Hi all - I have news:
We are opening escrow on the house tomorrow!!! (I must be crazy!) However, the house is very old, so I am waiting to see what the pest & home inspectors have to say before I decide for sure to go ahead with the purchase. I don't mind putting some money into the house, but I don't want to buy a money pit... It's a big purchase, and I want to make sure I go into it with eyes wide open.
So, there you have....you can go back to bickering, now.
UPDATE: Well, the home inspection left a lot to be desired. Let's just say that I'm not all that keen on repairing the foundation, replacing the roof, fixing the plumbing, and removing the dry rot...bleah! The search begins anew!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
755 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 755 Newer› Newest»You have nothing to say. You can't handle a rational dialogue. I can. I said nothing abusive. You can't help but be abusive. I just presented rational and sharp criticisms that actually paid attention to the counter points. You couldn't do that if your life depended on it.
Thanks, dsg. I kind of figured. Sort of the cliche "throw the book at them!"
Obviously LaSalle thinks you have nothing too important to say, either.
And that just frosts you, doesn't it?
Gotta work on that inferiority complex.
wv:cytoms.
There are plenty of people who do respect what I think. You can still see that in the replies remaining to my comments. LaSalle is trying to impose his negative opinion via force. He can't actually persuade too many people to share it. He's a failed critic. That's what frosts him.
Whatever. That doesn't matter. He's in charge of his blog, not you.
If you don't like that, go start your own. That what it means to have Freedom of Speech. No one will stop you.
The problem is that all like minded people only hang out on friendly blogs then no one ever talks to each other. People become more trapped in their prejudices. Dialogue, difference, debate--they are good things. For democracy. For business.
Well, then I guess that makes this one hell of a blog.
you're not hartal? That's the funniest thing you've ever posted. who else saves his own posts? only you. you started to save after you lost so many during the first sfgate purge. hey, wait a minute. you haven't enlisted carowan to support your habit, have you?
I hope you're not thinking of leaving me, are you Qua?
'cause I love you still.
Given what you are capable of writing, qua, of course it's a wonder to you that anyone could write something worth saving. Why don't you go ask Belva Davis, Carolyn Lochhead, Michael Yaki, Zennie and the Doug who participates on MLS's blog what they think of my posts. And still cowardly, qua. What a sorry pathetic person you are.
And no Gavone you don't add diversity to a blog. You add aggressive, irrational blathering. Did you not notice that you have been basically talking to yourself? That's not true of me. People respond affirmatively and critically to my posts. You acquitted yourself miserably in the discussion of abortion. Ask dsgonzale6. Get the help that you need.
I forgot to add: I am NOT hartal. (Although I do flame out like him when I get upset. And I do seeem to know a lot about people posting here. . . . ;)
Ya, right. You're not Hartal. You only say the same niggardly insults just like him.
And I wasn't speaking to anyone else but you.
wv:facconpa. Guess what that means in Italian?
Gina, Hartal is correct. SF Gate blogs are a public forum attached to the newspaper of record in the Bay Area. It was appalling that Mick had him blocked from posting anywhere. It was cowardly (I believe the offending insult) and the epitome of douchebaggery. There is simply no other way to put it, and no way to defend it. It was an act of evil, and it's more significant than you realize.
BTW, Xootsuit, Ted, amd I have all posted FAR, FAR worse.
"the epitome of douchebaggery"
once again, young C's communications skills dazzle. Well done, young DBag.
The first three are satirical, and the last two straight. But this is the point of view LaSalle has banned from SF Gate--it's an intelligent minority point of view. I really can't imagine too many people are ok with this.
Comment on: CNN tells Lou Dobbs that Obama birth certificiate story is "dead" -- sort of at 7/25/2009 12:59 AM PDT
We birthers are not racists. We are not condemning Obama on grounds of the genetic Inferiority of his race. What we are saying is the simple nativist truth that he is an intrusive element that is disrupting the unity, and therefore the integrity and the survival of the nation, itself. He’s not willing to, and may be incapable, of acculturing himself to our national traditions, like all non Nordic immigrants in the past and illegal Latino immigrants today.
It’s not a matter of race; it’s a matter of culture.
Obama pretends to understand this. That is why he said that a Swedish like nationalization of the banks is not consistent with our essentially Anglo culture of individual liberty and freedom.
We prize the freedom of any corporation to sell any stock on the basis of whatever information it wants to produce that anyone is willing to buy; we prize the freedom for the shadow banking sector to use as much leverage as its investors/depositors allow; we know that employers should be free to impose whatever conditions workers are willing to accept for a wage. We honor the individual liberty for a few to make massive profits by commercializing ideas developed in our public universities and paid for by the public.
These are our national traditions. They derive from the Anglo devotion to liberty for which pure bloodline Anglos, to be sure, have a special dispensation in their blood. Obama does not share this culture. He is not a real American. How could he have been native born?
What we need now, more than ever, is not racism but nativism.
Comment on: The right-wing -- now plus Lou Dobbs -- still doubts Obama's birth certificate at 7/22/2009 8:31 PM PDT
Look liberals you don't get it.
Of course we understand that Obama has provided a legally valid copy of his birth certificate. Otherwise our man Clarence Thomas wouldn't have thrown out the case. And Obama would not have been able to get a passport had the document he has produced not been valid. And we have all seen the copy of that document at the LA Times blog site.
But that's not the issue. The issue is whether legally valid proofs of citizenship and birth should be enough for a minority today.
And what we are saying is no. What we are saying is that it is best to presume that any minority has produced falsified legally valid documents and that they can therefore be forced to produce ever more documentation every time they land a job that one of us wants. That way they may think twice before taking a job that belongs to those with long ancestry in the United States.
If we can make Obama provide more that what is legally required, then he'll expose all minorities to having to meet a higher burden of proof. And then any of us can create problems for them whenever we feel a situation is unfair. And this is what we deserve as a form of job protection in this depressed economy
Comment on: The right-wing -- now plus Lou Dobbs -- still doubts Obama's birth certificate at 7/23/2009 3:03 PM PDT
Look simsparker is right.
What is Obama doing?
Deficit spending on a huge, if not unprecedented, scale.
And what will that do.
Keep the economy afloat so that companies don't go bankrupt.
But companies must go bankrupt for the economy to recover.
They must disappear or be bought out because only then will the surviving companies have the potential market share and potential profitability to make the new big investments to get the economy to recover.
By propping up the economy with deficit spending and quantitative easing, Obama is just deferring the day of reckoning.
Eventually the stimulus will dissipate and the economy will have be restructured and consolidated. But then we'll also to have pay back the massive debt, so when the new income flows from the recovery it will be all owed to the bondholders.
So the best thing to do now is to allow a sharp downturn and allow all the business consolidation to happen.
Sure this will lead to massive unemployment, hunger, suicide, stress and premature deaths.
But that is nothing a fascist or authoritarian state could not handle.
Obama stands in the way of that, but if we can get him kicked out of Office due to his birth certificate, then we can replace him Jeb Bush and Rudy Giulani and save the Republic.
Here are a couple of straight messages.
Comment on: 911 caller in Gates case hurt by racist label at 7/29/2009 11:42 AM PDT
*Yell all you want, but Crowley is in big trouble.
*He arrested Gates after he was sure that he was indeed in his own home.
*Gates could not have yelled as he was quite sick with a lung infection as the doctor records will show--Crowley made that up. Read Gates' own statement at the TheRoot.com
*It's unbelievable that Gates talked about Crowley's mama--that is proof enough of a racial problem here. Crowley is lying.
*Crowley had no right to ask Gates to leave his own home once he had the ID in hand. That's unconstitutional. This will become a more important matter than the racial profiling question.
*Gates speaking angrily at a cop after he has identified himself is not a crime. Gates asking for a badge number is not a crime. Crowley is in big trouble unless Obama gets Gates to drop his impending lawsuit.
* Gates was kept in jail for several hours, up to I think five hours. The Cambridge Police are in big trouble.
Unless Obama gets Gates to forget the stupid arrest.
