Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
My room

By A Bore in Fiction
Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:08:22 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

I smashed up my room the other day. I pulled open my cupboard, throwing clean clothes all over my carpet, cracking clothes hangers over my knee and tossing them aside. I threw my ornaments off the shelf, spraying fragments of pottery, glass and wood everywhere. I upended the dirty washing from my basket. I smashed up furniture, throwing splinters among the mess.


I had told my parents what I was about to do. In fact, I had gone to them for their blessing. Of course, they didn't give it, not then; they felt my actions were senseless and stupid. But I was sure in what I was doing, confident and powerful. "It'll be fun," I explained, "to smash things up. Besides, there's that hideous green chair; I'd like to smash that up and get a new one; I'm sure it's unsafe as well as ugly." But they weren't convinced. "Why do you want to? Who will clean up the mess?" they asked me. But I didn't need to listen. "The clean up will be simple," I explained soothingly. So I went ahead and did it anyway. I told them they were too hidebound and set in their ways to effect change in our domestic environment. They had to adjust to our new domestic reality after the events of the previous year, where a bad storm had felled a tree into the house, breaking my window, throwing glass into my room. The tree had been rotten for years, but I had had more important priorities than dealing with it.

But when I surveyed the wreckage of my room, I could see my initial estimate of the likely damage was a trifle optimistic. The glass in particular looked dangerous, ground down into fine slivers, glinting innocently among the detritus. It was mixed into my clothing too: I had best be careful lest I cut myself finding something to wear, and there was an obvious danger of trailing sharps into the rest of the house if I took my clothes to be washed. So I went to speak to my parents again, and brought them up to my room.

At first they couldn't believe I had gone ahead and acted anyway. "What was the point of that?" they asked, horrified at the wreckage. "If you had to smash something (for whatever reason) why weren't you more careful, why did you spread so much around and grind it into your carpet?" But they didn't get it. I informed them haughtily "It doesn't matter how or why the mess was created, or even by who anymore. The important point is that it is here, and we must deal with it like responsible adults." They looked unconvinced.

"Look, the facts are these: we all share this house and there is a potentially dangerous situation in it that will affect us all. It's clear to me that the two of you should also bear the burden of cleaning up this mess, as it has the possibility of also causing harm for you, when you go to use my computer perhaps, or when I accidentally drop glass throughout the house." They looked at each other, and left. I swear they can be so childish sometimes.

So I began to clean up our mess on my own, which proved extremely difficult, even more so than I had anticipated. In fact, when I picked up some of the pieces of glass, I cut myself on the hand rather badly, a long, thin and very deep cut curving up my palm, bleeding copiously. Downstairs, I confronted my parents crossly. "Look what has happened," I said. "If you were helping it is likely you would have been cut as well, but not so deep, or so long. It would be better if we all had small and superficial cuts than if I had one really bad cut. It is unfair, as it is our problem, not solely mine so we should all bear scars."

My injury was so bad they agreed to help me with the clearing up. I sportingly tackled the main part of the room, where the mess was concentrated, as they cleaned out the corners. Despite my best efforts, I continued to recieve cuts and nicks on both my hands and feet, splinters of glass and wood embedding themselves into my flesh. But I resolved to carry on, hands now bleeding freely, though even as I cleaned and scrubbed, washed and sprayed, the carpet was worsened by my blood soaking into it, clotting in the fabric. I became more and more frustrated, lashing out at the rubbish with my gored fists, decimating it in my fury, and sending more fragments scattering around the room.

Eventually my parents despaired and finally realised their responsibilities, sending me downstairs to bandage my hurts, and clearing the rest of the mess as best they could. When I came back later, they set me some small part to clear until finally the room was liveable again, though ever besmirched and stained with my lifeblood. I was pleased, until they called me downstairs for a chat.

I smiled round at them. "We have accomplished something here today," I explained. "With firm resolve and steely determination, we have effected change in our domestic environment." My father was not convinced. He sadly could not grasp the complexities of the situation. "We would like to know whether you plan to do this again," he stated. I was annoyed. "I cannot rule out a repeat of my decisive and apt behaviour," I explained. "In the bathroom, for instance, I have noticed a rather dangerous tile on the wall with a worn edge." Warming to my theme, I continued. "I really do not understand your implied criticism. By helping with the clear up you have given me your tacit approval of the course I set out on by smashing up my room yesterday. We are now rid of that rather ugly chair, you should rejoice in that fact." It was useless, they were too trapped in their conservative straitjacketed mindset to act, to effect change, and appeared to resent my plain speaking decisiveness, perhaps my revelation of their own hidden weakness. "You are lucky I am here," I warned them. "Without my actions it is likely you would have preserved the status quo until a serious accident could have occurred."

