Be a person...
 

not a doll.

"You think it's the dress you wear, that makes you a lady.
You gotta get that outta your mind, you must be crazy
You're just a brand new second hand, yes gal..."
- Bob Marley

I dont quite get this one. Did I miss something?

i *think* what the ad is trying to say (and forgive me if im stupid and am completely acting like an ass here...) but be a person rather than a doll in that you should be your self and wear the makeup/clothing/etc. (makeup in this case) that you want to and you feel comfortable in... and be unique rather than dressing/wearing makeup/acting like everyone else (like barbie...)

a while back, we were talking about how hello kittys beady eyes make "fill in name here" (sorry, i forget who it was and im too lazy to go back and look it up) paranoid. go to toys r us and walk down the barbie aisle. hundreds of females who all look the same staring at you. granted, some are molded from darker plastic than others, but still, they all look eerily similar. that makes me paranoid.

i think the ad is just trying to convince people to one) buy their products (obviously) and two) encourage individualism (by buying their products..) :)

The add is actually supposed to be showing the relation between makeup and a doll and how far they are from a person. Be happy with who you are and not try to change your identity into a doll.

At least that's my interpretation. Also, I found it on a site where you'd be least likely to find a makeup add.

It's definitely an Urban Decay ad.

Dolls are facinating...
Bfore mass production, dolls we personal, model of a person and though that became part of the person. The ultimate demonstration of that is the voodoo doll, an effigy fo a person that when harmed, causes real harm to the person. NOw the roles are reversed and we - are trying to be dolls, jsut look at the britney spears of this world, the same uniformity you see in dolls you see (particualry) in womens/girls clothing, we strive now for that uniformity. The puppets have lsot thier strings and now we are the ones being played, scary stuff.

this is an advertisement. for makeup. urban decay makeup. its saying buy our makeup rather than other peoples makeup. thats what advertising is. buy our shit, not someone elses. they are saying that anyone elses makeup will make you look like a conformist or a 'doll' ... but to instead, buy their makeup.

that is what urban decay is doing. the population who buy their products are generally younger people who do not want to look like everyone else. they are trying to find their own identity and to make themselves unique from the masses. this ad is trying to appeal to this desire. to be different. not like a 'doll.'

it would be silly for anyone to spend money on an advertisment campaign to turn people away from their product... please, dont give us your money. please. this could work, granted on an extreme angle, but generally advertisements try to sway people to buy their product rather than someone elses.

im working on an art project that has a lot to do with this. its still in the drawing stages, but it will eventually be three-d reality. its basically showing how people are all stuck in this routine of being the same and doing the same things day after day year after year.

Starry Sky, it would take an awful lot of "individualism" to get me to use Urban Decay....most of their products are suitable for making model railroad cars look "weathered". :-)

the brand/variety of makeup you use is a personal preference.

i personally dont use their products either, mostly because 1)they are rather expensive and 2)i dont wear much makeup to begin with, but this is beside the point.

individualism: "a. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues of self-reliance and personal independence." (dictionary.com)

their products, as i previously mentioned, are directed towards a younger (generally female...) audience. they are, for the most part, not what you would wear to a business meeting or lunch out with your boss. they do, however, encourage individualism by allowing people to express themselves through their appearance. they do encourage "personal independence.".. independence in what you look like.

i dont understand why you felt the need to emphasize the word "individualism" unless you felt that i was either misusing the word or attacking you on some personal level. i did neither.

im not sitting here trying to make people who wear more typical cosmetics feel like conformists or followers. what i am trying to say is that this particular company is trying to play upon their consumers desire to be individuals and to set themselves apart from the majority of the population. they do this to sell their products.

im curious, maggie, have you ever used, or even looked at their products, or are you just making a generalization of what you suspect the clients of this particular company must look like?

Oh, I *have* looked at their products...back when "goth" was hipper than it has been lately. At the time they struck me as pretty grim and gruesome.

A visit to their website this evening (I hate Flash navigation) shows they've had to branch out a bit since then; the line of nail enamels now goes a bit beyond "Gash", "Pallor", "Uzi" and "Asphxyia", probably because styles *have* changed. But even before then, "Roach", "Smog", "Rust", "Oil Slick" and "Acid Rain" just weren't what I looked for in cosmetics...and reminded me of nothing so much as the paints sold to railroad modellers: not only "rust", but "grime" and "mud" and "aged concrete".

