The Couch

quirk analysis

Comments on quirk analysis

henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#51 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/21/09 - 11:43 AM:

"if you think your dissections are never wrong, then you're wrong"

Please: read post #51...again.


"if you think you haven't been unfair at all in this thread, then i don't have anything more to say to you."

Then: there should be no further response from you... wink


If you like, however, you can read this thread again and tell me where I've been 'unfair'.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#52 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/21/09 - 12:38 PM:

quite frankly, i feel like i'm wasting my time trying to explain why i think you're being unfair, because you have yet to acknowledge at all in this thread whenever i have made a valid point. you asked for an example of where you expressed in this forum that you were interested in only taking and not giving. at your request, i cited the example that had given me the impression, and furthermore gave you the opportunity to set the record straight if i had gotten the wrong impression. rather than setting the record straight, you made these unfair remarks:

quirk wrote:
The moral: I need to remain aware that some folks I deal with here are willing to dis-embed a single comment from a single, dis-embedded, post and use that single comment as an indictment of the whole of 'me'.

It seems I'm in the minority in trying to keep any one participant's posts within the context of the participant's history of posting.

of course, by "some folks" you mean me, specifically. and what is unfair is that you decided to completely ignore that i acknowledged that i could have had the wrong impression. what is also unfair is this quote:

quirk wrote:
I must remember: aphorism, yes; dissection, no.

i have to assume you already know this is an unfair assessment, as indicated by your wink afterward. your comment of course suggests - unfairly - that any kind of dissection on your part is going to be ill-received.

the only reason i'm taking the time to address your question of where you have been unfair is not because i think you don't know, because i think you already do. you've been winking far too much for someone who is ignorant in earnest. i'm taking the time a) because i can and b) for the sake of anyone else who might be reading the thread.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#53 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/21/09 - 1:47 PM:

"quite frankly, i feel like i'm wasting my time trying to explain why i think you're being unfair"


Then: just stop.

#

"you have yet to acknowledge at all in this thread whenever i have made a valid point"


Perhaps I didn't acknowledge a valid point because there was none, as I see it, to acknowledge.

I could say the same, you know: I've made valid points throughout the forum that went unacknowledged. In fact I pointed that out to you somewhere and was told that you agree with a great many of my points (and saw no reason to acknowledge them) and, where we disagreed, you saw no reason in discussing the differences because I present myself with such certainty.

From my perspective: it seems you want capitulation, not acknowledgment.

And: capitulate I will...when I'm refuted.

You may disagree: but I don't think you've done that yet.

And you may never, at least as far as it applies to this thread and this topic.

Why?

Because, bottom line, what you and me seem to be disagreeing on is a matter of style and not 'fact'.

You dislike my style of presentation (my winks and shrugs and unpalatable notions and egoism and so forth and so on).

Your error is to apply a style book to me when none exists (perhaps someone should write one?)

#

"you asked for an example of where you expressed in this forum that you were interested in only taking and not giving. at your request, i cited the example that had given me the impression, and furthermore gave you the opportunity to set the record straight if i had gotten the wrong impression."


As I said then: if you take all posts within this forum as a whole, it's obvious you were and are wrong.

You may not like my refutation in style or substance but I did, as I saw fit, refute you.

And: did you actually go through my post stream and read what I've written here?

If not: then what else can I say?

If you have: then you must know the charge of 'taking and not giving' is wrong-headed. Every post, every idea expressed, is 'giving' something. Whether you or anyone 'takes' is on you all, but I've held up my end of the 'contract' by participating. That you don't care for my way of participating is, again, on you.

#

"rather than setting the record straight, you made these unfair remarks:"

>The moral: I need to remain aware that some folks I deal with here are willing to dis-embed a single comment from a single, dis-embedded, post and use that single comment as an indictment of the whole of 'me'.

>It seems I'm in the minority in trying to keep any one participant's posts within the context of the participant's history of posting.


I see nothing unfair about the above. It's an accurate, if smartass, assessment of what I find here.

Your displeasure is your displeasure and your displeasure is not evidence of anything other than your offended sensibility.

#

"of course, by "some folks" you mean me, specifically. and what is unfair is that you decided to completely ignore that i acknowledged that i could have had the wrong impression."


See my comments about acknowledgments above.

#

"what is also unfair is this quote:"

>I must remember: aphorism, yes; dissection, no. wink


So: sarcasm, as form of truth-conveying humor is, forbidden now? Or only forbidden when used with certain folks?

#

"your comment of course suggests - unfairly - that any kind of dissection on your part is going to be ill-received."


