The Deluge of Absurdity, Ignorance, and Bad Posts

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

With Shakespeare I just found his stuff boring. Hideously so. It was also incredibly predictable and never had any interesting plot twists or anything like that, and the dialogue was stilted and unwitty. I also hated the long drawn out monologues some characters would do, now granted this is also a tactic good writers use, like Tarantino does all the time (such as Leo's large rant with his bleeding hand in Django Unchained, or Brad Pitt's opening speech in Inglourious Basterds or the Christopher Walken scene in Pulp Fiction, etc.) but he keeps the monologues interesting and easy to follow. Plus the actors get to go crazy with them, not really present in Shakespeare's plays. Truthfully we have posters on this forum with a more interesting, witty and funny writing styles, opebo and Tweed are both far superior. So yeah just wasn't fond of his stuff.

Yeah!  Who needs that fusty old William Shakespeare when we have opebo for all our literary needs!

I came here to post this.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A big reason Shakespeare comes across as boring is that it has often been performed so boringly.

I think very few people can understand the language today.  Its rather like listening to people from the North of England talking - you get some very rough idea what is going on, but it isn't fun after about five minutes.

^^^^^^^
Biggest waste of high school. And that says a lot. He gets crazy respect because he's old.  The iambic pentameter is an impressive feat, but it's also a pretty stupid literary device that I find very distracting. It's like somebody is dribbling a basketball during every play. His storytelling isn't all that imaginative. He took a lot of ideas from others, as the idea of plagiarism wasn't yet a thing. 

Awful even by this poster's standards.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Modern obsession with plagiarism is truly a cancer.

Especially in academia

I'd argue that that's the only place where it isn't a cancer, to be honest.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Double deluge

Dumping on Shakespeare should not be protected by the First Amendment. I consider that akin to treason - worse because it disrespects the English language (which he more than anyone else in its modern form gave birth to), rather than a mere political entity.

You're one to talk. Your opinions on English verse lack all merit. In fact, I'd argue that it's very unlikely that they'll ever gain merit, since they appear to be based on an ear for poetic form so bad that I wasn't actually aware that it was possible before this afternoon.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Double deluge

Dumping on Shakespeare should not be protected by the First Amendment. I consider that akin to treason - worse because it disrespects the English language (which he more than anyone else in its modern form gave birth to), rather than a mere political entity.

You're one to talk. Your opinions on English verse lack all merit. In fact, I'd argue that it's very unlikely that they'll ever gain merit, since they appear to be based on an ear for poetic form so bad that I wasn't actually aware that it was possible before this afternoon.

You're acting like a particularly petty middle-schooler. This is hilarious. Goldmined.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Citing your damn sources is really not that hard.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Citing your damn sources is really not that hard.

I quoted it to express approval, not as "this belongs in the deluge" quoting. Sorry for the confusion.

No, I wasn't confused; I was agreeing with you (and by extension myself). Very vehemently. I'm sorry for the confusion on that point!

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Citing your damn sources is really not that hard.

No.  But the idea that you can 'say anything new' seems to me absurd.  Completely derivative is the only possibility for academic work.

This is also true in many cases, but I would submit that thoroughly cited and sourced unoriginality is a rewarding art to get right, and not all that difficult if one knows what one is about.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I see. That's lazy and dishonest, but actually far better than some people I could mention.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Ben the right-winger.  Why is your avatar red, Ben?

You of all people should know that the Democratic Party ranges from moderately leftist to center-right, right?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Everything krazen has posted in this thread or is likely to post is unbelievably terrible.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Lost my cool or not (I admit I was upset, but I was also in full possession of my faculties and seriously considered not engaging), I stand by everything I said in this instance.

IMHO, you have to try to treat everyone with respect and dignity. Most fail this call. I certainly do.

Nathan is probably better at this than most people.

Not really, but thank you for the compliment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Anyway, I don't subscribe to that notion that everyone deserves respect. Sure, there ought to be a great deal of tolerance for diverging views and certainly the members of an internet forum tend to err on the side of disrespect, but that does not mean people ought to respect you regardless of how you behave.

Maybe I'm just in a particularly self righteous or thoughtful mood tonight but there is a difference between respect for a person's behavior and beliefs and respect for someone as a fellow human being. Confronting people for their wrong headed beliefs and actions is necessary. Debasing them in the process is not and often is counter-productive.

I agree with you in theory, but I suppose you could say I'm in a particularly...er, non-self-righteous, thoughtless mood tonight (for reasons that antedate krazen's latest round of malarkey and weren't especially affected by it one way or another). Plus, he's a bit of a blind spot for my social standards in general, which is probably not a good thing but which concerns me less than it perhaps should.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would like to note that when even Nathan is calling one a "puckered asshole", they must deserve it.

Indeed one wonders whether Nathan has verified the fact.

................

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Negative for the same but opposite reason I think highly of Michael Vick. Despite Vick's obvious negatives, I think he's had an overall positive impact on the people who derive value from the things he does and says and the people they impact. The exact opposite could be said of the cult of character surrounding Jesus Christ.

That anybody could directly imply with seeming sincerity that he has a higher opinion of Michael Vick than of Jesus is...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I sincerely hope that's a fair reading.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

In fairness, he explains and qualifies that later on in the thread.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What are 'federal morals'?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I sometimes do that with theological messages, but only if the show actually does have some manner of religious or occult subtext.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

What are 'federal morals'?

I have no idea but it's going in my sig

FF

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The post where Torie consistently refers to drj101 with male pronouns (in Individual Politics) is objectively ignorant, even if not absurd or bad as such.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The post where Torie consistently refers to drj101 with male pronouns (in Individual Politics) is objectively ignorant, even if not absurd or bad as such.

I'm not much on defending Torie, since he's a big boy and such, but do you think he knew?  First I've heard of it and I read most everything here.

As I said, it's not absurd or bad; it's just ignorant in the sense of 'indicating something that Torie doesn't know'.

Incidentally, I got the joke in that thread and was seemingly alone in that, so I'm a little miffed that it's locked, but it's not like it was a legit thread in the first place or anything.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The post where Torie consistently refers to drj101 with male pronouns (in Individual Politics) is objectively ignorant, even if not absurd or bad as such.

I'm not much on defending Torie, since he's a big boy and such, but do you think he knew?  First I've heard of it and I read most everything here.

As I said, it's not absurd or bad; it's just ignorant in the sense of 'indicating something that Torie doesn't know'.

Ok, gotcha.  Oh, by the way, you all can still vote in Dr. J's poll.....the thread is locked but voting isn't 

I stand by my write-in vote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...wow.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nonpartisan redistricting can be enacted after the GOP uses gerrymandering for a century as punishment.

It's really tempting to start engaging him again, but I know no good can come of it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I rather enjoy being lectured about sex by people who have zero experience with it. I feel like I'm at the Vatican.

Do you really think the people in Vatican have no idea about sex? Lulz.

Not with adults anyhow. Taking advantage of children is a different issue completely. Adult women have their own agency and sexual awareness, despite what all the asexual trans victimologists want so badly to believe.

This post is horrible. I'm speechless.

I reacted the only way I could react.