Tuesday, May 17, 2016

remember, if Marketing can build a bubblefad of hype and spread it around to those "in the industry" for their regurgitation...

Sometimes, I read blogs other than this one and the reliable outlets of solipsism historically targeted by this blog's past writers.  My interests are somewhat different from Hal's, Paul's, Karl's, Hy's, or Chuck's.

My interests are jump-started whenever I find an intersection of two or more of these things:

  • the Law
  • athleticism vs "the sport" (defined as: money generated by hyping gear or destinations)
  • partisan politics offered as Objective Reality
  • economics vs technology vs environment vs ecology
  • satire/irony/sarcasm/parody, vs items offered as such but failing to provide it

Also, I like music, but I don't ever analyze or criticize a decision to put up a music video unless there is some absurdity in the idea of the thing offered as a music video actually containing music. Rick-rolling is not something I find impressive, but maybe that's because quite a few decades rest between me and myself in 8th grade. A practical joke needs more subtlety, wisdom and actual teaching to catch my attention now, much as it has since I was about 15, so that's a pretty long time I've got discerning the quality of practical jokes.

The judge I clerked for after graduating law school was a terrific practical joker who created elaborate practical jokes to prank on his friends. I heard about these not from the judge himself, but from his friends, who admired his creative sense of humor and mockery. I think if he'd chosen comedy instead of law, he could have been up there with Andy Kaufman.

*************

Sometimes people think they're doing a "practical joke" and even will call it that when asked to explain their activity. Most times when you put the Elementary School Level Microscope (max 130x) on such explanations they fall apart and reveal the "joker" as actually trying to tear down the object(s) of the practical not-a-joke.

Whenever this is happening, I think it wise to look at the kind of person you're dealing with.  In other words, up to the moment it seems clearly not-a-joke, you were thinking him or her to be a funny person, or at least one who considers self funny and is willing to offer that in public, perhaps to failure and ego-shame result; perhaps also, to admiration and, in some cases, copycatting-as-flattery result.

Whether it's funny or something else might be easier to plumb with the observations in this post and its comments afterward.  It's from Hal, so you know it's going to provoke, because that's what Hal does.  His humor always is provocative, and always aims at hypocrisy and absurdity in the process.

*************

"Marketing" is where a lot of pseudo-humor, done destructively toward one's fellow humans, is most honestly and openly displayed.

Let me give you someone else's graphic, done to parodic perfection, regarding competing running shoe designs from a recent fadbubble in running shoe sales:


The Hoka was hyped as an anatomically true, more "natural" shoe. And hyped as such not just by Hoka itself, but by those in the relevant "industry" where people "test" and "review" such shoes. And therefore the myth on the street/trail was that the Hoka was a hot new anatomic shoe that will let you run longer, faster, further with greater ease and less detriment to your (otherwise not athletically trained) body.

I don't know about you, but when I discover this kind of thing -- like when I tried on a Hoka shoe and felt what that graphic describes above -- I thought to myself, "why in Hades is there so much hype around this torture device?  Who could honestly think that's good for runners, or for future runner trust in shoe makers to deliver a well-designed shoe?"  Really, my gnawing problem was this:

Who could think it's honest?

and

Why do people "cynically" say, "well that's how things are, dude, and that's what you have to do to get ahead in this world."  ??

while

complaining about how their Partisan Opposite Political Superset are liars and how dishonesty is the primary problem with Donald Trump's campaign and status as seeker of the Oval Office?

Maybe you will leave me a comment that clarifies things?

218 comments:

1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Harold Caidagh said...

You people still wondering why I hired Chet?

Or how and why GRH lost that lawsuit?

Paul Behrer said...

Let's not forget one thing, Hal. You were not alone in hiring him. The blog was his client. All relevant past primary authors were consulted. Anne O'Dyan and Walt Greenglen were contacted multiple times, no response. Chuck, Hy, Karl and I all agreed that Chet was the best choice.

I would wager that Anne and Walt would both have disliked the choice, as both of them were more partisan and aligned with the Donkeys, and they would not have liked Chet's non-committal status on partisan issues. They both would have suggested he's got some mental illness because of his sociopathic individualism.

I think it's pretty clear what are the limitations of their views, so even if they'd weighed in, they'd have been overruled by me, Hy, Karl and Chuck. And you too, I assume.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Jesus, can you imagine trying to argue an appeal against Chet?

You'd never even feel the katana's slice, your head would be on the floor with eyes still trying to register what just happened. The disconnected brain would have been thinking, right up to its point of detachment, that this idiot Redweld is an easy mark and you're going to mop the floor with him and his argument.

Chet Redweld said...

Shut up. These compliments are stupid. It doesn't matter what kinds of puffery you guys offer.

What matters is what I do with the task given me, and how I do it. Nothing more.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

They're not stupid, Chet.

They may be a writer's way of offering compliments, but they are sincere thanks for the quality of your work and the integrity with which you conduct yourself.

Exemplary, that's what I'd call it and you. It's a shame more lawyers don't work the way you do. Might even cause people's stereotypes to shatter if someone else hired you and saw your work.

Isn't this the way new goods or services should be sold, Chet?

Sincere word of mouth?

And not hype by marketing?

H.M. Lohmann said...

I just want to say that Chet's main entry above is something like 50 levels up the pyramid from SMBIVA, the Arch-Druid, Dmitry Orlov, mencius moldbug, Scott Alexander and probably 2500 levels up from such weak understudies as BLCKDGRD or Tarzie or Charles Davis.

It also reveals the lying nature of people like Glenn Greenwald, Chris Floyd, Noam Chomsky.

I don't know about you guys, but I don't see anyone up at his level. That probably explains why he's never mentioned anywhere.

Harold Caidagh said...

That probably explains why he's never mentioned anywhere.

I was saying the other day that Hy's observations are getting crisper by the week. Nice work, Hy.

H.M. Lohmann said...

I tried to explain the other day why my posts have changed. I've kept thinking about it since then. The truth is that it's Chet's posts here, and his thoughts offered offline to us, that have changed the way I see things.

When I was a kid under the influence of my parents' preferred worldview, I would not have been able to see that Chet affected me positively. My parents taught me that I'm always right and others who question, dispute or disagree with me are wrong, and that's the way the world works -- if you admit you're wrong, you're weak and will be eaten by the wolves who run society. So the solution to them was to be the meanest wolf with the most deceptive herpetological behavior, or else you'll die young.

I can't begin to thank Chet enough for helping me see how much damage my parents' worldview did, not just to me, but to them as well.

And he's just a lawyer, not a shrink.

Thanks, Chet.

Chet Redweld said...

I may be forced to pack my duffle and do the shuffle if you guys don't shut up with the compliments.

Paul Behrer said...

I can relate, Chet.

Too many compliments is like being in a place with too many people.

Chet Redweld said...

So your bio on the right margin is accurate. Well, the others are too. These posts are just my equivalent. Like most lawyers I tend to explain 25 ways to Sunday when taking apart an idea and putting it back together again. If you ever need the executive summary, I can do that too.

I would remind everyone about Oxtrot's Law, which is a good one, even though it's not part of my executive summary.

Know their aims and you will know their competence; know their competence and you will know their aims.

Chuck's take is more cynical; mine is more pragmatic.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Like most lawyers I tend to explain 25 ways to Sunday when taking apart an idea and putting it back together again.

The word "most" is misplaced there, Chet. Though I get your humility, I really do. It's just not typical for lawyers to actually take something apart so thoroughly or put it back together again so coherently.

I'd like the executive summary. What's it going to cost us?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I think maybe, with Chet's help, some readers of this blog might come to see a long-term agenda, a unified project goal, among the past writers and their chosen aims.

What do you guys think?

Harold Caidagh said...

Isn't that what we paid him for in the GRH lawsuit, essentially?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

That's why I asked what the Exec Summary was going to cost. The GRH lawsuit is finished.

Harold Caidagh said...

Yeah, but he just put that primary post up for free.

Or at least, he'd better not bill us for it. I know I didn't ask him to write about that or think about that. "That," being whatever he's trying to say up there. I know what he's trying to say, but I'm not inclined to make everyone else see it my way.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Jesus F Plasti-Dip Christ. Look at how he's bringing us around.

I know what he's trying to say, but I'm not inclined to make everyone else see it my way.

That was the point I was making to Matt Wragg the other day.

Post-Chet-hiring @ UNSF = clarity, unity.

Uh... sorry there, Chet. I'm trying to get you to give the EXEC for free, but I'm working in the wrong direction probably. Compliments are not complementary in this situation, are they?

Chet Redweld said...

No, they're not.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Well, it's true anyway, and offered because of what I said up there at 10:55 AM.

I just don't want to pay for the EXEC, that's all.

Paul Behrer said...

Look, all of us are comparatively broke, skint, hardscrabble, roughin' it, whatever as the case may be. Even Chet himself, from what I can gather. He knows the situation. He'll bill us if it's appropriate, and I trust his judgment on that given the way he's handled things so far.

Chet Redweld said...

Maybe Chuck should stop throwing fees away with gratis editorial advice, like what he just referenced.

I say this as your legal counsel.

Paul Behrer said...

This thread is a fuckin' treasure trove of shit for all those imitators to steal.

Hurry, copycats, and write your First Novel by cut-and-pasting this blog's content and changing a few names and location references.

Smarten up, enginerds, and offer the same ideas as your own, thanking your industry bros for the props they give you as a result.

Bubble-blow, "journalists," and do like the copycats but for "funny piece" or "insightful remarks" entries that never attribute this blog.

There's no reason why you should stop now.

Harold Caidagh said...

None.

Chet always takes such things lying down. I mean, look at the GRH lawsuit.

H.M. Lohmann said...

I doubt they're getting the message.

Look how long it took me.

Well, the longer it accrues, the bigger the whack. Right, Chet?

Chet Redweld said...

Yes.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Chet, you did plaintiffs' work in the past, didn't you?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I looked at Chet's background before I voted Yes on the GRH lawsuit representation.

He's covered torts from every angle, Hy. At the highest levels of exposure and complexity. I wouldn't have voted Yes on GRH if he hadn't. I'm pretty sure that's why he out-lawyered, out-maneuvered, out-strategized, out-wrote and out-argued the GRH plaintiffs and their legal team.

He got Priscilla Houle-Eaton's report disregarded by how he handled Hal's interview and the back-and-forth with the GRH lawyers afterward.

He exposed the graft and chicanery between the judge and the GRH lawyers.

Don't you think these things show he shouldn't be taken lightly?

Chet Redweld said...

Yes, I've handled tort matters for plaintiffs.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

And you're familiar with tort laws across all 50 states plus relevant US jurisdictions, too.

The modesty is honorable, but you're selling yourself short as usual.

While you might've passed only a few states' bar exams, Chet, your work history is extensive enough that your substantive tort knowledge goes well beyond what happens in the states where you've been admitted.

This modesty, Chet. It's a little self-defeating.

Look at me, being redundant like a 3d tier lawyer. Good thing I'm not the lawyer here.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

So, like I was saying above, about the katana cut?

Chet Redweld said...

Look, Karl.

It's not a strategy. It's just who and what I am.

Being who and what you are is part of the path to excellence. I'm lucky to have had some people who guided me in that manner, in that direction.

The compliments remain a little overwhelming.

Paul Behrer said...

Don't go all Zen on us now, Chet.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

You know, this thread just hit me with an idea: why didn't Glenn Greenwald bring his lover from Brazil to the USA? Can you be sued in Brazil for torts you commit in America? Is it easy to sue someone that way? Extradition, choice of laws, govt vs govt, sounds a little thorny. Sounds like what a shrewd manipulative lawyer would do, but not so much what an ethical one would do. What do you think, Chet?

Chet Redweld said...

I think you put some thought into the matter, Karl.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

When you type a comment that goes on the internet, does it matter where your keyboard or smartphone's touch facsimile physically is located at the moment you submit it?

If you use a publishing intermediary, does that change things?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I think Chet's right. I think Karl's been thinking about this stuff, even if he hasn't written an entry about it, or asked Chet to do something similar.

First time I've heard about it, though. Interesting questions, Karl.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Maybe we could pay Chet to look into it?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I'd rather pay for that, than the EXEC. But that's just my vote.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Chuck, you'd hear about this stuff if you ever were around.

Also, you don't even remember when we used to talk about this? After you pedaled away from the editorial spot? When I was the main writer?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

My memory's not what it used to be, Karl. Concussions, you know. Long-term memories sometimes are granitic and sometimes more like a loose mesh. And that can change too, sometimes the same memory base gets recalled clearer, sometimes more hazy.

