quote:"Card's newest column, as of Oct. 29, shows him at his worst, praising a book entitled "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy." In fairness, I have not read it."
I don't think you should criticize Card's opinion if you haven't even read the freaking book! Who cares what the Economist said or thinks? Don't use it to justify your opinion. Why don't you read it and then tell us what you think? lol.
Off the subject, but I find it humorous that you consider the Economist a right-wing rag. It seems the Brookings equivalent of fairly moderate to me.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And mildly deprecating is a LONG way from derogatory.
I submit that it's not the person doing the deprecating who gets to make that assessment.
How strange to say that a person's not allowed to determine what he meant by a remark!
Since Pelegius was using the phrase to discuss OSC's POINT OF VIEW, the intelligent and relevant question is, what did OSC mean by that remark. Not, what would a typical prejudiced-against-mexicans gringo mean if he used that term. Not even what others may reasonably construe the term to mean in this culture. If you're talking about OSC's point of view, that's a subjective analysis, and OSC's the ideal person to make that analysis.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Took Spanish to mid-level in college, thanks. And that doesn't change that the group most familiarly referenced by the -ista suffix in the United States is the Sandanistas, a paramilitary Marxist group. Effectively, calling them "the Clintonistas" is implying that that they're marxist in their leanings and boderline violent in their fanatacism. Which might be why, strangely enough, you wont hear anyone referring to "Bushistas"
Results 1 - 10 of about 25,900 for bushista. (0.31 seconds)
Any more factoids you'd like to spin off your head for us, Sterling?
Examples:
quote: El arma religiosa bushista-thatcheriana de la globalización [Voltaire] - [ Translate this page ] El arma religiosa bushista-thatcheriana de la globalización | Los cristianos renovados | El Estado de Texas se ha convertido en un centro difusor del ... www.voltairenet.org/article120615.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
bushista-thatcheriana refers to supporters of Bush and Thatcher. The difference in suffixes does not mean that they like Thatcher more than they like Bush. Bushiana and Thatcherista just don't roll off the tongue as easily as bushista-thatcheriana. We have similar suffix sets that mean the same thing but get used alternately according to what's easier to say.
Here's another one:
quote:John Kerry ataca a Venezuela para ganar votos de anticastristas de ... - [ Translate this page ] "Más bushista que Bush". Muchos progresistas parecen no percibir a Kerry como una ... "Kerry parece ser mas bushista que Bush cuando de Cuba y Venezuela se ... www.aporrea.org/dameverbo.php?docid=16322 - 27k - Cached - Similar pages
Translation: John Kerry seems more "Bushista" than Bush himself with regard to Cuba and Venezuela.
Ah, now here's another kind of usage I'd forgotten about:
quote:Americas Program | Commentary | La victoria de Bush y América Latina - [ Translate this page ] ¿Cómo afectará la victoria bushista al resto del mundo y del continente? La victoria de Bush y América Latina. por Isaac Bigio | 22 de noviembre de 2002 ... americas.irc-online.org/ commentary/2002/sp_0211bush_body.html - 11k - Cached - Similar pages
Here, the word Bushista doesn't even refer to Bush's followers. It's simply the genetive form of Bush: "la victoria bushista" simply means Bush's victory. "¿how will Bush's victory affect the rest of the world and the continent?
quote: DoD News: Pentagon Spokeswoman Steps Down Pentagon Spokeswoman Steps Down. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld announced today that chief Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clarke would step down ... www.defenselink.mil/releases/2003/nr20030616-0102.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages
Most of the other Bushista links in English appear negative. But not communist. One compares him to Hitler, who while many bad things, was not a Marxist.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: People _did_ trip over themselves in the attempt to placate Card, in the sense that all conversational momentum swung in that direction.
Do you suppose that this could be because we like him, want to be happy, and want him to like us too?
An internet forum is a poor place to try for those last two, but it is cheaper than moving to Greensboro and trying to become his buddy. Especially since that would probably make him unhappy and really dislike us.
"I'm your 2059th biggest fan! Unless you are counting wieght, then I move up considerably."
Posts: 18 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most of the other Bushista links in English appear negative.
Well, duh. Which is what I've been saying.
