(urth) Monkey business

aaron aaronsingleton at gmail.com
Fri Jul 9 16:34:06 PDT 2010


This mutually masturbatory argument is fun and all, but I think perhaps
private emails would be even more fun for those of us scrolling through this
nonsense..

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 5:09 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 7/9/2010 12:12 PM, Ryan Dunn wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could the elderly person in Casdoe's house be an aquastor?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 18:35):
>>>>>>> Sure. But anyone...probably any living thing...could be an
>>>>>>> aquastor. Why
>>>>>>> would being an aquastor help things along?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/9/2010 12:59 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>>>> Hey!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 19:26):
>>>>> Bait the hook, then reel them in. You still haven't delineated the
>>>>> relevant differences between "Inire is Rudesind" and "Dorcas is
>>>>> Severian's grandmother".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>> It's not my fault if you can't read.
>>>>
>>>
>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 20:35):
>>> Read what? Still no citation? Tsk tsk.
>>> Five dodges now.
>>>
>>
>> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Citation of what, James? I've said which two things are wrong with your
>> question and given a further explanation. Since your attention span seems
>> not be be having the best of days, I'll repeat them, which is something I
>> abhor.
>>
>> 1. Why your first question made no sense at all:
>> On 7/7/2010 4:18 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote: I'm not talking about
>> narrative advantage. I'm talking about speculative advantage. And as a
>> side note I'm against the idea of narrative advantage. I don't see that
>> real life employs it, why should fiction?
>>
>
> No. This does not explain why the first question made no sense or was
> beside the point. It only shows that you preferred another term. You could
> have opted to answer the question in those terms instead. You chose not to.
> Which is why I followed up your response by rephrasing the same question.
> Only a fool would think what you wrote here explains how the following is
> true:
>
> -----"Is Dorcas Severian's grandmother" = useful question
> ------(i.e. advantageous speculation)
>
> -----"Is Rudesind Inire in disguise?" = pointless question
> ------(i.e. unadvantageous speculation)
>
> If you are saying "Well, one is true and we don't know if the other is
> true" then your logic is entirely circular. The purpose of speculation in
> this instance to attempt to ascertain whether something is true. I hate to
> use the word "obvious" but....
>
>
>  On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> 2. Once you had corrected it, the information you ask for is in the
>> archives and I have better things to do than reenact the whole discussion:
>> On 7/7/2010 6:05 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote: That has been
>> discussed to death.
>>
>
> Note that less than 1.5 hours had passed between your last post and this
> one. Do you really think that merely declaring your preference for
> 'speculative advantage' over 'narrative advantage' has Drained the Well on
> this question? Really? Really???? I laughed when you posted this, but my
> sense of humor is wearing thin.
>
> Secondly, all  I've done here is rephrase the question in terms you say you
> prefer. In this instance, I gave you another chance at showing how the
> question of Sev's lineage is superior to questions of the identity of other
> characters. But you didn't take it. For some reason, you though you had
> *proven* something at this point. I don't understand why.
>
>
>  On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> 3. If you're really interested to know what's different instead of simply
>> trying to sound clever, you can start with this:
>> On 7/9/2010 5:56 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote: One key difference is
>> that Dorcas being Severian's grandmother tells us
>> something about a character we knew nothing about (Dorcas as Severian's
>> grandmother) and Severian's family tree, i.e. the level of data increases.
>> Whereas Rudesind being Inire actually decreases the amount of data by
>> dropping one character.
>>
>
> So today, you attempt to prove you case. Sort of.
>
> First of all, you say "one key difference" which implies you have more to
> say. If true that would have justified the weakness of your argument here.
> That is, I *would* have called it "weak" initially. Since this is the extent
> of the "speculative advantage" that you see, it is absolutely laughable. The
> understanding (if determined to be true) that a maintenance man that
> Severian repeatedly encounters is actually an important character in the
> history of Urth whose actions take place mostly off-stage...you say all that
> does is "decreases the amount of data by dropping one character". Am I
> supposed to take this seriously??
>
>
>  On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> And again, the identity of Dorcas is all but spelled out. When discussing
>> whether or not she was Severian's grandmother, it's more of a debate between
>> 'she obviously is' and 'it's so obvious maybe it's wrong'.
>>
>
> Oh! So your logic IS circular. Here's another way of saying "All but
> spelled out": "NOT spelled out".
> It's not as though you only need to read the end of Citadel to understand
> Severian's paternal lineage. It's more subtle than that. The simian
> references are at least as spelled out, but their weight inexplicably passes
> right over your head.
>
>
>  On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> It would be quite nice if you'd keep track of what people say and didn't
>> mangle the quotation system. It's not hard, you know. On the top of every
>> quotation, there is a line saying who said what when. Then the text is
>> indented by a greater-then sign. This can be nested. If people don't mess
>> with it, as you do by trimming, then it's easy to follow the conversation.
>> Plus, if you actually take the time to read what the other person says, you
>> won't have to keep asking when did they say what.
>>
>
> If you have an instance in which I have misrepresented what you have said,
> say so. Otherwise, kiss off.
>
>  On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> You want me to replay the discussions from the archives? How stupid would
>> I have to be to do your bidding? You don't get any rhetorical edge by making
>> preposterous challenges.
>>
>>  James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 19:26):
>>>>> So this gives me a chance to show the value of
>>>>> wild speculation.
>>>>> There's no reason to get Talmudic on the difference between your
>>>>> proposed standard and my question. I am only asking "How does viewing
>>>>> the old man as an aquastor resolve the apparent connection between him
>>>>> and Rudesind?" Also, "How does the old man being an aquastor resolve
>>>>> the
>>>>> issue posed by Mr Berman that the old man might be female?"
>>>>> What I am not asking is "What difference would it make if the old man
>>>>> and Rudesind were connected?" or "If the old man is an aquastor, then
>>>>> what?" Because in these instances the question is the answer: "The old
>>>>> man and Rudesind might be connected" and "The old man might be an
>>>>> aquastor".
>>>>>
>>>> On 7/9/2010 2:27 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>>>> If X then X?
>>>>
>>>
>>> James Wynn wrote (09-07-2010 20:35):
>>> Irrelevant question in this case. No speculated advantage. See what I
>>> did above? I used specific instances and showed how they were different.
>>> Try that.
>>>
>>
>> On 7/9/2010 3:03 PM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> You showed no such thing.
>>
>
> Now I understand. You're an idiot.
>
>
> u+16b9
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Aaron Singleton
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100709/7e2bd1bc/attachment-0003.htm>


More information about the Urth mailing list