What can I say? He's played the, "You can't understand so I no longer have to respond to anything you say, "card. I'm at a loss...

...except to point out that he has tendered no responses to what I feel were fairly reasonable arguments on my part.

8/14/2005 4:01:22 PM

It wasn't a well thought out argument. Because you acknowledged the existance of scrouge, yet at the same time said, I don't know who scrouge is.

8/14/2005 4:02:39 PM

I never denied knowing who Scrooge is or where he came from. I denied that knowing who invented the character Scrooge made me more a part of society than someone who doesn't know.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 4:05 PM. Reason : never mind the Latin part, which you never responded to]

8/14/2005 4:05:30 PM

where o' where did I say you needed to know where the character came from?

Quote :

"Well that's an argument. I told you that studying Latin was unecessary, that any Latin important to a field would be taught in that field"

This is so nonsensical there is no reason to argue with it. law and latin go hand in hand, especially when arguing cases with 100 year old mandates.

[Edited on August 14, 2005 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

8/14/2005 4:08:51 PM

Quote :

"where o' where did I say you needed to know where the character came from?"

Quote :

"Dickens is completely part and parcell with our society, that if you didn't fucking know any dickens at all you'd be fucking lost."

Quote :

"law and latin go hand in hand, especially when arguing cases with 100 year old mandates."

The amount of Latin in law is still a relatively small part of the language as a whole.

Even if it were absolutely essential to know the whole language to practice certain types of law, the knowledge would still be useful only to a very small part of the population and your laments that nobody speaks it anymore would still be moot.

8/14/2005 4:21:38 PM

see knowing any dickens means, knowing that there is this dude name scrouge who is an asshole.

not being able to quote dickens.

Quote :

"Even if it were absolutely essential to know the whole language to practice certain types of law, the knowledge would still be useful only to a very small part of the population and your laments that nobody speaks it anymore would still be moot."

I'm not lamenting the fact no one speaks it. I'm lamenting the fact that no one knows for than 2 words in it. Plus, you have very little knowledge of law do you? Right here, I have a book in front of me from 1850 on common law (the law that controls america and britain) written entirely in latin.

8/14/2005 4:24:55 PM

Written in 1850 is the key point.

The idea that latin was important in 1850 is not in dispute. That it is fundamental today is rediculous.

Let us be far. In 19th century France, were they as fluent in 17th century literature as you seem to be implying we should be in 19th century literature?

8/14/2005 4:31:52 PM

Quote :

"Written in 1850 is the key point. The idea that latin was important in 1850 is not in dispute. That it is fundamental today is rediculous."

do you realize that there are common law cases that haven't been argued for over 300 years? I seem to remember one from a few years ago where a defendant got off because of a law that was written 500 years ago and basically disappeared.

Quote :

"Let us be far. In 19th century France, were they as fluent in 17th century literature as you seem to be implying we should be in 19th century literature?"

Not only were they as fluent in 17th century literature, but they were extremely fluent in the classics.

8/14/2005 4:34:23 PM

Just as we are, largely.

Of course, We today produce more literature in a year than the entire 17th century. So by sheer statistical probability, of course we are less familiar with 17th century writtings.

8/14/2005 4:36:57 PM

bull fucking shit we produce more literature. We may produce more written work, but that does not make it literature.

8/14/2005 4:37:46 PM

Quote :

"see knowing any dickens means, knowing that there is this dude name scrouge who is an asshole."

Everything you have said up to this point indicates that you feel someone should have to know that Scrooge is a Dickens character and that a Christmas Carol is a Dickens story.

Quote :

"Right here, I have a book in front of me from 1850 on common law (the law that controls america and britain) written entirely in latin."

I know what Common Law is and you can save us all some time by no longer acting like I just came out of the fucking womb. This book you've got, there aren't any more recent editions? There aren't any editions in English? Because I ain't fucking buying it. The thing was written in Latin at the time not because Latin has some intrinsic value that makes it more suitable for writing law books, but because people thought that Latin should be the language of academia for such brilliant and meaningful reasons as, "Well, uh, the Classics are written in it."