Comment on: Chevron Richmond issue: new video shows job loss impact at 7/27/2009 7:08 PM PDT
Not quite on topic as I don't know the details of the Richmond case, but this blog and the comments here are pitched at a really high level, a level appropriate to the problem. But here's an additional concern: let's say that we assume that there is a strong multiplier from autonomous (deficit-financed) government expenditures. Even before the recession there was so much hidden unemployment in the system, e.g. discouraged workers or workers with only part time gigs.
What I am worried about is that the new jobs will bypass recently devastated disproportionately black communities as the job killing from bankruptcies and consolidations will hit the black community hard.
The whole Keynesian program operates at the level of macroeconomic aggregates, and seems poised to miss the more micro displacements in the labor market that may turn out to be quite disproportionately racial in their character. That kind of bias may happen while the aggregate number of new jobs may look strong and good.
And any effort to fix bias in the effects of big Keynesian stimulus programs that will be shouted down as affirmative action.
I'm not going to be a hypocrite but I have to admit I have mixed feelings about all this.
So one question, does SFGate just WHAM!!!!
Kick you off their website or is there some kind of heads up, warning, suggestion, etc, etc.
I mean, does one get a head's up about what is being considered unacceptable first or does it just happen?
It's kind of weird because I wrote something once that after reading, in retrospect, I preferred wasn't read and I reported myself. It ended up with a status of "reported" but it was and is still there.
How exactly does this all work?
Does anyone know?
I think xootsuit gave me some kind of oblique warning that the decision had already been made to ban me. He wrote a post saying adios, you lost big time. I didn't know what it meant. But that's the closest to a warning I got, and it seems to have been issued after the decision was made. Xootsuit may not be an editor at SF Gate, but he acts like one, quoting policy to justify bans and speaking in favor of decisions already made (in regards to hartal). Of course he says that he's a lawyer but I am not convinced of that after his discussion of class action lawsuits. He seemed pretty in the dark.
He may just like aligning himself with SF Gate policy as a way of feeling powerful or he may be an editor. I don't know.
But if he is--and the chances that he is are only soso--he should not be making decisions about me (or hartal). There's no way he can be objective.
Great you have mixed feelings about one of the very few minority voices being kicked off SF Gate altogether. That's pretty sad. Democracy is either in your bones or it's not. Given your previous ambivalence about unconstitutional surveillance, it's clearly not in your bones, Ted Spe. Sad to say.
You're such a victim, Bernardi.The race card doesn't work on every whitey, including non-anglos. We Roman types consider ourselves white, by the way...and far superior to any idiot from northern Europe...with the exception of the Kaisers, of course.
And,with the exception of dsg, maybe more than one of posters on MLS's blog is Mick? Grand experiment in writing?
You pissed him off for some reason. Deal with it.
Qua, whoever you are, you make a wonderful man.
You Roman types have already forgotten the immigration reforms of 1924 and 1929 (rough dates), point being that social Darwinist ideology of Nordic superiority was used to reduce radically inflows from Southern and Eastern Europe (it had already worked against emigration from Asia and Africa of course). The funny thing Gavone is that you are a Catholic Know-Nothing. Why is that funny--figure it out.
I was obviously satirizing and recalling the real history of this country in my posts on the birther movements (it takes a sophisticated audience to appreciate my satire, which is why a lot of knee jerk liberals were hating on me--they had never heard of Madison Grant and the Johnson-Reed Act), and for all your claims of wanting to preserve Western Civilization my guess is that I know the history of our great country--good and bad--much better than you do, Gavone.
Now minstrelsy shows helped to reduce the ethnic divisions among whites.
As for multiple identities, I have long wondered whether you were a female identity for michael twinfan as he's not man enough to defend his batty ideas himself.
Gina, so Quappy is your inner man? You have a very negative view of the male species, don't you? Why isn't Jesus Christ your inner man, or John Wayne, maybe Barack Obama, any real man would do. This Quappy guy though is an extremely weak figure.
When I create an inner female, they are always strong, kind, and fearless. My gal would stomp your pathetic Quappy into dust, after she'd separated his empty head from his overstuffed body.
Hey Hartal, leave Michael out of this. He's got more important things to deal with, like rooting the Giants to a World Series title.
If you want to embrace the soul of America, you must love baseball.
I have written to SFGate complaining that bernardi/hartal/no one/carowan wasn't removed quickly enough. Now, if only it/he could be removed from here as easily. Along with YC, his cross-dressing cheerleader babe.
Qua is adorable and funny and comes to my defense like a nobleman knight.
I'll bet he was descended from the Knights of the Templer.
My ancestors on my father's side fought in the Crusades. We're not apologetic for that.
And, I really don't care about your inner-woman, YC. She can kiss my ass, and so can you and Hartal both. Hartal hates me 'cause I won't kowtow to his "blackness"...and apparently, neither will LaSalle. He scores big points for that.
Pardon me. Templar. Knights of the Templar.
I also think fawn works:
synonyms: toady, truckle, cringe, cower mean to behave abjectly before a superior. fawn implies seeking favor by servile flattery or exaggerated attention (waiters fawning over a celebrity). toady suggests the attempt to ingratiate oneself by an abjectly menial or subservient attitude (toadying to his boss)>. truckle implies the subordination of oneself and one's desires or judgment to those of a superior truckling to a powerful lobbyist. cringe suggests a bowing or shrinking in fear or servility (a cringing sycophant). cower suggests a display of abject fear in the company of threatening or domineering people (cowering before a bully).
And we know what a wife-beater thug Hartal is.
It'll be a long, cold day in hell before I ever concede to his kind. Period.
Gina, you must learn the truth before you die. Quappy is not noble, it's a demon that is destroying your soul.
Gina, I'm more a knight errant than a knight Templar. But I do get a kick out of lancing those ugly boils hartal and young C.
ai choli, ay chihuahua! Good work.
I always love a good knight.And Night. Same thing.
I think they're more carbunclesque. But that's sorta the same thing, isn't it?
That's good word for men like them.
Gina is having a conversation with herself. Get thee to a nunnery girl, your demons are driving you batshit crazy.
You know what your problem is, YC?
When you proposed to that woman and she rejected you, it affected you in the worst way possible...
I'll bet your member shrunk markedly...to the point of no return.
Envy of real men is not an attractive trait.
So you believe Quappy is a real man? Have you checked its trousers? Demons don't have genitalia Gina.
BTW I don't envy anyone. There are men I admire, guys who have qualities I wish I had, but I consider myself to be the luckiest person of the face of the Earth. I love life and am unafraid of death, what more could a body ask for?
I envy YC's knowledge of film and musical culture and his ability to turn a phrase. Gavone plays on all the reactionary aspects of humor which is not always a good thing. But no time to play today.
Aw! It must be love.
homoeroticism at its finest...notthat there's anything wrong with that.
It's what pissart is all about, fyi.
wv: woodsio. Their song.
"I envy YC's . . . ability to turn a phrase."
So love is blind and tone deaf too? You go, guys.
So. Whatta we got? hartal dumps here, in Jean's blog, all of the hartal/bernardi posts sfgate rejected. Young C chimes in with his usual bipolar crap. And Gina -- you know I can't stand behind some of the gratuitous stuff you post. In any event, too much crap.
So, how can we apologize to our host? What can we do to clean up this mess?
faux qua.
You're Hartal with only one option and trying to gain the upper hand here. I will never bow down to you.
And, Qua would never be so nasty ...he's truly a gentleman, shows compassion and has genuine insight into others. The only one of his kind here, I might add. You oughtta try it, it works wonders on women. Calms us right down.
It's good, however, that you have finally come to terms with the fact that you can no longer post on SFGate.
Nope didn't post all of the expunged posts which came to eight pages in my profile. I only posted here what spoke to the hot issues over at SF Gate--the birther movement and the Crowley/Gates dust up (my dialogue with the police officer over at Belva Davis' blog is gone; if you want I can post it here and gone too are my jokes about the penguin movie--again very sophisticated satire including quotes from Tennyson).