Chet said this is why things should be documented, especially testimony of witnesses. I think I see his point.

H.M. Lohmann said...

So it's a good thing that one of the prereqs for writers here is extensive documentation?

Chet Redweld said...

Yes.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Maximum ammo for a thorough, intelligent lawyer to use when making a case?

Chet Redweld said...

That's not how I describe things. I don't use battle or military metaphors or mindsets. I can't really say yes or no to that one, Hy.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's just a matter of time until this blog is "mainstream" and the term powernoggin is common vocabulary. What's stopping people from regurgitating your words?

Oh the batttle you fight never ends (I think it's ancient one)... I'm convinced "powernoggins" are a natural byproduct of sorts (from ever growing societies). Teachers have always teached and some students have always preached.

Am I hitting on something here?

P.S Thanks for writing

Chet Redweld said...

You are hitting on several things. I don't know what to say about them other than the following.

* A review of the history of content and writers here shows that only one of the former writers was concerned with blog popularity and mainstream acclaim. He didn't last long and indeed moved onto a spot where he had wider access through affiliation. His view was not and is not representative of the blog as a whole nor of the writers as a conglomerate.

* Public acclaim is a social construct and it may bear little or even no relation to what is honest, useful, helpful in a person, idea or thing.

* Off the top of my head I do not recall which writer came up with "powernoggins" and he (or maybe she, in Ms O'Dyan's case) would be the best one to talk about that subject.

* Whether a struggle is ancient has no bearing on what any person chooses to do in any given situation. The fact that historically a majority of humans chose Option AG rather than Option RL when faced with a choice between the two is not proof that AG was the better choice, long-term, for social cohesion or stability or productivity.

* I don't quite follow the question of what is stopping anyone from regurgitating the words found on this blog.

Maybe someone from the writers' roster will have different answers or responses to your comment, Anonymous.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I'll comment on the nonnycomment later, but first:

Chet, did you choose AG and RL at random, or are they abbreviations for something and you were just breezing through the response?

Chet Redweld said...

They were random. If asked to come up with creative fits for the randomly chosen letters, I'd say AG is "All Good" and RL is Real Life. But that's shoehorning it.

Anonymous said...


Hi Ched Redweld,

Woops. Sorry, I misunderstood "powernoggin". What I was replying to was something you never actually said. Anyways...

What I was trying to say was exactly this. "Public acclaim is a social construct and it may bear little or even no relation to what is honest, useful, helpful in a person, idea or thing". Its what I mean when I said "Maybe it's just a matter of time until this blog is "mainstream" and the term powernoggin is common vocabulary. What's stopping people from regurgitating your words?".

I thought "powernoggin" was when knowledge got absorbed into the mainstream and was generalized and hyped to the extreme (with people learning only the perversion of an original idea). I was trying to say that this is not a inherently bad process and that "powernogginism" is byproduct from what I think is a helpful process.


For example: Say people hear of this complex religion called Buddhism. The teachings of Buddhism are vast and large so in order for it to be brought to the public a sort of generalized image is formed (people hear that Buddhism is just being compassionate to yourself and others). So Buddhism goes through the usefull process of being publicly conceptualized. So its hyped to a tiny degree and generalized a bit too, becuase of this process you even start seeing some books written by a few Buddhist monks at your local book store. So its get popular and the public can now get somewhat "dumbdowned" and "powernoggined" version of Buddhism (a version without any true indepth discussion, just the basics put into attractive keypoints like: Mediation is just letting the mind rest.)

Yes, ideally I would rather have our large modern day soicety take a more thorough look at Buddhism (rather than just reading a tiny book) but this simply isn't feasible (it's nice to see people are interested in Buddhism at all). Even though Buddhism has been brought into the mainstream and put into a form more suitable for "powernoggins" its still at the benefit of others (its become more accessible, even dumbdowned buddhism can be helpfull).

Then the true "powernogginism" starts.. Buddhism goes from being accessible to the public to becoming a mix of catchphrases "powernoggings" start teaching,reading and memorzing. Coming from first (usefull) stage of Buddhisms simplfication for the public, catchphrases like "Buddhism is being compasinate to yourself and others" now get turned into perversions of Buddhism like "Buddhism is all about helping others through buying my karma purifying crystals from Deepak Chopra".

So what was at the beggning a natural and helpfull process goes on futher than it should. Growth becomes cancer... When it comes to (what I thought was) "powernogginism" the dose makes the poision. It's an excess of this generalization and hype that ends up destroying knowledge, like to much fat on a steak (so this is why I said powernoggins are byproduct of a natural process). I think it would be good if we just tamed this process a little, that's all.

So I hope I've been a bit clearer in describing what I see and I apologize again for misunderstanding "powernoggins". This is just what I orignally had to say.

(This is a bit off topic. . Maybe I'm too cynical but I think of this whole process as a sort of unavoidable... Eeventualy every bit of knowledge will be so diluted and simplified that it's lost.)

Anyways thanks for your time Chet Redweld. I appreciated your response. Bye.

Chet Redweld said...

1) You should use the presently-dormant Hateful Categorizations on the right margin, click on PowerNoggins. That may give you a better handle on the term as the roster's writers have used it. It's not my term, and I don't use it since I'm not really clear on exactly what it encompasses.

2) Saying anything is eventual, unavoidable, "human nature" is like saying "meh, what can we do about it, it's out of our hands!?!" It's an unrefined conclusion, or as I'd be more inclined to say it, it's not even a conclusion but rather a surrender and avoidance of responsibility. A metaphor used by this blog's writers in the past is something like this (I'm paraphrasing here): we're mortal, so we may as well commit suicide now, since death is inevitable.

3) I couldn't follow your food-based analogy.

4) I'm aware of Buddhism. Most of the people here are well-versed in various religions. Being uncommitted as a religious stance does not mean ignorance of religious constructs, principles, teachings. I realize many "atheists" don't even know anything about any of the religions they disdain so forcefully, and the same often is true of "agnostics." Neither of those hypocritical ignorance stances would apply to anyone currently affiliated with this blog. With all of that said, could you explain a bit more about why you think Buddhism is notable? I've met a lot of people who claim Buddhism but actually are stealthily working a major occidental religion behind the scenes.

Chet Redweld said...

Also, Anonymous: that suggestion under (1) above applies for the web version, I have no idea what this blog looks like in the mobile version. If it's not just a smaller footprint version of the web format I and the others work under, you'll probably have to view the blog in web rather than mobile format.

Harold Caidagh said...

Don't listen to Chet, he has a smartypants phone. He's a lawyer.

Chet Redweld said...

Yes I do, Hal, but I don't use it for this blog. I looked at it once, saw how it lists posts and looks different, but I didn't click on anything. The mobile version difference was never raised by GRH or the Court in that lawsuit, so I didn't really have any reason to look further. Do you know, Hal? Does all that stuff on the right margin of the web format show up on the mobile version?

Harold Caidagh said...

Hell if I know. I don't ever look at the mobile version.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I was going to comment on Anonymous's first post earlier, but I'm glad I waited.

Anonymous, your view sounds identical to the Meliorist position, also known as Fabianism in some corners.

In economics the same flawed position reveals itself when things are pushed aside as "externalities."

All of these flaws are identical: eventual "progress" is worth whatever it costs to get there. On this ill-supported foundation a skyscraper is built, and the concept of "progress" is used to redefine every single change not as a change, but as "progress." Negative developments are excused because down the line, we'll get "progress."

How is that appealing? And why?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for replying Karl Franz Ochstradt and Chet Redweld.

I appreciate you two spending your time replying to me. I never thought you two would reply. Thank you, what you two say is very helpful. A Zen master would say you two are spoon feeding me.

Anyways this post might be a little long...
So let me start with reply to Chet Redweld first.

1: Of course. Ill take a look.


2:
First things first: Your right Chet Redweld. Though I want to try and show you an interesting perspective...

I guess I have an easier time saying those type of things because I feel a bit differently towards them.

Before I go on I should say that Buddhism is such a large religion that I think its awe-inspiring. I wont even claim to know 0.000001% of Buddhism. Buddhism is so large that its not uncommon to see it contradict/argue with itself over things such as which lineage has the true teaching.

One common teaching in Buddhism is impermanence. For many people this can be depressing but Buddhism teaches people (at least me) to appreciate this perspective and to find liberation/happiness in it. There are many Buddhist practitioners and monks that know the basic fact of impermanence and yet dont kill themselves or give up on life (for good reason. They may also end up cherishing it even more).

The fact of impermanence is meant to help us take a breather and to make what we do more "pure". Yes, its very good to work towards the betterment of humanity yet always remember "this too shall pass". I don't necessarily give up on life when I contemplate impermanence, the idea is to work in the world but not get caught up in it. This perspective helps to take "the ego" out of your work. When you go into life helping others even in the face of impermanence, with nothing to gain, it is said in the Buddhist linage that I follow (Huayan) the best morality and compassion shines.

In essence this perspective (which obviously I didn't commit suicide with) is meant to help regulate us (and our passions and everything). Its said when you work in the world but don't get caught up in it, you can avoid the passions which cloud your clear thinking and distract you from your goals. So yes, aim at getting rid of the "powernoggins" of the world but remember "this too shall pass" and don't get so lost in your passion you'l regret it... Dont work to hard, dont over due it.

(Offtopic... Even though I love Buddhism and follow the Huayan subsect im (believe it or not) not a Buddhist. I love Buddhism and borrow from it but if im being honest I cant say im a Buddhist. Sorry if I misled you.)

Coming back to "powernoggins" I was thinking that a bit of generalization and hype is not a bad thing for society. Its a very basic (and useful) tool for getting large concepts spread across very large crowds. So I wouldn't aim at getting rid of all "powernoggism" (as it would be an unrealistic, failing and uphill battle that would cuase suffering) but would rather aim at taming it and keeping it at useful levels. If you can't beat it you can try and use it.

Getting rid of "powernoggism" is impossible but taming it is just hard. Try and regulate your goals with impermanence.

3: My food metaphor was that some fat on a steak is good, while too much fat is unappetizing. I was saying how a bit of "powernoggin" is good and goes along just fine, too much of it is only when it ends up bad.

Karl Franz Ochstradt: Progress is impossible. We can try to existentially anchor ourselves towards goals such as benefiting society and being happy. I'm not ashamed to emit I do this. I'm not for tolerating errors because of "progress" and "goals. I'm just for (in the case of the "powernoggism" I was talking about) regulating goals.

I hope that explaining my personal perceptive has made things clearer for you two, Chet Redweld and Karl Franz Ochstradt. I was happy to see your replies. Bye for now.

(:

Anonymous said...

Oh I forget to answer question 4 Chet Redweld. Well I like Buddhism because of personal reasons and as it seems to have a relatively nice track record when it comes to violence ect.. There are better religions in that aspect though so Buddhism definitely isn't perfect. It's just like any other religion. I guess you could say its notable because of some of it unique theological perspectives (though almost every religion has some).

Buddhism has shown many flaw's and there must be plenty of books out there on them. Such as The Zen Predator of the Upper East Side. The book talks about a common crime in the Zen Buddhist community, when the master starts abusing and manipulating the pupil.

Chet Redweld said...

Perhaps if you have read closely you would see that this blog's unified position is simple on the subject of religion:

Here's something that works for me, see if it works for you: GOOD
Here's something that works for me, it MUST work for you: BAD

It's an individual choice with nobody holding the Dictator card.

So we're not against you or anyone else following or thinking positively about Buddhism. Every major religion springs from the same notion: humankind's inability to explain many things encountered while alive. Most if not all religions aim to help humans deal with the inexplicable.

People use other things as religion analogs. People join clubs, social organizations. They move to housing developments, apartment buildings, condominium conglomerates where they think like-minded people live.

What about the person who knows what a location is like, human-territory-wise, and moves there despite the locale being contrary to what he/she likes? Was that a bad decision?

What should be the remedy for the bad decision? Try to change the new locale to make it how you wish it was? Move to the locale that suits your views/temperament more closely?

If a town is stable with a given socioeconomic/political character, and receives an influx of people who have the opposite traits and these immigrants change the town to suit what they wanted, is that humane behavior? Does it change the picture and answer if the immigrants claim their changes are "progress," even if the populace that lived their pre-immigration didn't feel any need for such changes and doesn't view them as progress?

Chet Redweld said...

Ugh. Coffee jitters.

even if the populace that lived their pre-immigration didn't feel any need for such changes and doesn't view them as progress?

The possessive "their" obviously should be the locating "there."