8/14/2005 4:40:14 PM

Quote :

"Everything you have said up to this point indicates that you feel someone should have to know that Scrooge is a Dickens character and that a Christmas Carol is a Dickens story."

and you'd be wrong.

Quote :

"I know what Common Law is and you can save us all some time by no longer acting like I just came out of the fucking womb. This book you've got, there aren't any more recent editions? There aren't any editions in English? Because I ain't fucking buying it. The thing was written in Latin at the time not because Latin has some intrinsic value that makes it more suitable for writing law books, but because people thought that Latin should be the language of academia for such brilliant and meaningful reasons as, "Well, uh, the Classics are written in it.""

your abhorence to latin does not negate the fact that there are still laws on the books that are only written in latin.

8/14/2005 4:45:31 PM

I don't abhor it. I have picked up quite a few words and phrases in my day. I just don't swing off someone's dick like the goddamn tire swing down by the river just because they speak it.

There are relevant books written only in Latin? That in and of itself is hard to believe. Are these books that would pertain to most law, or just a very small part of it?

8/14/2005 4:49:33 PM

a small part of law, but in some cases that small aspect of law is extremely important.. And where did I ever say I want to fuck everyone that speaks latin. I myself do not speak latin and for that I'm pissed at myself. I've become a pedant instead of a dilettante.

8/14/2005 4:51:59 PM

I would say the best way to handle this is to just translate the fucking books into English rather than expect lawyers to learn a thoroughly deceased and largely useless language.

8/14/2005 5:34:17 PM

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~gsparson/data/opera.rm

8/15/2005 12:08:39 AM

^^because every book has been translated and every book is already known to at least someone. Seriously, when you have an idea about antiquarian books then we'll talk about that absurd notion.

8/15/2005 2:29:34 PM

Then why were you telling him he should know latin? If the book is already available in English, why should he waste his time?

8/15/2005 3:26:29 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, when you have an idea about antiquarian books then we'll talk about that absurd notion."

When you can give me any reason

at all

why I should know the first thing about antiquarian (or, better put, outright antiquated) books, then I will learn about them.

8/15/2005 3:56:31 PM

^^I was being sarcastic


^Because antiquarian books are sources of valuable information. Just because something hasn't been published in 150 years does not mean the value of the information is nill. You are an arogant prick who will find his in the end. Continue on your modern is better bullshit.

Besides, I can think of two instances in which antiquarian books are extremely important to your personal life.

[Edited on August 15, 2005 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2005 3:58:40 PM

Quote :

"Just because something hasn't been published in 150 years does not mean the value of the information is nill."

I'm not saying that. I'm saying that just because something hasn't been used in 150 (or only used a bare handful of times) means that it is irrelevant. It is almost certainly useful to understanding the time period in which the thing was written as well.

But at the end of the day, anything of immediate functional importance to our lives today has, I feel confident, subsequently been translated into the modern vernacular and likely published again, because as dumb as we pedants are we know that to have all your eggs in a decripit centuries-old basket that nobody knows how to use is a bad fucking idea.

Quote :

"Besides, I can think of two instances in which antiquarian books are extremely important to your personal life."

I'm listening.

8/15/2005 4:10:20 PM

Quote :

"But at the end of the day, anything of immediate functional importance to our lives today has, I feel confident, subsequently been translated into the modern vernacular and likely published again, because as dumb as we pedants are we know that to have all your eggs in a decripit centuries-old basket that nobody knows how to use is a bad fucking idea."

Because we all know it is best to read shakespeare and chaucer is fucking modern english. Not to mention the untranslatable words from other languages.

Quote :

"I'm listening."

Case #1 The fucking Bible is considered an antiquarian book jackass. And I do believe a correct translation of said bible, or a true reading of that fucking book is extremely important in your fucking warped christian life.

Case #2 The fucking bullshit with the vatican which lead your fucking greek orthodox forefathers to break away.

8/15/2005 4:15:23 PM

Quote :

"Because we all know it is best to read shakespeare and chaucer is fucking modern english. Not to mention the untranslatable words from other languages."

We're not talking about literature here. That's a whole different field, one which is not of great use in many fields. I say this as a man who's fond of it, too, but that doesn't mean I'm blinded to its limited applicability.

