Thanks
Hey, we had a really good time at the show last night. It was a blast to play with Shane and Jealousy Curve, Pat did a great job setting up the sound system and mixing for us, and David's cousin Jared drove all of our equipment way down to middletown in his truck then bought us all dinner (he was promoted to #1 fan for that). So thanks, all you guys, we really appreciate it. Also, thank all of you for coming out and listening to us play! It's great to know that so many people like our music and will drive thousands of miles to lower-slower Delaware to support us. You're all awesome and we'll remember each and every one of you when we're millionaire rock stars.
89 Comments:
awwwwww thanks. great show guys, i really enjoyed it! you all ROCK!
Wow, things are slow on the Blog these days!
~3pac
Very...
Oh yeah....not that it matters that much but Ian, it's Jaret not Jared....hmmm....it really is slow around here....
The Snake Man was in attendance and was tempted to climb on stage and do the robot, but after seeing I, Robot yesterday, he's glad he didn't.
(because robots are bad)
(except for the ones that are good)
Also, I'm pretty sure I told you a long time ago that Jealousy Curve was a good band and you should get a gig with them. I am clearly the (Snake) Man.
How did you get the gig together? Did one of you meet one of them before?
I met them and we have been emailing and trying to set up a show for a while. I put Steve and Jase in touch and they took care of the specifics.
We don't call Jason Mr. Specific for nothing.
You don't call me Mr. Specific at all. . .
Yes, it is slow. Perhaps I can help with some rage against the machine and its cogs. It will probably be like cutting goo though. I will cut a little harder just to see. You who do not believe in fighting with pen or sword need read no farther. (Passive Christian pietists, leftist pacifists, etc.)
"On March 25, 2003, then-Lieutenant Brian R. Chontosh, 29, of Rochester, N.Y., was leading his platoon on Highway 1 south of Baghdad when his troops came under a coordinated ambush of mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and automatic-weapons fire. ....He ordered his driver to advance directly into the enemy trench. Chontosh leapt from his vehicle and began firing with his rifle and pistol. But his ammunition ran out. "With complete disregard for his safety," according to the citation, "he twice picked up discarded enemy rifles and continued his ferocious attack.... When his audacious attack ended, he had cleared over 200 meters of the enemy trench, killing more than 20 enemy soldiers and wounding several others."
http://www.nationalreview.com/kob/kob200405280824.asp
(Reported once in all the press, a local paper:
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)
June 2, 2004 Wednesday
SECTION: HERNANDO TIMES; Pg. 4
HEADLINE: MILITARY NEWS)
Nice guy, "He killed the enemy with prejudice? Sounds like stereotype, isn't that dangerous? We're not supposed to have enemies. It makes me feel bad. My feelings define who I am so it must be that it is bad and he was wrong. This is safe."
Pseudo-intellectual, "Why didn't he try to see things from their side? Did he read them their rights first? I think we need to try to see things from the side of idiots because all views are equally valid. This is safe."
Pseudo-artist, "Well, I would have made friends with them by creating meaningless symbols of pop-relativism. If everyone would just agree that right and wrong don't really exist in the symbolic then everyone could be peaceful and everything would be a natural harmony. Why can't we all just get along? Come and listen to me sing of pabulum, it might be bland but it is safe."
Contrast the current state of the media with the past when an American national hero was praised by Hollywood and the media:
"York, a poor farmer from Tennessee, had under gone a religious conversion before World War I and was a professed pacifist. Drafted into the army, York told his company commander, Maj. George E. Buxton, of his convictions. Unusually understanding, Buxton spent a long night discussing the Bible’s teachings on war with York and eventually gave him ten days’ leave to consider whether or not he wanted to fight; had York decided not to do so, Buxton would have given him a noncombat assignment. After much soul-searching, York decided to fight. In October 1918, acting virtually alone, York somehow managed to kill 25 German soldiers and take 132 prisoner, thus earning for himself, among other awards, a French Croix de Guerre and an American Congressional Medal of Honor."
(This is the Army: Imagining a Democratic Military in World War II By Benjamin L. Alpers
The Journal of American History, Vol. 85, No. 1. (Jun., 1998), pp. 129-163)
Why do you know the name of Jessica Lynch but not Brian R. Chontosh and others?
It's not easy being Green? But passivity is the easiest and best thing in the world....as long as the fact that it makes one a willing dupe is overlooked.
(because robots are bad)
(except for the ones that are good)
-----
Never fear, robots/computers are incapable of good and evil. Ironically, Asimov did not believe that robots should be feared.
maybe robots should be feared, because they are programmed by people, and some people are pretty darn scary. Not the nice ones of course...
Yep, He is an effective soldier, and one that I would want fighting with me not against me should I ever be forced to take up arms. . . um. . . thanks for your contribution to Ian's post about our show on Friday?
Yeah what the heck did that super long (short for you) post have to do with this post? For all the message boards and forums you've been on I would think you would know how to use them by now.
"Yeah what the heck did that super long (short for you) post have to do with this post?"
Yeeah....what does this post have to do with that post? And why did I just mindlessly repeat what you said?
"For all the message boards and forums you've been on I would think you would know how to use them by now."
I would think you'd know how to engage in thinking by now and yet you give no indication of it.
"When they talk about heaven and earth, the relations between men and women, parents and children, the human condition, I hear nothing but cliches, superficialities, the material of satire. ...I mean...that life based on the Book is closer to the truth, that it provides material for deeper research in and access to the real nature of things." --Alan Bloom, on the modern student
"Though students do not have books, they most emphatically do have music. Nothing is more singular about this generation than its addiction to music." Ib., on modern music
"um. . . thanks for your contribution to Ian's post about our show on Friday?"
You're quite welcome. To what ends is your service of the Muse directed?
"maybe robots should be feared, because they are programmed by people,"
Yes and maybe other inanimate objects like guns and knives should be feared too because sometimes people kill each other with them. In my house, I make sure all knives are dull and that there is no gun. This is safe. Safety first...
"...and some people are pretty darn scary. Not the nice ones of course..."
Of course the nice ones are not dangerous because they are not very sharp. That's why it is best to be as utterly dull as possible.
"Students these days are, in general, nice. I choose the word carefully. They are not particularly moral or noble. Such niceness is a facet of democratic character when times are good." --Alan Bloom
Although I like the band Muse, I do not serve them. I have no service to any other Muse either. Why do I engage in the arts? Is that your question? What goal am I striving towards? In the end, I engage in the arts in the hope that I can serve as a sign -- not a thing which is worthy of any praise or worship in and of itself, but perhaps something that can help people find their way towards something greater than myself, towards what should be their ultimate destination, towards something that they can worship.