Chet Redweld said...

As a general construct, Anonymous, the inclination to see perhaps non-existent or very thinly present positives can lead to obscuring negatives.

It's how excuses get made and how personal responsibility gets avoided, by those with enough rhetorical skill to manipulate others via words.

Chet Redweld said...

In other words, I agree with what Karl said above, May 18 at 5:11pm. I probably would have said it differently, but I agree with his stated position and questions to you.

Paul Behrer said...

Say, Anonymous, have you ever read Alan Watts? I would suggest The Book: on the taboo against knowing who you are.

https://books.google.com/books?id=YKPt96ZdidYC

My understanding of Buddhism is a peeling away of layers of deception and a seeking of what is true, while accepting that the positive things in life can be either serendipity or a result of what you do yourself and/or how you choose to see/hear things or feel about what you see/hear.

It's possible to be on the road, with many stops ahead. A through-hiker of the Appalachian Trail can start in Maine, or in Georgia. There are plenty of notable towns and refueling spots along the journey, some of them requiring a big diversion from the line of the trail. No matter how you choose to follow the trail, you're not a through-hiker until you've traversed it in its entirety.

Chet Redweld said...

Someone who tries to set the record for fastest through-hike, Pablo: is he/she having a good experience of the journey, or something else?

Does the speed-hiker notice the changes in topography, flora, fauna, ecosystems along the way? The degrees of encroachment of "civilization," are they noted by the speed-hiker?

H.M. Lohmann said...

What about Bill Bryson, who walks the trail supposedly as a mid-life challenge, but in hindsight it seems maybe to have been about generating income, and not about a walk in the woods?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Is cynicism compatible with Buddhism?

A result of Buddhism?

The opposite of Buddhism?

Buddhism under different cover?

Harold Caidagh said...

In this corner:

Bodhisattva, the most tranquil battler the ring has seen! Frequently seen winning with his mind!

In the opposite corner:

Diogenes, the legendary originator of the dog's view of humanity, the original Cynic who sometimes is mistaken as a Stoic. Regularly accused of biting his opponents.

Who's gonna win?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I think they'd ask for chairs, sit down, and have a talk and maybe a few drinks. Diogenes would reject the chair, Bodhisattva would question the self-denying habit.

Chet Redweld said...

Diogenes would counter, "your preference for comfort is one of your illusions, Bodhi."

Bodhisattva would smile gently and say, "fear not those positives which arise in the moment, Diogenes."

Paul Behrer said...

Someone who tries to set the record for fastest through-hike, Pablo: is he/she having a good experience of the journey, or something else?

Maybe achieving one good thing (reaching a personal goal), but at what expense?

Paul Behrer said...

Does the speed-hiker notice the changes in topography, flora, fauna, ecosystems along the way? The degrees of encroachment of "civilization," are they noted by the speed-hiker?

It's possible, but if the driving agenda is go faster, beat the record I would be skeptical about any claims to holistic observation during the journey.

Anonymous said...

Again.. Thanks for taking your time.

Chet Redweld obviously I'm not seeing something here (i'm not be passive aggressive when I say this). I'm not the best at understanding some of the concepts here. I don't want you to waste any time on me. Hopefully my replies have been satisfactory... So I'll try to answer your last questions as clearly as I can. I wont use any metaphors, Ill just state exactly what I think as literally as I can.


"Here's something that works for me, see if it works for you: GOOD
Here's something that works for me, it MUST work for you: BAD"
Yup. I seem to agree with that.


"What about the person who knows what a location is like, human-territory-wise, and moves there despite the locale being contrary to what he/she likes? Was that a bad decision?"
Sure, its a shame. Ideally we should be able to move to a place we like. His choice was done out of ignorance. (Offtopic...I wouldn't call that a bad decision, I would call it a mistake.) I'm sure if the person knew how bad locally the location was he wouldn't have moved there.

"What should be the remedy for the bad decision? Try to change the new locale to make it how you wish it was? Move to the locale that suits your views/temperament more closely?"
Its depends. If it would be to hard to simply change the environment around you or leave, I would try to accept my new location and learn to make the best out of it. Of course the remedy is your choice. You could try and do something even if its isn't possible, as long as it makes you happy I guess..

"If a town is stable with a given socioeconomic/political character, and receives an influx of people who have the opposite traits and these immigrants change the town to suit what they wanted, is that humane behavior?"(I cant fit in the rest of your question)
No it isn't humane. It does not change the picture if the immigrants claim its progress. There is no such thing "progress". You can call progress what you want. The original locales could try to fight the immigrants if they think it would work. If they can't fight the immigrants they will just have to adapt to survive. They will have to make due with a new path.

I'm not blaming the locals for what they want. I also think its a shame there town has been taken over. If the town will only continue to be flooded by immigrants ( if that what the future has in store for them) and the immigrants become to much for them. I hope they can find a way to manage and continue to be happy.

If my towns future (progress) lies with the immigrants from now on (and I know this for sure) then so be it. Hopefully what they do works (and at the very least dont end up destroying the town), maybe there is something to what they do..

"As a general construct, Anonymous, the inclination to see perhaps non-existent or very thinly present positives can lead to obscuring negatives. (Cant fit in the rest of the comment)

Im not trying to obscure the negatives. I'm trying to live with them and make the best of them. If I can get rid of them, I will. If I cant ill manage. I also like to see if some of the things people consider negatives can be tamed and used. (I think i'm starting to see where my error is... Ill get to it at the end..)

Anonymous said...

"Say, Anonymous, have you ever read Alan Watts? I would suggest The Book: on the taboo against knowing who you are."

Ive bought 4 of Alan Watts books (I like his autobiography, believe or not it had the best teachings for me). I have a love/hate realtionship with him. On one hand he's been accused of spreading "Beat Zen" (westernized Zen) and being verbose. On the other hand he has a few nice points, he made me realize getting rid of your ego is just another attempt at messaging it. I'm surprised you mentioned him, most people iv'e met mindlessly criticize his work before ever reading it. He does have a few good points.

His one point about the error in constantly working for the future (you'l will miss out on the only time to enjoy life, the present) is quite wise. I agree with this more or less. Personally I think its your choice on how you run your life (in that sense). If chasing the future truly makes you happy then thats fine.

Anyways, throughout this whole conversation my "wrong detector" have been ringing. I'm not trying to be kind, I do have this distinct sense something i'm saying is wrong/ill-informed. So here is what I think is wrong:

My error here is that i'm being to quick to decide which goals are impossible and what we just have to learn to manage. I shouldn't be so sure if something is simply going to have to continue as it is. Society has conquered and growed (and gone in different directions) even when plenty of people thought it wasn't possible. So don't give up the fight too early. You cant say what the future holds.
(Yes its all impermanent but it might be worth the effort to do something in atleast your lifetime. Its an accomplishment in it self to go fight for something even in the face of impermanence)

Thank you for the conversation Chet Redweld and others.

Chet Redweld said...

If chasing the future truly makes you happy then thats fine.

Which raises the question of whether one is self-deceiving or self-confessing when telling self that future-chasing yields happiness.

Maybe the person doesn't know what makes her happy. Maybe she looks outside herself, sees others being topically positive (or maybe even feigning happiness, "fake it 'til you make it," etc.) and thinks their fascia are their core sentiments.

How can one chase the future and be happy as a result? An affinity for uncertainty, instability, unpredictable outcomes? A fear of the present/past?

How can someone know what really makes her happy if she doesn't even know her own core drives in the first place?

None of this is to say she should distract herself with "finding myself" aimlessness. "Finding myself" is not the same as knowing myself.

Society has conquered and growed (and gone in different directions) even when plenty of people thought it wasn't possible.

1) What is "society"?
2) What has this amorphous thing "conquered"? Or whom has it "conquered"?
3) What is the "growth" you mentioned?
4) What did these "plenty of people" think wasn't possible?

The more careful and/or precise you are with ideas and the words you give to them, the easier it is to find or experience clarity in the process. If you let a word be vague, or let the concept behind the word remain hazy, the easier it is for the words to be misused or the messages they carry to be manipulated for different ends.

As to Alan Watts, well, people frequently read the cover of a book and little else, and make a decision on that basis. Or they reject someone/something because someone else told them "not worth your time."

The act of giving someone else your confidence because of illusory or imagined superiority (in other words, letting them be an authority on the subject at hand) is the foundation of all grifts and scams.

I'm not the best at understanding some of the concepts here.

Many ideas and arguments found at this blog require extrapolation. The blog assumes a certain level of curiosity, and a willingness to entertain ideas that might be uncomfortable on some level. Some of the writers emphasize the discomfort angle, some of them the curiosity angle, each in varying degrees. In each writer's case, it's expected that you can and will challenge the things you've previously held as true.

Harold Caidagh said...

Like when I challenged myself to not shout "TRIGGER WARNING!" or upset the table in front of me whenever Prissy Houle-Eaton asked another "question" (in truth: made a "conclusive diagnostic statement") based on her misunderstandings of my personal views?

It wasn't the fact of misunderstanding that was an instigation. It was the confidence with which she stated her theories as if they were proved and based on solid, unshaded facts.

I could say it reminded me of _________ but I don't want to divert things further.

Chet Redweld said...

Somewhat like that, Hal.

Though I would say that it was Dr Houle-Eaton's burden to challenge herself there, not yours. And I think some of your responses to her made that clear, to the extent your sarcasm & satirical choices of words were heard faithfully, and not dismissed because they failed to follow modern concepts of "tolerance," etc.

Anonymous said...


Chet Redweld I think your trying to show just like how we can divide the passage of time into sections that dont really exists. We can also look at the earth and artificially sort out "societies". I dont quite see how this is helpful?

Yes, finding a true group of people who collectively agree on something and try to conquer it is nigh impossible. The "Americans" didn't win the moon race. A group of government officials who spoke on behalf (and dictated) America chose this. I doubt the majority of Americans where trying to win the space race. Though the right group of people where.
"Rome" didn't go and conquer anything. A few people sent a bunch of people to war. No one agreed on anything.

Now back to talking about growth. "Societies" (well those who run it) can make decisions on behalf of people that live in the "society". These decisions may not be bad. Such as "Canada's" (well the government and a few other peoples) initiative to increase recycling. Since then "Canada" has steadily increased its recycling. This will have positive affect on future generations, improving there quality of life.

I think of life as a Hedonic Treadmill of sorts. We cant keep on getting happier and happier but we can keep on avoiding trouble and being content.
Its my personal choice to existentially anchor myself towards a goal in life such as working towards making the people around me avoid pain. As hard as this goal is I still choose it.

Society can't grow but the amount of time spent not in pain for people on plant earth can. I like to call this growth. I generally aim at making this happen.(I realize morals are hard and subjective, if I say my goal is take make people happy then i'd might have to let someone murder me. Living by a literal rule can be quite hard....)


"Maybe the person doesn't know what makes her happy."
Hypothetically, If someone out there truly takes pleasure in chasing the future than thats fine. I cant speculate on how this might be possible. If it is than its fine with me.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

They were random. If asked to come up with creative fits for the randomly chosen letters, I'd say AG is "All Good" and RL is Real Life. But that's shoehorning it.

Maybe Aggressive Growth = AG and Reactionary Luddism = RL?

(obscuring that AG is the strategy of carcinomas, and RL is a distortion applied for negation rather than clarification purposes)

Several of us have written about this "reactionary" term used inaccurately by various Social Justice Warriors.

A reactionary literally is opposed to all change.

Someone who opposes a change because it is described as "progress" when it's nothing of the sort, that person isn't reactionary.

Luddite/Luddism is another caricature word thrown about haphazardly by people who identify with progress and assume that if, for example, the smartphone is 100x more capable than a mere cell phone then I, too, must be progressing because I approve of the smartphone and heap disdain on the antiquity of the cell phone. Wanting the latest gadget doesn't make you smarter or more correct about anything, especially sociopolitical or economic struggles and their causes. It may even serve to create obstacles between you (your thoughts/thinking) and an honest appraisal of reality.

Paul Behrer said...

Well, Anonymous, I see you have mastered the fine art of passive-aggressively saying you agree that nobody gets to be dictator, but oh well, everything sucks, let's be glad that there's at least some positive/good among all the bovine fecal effluent otherwise surrounding us.

I was expecting a bit more heft and vigor in your prior remarks, but I see you were trying to build a case, which you've summarized in the 1:55pm comment above.

I think you should read the entire GRH lawsuit saga and see what Chet did to the claims GRH made. While their arguments were more ironically reactionary and almost amusingly over-the-top in hysterical hypersensitivity and a bizarre kind of victim-glee that is prevalent in the 21st Century, at the core of things their arguments were nearly identical to those you offer in the 1:55pm comment above.