My parents shared a glance which I could not analyse, though it unsettled me. I rubbed my bandaged hands and retired to my room, where I was free to plan my next action, against the bathroom. There was a sledgehammer in the garage that I could put to good use, should there be any danger to myself from the broken tile. I slept well that night, smugly confident in my own virtue

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Also by A Bore


Display: Sort:
My room | 107 comments (78 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden)
Stop hurting America (2.50 / 16) (#3)
by TheGreenLantern on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 03:29:35 PM EST



It hurts when I pee.
You First <nt> (2.66 / 3) (#29)
by drwav on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:18:38 AM EST



[ Parent ]
-1 UN Parentage (1.62 / 8) (#10)
by On Lawn on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:16:57 PM EST

Not even origional, I remember non-sequitor running this meme as a cartoon around April.

But the writer of that cartoon strip knew better than to make a Deus ex Machina of the Parents. I mean, as an analogy this probably rings a chord with you and many others on this site and that is a good thing to express. But seriously, are the UN your parents? Do you really not know how to clean up your room?

Looking at the UN track record, if anything, the US would be the parents and the UN the adolescent. The US has Germany and Japan under its belts, and the UN has nothing. Even with Milosovich handed to them on a silver platter they have been unable to prosecute his justice, and if I remember right he's been re-elected.

subject (2.33 / 9) (#16)
by A Bore on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:34:42 PM EST

1) Learn what "deus ex machina" actually means.

2) UN Peacekeeping experience > US peacekeeping experience. Feel free to argue, but you're wrong.

3) No mention of "adolescent" in story at all; your interpretation.

4) Point, ANYWAY, was not penis size debate on relative merits of UN vs. US. Rather that calls for other countries to bail out US out of Iraq mess should inspire nausea / laughter at childishness.

5) Efforts to draw comparisons between Germany and Japan, and any modern peacekeeping in the Middle East are laughable. Populations decimated by bombing, threatened with nuclear weapons, or ordered to surrender in a rigidly controlled society are not even representing close to the kind of threat you see in Middle Eastern, religiously frenzied countries with porous borders.

6) Claims of unoriginality from someone who recently wrote on the subject of "An Eye for an Eye, and a Tooth for a Tooth" made me vomit blood on my keyboard again. Apply yourself to that boulder occupying your ocular cavity for a second.

[ Parent ]

Bore-Dum (1.16 / 6) (#21)
by On Lawn on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 07:59:20 PM EST

  1. If you think my usage is wrong in describing the parents effortless salvation of the antagonist, then you should learn what Deus ex Machina means
  2. I haven't seen you be right about anything yet.
  3. So what?
  4. Penis size isn't mentioned in the story or my response, your interpretation. Your stupidity draws nausea and laughter.
  5. What is the difference?
  6. Lay off the self-medication, see a doctor.


[ Parent ]
Wiki (2.25 / 4) (#33)
by A Bore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:56:26 AM EST

The phrase deus ex machina has been extended to refer to any resolution to a story which does not pay due regard to the story's internal logic and is so unlikely it challenges suspension of disbelief, and presumably allows the author to end it in the way he or she wanted.

To be a deus ex machina in this case, the final part of the story would have gone:

I continued to try to clean our mess with my parents, but no matter what we tried, nothing would avail. Luckily then, Dad pulled out his new vaccuum cleaner, an enormous red steam powered humming motherfucker. "LOL, I bought this the other day," he shouted gleefully, "It's one of those new Due Suxa Machines."

The mess was cleared up with a flash of light so we all flew to the moon on a crocodile and I got a choc ice.

Suddenly, there was a sound of squeaking pullies as a cherub-dressed On Lawn was lowered mid stage, his face screwed up in annoyance. "That's deus ex machina," he complained petulantly. "-1"

Anyway, the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it.

[ Parent ]

**YAWN** (none / 0) (#47)
by On Lawn on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:56:21 AM EST

the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it.

Which is its exact problem. As an analogy it doesn't work, the UN doesn't/hasn't cleaned any messes. From fostering the post GW1 oil for palaces scandal to the recent food for sex scandals to even helping Milosovich get re-elected.

And I'm glad you researched Deus ex Machina but your logic is in err, to say that it is consistant to the internal logic of the story and is therefore not DeM would even disqualify Moses parting the Red Sea. After all it is just a river, and God can part it.

