Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

hansenalana

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Novice responder attempting to seize the condenscension from snow's mountainous mouth... Before the standard profiling, the uncouth discernments, the avalanche of antogonistic rhetoric ensues, note that I have manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature and am prepared for "intellectaual shooting matches". :) I have been meticulously reviewing threads and have been impressed with the conversation, though troubled by the ostensible dearth of regard for particular persons inquiries. With that said I hope to prosper as a participant in this intriguing forum. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Novice responder attempting to seize the condenscension from snow's mountainous mouth... Before the standard profiling, the uncouth discernments, the avalanche of antogonistic rhetoric ensues, note that I have manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature and am prepared for "intellectaual shooting matches".  :lol: I have been meticulously reviewing threads and have been impressed with the conversation, though troubled by the ostensible dearth of regard for particular persons inquiries.  With that said I hope to prosper as a participant in this intriguing forum. :ph34r:

The purpose of this forum is not to debate Objectivism, read the forum rules. What do you mean by "manifold familiarity"? What particular person's inquiries have not been given enough consideration to the point that it troubles you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Novice responder attempting to seize the condenscension from snow's mountainous mouth... Before the standard profiling, the uncouth discernments, the avalanche of antogonistic rhetoric ensues, note that I have manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature and am prepared for "intellectaual shooting matches".  :lol: I have been meticulously reviewing threads and have been impressed with the conversation, though troubled by the ostensible dearth of regard for particular persons inquiries.  With that said I hope to prosper as a participant in this intriguing forum. :ph34r:

:yarr: Why the fancy verbiage? You won't be taken seriously around here if you can't express yourself in plain language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The purpose of this forum is not to debate Objectivism, read the forum rules.  What do you mean by "manifold familiarity"?  What particular person's inquiries have not been given enough consideration to the point that it troubles you?

Read the forum rules and have concluded that nothing I have mentioned breached the governing sanctions. I have yet to actually debate anything, I merely inserted an apprehension of engaging in the conversation. I actually was attempting to respond to the dialogue of Atheism where several insular exchanges occured. I apologize for the seemingly random post. If you would read those particular threads it would probably illuminate my stance and eliminate the dubious opine. The person I was referring to was Styles212 whom had an unmitigated backlash from JMeagan Snow. He was merely seeking entitled clarifications and was met with brazen snobbishness.

Manifold familiarity confesses a level of Objectivist competence, sort of a disclaimer to assist in thwarting Snows insensitivities to potential misinterpretations. Review the thread first and clarify any misconceptions if you would like. Appreciate the response Bryan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: Why the fancy verbiage?  You won't be taken seriously around here if you can't express yourself in plain language.

I would prefer "stylistic" which Ayn Rand ascribes to an artists rendition of his craft. "His selection constitutes his evaluation: everything included in a work of art-from theme to subject to brushstroke or adjective-acquires metaphysical significance by the mere fact of being included, of being important enough to include". Lexicon {Ibid., 46; pb 36} Hope that explanation suffices as serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer "stylistic" which Ayn Rand ascribes to an artists rendition of his craft. "His selection constitutes his evaluation: everything included in a work of art-from theme to subject to brushstroke or adjective-acquires metaphysical significance by the mere fact of being included, of being important enough to include". Lexicon {Ibid., 46; pb 36}  Hope that explanation suffices as serious.

B) It took me four times to read what you said, and I still needed you to explain it to get it all. I feel really dumb now. (I am a drummer, but still... :lol: )

My only question is, do you speak like that in real life? (It would be quite cool if you did.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer "stylistic" which Ayn Rand ascribes to an artists rendition of his craft. "His selection constitutes his evaluation: everything included in a work of art-from theme to subject to brushstroke or adjective-acquires metaphysical significance by the mere fact of being included, of being important enough to include". Lexicon {Ibid., 46; pb 36}  Hope that explanation suffices as serious.

Have you met Dr. Driveby? I'm starting to wonder if there's some kind of "land of the verbose" that just released a bunch of hermits. B):lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Novice responder attempting to seize the condenscension from snow's mountainous mouth... Before the standard profiling, the uncouth discernments, the avalanche of antogonistic rhetoric ensues, note that I have manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature and am prepared for "intellectaual shooting matches".  B) I have been meticulously reviewing threads and have been impressed with the conversation, though troubled by the ostensible dearth of regard for particular persons inquiries.  With that said I hope to prosper as a participant in this intriguing forum. :lol:

Oh, it was JMegan you were talking about. I was really confused when I first read this. I kept thinking: What Snow? You really should capitalize proper names, especially when they are also nouns. :lol:

Read the forum rules and have concluded that nothing I have mentioned breached the governing sanctions...
If you are using all the flowery words as style, is the improper grammar also style? *this is a joke, and not intended to be mean*

I apologize for the seemingly random post. If you would read those particular threads it would probably illuminate my stance and eliminate the dubious opine.  The person I was referring to was Styles212 whom had an unmitigated backlash from JMeagan Snow.  He was merely seeking entitled clarifications and was met with brazen snobbishness. 

