Principia Discordia

Principia Discordia => Apple Talk => Topic started by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 27, 2012, 05:47:08 PM

Title: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 27, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
I am thinking of a particular older conversation with Holist that went WAAAAAY south, triggered by the statement that certain specific urban centers "aren't cities by European standards". Now, some statements are subjective and can be argued to be true from certain perspectives, but that one was just silly, and easily refuted. The only real face-saving maneuver to be made there was "Oops, I was wrong". Better yet, "That was a really dumb thing to say", which would indicate that the speaker not only recognized having said something wrong, but was also smart enough to recognize that it was so extremely false that it made him sound ignorant. Instead, he defended the statement. This led to ongoing mockery and humiliation, and speculation on the part of others as to what would motivate a person to defend such a ridiculous statement. Needless to say, none of the speculations were flattering to his character, and he became angrier and angrier, and more and more alienated. All because of an inability to simply concede that he'd said something that was factually incorrect.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Freeky on September 27, 2012, 05:52:18 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 27, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
I am thinking of a particular older conversation with Holist that went WAAAAAY south, triggered by the statement that certain specific urban centers "aren't cities by European standards". Now, some statements are subjective and can be argued to be true from certain perspectives, but that one was just silly, and easily refuted. The only real face-saving maneuver to be made there was "Oops, I was wrong". Better yet, "That was a really dumb thing to say", which would indicate that the speaker not only recognized having said something wrong, but was also smart enough to recognize that it was so extremely false that it made him sound ignorant. Instead, he defended the statement. This led to ongoing mockery and humiliation, and speculation on the part of others as to what would motivate a person to defend such a ridiculous statement. Needless to say, none of the speculations were flattering to his character, and he became angrier and angrier, and more and more alienated. All because of an inability to simply concede that he'd said something that was factually incorrect.

I almost remember this.  In response to the "Those aren't cities" deal, someone posted pictures of Mexico City (?), Cairo, and some other place that's in China.  Starts with a B, I think.  Maybe on an island?, definitely a port.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
I don't wish to provide hard evidence for this (too much like hard work), and I guess some of it is pretty speculative. I will be more than happy to abandon/replace/develop any of it if a reasonable counter-argument is offered. In other words, I am offering this a a just-so-story.

As a sort of soft evidence, here's a list of the authors whose ideas have influenced my general outlook and to a great extent motivate my just-so-story below.

Here it is:

Noam Chomsky
Steven Pinker
Claude Levi-Strauss
Daniel C. Dennett
Eric Berne
Wilhelm Reich
John Bowlby
Oliver James
Michel Odent
Jean Liedloff
R. D. Laing
Sue Gerhardt
Vilmos Csányi
ALice Miller
Daniel Quinn
Norbert Bischof
Slavoj Zizek
Leonard Shlain

No particular order. I hope you all find your own particular piece of crimson cloth in that list.  :)


(I won't back down from bullies.)


I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier here, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced (in Africa, I am told, mad people in small villages are frequently chained to trees. They get fed, but are not allowed to move about freely, because they are considered too dangerous.) And most (though not all) people spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

So that's my take on it.

As for this:

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 27, 2012, 05:47:08 PM
I am thinking of a particular older conversation with Holist that went WAAAAAY south, triggered by the statement that certain specific urban centers "aren't cities by European standards". Now, some statements are subjective and can be argued to be true from certain perspectives, but that one was just silly, and easily refuted. The only real face-saving maneuver to be made there was "Oops, I was wrong". Better yet, "That was a really dumb thing to say", which would indicate that the speaker not only recognized having said something wrong, but was also smart enough to recognize that it was so extremely false that it made him sound ignorant. Instead, he defended the statement. This led to ongoing mockery and humiliation, and speculation on the part of others as to what would motivate a person to defend such a ridiculous statement. Needless to say, none of the speculations were flattering to his character, and he became angrier and angrier, and more and more alienated. All because of an inability to simply concede that he'd said something that was factually incorrect.

Initially I was going to write that it's just a pack of lies, pure and simple, and the evidence is here in this board for all to see.

But then I remembered that people are positively kinky in the way they can arrive at totally different conclusions from the same premises.

So the fact that I see the initially jokey, then increasingly serious scorn poured on me by the most vocal members of the regular crew that hangs out in this board as a result of a trivial misunderstanding (and, let me hasten to add, a misunderstanding aggravated by my [/]very stupid idea of starting off with the most contentious topic I could think of[/b], homeopathy, I don't know what possessed me there, I think I thought it would be best to get into the thick of things straight away, but actually, it was not), and the fact that I see the series of heated exchanges that have taken place as blatant and obvious proof that I was toyed with, attacked and pestered through lazy, superficial and I think often unintentionally malicious interpretation of the notions I was offering, and generally rejected for the largely accidental way my tone resonates with a bunch of apes who don't tend to meet many rather foreign apes with such a tone, is not going to prevent the other participants from viewing the very same series of heated exchanges as demonstration, pure and simple, of my utter and total despicability, stupidity, naivety, lazyness, trollity or whatever (I forget).

So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

(((Oh yes, asshurt. That did hurt, but actually, and I don't know how alone I am with this, but I suspect not very, the kind of discomfort that sort of unreserved hostility and ridicule you seem to enjoy doesn't actually hurt my ass. It stings my face, it is shameful. And I don't think I want to get desensitised to it.)))

And then my friend explained very carefully and didactically (he is, after all a 54-year-old secondary school-teacher, religious studies, spreading critical thinking skills instead of indoctrination is his passion and job), and, of course, pedantically and in a somewhat patronizing manner (he is, after all a 54-year-old secondary school-teacher... etc.)  what I meant: I meant something about the disenfranchised huddled masses of poor, homeless, hopeless people in the world's third world cities and third-world parts of cities, whom, incidentally, you also seem to care about. But you didn't give a fuck and pestered him atrociously until he left. Tough shit, of course, because PD and being liked is like Zen and Satori: trying is counterproductive. If you can't handle being pestered atrociously, and you don't wish to just conform to the tribethink here (oh, and there very much is one, though I'll get my head kicked in for this, I know), then you have no business coming here.

If you keep ignoring me, I will go away. If you don't, I'll be interested to see where this will go. Let the hurling begin. In the meantime I will go over to my main man thread on Wage Slavery and give it a similar go.


Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 29, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
Holist, having reread the entire thread with you and your friend going off the other day I have precisely one reaction:  :retard:


Dude, it's all well and good to make excuse about why you and your friend behaved like complete jackasses and said a whole lot of shit that you refused to cop to when confronted on it, but it's not going to, you know, sway anybody, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXACT THREAD PRESERVED FOR ALL TO SEE.

Yeah, make up some more shit about what you and your friend "actually meant" almost a year ago.  :lulz:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 29, 2012, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 29, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
Holist, having reread the entire thread with you and your friend going off the other day I have precisely one reaction:  :retard:


Dude, it's all well and good to make excuse about why you and your friend behaved like complete jackasses and said a whole lot of shit that you refused to cop to when confronted on it, but it's not going to, you know, sway anybody, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXACT THREAD PRESERVED FOR ALL TO SEE.

Yeah, make up some more shit about what you and your friend "actually meant" almost a year ago.  :lulz:

You posted 17 minutes after me. That is time for a cursory overview accompanied by a vague recollection of the already stereotyped judgements you made back then (December-January). If it was sufficient time for you to do significantly more, then, firstly, pardon me I did not realise I was dealing with superhumans, I am indeed a retard in comparison to you, madam, and, secondly, why could you not take the time to respond to the very specific issue of third-world cities and first-world cities (or neighbourhoods) in greater detail, please? Is you Boddhidharmaic patience not infinite after all?
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 29, 2012, 11:41:17 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM

(I won't back down from bullies.)



:ohboy:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Freeky on September 29, 2012, 11:43:23 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 29, 2012, 11:41:17 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM

(I won't back down from bullies.)



:ohboy:

:lulz:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 29, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
Holist, having reread the entire thread with you and your friend going off the other day I have precisely one reaction:  :retard:


Dude, it's all well and good to make excuse about why you and your friend behaved like complete jackasses and said a whole lot of shit that you refused to cop to when confronted on it, but it's not going to, you know, sway anybody, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXACT THREAD PRESERVED FOR ALL TO SEE.