[ Parent ]

Sorry, you still seem to be wrong (3.00 / 2) (#50)
by A Bore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:48:32 AM EST

You still seem to be uncomprehending. The analogy points to what would happen in the future if the UN were to step in and aid America in securing Iraq. US takes too many casualties "the deep cut", US complains to UN, UN helps out, US refuses to change its ways, free to contemplate even more senseless acts "smashing up the bathroom" with even more disproportionate force "the sledge". Now, please be quiet.

Perhaps you should explain how the parents cleaning the room are not consistent to the logic of the story, I missed the part where you outlined your theory. Oh wait, you didn't. You merely said if you assume that than THIS is the result, the "THIS" in question not even remotely being a logical follow on.



[ Parent ]
-1 -- Tantrums are no way to convince people (1.50 / 2) (#53)
by On Lawn on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:21:41 PM EST

Sorry, you still seem to be wrong

As I said previously you haven't been right yet. Your trip down Deus ex machina lane proved unfruitful in finding any err except your own. You haven't laid out any case for the reality of the situation to even contend with what I'm talking about, let alone declare I'm "wrong" about anything.

You still seem to be uncomprehending

**YAWN**. Its bad enough to endure your poor writing without all these canned invectives thrown into it. Explaining your analogy doesn't provide me with anything I didn't already figure out. Explaining it just makes me wonder about how limited of your comprehension skills are, if that basic comprehension is the only depth of thought you can provide (as the author).

The analogy points to what would happen in the future if the UN were to step in and aid America in securing Iraq.

Either you are just ignorantly acting smarter than you are or you really do profess to be a prophet. Such an assessment is naive and wishful thinking that runs counter to the history of the UN. As pointed out with references to other UN attempts, a "cleanup" would not be the expected result of UN efforts. Or have you forgotten their poor track record, as well as ignored it while it is pointed out to you. Maybe you simply didn't hear they cut and ran at the first sign of trouble, an event that happened less than two years ago. And that is the issue you seem to be uncomprehending, and the main problem with your fictional work.

Well, that is not true, your responses to criticisms have been nothing more than a long winded complaint at the news your premise is deeply flawed -- at many levels. And to add stupidity to ignorance you take what should be called the "premise" and instead call it "the logic of the story," as if declaring it as such makes it logical. Its not that you don't see the problems that people are pointing out to you, you are simply having a tantrum that people should accept your premise. And a tantrum is no way to convince people.

[ Parent ]

Sorry On Lawn, YHBO. (2.00 / 2) (#72)
by vivelame on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:39:08 PM EST

Yes, You Have Been Owned.
no french-weaseling out of it, your ass belongs to him.

--
Jonathan Simon: "When the autopsy of our democracy is performed, it is my belief that media silence will be given as the primary cause of death."
[ Parent ]
Ohh if I had a dime (none / 0) (#78)
by On Lawn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 10:56:28 PM EST


If I had a dime for everyone who decided to declare victory rather then work for it ...

Stumping for idiots does not impress me.

[ Parent ]

This thread: a review. (none / 0) (#73)
by A Bore on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:06:39 PM EST

OnLawn, I see this thread as a microcosm of what you are and how you respond to people, not just here but in other forums too.

The whole subject of deus ex machina was introduced by yourself as a criticism of the story. Well, I didn't accept it, stated a definition of DeM that you seem to have accepted, and asked you to explain, in light of the definition, what you originally meant. You have not taken the opportunity. In a nutshell your argument is not that the story itself has deus ex machina but rather the analogy behind it has. I disagree with the latter point (that the UN would be unable to secure a post America Iraq) but it bears not upon the main issue, that of the story itself. So your initial criticism does not hold water, nor have you made any attempt to justify your accusation. If you have a problem with any of the assumptions I have made in this paragraph feel free to say so, but do try to supply arguments, not just appeals to audience "I think we can all see he still isn't getting it", or ad hominem attacks.

I don't feel I have to stand up for my story, I think it should impress people of its own merits (or lack thereof). I also dislike stating what my intentions were when writing it; you drew me out into territory I would prefer not to define. It might sound pretentious, but analogies are only powerful where they are undefined, in that, undefined, they force you to examine a situation where before you might simply have accepted it. But the fact is most of your argument with it is based on your own interpretation (a point which you do not seem to understand) and is likely to be false, or rather not what I have intended you to think when I wrote it. How then can I defend myself against your own faulty interpretation? Especially when you cannot realise your own interpretation is faulty, calling it faults in the analogy/story. Your interpretation has been shaped by your prejudices, not mine, and as such, is indefensible.