Untranslatable words are few and far between. I haven't run into a concept that cannot lucidly be explained (albeit in multiple words) in English.

Quote :

"Case #1 The fucking Bible is considered an antiquarian book jackass."

Oh sure, but I've got some lovely English translations of that lying around. Modern English. I never doubted the utility of old books, as is clear from everything I've written; I've doubted the utility of something so rarely used that nobody has bothered to translate it.

8/15/2005 5:25:51 PM

Point of information: Shakespeare is modern English.

[Edited on August 15, 2005 at 5:36 PM. Reason : And Chaucer is best read in Middle English.]

8/15/2005 5:35:56 PM

Quote :

"History’s Dilettante and Today’s Pedant. "

...

nuff said.

8/15/2005 7:58:30 PM

^^^Well shit, when you have texts that are only found in manuscript and are locked away in a private collection and make the light of day, who do you expect to translate it? Because to you, latin shouldn't be studied by anyone because it is a waste of time since everything worthy of translation is already translated.

8/16/2005 2:57:42 PM

personally, i always preferred Shakespeare in the original Klingon

8/16/2005 3:32:24 PM

nutsmackr, you asshole, stop changing subjects. Grumpy was arguing that Grumpy has no reason to learn Latin, not that a fucking linguist that makes a living doing translations has no reason to learn latin. It is called "division of labor," we let translators learn latin, and they let us design computers.

Or do you think a proficient translator should bother learning electrical and computer engineering?

8/16/2005 5:25:10 PM

If they're locked away and never make the light of day, they can't be necessitating much in the way of translation, now can they? That is to say, they must not have a shit ton of influence on the world.

I never said that nobody should learn Latin. Clearly it can be important for the study of certain parts of history. What I have argued is that the utility of Latin in modern times is limited and that we shouldn't be crying over that reality. It's no longer relevant. Things fade from importance. I'm sorry, but it's true.

8/16/2005 5:26:49 PM

Yes, shallow AND pedantic

8/16/2005 7:29:43 PM

Quote :

"nutsmackr, you asshole, stop changing subjects. Grumpy was arguing that Grumpy has no reason to learn Latin, not that a fucking linguist that makes a living doing translations has no reason to learn latin. It is called "division of labor," we let translators learn latin, and they let us design computers. Or do you think a proficient translator should bother learning electrical and computer engineering?"

i never said I was expecting people to be fluent in latin. I'm expecting them to have some knowledge of latin. you need to understand the argument before trying to chime in.

8/17/2005 12:41:12 PM

Quote :

"when you have texts that are only found in manuscript and are locked away in a private collection and make the light of day, who do you expect to translate it?"

nutty, how do you expect Grumpy to translate latin works all by himself unless he is fluent in the language?

Not to mention, his point still stands. As long as we have fluent individuals around to do the translation for us, why should we bother being familiar with latin? We can simply purchase a translated work or comission a translator for fresh works.

8/17/2005 1:45:46 PM

nutsmacker

Quote :

"1) Could you please quantify the percentage of people that displayed that depth of cultural knowledge compared to today? Right now, your anecdotal evidence isn't convincing. Teddy Roosevelt was an aristocrat that went to private schools. Not exactly a representative example. If you go to Yardale today I'm sure you'll find at least one faggot that's read Dickens. 2) Your ruler of cultural literacy seems a bit outdated, since you're still defining "Dilettante" the way people did 100 years ago. Why are you only cultured if you read authors outside modern culture? Don't we have our own modern writers and thinkers? Maybe I havn't read Frost, but I've read Ginsberg. Maybe I can't relate the troubles of Chuck Dicken's 19th century brits, but I can relate to the stories of Clyde Edgerton modern south. Hell, you're ignoring entire mediums. Unlike 100 years ago, we have many mediums for expression and communication, mediums your Dilettantes couldn't even dream of (movies? tv? the internet? video games?). But you don't even seem to think they are a part "proper" cultural literacy. What the fuck is the matter with you? 3) Fuck you for being an arrogant prick. We all know you're just trying to rationalize picking a fuck up major. "

Your argument is shit.

