Messages

So, this old creeper here in town has been hungrily staring at me for a decade. At coffee shops I have worked at or frequent, at the only gay bay *shudder*, for a decade.

Turns out he is an objectivist AND a philosophy professor at the main university here and uses John Galt as a screen name.

He thinks scientists are " just as dogmatic as religions."

I am shocked.

Please consult your spiritual advisor, TGRR, for further instructions.

Punch him inna face.

Catapult ez ballz witha spoon.

She didn't serve in the Revolution, but was named by Washington while he was president and served in the Quasi-War, Barbary War, and War of 1812. 33 victories, no defeats, and she still carries 14 War of 1812 battle streamers in addition to flags designated to be flown by active duty ships. The season just started, so they were painting her up, and the crew was training to unfurl (they have to do it in 30 minutes of less.) She has a cruise scheduled for 4th of July of course, and in a year she's up here to Portsmouth for a 3 year restoration and refit. So if you want to see her, SEE HER NOW. 

This is the stern portion of the keel. Look at that wood, dude.


LOOK AT IT.


Those timbers were laid down over 217 years ago, and that's what the boat is still floating on.  The upper holds and deck get refinished all the time because of wear and tear, and of course the sides that were blown in and such during actual battles, but that part is original. I had to climb down a ladder in a dress where my husband was able to catch me, and we climbed in there. That wood is petrified, and is actually preserved because of the saltwater. This was well below the water line and there was only a tiny splash of water on the keelson between this compartment and the magazine, which was on the other side of the passage.

Here we are sitting between that stern compartment and the mag. That's it. That's how much space you had to get powder from the hold. Hence they use of "powder monkeys," or little boys on the ship as young as 5 or 6 to get what you needed. We could barely fit in those compartments, and they're STILL dirty.


This is the magazine:

Yar!  That's pretty fucking cool - plus the storm of images conjured by the idea of Barbary War.  Fucking badass.  I don't say that often.

I cannot parse that last bit, compensating for typo gives me slack oil. That does not makes sense to me either

That was my cat trying to take over the world with a tesla coil and some dictation software...  So lame...  I'm currently deciding what it's punishment should be.  Good thing we caught it.

Agreed, too general - was the only cartoon thread I could find at the time...  Because... teh slac koil.

Heh, cool BIP pic. I don't see the political connection though...

Started running, knee said no in the form of a sharp pain, so I resigned to the elliptical and recumbent bike to make up for the cardio time to reduce impact. Pissed, but I'd rather my knees stay attached. Damnit.

I used to run quite a bit and had it figured that either my knee or my heel would hurt as a result, with nikes or asixs to blame, respectively.  Was also running on concrete and slightly sleep deprived - not really listening to my body and still asking it to work hard.  Now when I start a little lighter/slower, I get to go a little more/farther.  I have to stop trying to prove stuff to myself.

Can someone plz let Roger take the newbie for a spin?

I once wrote an essay about the hypocrisy of people denying that "Lolita" was satirical.

I'd like to read that. Lolita is only satirical on the surface though, we're looking from humberts perspective and he is an unreliable narrator who downplays his involvement in her abuse.

At best he is what he portrays himself as, a bumbling humbert. But we only have his word for it.
At worst he's a man who murdered his wife to take up a sexual relationship with a child.

There's a lot of situational comedy and satire, but that is the narrators defense.

Yea, I don't think those papers made it into this millennium.  More or less, I illustrated a few situational anecdotes: true, superficially, to set the stage.  Then, the contentious part, was to implicate the reader as an accomplice.  In order for the story to have any credence or import whatsoever, per force, you must identify with the "unreliable narrator who downplays his involvement in her abuse".  I thought that was funny as hell given how vehemently judgmental it gets people

Horrified body corporate representatives onlooking for some of this.

I once wrote an essay about the hypocrisy of people denying that "Lolita" was satirical.

I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:

In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.

In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.

Cute, but retarded.

Interpretation of a text cannot be done seriously if its done in said "closed manner". Why is it you might ask?

Well, because if you arent taking into account its context of creation, or intent, then you are interpreting based on YOUR OWN context and bias, making it just a mirror of your inner thought process but nothing much about the work itself.

How would satire be interpreted?

How about a very strong sarcastic work that means the opposite of what it says?

How about a diary of a statesman that just talks about his dog and family (while under war)?

If im off base, correct me.

It's funny how people just don't get satire

It's all happening.

http://www.panchronos.com/So_Grin.m4v

Don't forget to stack any broken terra-cotta pots into piles, because voodoo

Rigor:  That's what life is for

I feel like maybe "New Criticism" is a little to strong for me:

In 1946, William K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley published a classic and controversial New Critical essay entitled "The Intentional Fallacy", in which they argued strongly against the relevance of an author's intention, or "intended meaning" in the analysis of a literary work. For Wimsatt and Beardsley, the words on the page were all that mattered; importation of meanings from outside the text was considered irrelevant, and potentially distracting.

In another essay, "The Affective Fallacy," which served as a kind of sister essay to "The Intentional Fallacy" Wimsatt and Beardsley also discounted the reader's personal/emotional reaction to a literary work as a valid means of analyzing a text. This fallacy would later be repudiated by theorists from the reader-response school of literary theory. Ironically, one of the leading theorists from this school, Stanley Fish, was himself trained by New Critics. Fish criticizes Wimsatt and Beardsley in his essay "Literature in the Reader" (1970).[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Criticism

I understand taking into accout socio/cultural implications of work, however, accusations leveled against the public aspect of a person tend to be simply secondary or tertiary sources.