Now dsgonzale6 is trying to steer a middle road on the G/C controversy. But only Crowley did something of questionable legality. In fact dsgonzale6 sees that, but I don't see why Gates should not have been angry since Crowley continued the interrogation after having received Gates' ID (can't see him doiing that to a white Harvard prof). This is first a fourth amendment case and second a case of racial prejudice.
By the way, also eliminated was my post on childhood hero Rickey Henderson and my praise of Ratto's column. But over the years I have become more a basketball guy. And that's American too.
Qua, in all seriousness, I think Jean owes us an apology. When you and the rest of the qua-tuplets started posting stupid shit anonymously, she should have deleted them. It was your nonsense that did this blog in.
I believe Jean has probably figured out that blogging is a self-absorbed occupation and she has returned to her real life. She must also have found a new boyfriend. Give us this dish Jean.
"again very sophisticated satire including quotes from Tennyson"
You honestly don't see how ludicrous that statement is, do you? Your prose stutters, at best. It's polysyllabic nonsense riddled with failed attempts to sound smart. You're downright afraid of short anglo saxon words with punch. For every decent sentence you write you offer scores you've botched. Stop saving your stuff. Your oeuvre stinks.
YC,
It's a common problem. If someone is facing opposition or wants to put someone or group back in their supposedly proper place, he often courts support from unsavory or unconstitutional places. Indira Gandhi for example sought the support of the Hindu fundamentalists who did not respect India's secular Constitution after the Emergency she called. It was her support that gave them the respectability to become national actors.
The Republicans courted the supported of far right Christian wackos to try to keep their electoral hold.
The SF Gate editors rely, unethically I would say, on their own staff posing as independent commentators to go after public critics of their star writers and bloggers.
And FH allowed people to pose anonymously against her own stated policy to try to knock people down.
And now the Republicans are trying to end a failed and counterproductive experiment in wacko nativism and racism to build popular outrage against Obama who's delivering some blows to the insurance companies and the very wealthy who own the Republicans.
Here's a remarkable article.
http://tiny.cc/F5kVQ
That's your opinion. And for unpolished writing that's written at maximum speed, it's better than 99% of the comments that appear at SF Gate. And extremely well informed. I don't write for punch. I am much more thoughtful than that. I write complicated sentences about complicated ideas. It's not for everyone. Find your stars, and let me have my readers. I have had plenty. I was well known as the number one Obama supporter during the presidential race at SF Gate. Hundreds of people spoke to what I wrote. I took down nasty guys like PC Reece and Kyrax all the time. I made twinfan appear foolish. Or don't you remember?
And who are you to evaluate whether I am or sound smart? Should we judge by profession, employment history and educational attainments? I don't think you are smart at all. Whose opinion should count?
Certainly not a coward's.
Yet you stated you aren't hartal, both here and there. I guess lying is all you're good at. This baseless superiority complex is just baffling and boring.
Show me why this prose stinks. But first show me that you understand the satire.
Comment on: Cultural Differences in Movie Trailers at 7/24/2009 7:36 AM PDT
Yeah I get it lonely existentialist Emperors facing the absurdity of their existence vs Emperors braving the elements to bring life to new places. The philosophical French vs. the pioneer Americans. But the real threat here is cultural imperialism. The French are trying to export their eunuch culture via the symbol of a male animal that plays an essential role in the rearing of the young and has been known to turn up gay. The penguin is an insidious animal. The wrong totem for our times.
***
But seriously why is the commercial funny? Because it exposes the anxiety to which a movie about the male penguin was meant all along to speak--that the conquerer on the horse (Napoleon) has been replaced, as a model for men, by a totemic bisexual male penguin that sits on the eggs and shrivels away as the women go out to party and feast. It's the French making light of and accepting the dethroning and domestication of the male. You San Francisco sexual liberals may find this feckless French culture amusing. But it is an asault on manhood. I like my nature movies red in tooth and claw.
***
Now compre those two messages to xootsuit's incoherent reply which includes a gratuitous reference to a book on Einstein. Xootsuit comes across as pretentious blowhard who doesn't see that he is suited to edit at best The National Inquirer.
Hartal has been banned from SF Gate (he's not allowed on SF Gate), and hartal's name was hijacked here. He no longer exists. I exist. Therefore, I cannot be hartal.
Superiority complex? Let's see. How am I supposed to respond to someone telling me that my writing stinks?
How would you respond?
If you want to talk trash to me, I am happy to respond. But it's not going to turn out well for you unless of course you get all my back talk erased, so you can only appear to have kept up.
A lot of cowards on the blog. Anonymous people take hits against me. LaSalle has my criticism erased just because his main men can't defend him well.
It's really pathetic.
Hartal, I can't think of one instance where you've been funny. I can say that everyone that I've read on this blog, even YC, has made me laugh at least once. You're just not funny. Trying to convince people that you are only suggests that you aren't. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that humor is a sign of intelligence.
For some reason, you equate the ability to quote scholars and offer your own boring conclusions with intelligence. It is not. It just means you're trying as hard as you can to validate yourself.
How many times do you have to be told that you don't have to prove your worth? Just learn be yourself--no one will mind. Honesty is always far more appealing than a put on.Trust me. And, believe it or not, this is not an assault, I'm actually giving you friendly advice.
I honestly think he's insane. Led the argument for Obama? Took down PC Reece? Humiliated Twinfan? Yes, that's it. It's all in his own mind.Next he'll claim his "campaigning" was responsible for the win. Delusions of grandeur!
One minute he admits he's Hartal, the next he's denying it all posting under the name bernardi.Now that's FUNNY!
Hartalian logic at its finest.
Good Gawd. Now I am laughing.It that what you meant by being funny, Hartal?
I was called the number one supporter of Obama by his critics (PC Reece, Kyrax and too many other deluded people whose handles I no longer remember). I did not make that up. I was also the most vocal and dogged Obama defender on LaSalle's list--didn't know that was controversial. LaSalle was calling our president an empty suit early and often. But all LaSalle is is Michael Medved tricked out a bit for a Bay Area audience. And his act is wearing thin. Did you read the hostile responses to his Moon review? The responses were unbelievably hostile. In fact I write appreciative things of his reviews.The guy is losing credibility fast.
*
Yeah PC Reece and Kyrax are fools. Their side lost the election too, and lost the Bay Area in record fashion. Twinfan took to referring to me as AlQaeda Hartal, so pathetic was his ability to actually make an argument. That's excusable for some of us, but not to me. And that was the best that their side had, that is, before the birthers took over.
*
if you want to read xootsuit and his constant insults of me, go to LaSalle's blog. Why would I reproduce them here? None of it has been erased though all my replies were expunged. These guys have no idea what a real test of intellectual strength is. Well now you can read xootsuit coming across as an eighth grader who wants to share the little writing sample about the moonlight sea shore that he conceived at the summer writers' camp that mommy and daddy sent him to get his obnoxious ass out of the house. But Ted Spe thought it was so beautifully written. I find it all rather sad.
*
Yes you don't think I have ever written anything funny. All you do is prove how utterly solipsistic you are. I have received plenty of praise from plenty of people for my wit. You just can't get yourself to read it.
No my mother in law and people like here were responsible for Obama's victory. She retired to Virginia where she worked non stop for Obama's victory.CA was not a swing state that turned the election. But many of us in the Bay Area did a great job in making this place a cash cow for Obama. Obama's victory belongs to us and the energy that we brought. By the way when I was in college the Republican club would not agree to a debate if I was on the other side. They knew that I had won state and national championships and did not want to be embarrassed. But now with the internet they can't hide. All they can do is expunge. And that is not going to work.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
I'm sure that's the effect that you have on everyone else that that doesn't fall for your bullying tactics.But keep telling everyone how important you are, I'm sure you'll convince the doctor's when your wife finally has you committed to a padded cell all wrapped up nice and tight in a straight jacket.