That's how I see it, anyway. Chet might be more charitable. To me your comments seem to embody Karl's "PowerNoggin" concept without the explicit praise of standard left/progressive/socialist heroes.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

PowerNoggins don't have to explicitly praise the gauche heroes of the First International, but they do tend to fall in line behind standard sinistro themes, concepts, arguments and typically will cut-and-paste or paraphrase the idioms which connect all lefties in the same way the lefties' handwriting hand always is smudging and smearing that which just was written.

I'd give Anonymous the benefit of the doubt and assume she's early in the journey, even if smart people like Chet jumped past those early stages because he saw through so much of the fake presentation. Chet's wicked smaht.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Chet couldn't possibly be smart, let along very smart. He didn't attend an Ivy League school for ugrad or law and wasn't on Law Review during law school. He didn't go into politics. He's been underemployed for over a decade. How smart can that be, really?

Harold Caidagh said...

Chuck, that sounded like every single person on the other side of the GRH lawsuit, as well as every single negative commenter who ever left a comment here during Chet's tenure. It sounds like most of this blog's classic nemeses as well, except it's missing the Chalupa cry of CHRISTER CORPORATE! and the Crowbar whinge of REACTIONARY MISOGYNIST RAPIST! and the Tarzie hiss of "I HATE YOU BREEDER CUZ YOU WON'T BE MY LOVER!" and SimBeaver pronouncement "LOUCHE, COARSE AND MONOSYLLABIC, CLEARLY A PRIMITIVE HUMANOID!"

It's honestly a little more like Greenwald's attempts to "rebut" the points that you and Karl used to make when you commented at Unclaimed Territory. Neutral agreement on things about which nobody disagrees, then half-polite lecturing about how the world actually is, the classic passive-aggressive condescension behind a veil.

Yeah, Glenn. You knew "reality" really well, that's why you had to cheat in college, law school, and law practice, and continue lying as a "journalist."

KnowhatImean, Mr Clean?

Anonymous said...

Did nobody read this? "My error here is that i'm being to quick to decide which goals are impossible and what we just have to learn to manage. I shouldn't be so sure if something is simply going to have to continue as it is."

"Society has conquered and growed"

"the amount of time spent not in pain for people on plant earth can. I like to call this growth."

Please don't post/approve this Cher Redweld. I dont want to make to many comments here. I'm I just thought I should leave this behind.

Chet Redweld said...

Anonymous, I think the problem might be that you're misunderstanding the lads' skepticism as an attack on you personally. I tried to make this blog's character plain when in the main entry I said, "sometimes it's like R. Lee Ermey playing a drill sergeant."

The lads have encountered a surprising number of people who are very able to say they do X, believe Y, and want the world to be Z. Whether these people demonstrate any or all of the 3 when actually witnessed doing, saying, writing something seems always to be an open question, because there often is inconsistency in the comparison of what is said versus what was done. I think you'll find they're expressing that inconsistency's regularity when they say your comments strike them as "typical" (my word for their theme). The only measure of your behavior (your stated ideas/goals/practice) is to compare what you say are your values, against how you communicate them.

Here's how I would phrase what they're talking about.

It's easy to discern what is "socially acceptable" by listening to others and how they couch their observations about various things.

Using what you discern, you can then craft an oral or written statement about your own values, which you pattern after what you observe among the majority of people you meet, talk to, listen to, watch, read.

You can recite your statement with apparent gravity.

Whether any of the things you do are proving your values are solid and worth emulating, that's what probably is at the center of the lads' skepticism. They want to know how your values are durable, and are shown by the way you have communicated them so far in this comment thread.

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt, because I've seen lawyers who communicate poorly either written or orally, and sometimes both, and they've had lots of education and practice in the tasks. It's possible to hold strong values worth emulating, and to practice those values daily, while not being the best advocate for those values when you try to talk about them.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

So this blog really is about values? It's a value blog?

I can't say that was my aim when I started, but things do tend to take on a life of their own.

Chet Redweld said...

I was trying to homologate and condense the collective's writings up there at 6:57 AM, Chuck. I know each of you has a slightly different take on things. If we leave out the two non-responding past authors, the collective does have a unified set of values. Ms O'Dyan's values were never really made clear. Mr Greenglen's were obvious from the start and were clearly opposite those of his predecessors (even Ms O'Dyan's, if you can believe that), and that's why he didn't last long. He left of his own accord, that's true, but I'm sure he would have been shown the door in fairly quick fashion anyway, simply because of his lack of integrity and honesty, both with others and with himself.

I was rather surprised that the GRH plaintiffs did not try to make more of Mr Greenglen's tenure and departure. I don't think it would have yielded any better result for them, but still, I was expecting them to try to find some toe-hold in the writings of Mr Greenglen. It's what I would have done if I'd been forced to handle that case from their side, anyway.

Anonymous said...

Hi, Pual Breher. I'm honestly so sorry if this is what I sound like im saying. Could you please just copy and paste what I said that seems to imply that opinion. I'm a piss poor writer and should get some lessons, I swear thats not what im trying to say. Please, no harsh feelings. Anyways you don't have to copy and paste what I say, ill just say something right here and now for the record. This is final. It is WRONG to do nothing or not care just because of how the world is. Just because you can find some positive in a situation doesn't mean its right. Being mindlessly accepting of your current life is not ethical. This opinion applies to a countries dictatorship. FORGET everything ive said. I clearly cant write above a 5th grade level, this should be a eyeopener for me. I swear my last post wan't supposed to say that at all and I can imagine what I didn't type right. Ill come back here when I can speak right. Bye, Ched Welder and others.

Paul Behrer said...

Feeling whipped is part of growing. Each challenge is an opportunity for growth, and the tougher or more protracted the struggle, the greater the opportunities.

To assume that all personal growth comes from benevolent acts is naive, but naivete and victimizing the self are the most obvious social majority constructs of the 21st Century that anyone who grew up in the Bush43-Obama era is likely to think that being a victim shows personal integrity, and that claiming you're being mistreated when someone simply is making fun of you or pointing out your flaws is a demonstration of the highest personal character.

Instead of taking your ball and going home, maybe just ask us if we could play at a slower gentler pace. Women's lacrosse is a non-contact sport, but it's still lacrosse.

Anonymous said...

I was taking Chets questions literally. "What is the growth you mentioned" I was give ONE example I could think of at the top of my head. Its a nice coincidence that I gave an example of "Canadas" growth. I was talking vary narrowly on one thing, society growing. Im just trying to show its possible not if the means around it are better than shit. I was just trying to pick a society at random and show that a "society" can grow. I was also trying to show that I knew this "growth" wasn't from a real democracy and tried to indicate with my comment " A few people sent a bunch of people to war. No one agreed on anything." that I knew this growth wasn't democratic or good. I was describing a modern day societies "growth" and trying to also show that I knew how these decisions where reached (thought that wasn't the focus of the post). I was trying to show that a society can "grow" on good grounds, like recycling (I was commenting how it ended up growing). I should of indicated more

Paul Behrer said...

Okay, but you're assuming these things:

* we would agree that Canada is a role model for other countries
* we would agree that Canada has shown "growth" of some kind, as a society

And you still haven't really addressed Chet's 4 questions from May 19 at 12:09pm.

Anonymous said...

I should leave here. My communicating skills aren't up to par. I come across as dumb to you guys and am being dumb. If Im ever going to attempt at maturing in I think I should at least know when i'm ready for things. I'm not ready for this. Sorry, bye May you be well happy and peacefull. Thanks you Chet Redweld and others for your replies. I appreciate it more than you know. If you want you could tell me some books that I should read (like Paul Behrer). I would like that a good bit

Paul Behrer said...

It's up to you whether you leave, and since we aren't seeking popularity or public acclaim and do not farm clicks for income with this blog, it doesn't matter to us whether you leave or stay. I'll keep conversing if you stay, but I can't speak to anyone else's path. I'm sure Chet will keep talking to you, he's more patient and more generous with interpersonal neutrality than I am. I'm what Chet might have been talking about when saying this blog sometimes is like a drill sergeant.

I'll recommend books all day long. I don't know what kind you want to read. You mentioned Buddhism, have you read the Tao of Pooh or Te of Piglet?

Here's another: Joseph Chilton Pearce, The Crack in the Cosmic Egg.

I liked the gringo bruja books by Carlos Castaneda, but I'm not sure they pass scientific muster in anthropology.

Also, I'm pretty sure each of the writers here has recommended or talked about other books in the past. I bet you could find them if you just put the word books in the search box at the top of the page. You'll get a lot of hits, but among them will be posts that listed a book or several and maybe even talked about the book(s).

Like several of the other writers here, I have played men's sports as well as co-ed sports and I don't find any issues when I play co-ed and have to play non-contact or gentler or slower-paced. I still get to play, which is the big thing. Playing is the thing. It's where you get the chance to improve, in every moment.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I would suggest that Anonymous research

1) the Fabians, Fabianism, and Fabianism-in-America

2) meliorism

and when I say "research" I don't mean, "look up the definitions and accept what you find," instead I mean, "research them, question what you read, ask yourself whether these things are consistent with what you have seen in your life, and if they are, who demonstrates the things described?"

H.M. Lohmann said...

I'd ask Anonymous to look closely at her assumptions regarding the ubiquity of "growth" as a value in any dimension. Is it a value anywhere? If so, where, and why? And how are you defining "growth"?

Be sure to look at the biological implications of praising "growth," and specifically, the mechanism of cancer cells, and what distinguishes them from normal human tissue cells.

Harold Caidagh said...

I'd ask Anonymous what are her views on natural resources like trees, clean water, clean air, minerals. Does she think they replenish on their own? Does she think they grow in number/density/quality as a response to human population number increase?

Chet Redweld said...

I could be accused of laziness or inattentiveness to detail if I failed to mention that the Famous Quotes section on the right margin may have a few clues on what to investigate.

Paul Behrer said...

Maybe Anonymous should ask herself whether there is any connection between a majority of humans doing or saying they value something is indicative of what any observer/hearer/reader should value as well. Is tribalism an urge that we can manage, or must we always try to fit in, in all cases and situations?

Chet Redweld said...

That's not very clear, Pablo. Should I fix it for you? Never mind, I'm busy this morning, so I'll fix it anyway.

Pablo's editor (that would be me; ever since Hal hired me that's been my job) would rewrite Pablo's comment as this:

Maybe Anonymous should ask herself this -- if a majority of humans do or say they value something, is that indicative of what any observer/hearer/reader should value as well. Is tribalism an urge that we can manage, or must we always try to fit in, in all cases and situations?

I'm not sure I could answer or use Pablo's comment as it stood. Poor form, Pablo, when coming from one who is a better writer than that comment shows.

Paul Behrer said...

Now people are going to think that all my writing sucks, and it's only you that makes it legible or readable.

H.M. Lohmann said...

I managed my tribal urge to success when rejecting the views my parents tried to instill permanently in me. I think the answer is YES.

Chet Redweld said...

For you, Hy.

Chet Redweld said...

Pablo, if they believe me -- and they shouldn't blindly, they should examine my work history and not use statistical analysis from the fan's perspective -- they should believe that I'm telling the truth when I say usually, I fix only syntax or spelling issues with your posts.

Anonymous said...

Hi Chet Redweld and others.

Thanks for replying.

Ill try to get to everybody's comments but first...
I think I'm going to try a new way of writing. I'm going try to organize my writing (and communicate) in a way I think will be more useful. It may seem a bit awkward at first but hopefully things work. I also think i'm going to try and take more time with my writing and tone down the number of responses a bit. I dont think its right to make 2-3 snapjudment post per day and have you respond, if I get back slower thats fine with me, as long as i'm clearer and more thought out. Everybody here has a life to live.

Chet Redweld 6:57pm: I think what your trying to say is that you don't want to just learn my values. You also want to know what happens with them. Your trying to see how someone who holds a certain value acts to get a good picture of what those values accomplish. This makes sense and sounds useful.

Paul Behrer 7:15am: Yeah that makes sense. The harder a challenge is the more powerful the solution. I also see your point in that only trying to grow from (and learn from) easy moments takes away a lot of opportunities for you to learn. The ability to tolerate uncomfortable moments is a useful skill that you can work on being better at your whole life. Also you don't have to try and dumb down what you say (or comment) for me. Its fine I will try and get better. Thanks for offering to take it easy. Lets just continue regularly.

