Intermittens #5

[Sheered Völva]

Hey, if anyone doing an Intermittens is interested, I'd like to nominate my "Shut the fuck up" rant for it.

Where is the rant? I'd like to check it out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Hey, if anyone doing an Intermittens is interested, I'd like to nominate my "Shut the fuck up" rant for it.

Where is the rant? I'd like to check it out.

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php?topic=19399.0

Jefe says I plagiarized Douglas Adams. 

[Dead Kennedy]

Jefe says I plagiarized Douglas Adams. 

People like to talk, they really like making noises with their mouths. They talk talk talk all the fucking time, rarely saying anything of interest of value EVEN TO THEM, just fucking reading labels out loud or narrating the events around them "the dog is looking at me, oh man now he's going up the stairs, bye dog! I'm going to have a cup of coffee. There's a bird outside the window, oh nope he flew away. The sun is out today. Haha this bottle of syrup is funny! I think I'll read the ingredients..." on and on and on FOR NO FUCKING REASON other than that perhaps if they stop FUCKING TALKING their brains might switch on and they might have a moment of wondering what the hell all this is about, anyway, and what they're doing with their lives besides being another cog in the machine. Maybe if they stop talking the universe starts pressing in on them and they begin to become aware of how tiny, how meaningless, how insignificant, and above all how lonely they are.

Essentially your "Shut The Fuck Up' rant has four elements: a trivial fact, some examples of that fact, an observation about that fact, and an expressed desire to harm others.

The trivial fact is "People talk."  This fact is reference a lot in your rant.  Several examples of what people talk about are given.  Later, in an unquoted part, you express a desire to "cut their fucking stupid tongues out of their hollow heads."

The bolded part is the only interesting idea in the entire rant.  It's the single observation:  "FOR NO FUCKING REASON other than that perhaps if they stop FUCKING TALKING their brains might switch on and they might have a moment of wondering what the hell all this is about, anyway, and what they're doing with their lives besides being another cog in the machine."

Compare that with: "If they don't keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working."

"They talk for no fucking reason other than that perhaps if they stop talking their brains might switch on"  VS "If they don't keep on exercising their lips, their brains start working."

It probably wasn't intentional plagiarism, but it is sufficiently unoriginal that it probably shouldn't go in a magazine. Maybe a free magazine put out by volunteers, that's really up to the editor, but if it goes in, it should go with the understanding that the only interesting observation in the entire rant is a rephrasing of a Douglas Adams joke.

[Triple Zero]

it should go with the understanding that the only interesting observation in the entire rant is a rephrasing of a Douglas Adams joke.

because making interesting observations is the entire point of ranting, as your post so clearly demonstrates

[Dead Kennedy]

because making interesting observations is the entire point of ranting, as your post so clearly demonstrates

I really hate it when people make compound statements that are half-true.

I would not qualify my post as a "rant," and I don't think any reasonable person would either.  So when you say my post clearly demonstrates the point of ranting, you're basically just being a fucking dick and mischaracterizing my post so you can set yourself up for a lame put-down.

But yes, the point of a rant is to make interesting and humorous observations about the things that annoy us.  It is the interesting observations, the telling truths that make us laugh or smile in recognition, that make a rant worth reading.

Without interesting observations, the rant becomes sound and fury signifying nothing, it's just some blowhard making a lot of noise about something annoying, which is generally as annoying as whatever they are ranting about.  Take the observation out of Nigel's post, and what's left?  "People talk, it annoys me, I want to hurt them."  Kind of pointless and not particularly interesting to read. Certainly not anything worth publishing.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Twat!

[bds]

because making interesting observations is the entire point of ranting, as your post so clearly demonstrates

I really hate it when people make compound statements that are half-true.

I would not qualify my post as a "rant," and I don't think any reasonable person would either.  So when you say my post clearly demonstrates the point of ranting, you're basically just being a fucking dick and mischaracterizing my post so you can set yourself up for a lame put-down.

But yes, the point of a rant is to make interesting and humorous observations about the things that annoy us.  It is the interesting observations, the telling truths that make us laugh or smile in recognition, that make a rant worth reading.

Without interesting observations, the rant becomes sound and fury signifying nothing, it's just some blowhard making a lot of noise about something annoying, which is generally as annoying as whatever they are ranting about.  Take the observation out of Nigel's post, and what's left?  "People talk, it annoys me, I want to hurt them."  Kind of pointless and not particularly interesting to read. Certainly not anything worth publishing.

And you sir, are a cunt.

Nigel's rant was actually very entertaining to read.
Do I give a shit if it had a point to it or not, if I was entertained by reading it?
No.

Fuck off.

[Dead Kennedy]

And you sir, are a cunt.

Nigel's rant was actually very entertaining to read.
Do I give a shit if it had a point to it or not, if I was entertained by reading it?
No.

