DUke is a liberal!!!

[mythosx]

Some one refresh me on civics 101...

Clinton lied about his private sex life and we had a trial with talk of impeachment. Bush lies and attacks another country and he gets reelected? hmm....

 

[Istanbul]

This one's easy. It's Christian dogma.

Violence - Big Yes
Sex - No No

 

[Gizmo]

Duke, I dont hate you because youre better.

I dont even hate you, your posts just make me glaze over with your poor english and woolly reasoning.

 

[Oversoul]

Duke, I dont hate you because youre better.

I dont even hate you, your posts just make me glaze over with your poor english and woolly reasoning.

Heh...

 

[DÛke]

Poor English, Gizmo? You have a better chance convincing me that I am one irrational madman who is arrogant, self-centered, and in many ways, apathetic to the views of others. But poor English? That's funny. I think you ought to have a good talk with my professors. And not that I feel the need to rub it in, but I'm working on my Masters in Philosophy. Yeah, that's right - we do more reading and writing and thinking about what we're talking about than all others.

Besides, I don't feel special when you insult me, since you've insulted quite a lot of people. I, personally, like to feel special. Even when insulted or when someone portrays a "different" opinion of me. You do that to everyone, not just me...so it's kinda worthless and self-defeating.

Well, I'm not above it, like Oversoul may have been, but:

Gizmo:

Duke, I dont hate you because youre better.

I dont even hate you, your posts just make me glaze over with your poor english and woolly reasoning.

You forgot an apostrophe ( ' ) on your "dont," your "youre," and your second "dont." God knows I make similar mistakes, and even nastier ones, but...since you "called" me on it, I thought I return the generosity. Yes, believe it sister, I am that good.

Anyone else?

Yawn.

 

[Istanbul]

You forgot poor sentence structure. The second comma should have been a period, and "your" should have been "Your". A valid alternative would have been for the second comma to be replaced by a semicolon.

I'm an Editor for a REASON.

 

[Gizmo]

Philosophy eh? No wonder it sounds like so much nonsense.

The best chefs aren't necessarily the ones that use the most ingredients, son. And as for grammatical fascism I ascribe to the position that the purpose of language is communication not a protocol exam.

 

[DÛke]

Yes, kiddo, the best chefs aren't, though I am one of the best chefs, as any of my philosophy professors would love to tell you.

And as for grammatical fascism I ascribe to the position that the purpose of language is communication not a protocol exam.

If the purpose of language is communication and you, obviously, understand me, why the nonsense, Gizmo?

The only fascist here is you, and you are not even egotistical or great enough to admit it, or handle being one. I myself enjoy hypocrisy, prejudice, intolerance, even the occasional racial tension, seeing that I ascribe to the position that what applies to me does not necessarily apply to you. The difference between you and I, in this case, is that I am great enough to be open about it, and not pretend I am some fair-and-square human being.

By the way, you needed a comma ( , ) after "And as for grammatical fascism" and another one after "I ascribe to the position that the purpose of language is communication," so that the final sentence reads as such:

And as for grammatical fascism, I ascribe to the position that the purpose of language is communication, not a protocol exam.

God I'm too good. Oh, and you failed the protocol exam, by the way. Back to the books; the last thing we want to see is an English man who doesn't know English and calls others on their poor English.

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

Next.

 

[Gizmo]

Ooh, ignoring somebody's point and reiterating your earlier post.

Never seen you do that before.

 

[DÛke]

You have no point.

You say I have poor English. You display poor English yourself. Then you come back with the biggest cop-out I've seen: "I ascribe to the position that the purpose of language is communication, not a protocol exam." Do you not even see how the things you say are very nugatory and logically invalid? and still, you say I have "woolly reasoning"?

The truth is, you don't believe that "the purpose of language is communication." Otherwise, seeing that you do understand what I am saying, you wouldn't be as childish as to call me out on my "poor" English. After all, we're communicating, aren't we Beatrix Kiddo!

Jab, jab, forward, high kick, dragon punch.

 

[Gizmo]

Yeah but I can't understand what youre saying half the time because you use a hundred words where ten will do, floating backwards and forwards in florid english when you'd actually benefit from being straightforward. What you say makes sense to you, but not to other people - that's a failure in communication.

 

[DÛke]

Well, that's funny, too. Aside from you, and only you, no one really has told me that I am incomprehensible. During our political discussions, yes, I was told that by quite a good number of people in these forums. Even then, few members had no problem, neither with the manner of my reasoning nor with the style of my English. Recently, I've heard no remarks and yours are the only ones.

