Weekly blog links

Jonathan Goodwin · 14 Apr 2009, 15:37 · from 2009-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: joncgoodwin at gmail.com (Jonathan Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 10:37:48 -0500
Subject: (urth) Weekly blog links
In-Reply-To: <5728.67.142.130.29.1239722254.squirrel at brunians.org>
References: <cbf55b100904132040oc52841fy64f04215222e190 at mail.gmail.com>
	<20090414042801.631EA48008 at diego.dreamhost.com>
	<37bfbeb60904132218j370acb6cp2fd099e318ac7fa8 at mail.gmail.com>
	<6067.67.142.130.25.1239687152.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<37bfbeb60904132244o8478e25gbe5057996234d13e at mail.gmail.com>
	<13177.67.142.130.19.1239693101.squirrel at brunians.org>
	<45AFAC53EBA74E0EA9BCB0BEA554C1E8@eMachinePC>
	<5728.67.142.130.29.1239722254.squirrel at brunians.org>
Message-ID: <37bfbeb60904140837t25363860i2ca3281edcc7c4ee at mail.gmail.com>

To verify my intuition that this was some type of phonetic attempt at
"wanker," I searched and saw that someone on another forum calling
himself "brunians" applied this epithet to Chomsky, thus verifying
another intuition I had.





On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:17 AM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
> I think it was an appropriate question: unfortunately, after I wrote it I
> wrote another sentence, which you elide, wherein I wondered if Jon was a
> ouanquerre, which remark I regretted.
>
>
>
> .
>
>
>>>> On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 12:32 AM, ?<brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>>>>> Josh: So why don't you like the book, Jon? I understand from your
>>>>> article
>>>>> that you don't like it: that is abundantly obvious. But I think a
>>>>> review
>>>>> of
>>>>> this nature would be more useful if you would include a paragraph -
>>>>> even
>>>>> half a paragraph - where you give your reasons for not liking it.
>>
>>>> Jon: I thought I did in the post, but here it is again: I think the
>>>> book
>>>> (and several others) rely on the author's well-earned reputation for
>>>> subtlety to mask or adorn what are essentially undeveloped
>>>> pot-boilers. The time-travel aspect of Pirate Freedom illustrates this
>>>> nicely, I think.
>>
>>> Josh: i want to apologize for my last remark, which I was very wrong to
>>> pass.
>>> You are entitled to your opinion, of course, I was at the tail end of a
>>> frazzled day.
>>> I don't agree with you about Pirate Freedom, but these couple of
>>> sentences
>>> do make more clear your problems with the book. ?Again, my apologies.
>>
>> FWIW I think it was an appropriate question. It seems I'm not the only one
>> who thought so.
>>
>> J.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net