To what ends are your posts posted?
"Yeeah....what does this post have to do with that post? And why did I just mindlessly repeat what you said?"
I have no idea...why did you?
"I would think you'd know how to engage in thinking by now and yet you give no indication of it."
That doesn't at all answer why you made a comment that had nothing to do with the original post. Making a comment that has nothing to do with anything is just plain annoying. I guess we shouldn't be annoyed though since you're blessing us with one of your wonderful speeches (Mynym for President).
"Yes and maybe other inanimate objects like guns and knives should be feared too because sometimes people kill each other with them. In my house, I make sure all knives are dull and that there is no gun. This is safe. Safety first..."
Maybe if you would just stop to think a little before you go off on one of your "intellectual" rants you would recognize that the Snake Man was making a joke about the movie I Robot.
Time for the nice guy to make some comments. Dude, I think that heroism is excellent. I think that killing is sometimes necessary (you're convincing me of this more and more) and even sometimes honorable. I think that what that soldier did was remarkable, he laid h is life on the line to protect and save his men. I would say that he's a hero. Sorry that you misjudged a nice guy... or maybe I'm not so nice.
It takes a lot of guts for a drop out to call a suma cum laude college graduate a pseudo-intelectual.
Also, in that friendly little part of your post you said that maybe the soldier should have considered the issue from the "idiots" points of view. Are all Iraqis idiots because they fight for the country that they used to live in and a religion they believe in?
Before calling jason a pseudo artist I would like to hear you write a song, see a picture you painted, a photograph you took, or a poem you composed. I would like to see you do something that intelligently inspires the emotions, that encourages people's spirits. Maybe then we can talk about good art work together.
Maybe I'm not as nice as either of us thought... or maybe I'm just "sharpening your iron"
"I have no service to any other Muse either."
Music, the Muse were goddesses in Greek mythology presiding over song and poetry.
"To what ends are your posts posted?"
Truth, not that they actually accomplish that but it is a good end to keep in mind. Some people avoid it altogether though and would rather deal with things based on the issues like, "Is it dangerous?" "Is it safe?" "Is it hateful?" "Would it hurt my feelings?" etc., rather than, "Is it true?" So it is little wonder that they do not come to positions that are true.
What truth are you driving at? For real! All I am seeing is arguments, what is it that you are trying to tell us? Can you sum up some of the truth?
Ps. I don't think that truth is always constructive. Like for instance, if it was true that you thought my mom was ugly would that truth have to be made known? Even if she was truthfully ugly (which she isn't in any way) would you have to point that out?
"I have no idea...why did you?"
Just following your lead. So, where are you leading? Or perhaps you were just following?
"Making a comment that has nothing to do with anything is just plain annoying."
It has to do with something. Some things that are more important than what you might want to focus on.
"Maybe if you would just stop to think..."
Hehe...ah...now that really is funny. If anything, I do that too much. But here is something to think about anyway. There is a theory about "projection." Jesus seems to note it in passing when he speaks of specks and logs in our eyes. Typically, if people are emotional when they try to make a judgment it is passed based on an assumption that everyone else is just like them. So they are more likely to be judging something of themselves. Is it a valid theory. Perhaps, since when do you tend to "stop and think"?
"Time for the nice guy to make some comments. Dude..."
I really need to think of an explanation for that. It seems like most nice guys when they're about to make judgments and try to pick up the sword of truth say, "Dude.." But I'm glad to see it.
"It takes a lot of guts for a drop out to call a suma cum laude college graduate a pseudo-intelectual."
Unfortunately, the University has less and less to do with what is true. I would take your shift towards identity politics a little more seriously otherwise though. Let's accept them at face value though. If the University is a great representative for truth then why can't a suma cum laude deal with things an intellectual weakling such as myself says about voting for Greens, etc.?
"Are all Iraqis idiots because they fight for the country that they used to live in and a religion they believe in?"
All Iraqis are not fighting against the US nor for a religion they believe in. Given the decline of Islamic civilization from what once was those that are fighting represent a modern version of barbarians more than anything. I didn't say that any Iraqis are idiots, although some are. The pseudo-intellectual position of seeing things from the point of view of all people instead of seeking the truth can be invalidated in numerous ways, as numerous as there are people that have incorrect or idiotic views.
"...or a poem you composed."
And after the poetry I wrote for you? Hehe...
"I would like to see you do something that intelligently inspires the emotions..."
Done, I just got done inspiring some emotions here and certain boys of the faith decided to try to use their intelligence. I don't think the cogs of the Machine are grounded in the Book though.
"Maybe I'm not as nice as either of us thought..."
Thank God. Perhaps you'll even eventually break out of the enchantment of the disenchanted, eh?
"...what is it that you are trying to tell us? Can you sum up some of the truth?"
Let's go through some of the cliches of pop-culture and perhaps you will see, in a dialogue.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
"Who are you to judge?"
"Jesus was a nice guy and He said, 'Judge not.'"
Agree, disagree, indifferent?
-----
"I don't think that truth is always constructive."
Before moving to "cherry-picked" examples about this. Is it your position that the truth ought to be subject to what is constructive and pragmatic? Then how could I be sure you're telling me the truth about what you think there?
I think that we are supposed to be entirely honest, and speak only the truth. However, I don't think that everything that is true should be stated just because it's true. For instance, the sun is really hot, and thats true, but there is no reason for me to state that. For truth to be effective it should be relevant. Trie to sow your seeds of truth in fertile ground.
As to your other statements, I don't have time to argue about them. Sorry. You could debate them for centuries, but I guess when we're both dead and gone we'll find out what is true about them. But if you want to enlighten me now you are more than welcome to. Truth is true no matter what I say, so whatever you think about them should be just as valid and true without having to disect and tear apart whatever I was going to say about them. Truth is self supporting.
I think MyNym is a robot.
I think MyNym likes palindromes. . .
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"...I guess when we're both dead and gone we'll find out what is true about them."
Everyone already lives their lives and makes their decisions based on what they believe about such issues already. When you're dead, it is too late to live. I forget exactly how many ways the band has avoided dealing with things as a matter of, "Is it true?" on many issues. But generally you collectively seem to argue, "You can't know it." "Knowing it is a failure to see things from all sides." "It is dangerous and arrogant to believe you know the truth." or now, "There is no time." etc. I'd like to say, that's fine. But everyone still lives as if they know the truth on every issue whether it's about politics, the arts, etc.