Yeah, make up some more shit about what you and your friend "actually meant" almost a year ago.  :lulz:

You posted 17 minutes after me. That is time for a cursory overview accompanied by a vague recollection of the already stereotyped judgements you made back then (December-January). If it was sufficient time for you to do significantly more, then, firstly, pardon me I did not realise I was dealing with superhumans, I am indeed a retard in comparison to you, madam, and, secondly, why could you not take the time to respond to the very specific issue of third-world cities and first-world cities (or neighbourhoods) in greater detail, please? Is you Boddhidharmaic patience not infinite after all?
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Freeky on September 30, 2012, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 29, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
Holist, having reread the entire thread with you and your friend going off the other day I have precisely one reaction:  :retard:


Dude, it's all well and good to make excuse about why you and your friend behaved like complete jackasses and said a whole lot of shit that you refused to cop to when confronted on it, but it's not going to, you know, sway anybody, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXACT THREAD PRESERVED FOR ALL TO SEE.

Yeah, make up some more shit about what you and your friend "actually meant" almost a year ago.  :lulz:

You posted 17 minutes after me. That is time for a cursory overview accompanied by a vague recollection of the already stereotyped judgements you made back then (December-January). If it was sufficient time for you to do significantly more, then, firstly, pardon me I did not realise I was dealing with superhumans, I am indeed a retard in comparison to you, madam, and, secondly, why could you not take the time to respond to the very specific issue of third-world cities and first-world cities (or neighbourhoods) in greater detail, please? Is you Boddhidharmaic patience not infinite after all?
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

You understood what he said?  Damn.  Must come from studying dead languages or something.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 04:01:13 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 30, 2012, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 10:04:04 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 29, 2012, 09:38:09 PM
Holist, having reread the entire thread with you and your friend going off the other day I have precisely one reaction:  :retard:


Dude, it's all well and good to make excuse about why you and your friend behaved like complete jackasses and said a whole lot of shit that you refused to cop to when confronted on it, but it's not going to, you know, sway anybody, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXACT THREAD PRESERVED FOR ALL TO SEE.

Yeah, make up some more shit about what you and your friend "actually meant" almost a year ago.  :lulz:

You posted 17 minutes after me. That is time for a cursory overview accompanied by a vague recollection of the already stereotyped judgements you made back then (December-January). If it was sufficient time for you to do significantly more, then, firstly, pardon me I did not realise I was dealing with superhumans, I am indeed a retard in comparison to you, madam, and, secondly, why could you not take the time to respond to the very specific issue of third-world cities and first-world cities (or neighbourhoods) in greater detail, please? Is you Boddhidharmaic patience not infinite after all?
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

You understood what he said?  Damn.  Must come from studying dead languages or something.
Possibly. :lulz:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

Sorry, I misparsed that. ("the other day" - is that about re-reading or me and my friend going off?). That was an exercise in stereotypical reading, I am sorry. My other point (about the rather specific example of cities being different) still stands.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 06:04:24 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

Sorry, I misparsed that. ("the other day" - is that about re-reading or me and my friend going off?). That was an exercise in stereotypical reading, I am sorry. My other point (about the rather specific example of cities being different) still stands.
Try again. What makes Xiamen not a city in the "first-world sense"? What you cited before, sanitation, public transit, etc. DOES exist in Xiamen (Cairo and Mexico City too, in fact, but let's just talk about Xiamen)
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 06:22:47 AM
Holist, can you quote any of my "bullying"? Or is that just what you call it when someone points out that you said something that sounds foolish?
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 06:04:24 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

Sorry, I misparsed that. ("the other day" - is that about re-reading or me and my friend going off?). That was an exercise in stereotypical reading, I am sorry. My other point (about the rather specific example of cities being different) still stands.
Try again. What makes Xiamen not a city in the "first-world sense"? What you cited before, sanitation, public transit, etc. DOES exist in Xiamen (Cairo and Mexico City too, in fact, but let's just talk about Xiamen)

No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 06:56:34 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:22:47 AM
Holist, can you quote any of my "bullying"? Or is that just what you call it when someone points out that you said something that sounds foolish?

I could, but I can't be bothered. Name-calling, ridiculing, and also affirmation and appreciation of name-calling and ridiculing by others is what I'd call it. If you can't find it or even remember it, there's no point in me digging it out, because you will then claim it was not bullying and call me sissy for suggesting it was.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 06:56:59 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 06:04:24 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

Sorry, I misparsed that. ("the other day" - is that about re-reading or me and my friend going off?). That was an exercise in stereotypical reading, I am sorry. My other point (about the rather specific example of cities being different) still stands.
Try again. What makes Xiamen not a city in the "first-world sense"? What you cited before, sanitation, public transit, etc. DOES exist in Xiamen (Cairo and Mexico City too, in fact, but let's just talk about Xiamen)

No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

Nonsense. You made a completely ridiculous statement about the urban centers that the world's population increasingly resides in "not being cities in the European sense". When asked, you named some cities. Your definition of "European sense" was called into question, and what ensued was a frantic moving of goalposts as one aspect after another that you named was shown to be false according to your own premise. If you had started out by saying "Many of the urban centers in developing countries suffer from endemic poverty and a lack of sufficient urban services in the outlying areas", I don't think anyone would have disagreed with you. However, that is not what you stated, and your attempts to shift the focus to that from what you actually said is simply an example of flailing to justify an unjustifiable statement.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 06:58:24 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 06:04:24 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 03:13:27 AM
OH NOEZ, SAYING I READ SOMETHING RECENTLY, EQUATES TO DOING THE SAME IN MINUTES!  :lulz:

Sorry, I misparsed that. ("the other day" - is that about re-reading or me and my friend going off?). That was an exercise in stereotypical reading, I am sorry. My other point (about the rather specific example of cities being different) still stands.
Try again. What makes Xiamen not a city in the "first-world sense"? What you cited before, sanitation, public transit, etc. DOES exist in Xiamen (Cairo and Mexico City too, in fact, but let's just talk about Xiamen)

No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.
By that logic, East St. Louis isn't a first-world city. I've seen plenty of comparable things happen there, and I'm sure that plenty of similar things happen like that in plenty of places.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 06:58:33 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:56:34 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:22:47 AM
Holist, can you quote any of my "bullying"? Or is that just what you call it when someone points out that you said something that sounds foolish?

I could, but I can't be bothered. Name-calling, ridiculing, and also affirmation and appreciation of name-calling and ridiculing by others is what I'd call it. If you can't find it or even remember it, there's no point in me digging it out, because you will then claim it was not bullying and call me sissy for suggesting it was.

Right, of course. Can't be bothered to verify your claims.

I'm sure you will chalk this up under "bullying".
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 07:16:28 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:58:33 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:56:34 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:22:47 AM
Holist, can you quote any of my "bullying"? Or is that just what you call it when someone points out that you said something that sounds foolish?

I could, but I can't be bothered. Name-calling, ridiculing, and also affirmation and appreciation of name-calling and ridiculing by others is what I'd call it. If you can't find it or even remember it, there's no point in me digging it out, because you will then claim it was not bullying and call me sissy for suggesting it was.

Right, of course. Can't be bothered to verify your claims.

I'm sure you will chalk this up under "bullying".

Nope, not this one. I'll go and find some, especially for you. Though I don't really see the point. Incidentally, is there a way of displaying all of a thread on one page? Would make this so much easier... Especially since you write a lot and so searching your posts is just as difficult as searching the threads in question?
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:56:59 AM
Nonsense. You made a completely ridiculous statement about the urban centers that the world's population increasingly resides in "not being cities in the European sense". When asked, you named some cities. Your definition of "European sense" was called into question, and what ensued was a frantic moving of goalposts as one aspect after another that you named was shown to be false according to your own premise. If you had started out by saying "Many of the urban centers in developing countries suffer from endemic poverty and a lack of sufficient urban services in the outlying areas", I don't think anyone would have disagreed with you. However, that is not what you stated, and your attempts to shift the focus to that from what you actually said is simply an example of flailing to justify an unjustifiable statement.