So: yes, sarcasm, as truth-conveying humor, is forbidden.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#54 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/21/09 - 1:56 PM:

quirk wrote:
did you actually go through my post stream and read what I've written here?

yes, i have, several times. i don't think we're going to see eye-to-eye here, and i think i've said all i can say. take care.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#55 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 09/21/09 - 2:28 PM:

As I said back in post #45: as you will and like, liberty... wink
Zum
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 21, 2009

Total Topics: 23
Total Comments: 420
Zum
#56 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/14/09 - 10:47 AM:

don't know why you folks like to do this. some interesting points were made, though, up there somewhere. The question of uniqueness. The psychological model has it that there are traits common to all humans. Without that presupposition, psychology could not operate as a science--could not operate at all. That assumption, however, can lead to another--that if an individual does not fit the model, he or she is at fault.laughing Sometimes it follows in people's heads that he or she should be talked into being like the model. This,whether or not the individual is doing damage...

What if the model is significantly false? What if there are real, intrinsic differences between one person and the next? What if uniqueness is the only constant? What if--to get metaphorical--people are created by different and distinct deities? This would mean that perhaps Henry makes his choices in one fashion and I make mine in another. no prob, right? We could compare notes. It would be fun.

Kids uncontaminated with the view that everybody needs to be alike get into this. Dang, your toes aren't like mine. You have long, skinny toes; mine are squat. Cool.
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#57 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/14/09 - 11:39 AM:

the world would be a dull place if no one had their differences.

i don't get the impression that henry harbors any malice toward me, and i certainly don't toward him. as far as i'm concerned, henry, you're a valued member here. i'm glad to see that you've stuck around.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#58 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/14/09 - 12:15 PM:

"don't know why you folks like to do this."

Speaking only for me: it's all shits and grins.

#

"i don't get the impression that henry harbors any malice toward me"

I have no malice for anyone here, even the absent communitarian, though, I must admit, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out if he were on fire... wink

#

"henry, you're a valued member here"

Well, hell... blush
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#59 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/14/09 - 1:12 PM:

We love you henry !

*GROUP HUG*





(feeling emberassed yet? grin)
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#60 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/14/09 - 1:20 PM:

We love you henry!

*GROUP HUG*


BACK! BACK! KEEP AWAY FROM ME, YOU UTILITARIANS!

#

(feeling emberassed yet?)

Kinda, yeah... wink
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#61 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/15/09 - 8:37 AM:

This comment, by Zum...

"What if--to get metaphorical--people are created by different and distinct deities?"

...got me to thinking.


What if -- instead of people being created by different gods -- what we have today are distinct sub-species of human running around.

It's assumed that all of us are Homo Sapien.

What if this assumption is wrong.

What if, for example, I am something distinctly, physically, neurologically, different from, say, the absent communitarian?

Let's say the communitarian is, in fact, Homo Sapien while I am, say, Homo Idiosyncraticus.

The differences between us would subtle to be sure: mainly neurological, perhaps a variance of only a percent of a percent genetically. Oh, but what a big difference even a small variance can make!

It's said that the chimpanzee and the Modern Man only differ as result of a two percent variance in genetic material. Is it not possible, then, that the profound difference between, say, the communitarian and me isn't just the result of differing opinions, or of my being a sick fuck, or of his being insanely altruistic, but because, literally, he and me are of different species?

My brow does slope a bit; my knuckles do drag a bit, so... wink
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#62 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/15/09 - 9:02 AM:

i'm of the belief that there are more than one species of human running around on earth. i have no idea of how one would go about confirming or refuting that though.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#63 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/15/09 - 9:42 AM:

Dissections!

Dissections, vivisections, grand invasive procedures, conducted on suspected examples of differing species.

I'm certain, in the interest of the 'community', the absent communitarian would volunteer.

I, however, will not... wink
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#64 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/28/09 - 9:53 AM:

Trying again (nice catch with the other, Liberty!)


I believe, Yahweh, you are engaged in hypocrisy...suck it up and move on.

And: if it pops up in my private box, it's mine to do with as I like.

A tip: brevity is a virtue... wink
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#65 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 3:32 AM:

hrm.. true. If you don't make your posts short enough, people might read over some of the capitalised words. -_-

I don't like moderating. Don't make me do it again.

Edited by smokinpristiformis on 10/29/09 - 4:21 AM
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#66 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 8:58 AM:

hi smoki,

usually i let folks edit their own posts if you find one that needs moderating smiling face you can just cut & paste the whole text into a private message noting what needs to be edited & then delete the post.

thanks for the help though! smiling face
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#67 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 9:15 AM:

Question: Willem, what about Yahweh's post did you find objectionable enough to edit?

The post itself was an exercise in eyewash and mickey mouse-ism and not worth my time except for the brief response I posted.

Certainly: it's not my place to tell the owner or moderators how to do their jobs, but, I maintain, before edits, you ought to confer with the intended target of the insult.

If he or she is like me: they'll take the picayune posting like Yahweh's in stride...and respond appropriately.