"But if you want to enlighten me now you are more than welcome to."
I would but I already put my smarty pants away for the day. And perhaps it is as you say and we should say nothing on such things because, "Truth is self supporting." But if that is true, I wonder why you said that as if you needed to say it? Wouldn't it support itself?
You're pretty much going down the list of ways of avoiding dealing with, "What is true?" "Is it true?" or any issue that brings such questions up. Perhaps David can help you out with some more arguments along such lines on issues that have depth to them. But because the truth is *not* self supporting I will probably keep being bothersome to you who avoid the issue. It's not that I really know the truth about all that much. It just seems that there is no one here who knows that much either given the fact that the issue of truth is to being avoided in various ways. To deal with the arguments made, it is relevant. There is time. We can know it or should at least seek it. The only reason to try to see things from all sides is to see the total truth and not to blind ourselves with a shattered contradictory and subjective vision of it. On some issues it can be dangerous. It might hurt your feelings. It might hurt other people's feelings.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
The truth is a person, Jesus is the truth. Things can be true, but the Messiah declared he was the truth.
The truth is not some unattainable ivory tower that shuts out the unworthy masses, nor is it some heavy club that ought to be used to pummel others into submission.
No, it's the gentle loving shepherd that leaves the flock in desperate search of the lost lamb, it's the all powerful God of the universe being spat upon and beaten in order to be reunited with his creation.
It's ridiculous, almost blasphamous to state that unwarranted insults, and outright lies are posted in the service of truth. The truth shall set you free. . . there is little freedom to be found in vile accusation and unfounded statements.
"The Three Laws of Robotics:
1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
3. A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law."
(Isaac Asimov, Robot Visions (New York: Penguin Books, 1991) :37)
But I believe in injuring human beings as I've been demonstrating here somewhat. ;-)
It's easy to say that machines can only process information but not create it etc. and therefore they can never be like the animate. The interesting thing about the notion that intelligence could be "artificial" or somehow an emergent property of Nature is that Asimov might have an argument in that intelligence is some sort of dialectic process and merely the opposition of natural/logical laws being resolved. I.e. the will is an illusion. It is possible to have arguments about this.
I thought some repeats might happen because the site was broken. Sorry about that.
"It's ridiculous, almost blasphamous to state that unwarranted insults, and outright lies are posted in the service of truth. The truth shall set you free. . . there is little freedom to be found in vile accusation and unfounded statements."
Now look, this is why it is actually important to make judgments and seek wisdom in all things. You've judged next to nothing in most things. Most times just going with your feelings, etc., most of the time the pattern has been to simply say, "judge not" as if that is the new Thou shalt not. And to contrast, I do believe in judgment. I say look because you've gone from a general lack of judgment to toying with the claim of blasphemy which I would simply not do. There are ways to explain how judgment would come out in a way that reflects a lack of judgment.
But let's just look at your judgments.
"...vile accusation and unfounded statements."
Name them.
"...nor is it some heavy club that ought to be used to pummel others into submission."
If you really believed that the truth should never be used to criticize you wouldn't be criticizing me based on what you think is true of Christianity. I could try to be a victim/martyr too. I have reasons, grounded in the Christianity, not to try to be.
It's probably a little pretensious to portray oneself as a victim even when there is some victimization...but it is increasingly popular in our culture to do so when there is little or even none.
MyNym
Calm down man! We beleve in truth, we believe that we should seek and find truth, and we even believe that it's good to share the truth with others. You seem to believe in railing against people whith what you think is the truth, we don't so much. But even so, it's true that we get a little sick of you railing against us, and don't mind pointing that out.
You seem to want to argue till the cows come home, but I have no Idea what you are trying to say. Why don't you say what you want us to know, without quoting us and arguing with our statements.
I seem to be turning back into a nice guy...
There is a large difference between a surgeons scalpel that heals and cuts away disease, and a club that destroys. . . you can decide for yourself which you are doing with your posts.
I have NEVER claimed that to judge was is right and wrong shouldn't be done. There is a right and wrong. Where have I ever claimed anything else? There is a truth and there are things that are false. Where have I ever claimed anything else?
Name them?:
"Psuedo-intellectual."
"Psuedo-artist"
"Stupid Drummer"
"Bland, safe music" -- which by the way, is also a deceipt from you, as previously you said about our song All Our Hands, "I think it's a good [meaning], and a pretty good song too. It has some depth to it." So now, you back off your own opinion in order to insult? All in the servie of truth. . .
"Little brain left, and what's left is wrong."
"Create meaningless symbols of pop-relativism"
"My feelings define who I am so it must be that it is bad and he was wrong."
"You've judged next to nothing in most things." -- let's remember that the reason the Look Macine reached your hit list in the first place is because I am very uncomfortable with the fact that the Bush leadership team created a culture where torture could occur without fear of reprisal from above. That is a judgement. I make judgements all the time.
"I don't think the cogs of the Machine are grounded in the Book though. "
Maybe you're referring to the Book of Mormon?
Those are just a few, I'm sure there are more.
How's this for dodging the truth, judgement and relying only on emotions...
I believe that God exists, and that we exist to know him. I believe that God is love, and that we are created to love him. I believe that we are created in God's immage and therefore have much of God's nature, including creativity and emotion, woven all throughout our beings. I believe that we should do our best to know the truth (who as Jason rather eloquently pointed out, is Jesus) and to make him known. However, in the end God will be the judge of every thought, action, and word. He will judge far more justly and mercuffully that I would.
Good points Jase
Who's to say that robots would be any better obeying their "3 Laws" then humanity (their creators) are at obeying their 10? I'm afraid of my toaster.
Ps. About not being grounded in the book, that's news to me! Since when have being a nice guy, considering issues from other people's points of view, and being an artist been unbiblical? I would like to say that the Bible is my absolute standard for living, and I've built my entire life around that. I mean it, and i know that the same is true for the other "cogs." Maybe you and I see different things when we read the Bible, but you don't even know us, and you can't say that we aren't grounded in the book. that's ridiculous...
Tosters are pretty scary sometimes!
"Why don't you say what you want us to know, without quoting us and arguing with our statements."
Because often the best way to seek the truth is through Socratic dialogue, not monologue. There is an element of truth in seeing things from all sides as long as it is not used as an excuse for a shattered vision. So I can't say what you might need to know until you share your vision. As iron sharpens iron, etc...but here is something that seems to be emerging that the collective "you" might need to know, Christ was the Messiah, not a victim/martyr.