Oh, thanks, no need to dig now, this is an instance of bullying. You have done a great deal worse, but this will do.

"Nonsense"?? Completely ridiculous statement? I made a statement that was not a particularly clear expression of the point I was trying to make (which was simply that, when faced with the news that over half the world's population now live in cities, it is worth keeping in mind that a great many of those city dwellers live in cities that are very different to what I am used to - and I suspect what many of the people here are used to - in the ways that I described in detail in the post you simply labelled "Nonsense" - and also earlier, which you also ignored. Is being somewhat vague and less than completely clear cut and reframing points to make them clearer such a sin? No, it isn't.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:06:16 AM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:56:59 AM
Nonsense. You made a completely ridiculous statement about the urban centers that the world's population increasingly resides in "not being cities in the European sense". When asked, you named some cities. Your definition of "European sense" was called into question, and what ensued was a frantic moving of goalposts as one aspect after another that you named was shown to be false according to your own premise. If you had started out by saying "Many of the urban centers in developing countries suffer from endemic poverty and a lack of sufficient urban services in the outlying areas", I don't think anyone would have disagreed with you. However, that is not what you stated, and your attempts to shift the focus to that from what you actually said is simply an example of flailing to justify an unjustifiable statement.

Oh, thanks, no need to dig now, this is an instance of bullying. You have done a great deal worse, but this will do.

"Nonsense"?? Completely ridiculous statement? I made a statement that was not a particularly clear expression of the point I was trying to make (which was simply that, when faced with the news that over half the world's population now live in cities, it is worth keeping in mind that a great many of those city dwellers live in cities that are very different to what I am used to - and I suspect what many of the people here are used to - in the ways that I described in detail in the post you simply labelled "Nonsense" - and also earlier, which you also ignored. Is being somewhat vague and less than completely clear cut and reframing points to make them clearer such a sin? No, it isn't.
Wait, this is bullying? Saying that something is "nonsense" and that statements are "completely ridiculous"? HOLY FUCKING SHITBALLS! We are playing the "let's make up definitions" game again, aren't we? Should I break out my Phoxionary?  :lulz:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: P3nT4gR4m on September 30, 2012, 11:44:05 AM
Personally I'd have opened a post like that (if I were to make one) with the words "bull fucking shit" or something along those lines. Makes me a nastier bully than Nigel?  8)
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:06:16 AM
Wait, this is bullying? Saying that something is "nonsense" and that statements are "completely ridiculous"? HOLY FUCKING SHITBALLS! We are playing the "let's make up definitions" game again, aren't we? Should I break out my Phoxionary?  :lulz:

That's sort of up to you.

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying. Especially if it is accompanied by complete disregard for the fact that in the meantime, that person backed down from that initial version of the statement, apologised and recast the point. The fact that the views being "criticised" are also consistently misrepresented doesn't help. Of course, all of it doesn't have much weight on a largely anonymous Internet message board. But that does not make it into rational argument.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Kai on September 30, 2012, 03:41:08 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:06:16 AM
Wait, this is bullying? Saying that something is "nonsense" and that statements are "completely ridiculous"? HOLY FUCKING SHITBALLS! We are playing the "let's make up definitions" game again, aren't we? Should I break out my Phoxionary?  :lulz:

That's sort of up to you.

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying. Especially if it is accompanied by complete disregard for the fact that in the meantime, that person backed down from that initial version of the statement, apologised and recast the point. The fact that the views being "criticised" are also consistently misrepresented doesn't help. Of course, all of it doesn't have much weight on a largely anonymous Internet message board. But that does not make it into rational argument.

No, it's not bullying. It's a description. "Nonsense", because your statements have no sense, and "ridiculous" because they are otherwise worthy of ridicule. I don't know why this isn't difficult to understand.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 05:12:34 PM
WHY IS THE INTERNET SO FASCIST???
                            :crybaby:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 05:13:39 PM
(That might actually qualify as an example of bullying, FTR, if we assume that Holist finds me intimidating.)
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 05:19:22 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 07:43:50 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 06:56:59 AM
Nonsense. You made a completely ridiculous statement about the urban centers that the world's population increasingly resides in "not being cities in the European sense". When asked, you named some cities. Your definition of "European sense" was called into question, and what ensued was a frantic moving of goalposts as one aspect after another that you named was shown to be false according to your own premise. If you had started out by saying "Many of the urban centers in developing countries suffer from endemic poverty and a lack of sufficient urban services in the outlying areas", I don't think anyone would have disagreed with you. However, that is not what you stated, and your attempts to shift the focus to that from what you actually said is simply an example of flailing to justify an unjustifiable statement.

Oh, thanks, no need to dig now, this is an instance of bullying. You have done a great deal worse, but this will do.

"Nonsense"?? Completely ridiculous statement? I made a statement that was not a particularly clear expression of the point I was trying to make (which was simply that, when faced with the news that over half the world's population now live in cities, it is worth keeping in mind that a great many of those city dwellers live in cities that are very different to what I am used to - and I suspect what many of the people here are used to - in the ways that I described in detail in the post you simply labelled "Nonsense" - and also earlier, which you also ignored. Is being somewhat vague and less than completely clear cut and reframing points to make them clearer such a sin? No, it isn't.

Holist, you didn't try to reframe your original statement, you tried to justify why it was really true according to your personal and apparently malleable definition of "real cities" and "European standards".
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 06:26:05 PM
Well, Nigel, you do make your trolls jump through hoops, don't you?

Here's my initial assertion, and its context (in the quotes that follow, all bold is mine, now, to point to what I find most relevant now):

Quote from: holist on January 08, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
we all work on what we wish to work on
(those genuinely under coercion not included)

i happen to think that creating the res publica of a people, the establishment (or re-establishment, or restoration) of a country in the sense of a nation state is an outmoded enterprise with little merit

in order to find more timely and glorious work, it is expedient to review the situation that we find ourselves in first from a larger (global), then from a narrower (personal) perspective

none of what i will say is new

global perspective:

one earth, seven billion people

roughly one tenth of that number do not eat their fill every day of the week

at the same time, ten percent of the population dispose over eighty-five percent of all earthly wealth

within that number, the richest one percent control forty percent of the wealth

man does not live by bread alone

over half the population of the earth live in cities, though mostly not cities in the european sense

and well over half the population strive to realise, in their personal lives, the ideals of the welfare consumer society

lots of food, lots of channels, lots of clutter

estimating the size of the autonomous, adult population who hold their lives and their hands and thus purposefully form them is harder

after a small, highly subjective and far from representative opinion survey and a great deal of pondering i have concluded that such people occur in higher proportion in the third world (brutal existential uncertainty is a strong selection pressure at both the individual and the social levels)

the transitional margin between the autonomous and the slave/slaver group is quite wide and gradual along a number of distinct dimensions

globally, the proportion of autonomous, self-governing  adults is somewhere between 0.1 percent and 10 percent

as an incorrigible optimist, i would wager around 1 percent

one in a hundred people

*

personal perspective:

i posit that only sovereign, adult people, who know their own lives and hold them in their hands in order to shape them are capable of authentic political action

i posit that in the present situation authentic political action is impossible without first letting go of all sorts of national or racial phantasmagories, imaginings, emotional tangles

i posit that today, authentic political action may be aimed at the following two targets (possibly among others, i am not making an exhaustive claim here):

firstly, moving fellow humans in the transitional stages between being robots and being people (or half-asleep, or what have you) towards sufficient levels of sovereignity

such actions include raising children, clarity of thinking and speech and the exemplary practice of authentic ways of being

secondly, the strengthening, supporting, mobilisation, vitalisation of the networks, the systems of interrelationships of autonomous people

this includes tribal enterprise, active community building and maintenance, trust-based barter trade and the promotion of communication and cooperation between small sovereign communities

thank you for your attention

I note that this original assertion is largely correct, except that it should have read "though mostly not in neighbourhoods in the European sense".

