Simmons is right. I came off as a bitter old man in my discussion of the wheel. But my prediction was also right: Simmons did not address my point at all.
The discussion on Stormfront got off onto some guy engaging in public mastur, uh, self congratulation about knowing the difference between a wheel and an axle, but didn't say anything about the HISTORY of either.
I could have predicted that, but I would have sounded like a bitter old man.
That is not the point I made. The Right has been right most of the time, but look where we are at. Basically the conservatives are crumb cathcers the Bob Michaels of punditry, finishing the sentences of liberals. I make a seemingly unending amount of correct observations and comments on such, but their effectiveness with people is small compared to when I put the questions to the same people about what they think about my observations about the subjects. Correct you must know your subject and the facts, but to get people off the other people's side they have to think for themselves, hence, questions. I question the "faith" I ask others to do so as well.
Point 25 reminds me of something.
Do you remember the old game where people would line up and the guy on one end would whisper something to the next and he would have to rephrase it and whisper it to the next guy?
What came out at the end was always hilarious.
Threads remind me of that game.
Dammit, Simmons, if I am being a BOM at you and you insist on reminding of what you really said, I'm not going to have any fun at all!
You children are so cruel!
Of course! I used to play it in kindergarten and 1st grade, we called it telephone.
The results were hilarious, but it always offended me when it was my turn that everything I said never came back right. Then teachers would get upset when I started going to each kid to correct them. haha
You would enjoy Thurber's hostile obituary of Miss Grundy. All of us who were too intelligent in grammar school do.
I'm having a tough time finding the peice. Could you help me?
I was afraid you would ask me that.
I can't quote it here because it is copyrighted. It was a short James Thurber piece somewhere in the 30s or 40s called "Here Lies Miss Grundy," available in Thurber collections.
Thank you Bob, that's all I needed. I wasn't sure what essay, book, or New Yorker article, and the Google searches were leaving much to be desired.
I found it! "Here Lies Miss Groby"
http://daliverse.com/groby.html
Thanks, I was looking but didn't find. I did find some very appropriate quotes though. "Knowing some of the questions is better than knowing all the answers." " Too many people can be fooled too much of the time." "There is no safety in numbers or in anything else." Is this rule no.26?
You're welcome, Shari.
I found those quotes too. I'd say this thread is more of a rule 25.
<blockquote>This is a pretty accurate observation of human nature on the internet.
I shall now quote "Rules of the Internet" number 11, 13, 25, and 26.
11. All your carefully picked arguments can be easily ignored.
13. Anything you say can be turned into something else.
25. Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post
26. Any topic can be easily turned into something totally unrelated.</blockquote>
All of which is true.
This can be very annoying, but sometimes it allows us to make connections we would not otherwise see. Sometimes it is good to go with the flow.
I agree with you Pain. I don't seek to disrupt the natural order of the internet with these rules, as much as I seek to point out the natural occurance.
Much like reativity or gravity, thorough followers of Schrodinger will demand my head now.
*edit* Since I'm not positive that it was Schrodinger who first stated, "since various methods of observing small particles and photons lead to either wave or particulate views of their nature, the actual event of observation causes the variation of interpretation of the results." This is the observation I am refering to, and applying to the so called "social science".