Even supposing that I was incomprehensible to every person here, it wouldn't bother me, least of all would it make me rethink my manner of writing, if only because, as I mentioned, I've been working with philosophical literature and documents for over 3 years now, on an academic level, no less, and I have only heard praise and awe from professors, if not also a little discomfort regarding the theories I present.

Other than that, my "poor English," sadly I can say, is more your problem than it is my own, and it worries me not at all. But thanks for the "heads up."

Mr. Anderson. Welcome back; we missed you.

 

[Istanbul]

Then you come back with the biggest cop-out I've seen: "I ascribe to the position that the purpose of language is communication, not a protocol exam."

Actually...I'm gonna agree with him on that one. The purpose of language IS communication, and if someone can understand what you're saying, precision really isn't absolutely necessary. At the same time, those words might not necessarily behoove someone who's criticizing the grammatical correctness of someone else's posts. (Mine was more of a joke than anything else.)

And DUke, I'll admit that sometimes your posts do come across as a bit overly wordy, which makes it difficult to discern exactly what point you're trying to get across.

Mutual fault, back to your corners, let's make this a good, clean fight. *ding!*

 

[DÛke]

Oh I agree that the purpose of language is communication. I just don't think he agrees with himself and used it merely as a cop-out because I pointed out that he does understand me, whether my posts can be wordy or woolly or wonderous or whatever.

The bottomline, they're understood. Therefore: mission accomplished. And we're all happy.

There is no "mutual fault." There isn't even fault. I write how I write, you don't like it, glance over it, smile, and go on with your day, and maybe grab a good book, beyond Harry Potter, to show you that sometimes, ideas can be difficult to express.

Gotta catchem all! Poke'Mon!

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

I had mentioned you sounded deconstructionist. I'm fairly certain you aren't one DUke, but you do tend to sound like they do.

Maybe its just college, or a little too much of it. It is quite rampant these days. One of the things I have learned in my 28 years is to take my college experience with a grain of salt.

Just some friendly advice from somebody who's starting to appreciate you.

**Edit**
Just to add to the above, maybe this "wordiness" or my term deconstructionist is college these days. The line between the two is pretty blurry. Its being taught heavily enough that it could rub off on somebody who doesn't mean to talk that way.

 

[DÛke]

What do deconstructionists sound like? Maybe I forgot. Tell me. What's your idea of deconstruction?

I can't take my college experience with a grain of salt. For two reasons: the most important one being that I prefer sugar in this case. The other reason being that I had to put up with a lot of heat from parents and relatives for being the only one in my generational bloodline to undertake such a worthless, impractical endeavor that, in their words, "should have been left as a pastime hobby and not a focus." But it is my focus; it's the center of my life. I have questions, and I am looking for answers. I am suspicious, and I want reality. My peers, my generation of people, don't nearly care enough to what I care about to warrant me taking philosophy merely as a pastime. It's increasingly hard finding minds that are open to extreme possibilities, save for in the academic world. Philosophy is my haven, away from the practical shallowness and oblivion that drive modern world. Thereby, academia and the academic life as a whole, is something I am thankful for, providing me the atmosphere as well as the connections to do what I do best: think, think extremely.

 

[TheCasualOblivion]

There was a joke once that describes my opinion of it. As a prerequisite to a job: "Say, in 500 words or more, absolutely nothing."

As far as you go, I'm just going on a few comments on your style made here by more than one person, that you bury things in the english language to the point that people start losing track of what you're talking about. I don't think you mean it, probably the opposite.

If deconstruction is the art of dissecting what people have said or wrote and reinterpreting it to mean what YOU want it to mean, talking in deconstruction would be to speak in a manner disguising what is actually meant, or in other words to say one thing, and to have other people interpret it as something different entirely.

There is a whole lot more to it than that, but above is the first draft condensed summary of little real effort.

 

[Oversoul]

As far as you go, I'm just going on a few comments on your style made here by more than one person, that you bury things in the english language to the point that people start losing track of what you're talking about. I don't think you mean it, probably the opposite.

I don't lose track of what he says. I think just one time I asked for clarification on something, and--he clarified it (which is more than I can say for most people).

 

[DÛke]

I guess it says something that some people find no difficulty reading me...

 

[Istanbul]

Not difficult to read, just annoying to read. You're known to say in three paragraphs what could easily be communicated in two sentences. Remember, brevity is the soul of wit.