Paul Behrer 7:19am: No i'm wrong if say that Canada is a role model for other countries. I think my ideal country involves participation and voting from the majority of its citizens over what happens in the country. The citizens of a country should actively choose what initiatives they should follow. It is a mistake that this rarely if ever happens. I would like what happened with "Canadas" decision to have more recycling, actually happen with the citizens of Canada choosing to this.
Canada did not show growth. A few government officials and others decided Canadas growth. If Canada's citizens actually wanted and voted for this inative then I would say that the country met my defention of growth. A country/society grows when the the majority of its citizens enact a inative that will help the country/society reduce/prevent its own citizens overall amount of suffering. I don't know how to make this happen right now but I do have some ideas.

Its easier for a country to grow (reduce its citizens suffering) when the countries citizens actually vote/choose its decisions. Leaving a country to a select few who frequently don't want what I define as growth for there country is not aligned with my ethics. One of my new goals in life is to inspire and convince the citizens around me to choose and take interest in there own change. This is obviously a hard goal and I can't figure out how to do this all at once, I am not a genius. It will probably be someone else who helps me figure out how I can take on this problem. I can see myself working in a team.

I will share some ideas on the issue soon.

I will also get to the rest of the post soon.

Chet Redweld said...

Writing is like using a mill bastard to file a cromoly tube in order to create a radiused notch into which another tube will fit with a 1mm perimeter gap.

The first few times you try, maybe you've used a less powerful file on a softer substrate, and might imagine you're going to clean it in just a handful of swipes.

You get surprised by how long it takes just to get a rough curve that only barely approximates the outside diameter of the tube to be joined.

When you get to around a 3-4mm gap it gets a bit more painstaking. The slightest skew of the file could render the gap 1mm over here, but 7mm over there.

People who have been hand-filing notches and radii in steel tubing for a decade get pretty good at it, and the same radius now might take them only 1/100th of the time it took them the first two or three tries.

Paul Behrer said...

Anonymous, I'll guess you're Canadian if you use that as a starting point.

If you are, maybe you can explain why British Columbia has become more materialistic and more superficial over the past 15 years, and also

maybe you have some insights on why, as a province, it has chosen to be as chickenshit on recreational use liabilities as the southerly cousin, a drunken 16 year old mid-fuck on an underage drunken 12 year old without condom or other capture/kill device. For the metaphorically impaired, this 16 year old also has been called, variously, such things as the United States of Debauchery, Which is Progress.

Are those two Modern British Columbia Cultural History Features connected?

Paul Behrer said...

Also, cultural growth = reduction in cultural suffering?

Whose suffering? Identifying "sufferers" through what mechanisms, designed by which people?

What methods to be used to reduce suffering?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

How about what Walker Percy imagined in The Thanatos Syndrome?

Where do such ideals of progress lead? What lines are drawn when construing a change as positive or negative? From whose view? If a majority calls a change "progress," will historians call it "progress" despite evidence from "reactionaries" who show the change is a negative at their end of the bargain?

Is it progress for a society to use fear to make its citizens paranoid about their fellow citizen's propensities, which are never divined but always supposed, mostly from the first position of be afraid?

Should parents give children smartphones at age 4 or 5 to "protect them"? How is the phone protecting those children in a way that's superior to one parent or the other or both physically there, protecting them actually?

These are just rhetorical questions, ones that I'd ask myself if I was thinking about social change, social stability, social friction, social cohesion. I'd ask a whole lot of these Qs on the journey.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I want to know why suffering shouldn't be seen as a human burden to alleviate, rather than a bureaucratic or business entity obligation to try, indirectly and through wrong motive(s), somehow to alleviate in the minorest way.

If you're not charitable toward your neighbor, maybe it's you that has failed to keep up an end of the social cohesion obligation or impulse. If you have so failed, do not ask the government or a profiteering businessman to do it for you. Step up to the plate, player. It's your turn at bat.

There isn't much social cohesion when people refuse to take their turn at bat, or make only a half-hearted or unpracticed attempt when there.

The solution probably rests with the people acting directly, and not by triangulating and avoiding responsibility, obligation, blame, or causality.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for all the comments Karl Franz Ochstradt,Chet Redweld, Paul Behrer and others.

All of you have asked questions that have shown my assumptions and lack of depth. Paul Behrers question was the best at doing this. I think I see what he is trying to say.

I cant address all the questions thoroughly so I will choose the one that I think will help me the most.

The idea that "growth" is reducing the overall suffering of a society is wrong. If the majority of a society is oppressing a minority (and making it suffer) and the minority tries to fight back (and this makes the majority "suffer"), with what I just said, the minority should continue to be oppressed.

I dont agree with having a majority set the rules and being prized when it comes to being protected from pain. This is dumb.

Right now I cant think of any definition for societies "growth" that doesn't end up hurting others. I'm thinking that society's "growth" has just been one ruling "society" (with its idea of growth) getting it way after another.

"Growth" where nobody ends up being abused or taken advantage of cant seem to happen. I will get back to this later tomorrow, I am going to think abit more about morals and the idea of there having been a moral form of "growth". Im also still going to try and get better at the comments I make.

Bye.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Here's an interesting question.

Let's say your town has about 65k people, and you as Mayor want to "grow" the town.

You have available to you all manner of increasing townspeople's buy-in on your plan. One of these things might be to ask people, especially those who are having a hard time finding stability in the form of work, or work at sufficient pay to live on, or affordable places to live and, on that 3x/yr occasion, eat food prepared by someone else for your convenience and maybe for your aesthetic (palate-pleasing) enjoyment, just what sorts of changes in the town and its housing, "business development" and work opportunity dimensions might be useful.

Or you could just decide you want rich retired or semi-retired or never-worked-in-the-first-place people to move there, and so you ask the realtors how you can make your town more like the next nearest (geographically and/or social-media-fad-wise) Wealthy Transplant Attractor. The realtors tell you you need to eliminate all lower-income housing, and install fresh asphalt everywhere, more streetlights, more fancy painted "bike lanes" and signs that point the way to "Safe School Zones," you will need sidewalks and Business Improvement/Development Districts and clear-the-way land use decisions which let a 6-plex be put on the footprint that formerly held a close-quarters-for-two trailer home. You increase taxes so that more foreclosures happen and when no foreclosure, more people just abandon the town because they can't live there any more.

Which path is more humane?

Which path is a town more likely to pursue?

Who benefits from each path's direction?

And who gets hurt from each?

Anonymous said...

Hi Karl Franz Ochstradt,

"You have available to you all manner of increasing townspeople's buy-in on your plan. One of these things might be to ask people, especially those who are having a hard time finding stability in the form of work, or work at sufficient pay to live on, or affordable places to live and, on that 3x/yr occasion, eat food prepared by someone else for your convenience and maybe for your aesthetic (palate-pleasing) enjoyment, just what sorts of changes in the town and its housing, "business development" and work opportunity dimensions might be useful."

I can quite understand what you just wrote. Sorry but could you please try and write it again.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

The Mayor could find out who's having the hardest time living in the town, and sit down with or at least entertain phone calls, emails and texts from as many of those people as possible, to hear their grievances about how difficult it is to find work, or to find work which pays sufficiently to support one's self (& family if applicable). The Mayor might ask these people, "how about shopping for groceries, living essentials, and cheap eats? Do you have enough places where you can find what you need?"

The Mayor could, in other words, act like the person who has been tasked with management of present and future town direction.

Or, the Mayor could act like the only view that matters is that of the wealthy, who have no difficulty in day to day life if we look honestly at that budgetary matter.

Do realtors and real estate developers know what's best for the people who are scraping by?

Or would they prefer to rid the town of such people, because usually they live in "economically depressed" (low rental income, low land+structure sale value) areas and the realtor & developer see profit opportunity in ridding the town of those who are marginalized, $$$ wise.

If a Mayor chooses to listen only to the realtors and developers, where will that lead the town over which he/she is Mayor?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Anonymous, maybe I can say it in the context of Paul's series of Qs:

Also, cultural growth = reduction in cultural suffering?

Whose suffering? Identifying "sufferers" through what mechanisms, designed by which people?

What methods to be used to reduce suffering?


Why would you ask the wealthiest people with the shortest residency duration? What "suffering" do they know?

I can tell you what I've seen in my town: their "suffering" is what I listed earlier.

* Not enough asphalt (roads can be rough).

* Not enough streetlights (I can't drive well, and I'm afraid of the dark).

* Not enough sidewalks (I want to drive 45 in a 25 and blame the kids and pets for not being on the sidewalk when I kill or injure them with my car).

* Not enough 2-feet-wide-with-green-paint "Bike Lanes" (see parenthetical about sidewalks above).

* Not enough shopping opportunities (for upscale trinkets of a type that the marginalized can't even fantasize about, let alone buy).

* Not enough National Profile (I need people to envy me for living here, so I need you to promote the town by bringing in journalists to write puff pieces in order to boost that envy).

* Too many rednecks (so let's ban ATVs & motos & mtn bikes from national forests they've recreated in for 50+ years, because they are grimy blue-collar stigmata and we can't have that here if The Right People are going to envy me).

* Too many Christians (why aren't there at least 10 synagogues for the 15 Jews in town? and why aren't there more Jews?).

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Lest you observe anti-Jew sentiment in that last bullet point, I'm only talking demographics, and not what about whatever diabolical plots exist to keep Jews out of the town. I've actually heard some people say the town has antipathy toward Jews because there weren't enough synagogue choices for the handful that live here.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

There's probably more Muslims here than Jews, but not a single mosque or other house of meeting/worship.

Does it make sense to travel to Idaho or Utah and complain of the "too many Mormons," when both states were settled in large part by people who sought a place to be Mormons without others bothering them?

If I travel to India, does it make sense to complain that there are just TOO MANY INDIANS THERE and TOO MANY OF THEM follow a religion that I do not?

What about travel to Africa (except SA), would I be an observant and well-prepared traveler if I got off the plane/boat and said, "Holy Frijole! These people have such dark skin, I thought they would all be just like me!" ??

Anonymous said...

Hi Karl Franz Ochstradt thanks for taking your time to reply,

I should of responded sooner but I got caught up with somethings today.

I'm starting to see that given the limited amount of resources humans have, if "society" is ever going to grow it will be in its sustainability for everyone. Growth should be sustainable and can't come from people who excess resources. Using excess resources ends up making it harder for everyone to live sustainably. You can't have a group of 10 people agree to live of 20 loaves of bread if the first 10 loaves have already been hogged.

So for a society to grow it must increase the amount of people who have enough to live, while continuing to regulate consumption, so that we dont take more than necessary and kill ourselves off quicker.

Coming back to my last post on how can a society have "moral" growth, I think creating a society where people take responsibility, think critically, cooperate and have the means to defend themselves is ideal. Any moral rule I can come up with for society fails to consider all the variables. Rather than focusing on the specifics of how moral growth happens in a society, I should look at the bases from which it comes. Trying to make a society founded on responsibility, critical thinking, cooperation and having the means to defend oneself seems to be the best solution to moral growth. How a society progresses when based on these goals, I can't predict, I do think that if a society progresses on these values it will have the best chance at becoming what I define as good.

Bye.

Chet Redweld said...

The biggest or most useful Q is whether you see these things, or have you just adjusted your beliefs because you thought the writers here put things in a way that entices your emotional biases, etc.?

Always question what someone tells you about a subject you don't know well, and even when someone tells you about something you think you know well. You probably already do the latter instinctively, but the former is usually a challenge for humans. Come at every subject as if you know nothing, but do not use that as a reason to accept everything or anything you hear/read/see.

Some people call this thinking critically, but really it's just the best way to learn anything. Test what you're told/have read/have seen. Test what you think you know.

Some people say this is hard work. Maybe that's one of the problems of "civilization."

A good litigator tells a story that is consistent with reality as seen by most people.

A sneaky one tells a story that is consistent with jurors' fears and/or prejudices, and obtains their acceptance that way.

The former helps the system of laws retain integrity.

The latter helps corrode the system and render it untrustworthy in the eyes of those dragged into the system against their will.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

The good writer uses words accurately and gives credit to those whose ideas were essential to the concepts offered in the writing.

The shitheel distorts words and ends up using obfuscation and misdirection, and plagiarizes happily, taking pride in the deceptive success. The writing often seems to be about the writer him/herself, and not about the concepts communicated or the audience's entertainment or intellectual growth.

I wonder which one would make me think he/she ought to be questioned more thoroughly, which should be treated most skeptically, next time I read him/her. I wonder this rhetorically, I mean.

Chet Redweld said...