The corporate history on the website notes they "reinvented" themselves in May 1999, trying to tone down the gritty image they'd worked so hard to build. Nine months later they were "adopted" (I suspect that means bought out) by a French conglomerate.

Interestingly enough, the item featured on the top of their site this evening is a "honey body dust" that I recognize from the 1970s., when it was sold under the "Kama Sutra" brand to well-off hippies. They've added sparkles, and the puff is now a "vampy leopard" fake fur rather than satin, but it's recognizably the same product.

I guess what goes around comes around.

As for my image of who would use their stuff, I *know* who would use it: My 14-year old daughter would die for it. And the list of "celebrity users" starts with the Dixie Chicks and ends with Dennis Rodman. :-)

Now *that's* individualism....a word I emphasized becuase it seemed to me to be so heavily ironic in-context, (*not* as a personal attack.or anything like that). Goth as a style seemed to me to lose its cache of individualism precicely *because* it became so popular. My life has led me to plenty of genuine expression of my individualism; and the goal of the ad campaign that started this thread is to get as many people as possible to express their individualism in *exactly* the same way: by buying this company's makeup.

The Dixie Chicks *are* pretty hot, though. :-)

pretty funny
 

but as with any company, I'm sure they would like their products to hit the mainstream of pop-culture. Then what?

Truth be told, I only know of Urban Decay b/c they named a color of nail polish after Gravity Kills' second CD, Perversion.

First: change your tag right this instant!

Second: How do you know it wasn't after something else? Just curious. I personally am not intimately familiar with the Urban Decay line of appearance enhancement products, but it wouldn't surprise me if they named it before the album was out.

I'm getting to it..."Porn Addict" kept making me laugh last night.

Quote:

Second: How do you know it wasn't after something else? Just curious.

It was named just after the album came out...some promotional b.s. They made a big deal of it in St. Louis (Gravity Kills' home base).

Heh. "Pretty Hate Machine Lipstick". Man, that would be lame.

Also, tea is good. It helps keep you awake.

Are you really a Porn Addict, or you just think it's funny?

Not a porn addict...I was sitting here about 3 or so this morning...and I was trying to come up with a really funny title--unfortunately I was hamstrung by the 25 character limit. "Porn Addict" came to mind, and I must've laughed about it for several minutes.

Dham - you an anti-porn cursader?

What's wrong with his tag? Henry Rollins is awesome... I have all of his spoken word stuff on mp3s (which incidentally caused me to buy three of his spoken word cds).

let me answer that for you, jaguar.

the computer i have right now at my home in california still uses the hard drive it's been using for quite some time. years. which means, since it hasn't been formatted in those years, that i've got BUNCHES of crap on that hard drive.

and since it used to be the family computer, i have all sorts of crap that used to belong to dave.

and there is plenty of porn in that "all sorts of crap".

so the answer, no.

Heh.

No, I'm not anti-porn. And I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing fuckfaces saying it's degrading to women - it's degrading to men! It feeds on their instinct to GET IT ON! Men spend billions of dollars every year on porn. The women know this, and are getting paid for it. Porn == exploitation of men.

Anyway. Back when I was 15 and used that computer, the whole porn thing was cool 'cause it was so taboo. Once I turned 18, it just kinda seemed stupid. However, I do find porno movies <b>funny</b> - the soundtracks are just awful :)

*laughs*

jag, it's an inside joke between dham and I...it was regarding my title, which earlier today said "Porn Addict." If I see you on ICQ, I'll explain it to you.

*Cheap* erotica--what we usually call "pornography" is degrading to all involved, like any shoddy art. But there is *good* erotica too.

A quote from my Cookie Jar


"Feminists against pornography (as distinct from the other anti-pornography camps) hold that our entire culture is pornographic. In a pornographic world, all our sexual constructions are obscene; sexual materials are necessarily oppressive, limited by the constraints of the culture. Even the act of viewing becomes a male actan act of subordinating the person viewed. Under this construct, I'm a damaged woman, a heretic.