8/17/2005 5:32:03 PM

It does kind of entertain me that the man lamenting the death of the dilettante calls himself "nutsmacker"

8/17/2005 5:40:36 PM

Quote :

"nutty, how do you expect Grumpy to translate latin works all by himself unless he is fluent in the language? Not to mention, his point still stands. As long as we have fluent individuals around to do the translation for us, why should we bother being familiar with latin? We can simply purchase a translated work or comission a translator for fresh works."

His point was, why bother with latin because everything worthy of translating has already been translated

Socks'' I already answered your ridicious argument. You need to go back and read it again


And Grumpy, it's called an ad hominem. So glad that you are still using the tired logical fallacies.

8/18/2005 1:25:06 PM

Quote :

"Yes, let me jump into my time machine and poll everyone in victorian england. Your argument here is rediculous. Charles Dickens' is read world-wide still to this day, it has nothing to do with artistocracy. There are many stories about commoners and the writing of dickens. One day, Dickens was waiting to buy some produce from the produceman, when he over heard someone in line talking about the serial dickens was writing (99% of novels at this time were writen as serials) and at that time, Dickens realized he hadn't written the weeks installment yet and it was going to press in the morning so he rushed home and wrote it."

It's rediculous to expect you to quantify your argument? You claim cultural literacy is on the decline, but you havn't advanced any good evidence to prove it. Even your anecdotal evidence is bullshit.

1) What neighborhood was Dickens in when he was buying produce? I'm sure if I go to Cambridge, Mass right now I could find several people talking about philosophy, literature, science, whatever.

2) What type of people were actually having the conversation? I've been lucky enough to be standing behind economics professors at Subway while they yammer on about research. Maybe Americans are "economically" literate.

3) How did Dicken's book sales compare to the dime novels of the time? My bet is that they were quite small in comparison. In fact, Teddy Roosevelt used to eat dime novels for breakfast. They were like candy to him. On vacation he could read two or three in a week, while President. Folks hard their Pop Culture then just like now.

4) How many people could even read back then? Any numbers on that? I'm talking percentage of the population.

Quote :

"I use the terms from over 100 years ago, because the definition of dilletante hasn't changed much at all. Every period has their modern writers, that doesn't mean we need to foresake the past. No matter the period, writers from past generations and eras were always read. As for Ginsberg, Ginsberg is a hack."

You're right, we shouldn't foresake the past, but we shouldn't ignore the present either. Dickens was a contemorary of Teddy Roosevelt. So umm HE WASN'T FUCKING OLD TO TR! So if you're going to use anecdotal evidence to support your argument to read old authors, then maybe you should fucking use appropriate evidence.

And why Ginsberg a hack?

Quote :

"Sorry socksie, but I don't place hacks like Toby Keith and eminem on the same level as I place individuals like Byron, Shelly, Dickens, et. al."

Umm those are both examples of MUSIC. MUSIC IS NOT A NEW FUCKING MEDIUM, DUMB ASS.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:23 PM. Reason : ``]

8/18/2005 2:19:36 PM

Quote :

"It's rediculous to expect you to quantify your argument? You claim cultural literacy is on the decline, but you havn't advanced any good evidence to prove it. Even your anecdotal evidence is shacky."

not everything is quantifiable. One can fucking look at the quality of the product. Examine a newspaper from 50 years ago and compare it to one today. You cannot tell me that today's newspaper is of higher quality.

Here is a scan of a 1937 News and Observer top fold. Granted the scan is shitty, but the point still stands.


Now look at today's news and observer. I'm sorry that I don't have a copy to show you, but you can look at the website.
http://www.newsobserver.com/

Quote :

"1) What neighborhood was Dickens in when he was buying produce? I'm sure if I go to Cambridge, Mass right now I could find several people talking about philosophy, literature, science, whatever."

It's called a victorian market assface. Your knowledge of history is small and minute to compared to what you claim it to be. See in a city like London, not every neighborhood had a market. In fact there was usually one main market for certain areas of town. Much like today in fact. If you want produce in New York, your best bet it to go to the pier where it is unloaded and sold.

Quote :

"2) What type of people were actually having the conversation? I've been lucky enough to be standing behind economics professors at Subway while they yammer on about research. Maybe Americans are "economically" literate."

