Monkey business

brunians at brunians.org · 10 Jul 2010, 01:26 · from 2010-July.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: brunians at brunians.org (brunians at brunians.org)
Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 21:26:02 -0400
Subject: (urth) Monkey business
In-Reply-To: <4C3780A4.90501 at gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W1577B77D5F704FE215BA4BCFB50 at phx.gbl>
	<32E5717B-54D0-4BD7-980C-0EB0E5729CAB at liftingfaces.com>
	<4C375DFE.5020805 at gmail.com> <4C37639D.40302 at gmail.com>
	<4C3769E5.7060007 at gmail.com> <4C377827.9040507 at gmail.com>
	<4C3779EB.1070903 at gmail.com> <4C3780A4.90501 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f04e73b05634131ae35778f66e6357f2.squirrel at brunians.org>

The man argues like a protestant.

.


> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 20:35):
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/9/2010 12:12 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
>>>>>>> Could the elderly person in Casdoe's house be an aquastor?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 18:35):
>>>>>> Sure. But anyone...probably any living thing...could be an
>>>>>> aquastor. Why
>>>>>> would being an aquastor help things along?
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/9/2010 12:59 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>>> Hey!
>>>>
>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 19:26):
>>>> Bait the hook, then reel them in. You still haven't delineated the
>>>> relevant differences between "Inire is Rudesind" and "Dorcas is
>>>> Severian's grandmother".
>>>
>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>>> It's not my fault if you can't read.
>>
>> Read what? Still no citation? Tsk tsk.
>> Five dodges now.
>
> Citation of what, James? I've said which two things are wrong with your
> question and given a further explanation. Since your attention span seems
> not be be having the best of days, I'll repeat them, which is something I
> abhor.
>
> 1. Why your first question made no sense at all:
> On 7/7/2010 4:18 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote: I'm not talking about
> narrative advantage. I'm talking about speculative advantage. And as a
> side note I'm against the idea of narrative advantage. I don't see that
> real life employs it, why should fiction?
>
> 2. Once you had corrected it, the information you ask for is in the
> archives
> and I have better things to do than reenact the whole discussion:
> On 7/7/2010 6:05 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote: That has been
> discussed to death.
>
> 3. If you're really interested to know what's different instead of simply
> trying to sound clever, you can start with this:
> On 7/9/2010 5:56 AM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote: One key difference is
> that
> Dorcas being Severian's grandmother tells us
> something about a character we knew nothing about (Dorcas as Severian's
> grandmother) and Severian's family tree, i.e. the level of data increases.
> Whereas Rudesind being Inire actually decreases the amount of data by
> dropping one character.
> And again, the identity of Dorcas is all but spelled out. When discussing
> whether or not she was Severian's grandmother, it's more of a debate
> between
> 'she obviously is' and 'it's so obvious maybe it's wrong'.
>
>
> It would be quite nice if you'd keep track of what people say and didn't
> mangle the quotation system. It's not hard, you know. On the top of every
> quotation, there is a line saying who said what when. Then the text is
> indented by a greater-then sign. This can be nested. If people don't mess
> with it, as you do by trimming, then it's easy to follow the conversation.
> Plus, if you actually take the time to read what the other person says,
> you
> won't have to keep asking when did they say what.
>
> You want me to replay the discussions from the archives? How stupid would
> I
> have to be to do your bidding? You don't get any rhetorical edge by making
> preposterous challenges.
>
>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 19:26):
>>>> So this gives me a chance to show the value of
>>>> wild speculation.
>>>> There's no reason to get Talmudic on the difference between your
>>>> proposed standard and my question. I am only asking "How does viewing
>>>> the old man as an aquastor resolve the apparent connection between him
>>>> and Rudesind?" Also, "How does the old man being an aquastor resolve
>>>> the
>>>> issue posed by Mr Berman that the old man might be female?"
>>>> What I am not asking is "What difference would it make if the old man
>>>> and Rudesind were connected?" or "If the old man is an aquastor, then
>>>> what?" Because in these instances the question is the answer: "The old
>>>> man and Rudesind might be connected" and "The old man might be an
>>>> aquastor".
>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>>> If X then X?
>>
>> Irrelevant question in this case. No speculated advantage. See what I
>> did above? I used specific instances and showed how they were different.
>> Try that.
>
> You showed no such thing.
>
>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, Ant??nio Pedro Marques wrote:
>>> Way to go about not saying anything.
>>
>> Self-congratulation is unseemly, Antonio.
>>
>> u+16b9
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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