Fuck off.

And you are a moron.  I never said that Nigel's rant had no point.  I said a rant with no interesting observations has no point.  Nigel's rant had an interesting observation.  Unfortunately, it was Douglas Adams' interesting observation.

That you were entertained by it does not change the fact that it's Douglas Adams joke.

[bds]

because making interesting observations is the entire point of ranting, as your post so clearly demonstrates

I really hate it when people make compound statements that are half-true.

I would not qualify my post as a "rant," and I don't think any reasonable person would either.  So when you say my post clearly demonstrates the point of ranting, you're basically just being a fucking dick and mischaracterizing my post so you can set yourself up for a lame put-down.

But yes, the point of a rant is to make interesting and humorous observations about the things that annoy us.  It is the interesting observations, the telling truths that make us laugh or smile in recognition, that make a rant worth reading.

Without interesting observations, the rant becomes sound and fury signifying nothing, it's just some blowhard making a lot of noise about something annoying, which is generally as annoying as whatever they are ranting about.  Take the observation out of Nigel's post, and what's left?  "People talk, it annoys me, I want to hurt them."  Kind of pointless and not particularly interesting to read. Certainly not anything worth publishing.

Asshole.

[bds]

Also, is building on someone elses observation a bad thing?

[LMNO]

Hmmm.


DK, it appears that both the focus of your critiques and the nature of your posting style are absent any kind of emotional resonance.

That is, you focus explicitly on the content of the message, yet seem to avoid the emotional context which that content is placed.  In the case of Nigel's rant, I felt the "point" was the way the message was conveyed, and not so much the innovation of the message.

Of course, Adams wasn't the first person to notice the chattering ways of the monkey, nor the insipid subject matter it contains.  You might as well have accused her of plagarizing the Bible, Amos 4:13 ('He who forms the mountains and creates the wind ["ruach", inspirational breath] / Reports to man his chatter ["sicho", light, insipid conversation]'). But Nigel's post wasn't about a new insight into the mind of man, it was the impassioned plea of a woman who wants people to SHUT UP.

Naturally, when one is in a highly emotional state, or wants to project that emotion in a piece of writing, complicated ideas about the habits of domesticated primates will tend to be reduced to more elementary statements.  So, when reading an emotional rant, one should take into account the means which the information is being conveyed.

Also, because this was an emotional thought piece rather than an intellectual one, it only makes sense that when you attempted to critique it as the latter rather than the former, the responses you get will take on more of an emotional bent than perhaps you would prefer.

Just a thought.

[Sheered Völva]

Hmmm.


DK, it appears that both the focus of your critiques and the nature of your posting style are absent any kind of emotional resonance.

That is, you focus explicitly on the content of the message, yet seem to avoid the emotional context which that content is placed.  In the case of Nigel's rant, I felt the "point" was the way the message was conveyed, and not so much the innovation of the message.

Of course, Adams wasn't the first person to notice the chattering ways of the monkey, nor the insipid subject matter it contains.  You might as well have accused her of plagarizing the Bible, Amos 4:13 ('He who forms the mountains and creates the wind ["ruach", inspirational breath] / Reports to man his chatter ["sicho", light, insipid conversation]'). But Nigel's post wasn't about a new insight into the mind of man, it was the impassioned plea of a woman who wants people to SHUT UP.

Naturally, when one is in a highly emotional state, or wants to project that emotion in a piece of writing, complicated ideas about the habits of domesticated primates will tend to be reduced to more elementary statements.  So, when reading an emotional rant, one should take into account the means which the information is being conveyed.

Also, because this was an emotional thought piece rather than an intellectual one, it only makes sense that when you attempted to critique it as the latter rather than the former, the responses you get will take on more of an emotional bent than perhaps you would prefer.

Just a thought.

LMNO you make too damn much sense. What's wrong with you anyway? I was looking forward to a hostile, purposeless thread of mudslinging. And you come in and make sense! 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yeah, Alphapance, we're piling on teh aspietard here. Quit cramping our style 

[LMNO]

SV: I gotta be me.


P3nt:

[Sheered Völva]

Hey, if anyone doing an Intermittens is interested, I'd like to nominate my "Shut the fuck up" rant for it.

With apologies to the Editor of Number Five (sorry, your name keeps changing), Nigel opened this up to any editor.  I realize this is posted in the Number Five thread, but the original rant isn't, and I did just give my blessings for you to use something I wanted (which was posted here).

To make a long story short, I want this for Issue 7 Operation Mindfuck. It's not a mindfuck, but really seems to fit the theme.  This talkers are the people who need OMs.

I will promise, however, that in compensation I will look for 5-related stuff, and let you know what I find.

Is this all right?

-- The Sweet, Gentle, Considerate and Kind Editor of Issue 7
(who wants a rant about beating people to bloody death with a hammer)