Finally, I do not accept your ad hominem attack that I am "having a tantrum" by replying to what I see as unfair criticsim, moreover, criticism by someone who will not stand behind the very points they are trying to make. Debating (for want of a better word) with you is like shadow boxing, there is little point to it unless one is carried away by your own keyboard dextroverbosity (a word I invented just this second). You are intellectually dishonorable, OnLawn, in that you indulge yourself in never admitting an error, simply trying to shift the goalposts or muddy an argument until you can feel you emerge the victor. You create strawmen as a matter of course, assuming points of view, or presuming contentious facts on behalf of your opponents (or corresponders) that serve your own purposes, not theirs. You are fond of the sweeping statement without argument and appeal to audience, as if facts behind you were so evident to all there is no need to outline them. You selectively pick and choose facts to argue over, ignoring much of a post decrying your many flaws to concentrate on a single issue you can pick over and persevere on until your opponent exhaustively accepts defeat. Similarly, your favourit tactic seems to be a mixture of all of the above, with a determination to get the last word on any debate you are involved in.

I do not mean to pick on you, or make you sad, but this is the truth as I percieve it, based not just on this thread, but on a variety of conversations with you I have read, or participated in, over some time. By all means, dislike this story, vote -1, I can honestly say it matters not one iota to me, I do not take it personally. But consider this criticism and ask yourself how much of it could be true: because in all honesty I feel most people who have read you or tried to debate with you have ended up with nothing but contempt for you.



[ Parent ]
*Sigh* so you gave up arguing... (none / 0) (#80)
by On Lawn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:52:30 PM EST

The whole subject of deus ex machina was introduced by yourself as a criticism of the story.

No, the problem with your story is not the existance of the Deus ex Machina but the misguided declaration of the UN as that Deus. But this has been explained more than once, I am simply left (once again) questioning your comprehension skills that I would need to re-iterate it again. So I'll move on.

asked you to explain, in light of the definition, what you originally meant.

Lets look for this question, (perhaps you can simply requote it for me)...

Learn what "deus ex machina" actually means.
Nope, not phrased as a question, I really can't even rephrase it as a question. Its simply an accusation, and unsupported at that. In fact, looking on through the thread you seemed to have simply droped the pursuit of this accusation in favor of another. One would gather that it is you who have accepted that I was correct in my usage (as it *was* explained) and though you have "arrogantly" refused to admit it. So lets move to your second response...
To be a deus ex machina in this case, the final part of the story would have gone:
[... sic longwinded half-attempted story ...]

Anyway, the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it.

Still no question, just a restatement showing that you do not know what a Deus ex Machina is. When you get down to it, neither arguments you make (Dem would have looked like, the parents can clean up a room) preclude that the parents are used as a Dem in your story. This was sufficiently explained when these arguements are applied to accepted DeMs such as Moses parting the Red Sea.

So thats really where we are left isn't it. You prosecuted an accusation that I didn't use Deus ex Machina correctly and that failed. So now you take a different tact and try to rewrite history with the accusation that you "asked [me] to explain, in light of the definition, what [I] originally meant." As you can see such an inquiry was never raised.

But, never the less even if you did inquire as to how I see the parents as DeM in your story the question would have already been answered...

my usage is ... in describing the parents effortless salvation of the antagonist
The final hiding place such a question could have been found was in the next post of yours. Unfortunately that was the post where you were switching gears and already trying to rewrite the previous discussion...
Perhaps you should explain how the parents cleaning the room are not consistent to the logic of the story, I missed the part where you outlined your theory. Oh wait, you didn't.
Which accusation was dealt with previously also.

In a nutshell your argument is not that the story itself has deus ex machina but rather the analogy behind it has.

No, my argument is that the story has places where it does not resemble reality, which is a requirement of an analogy.

it bears not upon the main issue, that of the story itself. ... I don't feel I have to stand up for my story ... It might sound pretentious, but ... I have intended you to think when I wrote it. How then can I defend myself[?] ... Your interpretation has been shaped by your prejudices ...

Such a montage of quotes of yours exemplifies my previous supposition, "Its not that you don't see the problems that people are pointing out to you, you are simply having a tantrum that people should accept your premise. And a tantrum is no way to convince people."

Only now you are trying to back-peddle your story back into ambiguity. Before you complained that I didn't comprehend that in your story "[t]he analogy points to what would happen in the future if the UN were to step in and aid America in securing Iraq." Now you simply mope that such devices were never really meant to be revealed and that it is my own interpretation, borne of my own prejudice. Before the problem was that I didn't comprehended, now the problem is that comprehended what you meant to keep hidden.