Manifold familiarity confesses a level of Objectivist competence, sort of a disclaimer to assist in thwarting Snows insensitivities to potential misinterpretations...

(bold mine) Ahem, entitled? Is that really what you meant? Anyway, what is you evidence that Stlyes2112 had an "unmitigated backlash" from JMegan?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was merely seeking entitled clarifications...

..., sort of a disclaimer to assist in thwarting Snows insensitivities...

Nothing is "entitled".

Is JMeganSnow supposed to be "sensitive"?

Also why don't you drop the act with the fancy wording, nobody's impressed with it or your implied argument from intimidation.

Edited to correct spelling and to make the last sentence make sense(must've typed too fast).

Edited by Rational_One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer "stylistic" which Ayn Rand ascribes to an artists rendition of his craft. "His selection constitutes his evaluation: everything included in a work of art-from theme to subject to brushstroke or adjective-acquires metaphysical significance by the mere fact of being included, of being important enough to include". Lexicon {Ibid., 46; pb 36}  Hope that explanation suffices as serious.

Yes, but a post isn't a work of art-- you're trying to communicate with people. Communication is best done concisely, trying to convey your idea using the simplest possible language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the forum rules and have concluded that nothing I have mentioned breached the governing sanctions.  I have yet to actually debate anything, I merely inserted an apprehension of engaging in the conversation.

In your first post you said "note that I have manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature and am prepared for 'intellectaual shooting matches' ". This would lead to believe that your intention for joining this forum was to debate about Objectivism coming from some other viewpoint. If this is not your intention, disregard my statement.

I actually was attempting to respond to the dialogue  of Atheism where several insular exchanges occured.  I apologize for the seemingly random post. If you would read those particular threads it would probably illuminate my stance and eliminate the dubious opine.  The person I was referring to was Styles212 whom had an unmitigated backlash from JMeagan Snow.  He was merely seeking entitled clarifications and was met with brazen snobbishness. 
I haven't read much of the recent Atheism threads, that topic is not of much interest to me and it has been beat to death on this forum. Why make a blanket statement in a intro thread about an exchange between two members in a forum that has over 1200?

Manifold familiarity confesses a level of Objectivist competence, sort of a disclaimer to assist in thwarting Snows insensitivities to potential misinterpretations.  Review the thread first and clarify any misconceptions if you would like.  Appreciate the response Bryan.

You were making a disclaimer to Jennifer in an intro thread where nobody knew you were specifically addressing her? What level of Objectivist competence does "manifold familirity confess"? I'm still in the dark here.

A side note, between your two posts that I have responded to, I've had to look up 5 words using google's dictionary. I appreciate the vocabulary building exercises B).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

I haven't read much of the recent Atheism threads, that topic is not of much interest to me and it has been beat to death on this forum. Why make a blanket statement in a intro thread about an exchange between two members in a forum that has over 1200? 

You were making a disclaimer to Jennifer in an intro thread where nobody knew you were specifically addressing her?...

This isn't necessarily hansenalana's fault. Her introductory post was originally in the Atheist thread. I saw it, and due to the fact that hansenalana had only that post and that she seemed interested in the forum, I recommended that she start an introductory thread. However, apparently a mod moved her post here and deleted mine. (I am not sure this is the case, but it seems the most logical explanation.) That said, the post wasn't much more than assertations without factual evidence in the Atheist thread either. I hope this clears up some confusion. B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW ~ Welcome to the forum hansenalana. As a tip, you might try telling us something about yourself before you go attacking forum members. What does your *manifold familiarity with Ayn Rand literature* consist of? What Objectivist literature have you read? What did you think of it? Are you an Objectivist? What is your central purpose (job)? etc. etc.

edited to add hansenalana after "forum" in the first sentence

Edited by non-contradictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't necessarily hansenalana's fault. Her introductory post was originally in the Atheist thread. I saw it, and due to the fact that hansenalana had only that post and that she seemed interested in the forum, I recommended that she start an introductory thread. However, apparently a mod moved her post here and deleted mine. (I am not sure this is the case, but it seems the most logical explanation.) That said, the post wasn't much more than assertations without factual evidence in the Atheist thread either. I hope this clears up some confusion. :lol:

Fair enough. That makes a lot more sense. If this is the case, hansenalana, disregard my statements. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  The person I was referring to was Styles212 whom had an unmitigated backlash from JMeagan Snow.  He was merely seeking entitled clarifications and was met with brazen snobbishness. 

I would like to clarify, from my end, that I did not feel that JMegansnow was giving me "backlash" of any sort, I just felt that she was explaining her view in a slightly insulting way, and was pointing that out. She, or anyone else, could do with it what they pleased. While I still disagree, people are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong, rational or irrational.