Indeed you have, which is why I said your response was merely irrelevant; Sterling OTOH was dead wrong. Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll even concede that most of the English usages of the word were derogatory, Tom; but as I've explained above, that's irrelevant.
Posts: 63 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except that you appear to be claiming that it is unlikely that Card was familiar with the common English usage and connotation of the suffix, and I disagree with that assessment. Your own Google examples -- and other Google examples; try Googling "Clintonista" some time -- suggest that I'm not wrong about how "-ista" is generally used, and I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that a professional author and culture analyst of Card's caliber would be aware of it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You may, but if all you have to contribute is lumping us together (under "trolls", I presume?) and vaguely wishing I'd go away, I wish you wouldn't.
Instead of lumping us together?
I described actions, Dag. If you think that description applies to you, I'm not the one lumping you together, certainly not under a term like "troll".
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You did not decribe actions. You ascribed motives to actions with no basis for doing so, lumping together everyone who performed those actions under a common motive.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, in Spanish you can find the -ista suffix used in conjunction with Bush. In a Spanish culture, it doesn't have the negative association. It would mean, as said, "followers of Bush". Beyond that, you've done an admirable job of suggesting my original point, that an -ista suffix in the United States in the midst of an English essay implies a strong negative sentiment towards the parties so described.
Before I could be dead wrong, you would have to show that you understood what I said in the first place. Still waiting.
And if the only person whose interpretation of a writing mattered was the author, Dagonee wouldn't be suggesting my earlier post was insulting, and whole bodies of literature wouldn't exist.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I post under the name Pelegius, which, aside from clearly being difficult for many to spell, obviously attracts hatred from all who worship at the Alter of the Sacred Nation-State and offer blood-sacrifices to their War-Gods, my opinions are judged to be useless and immoral. I am constantly attacked, yes I, for I am personally the subject of many more attacks than anything I say is, for holding views that do not coincide with the those of the far-right wing.
Yet, I recant, I recant, I recant: in the future I will read everything I call partisan and tasteless, with Mein Kampf being first on my list.
I am no censor, nor I am a hypocrite, although gladly to my critics ascribe such titles to me: I firmly hold to the right of every human to practice his or her own brand of idiocy, providing that, in doing so, they injure none. I also do not support partisan leftist literature that pretends to be scholarly. There are certain standards which must be met in order for a treatise to qualify as being sound in a logical empiricist way. A freedom from political bias is almost always held to be one of these standards.
Thus, I dislike books like "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" because they are anti-intellectual, polluting as they do the already tainted air of political philosophy.
If this is a narrow-minded viewpoint, then I know not how to be broadminded, nor, perhaps, do I wish to learn.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: for holding views that do not coincide with the those of the far-right wing
No. That's not why. It's because you're scornful and intolerant and dismissive of your opponents' intelligence and integrity, and don't seem to recognize the irony of dismissing a book for being "anti-intellectual" when you haven't actually read a word of it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay. So I've never been on Hatrack before, but some of you know me from Ornery under another, cleverly impenetrable guise.
Now I happily risk permanent expulsion because I seem to be the only one here (perhaps because I am not really a fan of Card's fiction) willing to call him out on this:
quote:Interesting. People can come on here and write about me with utter contempt, and hardly anyone calls them on it. But let me respond, and immediately the "peacekeepers" on Hatrack change the subject and bury the topic.
I guess the message is that you can use Card's website to speak of Card as if he were someone's idiot child, without even the ordinary concern that you know what you're talking about first. No one protests this. But let Card call you on it, and suddenly THIS must be prevented at all costs.
There are plenty of places on the web to vilify me to your heart's content. What special pleasure is there about doing it here on my own site? And why am I forbidden to answer the attacks?
I've checked. This doesn't happen on ANY other author's website.
Now, I will grant you that Pelegius walked into it big-time by coming to a totally unfounded conclusion.
But look at these words. "Utter contempt," "idiot child", "forbidden to answer my own attacks."
Folks, you are all walking into it. There is no escaping it. This man, like many famous people, has a pathological desire to be loved by one and all, and when he isn't he gets his nose bent out of joint.
You are way too easy on him. If someone invited me over to their house for an evening of conversation, and said host only every spoke up to complaim about how he was being victimized by those guests who disagreed with him, I would consider that host to be rude and boorish. I would suspect that his only reason for inviting people over was to have them meet his need for approval.
