Marshall
Posts:
1,928
Registered:
8/9/06
|
|
Re: How "New Scientist" robbed me
Posted:
Jul 11, 2011 3:49 AM
|
|
On Jul 10, 8:23 pm, abzorba <myles...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Jul 9, 4:51 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Like him, you don't like my "black-and-white" thinking. I'm proud of
> > > it.
>
> > That says a lot.
>
> > > I don't like mealy-mouthed postmodernism which basically covers up
> > > its intellectual shallowness with variations on "commentary" like "it
> > > depends", "may be or maybe not", "yes with an if and no with a but",
> > > "could be if you want it to be", and so on. It is PRECISELY that
> > > attitude that has led to the rot in the Humanities Departments in
> > > Western Universities. They should be asking students to do the hard
> > > yards and find the truth, not simply adopt what happens to suit their
> > > prejudices and back that up with sophistry and mediocrity. As a post
> > > grad why should I research like mad to do a first rate paper when
> > > someone else can come up with total shit, and have it deemed as good
> > > as mine because his "is true FOR HIM". Hey, let's start calling a
> > > spade a bloody shovel, and be done with this effete sophistry which
> > > attempts to please everyone.
>
> > I have no idea what you're ranting about here, but I enjoyed
> > reading it.
>
> Quote: "I have no idea what you're ranting about here..." Strange, you
> seem rather proud of your ignorance. If the topic is beyond you, pray
> sir, why not butt out rather than display the limitations of your pea-
> brain on this page? Unless you are rehearsing for a "Marshall can
> jump puddles" sort of achievement book for the intellectually
> challenged. Want a title? How about "Marshall tries to add 1 and 1",
> "Marshall can jump puddles sometimes", "Marshall lip reads the box of
> fruit loops", "Marshall IS a fruit loop", and so...
Oh my god, you are a GEM! That was great. Never before
have I gotten so much hilarity from a crank with so little
investment. Let's see how far we can push the low-investment
to high-entertainment ratio:
YOU SUCK!
Can't wait to read your response.
> > > Lurker does not explicitly deny that he is a relativistic
> > > postmodernist, but his and your attacks on my "black-and-white"
> > > thinking is absolutely on par with this grab bag of mush promulgated
> > > by these relativists. I note that at no stage do you (or Lurker) EVER
> > > get to grips with what I am arguing.
>
> > Get to grips with what you're arguing? You mean the business
> > about the difference between measuring travel risk by time
> > vs. distance? It's probably the single most obvious issue
> > in the measurement of travel risk there is. What is there even
> > to "get to grips" with?
>
> If it's so simple, then why are spending so much time frothing at the
> mouth and babbling to no intent and purpose about it. I'm going to
> check out your OTHER posts. My guess is that your entire oeuvre will
> be marked by a singular lack of any kind of insight, and just be wet
> sludge of faddish "me tooisms".
>
>
> > > You simply have a "warm and
> > > runny" notion that I am a kook, think "black-and-white", but apart
> > > from this subjective fluff, you have NOTHING at all to add to the
> > > debate.
>
> > How fortunate then that I have no interest in contributing to
> > your so-called "debate."
>
> Ahh, DING! DING! DING! Yes, you are officially the one millionth
> person who posts in some thread in order to tell the OP that he is
> TOTALLY UNINTERESTED in what is being talked about. Now, if you would
> be so good as to cast your brain stem back a bit, if you have "no
> interest in contributing..." then why the fuck are you doing EXACTLY
> that now?
Earlier, you said I "[had] nothing at all to add to the debate." Now
you're saying contributing is EXACTLY what I'm doing. I guess I
must be doing both! Contributing and Not contributing! To the
"debate" apparently, although I don't see anything being debated.
> Of course you would be totally oblivious of the irony
> involved in what you have just said. But then, being a non-black and
> white postmodernist, you would most probably thing that contradicting
> yourself in the same breath is a mark of truly cool thinker.
Let me know if I contradict myself, will you? I'm sure an expert
in that field such as yourself will have no difficulty spotting my
mistakes.
> > > Similarly, Lurker just keeps repeating, ad nauseam,
>
> > Ad nauseam? He's posted twice in this thread vs. your
> > nine posts. If anyone is causing nausea, it's certainly you.
>
> I've posted 9 times, and I will post 9 times 9 times. You know why?
> Coz I is the OP, you hear that? Im Myles Abzorba Original Poster
> Paulsen, and I run this thread! No one tells me what to do here,
You are just the most precious adorable little thing! I just want to
pinch your cheeks I do. The mighty overlordship you wield in this
thread makes me want to ruffle your hair and give you a cookie.
> specially not some postmodernist geek dweeb with his coke bottle
> glasses obscured by dandruff pigeon toeing his way down the footpath
> and stumbling over every crack, and then doing a loud
> "Oooaaaaawaaah!!" like Jerry Lewis does. I IS the OP and I OWN this
> thread, always have and always will, and I will post in as many times
> as I damn well want. And I will be asking questions next time, and we
> will be doing revision. And I aim to post in again what I posted in
> before, coz geekboys like you ain't done read and ass-similated what I
> done post in LAST TIME. What I want to know is, what the fuck are YOU
> doing here? rec.org.densa, that's the place for you.> > that
> > > "different methods lead to different conclusions", as if this empty
> > > truism reveals anything at all.
>
> > If nothing else, this truism reveals the stupidity of black-and-white
> > thinking.
>
> Yep, once again with the "black and white" reasoning. I would be a
> little more impressed if you posted in a list of your "many and
> varied" reasons for disagreeing with me.
My position was that measuring travel risk by both time and
distance was obvious, not that it was incorrect. I don't disagree
with you so much as I find you hilariously impotent, stamping
your lil feet and demanding attention for your obvious idea.
> What marks your posts out is
> that you attempt to convey the impression that your mind is so
> elevated that it is beneath you to actually ENGAGE with what has been
> proposed. The truth is that you are an intellectual pygmy and simply
> do not understand what I have said. Your pal, lurker, has learnt his
> lesson, and has gone elsewhere after I gave him a full account of his
> densa status. Why don't you do the same? After all, you said that you
> don't want to contribute to this thread, and yet you keep writing in
> with the same old shit.
Well, that was a bit of a weak finish after the really strong start,
but
it was still a bit of fun. Please don't take so long to reply next
time,
O Mighty Overlord Who Owns This Thread.
Marshall
|
|
