Be a person...

[Nic Name]

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by sycamore

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.

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. :-)

[jeni]

it becomes patronizing when you're arrogant about it.

[jaguar]

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?

it's a poor craftsman that blames his tools

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.

But the effort is worthwhile, and I don't think Ben's contemporaries had as much trouble with it as we do.

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.

"Negligent speech doth 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

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.

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

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.

[elSicomoro]

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.

[MaggieL]

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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...

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.

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?

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.

[jennofay]

Actually, I've been posting here and elsewhere online for many years.

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.

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.

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.

You and I *are* different in age...but we are *contemporaries*

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.

I'm not *quite* too old to be your parent, but pretty darn close...I have one daughter a year or two older , and one somewhat younger than you.

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?

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.

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.

Do they make sense to you? Or do you find them incomprehensible? Can you paraphrase them in a way that shows you understand them?

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

...If at that point you lead them around in circles, they will conclude that you've been blowing smoke all along.

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.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by MaggieL
it's hardly art

By whose definition?

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.

[juju]

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.

[jaguar]

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.

. what is important is the individuals mental age

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.

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.

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.

If anyone is paying attention, they will likely challenge you to support your propositions.

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.

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.

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.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jennofay

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.

No, but it speaks to Jag's point that writing online is somehow different from other writing.

this being the case, why was his age such a big deal to begin with

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.

im 19, does this make me inferior to your greatness? age is a number. it means nothing.

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. :-)

are you also almost too old to be your daughters parent? why do you bring it up to begin with?

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.

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.

Lets see...it was published in 1640, so he would have been about 67.

'and for homework, kids,

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).

why didnt you just say that to begin with?

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.

[jeni]

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.

[jeni]

Maggie, you made a typo.

I"ve been 19 and I've been bunches older too.

[jeni]

oops, found another one.

read language almost four centuries old and understand it the point it makes

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?