No one in this thread even came close to showing "utter contempt" to OSC. Pelegius even explicity used the word "love" in his opening post. And THEN, at 2 am no less (by my time zone) Card shows up and reads the absence of anyone rushing to his defense and/or agreement as, in his own words, an active attempt to "bury the topic." From this, he infers that he is "forbidden" to answer the attacks.
Fobidden. On his own website. Is this not the height of absurdity?
This debate about OSC's political columns vs. his books will never be resolved. It has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with what he reveals to us of his own personality. He does not respect you as equals, he prefers you as a meek and obedient flock. Look how carefully you tiptoe around him...and still he shows up just to berate you! And so many of you respond afterwords, still so gently, as one would to the grumpiest of red-faced grandads, to no avail. No concilliation from his end.
quote: I've checked. This doesn't happen on ANY other author's website.
And this would be...why, exactly? Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
TomDavidson, books are as good as their ideas. I could write a book consisting of the words "Affiliate Marketing Forum" and nothing else. I could not expect it be considered good. Logic, being a science, cannot afford to be as partisan as a book entitled "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" clearly is. Political Science must be held to the same standards as other sciences. I am 100% sure that "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" is not unbiased, and thus 100% sure that it is of no use whatsoever to anybody, save to the writer, who profits, and the politiques, who love propaganda. Yes, I do consider propaganda, that is to say all works of "philosophy" not held to the standard of logical analysis of, say, Geometry.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yet you still seem to have trouble grasping that this statement is ridiculous. I'm not 100% sure I'll live through the night, but you're 100% sure that a book you've not read is biased and useless. That shows me nothing but that you no nothing of logical analysis beyond how to correctly spell it. The fact that you still haven't figured out why it's criminally stupid to judge something you know nothing about explains why you took offense to everyone's reaction to said judgement.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are way too easy on him. If someone invited me over to their house for an evening of conversation, and said host only every spoke up to complaim about how he was being victimized by those guests who disagreed with him, I would consider that host to be rude and boorish. I would suspect that his only reason for inviting people over was to have them meet his need for approval.
First, one of the reasons that I am so offended by the attacks on OSC is BECAUSE in the same evening that he is required to defend himself, he will graciously answer many questions and even make comments congratulating people on babies or make silly comments in the fluffier threads. I don't think he comes here looking for a fight.
Second, and I don't think I've ever written this to anyone before, so count yourself special, your post makes you look like a total a$$. How can you attribute such base motives to someone who you don't know personally?
I've seen Card accused of alot of things, but stupidity isn't one of them. If he only wanted sheep, he could delete posts and ban members until he'd tailored his flock to fit his needs. I think that there is a big difference between not wanting to be bashed whenever he enters the forum and wanting people to hang on his every word.
Come on, KidB. Ornery is a comfy rock. Can't you crawl back under it?
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
I haven't read the book either, but I'm guessing the title is a wee-bit ironic.
Here's the lowdown from Amazon:
quote:Democrats raised an unprecedented level of funds in their attempt to elect John Kerry to the White House, and not just through contributing to directly to Kerry's campaign. Led by George Soros and his multimillion-dollar donations, money flowed to liberal groups like MoveOn that tried to push hard on President Bush's record. They failed, York argues, because rather than bringing new voters into the party, the activists perpetuated "closed loops" that preached solely to the choir. When such emotionally zealous activists made their way into Democratic inner circles, their scorn for anyone who held opposing points of view, York contends, may well have hurt efforts to reach out to swing voters. A detailed financial breakdown takes aim at the hype surrounding Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, demonstrating its failure to reach significant audiences outside the bluest parts of the blue states. York, the White House correspondent for the National Review, hits the Democrats particularly hard on allegations that they tried to skirt campaign finance laws by blurring-perhaps even crossing-the lines between the presidential campaign and issue advocacy groups prohibited from endorsing candidates. He largely refrains from taunting the liberals for their electoral failures, making his analysis of the flaws in the left-wing's self-insulated power structure valuable to readers on either side of the political fence.
It actually sounds kind of interesting. And, as a member of the "Left" I can say that many of us are not comfortable with how the most hysterical (and wealthiest) members have taken it upon themselves to speak for all of us. York's critique actually has a lot in common with the Left's critique of "itself."