"I seem to be turning back into a nice guy..."
Yeah, what a shame.
"Psuedo-intellectual."
As to the use of the word pseudo, we're all a little pseudo in not being all that we should be. But there are different levels of this. Just go by what people say and viewpoints, not their status in society, identity politics, feelings, etc. A sort of intellectual weakness is revealed by those who shift the focus to immanence. It is the same quintessentially pseudo-intellectual position to believe that all people, Iraqis, Americans, etc., are so shaped by their experience that they have some sort of different "truth" emergent from their status that must be respected. And it is a pseudo-intellectual position to try to rationalize a vote for Greens, which is something that can have no intellectual rationale. So that's why I use the term and will continue to.
I'm not going to deal with everything that you find offensive just because it hurt your feelings. You can explain to me how you think that it is wrong though. I will do one more because I just thought of something interesting about it.
"Stupid Drummer"
Well? Hehe... just kidding. I said he would not even try to engage in a battle of wits, that's all. But notice how when he does try he has a different way of arguing than the rest of you. It's not, "That hurts my feelings." "Look at me, I'm victimized." and the various rhetorical equivalents of running off crying. Why do you think that is? And yeah, I know that just played into the whole victimization thing because that can be added, "I'm victimized by you saying I'm acting like a victim!" ;-)
I guess I should try to deal with everything you bring up.
"Psuedo-artist"
It's really just what I wrote. Pop-relativism and putting thing like creativity before manifesting the truth in the symbolic results in the pseudo-artist. If you want to say that you never engage in such, etc., that's fine with me. I agree with your summary of who you are as an artist, etc. In some ways characterization/"stereotype" can be useful to keep in mind even if you don't agree. Often, some portions of the image/pattern is valid. I keep in mind the image of me as a big meanie here, after all.
"Create meaningless symbols of pop-relativism"
That's just what a pseudo-artist does.
Here is an important one I guess I better deal with, you're slowing me down man.
"You've judged next to nothing in most things." -- let's remember that the reason the Look Macine reached your hit list in the first place is because I am very uncomfortable with the fact that the Bush leadership team created a culture where torture could occur without fear of reprisal from above. That is a judgement. I make judgements all the time. "
The tenets of your religious philosophy are mainly "Judge not..." and "Jesus was such a nice guy!" Etc. You seem to be saying to follow the example of Christ but don't really know what that example entails. The simplistic "Judge not..." shows up in your lack of judgment and wisdom in other areas. On that issue, it showed up in the fact that you were just going with your visceral reactions of the moment. That is a lack of judgment. Perhaps it also shows up in your lack of judgment about the facts there about how something Sadean emerged from a culture Bush created. Perhaps you're not really used to making judgments openly and rationally so they tend to come out emotionally. Who knows? We can't really figure things out anyway, right? The reason that people use the term visceral in generally a negative sense, as in "visceral hatred," etc., is that it's generally a bad thing to supress rational judgment.
-----
"I don't think the cogs of the Machine are grounded in the Book though. "
Maybe you're referring to the Book of Mormon?
----
No, I'm referring to the world of books in general and so it is easier to misunderstand the Book. Generally, you can't misunderstand basic things of the metaphysical/word and books still be really grounded in the Word and the Book. That judgment is more speculative than some others. But already can be illustrated in some ways...
We don't feel like victims, we don't feel sorry for ourselves, our feelings are not hurt, and you don't make us feel bad. When we talk about your posts together they are subject of great amusement. We laugh about them. We utterly amazed and amused by how wrong you are us.
So yeah, no reason to apologize. I mean not for us, but for you. Words have power. It's a fool who says whatever he wants and then says, "Oh I was only kidding." But I'm not responsible for you. You're not my friend, my brother, my son, my acquaintence. . .
But yes, you also made me angry when you say your posts are in the service of the truth. Not because you are consistently wrong, insulting, and deceiptful about US, which you are -- but just because are you are consistently wrong, insulting, and deceiptful, period.
If you were on any board, purporting to be a Christian and saying these things "in the service of truth" I would say the same things in response. It has nothing to do with us. The "cogs" are all pretty happy, smart, well-adjusted healthy "dudes," so one unknown internet poster who would publicly diss his own brother for no good reason isn't going to make us victims. We honestly expect the worst from you, and you never fail to meet our expectations.
"I would like to say that the Bible is my absolute standard for living, and I've built my entire life around that. I mean it, and i know that the same is true for the other "cogs." Maybe you and I see different things when we read the Bible, but you don't even know us, and you can't say that we aren't grounded in the book. that's ridiculous..."
If you were really grounded in books/words in general you'd have a much easier time of dealing with what is said and your framework would be more of the Book and its divine revelation. (I believe in general revelation as well.) Your arguments would not look like, "That hurts my feelings." "That's dangerous." "Is it constructive?" "You didn't graduate from college." Etc. and would look more like, "Is it true?" "Does it accord with the transcedent meaning of words and ultimately, the Word?" Etc. I don't even know you? Perhaps. But I know what you say, i.e. your words. Why did God leave us a book of the transcendent, words instead of a book of images? Don't read to much of a viewpoint about words vs. images into that. Just curious...
"Who's to say that robots would be any better obeying their "3 Laws" then humanity (their creators) are at obeying their 10?"
Yeah, the only thing is that I don't think Asimov was right and that intelligence can emerge as a property of Nature. Intelligence means to choose between options and choice, when it is not ultimately just an illusion, cannot be the mere mechanical processing of information but instead is a decision that impacts the physical/mechanical. Right? It's probably possible to argue this...
"We don't feel like victims, we don't feel sorry for ourselves, our feelings are not hurt, and you don't make us feel bad."
That's not what you've been saying. In fact you just got through invoking the image of yourself as a victim with me beating you, etc. ;-) I suppose you're used to people accepting whatever image you use. But I do not. It's as simple as that. I'm sure you're all nice guys. So nice, that you seem to lack judgment.
"So yeah, no reason to apologize."
It's almost as if you expect me to make up a reason to and so to judge myself. This might come from your lack of judgment. I.e. you're just not really used to it and so you expect me to judge myself. But if I judged myself wouldn't that be beating myself up, etc.? ;-)
"...who would publicly diss his own brother for no good reason..."
So you do want to judge, on many things, even the minor. There is good reason for most of what I say. You say a lot about "no good reason," "this and that are wrong, vile!" Etc. but seem incapable of saying why.