You know Hartal, one day you're gonna piss off the wrong person and get whacked upside your head good. But don't listen to any of us, we're too stupid to know what we're talkin' about.
wv:pysrot
And for the record, I like both LaSalle's writing and xootsuits story harmonica story. Both writing styles are straightforward and humble...two admirable traits.
You could learn a lesson from both of those men.
Well, I had to go take a look, too. That "blues harp" thing xootsuit posted was pretty damn good. I think it was the honest, unpretentious first draft of a piece the guy has considered for a long time. I liked it.
And, of course, that little post is far superior to anything I've ever seen you exude, hartal.
Quagina, everyone here, save one, agrees that Hartal's style of writing (in English) is pretty bad, but his strength is that he chooses the right side and defends it with passion and intelligence. WTF more do you want from the guy. As you just posted, there are a lot of good writers on MSM, so many in fact, Mick doesn't even crack the top five.
YC
My style is perfectly suited for political argument and civic engagement. People read me and respond to me. And I have won a lot more debates than I have lost. Moreover, I am not trying to be a wannabe New Yorker fiction writer; those of you who think xootsuit approaches those standards you are sadly mistaken. His sad reminscenes from the early 70s--surfing, tides and Porsches-- are better suited for the back page of AARP magazine.
By the standards of rational democratic discussion the writing by LaSalle, TedSpe and xootsuit is abysmal(compare their writing to my response to lefty's query here about the nature of my own political arguments).
The discussion is also in the gutter at the politics blog.
Several times I have had to construct the conservative arguments for the the mouth foamers at the politics blog simply because they, like the people here, don't understand the nature of an actual argument. The people here dismiss actual argument as bad style. It's sad, but it's the state of our democracy.
Go back and see what thesis xootsuit was defending in relation to Solis' appointment or how (and with what evidence) he defended his claim that Sotomayor was acceptable on standing to sue issues. They are outrageously bad performances.
Only dsgonzale6 understands and respects the nature of actual democratic political debate.
If you don't want to learn from me, at least see how he approaches an argument, though beware of his skillful use of hedging tactics and uncanny ability to change a topic uncomfortable to him.
"The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do"
Thomas Jefferson
Though in your case, Hartal, it would be eleventy billion words.
Quagina. I hate to say it yc, you butthole, but that was funny.
Sorry, Qua
And, I can't believe I'm defending him so much, 'cause he's such a butthead and I'm sure I got kicked off his blog for calling The Event garbage, but LaSalle is a very good writer when he wants to be...I keep reading him.
there was some speculation at the time that the same Mick LaSalle who had written sensitive reviews could not be writing the garbage political commentary against Obama that was appearing on his blog. At one point LaSalle responded to the idea of preferring Obama over Gore with a threat to vomit. Sound familiar? Well there was further speculation that Mick had turned over his blog to a family member, and I think I noticed that his sister did post under the name Roman babe.
Gavone, you called yourself a Roman recently, and frequently tell us that you are a babe.
You wouldn't have any relation to Mick LaSalle, woudl you?
Hysterical, pretentious and ill-informed high school debating team members do a better job, hartal. At least their acne draws some sympathetic slack. Your narcissitic arrogance ruins any chance of sympathy for you. Also, you mischaracterize former fights. In fact, I've never seen a hint of honesty in anything you've written. I think the bottom line is this: You're wasting your time and everyone else's time with this crap of yours. And you don't seem to suspect that's the case.
You're a type of psychopath. No wonder you can't hold a job!
Can't hold a job? Really? Can't get published in major venues? Really? You think I have acne, and am ugly. How sad for me.
Or that since I have ticked off LaSalle, xootsuit, twinfan and Gavone my style must repel everyone? LaSalle and his bulldogs xootsuit and twinfan came after me on LaSalle's blog. The fry cook handled them. dsgonzale6 and I have now achieved a truce.
But here's the point. No answer from Gavone on the question that I put to her.
And another point. LaSalle won't even let me be among the thousands of commentators at SF Gate.
His pathetic excuse? I called him a thug. Why because in the course of argument he said that he was vomiting at the idea of Obama being a better Democratic nominee than Gore. That was unprofessional language. No major newspaper should allow it from its writers.
His other excuse? That I called him a liar when he used his blog to quote an anonymous source to blast the Cuban Revolution and make the charge that Che killed innocents in show trials. I then quoted evidence from Jon Anderson that the people executed were in fact guilty of crimes though I emphasized that the death penalty was not appropriate in some of the cases. Then twinfan gave as counterevidence a case that began with the admission of guilt.
The point is that it is below all professional standards to rely to an anonymous blogger to confirm CIA talking points.
LaSalle and SF Gate have fallen so far below professional standards that they may as well become the National Inquirer.
If you and xootsuit want to apologize for this, it's your own self-respect that is at stake.
Ya, that's exactly the case. I'm his twin sister (can't you see the strong physical resemblance and even the way we use the same phrases and words?)--we were separated at birth and two years ago crashed back into each other like two concrete blocks on his blog. He banished me,though, after I told him The Event sucked and that he should start all over again--you know how he hates criticism--although he really didn't banish me. I write to him secretly via e-mail and he answers back in secret code on his blog and in movie reviews--that's how we communicate.All his writing is colored by it. I you were as genius as you claim, you could read between the lines. It's all there--in black and white and red all over.
And, pssst...all people of Roman descent are related somehow. Go figure.
It's all a ruse, really. He lets me fill in all the time.I even get paid to do it.It all began when he gave me his top-secret e-mail...that's when the negotiations began...I think he thought I had something really important to reveal to the world. I'm a visionary, you know. A literal saint with a direct line to The Divine.
BOO!
wv:gambu
OK so then Mick LaSalle is himself responsible for the vomit comment and the unprofessional use of anonymous bloggers as evidence for hugely controversial claims. Too bad for him. And too bad for SF Gate.
I'm looking into my crystals, Hartal. Here's what I see:
No good will come of you harassing LaSalle any further. Let it go.
wv:linctra
Challenging the claims of a provocative journalist and insisting that he maintains professional standards in the regional paper of record is, in no sane world, harassment. I have never harassed anyone. We have exchanged two emails privately--that's it. LaSalle is mis-using the charge of harassment to silence intelligent dissent from a minority point of view. It's that simple. And that he has been successful just shows how low the standards have sunk at SF Gate. If you want to apologize for his behavior, it just means that you don't have democracy in your bones.
Trying to voice your abusive opinion repeatedly on a blog after you've been kicked off by the owner constitutes harassment in my book. Any sane person can see that.
Question for you. What do you have to gain by doing it? That's the real mystery.
And I'd defend anyone in that position, not just LaSalle.
wv: tratone. Italian for sees the truth in tones. Today's entry is for you.
My opinion is not abusive. Threatening to wretch and relying on anonymous bloggers to make controversial claims are however unprofessional. As I already said, LaSalle's blog is not his living room. It's broadcast to the world with the imprimatur of the regional paper of record. It's not a private blog as this one. He makes provocative claims; he should expect criticism in a democratic society. He's a critic. How sad is that?
I have a lot to gain from getting my candidates elected, encouraging a more complex view of India, raising questions about US foreign policy and voicing my enjoyment of Michael Jackson's musical legacy. There's no mystery here at all.
Again what I don't understand is why the regional paper of record would allow LaSalle to silence criticism on a blog that appears on its webpage. It gives a strong signal that SF Gate is not interested in freedom of speech. Why is SF Gate compromising itself this to make a happy a critic who sadly and pathetically can't handle criticism?
Because they can. It's not government owned. Perhaps you do not understand the finer points of free enterprise, not being a nativist. You should start worrying if the Chronicle didn't exercise their right to show you the door and were forced to accept readers simply because a reader thought they had the right to exercise their idea of free speech.
They have the right to refuse service to anyone--including you-no matter how important you think your cause is.
If your cause is so important to you, go start your own enterprise, with your own capital. It's that simple
Excuse me. I should have said forced to accept vocal readers.
Let's say SF Gate has the right to do it. It's still not in the interest of its reputation and hence its business to silence free speech on its website to ease the nerves of a critic who can't take criticism.