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've seen Card accused of a lot of things, but stupidity isn't one of them. If he only wanted sheep, he could delete posts and ban members until he'd tailored his flock to fit his needs. I think that there is a big difference between not wanting to be bashed whenever he enters the forum and wanting people to hang on his every word.
No, he is not stupid in the least. This is nothing to do with his intelligence.
I "know" OSC only insofar as he presents himself to us.
C'mon, LadyDove. C'mon. He claims he checked other authors' websites to see if he was the only one being vitimized by his fans.
What does that say to you?
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT de Spang, the title is indication of the bias. I might suspect that book entitled "A Study of Corruption in America's Left-Wing" was biased, but I would not be sure. However, anyone who thinks that there is "A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy," and writes a book on the subject, cannot expect to be considered an unbiased critic of modern politics, for the same reason that someone who writes a book entitled "Space-Aliens Among Us" cannot be held to be an unbiased researcher on the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence.
P.S. I like how you proved my point that all attacks are directed at me personally, rather than any ideas I put forth. I found that you calling me "Criminally Stupid" was a nice touch and greatly improved the quality of debate, keep up the good work.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note: the Previous Post was written before KidB's post came onto my screen.
Yes, it does sound vaguely interesting, but a true philosopher-historian would have also looked at the Right-Wing. This person might also realize that the events being chronicled were too recent to be well analyzed. In 2000 years, this book will be, if the author is very lucky, thought of as Suetonius is today.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Pelegius, the title is an indication of the marketing. It's using a technique whereby the publisher purposely selects an inflammatory title to create a little controversy, which will create sales.
And a careful reading of my post will show that is the phrase 'criminally stupid' was directed at your action, not at you. But then, I take it you don't like it when other people judge a book by its cover?
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am part of an industry that is fairly small. All the players know each other or have heard of one another. If my clients were constantly badmouthing me on an open forum, not only would I hear about it, but I'd be teased about it on a regular basis.
Yes, Hatrack is a forum, but it is also connected to a business. Can you imagine what someone like Michael Collins, who has written both Card's and King's biography thinks of Card's onsite fans vs King's onsite fans?
Card wouldn't need to be paranoid to look into other author sites, he'd just have to have his nose tweaked a couple of times by a colleague.
Of course, the above is based on my conjecture of how he came to his conclusion based on how the business world works. Your conjecture is based on something else. Mine's as good as yours anyday. And without knowing Card personally, yours still makes you look mean.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And without knowing Card personally, yours still makes you look mean."
So, out of curiosity, do you think OSC is mean? He projects evil motives onto whole GROUPS of people he hasn't met, in almost every one of his columns.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
With very few exceptions, (Bill Clinton being one)I've never seen target an individual. I've never seen him stalk any individual with the intent of picking apart his words. So no, I don't think he is mean.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"With very few exceptions, (Bill Clinton being one)I've never seen target an individual. I've never seen him stalk any individual with the intent of picking apart his words. So no, I don't think he is mean."
You don't think assigning evil motives to many individuals is mean, but assigning evil motives to one person is?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
However, don't you, as a forum participant, feel nary a twinge on the tip of your own probiscis at statements like this:
"I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do."
If any one other than OSC had said this here or at Ornery, they would rightly be called out as a pompous ass. He essentially is saying "take my word for it, I'm more skeptical than thou." He is adressing everyone, which means you included.
Following up on your point...if Hatrack is a business, and Orson find that he gets an undue share of guff from the rabble on his business venture, might he not ask himself why and wherefore?
I see two possible conclusions:
1) The fates have conspired so as to give OSC only the meanest, most dogmatic and most hostile fans in the world.
or
2) There is something OSC is doing which invites hostility.
For instance, Card is against homosexuality because he believes that it threatens the health of community. He may even believe it is evil and that homosexuals could make the choice to not engage in that behavior. Yet, when Janis Ian wrote to him and thanked him for the way his work had influenced her, he wrote back to her and told her how much he admired her. He made her feel very special and they have since become friends and Card has introduced her to other SF writers. (This is all from an article she did for an SF megazine.)
I saw her at a concert sponsored by Card. They really like each other as people.
