Kyberean Wrote:

> Tolkien's work
> "is shallow to the shallow"; "those who can't,
> teach": Are you implying that those statements of
> calonlan's are not childish, disrespectful and ad
> hominem, far more so than "lol"?

No, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it explicitly. A child will not say and might not even understand what Dr Farmer said. Or are you claiming "lol" counts as Wildean epigram?

> I can see why
> you're trying to shift the debate to what mef and
> I have written, but let's not forget the
> manifestly untrue statement that you wrote, above:
> "lol is more ad hominem than he has ever been".
> Why don't calonlan's statements raise your ire?

Because I don't feel the need to jeer at someone for disagreeing with me, either by myself or, like you, with a collaborator. NightHalo disagreed too, but she did so politely, as one adult to another.

> Perhaps one standard of comportment and expression
> applies to calonlan, and another to the rest of
> us? Calonlan set the tone of the debate, and
> you're taking others to task for responding to him
> in the tone that he set? Curious.

He did not set the tone at the level of "Lol".

> Also, to read your post, one would think that
> "lol" was my only response. It was not. It was a
> minor element of the matter; the rest was
> substantive and serious.

And pointless, as far as I can see. There are thousands of places to discuss Tolkien, very few to discuss CAS and he's the author we're all interested in. What I'd like to know is whether CAS ever read Tolkien and what he thought if he did.

Quote:

Kyberean Wrote:
> Tolkien's work
> "is shallow to the shallow"; "those who can't,
> teach": Are you implying that those statements of
> calonlan's are not childish, disrespectful and ad
> hominem, far more so than "lol"?

Ghoti23: No, I'm not implying it, I'm stating it explicitly. A child will not say and might not even understand what Dr Farmer said. Or are you claiming "lol" counts as Wildean epigram?

You're also rather selective in your replies; you clearly prefer to avoid answering many of the points I raise. That's quite understandable, though, since I'm sure that, like the person you defend, you have no answers for them, and, like him, all you can do is make empty, haughty assertions in reply.

You're kind of a one-trick pony in this exchange, in fact, aren't you? Your sole forensic tactic consists of clinging with bulldog-like tenacity to three little letters, "lol". How much more clearly do I have to explain that, by the way? "Lol" simply indicated my amusement at Calonlan's reply, because it indicated peevishness on his part, despite the fact that the professor whom I mentioned actually agreed with him that The Lord of the Rings is a Christian apologetic. To construe "lol" as "jeering" is your projection and your misinterpretation. A child wouldn't have written or understood the rest of what I wrote, either, but that inconvenient fact seems to escape you, as well.

Quote:

Why don't calonlan's statements raise your ire?
Ghoti23: Because I don't feel the need to jeer at someone for disagreeing with me, either by myself or, like you, with a collaborator.

First, your reply makes no sense whatsoever. It doesn't come close to answering my question.

Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his, and mine are mine.

Third, it would seem, then, that Calonlan's "jeering" is just fine with you, but when others repay him in his own coin, then, oh, what an awful thing! Thank you for confirming what I stated earlier: That you have a double standard. Your position is so manifestly absurd that I am not going to waste any more of my time with you.

Quote:

There are thousands of places to discuss Tolkien, very few to discuss CAS and he's the author we're all interested in. What I'd like to know is whether CAS ever read Tolkien and what he thought if he did.

If you are so concerned with keeping this forum on the subject of CAS, then let's see you prove it by refraining from replying to my post.

Ghoti23:

Final thoughts in summary, since, for some reason, this Forum won't allow me to edit my previous post.

1. You apply your indignation much too selectively for me to take it seriously.

2. Since we are exchanging compliments--your insisting that I'm childish, and all--let me return the favor by suggesting that your insistence on making this affair one of black-or-white is child-like in its simplicity, or even simple-mindedness. The prior context of the debate, the history of my and others' dealings with Calonlan, Calonlan's own previous rude and childish comments to me (referring to one of my earlier remarks as "BS", for instance), even the immediate antecedents of my rejoinder to Calonan--none of these "nuances" matter to you, do they? After all, they might upset your little world of heroes and villains. Well, I've had a bellyful of this, and I leave you to think and feel whatever you like. As I mentioned in my prior post, if you are really so concerned about keeping the CAS Forum on topic, then let's see whether you can refrain from replying to a debate that you ostensibly disdain.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 20 Jan 05 | 12:59PM by Kyberean.

