|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 29, 2016 13:49:15 GMT -5
Note that I explicitly said it seemed like he was upset but I didn't believe it. And the unconscious thing was deductive reasoning snarkiness. But now I'm beginning to think the angry villager storyline you two have may be 'occluding your vision.'  I missed the Lolly admission to ugliness cuz I hadn't read anything like that, because I didn't read it. Are you suggesting that I didn't read anything because of being occluded in the first place? No, I'm reasoning that for you to apply "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" to something you hadn't read in order to conclude that E' was unconscious suggests the occlusion. Sure, it's possible that I misread why you entered this the way you did .. I mean, it is your motivation after all, so in that argument I'll always come out a loser. But dude, look at how far we've come at this point .. where there's fire, there's smoke.  All you need to apply "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is somebody saying "Your ugly." Then you can say ah yes but ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. And then if given a second juicy ingredient like "it's effortless" when asked if he was "trying" to make that judgement, you can tag on the other nonsense about making unconscious judgements (because conscious judgements presumably must require some trace amount of effort). There is no other material needed than that. Methinks this bit of snark twinged a nerve or two. Perhaps we should just leave it be now?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 14:17:57 GMT -5
No, I'm reasoning that for you to apply "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" to something you hadn't read in order to conclude that E' was unconscious suggests the occlusion. Sure, it's possible that I misread why you entered this the way you did .. I mean, it is your motivation after all, so in that argument I'll always come out a loser. But dude, look at how far we've come at this point .. where there's fire, there's smoke. All you need to apply "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is somebody saying "Your ugly." Then you can say ah yes but ugliness is in the eye of the beholder. And then if given a second juicy ingredient like "it's effortless" when asked if he was "trying" to make that judgement, you can tag on the other nonsense about making unconscious judgements (because conscious judgements presumably must require some trace amount of effort). There is no other material needed than that. Methinks this bit of snark twinged a nerve or two. Perhaps we should just leave it be now? Well the fact is that our direct dialog on it was this line and you've expressed at least as much interest in that as I have. Today's rehash was your interest in how it related to the angry villager meme. If you weren't conscious of this double bind as you wrote it you might want to self-examine the implications, but I'm sure that lollycop will be along any minute to explain what they are. .. or you could just go back and read what he wrote because it's included as part of his portraiture. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 19:54:47 GMT -5
I am, but it's a serial question. And I gave you a serious answer. You're trying to make a point about hypocrisy. That's fine. It seems like you are saying that I shouldn't give you a hard time about not being able to give a 'good faith' reading when i clearly can't do it myself. Eh? No. The the glass house metaphor was meant to do that, but it didn't require any comment on my part. The question as to why so many of the pics show somebody throwing stones from inside his own house and breaking his own glass was an unrelated curiosity. Didn't you ask me to give a good faith reading of one of Fig's posts?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 19:59:30 GMT -5
The comment that Lolly was being ugly was not a joke. Not even a little. You're getting your good faith readings confused. A good faith reading of my effortless comment would have revealed something completely different than what you read. A good faith reading of Lolly's original post that started this couldn't even happen because you didn't even read it. Get your own good faith house in order and maybe we can talk. No I was saying my comment -- #funwithlogic -- was the joke. I wasn't interested in a good faith reading of the Lolly/Enigma post exchange. I cursorily read 'ugly' and 'not trying' which I translated to effortless and presto made a snarky remark. That's it. You're right I did not do a good faith reading. And I have never said I did (just the opposite). Why did you continue to defend your 'joke' to both me and L? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 20:02:08 GMT -5
And I gave you a serious answer. You're trying to make a point about hypocrisy. That's fine. It seems like you are saying that I shouldn't give you a hard time about not being able to give a 'good faith' reading when i clearly can't do it myself. Eh? No. The the glass house metaphor was meant to do that, but it didn't require any comment on my part. The question as to why so many of the pics show somebody throwing stones from inside his own house and breaking his own glass was an unrelated curiosity. Didn't you ask me to give a good faith reading of one of Fig's posts?? Strictly speaking, he asked if you thought your reading of one of quinn's was good faith and then opined that it wasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 20:03:42 GMT -5
Dang you mean I don't get a pitchfork? I have no idea what you're talking about btw. Where was the smoke coming from again? is too vague to respond to other than to point out that it's too vague. The smoke was coming from the torches of the villagers, of course. Maybe the villagers got ahead of him and were on the other side of the hill so that he couldn't tell where the smoke was coming from?  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 20:04:00 GMT -5
No I was saying my comment -- #funwithlogic -- was the joke. I wasn't interested in a good faith reading of the Lolly/Enigma post exchange. I cursorily read 'ugly' and 'not trying' which I translated to effortless and presto made a snarky remark. That's it. You're right I did not do a good faith reading. And I have never said I did (just the opposite). Why did you continue to defend your 'joke' to both me and L? Since he's not the evil frog he has a right to remain faithless. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 20:08:14 GMT -5