In short: some here might welcome protection, but I neither need, or want, it.

Not that I don't appreciate the thought... wink

Of course: I understand how such editing is not 'for me' but for the forum as a whole.

To control the coarseness of the place is exactly why I think/thought un-restraining dust bunnies was/is a bad idea.

But certainly some balance can be struck. Again: those who feel fragile should be able to rely on the owner and moderators to 'protect'. Those who are sturdier might be allowed to have some say in the manner and degree of protection.

Just a thought...

Edited by henry quirk on 10/29/09 - 9:36 AM. Reason: changed yaweh to yahweh
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4672
#68 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 9:31 AM:

henry wrote:
Question: Willem, what about Yaweh's post did you find objectionable enough to edit?

the answer to that question should remain between smoki & yahweh. otherwise there's no point in moderating, if the moderated portion is simply going to be reproduced for everyone to read anyway. in any case, i see that smoki deleted the word "FAG" out of yahweh's post, which i had disregarded, since it was already established earlier in the thread by henry himself that yahweh had used it in a private message. thus subsequent instances referring to the incident are in my view technically excusable, since it was done privately and it was not yahweh who made it public.

henry wrote:
Certainly: it's not my place to tell the owner or moderators how to do their jobs, but, I maintain, before edits, you ought to confer with the intended target of the insult.

yes, i agree.

henry wrote:
Of course: I understand how such editing is not 'for me' but for the forum as a whole.

indeed. the purpose of moderating is to preserve a certain quality of discussion here, the discussion of art and ideas, and not of couch members and what other people think their problem is. here in this thread, you've invited people to analyze you henry, which is fine, but asking posters to show a certain degree of respect is only consistent with what is expected of everyone here.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#69 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 9:34 AM:

wink
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#70 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 12:01 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

i'm of the belief that there are more than one species of human running around on earth.

i have no idea of how one would go about confirming or refuting that though.


Genetics!

Which, if we can believe what the MSM reports, seems to indicate that we are all one brotherhood of humanity, despite topical differences. Genetically, Eve did exist, and her descendents are us!


Many groups of people, such as those who embrace the teachings of the Talmud, use this sort of idea for evil, though. For them, anyone outside of their accepted group are understood to be non-human; or, put another way, only their accepted group is fully human, and others, while appearing as humanoid, are merely animals, to be culled and controlled as far as possible.

Those folks embrace such ideology negatively, as justification for their evil deeds.

A better way to look at it is in a positive light, as diversification. Which brings up a couple of things.

First, our culture talks a lot about aliens and such, and we love Star Trek and sci-fi. But how would human beings REALLY respond to sharing the 'human bracket' with another fully intelligent, articulate, but genetically (and physically) diverse being? Talk about Coperican revolutions! As a species, we've had trouble dealing with the concept of 'equality'. I mean, the noble dolphin is probably as intelligent as we are, or more so, given their context, and look how we treat them! All because we have opposable thumbs.

Second, I saw a great program last night, The Bontany of Desire feat. Micheal Pollan, that, in one part, looked at the varieties of potatoes cultivated in the Andes. 5000 varieties!! Of every shape, size, and colour imaginable. Talk about diversity! And yet at home, because of market demand from foolish irresponsible mega-giants like McDonalds, we grow largely one type of potatoe--a monoculture, apparently learning nothing from the lessons of the Irish 150 years ago.

Anyway, more variety is good for the health of humanity long-term.

But it would be very easy and tempting for people to start drawing species-lines to ground their pride and passion.

8)
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#71 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 3:23 PM:

henry -> I see lib also gave you an answer. It is also mine.


indeed. the purpose of moderating is to preserve a certain quality of discussion here, the discussion of art and ideas, and not of couch members and what other people think their problem is. here in this thread, you've invited people to analyze you henry, which is fine, but asking posters to show a certain degree of respect is only consistent with what is expected of everyone here.


Cheers.
smokinpristiformis
child of the stars
Avatar

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2005
Location: Belgium

Total Topics: 74
Total Comments: 1247
#72 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 10/29/09 - 3:35 PM:

On a philosophical note: Offensive words are like bullets. They are mostly academic until aimed at someone. Some people in this group surely remember having this discussion a few tiems before. I believe we always came to the conclusion that discussing the meaning or the semantics of them is rather different than using them to get to someone.

smiling face
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#73 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/07/13 - 5:14 PM:

Guest (readin') quirk analysis (In Dust Bunnies) at 1:57 PM.

Learnin' sumthin'?
KinNaoko90
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Location: Fulton County, NY

Total Topics: 36
Total Comments: 298
#74 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/08/13 - 12:36 AM:

thumb up This is amusing to say the least.
henry quirk
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Location: here

Total Topics: 47
Total Comments: 1298
#75 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 08/09/13 - 8:36 AM:

HA!
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.