Will be out of touch. You can go back to talking to yourself for the rest of the day, Gavone.
And you wanna know what's so funny about the Chron and it's employees?
Most of them are all for Big Government and Socialism, yet they have no problem being employed by one Big Ol'Capitalist named Hearst.
Their very survival depends on a system they loath. Ironic?
"I have a lot to gain from . . . voicing my enjoyment of Michael Jackson's musical legacy."
Yeah, we know. I'll bet you'll be a hoot a PTA meetings.
That's probably why he's so dead-set on posting on SFGate...the PTA won't let the Hindenburg fly around any more.
I'm beginning to wonder if he's not some kinda insider Chron joke...no one could be that obtuse, right? Not even me.
I just want to be able to have a reasonable online discussion about a topic with someone without it becoming an insultfest or a demonization of the other person if we disagree. I've been trying really hard lately to avoid insultfests and demonizations; with a couple of notable lapses, I would say that this has been my approach to online discussions since I first began engaging in them lo those many years ago. That's all I really want to say about this subject.
We're playing the reunion gig this weekend. Then we're taking a break for a week. After that, we'll see how things go with this group, it's been having its pluses and minuses for me. I will say that we've been sounding pretty good, especially since the new singer has come onboard and opened up whole new song genres to do--Ron has always been very adamant about not doing songs where our singing would suffer greatly by comparison to the original, and so it wasn't until we got this new singer that we even attempted any classic R&B or vocal-driven rock, and it has been liberating to stretch out into those areas. Ron may even let us do some of his old band's songs, which he has been loath for us to attempt because their singer was so good, notwithstanding his personality deficits.
Post-modernism--it's the future in the arts. Most Boomers need to get on board
Time for a new approach that's relevant to modern society.
wv:catose
I'm curious--who's a boomer here? What age group are we calling boomers these days?
The United States Census Bureau defines the demographic birth boom as between 1946 and 1964.
Christ, dsg. You have to ask?
You oughtta be asking what postmodernism is.
I have a legal question for the lawyers. (I'm sure hartal will weigh in, too. But whadda you gonna do?) Anyway, a jury in Mass. just awarded nearly $700,000 to the RIAA for the music file sharing of a Harvard PhD student. Here's a story. (Be sure to check out some of the links in the story.)
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/146827
Now, it turns out that the genius's lawyer is a Harvard law professor, who deliberately violated a court order against tape recording court events. I guess the order also said no recordings could be published. (Apparently, the professor had a conference call with the judge while he was in class with 20 students listening in. And he recorded it and published it and other stuff on his blog or something.)
All of this appears to be a well orchestrated publicity stunt designed to highlight the absurdity of copyright law. (In fact, according to some of the links embedded in the piece I pasted up there, the PhD student lied at his deposition and then freely changed his testimony at his trial. I bet he was begging the jury to slam him with a huge fine he couldn't pay.)
So, my legal question: Should the Harvard law professor get disbarred or punished for his assault on the law and the court and so forth?
My question to you, Gina, is what's your point? I think I know which portions of your posts I find pertinent or interesting.
You were pissing and moaning something.
I was giving you some free advice.
You don't have to take it.
Your comment seemed like a nonsequitur. I plucked from it what little of interest I could.
"Should the Harvard law professor get disbarred or punished for his assault on the law and the court and so forth?"
The judge in this case has threatened to sanction the law professor unless he can come up with a good reason for doing what he did
So the law professor will have to pay money? What about punishment for an ethics violation, suspension or something?
"I just want to be able to have a reasonable online discussion about a topic with someone without it becoming an insultfest or a demonization of the other person if we disagree. I've been trying really hard lately to avoid insultfests and demonizations;"
Somehow, dsg, this just does not ring true.
Gina, that's your opinion, and you're free to hold it.
qua, do you know whether the professor is licensed to practice law? The facts you recited didn't say anything about it, and law professors aren't necessarily practicing lawyers.
Which opinion?
I have lots of them.
wv:pylsy
The law professor represented the guy at the trial, I believe.
Postmodernism means a lot of different things. Here's just a very quick ramble before I get to work.
Skepticism about our cognitive capacities. Perhaps healthy skepticism. Questions about the nature of representation. Certainly doubts that our representations are merely mirrors of an independently exiting reality. The end of metanarratives or grand philosophies of history (for example the Marxist story of primitive communism to ancient slavery to feudalism to capitalism to socialism). Doubts about the possibility of Truth and Objectivity and Originality and Meaning with capital letters. The living with the dissolution of a unitary identity and the dispersion of the self over multiple, perhaps even contradictory, identities. Recognition of parallax views or paradox. E.g. individuals are separate entities and individuals are inseparable. Both statements are true. You have to choose. Choice is inescapable.
Yes he did, qua
Did you forget to take your meds this morning, Hartal?
He'll probably get sanctioned. He does seem to be a well-respected and intelligent fellow; he can probably get away with arguing that he's pushing for a change in the law, but that's subjective. Without knowing more about the discrepancies between deposition and trial, I can't say whether it's suborning perjury, but it seems wrong.
Gina, you're free to hold all of your opinions. I'm free to disagree with them. You are free to think I'm not trying to keep things from devolving into personal attacks and demonization, but I disagree with that view.
You're hopeless, Roman babe.
Hopeless? Nonsense. I'd have committed suicide months ago if that were the case.
Cynical, maybe.
And I've never called myself a babe.
The part I really don't understand is the judge is threatening to sanction the defendant as well for his attorney's actions
Ted, that might be due to the defendant's changed deposition testimony.
Let's take concrete examples. I should not have assumed that you knew what you are talking about when you typed the word postmodernism.
Warhol's soup cans. How to make sense of them? perhaps as a recognition that art had already been appropriated by the commodity (the packaging of products already is art), so now art is a copy of the packaging that had already appropriated art. Everything is in the service of the circulation of commodities, and that is openly recognized. This could be one way of making sense of postmodernism.
Postmodernism linked to a kind of cynicism. But how to make sense of Warhol? Tough question.
Or another example. Think of Hausmann's neo-classical architecture which is supposed to inspire a sense of awe and reverence. But now Greek colonates are mass produced and circulated. They are part of McManions everywhere. Classical forms lose their meaning in the postmodern age. Because they are open to appropriation, they no longer have the same meaning.
Or think of the personality. THe personality required to succeed as a lifer in a big stable corporation is quite different than the chameleon type that can only survive by finding continuously new points of entries into networks. The new personality can be called postmodern.
Hope that you see this is an improvement on what you are offering. But don't expect any thanks. Just more insults from you.
Postmodernism is the natural evolution of modernism. Warhol was a modernist. If I were to take his images and appropriate them into my own work, apply layer upon layer of meaning and images--as a reflection of my current surroundings--that would be making sense of Warhol.
Why should I thank you?
I just finished a course in 20th century art. It cost me a shitload of money. I'll thank myself and my instructor, thanks.
But Warhol took the images of the soup cans and gave a new layer of meaning to it. So by *your* implicit definition of postmodernism, he is a postmodernist. Your statement is not coherent. Didi you pass that course?
Compare Warhol's sparkly shoes to Van Gogh's shoes.Can we understand the modernism/postmodernism distinction by this comparison. What did your art prof say about that? Did he draw from Jameson?
Postmodernism would take that thought even farther. It reflects our environment and the way we're bombarded with information. It incorporates all of this information and tries to make it meaningful.
That's part of how art functions--as a way to record history. You know about that part, right? If I were to copy Warhol without adding any new information, the work would be irrelevant.
That was my point to dsg...if you're unhappy with what you're creating, make it relevant. He didn't get, though. He was too busy insulting me and being argumentative.
Here is Jameson's famous comparison. I haven't read it in twenty years. Perhaps you'll give it a read before I get back from work. Or maybe you read it in the course that you just failed.
http://tiny.cc/sg0yD
Making all information meaningful? Postmodernism is liked to making everything meaningful whatever you mean by meaningful. Really? Could you elaborate? Can't follow you. And don't get your Warhol point either.
