you happy.
That was fun and all, but in closing I will leave you with a real irrational statment, from this thread none the less. Sorry Azizza, but it indeeds fits the bill.
"Tyewa is the kind of person who feels she would be better off raped and strangled to death with her own panties in some dark alley than it would be for her to be alive and her attacker dead or injured."
Now of course this statment is irrational, it is not founded in logic or reason. I of course do not wish to be raped and then strangled by my undergarments in any situation. Nor do I value my life more or less than that of the average criminal. This statment is irrational by the true definition of the word. Looking back if we go by the pure definition of the word irrational, then it is true that we both have made some irrational statments, but my argument itself was not irrational.
I think that's enough for now...
Edit: Well I managed to bugger up the bold tags really well, lets see if I can fix them... [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Tyewa Dawnsister ]
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister had this to say about Optimus Prime:
You don't speak like this in your every day consversations with friends, family, co workers, etc. If you did they'd give you funny looks and ask you what the hell you were talking about.
He majored in English and is in the Air Force. He's probably WORSE in real life.
quote:
Comrade_Snoota wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
He majored in English and is in the Air Force. He's probably WORSE in real life.
God help those who work with him if that's true. =) I doubt it though, I haven't witnessed him post like that unless he's riled up about something, and he doesn't seem the type of person to dumb down his speech for anyone. Of course it's rude to speak of someone as if they weren't here listening, sorry Bloodsage. =)
Being psychoanalyzed by complete strangers utterly lacking the necessary tools or credentials is one of my pet peeves. Congratulations.
To address your silliness in reverse order, I assume you have an example of my bigotry? You've certainly proved yours once again through your attempts to correlate vocabulary with personality traits. One wonders what more you could divine about a person if only you knew skin color, sex, and income!
Additionaly, you seem to have misused the dictionary--it's not uncommon, so don't feel bad. Ad hominem, in the sense I used it regarding a logical fallacy is not, exactly, an appeal to emotion. Rather, it is the act of indicting the speaker as a means to cast doubt upon the merit of what is being said. It's used quite often by politicians, and by people unskilled in debate.
The fallacy stems, of course, from the fact that there is no logical connection between the merit of a given idea and the character of the person presenting the idea. Say what you will about my character, it remains irrelevant to the subject at hand.
Which brings us to your lovely essay regarding how my mind works. I hear there's a reward for proof of psychic powers--you should look into that, since there's no other way you could know those things you assert.
The problem with your rather simplistic assumption is that there are other reasons to use "big words" than to impress the ignorant. I'm pretty sure I mentioned the applicable one in my earlier post: precision of meaning. It's not a coincidence that my word choice becomes more precise when I'm arguing a point.
Duh.
Which speaks yet again to your demonstrated bigotry. Anyone whose behaviors differ from what you consider the norm must be bad, right?
There can't ever be a good reason to use precise language . . . all those big words were made up by an evil cabal of scholars hoping to cement their unquestioned dominance of the lucrative arts of debate, and thereby rule the world . . . or something.
And that brings us to your misuse of the quotation from The Tao of Pooh. The passage you quote does not imply that any use of "big words" is bad; you leapt to that conclusion first, then dug that up to justify it. The passage is merely a warning that scholarly verbiage may be used to obfuscate as well as illuminate.
Note, above, how the evil scholarly vocabulary allows the rythmic parallel between words unavailable using more mundane terms.
Nor does your willful misreading of my assertion that I understood The Tao of Pooh do much for your claims regarding your ability to draw sweeping conclusions from data hidden within my vocabulary. How do you make the leap to equate understanding The Tao of Pooh to understanding the Tao? The former is, as I said, merely a Tao for Dummies, and quite understandable, as it's designed to be.
Sorry, but when I study philosophy, I try to use primary sources or translations of primary sources, rather than cartoon-characters-as-metaphor primers.
Oh, and I have had a full-semester Master's level class dedicated to studying the Tao, both as literature and philosophy. What are your qualifications to speak on the subject?
Finally, you still seem unable to grasp that crucial difference between opinion and belief. Here are your words, proving my point:
quote:
Tyewa thought she was fooling us, but said this instead:
1. I am not contary to reason, I am willing to argue points. It is not at all hard to reason with me if a person remains civil, but I will not allow my beliefs to crumble just because someone disagrees with them.
Your words. You state, rather clearly, that you are not arguing matters of opinion, but of belief. It's also rather hard not to read that as complete unwillingness to reconsider them in light of any new evidence. You state that, while willing to argue your points, you aren't willing to reconsider your beliefs.
Not opinions: beliefs.