"Always, the censors are concerned with how men act, and how women are portrayed. Women cannot make free sexual choices in that world; they are too oppressed to know that only oppression would lead them to sell sex. And I, watching, am either too oppressed to know the harm that my watching has done to my sisters, oror else I have become the Man. And it is the Man in me who watches and is aroused. (Shame.) What a mysogynistic worldview this is, this claim that women who make such choices cannot be making free choices at allare not free to make a choice. Feminists against pornography have done a sad and awful thing: They have made women into objects" --Sallie Tisdale in Harper's Magazine: <i>Talk Dirty to Me: A woman's taste for pornography</i>

fuck this whole "degrading" business.

the only women that porn and stripping and whatnot could be degrading to is the women who CHOOSE to do the porn and stripping. no other women.

the problem with the world is the idiots on it. if you're worried about porn being degrading to women, talk to the porn stars. i highly doubt, that while they get to have sex, and get paid for it, many of them feel terribly degraded.

why is it, also, that you don't hear men bitching about how porn is degrading to men? possibly because it's just sex? sex should be fun, and if the people are getting paid for it, why would anyone else care?

this all comes back to how people percieve shit. if i think eminem is talking about killing gays, is it bad, because kids will think it's okay to hate people different from themselves? it's all the same shit.

to each his own, i think, for the most part.

A taken stance here, a token stance there....

Interesting stuff MaggieL...



What Demand = Supply, nuttin more to it.

That's true, jaggy. I guess selling drugs to kids who are hooked on herion isn't really "exploitation" either - just filling that niche market, eh? Supply and demand.

of course its supply and demand!
Argh!
I seem to remember you were one who previously rejected me saying all business is exploitation!(correct me if i'm wrong on that) Of course it is! You exploit a demand!
ffs people!!!

Or that men want shaving blades, or people want socks, you just chose a more distasteful example - the principle is the same!
THis has been something iv'e touched on many a time - business by nautre is immoral, you are merely exploiting demand, someone elses weakness to make money, in that sense WHAT weakness is irrelavent if you look at it objectively.

Heh. It really does depend, jag. One thing that comes to mind, for example, are the businesses that lose money because they love doing what they're doing so much. Doctors, also. They work in a hospital - a business, here in the US. But they're not really exploiting.

I'd say that in a simple use of the word, yes, most businesses exploit a demand. However, it really depends on your usage of the word. I'd personally rather think of "exploitation" as the Nike kids in Vietnam and not cheapen the word by using it to describe filling a need for a service.

Ah but it is still the word - there isn't another.
We are fundamentally selfish, we exploit everything around us, our enviroment, often our firends (thugh they may not know it, in ways such as emotinal crutches), the enviroment, everything, often its mutual to both parties, soften the language all you want but the facts are the same.



Depends where, private hospitals here sure as hell do. Excpetins to the rule are a: very few and far between b: usually not very big and usualy come in the form of charities rather than businesses.

Business is immoral? Do you purchase your food Jag, or grow it all yourself? Do you make your own clothing from the skins of animals or do you buy clothes? I suppose the ideal of a State giving to each by his need is the answer. Yes that would work fine. From you Jag we need 40 hours a week in a cubicle. I'm sorry but thats what the tests say. That is your greatest value to "society". You may or may not eat in return for this but you won't mind standing in line for soy beans and rutabagas, since those are easy and efficient to grow. You don't want choice do you, no you're right serving the needs and desires of humanity is immoral.

whew rant off

Neither. Mom and Dad are still feeding Jag, and soon they will send him to college, where he may learn that there are morally neutral meanings for the word "exploitation", and that some economic transactions are actually mutually beneficial.

Since maggieL is soo busy trying to be patronising she cna't acutally read what i wrote ill repeat.

Just bceause both benifit doesn't mean its not exploitation.

I tired to DISATTACH morality for it MaggieL, try getting off your goddamn perch miles above where you are so busy preaching from up on high you seem to be incapable of reading what i wrote, and shit stupid shit about my age is jsut the silliest thing i've ever seen, pretty sad too. I run a business, active in multiple political groups, co-cordinating a Youth Forum next year, attend protest rallies by groups such as Greenpeace, and pay my dues to them, and tax, don't treat my like a fucking 5 year old becasue you don't like what i say, and please don't tell me you're still better of that gun control thing. Amazing how everyone here, even Dham however much we disagree can take what i say on the level - except for you, considering your seemsly minority groups background (gay and lesban stuff etc) i would have thought you'd be more open minded.
Doesn't mean you're not expliting, people just don't like the connotations - Griff is a good example, it still stands, this is merely an arguement over langage. SUre i buy my food but i'd argue the guy selling it is making money, more than he needs by selling people food that he bougth for less - how immoral is that? ;)

You provide a service or product people need/want then you are exploiting that desire.

Sorry, Jag.

You're right, I *don't* read every word you say--it's spelled and punctuated so badly it makes my head hurt. What kind of a word is "disattach"? How about "seemsly"? Being "in a minority group" (aren't we all?) doesn't obligate me to swallow any old ideology that happens to wander in the door, either--I still value critical thinking.