As an individual, she is not required to defend her group because she is not being defined as her group. She is being defined as Janis Ian.
When you attack a particular individual by name, how can they help but be offended? And if the attack is filled with venom and accusation born of conjecture, then yeah, I think it's mean.
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"When you attack a particular individual by name, how can they help but be offended? And if the attack is filled with venom and accusation born of conjecture, then yeah, I think it's mean."
I'm also not sure how a person can't help but be offended when someone writes that a group that person belongs to is trying to destroy america, for example. And when the attack is filled with venom and accusation born of conjecture, then yeah, I think its mean. And I think its foolish to deny that.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------- I question my own beliefs far more rigorously than anyone here has shown any signs of knowing how to do. --------------------------------------------------------------------- tern said: With all due respect, that is a comment that lowers the effectiveness of your precis.
tern- I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does. There is no way for anyone, except maybe his wife, to understand the personal experiences that have led him to place more value on one thing than on another. IME, a belief systmem is a combination of both fact and personal experience. Though someone else may be better able to judge the accuracy of a given fact, I think that claiming authority over the ability to judge another's beliefs is akin to saying, "I know you better than you know yourself."
I'm certain that I would be offended if anyone else presumed that they were better equipped than I am to decide what I should believe in. ................................... Obviously, I read the quote as a defense and not as an attack.
As far as why there are so many hostile people here... I don't think that they are hostile so much as disappointed that no matter how often they try to parent Card, he continues to misbehave.
I think that much of the anger is born of a false sense of ownership and a real frustration that makes them think that if they keep beating him long enough, he'll play nicely. He is well loved here, but unfortunately, the flavor of late has been "tough love".
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
G. Gordon Liddy and Timothy Leary did a lecture tour together together, and could be seen laughing and smiling together for the cameras.
"Individuals" can be freinds all the time. So? When Card writes a column and attacks the homosexual community from a point of demonstrable ignorance, none of my gay freinds here in NYC are going to give a rat's nether regions that OSC and Janice Ian have their occasional mutual Hallmark moment.
When they hear this...
quote:And even if few people care enough to defend the old family values against the screaming hate speech of the Left -- which is what they're counting on, of course -- the end will be the same. Because with marriage finally killed, America will no longer be able to raise up children with any trust in or loyalty to or willingness to sacrifice for that society.
So either civilized people will succeed in establishing a government that protects the family; or civilized people will withdraw their allegiance from the government that won't protect it; or the politically correct barbarians will have complete victory over the family -- and, lacking the strong family structure on which civilization depends, our civilization will collapse or fade away.
...they hear the voice of the thugs who beat them up in high school, who sent them running and screaming for dear life from the pain and persecution that awaited them in the 'burbs, and into enclaves like NYC, San Fran, etc.
OSC is so far away from anything resembling a rational argument here, so driven by raw rage, that he is impossible to even respond to seriously. The fear-mongering is preposterous.
LadyDove, I read conservative columnists all the time. Brooks, Will, and countless names at American Conservative (all of these folks are to the Right of OSC). With the possible exception of Pat Buchanan, none of these writers sink to this level. It is appalling.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think that much of the anger is born of a false sense of ownership and a real frustration that makes them think that if they keep beating him long enough, he'll play nicely.
I agree. That was (part of) my point at the beginning, albeit from a different direction.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer to see him leave the barbs out of his editorials, I'm just saying that it is ridiculous for people to try to beat him into changing his style.
I'm reminded of Dr. Phil's "So, how's that workin' for ya?" The attacks aren't working. They're getting boring and predictable. If everyone is really just trying to help Card communicate his message more effectively and the attacks aren't working, how about trying a different method?
Posts: 2425 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh. People get old and set in their ways. Sometimes you just have to outlive them. If you think OSC is bad, consider what his grandfather was probably like; then think about his son. Things get better; sometimes it's slow, that's all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how anyone aside from OSC could "know how" to question his beliefs more rigidly than he does.
There's not really any way to say how this statement was supposed to be interpreted, but pretty much everyone except you seems to have taken it to means, "I question my beliefs far more rigorously than anyone else here has shown themselves able to question their own beliefs." Unless the guy who wrote it wants to clarify.