Perhaps you were sensing a racist (that would have been understandable, though wrong), perhaps you were just in the mood to slap somebody down (that's less understandable, though by now it is obvious that the opportunity to indulge that urge is a significant part of the reason you use this board) - anyway, ignoring my entire "ars poetica" (which, I suspect, you largely agree with), you chose to respond to that single sentence. Here it is, along with my first response:

Quote from: holist on January 10, 2012, 04:42:52 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2012, 03:10:37 AM
Quote from: holist on January 08, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
over half the population of the earth live in cities, though mostly not cities in the european sense

I don't understand this. What does it mean? What is a "city in the European sense"?

well spotted, the single most dangling end of a string in there

you see the piece was recycled from my blog, sans the rather long analysis of the hungarian situation in particular

and when i translated it, even though i saw it wasn't particularly connected to anything, i decided to leave it in, because i think this factette is somehow strangely relevant to the present-day human predicament

it just so happens, as of a few years ago, city-dwellers now outnumber country-folk

only, when musing about the implications, it is important to keep in mind that say the average of those cities is certainly closer to Xiamen, Mexico City or Kairo than New York, London or Berlin - no sanitation, no organised, clean public transport, no stifling regulations

networks, though, digital networks!

where that gets us, i'm not quite sure

You decided to go with the least charitable interpretation and to continue the slapdown session. Here's your next remark, and my response to it:

Quote from: holist on January 10, 2012, 07:26:18 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2012, 06:12:06 AM
They may also have rampant poverty and sprawling slums, but that has nothing to do the "European sense of city", as London has historically shown us. Those all look quite like cities in anyone's sense, especially Xiamen.

I had a feeling I knew what you were going to reference, particularly with regard to cities in China, as it seems most Westerners assume that Chinese cities are basically collections of thatched huts.

In China, the standard of living is much higher in the cities than it is in the countryside, BTW.

i don't get it, but if it pleases you, i stand corrected

i may even have picked the wrong cities and not given it sufficient thought

(i picked Cairo because i spent 5 weeks there hanging out and believe me it is not like a western city in a great number of respects, despite the fact that the central part has a lot of luxury apartments,

i picked Xiamen because i recently finished REAMDE ,

and i picked Mexico City because it occurred to me)

i simply wanted to say that although over 3.5 billion people are city dwellers, the majority have an experience of living in a city that is quite different to the cities of the west

of course there is one essential thing that connects practically all city-dwellers: high population density, people all around, in many if not most cities with a wild plurality of cultures within walking range

You slapped me down some more, I apologised and attempted to explain myself better:

Quote from: holist on January 10, 2012, 11:28:25 AM
Quote from: Nigel on January 10, 2012, 08:07:53 AM
Well yeah, different cultures, different median incomes, different standards of living... but that's not what you said. Defend what you said, not what you wish you'd said. Or, be a biped and admit you were wrong.

quadru, actually

this is what i said:

"only, when musing about the implications, it is important to keep in mind that say the average of those cities is certainly closer to Xiamen, Mexico City or Kairo than New York, London or Berlin - no sanitation, no organised, clean public transport, no stifling regulations"

i was wrong, and failed to express myself clearly, for which i apologise

what i meant to say was that the average city dweller, globally speaking, does not have access to reliable sanitation or institutionalised public transport, sewerage in the European sense, his/her life is much less constrained by social organisation/regulations than in European cities

i am truly sorry but suspect you are irate with me due to homeopathy

Then you jumped on that last sentence, all righteous indignation. (Having spent the last half hour retracing those steps, I think it was actually justified. I still think you became positively hostile because of the homeopathy thing.) I'm not going to continue. If these quotes don't speak for themselves, I don't know what does.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:27:27 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:26:05 PM
Well, Nigel, you do make your trolls jump through hoops, don't you?


Why the fuck is ANYONE still debating this tard?
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

Well, alright, but only for a wee bit.  :lol:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:30:54 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:29:37 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

Well, alright, but only for a wee bit.  :lol:

You seem to be under the impression that I'm laughing with you, aspie.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

I'd have said the same if I'd read that. The problem with holist is that it's not worth investing the time to read the shit.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

I'd have said the same if I'd read that. The problem with holist is that it's not worth investing the time to read the shit.

His MO is the following:

1.  Begin the post with something insulting and/or condescending.
2.  Restate previous argument, disregarding any new information, etc.  Flawed or not (Who knows?  I don't read his shit past the first sentence).
3.  End with a nasty comment at someone.

People then do the obvious (ie, make fun of him), so

4.  Accuse everyone of "bullying" him.

Remember the last tard to use #4?  Oh, yeah, it was Captain Utopia, wasn't it?  Yes, yes, it was.

:lulz:

Remember what happened to him?  Yes, yes, you do.

:banana:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

I'd have said the same if I'd read that. The problem with holist is that it's not worth investing the time to read the shit.

His MO is the following:

1.  Begin the post with something insulting and/or condescending.
2.  Restate previous argument, disregarding any new information, etc.  Flawed or not (Who knows?  I don't read his shit past the first sentence).
3.  End with a nasty comment at someone.

People then do the obvious (ie, make fun of him), so

4.  Accuse everyone of "bullying" him.

Remember the last tard to use #4?  Oh, yeah, it was Captain Utopia, wasn't it?  Yes, yes, it was.

:lulz:

Remember what happened to him?  Yes, yes, you do.

:banana:

Yes. Very clearly. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Just waiting for "e-democracy discordia" and "kids and copperhead snakes".
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

I'd have said the same if I'd read that. The problem with holist is that it's not worth investing the time to read the shit.

His MO is the following:

1.  Begin the post with something insulting and/or condescending.
2.  Restate previous argument, disregarding any new information, etc.  Flawed or not (Who knows?  I don't read his shit past the first sentence).
3.  End with a nasty comment at someone.

People then do the obvious (ie, make fun of him), so

4.  Accuse everyone of "bullying" him.

Remember the last tard to use #4?  Oh, yeah, it was Captain Utopia, wasn't it?  Yes, yes, it was.

:lulz:

Remember what happened to him?  Yes, yes, you do.

:banana:

Yes. Very clearly. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Just waiting for "e-democracy discordia" and "kids and copperhead snakes".

Kids n Bags of Ground Glass.

DISCUSS!
\
:nigel:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

I'd have said the same if I'd read that. The problem with holist is that it's not worth investing the time to read the shit.

His MO is the following:

1.  Begin the post with something insulting and/or condescending.
2.  Restate previous argument, disregarding any new information, etc.  Flawed or not (Who knows?  I don't read his shit past the first sentence).
3.  End with a nasty comment at someone.

People then do the obvious (ie, make fun of him), so

4.  Accuse everyone of "bullying" him.

Remember the last tard to use #4?  Oh, yeah, it was Captain Utopia, wasn't it?  Yes, yes, it was.

:lulz:

Remember what happened to him?  Yes, yes, you do.

:banana:

Yes. Very clearly. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Just waiting for "e-democracy discordia" and "kids and copperhead snakes".

Kids n Bags of Ground Glass.

DISCUSS!
\
:nigel:

http://www.erisbarandgrill.org/
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:45:17 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:43:40 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:40:32 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:39:17 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 06:31:07 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:26:46 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 01:34:16 PM

But I think that telling someone that what they are saying is nonsense and completely ridiculous is verbal bullying.

Oh, fuck off.   :lol:

I'd have said the same if I'd read that. The problem with holist is that it's not worth investing the time to read the shit.

His MO is the following:

1.  Begin the post with something insulting and/or condescending.
2.  Restate previous argument, disregarding any new information, etc.  Flawed or not (Who knows?  I don't read his shit past the first sentence).
3.  End with a nasty comment at someone.

People then do the obvious (ie, make fun of him), so

4.  Accuse everyone of "bullying" him.

Remember the last tard to use #4?  Oh, yeah, it was Captain Utopia, wasn't it?  Yes, yes, it was.

:lulz:

Remember what happened to him?  Yes, yes, you do.

:banana:

Yes. Very clearly. :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Just waiting for "e-democracy discordia" and "kids and copperhead snakes".

Kids n Bags of Ground Glass.

DISCUSS!
\
:nigel:

http://www.erisbarandgrill.org/

404
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:30:54 PM
You seem to be under the impression that I'm laughing with you, aspie.

Not in the least! But I am still laughing with you.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:54:45 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:46:56 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:30:54 PM
You seem to be under the impression that I'm laughing with you, aspie.