So...tell us about *your* business, and how it's morally superior. Speaking of being condescending. :-)

<b>exploit</b>
n : a notable achievement: "the book was her finest effort" [syn: <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=deed">deed</a>, <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=feat">feat</a>, <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=effort">effort</a>] v 1: use to one's advantage; "He exploit the new taxation system" 2: draw from; make good use of (resources) [syn: <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=tap">tap</a>] 3: work excessively hard [syn: <a href="http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=overwork">overwork</a>]

As in, by selling services or products that people <b>need</b>, a company is making good use of that need - i.e., by making money on it.

He <b>is</b> right about the word, though like I said, I'd personally not use it in this instance. But when we take semantics into consideration, he's absolutely right -- even if the situation <b>is</b> mutually beneficial.

Well first mabye stop making assumptions, i never said my business was somehow morally better, i don't try and claim the moral high ground. My business? Building computer, mostly rackmount boxen for custom Mysql/PHP solutions for medium sized businesses, i do this with two friends, Uni students, i do hardware and some PHP.


*laughz, i havne't seen you think once, or make a half decent point, you obviosuly didn't even bother to read what i said, because both your previous point i had covered. As for minority groups, yes, we are but some recieve more scrunity and discrinimation than others.

Well Disattach is a perfectly valid word i'm sorry if you havne't heard it before. You disattach yourself from a situation. As for seemsly, god knows what i meant there lol, once again, everyone else can get over 2 errors in a 200 word post, yet you can't.......

I meant bloody hell, you look down your nose at me because i'm younger, you bitched about new people on the board, where the hell do you get off?

Dham? Backing me up? Thought i'd never see the day ;)

I swear, if Jaggy gets a spell-checker there would be much less mental challenge cypherin' his posts! :)

Just how did those two Uni students get "fried" anyhow?

Well. Detach might be a little closer to a real word, but I think the meaning is pretty obvious.

Nic - I spellcheck the long ones, i generally eye-check the shorter ones so things get though.

Dham - I stand corrected

Teach me to start argueing at 10 in the morning when you get up at 9 and go to be at 3.

Gotta love the holidays

To be perfectly frank, I find Jag's writing style to be very interesting ... in the genius style of J.R.R. Tolkien, who never wrote five words in a row that I understood without thinking about what he was trying to say.

That said, I think Jaguar might make himmsself celarer if he'd jus stopppp pounding the keys wit his fistes caus hes madd at Maggie!

*laughz
why thankyou =)
Its not that i'm mad at maggie (i've got better things to get angry over - like the bastard over the back fence with a powersaw at 10am) it more intersting in fact. Deep inside my battered old keyboard (had it since my good 'ol 266(with MMX!!)) there was a small, round piece of some kind of hard stuff, the top of a manderin i think. It rolled around and got stuck under keys, meaning that charater doesn't get typed. A sort of ghost in the machine type thing. One problem fixed - now i just need to learn to type.

Maybe...but as Nic points out, it's fatiguing to have to constantly make up for a writer's laziness in not using actual English words and syntax to begin with. James Joyce did it for artistic effect; here it's just annoying. It just doesn't pass close "scrunity"...not to be confused with "discrinimation".

"Negligent speech doth not onely discredit the person of the Speaker, but it discrediteth the opinion of his reason and judgement; it discrediteth the force and uniformity of the matter and substance. If it be so then in words, which fly and 'scape censure, and where one good Phrase asks pardon for many incongruities and faults, how then shall he be thought wise whose penning is thin and shallow?" --Ben Jonson

And--pardon me--but I find little in common between Jag's writing and Tolkien's. The Ben Jonson above requres some effort to follow, because the construction and diction are archaic; it was written in the 17th century. But the effort is worthwhile, and I don't think Ben's contemporaries had as much trouble with it as we do.

He didn't have any orange peels in his keyboard either--knowing that "it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools..." :-)

so some people can't spell properly or use proper grammar. give them a fucking break. the point of his post was not to use proper grammar or spelling. jesus christ.

I wholeheartedly agree! Jag's literary style represents the "new adults"--the disenchanted and disenfranchised, who cling desperately to that ray of light we call hope.

i agree even more wholeheartedly. i call it art. poetry. rather in the spirit of e.e. cummings...except...not.