"We honestly expect the worst from you, and you never fail to meet our expectations."
Explain the evil that you're referring to... can you?
This is just a wild guess ;-) but you probably lack the judgment to do so.
Hey man, I'm done with this argument, I have better things to do with my time, like go to Nepal for instance. I would just like to re-affirm what Jason said, we don't feel like victims, but you do seem like somebody who likes to make victims out of people. Perhaps maybe a victim of something yourself? Anyway, I congratulate you on your search for truth, and would encourage you to work on your social skills. There is something inherently good about friendship and being nice to your brother. Have a good day.
"Yes, it is slow. Perhaps I can help with some rage against the machine and its cogs. It will probably be like cutting goo though. I will cut a little harder just to see. You who do not believe in fighting with pen or sword need read no farther. (Passive Christian pietists, leftist pacifists, etc.)"
MyNym, you have always been so opposed to anything stemming from emotion rather than reason. With that in mind, what reasoning drove you to hijack this thread? There were no "visceral" statements for you to refute, nothing at all for you to refute actually. It was about the show last week. So you just decided to start up an argument for kicks?
You'll never be able to convince me that part of the reason you constantly post on here (and other places) is because you enjoy the sound of your own voice and the way your "flawless" logic reads across the computer screen, especially in a public forum like this one.
"It will probably be like cutting goo though. I will cut a little harder just to see..."
It's one thing to take pleasure in a good debate. It's another thing when you seem to amuse yourself by starting a debate with no intention of hearing out the other side. I find it hard to believe you intended to hear out Jason, Collin, Ian or David when you began your post with the above statements, which were the equivalent of you smirking in their faces.
wow... what a heated discussion, i'm afraid to jump in front of all this flying iron (feels like a scene from last samurai ). Robots/computers may or may not be harmful, but they can be annoying. They can allow, emotionally stunted, attention starved, prick to preach about some bullshit or other (if you're too busy pondering the universe to notice or realize, that's you MyNym. nice enough for you?). Seems to me you're compensating for something: a meaningful life or a small penis, who knows? I know this is childish, but hell, I was a child once.
You do use (your idea of) the truth to pummel people -- and you have done that with us -- I think you take pride in your ability to do so.
However, me stating that does not mean I think that I'm a victim here. Just that I think you have a bad understanding of what to do with the truth. We're fine. We don't let your problems define who we are. You can continue to say what you say. I think those that read these posts will understand what is going on.
I will say that I do think that you're rather a tragic case sometimes because clearly you are bright and motivated person with a quick mind. But without humility and a teachable spirit, along with a mix of god-given humanity and social skills. . . well. . . I just think it's all wasted potential.
I understand that I don't know you at all, only how you present yourself here, so disregard this advice if you wish. Hopefully this doesn't describe you. But really, if you find difficulty in close relationships, if you find that you never are really able to convince anyone of anything (ie evangelize in an effective manner), never able to have discussions that are profitable. . . maybe that rotten fruit is the end result of a plant that isn't all together right? Maybe you have some work to do in making yourself a better person? We all do of course, so don't think it some great shame to admit it.
Disrespecting your brother in a public forum is not a minor thing, I'm sorry that you think it is.
You say you do have good reasons, yet you choose to keep them private (great, so the ridicule is public, but the motivation needs to be kept hush hush).
Maybe David doesn't mind, but I do. It's horrible to read, and embarrassing for you. Brothers and family can and should be the kind of relationships that you can count on when all others have left you behind. I know that this has turned into MyNym's self-improvement day -- but maybe you should examine why -- at least on this forum -- you aren't that for David.
(David, I apologize if I'm treading into your life here, and I won't do it again if you don't like it. . . but you deserve better, and us cogs have to stick up for each other.)
"With that in mind, what reasoning drove you to hijack this thread?"
Someone said it was a little dead and you were talking about robots. Seemed like it needed a little of the sweet nectar of life.
"You'll never be able to convince me that part of the reason you constantly post on here (and other places) is because you enjoy the sound of your own voice..."
Of course, "part of the reason," etc. we're all a little pseudo and not everything we should be. But even that is just hiding in the crowd, isn't it? I have my faults, etc. Note that people here will so readily accept positive things I've said but simply run away from anything negative. If the source really is deceitful, vile, a Big Meanie and... whatever else, they should really accept neither. But it's not really the source that's the issue. It's the question, "Is it true?" "Is all as it should be?" being applied to that which is cherished that causes such reaction. And it really is the mere fact that it is applied more than how it is applied.
"I find it hard to believe you intended to hear out Jason, Collin, Ian or David when you began your post with the above statements, which were the equivalent of you smirking in their faces."
Ummm, if they ever are really tested when it comes to matters of truth it is likely that they'll have to face a lot more than a little smirk.
But you're right, I shouldn't have smirked. I apologize for that. I am but a pseudo-philosopher in some ways but note that it really is just bringing up the question "Is it true." about things that are cherished that causes some reactions. I.e., there might be nothing I can do to "soften it up" which would actually make it soft enough. People would still feel they are victimized by something, etc. "There is hardly anyone who is not made indignant by one aspect or another of Socrates discourse, but there is hardly anyone who is not moved and heartened by other aspects. Socrates stated the case for all human types better than they could have stated it for themselves. (He...also stated the problem with each...and their aspirations.)" --Alan Bloom Again, pseudo-philosopher, no Socrates, I know you will speak in identities and place more weight on status, etc., so let me just say I'm no Socrates! ;-) The reason I spoke of different "types" or ways of looking at things was not so that people would begin to get their identities from it. I.e. say, "I'm an artist." or "I'm a stupid drummer." Hehe. It is to deal with viewpoints and not status/identity. If your viewpoints do tend to match a certain type then it's something to think about. But I'm not "stereotyping" and making assumptions, just noting the types of thought that are out there. If you match, you match. Very well.
"I would just like to re-affirm what Jason said, we don't feel like victims..."
Hmmm, your main argument has been that your feelings are hurt, etc. "You're pummeling." "Beating up..." "Blasting..." Etc. If you don't feel like victims then why act like it?
"Perhaps maybe a victim of something yourself?"
Go on.
"There is something inherently good about friendship and being nice to your brother. Have a good day."
Of course there is. But what this has to do with different ways of looking at things such as pseudo-intellectual which is what started much of this, I don't know. Here is my speculation, you guys don't really want to do philosophy when it gets hard and perhaps questions the things you really cherish. So to avoid it in one way or another you shift the issue from what to who. I.e. me. That's all well and good. I'm a Big Meanie, etc. And perhaps I am. But this really has nothing to do with the issues I try to bring up or bring out of things.