Kyberean Wrote:

> You're also rather selective in your replies; you
> clearly prefer to avoid answering many of the points I raise.

No, I prefer to be concise and avoid logorrhoea. It's not as difficult as you might think.

> That you have a double standard. Your position is so
> manifestly absurd that I am not going to waste any more of my
> time with you.

My standard is that disagreement should be polite, adult, and conducted between individuals. Your lolorrhoea and sneering reference to Dr Farmer as "calonlan" and "'Christian apologists give me the creeps.' Amen to that!" (inter alia) break that standard; nothing Dr Farmer said did.

> If you are so concerned with keeping this forum on the subject
> of CAS, then let's see you prove it by refraining from replying
> to my post.

I'll refrain when I think I've made my point -- which includes the fact that I didn't agree with a lot of what Dr Farmer said.

Kyberean Wrote:

> Final thoughts in summary, since, for some reason,
> this Forum won't allow me to edit my previous
> post.
>
> 1. You apply your indignation much too selectively
> for me to take it seriously.

You take it seriously enough to churn out dozens of words in response.

> 2. Since we are exchanging compliments--your
> insisting that I'm childish, and all--let me
> return the favor by suggesting that your
> insistence on making this affair one of
> black-or-white is child-like in its simplicity, or
> even simple-mindedness.

Another way you're childish is your extreme sensitivity to criticism.

> The prior context of the
> debate, the history of my and others' dealings
> with Calonlan, Calonlan's own previous rude and
> childish comments to me (referring to one of my
> earlier remarks as "BS", for instance),

"BS" is hardly childish, but it is definitely uncouth and if he had used it in this thread I would have said so.

> even the
> immediate antecedents of my rejoinder to
> Calonan--none of these "nuances" matter to you, do
> they? After all, they might upset your little
> world of heroes and villains. Well, I've had a
> bellyful of this, and I leave you to think and
> feel whatever you like. As I mentioned in my prior
> post, if you are really so concerned about keeping
> the CAS Forum on topic, then let's see whether you
> can refrain from replying to a debate that you
> ostensibly disdain.

I ostensibly disdain discussion of Tolkien, not discussion of the conduct of the forum. And please note that I have never regarded Dr Farmer as the "hero": I pointed out at the very beginning that I disagreed with a lot of what he had said.

Btw, could anyone tell me where Bill Clinton is compared to the Black Abbott? I haven't been able to find it yet.

Hmmm..

> "like an adult" etc. is not, to coin a phrase, ad
> hominem???

"If you understood what the term meant, you wouldn't have asked the question."

Poor ignorant me--this is what I get in these decadent times, having actually studied Latin...

"I am not criticizing your arguments by criticizing you personally, I am criticizing your behaviour. To do that, I have to criticize you personally, ad hominem. There's no logical fallacy involved."

Say it three times, then it is necessarily true!

"Racism is like heresy: unless you know what particular sect the inquisitor belongs to, you don't know what he means by it, except that he means something bad."

Inquisitor? Not I--I despise ideological conformity, as well as ignorant "authority"; not to mention, demonizing Others, or torture.

"That isn't true in serious subjects like history or philosophy"
We owe you the profoundest of gratitude, for not only clarifying seriousness, but also Truth!!!

dr. mef

Kyberean wrote:

"Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his, and mine are mine."

But, but...
our exalted Anglophonic leaders to a man assure us that conspiracy rules!!!

Quote:

Kyberean wrote:
"Second, I have no "collaborator": Mef's replies are his, and mine are mine."

mef wrote:

But, but...
our exalted Anglophonic leaders to a man assure us that conspiracy rules!!!

Do I dare write "lol" after reading this? ;-)

I admire your jocular approach to this nonsense. I've taken it far too seriously, myself, but that's because I was under the momentary delusion that I was dealing with a reasonable individual (I haven't even read this person's latest replies, nor do I intend to do so. I knew, though, that, despite his avowed eagerness to avoid off-topic discourse, he wouldn't be able to resist responding).