You probably gave it away by saying "shitheel," Karl. Though using that word is consistent with what you said, it's not exactly how I would have said it.

Paul Behrer said...

Hey Anonymous, what do you think about giving Chet's question a crack? --

Why do people "cynically" say, "well that's how things are, dude, and that's what you have to do to get ahead in this world." ??

while

complaining about how their Partisan Opposite Political Superset are liars and how dishonesty is the primary problem with Donald Trump's campaign and status as seeker of the Oval Office?


If need be, you can replace "Donald Trump" with "Bernie Sanders" or "Hillary Clinton."

Chet Redweld said...

Or anyone else who has been offered as an officially recognized candidate, by some group of people large enough to mount a campaign on his/her behalf, however well-funded.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Why be so cynical/jaded about US Politics that you are nudged away from Party Dogma, but then stop questioning the integrity of the "outsider" candidate, or only that "outsider" which is related somehow to the adversary of the party you've supposedly rejected?

Isn't that like "baking a pizza" but serving or eating it with still-cold sauce and unmelted cheese?

That might not be the best metaphor. Some people may prefer the half-baked.

Chet Redweld said...

Or maybe that's what always was served to them as "pizza" up to that point, Hy.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

You can see how "foodies" use their distinguishing skills in the wrong arena, then, eh Chet?

Oh, you call that pizza? Clearly you've never had pizza. Why, once I went to Napoli and had a pie made by a descendant of Raffaele Esposito. Compared to that, you can't really call what you just made a pizza. It's just a lump of ingredients.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Especially when it's a foodie who says,

Democrats are socialists! Nobody will let me merge with a machine to live forever, it's a socialist plot!

or

Republicans are insane reactionaries who are theocratic misogynist homophobic bigot cis-het-patriarchy promoters!

on their non-food blog/tweet, showing real synchronicity between food subtlety and sociopolitical/human nature subtlety.

Eh, Chuck?

Paul Behrer said...

That's enough "ehs" in sequence to seem Canadian, you chumps.

Chet Redweld said...

I wouldn't be so quick to limit it to food enthusiast facebookers, instagrammers, tweeters, bloggers, or other promoters of the unpaid sort.

It wouldn't be illogical to notice that a foodie is just acting like an Elks Club member, just socially gathering under an interest -- but in the 21st Century indirect, afraid-of-human-interaction way.

What I may wonder about is whether this triangulation is a good social development, and whether it has anything to do with people's focus being directed toward small things of questionable relevance to the sociopolitical struggles actually shared by the majority of the country's people.

Better-off people like to poke fun at the trailer home with a $30k vehicle on 7-year note parked just outside, and muse about the NASCAR on the Aaron's Rents television inside and the PBR cans strewn about the living room like leaves on the lawn when the unreliable under-table landscape guy is home tending to his young daughter because his wife is sick and they don't want the little one to catch it.

All major religions/quasi-religions talk about the problem of hypocrisy. Don't talk about the speck in my eye when there's a log jutting out of yours. It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich (money-focused) man to know God (experience/display human excellence).

Why do they talk about this as a human value?

Chet Redweld said...

Atheists and agnostics seem to think themselves immune to this hypocrisy, they link it to religious morals and say "I've rejected religion, I'm post-religion, I'm Situation Ethics Man/Woman!"

I suppose it's a stage of development, but ask any insect and it will tell you that the larval, pupal, instar stages are those it wants to get past even though it has to go through them, because all important (ecosystem integrity) activity from the insect's view happens in the adult stage.

The other day I watched a robin gobble up some flying insect-that's-pre-adult-and-therefore-like-a-caterpillar. The robin would have a really hard time trying to spear with its beak or catch with an open beak the flying adult version of this insect.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

You're assuming Ron Bailey has that depth of zoological knowledge, Chet. And you know he lacks it.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

But does he know he lacks it? If he does, what does that do to his psyche, conscience, restless sleep frequency, inclination to drink alcohol or smoke tobacco, teeth-grinding reflex? And how would that play out in his ...uh... professional life? Or personal life?

Kevin "kidwoo" Bazar said...

IMMMA ROOOOOST YO FAAAAAAAAIIIIIIISSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!

Chet Redweld said...

Yes, thank you Kevin, for that enlightened adult perspective on non-MTB-riding matters.

Kevin "kidwoo" Bazar said...

omigod. TRUUUUUUMMMMMPPP is INSAAAAAAAAAAAAANE!

Chet Redweld said...

It's nice to get the view from the Flying Carpet. Thanks, Kevin.

Harold Caidagh said...

How old is that kidwoo guy? 15? He sounds like one of those Holton Arms or Georgetown Visitation young women. Sheltered, pampered, and offended by anyone who can't see she's the top of the heap.

Paul Behrer said...

Like a Landon, St Albans, Georgetown Prep kid? Even one there on Affirmative Action scholarship for poverty or other rather unfortunate disadvantage?

H.M. Lohmann said...

Not to use a bucket of paint where a horsehair detail brush would do, but I think they call this thing "the gentry," which supposedly is related to "gentrification" and often is used to describe the process of turning Montgomery County MD from rolling hills into upscale McMansions which demonstrate Upper Middle Class values.

I've heard these kinds of people tend to drive Hummers with a "Keep Tahoe Blue" sticker on them, but I'm not a visitor of or traveller to the Lake Tahoe region. Just repeating what I've heard. I've also heard that some of them try to hide behind an earth-dog dirtbag persona while having multiple expensive toys and a machine shop in the "shack" next to their "little cabin." In the Tahoe region, which isn't cheap.

I'm not sure what to make of all this, though.

Harold Caidagh said...

If the cabin is old and little, with an actual shack next to it, and has been in the family for 3 generations or more and stands alone among 14k sq ft "little cabins" and 4k sq ft "shacks" built within the last 2 decades, maybe the shack-dweller isn't a rich person hiding and pretending.

But if bought by a carpetbagger and then lived in under a pretense of authenticity and grounding in the region? And pretending to disdain the gargantuan castle owners next door, while being just like them?

Paul Behrer said...

Sounds perfect for the blister audience though.

H.M. Lohmann said...

And TGR.

Harold Caidagh said...

Or this guy, maybe?

http://fairends.com/

Harold Caidagh said...

1) Leave tribal stronghold on Rite of Passage.
2) Adventure to a relatively rural area.
3) Establish business trading on "rural authenticity."
4) No need for local bankers here, you're self-funded.
5) Ergo, you have no local authenticity of your own
5) but you have shrewd marketing ideas to hide that fact
6) and you pander to those who are as insincere as you
7) because you know more people who like to pretend at authenticity
8) especially when you can fleece someone in the bargain of its display for commerce
9) and you congratulate yourself for your business savvy and entrepreneurial spirit
10) while readying yourself to move to the next hot new "gentrifying" formerly rural place.

Today's Top Ten.

Paul Behrer said...

Sometimes, Hal, I think (10) can play out as:

10) TRIUMPH! You are now among the town's Power Brokers!**


___________________

** The concept of "Power Broker" and/or "Power Couple" did not exist before your arrival, but we're all quite sure you had nothing to do with this development.

Anonymous said...

Hi Chet Redweld, Paul Behrer and others.

Its a Canadian holiday, Sorry if i'm replying late.

Chet Redweld 8:11AM: I think what your trying to say is what i'm writing really coming from my own understanding or am I just parroting you because I think you sound nice. I think I can show that I actually know what I say by saying things in my own words and showing what I know through examples. If I were to say that "society cant continue to grow like it has because there is not enough resources" I could show that I know this through an example like "Once a basic resource like wood, coal or gas is burned it can't become usable again, there is also a finite amount of resources, like copper and gold, which are being used up to quickly (and needlessly)". There is only so much copper and gold in the earth".

If I say that I now think that there is no morale rule for how a society should grow that can deal with all the variables, a example for this would be "If I say that a society grows morally through showing more compassion to people than what if people in a society are being taken advantage of through emotional manipulation"

Critical thinking involves understanding the words you use and actually testing what you or others say. Its interesting to see my blind-spots, if I say critical thinking gets you the truth and that getting the truth is using logic to figure something out. Then what is logic (and so on)?

-------------

Oh. I think what I just typed is critical thinking. I think I figured something out as I was typing. Is this what critical thinking is?

I think have have a better understanding of blind-spots. I just started to recognize them (well one of them). Oh, I should be asking what is "morale" in the comment that there is no "morale" rule for society.



Paul Behrer 8:37 AM: Thats a tough question. I might take a crack at it tomorrow.


Bye. Thanks for taking your time.

Chet Redweld said...

Using words precisely is not the same as getting hung up on labels.

It might be useful to ask yourself what is so pivotal about moral/morale notions, since you focused on them in the response above. Is it the idea behind the word, or the word itself that matters?

Logic is a broad category, it's found in mathematics and in computer programming as the most obvious applications, but logic doesn't have to serve only a scientific conundrum (math) or information management problem (computer program).

Perhaps you're an other-directed, "extraverted" person. If that's so, logic might be a social obstacle since most other-directed, "extraverted" people dislike logic and prefer emotional fuzziness, HOWYADOIN?! back-slapping, and manipulating others as if social interaction was a competition that everyone enjoys. Such people use logic as a convenience in social-competition, like a derringer in the boot.

"Once a basic resource like wood, coal or gas is burned it can't become usable again, there is also a finite amount of resources, like copper and gold, which are being used up to quickly (and needlessly)". There is only so much copper and gold in the earth".

Some people will try to persuade you that everything will replenish if enough entrepreneurial spirit and technology are brought to the task.

How will you know they're lying to you for personal advantage?

Harold Caidagh said...

Anonymous, here's another question that you might find interesting to consider.

Elon Musk.

Is he a con artist, an honest businessman, a mix of the two?

Notice his business uses PUBLIC money.

Notice he built a myth of entrepreneurial genius leading to wealth, suggesting his businesses are self-funded from the beginning and just enhanced with a wee bit of public money. Investigate for yourself what exactly is his background, whether he ever made millions as the myth says, how did he make that profit, and where did it go such that he now needs public funding to do his Theft of Nikola Tesla's Historical Genius for Profit's Sake through Using Nikola's Name.

You may want to investigate his religious ties. As in, what religion does he follow.

Paul Behrer said...

Canada has holidays?

The whole nation is so focused on HAVE A NICE DAY OFFEND NOBODY that it would seem every day must be some kind of holiday?

What holiday is today? Hexagon day?

Anonymous said...

Hi Chet Redweld and Harold Caidagh,
Thanks for the comments.
The Canadian holiday is Victoria day if your wondering. It should be ending today.



I am going to try and be more critical with what I say and have more original thoughts in this comment.

"How will you know they're lying to you for personal advantage?"

Chet Redweld 9:40am I would look at there actions. The desires they have chased after. If they have repeatedly chosen themselves over others in life, if they have done done things at anthers expense. (This opinion was inspired by you so I cant say its original. The rest will be.)

I would also like to see there general activities in there life, what is it they do? I would look at these and try to understand there motivations. If they spent there days "trolling" others over the internet this would help me guess at what matters to them.

It would help to see who they like to be with in life (and what choices these people have repeatedly made). If I knew what type of people they tolerated, this would help me know what traits there fine with and may have in themselves. Looking at the environment that I found them in and seeing what type of traits people would need to thrive in that environment might help. If some gang leader in prison told me to trust them I would take into account what they are, where they are and what they probably had to do to become what they are, so I wouldn't trust him/her.

Also I would wonder why haven't I seen this person and what hes selling me under scrutiny. Why is there no mention of the negatives/weaknesses? There are weaknesses/negatives to everything. What could be hidden? Another thing would be to wonder if the person is presenting things in a way that is trying to get me not to think about certain things. If a person keeps on telling me about the benefits of buying a dog but never mentions the cost, then I would think about looking into the cost.

I also cant forget to see if what they say has evidence and is logical.

I hope there was a shred of original thought and critical thinking in this. I felt that I have improved.

Harold Caidagh: I will get to this tomorrow.

Bye.

Paul Behrer said...

It would help to see who they like to be with in life (and what choices these people have repeatedly made). If I knew what type of people they tolerated, this would help me know what traits there fine with and may have in themselves. Looking at the environment that I found them in and seeing what type of traits people would need to thrive in that environment might help. If some gang leader in prison told me to trust them I would take into account what they are, where they are and what they probably had to do to become what they are, so I wouldn't trust him/her.