I'd deal with the seemingly random words you thought it clever to link, but I'm familiar with them, and you've made no connection between them and the topic at hand.
I find it rather odd, in closing, that you consider scholarship to be bad, and scholar to be pejorative. Sour grapes, or merely ignorance?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I want to learn! 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Karnaj was all like:
Call me a comp sci major, but what, prescisely, is this Tao of Pooh you refer to?I want to learn!
It's basically Taoism for Dummies. It's Taoism as explained by Winnie the Pooh in simple form.
quote:
Comrade_Snoota wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
It's basically Taoism for Dummies. It's Taoism as explained by Winnie the Pooh in simple form.
Really?
I thought the "Pooh" was just a coincidence! 
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
Here ya go Karnaj...
>_<
Bloodsage I've worked with people all my life. The nature of what I do requires me to attempt to understand people with a minimum of input so that I could grade an essay written by a brillant 15 year old who doesn't know how smart she is, know the limits and personality of an IT director before I propose an upgrade path to his "baby", or even to figure out which gaming system best suits someone so that they purchase the correct one. I've taken more courses in psychology than I care to remember as most of it proved to be rubish once applied to real people. So knowing that I based my post on what I have observed from your past posts, if you are a completely different person irl more power to you. As for my qualifications, I'll leave that for you to decide. I've nothing to prove there my experience speaks for itself.
Onto other things, when I first mentioned that quote ouf of "The Tao of Pooh" it was because your post reminded me of it. It fit perfectly, you did a complete 180 in your writing style the moment you had something to prove. It was never my intent to get into a debate over Taoism or the importance of specific texts. I am impressed with your knowledge and education of The Tao, the last thing I expected was to have someone who had actually studied it. The strange thing is I too took a course in Eastern Phlosophy in college, granted this was over twenty years ago and whatever was learned in that class has long been relearned and replaced with personal study. I still suggest you read The Tao of Pooh again, it can't hurt and you might enjoy it.
Now to the bigotry, since we are going to use the literal translation of the word, you are as much of a bigot as I am Bloodsage. Your continued intolerance with those counter to your opinion/belief, to those of lower education, to those not old enough to have experienced life as you have, and even to those who you try to pshychoanalyze you. Everyone is a bigot because there will always be someone somewhere that we are are intolerant of because of something that either we or they believe in. Now the part about this accusition that really rubs me the wrong way is that you somehow think I am bigoted against education, langauge, and learning. Or perhaps I am wrong and you think I am just bigoted against people who use the excuse of being percise to show off their vocabulary. If your intention was indeed to be percise and to the point, then I apologize, but I don't think it was. Your post had the specific intent of demeaning me, with which you used paragraphs and obscure words in an attempt to impress, all for a very simple thought. Don't you think a simple "Tyewa, I think you are a bloody idiot who doesn't know what the hell she's talking about" would have saved the both of us a lot of typing?
Lastly the word ad hominem, I copied the definition right out of the dictionary, but I understand that was not the context in which you were using it. The context you were making refrence to was that of inflamatory speach without merit with the intent of inciting a reaction. As an contextual example, "Tyewa, you are an idiot". Guilty as charged there, I did indeed take advantage of your entering of the thread as a chance to bait you into an argument.
This is probably going to be it for me tonight. To tell the truth I've got a strong desire to read The Tao of Pooh again, so I will. [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Tyewa Dawnsister ]
a) A way to make yourself appear smarter
b) To confuse who you're talking too (hell, most people don't mix up two languages do they? Latin might be an exception in scholarly circles, but it is not usual in normal speech these days)
or c) Because you just find it easier, as it wraps up in two words what you'd have to say in quite a few more in English.
I think that c is probably the most likely, but you do have to remember that not everyone has done Latin, or if they have; they've stopped.
Certainly in England it is unusual to learn latin these days, so please restrain yerself ok? 
quote:
Niklas had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
You know what 'sage? It amazes me that you feel the need to use Latin vocabulary in your post. I wonder why? Since it is not exactly common in a lot of places (these days) to learn latin. It seems to me to be either:a) A way to make yourself appear smarter
b) To confuse who you're talking too (hell, most people don't mix up two languages do they? Latin might be an exception in scholarly circles, but it is not usual in normal speech these days)
or c) Because you just find it easier, as it wraps up in two words what you'd have to say in quite a few more in English.
I think that c is probably the most likely, but you do have to remember that not everyone has done Latin, or if they have; they've stopped.
Certainly in England it is unusual to learn latin these days, so please restrain yerself ok?