Postmodernism could be linked to a recognition that the world is fundamentally composed of communication, signals and meaning, not inert objects in mechanical or billiard ball causal relations with each other. That is, postmodernism could be linked to a semiotic view of reality rather than a mechanical materialist world. That is, the world is all text and discourse, not matter.
Oh lordy. Fredric Jameson! Now, Gina, there's some stuff worth reading. Ignore hartal, but check out that piece he linked up.
I know a guy who pursued his PhD at UC San Diego because Marcuse and Jameson were there. Many funny stories. When Marcuse died and Jameson left, the student dropped out and made his living playing poker.
I checked it out, thanks.
That's the problem with non-artists trying to explain art--they turn it into the most boring shit imaginable.
For my impression of postmoerdernism look at my blog entry for today. I'll explain it.
That's a picture of something I asembled. Rag rugs I bought at the dollar store. I loved the colors--they remind me of Van Gogh and German expressionism.They came from some sweatshop in India and are made from discarded American clothing. I bought several of them. Pieced them together, photographed them, put the image into a photo program and created something entirely new. It's a new American flag. Get it?
Gina, let me clarify the comment that provoked your response. I am not having any issues with the music we're playing, in fact, I'm liking it more and more now that we have a singer with a voice that allows us a bigger range of styles. The pluses and minuses I mentioned referred to concerns I have with the band generally relating to personality issues.
See, dsg. I knew you could explain yourself succinctly if you tried hard enough.
Jefferson would be proud of you. Now if we could only make Hartal understand the concept...
"[W]e'll see how things go with this group, it's been having its pluses and minuses for me. I will say that we've been sounding pretty good, especially since the new singer has come onboard and opened up whole new song genres to do....it has been liberating to stretch out into those areas."
I'm happy to clarify, but it seemed pretty clear to me that I wasn't having any issues with the music we're playing.
I've never claimed to be a writer, but this is what I would have written:
My band sucks. We sound like a bunch of aging baby boomers trying to recapture our youth. I'm seriously thinkin' we sound like old douchbags. Really, I think people laugh at us. But I do it anyway...'cause being a douch can be kinda fun.
We have a new singer. He's crap, but I don't wanna tell him that 'cause we need someone to sing. Really, though, he's a pompous ass that thinks he's much better than he really is. Really.
Can't handle a little constructive criticism? The sting of personal failure makes you want to lash out and try to hurt someone? Let the anger go, Gina, you'll be happier.
I love pissing you off, dsg. You deserve it.
And, I always consider my source when considering criticism.
I mean, dear, there was more than a kernal of truth in that classic Gavone piece, right?
You just go on thinking that if it makes you happy, Gina. I'll check back later to see if your happiness is showing.
Of course, sweetheart.
I can't be too miserable--I'm laughing right now--that was funny--admit it!
Suuuuuure.
It was too, funny. I'll bet that if you were in touch with your inner-man, you'd be laughing.
You just need to adjust your perspective, that's all.
quality, we are supposed to believe that you appreciate Jameson because you lost at poker to someone who studied with him forty years ago? Why do you do this kind of thing. Whom is it supposed to impress? Qua, don't you see that your name dropping does not make you any less a one dimensional man.
Now as for you Gavone, why don't you take a deep breath and get back to us after you have passed that course or produced a work of art considered interesting by something other than your own inner eyeball. The playing with pastel colors is getting really boring (the American flag made out of sweatshop materials is the kind of thing that a moralistic freshman would produce). The Rose tattoo picture almost worked for me only because it made me think of Gilliam's Brazil.
Those aren't pastels--they're saturated ones.
You have a fine knowledge of art, I can tell.
yes your one note of saturated colors is getting really boring.
Do you think I care what you think?
I mean, your opinion is really gonna influence my work and how I
interpret things.
Just like you're no movie critic, you're no art critic, either.
I'm being suggestive, dimwit. I am, how you say, conversant with Jameson. Why do you think posting idiotic crap about "post modernism" along with a link to Jameson makes you look smart? You had nothing but the link you fraud.
here's your quiz, queless: what does "Jameson's dog" mean?
wv: dicing. what I'm doing to you you piece of tripe.
I don't remember what his dog means. You're still a one dimensional man.
Looks like you used both saturated and pastels in a recent work, Gavone.
You're free to elevate the discussion if you can get yourself out of the gutter. I just wish I could name drop as you so effortlessly do.
You can compare my message of 224 pm today with what quality has to offer. He calls me a fraud but what does he offer?
Okay. What does "Jameson's dog" mean? I tried to google it and all I got was:
What kind of dog is jenna jameson's? Answer It's a rough coat red Brussels Griffon, I have this breed and his name is Bling
Qua offers consistently what you don't--honesty.To be honest is a form of intellectual intelligence.
What will it take to get you over this deep-seated desire to prove yourself by showing your intellectual prowess?
True intelligence is measured in many different ways.
Not that big a deal. Ivory tower horsehit. But anyone who'd really studied Jameson would know this. Back when universities started bidding against each other to land big names (remember Stanley Fish? flap flop), Duke lured Jameson with huge pots of money AND an offer to his wife. Leftists (Jameson is a marxist critic) were outraged and then other leftisist were outraged that anyone would object to such a tony version of affirmative action. The former group circulated a joke: If necessary, Duke would've offered a job to Jameson's dog.
hartal, as an intense harvard grad student poring over Jameson's texts surely would have heard the joke. Unless . . . .
Interesting, Qua, thanks.
I just wish I were an intellectual so I could wade through that meaty tone.
Or is that tome?
Perhaps that's the difference here--our sense of significance.
Now that some time has passed....
I actually think some of your work is really very visually interesting, and the play with colors is often quite effective.
I just went after you because you were so mean in making fun of dsgonzale6's music.
Thought it was only fair that you received a bit of your medicine.
Now this is an interesting coincidence. The only thing we all seem to agree on is that Gina shows talent with the camera. Always some nice shots on her blog.
From an artist's perspective postmodernism is just a curse. You necessarily are there. Deal with it. What does that mean, in practical terms? Everything is disposable or at least easily replaceable. Art objects no longer command respect. Technique has become subservient to technology and multiplicity dominates. (So many people are writing right now at least one other person has to be typing exactly the same words I am typing here. I used to think this was a clever thought until I saw someone else say essentially the same thing on a sfgate blog.)
But if you love taking photos or playing music or writing -- you do it. Fuck the futility.
I really wouldn't worry about it. No one will ever be a doltish blowhard in the same way that you are.
Hartal, thank you. I wasn't making fun of his music, as I've never heard it. I was summarizing what I thought were his true feelings. My take on his words. Harmless, really.
Thank you Qua, I think. But,my only talent????
I have others, they're just not visible...yet.
Why is postmodernism such a curse? I like it.It's only a curse if you can't adapt to the methods.
I finally found my niche. I plan on only getting better with time and some training.
And, I beg to differ. Not everything is disposable or replaceable.
Somethings go on forever and ever...
And I remember that same entry. I never forget anything important.
wv:sillyv
bernardi, I appreciate your noticing that Gina's comment was mean to me. Beyond that, please don't feel you have to take any action on my behalf, I would prefer that people not try to take karma (or justice, or whatever one calls it) into their own hands.
While Gina doesn't think that my desire to try to avoid letting disagreements devolve into demonizations or insultfests rings true, I have a sincere wish to avoid that kind of atmosphere, even as I sometimes am unable to resist the pleasure of an insult that, stilletto-like, hits its target precisely. People may think I'm FOS, and they're entitled to their own opinions, but this is how I sincerely feel, and it's how I'm trying to behave.
BTW, Gina, I took a look at your blog again last week, and saw some of the goat photos you posted in reference to me, which seemed to be the earliest ones I could access on your blog. In a strange way, I felt special that you focused your attention on me in that way, mainly because I feel an odd affinity to goats. It was not for nothing that I used a goat as my avatar for a while.