I think Jaguar's trying to represent HIS thoughts ... (not all of which I find as agreeable as his style) ... but we can agree to disagree from time to time. Let's not be disagreeable abou tit. :)

Syc? What call does Jag have to be disenchanted? How is he disenfranchised? What "ray of light we call hope" is he clinging to? (Or are you pulling our legs? Crack a smilie if you are, won'tcha? Besides, Jaguar isn't God, it's Ivanova.)

Jeni, my point about spelling, grammar and diction was made in the Jonson quote, and I think it's very apropos. The only presence any of us have had here on The Cellar over the years is our *writing*. Debate, based on critical thought, is our stock-in-trade, our lingua franca. This community isn't a chatroom. *Anyone* can use proper spelling and grammar, it's just that some people fail to make the effort.

There's *pages* in this thread because of hopping back and forth between the two meanings of "exploitation"; the emotionally *un*loaded meaning synonymous with "utilization", and the *very* emotionally loaded political usage.

"...[b]usiness by nautre is immoral, you are merely exploiting demand..." says Jag. Yet if two parties reach a meeting of the minds and exchange value, where's the immorality?

So we say "criticise the immorality and selfishness of business once you need to support yourself", and lo and behold, now he's a businessman too--selling turnkey Linux systems to local businesses, buying his own food, and paying taxes, by his account.

But "i buy my food but i'd argue the guy selling it is making money, more than he needs by selling people food that he bougth for less - how immoral is that?" Um...not at all, by my reckoning; "the guy" has done a value-add, just like Jag and his boxen, which are presumably not sold at cost. But of course, "i never said my business was somehow morally better"...and on and on it goes.

Trying to hold Jag to a connected train of thought, a reasoned, principled position--to find out exactly what it is that he *is* saying--has proved elusive in most of the threads I've read he's been a part of...the moment he's challenged, and on the horns of a dilemma of his own making, the smoke machine turns on and there's nothing left but fog. The fragments of his stream-of-conciousness discourse mostly just don't add up. A half-remebered slogan, a value judgement shot from the hip, and he's off to the next thread.

This isn't the "new adults"; it's hardly art, and I don't come to these discussions in search of "poetry". In fact, what I hear is the same old post-adolescent pose that's been going on for generations. There's very little "new" in it...you could hear it at any Earth Day thirty years ago.

Can't imagine what I was thinking of. Shame on me for picking on the poor kid....oh, sorry, that' s patronizing. When I say it, anyhow. :-)

it becomes patronizing when you're arrogant about it.

Maggie - You seem to be incapable of differentiating between an internet forum and, let's say, a piece of classical literature.

The former is generally posted after a moment of writing, free from the scrutiny of editors' eyes, written as I think.

The latter, as you must be unaware, is delicately written over an extended time period, often spanning a year or more. Then an editor or two, and at least as many copy checkers, iron out the minor imperfections in its structure and wording, eliminating any typos or misspellings in the process. It becomes a finely crafted beast - its excesses tempered, its weaknesses removed.

As you know, made obvious by your fascination with my age, I am not yet old enough to have written any classical literature, nor am I a professional writer - hence, I lack, and always have, a team of professional editors to temper my posts. What I do have, however, is a pair of imperfect human eyes - and these sometimes fail me. My sincerest apologies for causing your delicate senses to trip over my occasional jumble of letters.

Incidentally, posts on internet forums are fundamentally different from the nature of classic writing because they are structured like conversation and around a community - not like an essay. It may be that my posts are the exemplification of this, but regardless, perhaps it would be wise for you to take them as they are, not as an attempt at a published essay.

Now... since you're fond of using your clearly superior analytical skills and knowledge of the English language to belittle me, I think we should take some time to have a look at them. Shall we?

I wish I could say I was surprised by your misrepresentation of what I said, but sadly, I've come to expect this from you. Now - I'm not blaming my tools, but rather, providing a factual justification of my poor typing. I just happened to put it in an amusing anecdote, and if you bothered to read my post properly, you would have undoubtedly been able to comprehend this.

That being the case, where persons comparable in age at the time of writing would have an easier time comprehending said text, one could then assume that part of your problem with the digestion of my writing could be in the fact that you're less-than-young, whereas I'm still living at home. Rather, maybe your writing and reading styles are ancient, whereas mine are modern. You know. Kinda like Ben Jonson and all.

Well. Firstly, as dhamsaic has stated before, just because someone said something doesn't make it true, and as I have stated before, I am not trying to get published - merely, I am trying to get a point across. Sometimes this is like ramming my head into concrete, or trying to explain nuclear physics to a five year old who is running around, fingers firmly implanted in ears, screaming "YAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYAYA". That five year old then, of course, turns around and attempts to decimate my arguments in the most condescending, holier-than-thou manner I've ever been unlucky enough to stumble upon.