Story doesn't say. But the fact remains that Dickens was a widely read author. You cannot contest that fact.

Quote :

"3) Why is this evidence that we are losing cultural literacy? The people standing in line were Dickens CONTEMPORARIES. Dickens was part of Pop Culture for the 19th Century (for those lucky enough to learn how to read). How is this evidence that people were more cultured back then?"

It's evidence that people read. I didn't say culture. You are the one bringing culture into this. I'm talking about reading and literature.

Quote :

"4) How many people could even read back then? Any numbers on that? I'm talking percentage of the population."

Sorry, I don't have the figures. But here is an instance of low literacy rate, but high knowledge of literature. Cuban immigrants to this country fifty years ago had a low literacy rate. Yet, 99% of the cubans had memorized and understood shakespeare. and I'm not just talking about one or two lines, but entire acts and such.

Quote :

"You're right, we shouldn't foresake the past, but we shouldn't ignore the present either. Dickens was a contemorary of Teddy Roosevelt. So umm HE WASN'T FUCKING OLD TO TR! So if you're going to use anecdotal evidence to support your argument to read old authors, then maybe you should fucking use appropriate evidence."

Dickens was not a contemporary of Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt was 12 when Dickens died. That does not make him a contemporary. That claims is as fucking farcical as saying Phil Colins is my contemporary.

Quote :

"Umm those are both examples of MUSIC. MUSIC IS NOT A NEW FUCKING MEDIUM, DUMB ASS."

Yes, the movie stealth is of as high of quality as Dickens. And DirtyGreeks blog is as high of quality as Emily Bronte.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:29 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2005 2:29:05 PM

So let me get this straight. You think people read better quality books 100 years ago, but you can't quantify it. Not only that, you can't even quantify how many people could read over 100 years ago. When I ask how Dickens' sales compared to "lesser" authors of the time, you don't know. Man. You're really getting off to a good start.

And your responce to my question about your anecdotal evidence?

Quote :

"In fact there was usually one main market for certain areas of town. Much like today in fact. If you want produce in New York, your best bet it to go to the pier where it is unloaded and sold."

In other words, it could have been two of the most literary people in London having the conversation?? But you, once again, have no fucking clue who it was. THANK FUCKING YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT.

So not only can you not quantify it, your anecdotal evidence falls apart on closer inspection? OH MY FUCKING GOODNESS WHAT A SUPRISE. NOW LET'S DO THE QUOTE BOMB THING.

Quote :

"Cuban immigrants to this country fifty years ago had a low literacy rate. Yet, 99% of the cubans had memorized and understood shakespeare. and I'm not just talking about one or two lines, but entire acts and such. "

Source?

Quote :

"Dickens was not a contemporary of Teddy Roosevelt. Roosevelt was 12 when Dickens died. That does not make him a contemporary. That claims is as fucking farcical as saying Phil Colins is my contemporary. "

I don't know how you're defining contemporary, but the point is that Roosevelt and Dickens lived during the same time period. That would make Dickens more relevant to Roosevelt's cultural context than ours. Thanks once again for proving my point.

Quote :

"Yes, the movie stealth is of as high of quality as Dickens. And DirtyGreeks blog is as high of quality as Emily Bronte."

OOOOOO I LOVE THIS GAME!!!! YOU COMPARE THE BEST OF ONE MEDIUM TO THE WORST OF ANOTHER AND THEN PRETEND YOU HAVE A POINT!!! LET ME TRY LET ME TRY!!!

Okay okay here goes...

Yes, the dime novels of Colonel Prentiss Ingraham are of as high of quality as Citizen Kane!!11111

8/18/2005 2:48:26 PM

nutsmacker,

Just to sum it up for you.

1) You can't quantify anything your saying.

2) Your anecdotes are shacky at best.

3) Your only consistant argument is to compare the worst of one era to the best of another (iow: compare apples to oranges).

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.

8/18/2005 2:51:47 PM

well, im kinda late getting into this argument, but I think its sad that people try to specialize their knowledge to the extent that they do. I love learning, and I have a desire to learn as much about as many subjects as possible. The engineers I know...they rarely care to learn much of anything outside of their chosen field.