But you seem to be basing a large part of your argument on the interpretation of a statement that no one else interpreted the same way.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I halfway agree with your point about "us" trying to get "him" to be be a certain way. We can only do so much...in the end, we should stop beating our heads against the wall and move on.
OSC, judging from what he writes, seems to be genuinely hurt by "our" treatment of him here and elsewhere. However, until he decides to change, he will continue to reap what he sows.
And...I'm glad I made you laugh.
Posts: 53 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[post relocated so's not to break the flow of last night's debate] The subject has drifted pretty quickly, but I'm going to respong to P's last post.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius:
El JT de Spang, the title is indication of the bias. I might suspect that book entitled "A Study of Corruption in America's Left-Wing" was biased, but I would not be sure. However, anyone who thinks that there is "A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy," and writes a book on the subject, cannot expect to be considered an unbiased critic of modern politics, for the same reason that someone who writes a book entitled "Space-Aliens Among Us" cannot be held to be an unbiased researcher on the subject of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Pelegius' chain of "logic" reminds me of a conversation I once had with a friend of mine. We were going through my fairly sizeable music collection, and I pulled out my original first-pressing cassette copy of Synchronicity by The Police. I told him that it was the first album I ever owned, purchased for me when I was 8 years old by my father. It's always been a tiny source of pride that (through no fault of my own) the first album I ever owned was one of the greatest of the era in which it was made. Of course, I now own all of their albums, and I've known them backwards and forwards for about 2/3 of my life.
As I showed my friend what may be considered something of historical significance, he responded to me that he didn't like The Police, and he thought that they were overrated. That argument could easily be made of late-era Sting, but I'd never heard anyone say that of The Police. Nevertheless, he seemed to state it as though it were fact, and thought that I was a fool for being sucked into the hype.
As I pressed him for details, I finally came to the source of his opinion. It turns out that he had never heard any more of The Police than whatever was on the radio or on MTV 20 years ago. The reason that he decided that he didn't like them was that he'd once heard someone in a band he did like say that they were proud that they never faded out their songs at the end, and that people like The Police always faded their songs out as a cop-out because they couldn't think of a good way to end them. The actual content of the songs, the quality of the musicianship, the caliber of the live performances, the influence they had on legions of fans and other musicians even two decades later... my friend had no knowledge or interest in any of these things. He hated the band solely based upon a second hand opinion of a decision most likely made by their albums' producers.
To this day my friend refuses to listen to The Police or acknowledge any good they may have done. He still considers me a sheep for appreciating their music. And, having had this conversation before, I'm sure you'll end up feeling the same way about OSC, although you're stubbornly going to refuse to obtain a single clue to what you're talking about.
*****
And as far as titles go, let's consider a few examples. Jon Stewart's The Daily Show has given itself the almost-official subtitle: "The Fake News". Yet it has gained a reputation for having some of the most astute and incisive analysis of the news, not to mention some of the most enlightening interviews with actual political figures, available anywhere on television. Compare it with SNL's Weekend Update, a similar enterprise with a much more respectable title that is nothing more than a few insignificant jokes. Going by name alone, there's no way I'd watch a program that called itself "The Fake News", and I'd be all the poorer for it.
Finally, consider The O'Reilly Factor, which calls itself "The No-Spin Zone". Sounds like a very fair and even-handed analysis of news and politics. Since you judge everything by titles, and you hate a title as clearly biased as "The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy", I'm just going to go ahead and assume that you're a huge, rabid fan of "The No-Spin Zone." And don't try to correct that assumption. I've already made up my mind.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not saying that I wouldn't prefer to see him leave the barbs out of his editorials, I'm just saying that it is ridiculous for people to try to beat him into changing his style.
Except that's not what you're saying. You're attempting to persuade us that we shouldn't feel insulted at all, not that we shouldn't try to persuade him not to insult us.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
El JT de Spang, I am sorry, despite my youth, I must belong to an older, more civilized age, where a book called "Tractus Logico-Philosophicus" was considered to be controversial enough to sell. On the other hand, this book can still be found in just about any medium or large bookstore in the world, so maybe there is something to its "marketing. Speed, comedy operates under different rules than philosophy. Bill O'Reilly is well known for his "spin" on world affairs, and is thus no more trustworthy than any of the other spewers of hate-sermons that pollute the airwaves, dragging ideas down to their basest level.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