I think ad hominem is in just as much use as "et cetera", just in different circles. 
quote:
Niklas thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
You know what 'sage? It amazes me that you feel the need to use Latin vocabulary in your post. I wonder why? Since it is not exactly common in a lot of places (these days) to learn latin. It seems to me to be either:a) A way to make yourself appear smarter
b) To confuse who you're talking too (hell, most people don't mix up two languages do they? Latin might be an exception in scholarly circles, but it is not usual in normal speech these days)
or c) Because you just find it easier, as it wraps up in two words what you'd have to say in quite a few more in English.
I think that c is probably the most likely, but you do have to remember that not everyone has done Latin, or if they have; they've stopped.
Certainly in England it is unusual to learn latin these days, so please restrain yerself ok?
That's like telling someone not to say 'etc'. Ad hominem is so commonly used it's actually in the English dictionary.
quote:
We were all impressed when Comrade_Snoota wrote:
That's like telling someone not to say 'etc'. Ad hominem is so commonly used it's actually in the English dictionary.
Beat you to it! HA HA!
*makes Snoota his bitch*
Imagine leading a tour group through a series of exhibits of whatever kind. The lighting is dim, but uniform.
The first group is mostly tourists, families, people only roughly familiar with the items shown. Knowing this, you bring a flashlight with which to direct their attention to the appropriate exhibit or section of exhibit, as you provide an overview throughout the tour.
The second tour, however, is composed of specialists, hobbyists, people already familiar with the items being shown. Knowing this, you bring a laser pointer with which to direct their attention to the appropriate detail within each exhibit, as you provide in-depth analysis of the subtler features of each.
That's the difference in my vocablulary when I'm having a normal conversation and debating an idea. One would not use a laser pointer to walk in the dark. Neither would one use a flashlight to designate fine details.
~~~
When teaching poetry to aspiring writers, one generally begins with the structured forms. First, the structure provides a built-in objective measure by which to judge student progress: it is easy to tell if a sonnet has the required number of lines and the correct meter. Second, it provides students a foundation in the basics of meter and form, and a framework within which to practice.
Students in these classes often resent the structure, and long to write free verse without all of the annoying constraints which seem to limit their creative expression.
After becoming proficient with structured poetry, some students do, indeed, advance to free-form. Teaching, as well as learning, are much tougher here: students are confronted with blank pages and infinite possibilities, and teachers must find ways to guage the students' intent versus their products. Additionally, students are confronted with determining for themselves the fine line between prose and poetry--easy enough to distinguish with a sonnet, but harder with free-form.
In this phase, students often learn that the trick to free verse is in divising a structure and rhythm appropriate for the desired topic, or effect. They realize that free verse is not the creative panacea they once thought.
Upon that realization, some return to structured forms, because they now know that structure actually gives them the freedom to concentrate on content, since the form is given. These students, however, bring a mature understanding of the forms and rhythms. They understand more of the art. They realize that the form is there to be shaped to a purpose, and that deviations from perfectly standard rhythms may enhance the poem.
Shakespeare, after all, wrote but one sonnet with exactly regular iambic pentameter. But it generally takes a mature understanding of the art to play with the structure successfully.
Which brings us to dictionaries, and their correct usage. Those whose understanding of, and appreciation for, the artistry of language is average see the definitions imposed by dictionaries as restrictive, as limiting. Those whose understanding of, and appreciation for, the artistry of language has progressed to the next level often flex their literary talents in decidedly nonstandard ways. Those whose understanding of, and appreciation for, the artistry of language has matured, or begun to mature, realize that dictionaries, like poetic structure, provide but the framework to be molded for a given purpose.
Dictionaries, after all, are not authoritative lists of "official" meanings, but rather compilations of standard usage. That's why the OED has the format it does, as opposed to the abbreviated and abridged versions of dictionaries with which most people are familiar. The correct use of such a reference is from text to dictionary back to text. One encounters an unfamiliar term. One looks up the unfamiliar term in order to gain an appreciation for potential shades of meaning. One then returns to the text with this knowledge, and uses available context to understand the exact shade of meaning the writer was attempting to convey.
~~~
Your "credentials" for psychoanalysis are laughable. Did you really just say, with a straight face, that your experience grading high school papers, being some kind of salesperson, and taking a series of (what level, exactly) courses 20 years ago qualifies you to psychoanalyze someone you've never met, know nothing about, and have only the "evidence" of the person's vocabulary to work with?
Wow.
Additionally, you've told me twice now that I'm lying about the reason I use different word sets in ordinary conversation and debate. It's bad enough you think you know me based upon such flimsy reasons, and bolstered by such laughable credentials, but whatever gives you the idea you know me better than I do?