Its sad, but I think its not going to change. People of the past had much more time on their hands to learn other things.

8/18/2005 2:52:25 PM

Quote :

"So let me get this straight. You think people read better quality books 100 years ago, but you can't quantify it. Not only that, you can't even quantify how many people could read over 100 years ago. When I ask how Dickens' sales compared to "lesser" authors of the time, you don't know. Man. You're really getting off to a good start. "

I didn't say that, but if you must. People actually read 100 years ago.

Quote :

"In other words, it could have been two of the most literary people in London having the conversation?? But you, once again, have no fucking clue who it was. THANK FUCKING YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT."

Inconsequential to the arguement. You have a knack for picking on little things and claiming victory.

So not only can you not quantify it, your anecdotal evidence falls apart on closer inspection? OH MY FUCKING GOODNESS WHAT A SUPRISE. NOW LET'S DO THE QUOTE BOMB THING.



Source?
Cuba and Its Music: From the First Drums to the Mambo (Hardcover)

the author was on NPR over a year ago talking about this subject.

Quote :

"I don't know how you're defining contemporary, but the point is that Roosevelt and Dickens lived during the same time period. That would make Dickens more relevant to Roosevelt's cultural context than ours. Thanks once again for proving my point. "

I didn't prove shit. I proved that you have no concept of contemporary. As I said, your definition of contemporary would be like saying George Washington and martin van buren are contemporaries since at one point in both of their lives they were both alive.

Quote :

"OOOOOO I LOVE THIS GAME!!!! YOU COMPARE THE BEST OF ONE MEDIUM TO THE WORST OF ANOTHER AND THEN PRETEND YOU HAVE A POINT!!! LET ME TRY LET ME TRY!!! Okay okay here goes... Yes, the dime novels of Colonel Prentiss Ingraham are of as high of quality as Citizen Kane!!11111"

Fine lets compare something you find moving and touching today to something of the past. Ginsberg's howl. sorry, but Ginsberg doesn't compare to Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman. It's an equal comparison. Both are gay poets. Just so happens that one sucks and the other doesn't.

but let's compare some movies or tv shows to the past. Seinfeld, considered one of the greatest TV shows of all time. Are you telling me that this tv show is better than the works of Byron? (you probably never read byron you fucking redneck douchebag faggot) Emerson?

And as for movies, are you saying a Beautiful Mind (it won an oscar so of course you probably loved it and find it beyond impeachable) is better than Wurthering Hights? You'd probably say yes, but the fact is you'd be wrong.

8/18/2005 3:04:35 PM

Socksdouche

1) You like every other economist wannabe think everything is quantifiable. It's not. Do you need the fleisch-kinkade reading level of everything from a time period to be happy

2) My ancecdotes provide evidence. Where as you haven't provided anything to prove that we are just as much a dilletante as the past.

3) Your only argument is to demand quantified evidence when this evidence cannot be quantified.

YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED.

8/18/2005 3:22:19 PM

good god.

Yes, people read 100 years ago. People read now, too. Thanks Capt. Obvious. Now what's your fucking point?

And just saying Howl sucks doesn't make it suck. Please explain.

And Seinfield is comedy. Would you classify Emerson as a comic? No? Then shut the fuck and make an appropriate comparison.

And, yes, the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and Dickens lived in the same time period does fucking prove my point. My point was 1) they shared a historical context (the consequences of the second industrial revolution were faced in both men's lives. not ours.) 2) TR was reading at the least a recent author, which makes the anecdote irrelevant for convincing us to read older authors).