In fact, my significant other occasionally calls me a goat, jokingly, because of a little tic that I exhibit when we're talking. Sometimes I will respond to something she says with a "no" that I speak in a joking manner--imagine saying "no" and "ha ha ha" at the same time, which produces a sound reminiscent of a goat's. It sounds strange on paper, apparently it's more charming in person.
wv: clamm
It appears that hartal has created yet another screen name so that he can continue his sole occupation: stalking MLS. This must be a man-crush for the ages! I believe the word is: pathetic.
I happen to love goats. They are quite charming beasts;intelligent, full of curiosity, and very funny once you understand their true nature.
which one, ai?
He's learning to change his tone--like a chameleon.
And if it's true, he's just nuts. Plain and simple. Why anyone would fall in love with a little, obnoxious, overly-sensitive bald man is beyond my understanding.Unless he's hot in bed or somethin'.
I don't have access to SF Gate anymore. So I can't be one of the thousands of commentators there.
My daughter was astonished to watch the goats head butt for control at a farm. That's the reason why you identify with the goat, dsgonzale6!
They're true buttheads, Hartal.
That's what inspired me to post that picture. Dsg is a butthead.
On a different note, not to insult all of you bald-headed men out there, but even though I've never had a bald-headed lover, I'm sure if I ever did, I'd want to rub warm oil all over his bald head.
Besides, my grandfather, who just turned 103! has been bald for most of his adult life. He is one of the finest men I've ever known, and much loved. Despite his baldness.
wv:testie
headbutter does not equal butthead.
Head butter? That's something you put on baldheaded men, right?
headbutter does not equal butthead. I said, headbutter does not equal butthead. Didn't you hear me, I said, headbutter does not equal butthead.
Beavis, you're flat out insane.
I have a quastion for you, Qua. How does Ted know just what type of class MLS's friend will be teaching?
Someone named laxim dug up and old review from 2007 and said it'd be a great watch.
Did you know lefties see things all backwards like?
I guess you were talking to yourself there, qua. I however was just clarifying that I was not calling dsgonzale6 a butthead. In fact, I was playfully suggesting that some of our previous debates could be likened to head butting contests to establish male dominance rather than rigorous dialogical and argumentative pursuit of the truth (though I still do think I had a point about many undocumented workers being unable and unwilling to leave in this recession--I would like Tyche Hendriks to look at the estimates of the numbers of undocumenteds working two years ago in, say the building industries and those estimates today and then tell us where the probable million or so workers are right now--in lines outside Home Depot, living ten to an apartment outside of Anaheim, or back in Mexico..and how are the kids born to undocumenteds doing?).
Well, still the joke was on both of us. I think it's low comprehension skills that keep you in the agitated state that you are in. Just take more time to entertain alternative interpretations and reflect a little. Only through the peaceful and open mind will truth travel.
Let's see, what did qua offer to this discussion of postmodernism yesterday--shouts that I am frigging fraud, mention of someone who knew someone 40 years ago, and gossip about someone's pay package. Nothing about the waning of affect or depthlessness in postmodernism. Or the dissolution of high and low art boundaries in say the work of Philip Glass. Nothing. Nothing interesting at all to say. But there was always room to elevate the discussion; instead what we got is what I listed above.
How does a mind get reduced to this state? Please tell us.
hartal, you posted some pretentious incomprehensible gibberish about postmodernism the other day and then stupidly offered a link to Jameson's most accessible essay. The comparison, between your fraudulent horseshit and the real deal was perfect. You are a complete and utter failure. You do nothing but dump crap on blogs. And the blogs, one by one, boot you off.
Disgusting POS, hartal. Disgusting.
And who uses that kind of language. And who are you to judge that what I wrote was gibberish. Or incomprehensible. You didn't understand what I wrote about Warhol or neo classical architecture or the new kind of personality favored by network society. I feel sorry for your poor comprehension skiills.
Granted the things I said about the nature, certainty and security of our knowledge may be a bit tough going. But those are some basic epistemological ideas from postmodernism. I mean basic. Like freshman level basic.
You just don't enough to judge.
And you have shown no real understanding of the real deal--Jameson. But why do that you lost to someone who poker who took a class with 40 years ago and who knew some gossip about his pay package. I'll say it again--you're a one dimensional man.
You said you're conversant with Jameson. i would love to hear how he uses his theory of narrative or semiotics to characterize postmodernism. Tell me how about his theory of time consciousness.
tell me something interesting other than the crap that you are dumping all the time on this blog.
Do you have anything to say?
I'll look at your comments tomorrow Long day at work. Can hardly keep my eyes open. Good night. Just stop calling people POS. And I would be happy to hear more than I know about postmodernism. Why not focus on that rather than abusing me in the ugliest fashion? Good night again.
I found each of your goat references to be amusing, for different reasons. Headbutting for dominance in the barnyard seems like an apt analogy, and I accept it in the amicable spirit offered. And calling me a butthead--well, let's just say that I'm not unfamiliar with the experience of being called that name by females. I'm not the smoothest fellow in the world, but I do have my good points.
Yes, dsg, I'm sure you do--when you're not being a butthead.
hartal, why do you keep tossing around the term "semiotics"? Jameson's marxism was post-structuralist. To discuss "time consciousness" and the diachronic/synchronic you need to know about the development of those ideas in European philosophy before Jameson. To understand reificiation and the use of the dialectical method outside of vulgar marxism you need to understand the great marxists who preceded Jameson, Lukacs in particular, although a well-known book about Jameson focuses on Althusser. Now -- do you see how stupid such pseudo-scholarship is? Why try to bullshit about all of that here?
Or to put it more bluntly: How does anything Jameson ever wrote have bearing on the lives of the people who post here? Answer that question, simply, directly, and you'll be getting somewhere. (Try to make the writing zip a bit, too. Ok?)
bottom line. The long-winded headbutting is boring.
From that famous article on postmodernism I remember Jameson saying something about how Body Heat was impossible to locate as the images seem to collapse the 1930s and the 1980s. If I remember correctly, he used this as an example of how postmodernism represented a loss of historical consciousness and historical direction.
The well known book is by Dowling, and he focuses on how Jameson took the new concept of causality from Althusser to weaken the vulgar Marxist idea that the economy simply determines or causes culture. Dowling also focuses on Jameson's theory of narrative as a Kantian a priori category: that is, we bring narrative form to our experience; we organize experience in terms of narrative.
Dowling does not say much about Lukacs if I remember correctly but about Marx, Althusser and Jameson.
IYouhave a very superficial understanding of these things.
You are not conversant.
Off to work. Respond this evening.
All these "isms" make it too complicated. I know what I like, isn't that enough? ;)
wv: mackshel
I concur, counselor. My brain hurts.
I suppose that's the difference between those that practice the arts and those that observe them?
Not that I don't think you're the smartest man in the world, Qua. Because you are. And I love you for it.
Oh cmon your brain does not hurt from thinking about Warhol's soup cans (why make a product advertisement the object of art?), the meaning of neo classical architecture in the age of McMansions, the difference between or the collapse of the distinction between high and low art, the detemporalization implicit in a movie that does not allow you to locate it in history (Body Heat), the change in the personality required of a lifer working his way up a stable corporate hierarchy and a networker having to find new connections.
I was trying to move away from an an academic or abstruse discussion of postmodernism by giving those examples.
Compare that to qua who throws around the words "reification" (how do you compare it fetishism, and what is reified), dialectical method (is it a logical method for the presentation and ordering of categories or an attempt to grasp in thought the nature of the world as incessantly changing due to the internal contradictions of things themselves?), and the distinction of synchronic/diachronic (which really derived from Levi Strauss' anthropology not European philosophical ideas about time consciousness from Hegel to Bergson's durée, this last idea being about the time that we experience or the lived experience of time is different from the objective, homogeneous time of a clock).
The point is that qua throws around these words without understanding them, and he makes no attempt to explain himself. He's not a generous intellect. His goal is to have him cower before you as someone smart. But I am not impressed.