And you return fire with a broad generalization, based on one solitary piece of evidence for the former and typos for the latter. How about you try basing your point in reality rather than exaggerated fiction? Its a pity you don't seem to be able to grasp some of the basics that make a good argument, as I could have spent this time posting about something worthwhile instead of being dragged, once again, into your petty games of personal politics.

From Merriam-Webster:

disenchant: to free from illusion

disenfranchise: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity

Jag believed in a utopian Australia...an Australia flowing with milk and honey. He thought his country was the greatest in the world. He had been taught to believe this.

But then, slowly, the truth appeared--The Stolen Generation, the refusal of refugees, a rise in heroin usage, an increase in youth suicide, a stifling of the principles of democracy in his homeland. It blindsided him...a system that now refused to listen to the growing clamor of its youth. His ancestors came to Australia to seek this "utopia." He thought this to be the world he was meant to inherit. Yet, he was watching it fall apart before his eyes. The world he so loved was quickly becoming the great Australian failure, run by supposed do-gooders who ignored the cries of youth. He grew apathetic...and angry. He began to smoke to ease the burden of his troubled existance. Doctors tried to give him anti-depressants to medicate him from the world he now hated, to no avail.

But he could not shun the thoughts of positivity that flowed within him. He felt he could speak for his "people," the youth that felt so much like him. He had a voice, and felt a need to use it. That "ray of light" is his Australia. A vision shared by many of his bretheren. An Australia as he remembers it...an Australia that he and others know it can be. This voice later seeped into everything that he did. The words are rough and scrawled, and can be tough to read. He doesn't deny this.

But it is art. And art is in the eye of the beholder.

Actually, I've been posting here and elsewhere online for many years. The reason this community is better than, say, Slashdot, is that we have traditionally had higher standards.
My point exactly...and Jonson's as well. Your writing reflects your thinking. And the first critical review it will get is right here...that is unless you look at it yourself, first. Do you think *I* submit my posts here to any editorial review but my own and that of the other readers here? Do you think *Jonson* had his writing returned, marked up by some publisher's editor? Centuries later, people *still* judge the intellect and reasoning of others by their words.

Even on the Internet.
You and I *are* different in age...but we are *contemporaries*; alive at the same time. While I'll decline to hang an exact number on my age, I'm not *quite* too old to be your parent, but pretty darn close. I've read *plenty* of writing by people your age...I have one daughter a year or two older, and one somewhat younger than you. I hold *their* words to the very same standards. (The elder is on the dean's list this semster at a local college. *She* doesn't feel mistreated.) I know when they're on the track of an idea, and when they're blowing smoke.

You are, by my reckoning, 16 years old, about to turn 17 (Happy birthday, BTW) . This makes me something like three times your age. If Jonson was still alive today, he'd be something like 380. Almost *eight* times my age, and older than you by a factor greater than twenty.

It's not a generation gap that makes your prose different. It's not even that you're on the Internet. Jonson, from the reach of four centuries ago, holds together better. That's not because he's closer in age to me, but because his reasoning has a solid foundation. Perhaps he spent a bit longer polishing his prose. I doubt he tossed those words off into a dialog box and pressed "submit reply" without thinking about them.

It's just not a difference in style, or being "modern", or a matter of "art". (The Balanese, by the way, have a saying: "We have no art. We do everything as well as we can.") Jonson's words survive today because they convince, and his audience thought them worth preserving. Do they make sense to you? Or do you find them incomprehensible? Can you paraphrase them in a way that shows you understand them?
We call that "debate". Your prose will not convince in debate--will not "get your point across"--unless it is at least both logically connected and readable. Your words *will* be published (and others will form an opinion of your thoughts) the moment you press that "submit reply" button...so it falls to you to make them both coherent and convincing.

If anyone is paying attention, they will likely challenge you to support your propositions. If you think of your ideas as "nuclear physics" and your audience as "a five year old", you're probably going to have to work a bit harder. When folks challenge your propositions, it may not be that they're pearls cast before swine. It may be that they seem full of holes to your readers; holes that they then challenge you to fill in. If at that point you lead them around in circles, they will conclude that you've been blowing smoke all along.