THANK FUCKING YOU.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 3:26 PM. Reason : ``]

8/18/2005 3:23:54 PM

here is some quantified evidence for you assface

Course Catalog from 1941 showing the plan of work for a freshman and sophomore in
a)leading to the degree of bachelor of science in agriculture in one of the following fields--agricultural economics, animal production, dairy manufacturuing, entomology, field crops and plant breeding, floriculture, plant pathology, pomology, poultry science, soils, and vegetable gardening.



one is required to take 39 credit hours outside of their major, not counting electives or PE. (military science was a military and world history course)

Let's compare that to the current progress to degree items for a degree in poultry science because, let's compare apples to apples. Now'a'days in poultry science one nees only take 31 outside of the major, not counting electives and pe.

https://www.regrec.ncsu.edu/scripts/RegRec/adadgbk.pl?curr=BS&dgr_key=11SPS%20%202036%20&title=POULTRY%20SCIENCE%20%28SCIENCE%20CONC.%29&

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2005 3:51:08 PM

Quote :

"And just saying Howl sucks doesn't make it suck. Please explain."

Howl is pointless drivel meant mainly for shock value. It adds nothing at all to the field of poetry.

Quote :

"And Seinfield is comedy. Would you classify Emerson as a comic? No? Then shut the fuck and make an appropriate comparison."

Fine, Chaucer, comedy enough for you?

Quote :

"And, yes, the fact that Teddy Roosevelt and Dickens lived in the same time period does fucking prove my point. My point was 1) they shared a historical context (the consequences of the second industrial revolution were faced in both men's lives. not ours.) 2) TR was reading at the least a recent author, which makes the anecdote irrelevant for convincing us to read older authors)."

Dickens was a dithering old man when Teddy Roosevelt was a child. I guess my 2 year old nephew and Ronald Reagan are contemporaries because both of them happened to share 2 years of their life. A Better contemporary for Roosevelt would be Whitman. Being that Whitman was writing post and during the Civil War, a time period that would have greatly affected Roosevelt's life as an American.

8/18/2005 3:54:15 PM

I suppose nutsmackr should start comparing apples to applies.

So, the historical equivalent of modern television from the 19th century would be a vaudeville or ragtime show, I suspect. I believe slapstick was the common form of comedy in a vaudeville show, particularly since some of the audience couldn't speak english sufficiently to get more complex humor.

From what I've learned of history, the "average man" of the 19th century was an impressive creature, clearly the better of any prior peoples, but complexity escaped them, it was a feature of the times that all men were generalists.

And it is a feature of these times that most of us are no longer generalists. There is simply too much knowledge in any particular field to be passable in more than a few. Why should an employer hire a generalist when a specialist is available? From an economics standpoint this would normally be a problem because of the extreme disconnect between skills and demand inherent in a dynamic economy, but thanks to extensive infrastructure, we can move to where we are needed (possibly on the other side of the country) instead of being forced to match our skills to what is demanded, as 19th century workers were forced to do.

As the old saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none. As such, I believe our standard of living reflects this proper matching of specialists to demand.

[Edited on August 18, 2005 at 4:43 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2005 4:40:54 PM

and loneshark misses the boat

therefore, I do not even bother discussing anythign with him

8/18/2005 4:42:27 PM

Look, my ticket said 3:30, it isn't my fault the boat left at 3:40 without me on board. It's the system! We're just not as intelligent as we used to be!

8/18/2005 4:47:17 PM

nutsmacker,

On what basis do you measure "contributions to poetry"? If you're talking about influencing future poets, then Ginsberg (along with other poets of the beat movement) were very influential and thus had much to contribute to poetry. If you're talking about what you like (subjective), then I'm not sure how we can measure that or why it matter.

The same goes for Seinfield. Do you really think Seinfield and Chaucer are comparable? I don't. Seinfield was just silly comedy without much higher purpose. It was a show about nothing. Does that sound anything like what Chaucer was trying to do? Not to me.

But really we're still faced with the question of how we can compare ANY creative work Plainly, we can see that some works are more "complex" than others (an author might have more intricate story lines or more detailed characters), but does complex mean better? Surely, we must first agree on an aesthetic standard on which to rate these works. But the same standard can't apply to everything. Seinfield never tried to be a comical allegory, so why try to rate it as such?

So far the only basis you've given for comparing creative works is what you like and what you don't like. That doesn't make for a very productive discussion. It leaves us with you bitching about Stealth, while praising Dickens, as if any of them are comparable to each other. IOW: Bullshit.

So I would LOVE to know, what aesthetic standard are you using to compare creative works? What is the Dilettante aesthetic?