Some people might say the gang leader in prison knows the most about how the prison works. Maybe the gang leader is in there for a non-violent crime. What was the crime for which the gang leader was imprisoned? Was there, perhaps, a white collar criminal whose acts were more socially destructive yet who hasn't ever seen the inside of a police-based or justice-system-based holding tank, jail box or prison cell? What if that white collar criminal was the imprisoned gang leader's father and had done many worse things but yet never seen such an incarceration location's insides and only seen outsides from TV and movies?

Paul Behrer said...

Also, Anonymous, it looks a little like you're running a checklist based on what anyone here said.

I also cant forget to see if what they say has evidence and is logical.

Is it the checklist that's important?

Anonymous said...

Hi , Paul Behrer, nice questions:

Paul Behrer 6:23AM: I've been trying to learn critical thinking (and also trying to have more original thoughts, its just a goal of mine, its feels like an accomplishment I would like to work towards.). It seems that considering questions like: What does this mean?, Do I really know what this word means, Is that the only explanation? I've been trying to develop a habit of asking these questions as they dont come naturally to me. Iv'e been trying to put what I think through these series of questions. It seems to help me develop my thoughts a bit more. Asking myself these questions seems to help me know more about something so that I can make better conclusions.

I have very few thoughts on anything. Its like pulling teeth getting me to think, honestly I just sit blankly waiting for new thoughts to appear (I have no idea why this happens). You wouldn't believe it. Asking myself a list of questions seems to help me develop new thoughts, I can only seem think of very short responses.


Do you have any idea about how to get rid of this problem?

Ill answer the rest of the questions tomorrow. Bye.

Paul Behrer said...

There are people who ask themselves questions all the time. Some semi-scientists suggest everyone's brain is wired to ask questions constantly, to appraise all circumstances for existential threat. In this model "existential threat" is a construct of the mind, so you can see the potential for circular thinking and tail-chasing non-scientific "explanations" and/or "justifications" for the theory.

It may be the theory's flaw has to do with First Human Learning Self-Defense is a mind state unknown to people in Civilization. For example, what if the mind state of "I'm threatened now!" is conjured, not experienced as it's happening. The mind tells its human passenger "that person over there, looks suspicious, probably wants to hurt me or take my money or belongings or steal my car or molest my child or rape my wife/girlfriend/daughter or slowly move his property line fence, 2 inches a year, until his "property line" now includes what is on the deed to my land."

When it's just some person on the street who hasn't given a thought to the suspicious person, let alone think about doing something regarding the person, much less do something negative toward the person.

What if that's happening?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Doesn't that Big Beard guy call this "the dialectic," Pablo?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Or "the praxis," Karlos.

Once, I read Archie calling it "phatic communication."

Corey Robin calls it "identifying the Reactionary mind at work in others."

I'm sure it's easy to remember, in the face of all that, that it's just analysis if we're talking about the mind's workings, or talking if we're talking about how it's done between two (or among more) people.

Harold Caidagh said...

I don't know, Karlos. I'm not really clear what Big Beard meant about anything, his writing does more to confuse than to clarify. His faithful legions say that's because I'm not smart enough, or still too corporate/capitalist, to see things as clearly as all Big Beard followers do.

Here's a good example for Anonymous from Archie Comix:

On the good news front, a couple of men in Burkina Faso have developed a mosquito-repelling soap from natural plants and plant oils. "Most African households already wash with some kind of soap," the story pointed out, "and the discarded soapy water can hinder the insects from breeding."

("Patricia Mathews," 5/23/16, 7:38 AM)

Typically uneducated human whose parchments show completion of biology courses, thinks mosquitos are not a legitimate part of the ecosystem, thinks nothing of eliminating them entirely. Also typically human, doesn't wonder if soapy water might foul the water table, thereby injuring both aquatic life (for more obvious reasons) and the terrestrial life which previously used water, not soapy water, for its biotic purposes. Soap corrodes cell wall integrity, detergents are used in cell and molecular bio labs to help separate out cells and cellular constituents.

But apparently none of that matters if we're rid of those pesky mosquitoes.

Short term human wants always trump long term ecosystem needs. That's progress.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Yes, but does Pablo know, Hal? Isn't Pablo the resident critic of Big Beard? At least among ourselves?

Paul Behrer said...

Do I really know what this word means, Is that the only explanation?

That's a pretty good start. Conversational use of words often is inaccurate. Or uses words which have no real meaning -- "supposably," for example.

How does a traffic accident --in which one person runs a red light and hits a person who had the green-- become the subject of a lawsuit? Isn't it clear that if you ran a red light you were in the wrong? Wasn't that the reason red vs green signals were installed? To modulate traffic flow, to prevent accidents of this very type?

In Situation Ethics Man/Woman World, the answer is NO. Red/Green are suggestions, not rules agreed upon socially. If I have a better reason for running the Red than you have for passively (psychologically: safely, securely) moving through on a Green, I am correct and you were stupid to assume Green meant you have superior rights to the intersection, even if I have superior reasons for crossing when you'd like to cross. Stupid, and wrong. What matters is what I want, not what helps things run smoothly.

You may ask why the person who argues the Red Light Runner perspective also claims equity in all interpersonal transactions, and heckles others about intolerance.

Or you may not.

I would, however.

Paul Behrer said...

Karl, I'm not going to give That Glossy Guy any due.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Computer/console gamers may want to ask, "why are Sid Meier's Civilization and the somewhat similar Sim City ideas of Will Wright created and sold?"

The next Q I'd ask is, "why are there no games which portray ecosystems as something humans must fit into, rather than conquer subdue and civilize? And does the concept of civic duty then imply that we all must work to civilize the world?"

CITIZEN! PLEASE RECITE THE LOYALTY OATH OR BE SUBJECT TO ENSLAVEMENT OR FIGHTING THE LIONS IN THE COLISEUM!

Harold Caidagh said...

Some people might see the Fallout series as an example of the exception to your rule in the 2d question, Karl.

Anonymous said...

Hi Karl Franz Ochstradt and others. Those are interesting questions, thanks.

Some things popped up, so sorry if i'm posting late.

I ended having a insight into why "I have very few thoughts on anything. Its like pulling teeth getting me to think" today. I remembered Chet Redwelds comment about testing what you have seen and had a epiphany (for me atleast). I discovered that if I asked myself "what have you seen/observed about this" I was able to think of a lot more original thoughts than I ever have (I still dont have enough). I think my problem was that I was only able to tell you my knowledge about a question but never had any thoughts about them because I wasn't able to bring to mind my own experience to think with. My opinions lacked depth because they were more like "facts" then what I have actually observed. Im not able to expand on "facts" but I can seem to question and think about my own experience more.

Its still hard to get myself to look at things through my own experience but im trying. Its a neat trick that seems to help me. Slowly things are sinking in. It seems to help with everything.

Karl Franz Ochstradt 9:57am: I can see a few different reasons. Games like civilization seem to be sold because they represent something we have been taught to see as an accomplishment in society (progress and civil duty), I think that that people that play the game seem to think its not only a fun game but that its a smart one too. It feels cool to think that "im playing a strategy game about civilization" It feels like your not just playing any game but one thats right to play.

The game makes you feel like your learning something. It seems to be prompted as a serious strategy game that will test and prove your skill. Even though your not really building a civilization the game can give you the feeling that you really do have an idea about how a civilization could be run and that these opinions are useful.

You can create a civilization based off your principles and take pride in "how well you can lead a civilization" and feel good with seeing how a world looks run the "right way" (your way.

Its like when people play shooting games at arcades so that they can experience being a shooter but not have to go through all the work that there not motivated to do. It gives you an easy way to get what you want.

These thoughts miss out on allot and our simple but im just amazed that im having them at all.

Thanks for the time, Ill get to the rest of the comments soon.

Bye

Chet Redweld said...

Editorial intervention time:

...or slowly move his property line fence, 2 inches a year, until his "property line" now includes what is on the deed to my land.

Pablo's talking about an example I mentioned from law school, regarding real property (land) rights, ownership, etc. Someone in the class, maybe from the opinion we were discussing having a few diversion examples, maybe the professor talking about hypotheticals, raised this scenario --

The concept is "adverse possession." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_possession

You have a neighbor on one side of your property, the west side. There's a fence on the west side, but not on the east side. The western neighbor moves the fence 2" each year, every time you take your annual 1-week vacation to visit _____________. You don't notice it because it's 2" and it's done while you're away.

(ignore nit-picky Qs like "wouldn't you see earth disturbance near the fence posts" as this is a hypothetical requiring certain imaginings)

15 years after living in the house you go to sell it. The real estate appraiser comes out and measures your land, it's different from the survey on your deed and title.

In your state, the statutory period for adverse possession is 7 years.

You never complained.

Western neighbor might just own that 30" wide strip of land now. By adverse possession.

Chet Redweld said...

My opinions lacked depth because they were more like "facts" then what I have actually observed. Im not able to expand on "facts" but I can seem to question and think about my own experience more.

Past tense appropriate here?

An overnight change? An immediate switch?

Not impossible, but perhaps unprecedented in my lifetime.

Lawyers spend 3 years in legal education. During that time you take subjects. You learn about how the subjects differ from one another.

Learning about how they interrelate is up to you. You may not even learn that if you don't think that way. Boxes, file folders, file cabinets, storage crates get created.

Admissions to law school are supposed to sift out people who can't see interrelation and can't draw interconnecting lines in their minds.

But they don't. People graduate near the top of the class and still are boxed and sorted thinkers.

People practice for decades and still color only within the lines, and only within the lines that their minds created.

They may be called "experts in their field," even.

Expertise is a broad and vague concept.

Chet Redweld said...

For example, did you know that in order to be offered as "expert opinion" testimony in a lawsuit, the testifying person only has to show knowledge or experience that is beyond what the average juror would possess?

First thing I'd notice: "show" (which is why it's in bold)

Second thing: "average" juror (again, why it's boldface)

If I've played soccer competitively and the case is about an alleged personal injury caused by alleged tortious conduct by a fellow player,

I can be called to the box to testify as an "expert" even if I wasn't there at the game when the alleged injury happened.

I'm not offered as an eyewitness or fact witness. So I didn't need to be there or see the alleged tortious conduct happen.

If everyone in the jury is without competitive soccer experience, I can be "the expert."

Contrarily, if I'm compared against every soccer player ever, I'm much nearer low amateur status, nowhere near expertise, where soccer knowledge/experience is concerned.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

I can see a few different reasons. Games like civilization seem to be sold because they represent something we have been taught to see as an accomplishment in society (progress and civil duty), I think that that people that play the game seem to think its not only a fun game but that its a smart one too. It feels cool to think that "im playing a strategy game about civilization" It feels like your not just playing any game but one thats right to play.

Why does it feel that way?

Did the game designer want you to feel that way? Was that a goal?

Are there "planners" who grew up playing Civilization and/or Sim City, and if so, what effect(s) did those games have upon the "planner's" outlook and approach?

Paul Behrer said...

What if "Will Wright" was a pseudonym, and the person behind it now cynically offers a retrotopia perspective in a TED lecture, a column at Huffington Post, a masthead spot at salon, or a "provocative contrarian" pied-a-terre at reason?

Are computer programmers the best designers of human society?

Harold Caidagh said...

Missy Millennial says,

Everything I read says employers must accommodate the Millennials. Everything I see on TV news implies that Millennials created the importance of Big Data and made society realize how e-reality is reality. Merging with machines is our destiny. Nothing natural is valuable, the only things that matter are digital or digitally derived.

I wouldn't want Missy planning anything that implicates my interests.

But she's got a BS in CompSci from MIT and is working on an MPA at the Kennedy School.

Paul Behrer said...

Hence, she's giving tonight's TED lecture on the importance of Jane Jacobs.

H.M. Lohmann said...

Are computer programmers the best designers of human society?

Do the bean-counters make the best visionaries for a business enterprise?

What if we narrow their vision input for a holistic perspective?

The bean-counters get to envision fiscal matters, but not human behavioral or business strategy or product engineering or medical practice methods?

Would that work better?

I don't know, this overwhelms me. I'm only knowledgeable about ...well... myself. And even that's a fuzzy topic.

Paul Behrer said...

So computer programmers and code-writers are maybe good at code, but not much else?

What if they have a 183 IQ?

And read "the classics" and get gulled rather than enlightened or provoked further?

And have a multi-million dollar nest egg to protect when they are so gulled?

And haven't realized that the only reason they made multiple millions was serendipity, and not their personal genius? Who hasn't marveled at Thom Monaghan's or John Schnatter's wealth from simply delivering pizzas?

How rare is the brilliant person whose IQ is merely average? What was Richard Feynman's IQ compared to that of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs?