OK. Show us a counterexample. Go back over all your postings here on the Cellar and point to your best work...an example of you being both well-reasoned and clear.

good for you, you want a fucking cookie? does this make you better, holier, or more intelligent than the rest of us? i think not.

why didnt you just say that to begin with rather than sitting here pretending to be greater than everyone else and picking apart someone else to make yourself seem more intelligent? you sat here and teared jag apart saying that his typing was horrendous and therefore he is inferior to you. ive seen worse typing...by far... all he does is switch a few letters around and spell a few words incorrectly, big deal. hes human, imperfect... but i guess these are concepts someone so high and mighty as yourself wouldnt be able to understand.

good job. so, this being the case, why was his age such a big deal to begin with? why was the fact that he is "one-third" your age such a big deal? im 19, does this make me inferior to your greatness? age is a number. it means nothing. what is important is the individuals mental age. and i think, in this respect, you have a lot of growing up to do.

minor point, but how the hell does that work? are you also almost too old to be your daughters parent? why do you bring it up to begin with? to make your post look longer and to give yourself a chance to throw in some more carefully compiled sentences and big words to make yourself appear more intelligent and inflate your ego?

how old was he when he wrote? he didnt write when he was 380. why was this brought up? your arguments, too, have holes, and are difficult to follow at times. this being an example.

'and for homework, kids, do pages twenty-three through twenty-six in your textbooks, even problems only...' give me a fucking break...

well put, m'dear...

take it to heart.

you are no better than anyone else out there, you play upon other peoples weaknesses in order to feel better about yourself. you use big words and throw in fancy quotes in order to make yourself appear learned and overly intelligent, when in fact, you are just the same as all of us. you are nothing special, and pretending like you are will only make that all the more apparent to everyone else here. just because you are unhappy, uncertain, whatever does not make you god. stop acting like it does.

By whose definition?

Quote:

and I don't come to these discussions in search of "poetry"

I don't come to these discussions in search of crude jokes (for example, bushmeat). Not that I personally mind; I just don't come to these discussions for them. However, when I think of the Cellar as a community, I think of individuals coming together here to talk about various things. We have our own unique personality traits that make us these very individuals. So, if I get some "poetry," that's awesome. I'm experiencing some of this individual. If I get crude jokes or anything else, that's awesome too. Anything that allows me insight into an individual (be it anger, humor, knowledge, etc.) is worth the time I spend here.

Jag spells poorly. He is hard to understand sometimes. I don't always agree with what he says. But I have nothing but respect for him. I personally don't have a real problem with most of his posts sans spelling, and I admire the passion he has.

Ok ok... I can sum all of this up.


Jag: Just fucking double-check your spelling! It's cool if you don't feel like it, but it'd still be nice! Just remember: Preview is your friend. And let's not forget Preview's second cousin, "Edit Post". :]

Maggie: While talking about something else, you implied that Jaguar was inferior to you because he is younger than you. Even though 99% of the population does this, it still pisses people off. And even though you were probably right about every other point you made, the only reason he's still arguing with you is because he probably feels that you disrespected him.

TO add to everything jennofay and syc said...

While you seem to find my arguments incomprehensible and mere "blowing smoke" "off the hip" "half remembered slogans" of whatever silly phrase you choose next, it seems everyone else has no problem whatsoever, heck my "blowing smoke" shredded your farcical arguments against gun control. Once again I have to refute your petty name calling *sighs, I could be washing the car right now. I think (and feel partially vindicated by dham and syc, two of the biggest posters round here) that my arguments are taken seriously, and I’ve earn a bit of respect from most of the crowd, and engaged in long and interesting debates with a wide range of people, none of which have sunk to the lows of personal assaults that you do.

You seem to think that having been here longer gives you some kind of special status, personally, I’d like to think everyone here is an equal, whether it be their first post of the 1000th, and I’m sure UT would agree (sorry to drag you even slightly into the unsightly mess).

I would personally like to think I would be remember not by my typos but by the ideas and arguments I raised, sure sometimes I’m inarticulate, it'll probably improve a little because I’ve got allot more argumentative essays to write next year, if you don't like it, bite me.

Thanks for bringing up this point - a big one, the internet is the great equalizer, age, sex, race, whatever are irrelevant, only what you have to say, sadly you seem desperate to cling to status symbols such as length of time you've been here or age rather than be judged by your words.


Well, to start of with, fuck you. In the last microcosm of debate - whether all business is immoral, I started my point, repeatedly, very clearly, amazingly, dham managed to se what I mean, and agreed with me, and no one else posted any objections o what I stated, which was a model and a contention, yet you accuse me of blowing smoke.