I have, however, learned some interesting things from this portion of the thread:

1. "Lol" never merely expresses amusement at a given person's remarks; it invariably denotes a vicious, childish, sneering attack.

2. It doesn't matter when you explain what you originally intended by using such shorthand. Only the offended reader's (mis)interpretation counts.

3. When you type "lol", that automatically cancels out everything else that you've written. Only the "lol" matters.

4. One standard of politeness in discourse applies to Calonlan, and another applies to everyone else.

dr mef writes:

> Poor ignorant me--this is what I get in these
> decadent times, having actually studied Latin...

But you don't understand non sequitur either, because knowing the literal meaning is no help to someone who fails to understand the logical fallacy, as p.i. you have now done twice.

> behaviour. To do that, I have to criticize you
> personally, ad hominem. There's no logical fallacy
> involved."
>
> Say it three times, then it is necessarily true!

Once was clearly enough.

> Inquisitor? Not I--I despise ideological
> conformity, as well as ignorant "authority"; not
> to mention, demonizing Others, or torture.

An ideological non-conformist who uses the terms "racism", "classism", and "demonizing Others". Luckily, I won't need to translate lusus naturae for you.

> "That isn't true in serious subjects like history
> or philosophy"
> We owe you the profoundest of gratitude, for not
> only clarifying seriousness, but also Truth!!!

Sorry, my mistake. It wasn't childishness at work, just geography. CAS was obviously a lusus nurturae.

Kyberean wrote:

> I admire your jocular approach to this nonsense.

Birds of a feather...

[cut more logorrhoea]

Is that your rattle on the floor?

"Is that your rattle on the floor? "


More gratitude to Ghoti; not only for squarely returning the argument to the literary and aesthetic, and avoiding ad hominem arguments, not to mention hypocrisy; but for his fine rhetorical flair, as well.

Now, what is the Latin for, "A tragedy for those who feel, a comedy for those who think"???

dr. mef

"the jibe of 'childish, less than adult,' though vacuous as argument, and a mere matter of psychological conflict within the projecting subject (adult or adolescent), might in terms of critical discourse be redeployed (de- de-)constructively, constructively, so as to engage the interpretation of the text in question" [Z.S. Louis Derrida-Fische/Gohti]

Decades ago I read LOTR and "Morthylla"; now, only the latter seems relevant and re-readable.

dr. mef

an ideological non-conformist writes:

> More gratitude to Ghoti; not only for squarely
> returning the argument to the literary and
> aesthetic, and avoiding ad hominem arguments, not
> to mention hypocrisy; but for his fine rhetorical
> flair, as well.

Hmmm...

> We owe you the profoundest of gratitude, for not
> only clarifying seriousness, but also Truth!!!

> But, but...
> our exalted Anglophonic leaders to a man assure us
> that conspiracy rules!!!

And how curious that you should overlook a substantive post addressed to you in favour of a minor post not addressed to you. Did you run out of fine rhetorical flair on the 23rd?

> "the jibe of 'childish, less than adult,' though
> vacuous as argument, and a mere matter of
> psychological conflict within the projecting
> subject (adult or adolescent), might in terms of
> critical discourse be redeployed (de-
> de-)constructively, constructively, so as to
> engage the interpretation of the text in question"

An ideological non-conformist who despises 'ignorant "authority"' and quotes the pellucid prose of "Z.S. Louis Derrida-Fische/Gohti" to prove it. Luckily, I still won't need to translate lusus naturae for you. Unluckily, I'm not a proctologist, so I do hope we're done with this thread now.

Quote:

Ghoti23 wrote:
"Is that your rattle on the floor? "


mef wrote: More gratitude to Ghoti; not only for squarely returning the argument to the literary and aesthetic, and avoiding ad hominem arguments, not to mention hypocrisy; but for his fine rhetorical flair, as well.

Thanks for this priceless tidbit. I'd have missed it if you hadn't quoted it, as I've lately been avoiding all subject headings that have anything "fishy" about them. Anyway, as I suspected all along, this fellow is a master of projection; it's plain who is the real child among us. After that outburst, little else needs to be said, except that I suppose this is what Ghoti23 considers to be a "Wildean epigram"? How fortunate we are to have him here to teach us by example the finer points of polite and elevated discourse.