This is too vague to respond to other than to point out that it's too vague. The smoke was coming from the torches of the villagers, of course. Maybe the villagers got ahead of him and were on the other side of the hill so that he couldn't tell where the smoke was coming from? Yes, it can get confusing out on the square when business gets brusque and maxy has a habit of using his considerable talents at humor to make light of what he comes across. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 20:12:56 GMT -5
Just so you know, the important thing I wrote was 'please elaborate.' The double questionmark sentence is supposed to be knowingly not understanding. I don't see how saying 'please elaborate' qualifies as seeing being occluded by smoke (and I still really don't know what you are referring to there.) The #funwithlogic thingy only requires reading "you're ugly" and an admission as to how that judgement was "effortless." It requires zero backstory and can be applied to anyone making that judgement. Now, as noted, in this case the target was purposely and knowingly saying ugly things, so that particular #funwithlogic is just totally moot and therefore lacking fun or relevance. For this, I am sorry. What you wanted me to elaborate on wasn't what I wrote, but instead your misinterpretation of it: VA causes perceptual collateral damage among peaceful bystanders transforming them via mob psychology into additional marauding morons?? So I declined. There's no need to apologize, but this is what you missed at the time. What lolz wrote would likely only be beautiful in the eye of a beholder that wanted to paint a picture of E' as upset and unconscious, if that beholder was sharing the occluded perspective of the mob. I don't remember saying anything to make Max light his torch and come stomping after me, but I probly did. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 20:25:31 GMT -5
haha well I got that part. Who were the villagers and what were they storming around about? Well look at the villagers and you can see that they're not all the same, like, at all:  .. and this picture doesn't capture how they sometimes even fight amongst themselves, but it does depict the different lines corresponding to who's out in front at any given time. Go back and read what lolz wrote and notice how at that time satchi's fork was dripping red as well. From there, quin takes up lolz' cause in a more reasonable tone after he fades into the back of the crowd and that cascades to ZD's critique of the forum overall and suddenly JLY flies in out of nowhere with a firm double-bind jab in the side all the while with a gleeful running color commentary from anja and then ... well, it's quite endless actually. .. because now we're very possibly and likely careening into yet another brand new scrama with you playing the lead role as victim-hero. Should we ask how Max's vision is these days? That could explain not knowing where the torch smoke was coming from as well as his reluctance to read the applicable Lolly posts. Also, if we've identified the villager with the funky eye, maybe we can finally get some answers as to how that unfortunate accident occurred. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 20:30:56 GMT -5
What you wanted me to elaborate on wasn't what I wrote, but instead your misinterpretation of it: So I declined. There's no need to apologize, but this is what you missed at the time. What lolz wrote would likely only be beautiful in the eye of a beholder that wanted to paint a picture of E' as upset and unconscious, if that beholder was sharing the occluded perspective of the mob. I don't remember saying anything to make Max light his torch and come stomping after me, but I probly did. Looks to me like a case of classic drama triangle stuff ... nothing that I can remotely claim innocence of .. seems to be exacerbated by a mismatch in your respective positions about how his humor should be taken .. well, humorously. I also have to opine that this is about as high class as the village square gets. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 29, 2016 20:34:35 GMT -5
Well look at the villagers and you can see that they're not all the same, like, at all: .. and this picture doesn't capture how they sometimes even fight amongst themselves, but it does depict the different lines corresponding to who's out in front at any given time. Go back and read what lolz wrote and notice how at that time satchi's fork was dripping red as well. From there, quin takes up lolz' cause in a more reasonable tone after he fades into the back of the crowd and that cascades to ZD's critique of the forum overall and suddenly JLY flies in out of nowhere with a firm double-bind jab in the side all the while with a gleeful running color commentary from anja and then ... well, it's quite endless actually. .. because now we're very possibly and likely careening into yet another brand new scrama with you playing the lead role as victim-hero. Should we ask how Max's vision is these days? That could explain not knowing where the torch smoke was coming from as well as his reluctance to read the applicable Lolly posts. Also, if we've identified the villager with the funky eye, maybe we can finally get some answers as to how that unfortunate accident occurred. Yeah, that guy does seem to be almost sort of reluctant standing off over a few steps to the right like that.  Not as much passion in his stare as the others ... |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 22:13:26 GMT -5
No. The the glass house metaphor was meant to do that, but it didn't require any comment on my part. The question as to why so many of the pics show somebody throwing stones from inside his own house and breaking his own glass was an unrelated curiosity. Didn't you ask me to give a good faith reading of one of Fig's posts?? Strictly speaking, he asked if you thought your reading of one of quinn's was good faith and then opined that it wasn't. In the linky you provided he asked "Okay so what is your good faith reading of what she said?" Yes, it was Quinn's post. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 22:18:17 GMT -5
Why did you continue to defend your 'joke' to both me and L? Since he's not the evil frog he has a right to remain faithless. Yeah, throwing rocks from inside his glass house.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 29, 2016 22:23:58 GMT -5
I don't remember saying anything to make Max light his torch and come stomping after me, but I probly did. Looks to me like a case of classic drama triangle stuff ... nothing that I can remotely claim innocence of .. seems to be exacerbated by a mismatch in your respective positions about how his humor should be taken .. well, humorously. I also have to opine that this is about as high class as the village square gets. Seems Max and I have a misalignment of vibratory cosmic energy when it comes to humor.  |
|