Well so far quite a few people are paying attention and they all seem to think your arrogant, pretentious, uncalled for, holier-than-thou, nonsensical arguments are a pile a small steaming heap of dung.

which indeed I’ve done, wish you could get your head around that....

I spend large portions of my time debating, my views all have been tempered by this, tested time and time again by a wide mix of people, i don't make statements wihtout being able to back them up, i can't remember a debate on here that i've conceeded because i have no ground to stand on. The same applies to this.

No, but it speaks to Jag's point that writing online is somehow different from other writing. Because he'd been holding forth on how immoral engaging in business was. Unless he's found some way to survive *without* engaging in commerce, other than living off Mom and Dad, that's empty. At his age, I doubt he's done that.
I disagree. There's a Mark Twain quote that's apropos, but I won't bother you with it. I"ve been 19 and I've been bunches older too. It *does* make a difference. It's *not* just a number. Of course, when I was 19, I probably would have agreed with you. That's how big the difference is. :-)
Actually, yes, I am. Were I much older, I wouldn't be in a position to support my youngest though college and out on her own. I mentioned it to create a frame of reference relating my age and cultural context to Jag's and to Jonson's.
Lets see...it was published in 1640, so he would have been about 67.
I was trying to gauge the language gap was between us, to illustrate a point. If Jag--and you--can read language almost four centuries old and understand it the point it makes, then it has compelled you despite having been written in a *radically* different cultural context....much greater than the difference between my culture and Jag's, or yours. Jag was suggesting that it was because I was *old* that I wasn't understanding and agreeing with his points (here and in other threads), which he thought quite obvious. My point was that good writing bridges the gap even between readers of very different backgrounds. My suspicion was that he *does* understand Jonson's point....maybe he'll register his own answer.(although looking upthread I see only appeals to the crowd, the proprietor, and a few obscenities).
By quoting Jonson I *was* saying *exactly* that, while at the same time challenging the idea that I was missing Jag's points because he was speaking some sort of new age patois or Internet argot.

What it seemed to me had happened was Jag had flung a cheap shot about how immoral being in business was, and then danced around when others suggested that he should walk a few miles in those shoes before moralizing about them. Later he claimed to *be* in business and to be buying his own food, paying taxes, and funding his political activism. My credulity is a *bit* strained to imagine a 16-yo feeding himself on a regular basis by selling Linux boxen to local businesses, but that's not the first time that's happened.

Juju: I don't hand out respect just for "poetry". My respect is *earned*, and cluttering up the Cellar with sloppy writing or shoddy logic is to my mind a form of disrespect to the others here. Jag's age isn't germane except when he offers opinions about stuff he has little experience with--like firearms ownership, or the morality of engaging in business--then insists they be given equal weight with the views of people who have been around those blocks a few times. Otherwise, I hold his writings here to the same standards as I do everybody else's. To do otherwise *would* be disrespectful.

Smutty jokes are a long-time Cellar tradition, though.

Maggie: I do think of it as art, and I do think of it as poetry, and since your opinions are no more valid as fact than mine, please stop acting as though they are.

Maggie, you made a typo.

oops, found another one.

Maggie:

I'm just going to be really brief here, 'cause I have other things to do. But let me weigh in for a moment.

Many times, I agree with what you say. There are times that I don't, but more often than not, we're on the same side of whatever line is drawn. But you discredit yourself when you make attacks on age -- much in the same way that you claim jag discredits himself when he doesn't spellcheck. Personally, I don't have any real trouble reading his posts, but I realize some might - that's really neither here nor there, however. The point is, once you make that attack, your credibility has eroded. You tend to do this fairly regularly - to sycamore a few weeks ago, to jag in nearly every debate you engage in with him. <b>That</b> is what pushes buttons, just the same as if younger persons were constantly making cracks about how you "need to go get your Depends changed" or ask if your pacemaker is working properly. It's unnecessary and uncalled for. You speak about valuing words and the judgement that is laid upon them in a forum such as the Cellar - but somehow manage to throw in snide remarks about "homework" and whatnot in the process.

<b>IF</b> you said "jag, look -- I've been around this world a long time, and though I can see where you're coming from and maybe why you feel the way you do, I think that you lack the life experience to fully understand this issue", it would be a totally different story. You may not believe that, but that is <b>definitely</b> the way it is - I had the utmost respect for you until you made the first wisecrack about jag's age, and it's gone downhill from there.

If you can't show us that you can argue with someone and still respect them for their views and voice, then how can we respect you?