---

nutsmacker's score card:

1) He makes assertion that there are fewer dilettantes, but can't quantify the assertion.

2) the anecdotal evidence he provides to support his assertion falls apart under close inspection.

3) switching tracks he tries to directly compare works of each time period, but only succeeds in creating straw man comparisons.

4) when he finally tries in earnest to compare creative works, he doesn't articulate any aesthetic standard to compare creative works to. This basically leaves us cataloging what he likes and what he doesn't.

TOTAL SCORE: NUTSMACKER IS FUCKING RETARDED

8/19/2005 2:29:47 AM

Quote :

"On what basis do you measure "contributions to poetry"? If you're talking about influencing future poets, then Ginsberg (along with other poets of the beat movement) were very influential and thus had much to contribute to poetry. If you're talking about what you like (subjective), then I'm not sure how we can measure that or why it matter. "

Ginsberg is a hack, and has very little influence on any poet. Only self righteous look at me I coolites, like you socks`` find ginsberg anything of merit.

Quote :

"The same goes for Seinfield. Do you really think Seinfield and Chaucer are comparable? I don't. Seinfield was just silly comedy without much higher purpose. It was a show about nothing. Does that sound anything like what Chaucer was trying to do? Not to me"

Most of what chaucer was writing was a silly comedy without much meaning. I take it you haven't read all of the canterbury tales.

Quote :

"But really we're still faced with the question of how we can compare ANY creative work Plainly, we can see that some works are more "complex" than others (an author might have more intricate story lines or more detailed characters), but does complex mean better? Surely, we must first agree on an aesthetic standard on which to rate these works. But the same standard can't apply to everything. Seinfield never tried to be a comical allegory, so why try to rate it as such? "

you obviously have no knowledge of literary criticism. It is easy to say if a creative work is better than another. Besides, we don't have to agree on any standard. you are still in economist mode. You need to learn how to leave that.

Quote :

"So far the only basis you've given for comparing creative works is what you like and what you don't like. That doesn't make for a very productive discussion. It leaves us with you bitching about Stealth, while praising Dickens, as if any of them are comparable to each other. IOW: Bullshit. "

fine you want a comparison of something I like to something I like? Here goes. Wuthering Heights is better than Casablanca (my favorite movie).

Quote :

"So I would LOVE to know, what aesthetic standard are you using to compare creative works? What is the Dilettante aesthetic?"

you are obviously stuck on one silly crux of the argument. Where the fuck did the Dilettante aesthetic come into this anywhere? Do you have any understanding of what a dilettante is?

Quote :

"1) He makes assertion that there are fewer dilettantes, but can't quantify the assertion"

WE AREN'T FUCKING TALKING ABOUT ECONOMICS. NOT EVERY FUCKING THIS IS QUANTIFIABLE.

Quote :

"2) the anecdotal evidence he provides to support his assertion falls apart under close inspection. "

i ALREADY PROVIDED YOU WITH EVIDENCE. LOOK AT THE 4-YEAR COURSE PLANS i POSTED. BESIDES, FROM SALON SOCIETY, WE LEARN THAT IN THE SALONS ONE WAS JUDGED BASED UPON THEIR CONVERSATION SKILLS. LIKEWISE, IN A SALON, A CONVERSATION WAS SUPPOSE TO FLOW LIKE A STREAM DOES IN NATURE. IF ONE OVERLY LONG STUCK TO ONE FUCKING SUBJECT THEY WERE IMMEDIATELY DEEMED UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE SALON. READ A FUCKING BOOK OTHER THAN FRIEDMAN.

Quote :

"4) when he finally tries in earnest to compare creative works, he doesn't articulate any aesthetic standard to compare creative works to. This basically leaves us cataloging what he likes and what he doesn't. "

BECAUSE THERE ISN'T A STANDARD ONE CAN AGREE ON DOUCHEBAG. BUT WHEN EXAMINING CURRENT CREATIVE WORKS ONE HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO DETERMINE IF WHAT IS WRITTEN IS ANYTHING NEW OR CREATIVE.

TOTAL SCORE: SOCKS`` CAN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FUCK IS BEING SAID IN THIS THREAD. YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD

8/21/2005 1:22:44 PM