Not in the least! But I am still laughing with you.

Annnnnnd we have achieved stage 6.

I swear to God, we could set our watches by these guys.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 06:57:39 PM
Yep. Predictable aspie is predictable.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Captain Utopia

OMG, he wrote 169 pages, 2525 posts! We have a long way to go.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Freeky on September 30, 2012, 07:42:23 PM
Holist, you are not actually making friends right now.  You're being an insufferable prick, and people are either irritated that you're acting as dumb as you are or they're actively mocking you for acting dumb.

/reality check.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 07:52:21 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 07:29:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 30, 2012, 06:35:05 PM
Captain Utopia

OMG, he wrote 169 pages, 2525 posts! We have a long way to go.

Most of the CU saga takes place elsewhere. You have no clue.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Freeky on September 30, 2012, 08:18:52 PM
That was hilarious, the CU debacle, but only in a horrormirthy way.  Mental instability works out that way, sometimes.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 08:22:27 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 30, 2012, 08:18:52 PM
That was hilarious, the CU debacle, but only in a horrormirthy way.  Mental instability works out that way, sometimes.

And we already have one doomed to repeat it.  :lol:

Maybe somebody will hand him a board. Not this one, though.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Luna on September 30, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
 :notnice:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Anna Mae Bollocks on September 30, 2012, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 30, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
:notnice:

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Here ya go, holist. Your pulpit:

http://www.mybb.com/

:bye:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 10:00:03 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 30, 2012, 08:38:06 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 30, 2012, 08:34:23 PM
:notnice:

:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:

Here ya go, holist. Your pulpit:

http://www.mybb.com/

:bye:

But I already have one! its at http://holist.hu ...
Though I've recently taken almost everything down
And you don't read Hungarian, anyway... sorry

Bye for now, see you soon!
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.


I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm
Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

ETA: Quote fix.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 11:02:54 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Just to make sure you don't start claiming that I was actually threatening you, let me make it clear that that when I said "come and visit", all I had in mind was the totally scringey embarrassment that I am pretty sure would ensure, were we to meet face to face.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

I am 5'6". "Unladylike" is not a term I would use in criticism of you. I think we'd probably warm to each other if we met, but I could be wrong.

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

Well mm'kay... so I guess I've been terminologically corrected, but has this clouded the bloody simple point I was trying to get across over and over again to an extent that precluded further discussion and necessitated immediate nitpicking? I mean look at the quoted exchanges, please!

Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Now the thing is, this is a quote from your first link:
"a "Third World" country is not a country that simply is primitive, underdeveloped, or poor, as most people think.  In fact, a third world country is actually just a country that is not considered a capitalist country (first world) and not considered a communist country (2nd world)."

Whereas this is from your second:
"What makes a nation third world?
Despite everevolving definitions, the concept of the third world serves to identify countries that suffer from high infant mortality, low economic development, high levels of poverty, low utilization of natural resources, and heavy dependence on industrialized nations. These are the developing and technologically less advanced nations of Asia, Africa, Oceania, and Latin America. Third world nations tend to have economies dependent on the developed countries and are generally characterized as poor with unstable governments and having high rates of population growth, illiteracy, and disease. A key factor is the lack of a middle class — with impoverished millions in a vast lower economic class and a very small elite upper class controlling the country's wealth and resources. Most third world nations also have a very large foreign debt. "

So I am somewhat confused. WHich is the correct usage, in your opinion? And why?

Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 11:07:48 PM
The second quote there is talking about common or colloquial use. Read an anthropology textbook, or read several sites online and try to determine consensus. I am not interested in having a conversation with you. Although I'm totally going to dig out your quote where you said I wasn't acting like a lady.  :lol: Dishonest wanker.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.
Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Yeah. Right. And this is why I said, in response to you, a little while ago:

Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

So? What do you think?
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 11:11:31 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 11:07:48 PM
The second quote there is talking about common or colloquial use. Read an anthropology textbook, or read several sites online and try to determine consensus. I am not interested in having a conversation with you. Although I'm totally going to dig out your quote where you said I wasn't acting like a lady.  :lol: Dishonest wanker.

To provide some incentive: the moment you do, I will adopt the name "Dishonest wanker" on this board.

Cheers, happy digging
holist
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.
Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Yeah. Right. And this is why I said, in response to you, a little while ago:

Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

So? What do you think?
I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 11:19:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Ah yes, that is what I was remembering.  :lol:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes), I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:10:27 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 10:55:49 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 10:44:38 PM
Quote from: holist on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
So I am not saying it is a pack of lies.

Instead, I am going to say that when I made the reference to some thirld-world cities not being cities in the European sense, I should have said "first-world sense", and acknowledged that the first, second and third worlds, so nicely separated not so long ago, have been going through a bizarre process of fractal nesting for some time now which has resulted in the first and the third world being available within a few hundred miles in practically all locations on Earth. I corrected that statement, when Nigel called me on it, but that was not enough for her, because she enjoys bullying. Only on the internet, I imagine (I hope), where it is nice and depersonalised, and the person you are so enjoyably wiping the floor with is unlikely to come and visit all the way from fucking Hungary or whereever he is from.
Not to mention, that East St. Louis, Detroit, and New Orleans qualify, under holist's definitions, as third-world cities.  I'm unfamiliar with European cities, but I would imagine that some also qualify, and that would negate his idea that those cities aren't "cities in the European sense".

I wanted to quote this part because it was funny.

Holist, sometimes people quite close to me say things that make them sound foolish, too, and I don't hesitate to point that out. If they're being jerks about it, I point that out too, even though many of them live in the same city and I am a 5'3" woman of middle age (who doesn't act ladylike enough, according to you) with three kids. They are, for the most part, unlikely to "come visit me" in the sense you seem to be implying because they're bipedal human beings, though some of them have visited me in a friendlier sense, over beer.

Also, your ongoing misuse of the terms "first world countries" and "third world countries" is making me cringe. Most people today who are educated in the social sciences don't use those terms anymore, as they are outdated and don't really refer to socioeconomic status.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/the-term-third-world-country-refers-to-the-politics-and-economic-structure-of-a-country-not-its-developmental-state-or-wealth/
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world_countries.htm

Yeah. Right. And this is why I said, in response to you, a little while ago:

Quote from: holist on September 30, 2012, 06:50:15 AM
No-no, you try again. The first thing I did upon being challenged is to admit, straight up, that I probably picked the wrong cities and explain that it was not crucial to my point. Later on, Subsymbolic explained in painful detail what he thought my initial assertion was about, which was ignored or ridiculed. The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high. In a first-world neighbourhood, if you show signs of above-average affluence, you may still walk around without clear and present danger of being mugged or beaten or even killed for a few of your possessions. This is partly because state-provided coercive mechanisms are in place to prevent this, but also partly because there aren't that many people who are desperate enough to do something like that. In third -world neighbourhoods, this is not the case.

First-world city story (true one, happened to me): my kid's bicycle gets stolen from my yard. I report it to the police. A couple of months later, in an unrelated case, police catch a petty thief. They find the bicycle I reported stolen in the thief's back yard. I get bicycle back.

Third-world city story (very likely to be true one, related by my Somali refugee friend Hussein, whom I've known for 15 years, and whom I helped get out of the terrible Hungarian refugee-processing meat-grinder): man arrives in Mogadishu airport (back when there were still commercial,scheduled flights going there). Leaves terminal. Man comes up, points at a car parked nearby with driver in it, and asks: "dou you like that car?" Recent arrival responds with a half-hearted 'yes'. Man proceeds to shoot driver and says: "You can buy it off me for 500 dollars".

I think the contrast there is real and actually bloody obvious. The obstinate efforts to turn it into a story about me failing to acknowledge that I was wrong are frustrating and unfair.

So? What do you think?

That you are pulling a classic evasion maneuver by claiming that you misspoke and really meant something else... in other words, shifting goalposts. I also want to know in what way your attempt to redefine the conversation relates to the original point you were attempting to make.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on September 30, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:29:38 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes), I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.
:lulz:
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.
When you said this:

Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on September 30, 2012, 11:32:38 PM
Bye, Ladies, it's half past midnight here, I need to crash. I'm looking after ill 2-year-old tomorrow (unless she gets better overnight), so I may not have time for verbal gymnastics.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Kai on September 30, 2012, 11:35:34 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.
When you said this:

Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.