If you're going to dispute what I say, you'll certainly need more than your simple assertion based upon a farcical background.
~~~
On the topic of your bigotry, I've based that charge upon your demonstrated behavior in this thread: your willingness to categorize a person based upon the most superficial data (vocabulary is no more telling than race or income or dress, in this regard), your disparaging use of the term scholar and all things scholarly, and your dogmatic confusion of belief sets and opinions.
Oddly, you've chosen to level certain accusations my way without any of the supporting examples. You really should provide examples of what you speak.
Additionally, you seem to have been confused by your rather odd misuse of the dictionary in this case. I'm using the term in the rather ordinary sense that it's a bad thing to think you know someone based solely upon their skin color, income, vocabulary, or any other completely superficial aspect.
Not tolerating someone doing me an injustice hardly falls into the same category, if you'd take a moment to think about it. The other accusations are simply false.
~~~
I find it rather funny that you are still hung up on the term "ad hominem," even though I defined it quite explicitly for you:
quote:
Additionaly, you seem to have misused the dictionary--it's not uncommon, so don't feel bad. Ad hominem, in the sense I used it regarding a logical fallacy is not, exactly, an appeal to emotion. Rather, it is the act of indicting the speaker as a means to cast doubt upon the merit of what is being said. It's used quite often by politicians, and by people unskilled in debate.The fallacy stems, of course, from the fact that there is no logical connection between the merit of a given idea and the character of the person presenting the idea. Say what you will about my character, it remains irrelevant to the subject at hand.
If you see the simple act of someone pointing out the logical fallacies in your arguments as equivalent to calling you stupid, then you have no place in a debate of any kind. Additionally, if you'd been paying the least little bit of attention around here (this tidbit goes to your credibility as a psychoanalyst, as well), you'd see rather clearly that I have no problem with calling somone stupid directly, if it's my intent to do so. If I wanted to call you stupid, I'd call you stupid, then list the reasons I thought so. The fact that I'm simply pointing out the areas where your argument style utterly fails to make the point you intend is an entirely different matter. I don't care about the underlying reason--whether stupidity, ignorance, poor writing, unfamiliarity with logic, poor debate skills, a bad cold--you argue poorly. There's a difference. The subtlety of language discussion, above, explains much of it. ~~~ Nothing would change even if I were to adopt a simplistic vocabulary. I'd simply be in hot water with a different set of people, who would accuse me of patronizing them by reducing everthing to simple terms. There are many very smart people around here, after all. Even in the midst of the most singing flame war, I will--and have--answered questions when someone wants to understand a point. Perhaps, in the end, that's the big difference between you and me: I'd rather assume an intelligent audience willing and able to learn, accepting a certain potential for bruised feelings; you'd rather dumb everything down so no one has to feel inadequate by asking a question.
{edit: UBB! Ack! Get it off me! Get it off me! Train to zone!} [ 01-30-2002: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Fennar wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
When sage whips out the bule text, you know hes pissed
Nah. Makes it easier on the eyes, especially for long posts.
I know I start getting a headache after reading long posts (like Deth Essays, hint hint) when they're white.
quote:
Niklas had this to say about Punky Brewster:
Odd, never heard of it.. maybe it's an american thing; I dunno
It's a technical term from logic and debate.
Just as a doctor might say "esophagus" rather than the more general "throat," I'll generally say "ad hominem" rather than "calling-my-character-into-question-as-a-fallacious-way-to-discredit-my-argument."
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Washington DC is number one for murders, per capita in the world.
The book is called the FBI manual of statistics and is available in your local public or college library. I don't know if it is available online in any form, check http://www.google.com if you have the time.
Using big words, common or not, online shouldn't be a problem, since I'd wager that everyone reading this post has access to http://www.dictionary.com
Simply get their wonderful program and all you have to do is hold alt and click on the BIG WORD you dont understand
Also.. A word on Your Confidence.
I dont give a rats ass about your abilities, a gun in an intense Situation is an Equalizer If someone thinking they have a physical advantage, that is most likely natural, and intend to use it malaciously against me, i have no way to protect myself do I? maybe your a qualified Brazilian Ju-Jitzu Black belt, but im not. The chances are GOOD someone will attack, or try to rob me in my life. And in the process hurt me, or a loved one. Id rather be armed so that i may risk my life in place of theirs, at least with my equalizer by my side my efforts wont be in vain.
I hold no grudge against someone who accidentially kills me in an effort to save others. [ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: Gork ]
quote:
Gork had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
I hold no grudge against someone who accidentially kills me in an effort to save others.
One would hope not. Then you get people spouting "brains, brains!" and all that crap.