Also, Hansenalana's comment on "Intellectual shooting matches" didn't have to do with a view for starting debate, but on a comment that JMegan made insinuating that I was "not equiped for an intellectual shooting match."

Hope that clarifies a bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to clarify, from my end, that I did not feel that JMegansnow was giving me "backlash" of any sort, I just felt that she was explaining her view in a slightly insulting way, and was pointing that out.  She, or anyone else, could do with it what they pleased.  While I still disagree, people are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong, rational or irrational. 

Also, Hansenalana's comment on "Intellectual shooting matches" didn't have to do with a view for starting debate, but on a comment that JMegan made insinuating that I was "not equiped for an intellectual shooting match." 

Hope that clarifies a bit.

That specific comment was made in humor; I heard the quote somewhere and I thought it was funny. I was attempting to point out that Styles2112 was bouncing in on the tail end of a discussion (which has, as was said, been beaten to death on this forum) and demonstrated that he didn't really understand the nature of the issue as it was being discussed at the time.

Eran Dror pointed out that I tend to use quotes when they aren't quite appropriate, including Ayn Rand's "I'm not brave enough to be a coward" quote.

You're quite welcome to point out when I'm being slightly or inadvertantly insulting, Styles, in fact, I encourage it. I don't consider having a caustic tongue to be a character flaw, and I think better when I'm angry, so often the best way to get some kind of useful response out of me is to tick me off. If you can stand a few jabs, it may be worth your while. That's for you to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That specific comment was made in humor; I heard the quote somewhere and I thought it was funny.  I was attempting to point out that Styles2112 was bouncing in on the tail end of a discussion (which has, as was said, been beaten to death on this forum) and demonstrated that he didn't really understand the nature of the issue as it was being discussed at the time.

Eran Dror pointed out that I tend to use quotes when they aren't quite appropriate, including Ayn Rand's "I'm not brave enough to be a coward" quote.

You're quite welcome to point out when I'm being slightly or inadvertantly insulting, Styles, in fact, I encourage it.  I don't consider having a caustic tongue to be a character flaw, and I think better when I'm angry, so often the best way to get some kind of useful response out of me is to tick me off.  If you can stand a few jabs, it may be worth your while.  That's for you to decide.

I, honestly, respect your view. And frankly, don't even mind a caustic tongue. There are certain things I don't like being called, and you happened to hit the nails on the head. There are, however, no hard feelings, as I can, (and chances are, will) be equaling insulting. I tend to not mean it, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I, honestly, respect your view.  And frankly, don't even mind a caustic tongue.  There are certain things I don't like being called, and you happened to hit the nails on the head.  There are, however, no hard feelings, as I can, (and chances are, will) be equaling insulting.  I tend to not mean it, though.

I like people with teeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, when's the book coming out?

Huh? :pirate:

BTW~ I love the Eowyn quote in your signature! She is my favorite LOTR character. "All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your place is in the house. But when all the men have died in battle and honor you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men shall need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade and I do not fear either death or pain." ~Eowyn (off the top of my head, I'm a little obsessed. :lol:)

edited to change "mean" to "men" :pimp:

Edited by non-contradictor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to nitpick (and I might be mistaken here), but I believe you mean Admiral Nora Satie, ret. who was acting as a judge on a military tribunal, not Judge Aaron Satie. The quote is from episode 4.21 - "The Drumhead".

Hmmm.... is someone a bit of a Star Trek geek, or what? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to nitpick (and I might be mistaken here), but I believe you mean Admiral Nora Satie, ret. who was acting as a judge on a military tribunal, not Judge Aaron Satie. The quote is from episode 4.21 - "The Drumhead".

No, it's Aaron Satie. Cpt. Picard told that sentence to Nora and if my memory serves me right she told him something to the effect of him not having the right to repeat these words and that he dirties her father's name (which is Aaron, by the way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? :P

This was meant for hansenalana. Forgot to quote her. To the question "why the fancy verbiage?" she answered that it isn't fancy but stylistic, so I asked my question.

BTW~ I love the Eowyn quote in your signature! She is my favorite LOTR character. "All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your place is in the house. But when all the men have died in battle and honor you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men shall need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade and I do not fear either death or pain." ~Eowyn (off the top of my head, I'm a little obsessed. :))

I like Eowyn too. To me she represents feminine strength and I do not mean physical strength. When Aragorn declared to her that he cannot give her his love, unlike women in many other books, soap operas and real life, she didn't seek vengeance and didn't engage in silly schemes to make Aragorn all hers.

But the real reason why I used her words here was because I like quotes that exalt things I value. When I first heard this said (it was in the movie, not the book. Croatian translations do originals no justice), I was struggling with the question why nobody tried to do anything at all to overthrow such a mob, slave-driving government we have. This sentence gave me the answer.

Edited to change hassenalana to hansenalana.

Edited by source
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...