[lit-ideas] Re: META [A PSCYH. WRITES]
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:22:54 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Thu, 21/5/09, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Before we even start, it should be noted for the purposes of this pyschological
evaluation that the subject heading reflects the subject's complaint that
various posts should be coralled into another heading ['META'] that
(a) no one but the subject has participated in
(b) is ironical/hypocritical given that the subject is most egregious in
switching from given thread-titles to threads of his own (every thread he
touches seems to sprout multiple sub-threads)
(c) the subject seems wholly unaware of (a) and (b) and their implications
(d) the subject seems wholly unaware that many on the list are aware of (a) and
(b) [and their implications].
> But don't you feel C. Bruce is minimising everybody's
> else contributions
> to the list, since I was 're-instated'?
Here the subject tries to appeal to the fact that CB's posts have been a
put-down of everybody else, without giving evidence that they are anything but
a complaint about JLS.
> Eric: good you don't perceive the mocking: there was
> none! Hope you did
> perceive the offense: "what the f-... is going on".
> "Stop being so f- ..." I
> think Walter, with whom I don't need to agree on
> everything ("I don't
> disagree" either) had it right, when he wrote (on May
> 7):
The subject implies his conduct is much less objectionable than CB's.
> "At the risk of seeming a tad pedantic in these moments of
> irrational
> passion -
> is there any other kind of passion? - may I suggest that
> cb's exhortation
> (to
> render the utterance euphemistically) may be a case
> of performative
> self-contradiction? ... [T]he prima facie offense
> against the humanity in
> the person of Jl..."
Unfortunately or fortunately [as to which further research is necessary], JLS
is not the only looney-tune on the list. Here the subject tries to engage
another potential subject {see future paper: "WO - The Wilderness Years} as
support. Unfortunately WO's response, which I did not reply to at the time
because my hands were otherwise engaged [masturbating, if you must], is
invalid. Rude maybe, gratuitous perhaps:- but CB's post is not any more a
"performative contradiction" that me masturbating. Or some, any or every person
shouting "Silence!!". Or even a person (a Nazi) saying in English "There will
be no more talking in ze English, YAH!"
(see future paper: "Misuse of Performatives and Contradiction in Same Sentence:
A Wittgensteinian Account")
> And C. Bruce keeps ignoring my suggestion to discuss
> (seriously 'debate
> and discuss', his phrase) in META.
The reasons why this suggestion would be ignored are not raised by the subject
who might be taken to lack cognition thereof. Hey, Osama keeps ignoring Dubya's
suggestion that they fight mano-a-mano and, to take past example, the IRA kept
ignoring the suggestion they meet with the British Army in a field somewhere
and slug it out - preferring to shoot and bomb said army from more safe
distance.
>Who wants to read
> a post entitled, "What
> the f- is going on here?" which also represents its
> author as "deliver[ing]
> his final farewell" "holding" his nose? Bullshit is
> never so smelly.
The subject clearly evades the obvious point that many people have clearly and
intentionally read the post so entitled - bringing their behaviour within the
"wants-theory" as developed by Penn and Teller and those two gay guys with
tigers in Las Vegas.
> Yesterday I only posted TWO!
For further analysis see: "When Two Doesn't Make A Summer - The
'Swallows-theorem'".
>C. Bruce ignores that!
For further analysis see: " 'For what one passeth over in silence one does not
necessarily ignoreth' - Wittgenstein Chapter V, Verse II, Psalm B - A New
Approach", forthcoming.
>I
> feel he is feeling
> victimised and needs a 'victimiser'
Here the subject engages in a logicalish-sounding point that passes over the
point whether someone should have by now shut the **** up.
> Try
> introducing a good
> thread and get comments, especially from new posters.
> (I'm all with you! <-----
> teasing).
Here the subject seems to imply, and therefore be cognisant of, a link between
(1) "a good thread", and (2) [fresh] "comments".
> This list is for the discussion of lit-ideas. My
> 'contentions' may found
> whatever way they may be found -- but they should not
> be turned into the
> cause why a lister is _not_ posting, etc.
Here the subject seems to deny, and therefore not be cognisant of, a link
between (3) not very interesting "contentions", and (4) lack of response to
these.
The possible contradiction here may be noted.
> All good intentions, always
> J L Speranza
> Buenos Aires, Argentina
Paving the road hell, most days
Dnl
Ldn
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Re: META [A PSCYH. WRITES] - Donal McEvoy
