Thread is now about Holist.

[P3nT4gR4m]

This seems familiar for some reason...

HAR!  Until about 2008, I was a complete literary snob.  Then someone showed me Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis.

Wow! I'd just kinda assumed you were always into comics

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This seems familiar for some reason...

HAR!  Until about 2008, I was a complete literary snob.  Then someone showed me Warren Ellis and Garth Ennis.

Wow! I'd just kinda assumed you were always into comics

Nope.  Hated 'em.  I was operating under the impression that they were all about big perverts in spandex, wrasslin' in the street.

[Cain]

-

[The Good Reverend Roger]

A couple of their tunes were okay(ish) but my "infinite number of Beatles songs" theory kinda covers that

Missed that theory.

"The beatles did a couple of okay tracks" people use that in defence of the beatles all the time IRL. Someone will go "Ooh the Beatles" and I'll go "the beatles were shit" and someone else will name a couple of okay tunes.

The infinite number of beatles songs - theory is a simple bastardisation of the monkeys one. If the beatles record an infinite number of tunes (lets face it, their back catalogue is as close to infinite as you can get without developing your own solar systems) the theory posits that a couple of them will be okayi(ish)

I have, over the course of my long and vile life, listened to the entire Beatles discography.  Everything they wrote sucks.  EVERYTHING.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Part 6 at some point today.

[Dildo Argentino]

Been thinking about picking it all up, demonstrating first of all that the position that Roger holds and it seems Nigel may agree with (though she may not have grasped its full implications), and Gogira argues for with pedantic acuity against a straw man hastily constructed by same Roger is, while a safe one, is essentially a cowardly and insufficient one.

This can be summarised as the position that authenticity is purely subjective and there's no arguing about it in the same way that there is no arguing about tastes. But the sad thing is, unless you have a grounded concept of authenticity, you will not have a leg to stand on when you want to say no to culturally entrenched cruelty, for instance: if authenticity is just another subjective category without any connection to reality, then what is wrong with coercion? What is wrong with opression? What is wrong with culturally sanctioner mutilation? You may not like it, but they may not like you, and your positions are entirely symmetrical. Is everyone siding so quickly with Roger happy with that?

Been thinking about furnishing piecemeal answers to to the further wilful misinterpretation that came in the responses to my half-assed rant, such as pointing out that I didn't say Roger was killing PD, I simply claimed (and continue to claim, on the power of having lurked on and off for about 2 years now) that he is making an ongoing and large contribution to making and keeping it the way it is, a way he himself is regularly unhappy with. Or pointing out that inasmuch as I attempted any such thing at all rather than just venting my frustration, I didn't attempt to save "all of PD" from Roger's unwholesome influence (why the fuck would I do that, save yourselves, fuckers), but, rather, Roger himself. Not that he wants to be saved: that is usually the case with self-satisfied bigots who are usually quite happy being the obnoxious and overbearing buffoons they are, thought they sometimes feel under the weather and a bit hopelessly bored and then they whine about it. Despaired of convincing anyone here that I am way past the butthurt phase: I really don't give a flying fuck any more, and the way it looks, I won't be a regular around here.

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

There's better quality discussion at least a couple of times a week over on metafilter, anyway.

So long, thanks for all the fish.

Which, of course, is not saying I won't come back and say something sometime in the future, if I feel like it.

Here's a picture of Roger being condescending with something he doesn't, and doesn't want to, understand.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm finally evil enough to get mentioned in a flounce!

[Lord Cataplanga]

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

Difficult, subtle work. And nobody even pays you for it.
It's the most authentic form of art.

[LMNO]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

[Don Coyote]

I'm finally evil enough to get mentioned in a flounce!

no one ever mentions me.

further proof I'm not real. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Been thinking about picking it all up, demonstrating first of all that the position that Roger holds and it seems Nigel may agree with (though she may not have grasped its full implications), and Gogira argues for with pedantic acuity against a straw man hastily constructed by same Roger is, while a safe one, is essentially a cowardly and insufficient one.

This can be summarised as the position that authenticity is purely subjective and there's no arguing about it in the same way that there is no arguing about tastes. But the sad thing is, unless you have a grounded concept of authenticity, you will not have a leg to stand on when you want to say no to culturally entrenched cruelty, for instance: if authenticity is just another subjective category without any connection to reality, then what is wrong with coercion? What is wrong with opression? What is wrong with culturally sanctioner mutilation? You may not like it, but they may not like you, and your positions are entirely symmetrical. Is everyone siding so quickly with Roger happy with that?

Been thinking about furnishing piecemeal answers to to the further wilful misinterpretation that came in the responses to my half-assed rant, such as pointing out that I didn't say Roger was killing PD, I simply claimed (and continue to claim, on the power of having lurked on and off for about 2 years now) that he is making an ongoing and large contribution to making and keeping it the way it is, a way he himself is regularly unhappy with. Or pointing out that inasmuch as I attempted any such thing at all rather than just venting my frustration, I didn't attempt to save "all of PD" from Roger's unwholesome influence (why the fuck would I do that, save yourselves, fuckers), but, rather, Roger himself. Not that he wants to be saved: that is usually the case with self-satisfied bigots who are usually quite happy being the obnoxious and overbearing buffoons they are, thought they sometimes feel under the weather and a bit hopelessly bored and then they whine about it. Despaired of convincing anyone here that I am way past the butthurt phase: I really don't give a flying fuck any more, and the way it looks, I won't be a regular around here.

So I decided not to, not because I don't have a fucking "cogent counterpoint", but because trying to make a point against such a barrage of wilful, small-minded uncharitability is just too much like fucking work.

There's better quality discussion at least a couple of times a week over on metafilter, anyway.

So long, thanks for all the fish.

Which, of course, is not saying I won't come back and say something sometime in the future, if I feel like it.

Here's a picture of Roger being condescending with something he doesn't, and doesn't want to, understand.

I am your king.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

[Don Coyote]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Roger, he was just trying to save you from this horrible fate you've carved out for yourself! How could you be so cruel to him?

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

before he spazzed out I was enjoying his contributions to the discussion.

Yeah, he was doing okay for a while, and then suddenly everyone wasn't agreeing with him and it was the end of the world.