You need to be acquainted with East St. Louis. It fits your definition to a T.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:38:19 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.
When you said this:

Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.
So what you are saying is that you have no argument to back up your claim, or that you are unfamiliar with the demographics of the above cities? Because at this point, you're leading into are argument in which you will be required to cite legitimate demographic comparisons between a "third-world city" and the "first-world cities" I've listed.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Kai on September 30, 2012, 11:40:48 PM
Also, quit responding to different people as if they're the same person. What do you think we are, the Borg?
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 01:04:53 AM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:29:56 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 11:24:17 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 30, 2012, 11:21:22 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:12:52 PM
http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31353.msg1137403.html#msg1137403

Yeah, well. Actually, I didn't mean it: I was so outraged by Roger putting that in my mouth, I didn't spit it out, just said yeah, right, sort of. As in: whatever. 

Thing is, once I realised that despite the primate tendency to think otherwise, your fantasies about who and what I am are actually totally unrelated to who or what I am, and practice remembering the ins and outs of a situation (I am playing sometimes a little rough verbal games with a bunch of strangers some of whom say interesting things with some regularity, but many of whom are amazingly opinionated and over-generalizing weirdoes, I don't get agitated any more.

This has been a valuable learning experience, actually, thank you.

Ah.

You didn't mean what you said.

Again.

But it's not your fault, it's my fault.

I see.
When you said this:

Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on September 30, 2012, 11:18:15 PM
I think that if that's your definition of third-world, then East St. Louis, New Orleans, Vancouver, Detroit, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and numerous other cities are "third-world cities".

You were actually repsonding to a rather overgrown wall of words.

That large chunk included this, written by me, a while back:

"The difference between first-world cities and third-world cities (or parts of cities, because these conditions increasingly coexist in the same cities, within short distances of each other, as I attempted to explain above) is that in first-world cities, the proportion of entirely disenfranchised people in deep poverty is low, while in third-world neighbourhoods it is very high."

I'M too tired to dig out the thing that the "as I attempted to explain above" refers to, but I do recall it: about the increasingly fractal nesting and intermingling of cultures everywhere. This, incidentally, is pretty much the same as what Nigel now tells me is the colloquial use of the terms.

:? I didn't say that.

Maybe part of your problem is that you can't keep track of who says what.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 06:25:04 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 30, 2012, 11:23:08 PM
That you are pulling a classic evasion maneuver by claiming that you misspoke and really meant something else... in other words, shifting goalposts. I also want to know in what way your attempt to redefine the conversation relates to the original point you were attempting to make.

Well you know, what happened can be described as "a classic evasion maneuver" and  "shifting goalposts" if we assume I am being dishonest in modifying my claim (nomen est omen). But I happen to know that I wasn't being dishonest, which makes it, quite simply, "claiming that you misspoke and really meant something else" - i.e. an admition of a mistake (which you claim you value highly) followed by clarification.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 06:26:05 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 01, 2012, 01:04:53 AM
Maybe part of your problem is that you can't keep track of who says what.

Yes, you are perfectly right there, I screwed that up.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 06:32:22 AM
Requesting a thread split to remove The Holist Show from this thread, starting at post #7.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Cain on October 01, 2012, 06:42:00 AM
I saw your report.  I'm only just up but when I have a free hour later this morning, I'll go through and split the incidental arguments from the main discussion, since there was actually some useful information in there, before Holist made it all about him.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:19:09 AM
Bump.

Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier here, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced (in Africa, I am told, mad people in small villages are frequently chained to trees. They get fed, but are not allowed to move about freely, because they are considered too dangerous.) And most (though not all) people spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 01, 2012, 07:22:16 AM
So who else is super stoked that the NFL got their real refs back, huh??
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 03:43:07 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2012, 06:42:00 AM
I saw your report.  I'm only just up but when I have a free hour later this morning, I'll go through and split the incidental arguments from the main discussion, since there was actually some useful information in there, before Holist made it all about him.

Thank you Cain, I appreciate you going to that much trouble to salvage the thread.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
A European city is a city that is in the continent of Europe.

Thread over.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 04:50:14 PM
Thank you roger i was about to post similar.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
A European city is a city that is in the continent of Europe.

Thread over.

Quite. However... the thread title should have been "What defines a city in the European sense".
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 06:25:50 PM
I dont know about all of europe but in the british isles traditionally it would be the presence of  a cathedral. Thread still over.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 06:22:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
A European city is a city that is in the continent of Europe.

Thread over.

Quite. However... the thread title should have been "What defines a city in the European sense".

QuoteIn British English, city is reserved for very large settlements and smaller historic settlements with a Cathedral (e.g. Lichfield), while smaller settlements without a Cathedral are called towns, and smaller still are villages and hamlets

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 06:35:38 PM
Same source:

QuoteThe French word for city is the same for that for a town, ville. In France, there is no distinction between a town and a city. There is only a difference between a city or town (ville), a village (village) which is smaller (around 50 to 2000 inhabitants), and a hamlet (hameau) which does not have more than around 50 inhabitants.[48]. The number of inhabitants that a city or a village is considered as having may vary among individuals. But petite ville (literally "small town", or town) usually refers to smaller villes and grande ville for the bigger ones.[citation needed] The term métropole (metropolis) or grande ville (big town or city) can be used for the biggest cities
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 06:39:39 PM
QuoteIn Finland, there is no distinction between "city" and "town", both being known by the word kaupunki. In local government, a local governing municipality or kunta can designate itself as a kaupunki by a simple vote in council.

QuoteThe German word for both "town" and "city" is Stadt, while a city with more than 100,000 inhabitants is called a Großstadt (big city). On the other hand, most towns are communities belonging to a Landkreis (county or rural district), but there are some cities, usually with at least 50,000 inhabitants, that are counties by themselves (kreisfreie Städte).

QuoteIn the Netherlands a city is called stad, in common with other Germanic languages. In the Dutch language there is no distinction between town and city (both are stad).

QuoteIn Norway a city is called by and is derived from the Norse word býr meaning "a place with many buildings". Both cities and towns can be referred to as by; however, in recent years, storby (lit. large city) has been used for larger settlements. The status of "town" is granted by the local authorities if a request for city status has been made and the area has a population of at least 5000. An area with a population of at least 50,000 is counted as a "city". Since 1997, cities no longer have special administrative functions

QuoteIn Poland the word miasto serves for both town and city. Miasto is the term applied purely on the basis of the administrative decision of the central government, and specifically means either:
a county (gmina or powiat) with a city charter;
a city within a county, created by granting a city charter to a smaller town within a county

QuoteAs in Spanish, in Portuguese there is a traditional distinction between cities — cidades — and towns — vilas. The difference is defined by law,[54] and a city must have:

at least 8,000 electors (more or less 10,000 inhabitants)
at least half of the following services:
hospital
pharmacy
fire department
theatre / cultural house
museum
library
hotel services
basic and secondary schools
public transport
gardens / urban parks
In special cases, some towns may be granted the status of city if they possess historical, cultural or architectonic importance.

QuoteSweden canceled the official legal term City (in Swedish: stad) in the year 1971. Only the word municipality (in Swedish: kommun) prevails, making no legal difference between Stockholm and a countryside municipality. Before that there were a number of terms like "stad"/Town, "köping"/large village etc. The definition of City/Town (stad) was merely that it was given such a title.

I think that about covers it, though I can post more if necessary.

Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Freeky on October 01, 2012, 06:46:05 PM
So it's basically based on population, and in some cases by what sort of municipal services (hospital, firefighters, schools, museums, etc.)  yes?
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Also if the place was built on rock and roll then it automatically is granted city status. But rog covered it. If theres a lot of people living in the same area of europe its a european city.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 06:52:10 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 06:46:52 PM
Also if the place was built on rock and roll then it automatically is granted city status. But rog covered it. If theres a lot of people living in the same area of europe its a european city.

A better way to say it is that all European nations have different standards of what a "city" is.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: LMNO on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:01:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

That unfurnished countries don't have cities like Europe does.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Freeky on October 01, 2012, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

Did anybody know in the first place, including holist himself?

Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:01:52 PM
That unfurnished countries don't have cities like Europe does.

Ohh. 
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
If you can't handle being pestered atrociously, and you don't wish to just conform to the tribethink here (oh, and there very much is one, though I'll get my head kicked in for this, I know), then you have no business coming here.

And this is why Holist will never get along ANYWHERE he goes.   :lulz:
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 07:05:51 PM
So a bit of the european cultural superiority in his head then?
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:08:53 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 07:05:51 PM
So a bit of the White european cultural superiority in his head then?

Fixed for completeness.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: tyrannosaurus vex on October 01, 2012, 07:11:52 PM
Well even European cities won't be European for long. Have you seen how smudgy they're getting?
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 07:12:47 PM
Well it might not be outright racism. Them dahkies an wot not is bettah of if they wos brought up in a civiloized place loik london i fink roight?

Twid
just wanted to type in cockney really
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: LMNO on October 01, 2012, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:01:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

That unfurnished countries don't have cities like Europe does.

Wait, seriously?  I had presumed that the whole "what's a city" had a larger point.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 07:14:08 PM
Yep thats a typically european attitude too vex.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:14:56 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:01:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

That unfurnished countries don't have cities like Europe does.

Wait, seriously?  I had presumed that the whole "what's a city" had a larger point.

Read the first page of this thread.  I mean, if you can bring yourself to do it.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

The point I was trying to make was that the news that now over half the humans on Earth live in cities may be misleading to someone used to cities in the European sense (where the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless part of the population is a small minority), because the larger part of that massive urban population consists of exactly those people: the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless slum-dwellers of cities of the world.

It was actually a tangential part of a rather long description of what I believe in, which you can read in its original context here:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683)

Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:29:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
If you can't handle being pestered atrociously, and you don't wish to just conform to the tribethink here (oh, and there very much is one, though I'll get my head kicked in for this, I know), then you have no business coming here.

And this is why Holist will never get along ANYWHERE he goes.   :lulz:

But I already do! And I go many places!  :lulz:
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:31:05 PM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 07:05:51 PM
So a bit of the european cultural superiority in his head then?

No.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

The point I was trying to make was that the news that now over half the humans on Earth live in cities may be misleading to someone used to cities in the European sense (where the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless part of the population is a small minority), because the larger part of that massive urban population consists of exactly those people: the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless slum-dwellers of cities of the world.

It was actually a tangential part of a rather long description of what I believe in, which you can read in its original context here:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683)

Translation:  Many non-European cities are full of poor people, who don't count.

Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:37:22 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:29:46 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:04:30 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on September 29, 2012, 09:21:15 PM
If you can't handle being pestered atrociously, and you don't wish to just conform to the tribethink here (oh, and there very much is one, though I'll get my head kicked in for this, I know), then you have no business coming here.

And this is why Holist will never get along ANYWHERE he goes.   :lulz:

But I already do! And I go many places!  :lulz:

Balls.  If you had anywhere to go, you wouldn't be here.  You've made it painfully obvious that you dislike or hold in disdain everyone on this board.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:40:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

The point I was trying to make was that the news that now over half the humans on Earth live in cities may be misleading to someone used to cities in the European sense (where the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless part of the population is a small minority), because the larger part of that massive urban population consists of exactly those people: the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless slum-dwellers of cities of the world.

It was actually a tangential part of a rather long description of what I believe in, which you can read in its original context here:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683)

Translation:  Many non-European cities are full of poor people, who don't count.

That's a BAAAD translation. I was actually trying to say that they do count, and should count.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:41:27 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:40:13 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:36:22 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

The point I was trying to make was that the news that now over half the humans on Earth live in cities may be misleading to someone used to cities in the European sense (where the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless part of the population is a small minority), because the larger part of that massive urban population consists of exactly those people: the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless slum-dwellers of cities of the world.

It was actually a tangential part of a rather long description of what I believe in, which you can read in its original context here:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683)

Translation:  Many non-European cities are full of poor people, who don't count.

That's a BAAAD translation. I was actually trying to say that they do count, and should count.

Where?  You were saying that cities like that didn't really count as cities, at least in the "European" sense.
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:42:38 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:37:22 PM
Balls.  If you had anywhere to go, you wouldn't be here.  You've made it painfully obvious that you dislike or hold in disdain everyone on this board.

Well, I am terribly sorry to be so contrary again, but no, I did not. (Please note that I am posting regularly in all of 2 threads, with the occasional picture and video thrown in, oh, and a few responses to questions. Why am I not sinking out of sight?)
Title: Re: Another holist vanity thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:43:41 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:42:38 PM

Well, I am terribly sorry to be so contrary again, but no, I did not.

You sure as fuck have, on several occasions.



Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: LMNO on October 01, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on January 08, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
we all work on what we wish to work on
(those genuinely under coercion not included)

i happen to think that creating the res publica of a people, the establishment (or re-establishment, or restoration) of a country in the sense of a nation state is an outmoded enterprise with little merit

in order to find more timely and glorious work, it is expedient to review the situation that we find ourselves in first from a larger (global), then from a narrower (personal) perspective

none of what i will say is new

global perspective:

one earth, seven billion people

roughly one tenth of that number do not eat their fill every day of the week

at the same time, ten percent of the population dispose over eighty-five percent of all earthly wealth

within that number, the richest one percent control forty percent of the wealth

man does not live by bread alone

over half the population of the earth live in cities, though mostly not cities in the european sense

and well over half the population strive to realise, in their personal lives, the ideals of the welfare consumer society

lots of food, lots of channels, lots of clutter

estimating the size of the autonomous, adult population who hold their lives and their hands and thus purposefully form them is harder

after a small, highly subjective and far from representative opinion survey and a great deal of pondering i have concluded that such people occur in higher proportion in the third world (brutal existential uncertainty is a strong selection pressure at both the individual and the social levels)

the transitional margin between the autonomous and the slave/slaver group is quite wide and gradual along a number of distinct dimensions

globally, the proportion of autonomous, self-governing  adults is somewhere between 0.1 percent and 10 percent

as an incorrigible optimist, i would wager around 1 percent

one in a hundred people

*

personal perspective:

i posit that only sovereign, adult people, who know their own lives and hold them in their hands in order to shape them are capable of authentic political action

i posit that in the present situation authentic political action is impossible without first letting go of all sorts of national or racial phantasmagories, imaginings, emotional tangles

i posit that today, authentic political action may be aimed at the following two targets (possibly among others, i am not making an exhaustive claim here):

firstly, moving fellow humans in the transitional stages between being robots and being people (or half-asleep, or what have you) towards sufficient levels of sovereignity

such actions include raising children, clarity of thinking and speech and the exemplary practice of authentic ways of being

secondly, the strengthening, supporting, mobilisation, vitalisation of the networks, the systems of interrelationships of autonomous people

this includes tribal enterprise, active community building and maintenance, trust-based barter trade and the promotion of communication and cooperation between small sovereign communities

thank you for your attention

Um.  That's fairly incoherent, at best, and far too idealistic to be in any way practical.

Quoteand when i translated it, even though i saw it wasn't particularly connected to anything, i decided to leave it in, because i think this factette is somehow strangely relevant to the present-day human predicament

Yeah.  Anyway, welcome to the pledge.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:44:41 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:41:27 PM
Where?  You were saying that cities like that didn't really count as cities, at least in the "European" sense.

Well, no, I wasn't. The context for that comment about cities is quoted in this thread, I also just linked it for LMNO. You are just being mean.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:44:56 PM
Ah, crap.  He's a libertariantard.

Yep.  Pledge, as of now.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:45:52 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Yeah.  Anyway, welcome to the pledge.

Could you explain that, please? I don't understand it at all.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 01, 2012, 07:48:28 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 01, 2012, 07:44:56 PM
Ah, crap.  He's a libertariantard.

What on earth makes you think that? I find some arguments for libertarianism quite convincing, and I don't think that for a libertarian setup to work, everybody or most people would have to become significantly and unrealistically nicer than they all are. What I see as the problem with it is that in order for such a system to get off the ground, large number of people would have to believe that it could get off the ground, and that seems unlikely to happen any time soon.