What correlation is there between brilliance and high IQ?

What do I mean by "brilliance"?

Why do religions speak of god figures as a bright light?

Chet Redweld said...

Just a reminder of what I said upthread:

All major religions/quasi-religions talk about the problem of hypocrisy. Don't talk about the speck in my eye when there's a log jutting out of yours. It's easier for a camel to get through the eye of the needle than it is for a rich (money-focused) man to know God (experience/display human excellence).

Why do they talk about this as a human value?


That second parenthetical is the key here, especially for those who identify as atheists and agnostics.

Maybe Joseph Campbell teased out the unity a bit, but he didn't really describe it this way. Wonder why PBS didn't present someone who could, or that's what I wonder anyway.

Time for me to work, lads.

Paul Behrer said...

Yeah go earn some money you layabout.

When you return to your editorial chair, I'd like you to think about this little comic distortion, which is offered for how it sounds when said correctly by the proper, uh, presenter. I'm thinking about opening a Comedy Shop at one of the empty spaces in town, since I moved here with about $1.5 million surplus and can't think of any better way to use it right now. I think the first step is to find someone who can recite my observations properly, the exact timing and pitch-change and inflection and whatever else those guys do better than I do. Which is most everything, except have the serendipity of wealthy parents or a lucky-strike personal business venture.

No shit, Sherlock

No split, Shylock

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Look at Pablo, gettin' all medieval like this funny woman did:

https://twitter.com/sttabitha/status/718818366094323713

Harold Caidagh said...

Why do religions speak of god figures as a bright light?

Never figured Chet for a Mithraist. Faith 'n' begorrah.

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Hey Chet:

Western neighbor might just own that 30" wide strip of land now. By adverse possession.

So if the statutory period is 7 years and 15 have elapsed in total, then whatever existed at the 7 year anniversary -- 14" of encroachment, right? -- that's Western Neighbor's land as of the 7 year anniversary and he can sue you for being on his land, all 14" wide strip of it, and demand rental or easement fees?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Which would include eight years of increasing indebtedness, right? 7th anniversary up to the 15th?

What if the property value assessments differ between your house and Western Neighbor's house, for whatever reason?

Anonymous said...

Hi Chet Redweld, Karl Franz Ochstradt and others. Thanks for all the questions and comments.

Chet Redweld 8:50am: Oh, I probably showed allot of hubris with my last post. The "epiphany" I had was one for my standards. Im trying to have more original thoughts and insights. Trying to figure things out by asking "Do I observe this?" was a insight for my mind and it produced more depth than I usually see (it was a small increase but it was still progress).I ended up finding a question that helped. Im thinking that the right direction for me, when it comes to critical thinking, is in looking at what I observe. If I just state what I know about something than its a allot harder for me to develop any thoughts.

This seems like the right direction (along with looking at connections and knowing the words that I say and few other things).

Karl Franz Ochstradt 9:12am:
The game feels like it does because its a part of our culture where people take pride in more refined taste. You can enjoy a simple shooter game or you could enjoy a "mature serious strategy game for adults that deals with civilization". In our culture our taste represent ourselves so the more refined your taste the more refined you are. People can think that if you like something intelligent it makes you intelligent.

The game designer would like you to have a variety of specific taste so that you can buy more games. The game designer is wanting you to buy the game for a variety of reasons. The game designer had no specific goal on what they want people feel about this game. The game designer is looking for any feeling (that people want fulfilled) they could use to sell with. They want gaming to be not just entertainment but to take part in the more important ares of your life (so you go back to the games more frequently). It is useful for more socializing to only be done over video-games for companies (when it becomes necessary for something as common socializing to be done over video-games it becomes easier for companies to make money.)

Anyways, I just wanted to mention that I dont know if I should keep on commenting in this thread, I dont want to push it. Ill still comment as long as someone comments back but I dont want to push it. Thanks for all the time taken so far. I appreciate it.

Bye for now.

Chet Redweld said...

I ended up finding a question that helped.

Which was...?

looking at what I observe

Awkward, tail-chasing.

Seeing what you didn't see before?

Why/how?

Was that ability within you already, just untapped or underused?

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Chet can't avoid the Socratic.

Was that ability within you already, just untapped or underused?

I'd follow up with this: WHY was it previously untapped or underused?

**************

People can think that if you like something intelligent it makes you intelligent.

THAT they can think such things is of no moment.

WHY they think such things is more ...uh... chewy.

The game designer is looking for any feeling (that people want fulfilled) they could use to sell with.

An interesting observation.

Why wouldn't they just do this:

1) Make the best product they can.
2) Introduce it to "the market" (however practically defined).
3) See whether "the market" likes the product, finds it useful, etc.
4) Buyers of the product speak to others.
5) Product sales increase.
6) Profit because the product is found useful, rather than SOLD AS useful (in whatever manner the seller has at his/her disposal)

What makes people think the MARKETER knows things better than the MAKER or the USER?

I'd wonder about that.

*****************

It is useful for more socializing to only be done over video-games for companies (when it becomes necessary for something as common socializing to be done over video-games it becomes easier for companies to make money.)

Not sure I can follow this.

Does it relate to how facebook became a social "necessity" and a tool of governments and businesses, despite its original sales point as "tool of/for personal connection"?

Paul Behrer said...

I dont want to push it. Ill still comment as long as someone comments back but I dont want to push it.

What's being "pushed"?

Doctor Doolittle's two-headed llama, the Pushmi-Pullyu?

Chet Redweld said...

Karlos:

So if the statutory period is 7 years and 15 have elapsed in total, then whatever existed at the 7 year anniversary -- 14" of encroachment, right? -- that's Western Neighbor's land as of the 7 year anniversary and he can sue you for being on his land, all 14" wide strip of it, and demand rental or easement fees?

If he establishes that he complied with the statute's provisions for what is adverse possession, then he can argue it's his strip of land. Whether a court agrees depends on the quality of his argument, the quality of his adversary's argument, and the quality of the judge's judicial analysis/jurisprudential chops.

It's not like he can stop a policeman, show him "the proof," and the policeman will execute the transfer of title there on the spot. He'll have to follow typical litigation process.

Which would include eight years of increasing indebtedness, right? 7th anniversary up to the 15th?

Maybe. Depends on the same criteria I just listed.

I'm not an accountant, not a CPA, not a tax attorney. Numbers, finances, etc. are pretty well outside my areas of experience, interest and knowledge.

What if the property value assessments differ between your house and Western Neighbor's house, for whatever reason?

Good question, and one that would muddy the attempt to sort through those qualities/criteria I mentioned above.

Chet Redweld said...

Karlos, you might've made a half-decent law professor if those kinds of questions are typical when you think about this legal mumbo-jumbo.

First you'd have to have a decent ugrad GPA, then also a decent LSAT score, and probably an innocuous e-presence with no partisan politics or other provocation evidence in your tenure as a Citizen of the Etherworld. Then you'd have to finish law school with good grades. The joke among my classmates in law school was this:

A Student - Becomes law professor

B Student - Becomes politically inclined lawyer, future judge or politician

C Student - Becomes one of the many largely-fungible attorneys who do passable if not exemplary work

D Student - Finds another line of work even if he/she somehow passes the bar exam

You probably don't want to know which category I fell into, and I hope Chuck doesn't spend any time on the subject in any comments below.

Chet Redweld said...

I should add that the C Student category is where most Govt lawyers can be found, as well as the ambulance-chasers in the plaintiff's bar, and the DUI stain removers in the criminal defense bar.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Your hopes and dreams, Chet, are as valuable as those possessed by people who voted for Barry O in 08 and 12.

Chet was primarily a B student with quite a few As and one C. I requested his transcripts before I said YES on the GRH LLC lawsuit.

Chet Redweld said...

You're gonna burn in whatever your worldview considers Hell for that one, Chuck.

Difference between B and A in many exams was both highly subjective (meaning: quality of argument, what I mentioned just a couple of posts upthread) and also a matter of being able to parrot the professor. I'm not a good marionette. In some classes I gave the correct answers but didn't phrase them in the peculiar way a particular professor liked the concepts worded. Some say that makes me dangerously individualized, but I'd ask you whether you found my legal work to reflect that "problem."

Harold Caidagh said...

Some may think Chet bragging passive-aggressively there, but that would be the wrong take. Considering passive-aggression and Chet in the same concept is wrong.

Chet was clarifying.

That's what he does.

And, I think, maybe that's why GRH didn't get anywhere. And maybe why the judge isn't a judge any more. But I'm just the guy whose ass he saved. You probably wouldn't want to listen to me.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

I bet Prissy Houle-Eaton loved listening to Hal.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Also, Chet's resume has a few places where he sure looks like a D student.

No wonder people think he's an idiot hack.

Chet Redweld said...

Some of my classmates are judges, some are partners in Big Cheese firms. Some never practiced for a day. Some did for a while and left. Some still plug away. Some have retired. Some won't ever retire. Many of the foregoing were better than a 3.0 GPA.

Why do you think that is?

Paul Behrer said...

The only way you could possibly know anything is to do this:

(recite the joke Chet related above regarding A and B students)

Exceptions made for those who make partner/shareholder, or general counsel in-house, or lead counsel in a govt entity, or rise through a state or federal AG program.

They're not failing either.

Everyone else must be an idiot, and must not know how to practice law or think like a lawyer thinks to earn the lawyer's salary. Certainly not a 6 figure mind if it's not in the not-failing categories litsted above.

That's the way it sounds from Chet's income woes. Hope I'm not busting your balls to badly here Chet.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

Sounds like someone with a JD and 1 year of "practice" pulling oars at a Top 100 firm is making a lot of decisions about people who outclass them in legal talent.

Where's the equity in that, Chet? You know equity don't you?

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

First you'd have to have a decent ugrad GPA, then also a decent LSAT score, and probably an innocuous e-presence with no partisan politics or other provocation evidence in your tenure as a Citizen of the Etherworld.

The subtlety, Chet.

I would assume you know that political partisanship is expected, and which side you're supposed to align with will vary depending on the employer or client who may want to hire you.

Isn't this why people hate lawyers? Their ability to remain non-committed until called upon?

Harold Caidagh said...

Chet was clarifying.

That's what he does.


That's another reason why people hate lawyers. They want you to choose a side and not clarify anything, and they don't like it when someone does the opposite of either one.

Most people, that is.

We here at UNSF don't think that way. That's why we hired Chet.

And I'm gonna thump equus mortis again and say,

that's why Chet won against GRH.

I'm sure the people who are on GRH's side of things hate Chet, but I'm also sure that if they ever got in a bind and needed a sharp legal mind, they'd have a hard time not considering hiring him or at least consulting him and trying to mine his thoughts without committing to engagement.

Chet Redweld said...

Hope I'm not busting your balls to badly here Chet.

That would be too badly there, Pablo.

Like I said, usually it's just spelling or syntax cleanup.

And no, you're not beating me up too badly.

I've been dealing with this situation for long enough to understand it looks ridiculous to people.

Chet Redweld said...

Chuck, you missed my D+ in Bankruptcy Law.

Good thing I never wanted anything to do with that subject, eh?

As a subject area of practice, I mean. As a potential client I may know too much, far more than that D+ exam result would suggest otherwise.

Harold Caidagh said...

Stay on top of clarification, Chet. Any other things you want to confess? I know you're not RC, but it's good for whatever you might consider the equivalent of your Soul, brother.

Chet Redweld said...

I jaywalked in NYC. 1997, 98 era.

Chet Redweld said...

I had grease & oil under my fingernails 24/7/365 from 1978-1981. During that time I was supposed to be in college, but instead I was learning how to extract power from a 351 Cleveland engine.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

So, no matter what Jacques Krogh-Barr III alleged, you're not a preppy scumbag frat-boy-in-an-Izod/RalphLauren-who-resembles-Robert-Chambers-in-deed-and-outlook?

How did that 351C turn out, Chet?

Chet Redweld said...

I've known and met and seen plenty of Robert Chamberses and Jennifer Levins, but they are from a much different world than what I know from my own youth.

I suppose you can get one side of those people's lives from watching Whit Stillman's Studio 54 saga, The Last Days of Disco, but there's a more directly seedy side that Stillman's movies don't cover. Maybe a little Abel Ferrara, Bad Lieutenant sort of background would help.

Why someone would assume I'm from that tier, sect, caste, clique, stratum is something I'll never understand. I'd wager the accuser is from there and is projecting. Or wants to be from there and is projecting for a slightly different reason.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

All lawyers who played lacrosse and ski on snow are preppy, Chet.

That memo must have been routed past your inbox.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»