Hey Snake Man, by the way, it wasn't too much like cutting goo. Thank God. I have to give credit where credit is due.
"I know this is childish, but hell, I was a child once."
It was childish. But I hope you "feel" better now. It is probably good to vent sometimes. As to the accuracy of your analysis, well, it was mostly emotional goo.
Not sure exaclty how the meaning of life and penis would come to be used in the same sentence as if there is an association, "... meaningful life or a small penis..."
;-) Hehe...
"You do use (your idea of) the truth to pummel people -- and you have done that with us..."
Yes. Once upon a time when men believed that truth existed they thought that it was something worth fighting for. In the context of the democratic regime it is thought that the best way to stop the fighting is to simply avoid the truth. Perhaps this is even correct in that things are "softened up" and there is safety in it. It is possible to argue this. But as a matter of religious philosophy, could it be that you're distorting Christianity to suit what are the political ends of the day. I.e. so that it matches the culture we live in?
"I think you take pride in your ability to do so."
Thanks for pointing that out because it is an important judgment to make about me...and accurate. It is a fault I'll have to work on. But note that you'll face lot more than a little smirking and the like from a brother in Christ if what you believe is true is ever really tested. So I guess I would say, point it out to me but try to deal with the fighting part too.
"But really, if you find difficulty in close relationships,"
I don't. Most of the time I understand people well enough and so it is not difficult.
"if you find that you never are really able to convince anyone of anything"
I have convinced people of many viewpoints. Perhaps even some incorrect ones...so I suppose it is important for you to correct me if necessary. As a matter of viewpoints and not as a matter of the personal, personal status, my psychology, etc. ;-)
" (ie evangelize in an effective manner), never able to have discussions that are profitable. ."
I have had numerous discussions that are profitable. I'm just not going to go into all this. This shift away from things I brought up to me as a person happened because generally people do not like to engage in philosophy. Let me try to deal with what was probably taken as most offensive and that is this notion of making assumptions about people, etc. There are different types of people with different ways of looking at things. Noting this needn't be a way of putting anyone in a box but is a way of noting patterns of thought. If you match, you match. And that can be a matter of thought for you. A lot of what you've said here matches patterns of thought more typical to artists and so I would note it. For all I know you could be faking me out with your words. ;-) If you don't match what is said about such patterns, fine. It's not necessarily meant to be taken personally. That is up to you to decide. I think I said this last time.
"Maybe you have some work to do in making yourself a better person?"
Yes. And I appreciate your judgments directed to that end.
"Disrespecting your brother in a public forum is not a minor thing, I'm sorry that you think it is."
Since when is David respectable? Hehe... just kidding. Well, on this judgment I part company with you. He can and does "disrespect" me in some ways and such judgment is often helpful. I see no great harm in it.
"You say you do have good reasons, yet you choose to keep them private..."
The reason was to get him to engage in thinking, push himself, etc.
"It's horrible to read, and embarrassing for you."
Only from within the framework of what I'd call "Look Machine" culture. Don't worry, I don't think David is crying himself to sleep over it. And he hasn't been doing the rhetorical equivalent of crying, for some reason. Sheesh.
"I know that this has turned into MyNym's self-improvement day -- but maybe you should examine why -- at least on this forum -- you aren't that for David."
But David can count on me...to at least try to tell him things as they are. But can your brother in Christ Collin count on you to tell him things as they are about supporting the Greens and the like? Are there areas where you put friendship before truth, perhaps? Hmmm....at least on this forum that is how things stand. Perhaps...speaking the truth pridefully vs. speaking the truth in love vs. not speaking the truth and calling it love.
Just know that I am listening to your judgments, taking them into account and seeing some truth in them. Especially now that you aren't speaking of blasphemy and the like. ;-) The reason I never make that judgment is because to attribute the work of the Spirit to the Devil is the one unforgivable sin, isn't it? So even if I were to think that someone's notions are of the Devil I would be absolutely positive that they weren't being moved by the Spirit. Most of the time, I can't be absolutely positive so such a judgment is seldom made.
Almost blasphamous is not blasphamous. . . just approaching it.
Good show everyone!!! I would comment, but I need some pseudo-sleep.
Of course I'm telling Collin about the fallacy of voting Green -- I told him to write in "Judge Mathis."
Just so you Know MyNym, Jason is one of my closest friends. I trust him, his judgement, his love for God, and his love for me. And yes... he is able to intelecutally (and lovingly) confront me if the need arises. He has done so in the past and I have been thankful for it. He's really not that bad as far as pseudo-artists go.
Notice how I'm staying out of this now....hmmmm.....did I make a judgement? Was it a judgment for truth or against? Hmmmm.....lets anylize why I made the judgment to stay out of this thread about making judgments about judgments and why we should judge....or not judge, but then that would be making a judgment wouldn't it?
Phew....maybe it's all just too much for a "stupid" drummer.
hey this is Anonymous again, here for another emotional venting and MyNym bashing. i'll be sure not to get goo all over you. First off, i said meaningful life, not meaning of life (you're getting sloppy... shame shame).
It's hard to read your posts, because you rant and rave about something you call truth (what the hell is that you, the reader, may ask, i haven't the foggest idea and don't think many other do either)... when really it's a way for you to get attention. and for this i sympathesize with you, i feel for you deep deep (so deep you might swear it is not down there) in my heart, it's hard for a 28yr old, girl-friendless, parent's house basement dweller, to feel good about him self (some, not i, of course not i, would call this a loser). Don't take this personally, cuz i'm just looking for the truth as you call it. i don't in any way, as you have said, want to not speak truth and call it love. I don't know why you are the way you are, maybe you didn't get any attention as a child (i can't see why.... smirk).
oh, my bad.... sorry about all the goo on your shirt... send me the dry cleaning bill........
"Almost blasphamous is not blasphamous. . . just approaching it."
Yeah, I'm glad you only toyed with that judgment but didn't really make it. I don't think it's true but if you really are certain about such a theological judgment then go ahead and make it. Like most judgment, it is dangerous. But it is possible, after all, that some of my notions are of the Devil and not of the Spirit. It's a dangerous judgment but if they are they would need to be judged as such. Of course, I don't think they are. ;-)
Oh well, I think that philosophy only makes some people's head hurt. Perhaps because of their viscera.