Also, I note you completely failed to respond to the paper about conditions in Somalia.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Faust on October 01, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
I have never been in a two european cities that felt the same. Thread title annoys me and causes a knee jerk reaction.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 09:32:55 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

I don't remember either. I asked him earlier but I had classes this morning and don't know if he's replied. It might have something to do with homeopathy.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Cain on October 01, 2012, 09:36:33 PM
His point is that you are mired in Cartesian dualism.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 09:37:26 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 01, 2012, 07:27:40 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 06:56:29 PM
I can't remember: what's the point he was trying to make?

The point I was trying to make was that the news that now over half the humans on Earth live in cities may be misleading to someone used to cities in the European sense (where the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless part of the population is a small minority), because the larger part of that massive urban population consists of exactly those people: the completely disenfranchised, poor and hopeless slum-dwellers of cities of the world.

It was actually a tangential part of a rather long description of what I believe in, which you can read in its original context here:

http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683 (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,31295.msg1134683.html#msg1134683)

While your actual point is still unclear, you seem to be equating the urban poor with the rural poor, which is extremely inaccurate, to say the least.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 09:38:59 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2012, 09:36:33 PM
His point is that you are mired in Cartesian dualism.

Ohhhhh

It all becomes clear!

:lol:
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 01, 2012, 09:40:10 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on October 01, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on January 08, 2012, 09:42:40 PM
we all work on what we wish to work on
(those genuinely under coercion not included)

i happen to think that creating the res publica of a people, the establishment (or re-establishment, or restoration) of a country in the sense of a nation state is an outmoded enterprise with little merit

in order to find more timely and glorious work, it is expedient to review the situation that we find ourselves in first from a larger (global), then from a narrower (personal) perspective

none of what i will say is new

global perspective:

one earth, seven billion people

roughly one tenth of that number do not eat their fill every day of the week

at the same time, ten percent of the population dispose over eighty-five percent of all earthly wealth

within that number, the richest one percent control forty percent of the wealth

man does not live by bread alone

over half the population of the earth live in cities, though mostly not cities in the european sense

and well over half the population strive to realise, in their personal lives, the ideals of the welfare consumer society

lots of food, lots of channels, lots of clutter

estimating the size of the autonomous, adult population who hold their lives and their hands and thus purposefully form them is harder

after a small, highly subjective and far from representative opinion survey and a great deal of pondering i have concluded that such people occur in higher proportion in the third world (brutal existential uncertainty is a strong selection pressure at both the individual and the social levels)

the transitional margin between the autonomous and the slave/slaver group is quite wide and gradual along a number of distinct dimensions

globally, the proportion of autonomous, self-governing  adults is somewhere between 0.1 percent and 10 percent

as an incorrigible optimist, i would wager around 1 percent

one in a hundred people

*

personal perspective:

i posit that only sovereign, adult people, who know their own lives and hold them in their hands in order to shape them are capable of authentic political action

i posit that in the present situation authentic political action is impossible without first letting go of all sorts of national or racial phantasmagories, imaginings, emotional tangles

i posit that today, authentic political action may be aimed at the following two targets (possibly among others, i am not making an exhaustive claim here):

firstly, moving fellow humans in the transitional stages between being robots and being people (or half-asleep, or what have you) towards sufficient levels of sovereignity

such actions include raising children, clarity of thinking and speech and the exemplary practice of authentic ways of being

secondly, the strengthening, supporting, mobilisation, vitalisation of the networks, the systems of interrelationships of autonomous people

this includes tribal enterprise, active community building and maintenance, trust-based barter trade and the promotion of communication and cooperation between small sovereign communities

thank you for your attention

Um.  That's fairly incoherent, at best, and far too idealistic to be in any way practical.

Quoteand when i translated it, even though i saw it wasn't particularly connected to anything, i decided to leave it in, because i think this factette is somehow strangely relevant to the present-day human predicament

Yeah.  Anyway, welcome to the pledge.

I think we're learning a lot about why translated documents so often make very little sense.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 11:48:48 PM
It seems to me that regardless of whatever the word city has in whatever european language the basic criteria seems to be human settlement with large population and population density. What makes these other cities not cities by the basic understood meaning of the word? Does hungary have  particularly narrow definition? If so does boston meet the criteria? If not is it not a really real city even though the usa says it is? Why are you trying to impose your own definition of city on developing nations and not other nations that have slightly different meanings for city than you?
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 12:00:37 AM
(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa417/DoktorHowl/budapest_56_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Nephew Twiddleton on October 02, 2012, 12:00:53 AM
What about brookline massachusetts which blocked being annexed by boston? It is heavily urbanized but has a town government. It is bordered on three sides by the city of boston and one by the city of newton. Do brookliners not count in this tally even though they most definitely make up a metropolitan area. Hell for statistical purposes the usa gives population centers in new england its own category. I believe the acronym is necta. New england city town association or something.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Cain on October 02, 2012, 12:07:53 AM
Taking my made up subject title too seriously, ITT
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 02, 2012, 12:24:25 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 11:48:48 PM
It seems to me that regardless of whatever the word city has in whatever european language the basic criteria seems to be human settlement with large population and population density. What makes these other cities not cities by the basic understood meaning of the word? Does hungary have  particularly narrow definition? If so does boston meet the criteria? If not is it not a really real city even though the usa says it is? Why are you trying to impose your own definition of city on developing nations and not other nations that have slightly different meanings for city than you?

Well, and then there's the question of whether Hungary has ANY first-world cities, despite being a second-world nation? If not, are second-world cities still really "cities" in the "European sense"?
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 02, 2012, 12:24:25 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 11:48:48 PM
It seems to me that regardless of whatever the word city has in whatever european language the basic criteria seems to be human settlement with large population and population density. What makes these other cities not cities by the basic understood meaning of the word? Does hungary have  particularly narrow definition? If so does boston meet the criteria? If not is it not a really real city even though the usa says it is? Why are you trying to impose your own definition of city on developing nations and not other nations that have slightly different meanings for city than you?

Well, and then there's the question of whether Hungary has ANY first-world cities, despite being a second-world nation? If not, are second-world cities still really "cities" in the "European sense"?

Not after 1956.

(shameless, self-serving bump follows:

(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa417/DoktorHowl/budapest_56_03.jpg)
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Mesozoic Mister Nigel on October 02, 2012, 12:27:08 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 02, 2012, 12:26:07 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 02, 2012, 12:24:25 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on October 01, 2012, 11:48:48 PM
It seems to me that regardless of whatever the word city has in whatever european language the basic criteria seems to be human settlement with large population and population density. What makes these other cities not cities by the basic understood meaning of the word? Does hungary have  particularly narrow definition? If so does boston meet the criteria? If not is it not a really real city even though the usa says it is? Why are you trying to impose your own definition of city on developing nations and not other nations that have slightly different meanings for city than you?

Well, and then there's the question of whether Hungary has ANY first-world cities, despite being a second-world nation? If not, are second-world cities still really "cities" in the "European sense"?

Not after 1956.

(shameless, self-serving bump follows:

(http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa417/DoktorHowl/budapest_56_03.jpg)

:lulz:
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 02, 2012, 06:49:06 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 01, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
I have never been in a two european cities that felt the same. Thread title annoys me and causes a knee jerk reaction.

Yeah. I've complained about it already.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Faust on October 02, 2012, 08:18:50 AM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 02, 2012, 06:49:06 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 01, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
I have never been in a two european cities that felt the same. Thread title annoys me and causes a knee jerk reaction.

Yeah. I've complained about it already.

Oh did you? I generally don't read your posts. I retract my objection so.
Title: Re: Unlimited "What defines a European city" urban theory debate thread
Post by: Dildo Argentino on October 02, 2012, 09:14:56 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 02, 2012, 08:18:50 AM
Quote from: Dishonest Wanker on October 02, 2012, 06:49:06 AM
Quote from: Faust on October 01, 2012, 08:39:29 PM
I have never been in a two european cities that felt the same. Thread title annoys me and causes a knee jerk reaction.

Yeah. I've complained about it already.

Oh did you? I generally don't read your posts. I retract my objection so.

Glad to be of service.