I understand that you are, gavone.
I love him. I'm sure he wears a great big hat to fit his giant intellect. So there.
And, my brain does too hurt. I'm writing a term paper comparing Jackson Pollack and Grant Wood.
Long after American Gothic, Grant Wood became a "camoflageur" for the U.S. Military. So he and Pollock have that in common, for starters... ;-)
wv: nardica
The love of camouflage, that is...
Whatever are you talking, Mr. Tiger?
Camoflaguer...that's French!
About. Whatever are you talking about?
I was laughing and not writing right again. Sorry.
Just trying to help you with your paper. And failing, I see... :) Carry on...
Up through the 90s, whenever a celebrated post-modern theorist visited UCB and agreed to deliver some sort of open talk, the hall would fill to overflowing with all sorts of off-campus folks. And within those audiences there would always be some crank who would stand up during the Q/A session at the end who deliver a speech of his or her own and then end it with a question mark. It might be the local leader of an all-white black-supremacist Maoist splinter group, or a would-be mystic with a vision for reconciling all opposites, or just some dilettante who wanted to toss around some terms he'd gleaned while scanning books he never actually read.
Those speeches don't occur so much any more. Now people like hartal have the internet.
I thought you said that you were a student at UCB in the early 70s. And who is this postmodern theorist that made multiple visits to UCB? And why don't you elevate the discussion by presenting a critical summary of that person's ideas?
And no Gavone the smartest person on earth would not hide behind pseudonyms due to to embarrassment over what was written and defended under different handles.
Now there are many form of dialectics--logical (the way to present a theory so that categories come logically out of the insufficiency of earlier ones), ontological (a theory about how and why the ever dynamic natural and social world is changing, sometimes by leaps and even in revolutionary ways due to struggles and antagonisms), and historical (for Lukács, this meant that consciousness had to become aware of the limits of a historical form, and be organized by a Leninist party for revolutionary change; for Lukacs dialectics was necessarily only part of human history and tied to Party building--his vision of Marxism has little resonance today).
But note the difference between what I am offering and the insults that the blowhard offers.
Thank you, WT, laughter is always good for what ails me...and appreciated. I just submitted the brilliant piece. Ah, the beauty of online learning.
And Hartal. I do not care that Qua has a pseudonym--it doesn't matter, he could have any name--he is the Man of The Ages.
There have been many different celebrated post-modernist theorists who have visited UCB over the years, oh dilettantish one.
Wow! And here it is that I thought he was some dilettante who wanted to toss around some terms he'd gleaned while scanning books he never actually read (as he recognized about himself as he displaced the anxiety onto me).
And which one(s) are you talking about? Again you are free to elevate the discussion.
Well thank god you protected yourself with another pseudonym or you protected another handle you are using by not using it here in debate with me. That was the intention of the qua name--cowardly self-protection. And only in this choice have you shown any intelligence.
Dinner time. Take the time to figure out what you can do to elevate the discussion.
oh, lordy, what POS webpage did you get that reactionary description of Lukacs off of? Read Jameson on Lukacs, dilettante, if you want to understand the development to the present. You might start with Marxism and Form and work forward. As to the marxist dialectic, you display utter ignorance. Jameson can help you understand that, too. But of course you don't want to understand. You just want to spout.
dilettante, you do understand that I'm only trying to help you. right?
Lukacs mansucript defending History and Class Consciousness was recently found; I merely repeated what he said in the that defense. The dialectic as he understands it is necessarily tied to the Leninist party. But why don't you tell us what you want to defend from Lukacs? His theory about how rationallity is limited and perverted by the so called bourgeois relations of production? His attempt to explain sociologically what he calls the antinomies of bourgeois thought. Say something for God's sake. Stop dropping names. Develop an idea if you can. You can't. And you have proven that over and over.
Did I miss your description of the marxist dialectic. You have not said a word. Is it logical, ontological, historical or something else. Why can't you say anything? Oh yes I get it. I understand the game. You come to recognition of your own limits by accusing me of the things that you fear most about yourself.
hyperbolic geometry (also called Lobachevskian geometry or Bolyai-Lobachevskian geometry) is a non-Euclidean geometry, meaning that the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry is replaced. The parallel postulate in Euclidean geometry is equivalent to the statement that, in two dimensional space, for any given line l and point P not on l, there is exactly one line through P that does not intersect l; i.e., that is parallel to l. In hyperbolic geometry there are at least two distinct lines through P which do not intersect l, so the parallel postulate is false. Models have been constructed within Euclidean geometry that obey the axioms of hyperbolic geometry, thus proving that the parallel postulate is independent of the other postulates of Euclid.
Because there is no precise hyperbolic analogue to Euclidean parallel lines, the hyperbolic use of parallel and related terms varies among writers. In this article, the two limiting lines are called asymptotic and lines sharing a common perpendicular are called ultraparallel; the simple word parallel may apply to both.
A characteristic property of hyperbolic geometry is that the angles of a triangle add to less than a straight angle (half circle). In the limit as the vertices go to infinity, there are even ideal hyperbolic triangles in which all three angles are 0°.
I had to laugh at this one.
wv:redship
Well yes non Euclidean geometry which showed the conventionality of our ideas of space paved the way to Einstein's revolution. So yes you are on to something important.
But let's get this straight. Qua or xoot or twinfan or whoever he is is telling us that he is a conversant Marxism; he's protecting the Stalinist against the accurate charge that he was an enthusiastic Leninist. I am not a Marxist, and I gave my reasons in the discussion of Che. But this qua character appears to be, though as he has already admitted he understands to litte of Marx's economic work on which he spent most of his life.
So my question why is this Marxist defending Mick LaSalle who is fiercely anti Marxist and why is Gavone, an open right wing Catholic, defending qua?
Is this just a matter of the power that I have to inspire surprising and unnatural alliances?
Sorry garbled. Bath time. I gotta get out of here.
Didn't I tell you we were twins separated at birth?
You dope.
"So my question why is this Marxist defending Mick LaSalle who is fiercely anti Marxist and why is Gavone, an open right wing Catholic, defending qua?"
We all have other things in common. One of which is contempt for you.
You don't "develop ideas," you pretend to do so. The stuff you're prattling on about is infintely more complex and interesting than your dilettantish approach can appreciate. Anyone interested in such matters will want to go to the source, not to you.
Man, are you hard to help.
Who is stopping you from giving us just a glimpse at the complexity that you claim to understand so well? You suggest that you have gone to the sources--Lukacs, Jameson and Marx (though didn't you admit that you couldn't concentrate your mind to get through his major work as if that came as a surprise?) At any rate, share with us what you learned. No one is stopping you. You said you are conversant with Jameson and, I suppose, Marx and Lukacs. So go for it.
And Gavone are you saying that the person you consider to be the smartest in the world has gone over to what you would consider the dark side, i.e. Marxism.
And did qua ever answer the question of the postmodernists at Cal about whom he was speaking.
Here Scaredy Cat qua is something that may jog your memory about the little Marx or theory that you ever understood.
Make sure to play the video
http://tiny.cc/xPogH
I never said I am a marxist. I simply have studied critical theory. In any event, if you think academics critics who apply marxist theory are necessarily socialists or communists, you're even less worldly than I thought.
And where did you get the idea that I haven't read Marx? Hell, I have the damn Grundrisse right here on the shelf on which I put my vodka/tonic as I settled in to watch tv. Night all.
OK so you're a critical theorist (the early Frankfurt School's euphemism for Marxism as it tried to survive as it fled Nazi Germany unless you are of course a second or third generation critical theorist--that still makes you a leftist) and Gavone the right wing Catholic thinks you are the smartest person on earth.
But heck let's hear about the Grundrisse? What's your favorite part? Pre capitalist formations, the critique of Proudhon and Darimon, the visionary analysis of automation.
Please say something concrete. You just keep confirming, post after post, that you are a blow hard.
One of the qua had said that he could not get through Capital. But it seems that you haven't read that either.
He's the Quatessential Man.
I like that one.
Post a Comment