"...but then that would be making a judgment wouldn't it?"
Yup.
"Phew....maybe it's all just too much for a "stupid" drummer."
I doubt it. But then, what could I possibly know given the identity of a drop out with a short penis.
Hehe...
As long as you're making judgments let's go back, back, all the way through the therapy and sensitivity training supposedly taken up for my own good, back through the irrelevant identities of "You're a victimizer!" "Well, I'm not actually being victimized but you're still a victimizer!" "You're prideful." etc. All things that could be true but even if true do not refute the words, to the relatively simple question of, "Is it true?"
E.g.
----
"Pseudo-intellectual, "Why didn't he try to see things from their side? Did he read them their rights first? I think we need to try to see things from the side of idiots because all views are equally valid. This is safe."
----
Is it true that that is a pseudo-intellectual viewpoint or not? I don't care if it applies to one of your friends or does not. If you think it is your identity and so take offense. Or if it is dangerous. Or if it is useful. Etc. Is it true?
short penis... you said it not me
"First off, i said meaningful life, not meaning of life (you're getting sloppy... shame shame)."
The meaningful life is defined by the meaning of life.
"...about something you call truth (what the hell is that you, the reader, may ask, i haven't the foggest idea..."
That's correct.
"...it's hard for a 28yr old, girl-friendless, parent's house basement dweller..."
The identity you're invoking is wrong as a factual matter. And irrelevant...
"Don't take this personally, cuz i'm just looking for the truth as you call it."
In psychoanalysis? Well, you won't find it there unless you turn a lot on its head in the interest of truth. Read all books by Thomas Szasz, as to what you've said so far, the measure of a man is not to be found in the viscera so you can quit talking about penises or whatever else, however much you may desire to do so. There is something distinctly queer about your arguments which will probably have to be set straight eventually. But do try again...
You might feel it's the height of pride and arrogance for me to say that I'll rend the body of truth you must try to build based on "feelings"/immanence limb from limb. But it's not boasting if you can do it. So do try to keep your wits about you, little one.
;-)
"I trust him, his judgement, his love for God, and his love for me."
I'm inclined to trust him too.
Let me tell you a story, take from it what you will.
I had some discussions with a psychology Phd before 9/11 and we'd go round and round, etc. Sometimes before 9/11 we'd discuss profiling and she would argue against it. I would make some arguments about how we "profile" all men after a rape, etc. How all profiles are part of building a case and how we probably shouldn't be searching little old ladies but not Muslim men...just because they might get their feelings hurt, etc. Before 9/11 she was all against it as a matter of respecting feelings, culture, etc.
She lived in New York city...after 9/11 her position basically amounted to, "You don't know because you weren't here and didn't experience it. I do know because I experienced it. Arabs are like animals, look at Israel's problem and terrorists around the world!" Etc. How can such diametrically opposed positions come about unless the original had no transcendent integrity in the first place? It seems to me it had no transcendent integrity because she sought a lack of judgment by focusing on immanent things in the first place. So she still lacked judicious judgment in the second but it took a different form. After she argued that people are all so shaped by their environment, bodies, etc., that they have some sort of different "truth" that must be repected as such she was only living out her own philosophy and her experience shaped her. So one day, one position, the next day another because both came from a mutable/changeable Nature and not a focus on transcendent truth. It seems like believing that Nature shapes us so much so that we have different "truths" is a self-fulfilling prophecy fulfilled in the Self that believes it.
Just a story about the lack of integrity of some viewpoints....
"...short penis... you said it not me.."
That's incorrect.
"...given the identity..."
I haven't necessarily accepted any imagery you'd care to use. Perhaps you should try another.
Do try again, little one...
There is far too much variety among intellectuals, even psuedo ones, to make such blanket statements. CS Lewis, Thomas Aquinas, Augustine, Da Vinci, Freud, Piaget, Buber, Darwin. .. all are intellectuals, and yet you'd get 8 different viewpoints from them. Does your characterization describe one possible viewpoint you might get? Yes. But it hardly sums up the "intellectual" viewpoint. . .
I think where we misunderstood you was we thought you were labelling us -- Ian was Nice Guy, I was Psuedo-Artist, Collin was Psuedo-Intellectual. That's part of the reason that it was so frustrating, because we didn't like words put into our mouths, especially words we'd never said and words we don't believe. But you're just throwing out "patterns of thought" into the vast ocean and seeing if you get a nibble? OK, if you say so. . .
"Does your characterization describe one possible viewpoint you might get? Yes. But it hardly sums up the "intellectual" viewpoint. . ."
The pseudo-intellectual viewpoint is generally only one type of view/pattern. In fact, I can't think of how it could be any other. Most of the people you spoke of were intellectuals in that they engaged in thinking and knew that that's what they were doing as a metaphysical matter. Darwin was pretty much a pseudo-intellectual though. There is the one view that denies the metaphysical intellect in favor of the emotional, visceral, etc. It's the one view that takes the psyche from psychology. It is a prevalent view which is why psychology is often such utter drivel unless it is literally stood on its head. The visceral view is where looking to things like the length of the wee wee come in. It is a matter of child's play to correct because it is a childish view in the first place. If you sift through all the utter drivel there is some truth even in psychoanalysis, e.g. Christ as an anti-Oedipus, obedient to the Father and killed by the Father, rather than the oedipal tendency to kill the Father for the sake of narcissistic Hedonism. I don't think the little one who apparently believes in psychoanalysis is capable of sifting through it, though.
Perhaps David was too busy gossiping to answer the question? ;-)
"I think where we misunderstood you was we thought you were labelling us..."
That's my fault. But in all honesty I didn't even have you in mind when I was speaking of pseudo-artists up there. I was thinking of the pop-culture artists generally who are mindlessly anti-war, etc. That's the pattern. But I did have some of Collin's views in mind on Iraq about the pseudo-intellectual pattern of thinking. That's not meant as a personal attack but as a debate about *ideas*. I guess I did have Ian in mind a little bit but it was mostly just a satire. It's nice to be nice, after all. I guess Collin can be indignant if he wants to. But it's still a matter of "Is it true?" And I would deal with it as a matter of ideas even if it does match.
"But you're just throwing out "patterns of thought" into the vast ocean and seeing if you get a nibble? OK, if you say so. . ."
It's pretty obvious that I think at least some patterns of thought match what has been said in words. Some is meant to be amusing satire, some is meant to contain elements of truth. When I said my comments end is truth that is where you would have to sift out everything else that clouds it, things said for amusement and satire, (humor is the end) things said like look at me, I have my smarty pants on! (Pride is the end.) Etc. And that is the end that remains. In order to see patterns of thought in the first place, philosophy is necessary. And philosophy requires a little distance, everything can't be taken personally in philosophy even if a pattern of thought matches. You can see the strengths of a pattern/identity like "artist" and decide that is what you want to be. A person might see the strength of philosophy, which seems stronger than all the others and decide to seek knowledge and become a philosopher. But these identities are not a box for any of us. They're only a box to those who secretly believe that we're just the sum of our parts/viscera and that's all of our identity. But no one would secretly believe such idiocy, after all. Where did the little childish one disappear to? No more psychoanalysis? Come now, where is the depth of knowledge necessary for deception? If searching for knowledge and sound judgment is the result of a small wee wee then from where do your own judgments come? Where should we look for the answer, perhaps a body part? Perhaps only queer ideas can come from putting the creation/physical before the Creator/metaphysical? What is it about the transcendency of words that will limit your inversions and perversions so? "And God said..." "..the word of the LORD came.." "And God spoke all these words..." "As it is written..." "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Best not forget,
"Did God really say..."
Words...and words just have some visceral cause, right little one, so why run off? Besides, if you get into trouble with words you can invoke the Big Meanie image, even if it does mean you have to act like a crybaby.
;-)
"Perhaps David was too busy gossiping to answer the question? ;-)"
What??
Why does your definition of intellectual require someone to accept the metaphysical? Some very major intellectuals are purely materialists? What definition are you working with? Does it have to do with mind versus brain or some such debate? Just curious.
I don't agree with them, but a large percentage of those who put great stock in the intellect (by rule) don't consider that which cannot be seen, observed and studied -- by definition, the metaphysical? Some would even say that reason and rationality require this approach (since, they would say, metaphysics require faith, which is the opposite of science). Again, not that I necessarily agree with them, but I do consider this viewpoint an intellectual one. . .
"What??"
Well, were you? Still no answer, when it is only one question. Only one little judgment...made with mere words.
Can someone be a true friend if they don't know the truth? Can a person speaking of love know what love is or be truly loving if they have no love of truth?
"Why does your definition of intellectual require someone to accept the metaphysical?"
It's not my definition as if I can define a concept by an act of creative will. A certain type of person (or pattern of thinking) tends to value creativity so much so that they would tend to assume that the conceptual can be created/defined by an act of will just like the perceptual. But this is a conflating of the conceptual and perceptual. History demonstrates that this path leads to the "triumph of the image over the word."
To answer, it is because definition requires it.
Freud's greatest nemesis:
"His greatest concern was with the misuse of language and the resultant moral implications of such misuse. He showed that the imperfections of a person's language mirror the imperfections of his character.... Kraus saw..."the connection between maltreated words and the maltreatment of human souls and bodies, and he avenged lives by restoring words to their state of integrity, health, and vigor in which, of their own accord, they could 'speak to the yet unknowing world how these things came about.' ....Kraus thus anticipated the insights--into the relationship between the control of language and of liberty, between the destruction of the human word and of the human soul, between semantics and politics--of the celebrated authors of our age who have sounded the alarm against the utopias of hell being readied for us...."
(Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus's Criticism of Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry by Thomas Szasz)
"Some very major intellectuals are purely materialists?"
They are pseudo-intellectuals.
"I don't agree with them, but a large percentage of those who put great stock in the intellect (by rule) don't consider that which cannot be seen, observed and studied -- by definition, the metaphysical?"
By what rule? Some fools have no idea what they do and do what they can have no idea about. But to answer by what rule, it's by rule and influence of the old German philosophers in the American university. There are some types of people who want immanent images more than words and so they want to be shown visions. Perhaps they might even keep this focus as all the symbols/words of philosophy, history and the Book already attest to what is true in all things, including that which may soon engulf them.
"Some would even say that reason and rationality require this approach"
Some are irrational because they have no rationale for rationality, only rationalizations about it. Are these words of the sublime too difficult? Too high for weaker ones...a weakness that is now to be celebrated. So the less sublimated more crass answer that will be easier to understand is that they idiotically deny the mental and so are idiots. Have idiots ever known that they are idiots?
"...(since, they would say, metaphysics require faith, which is the opposite of science)."
Metaphysics requires reason, of which they can only have inversions and perversion of.
"Again, not that I necessarily agree with them, but I do consider this viewpoint an intellectual one. . ."
It is foolish to agree with pseudo-intellectuals.
Headaches yet?
"It's hard to read your posts..." said the little one. Indeed, indeed...as if it should be easy? Does it hurt your "feelings"? What of them? What is true?
"...until the very end of his life, Kraus continued to attack both psychiatry and psychoanalysis, mainly by poking fun at them. ...the vigor of his condemnation of it increased apace. In 1932, remarking on the 'spiritual foundations' of modern fanatical movements, he couples, in the same sentence, 'the swastika' ...and 'the despicable business of psychoanalysis.'"
(Anti-Freud: Karl Kraus's Criticism of Psychoanalysis and Psychiatry by Thomas Szasz)
Thanks for all the therapy and sensitivity training by the way, I tried to sift it for truth...but stick with the Book and you can't go too far wrong, at least not that far. There is something here that will have to be corrected although I really don't feel like doing it. And that is the queer ideas of the little one dealing with expression and repression, repression of expression, etc., which when left alone, destroy young men. Why is this left only to me though? Stick with the Book and you can do it....and you should.
Later.
The "little one" knows he/she is being childish, I don't need to tell him/her that.
Is there really alot of expression of repression going on? I doubt it. . .
Unless the 2 of you have a relationship that I'm unaware of, I'd tend to think that the comment concerning your anatomy has to be a joke (not a true observation), so I'm not going to take the implications of it seriously like you did.
He/she used a common image in our culture which means that someone is secretly insecure. Only you know whether you really are insecure or not. My guess? You're probably not. Cut through the crude (and humorous) way it was said-- that's the charge, that you are insecure.
I'd laugh about it if I were you. If you think they really mean it, then confront it. But they already said they were going to be childish, and they lived up to it.
I don't know if you're using the word queer in the classical sense (odd, strange), or in the modern sense (homosexual). If in the modern sense. . . I don't think the comment betrays any closeted orientation, and even if it did, I would need to be much better friends with "anonymous" before I broached such a subject.
""What??"
Well, were you? Still no answer, when it is only one question. Only one little judgment..