So bring on your sycophants and your multiple accounts. I note that they do not seem to be able to explain your argument, let alone support it. Your theatre plurality of accounts come to help you lick your wounds is something you would do better to keep private. I will simply wait for the time that you can properly prosecute an argument, let alone complain at my insolence to your assumed intelligence.

[ Parent ]

Rumours of my dem. have been gr. exag. (none / 0) (#86)
by A Bore on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 06:08:42 PM EST

As little as I like point by point, there is no other format I can couch this in. Everyone must be thoroughly bored at this point, I'd advise you to leave. I am simply repeating points I've already made for the benefit of OnLawn's comprehension.

First obvious contradiction.
I said "The whole subject of deus ex machina was introduced by yourself as a criticism of the story."

You said "No, .."

But you initially said "But the writer of that cartoon strip knew better than to make a Deus ex Machina of the Parents."

?? My comprehension skills?

OnLawn says "the problem with your story is not the existance of the Deus ex Machina but the misguided declaration of the UN as that Deus"

I partly agree. The problem is NOT the existence of DeM because it doesn't exist in the story. My problem is that you still refuse to elaborate on what you meant. I have asked a very simple question: "How are the actions of the parents inconsistent with the logic of the story?????" To this you have repeatedly replied "Because they are inconsistent with the logic of the story" or changed the words around by saying it is because of their "effortless salvation", as if that explains anything. Or replied "if it wasn't DeM, then Moses parting the Red Sea isn't DeM." I regard this as an obvious red herring. I refuse to be drawn into a separate argument until we sort this one out. How are the parents actions inconsistent with the logic of the story, thus making their actions a DeM?

"Let's look for this question" "Such an inquiry was never raised"

Oh, you child. You fucking child. "Nope, not phrased as a question." No, it was never phrased as a question, you have that. You made an accusation, I replied saying that, in light of a definition I supplied, it was not DeM. Perhaps you didn't understand this subtle hint that I didn't agree with you, "Perhaps you should explain how the parents cleaning the room are not consistent to the logic of the story" I said. And you didn't see this as a prompt for you to elaborate? If you didn't, you are a cretin. If you did, then why are you wasting time "looking for a question?", you cretin? To make some sort of empty rhetorical point, like you can gather some tattered shreds of your dignity around you after such transparent and poorly executed sophistry? Honestly, you utter, utter child.

You can't wriggle out of this. I have not "dropped pursuit of this question". It is, despite your best efforts, still the central question. "How are the parents actions inconsistent with the logic of the story, thus making their actions a DeM?"

"One would gather that it is you who have accepted that I was correct in my usage" Oh dear God, give me strength. It was certainly unclear in my last post "your initial criticism [of DeM] does not hold water, nor have you made any attempt to justify your accusation." This is basic stuff, OnLawn.

"No, my argument is that the story has places where it does not resemble reality, which is a requirement of an analogy."

Now onto a seperate strand, problems with the analogy. Again and again I come back to the same point. These "places where it does not resemble reality" are places where you are creating your own reality, that of an incompetent, bumbling UN and a superhero US. And you have hypocritically accused me of pretending I can see into the future! If you had couched this properly "I don't believe this analogy will hold up because the UN could not so easily clean up the mess we've made", perhaps we could actually debate something. But you say empty undetailed phrases like "your premise is deeply flawed -- at many levels", and "Before the problem was that I didn't comprehended, now the problem is that comprehended what you meant to keep hidden." as though your interpretation is some iron clad certainty, shared by all the people who have read the story. You have not comprehended what I intended to keep hidden, which were my own thoughts on what I had written. To express them is to straitjacket everyone else into interpreting the story then in the light of my own thoughts on it, as I have already said. Now do you understand?

I did see the future, when I said "do try to supply arguments, not just appeals to audience [...], or ad hominem attacks," because your first response was an appeal to an audience and an ad hominem attack. "questioning your comprehension skills...simply having a tantrum...your sycophants and your multiple accounts...Your theatre plurality of accounts...wait for the time that you can properly prosecute an argument"

I am afraid there is only one account, me. And I have done no comment moderation on this thread at all, instead tried to answer where I disagreed or agreed. Again unlike you, who seem to have down modded supporting voices. You accuse me of creating accounts to support myself? I have neither the time, or mean spirited personality to do so. What kind of buffoon would do that just to win an argument on the Internet? cough Let me remind you again of my advice concerning the mote and the beam, that so successfully shut you up the first time. ENORMOUS METEOR OCCUPYING EYE STOP REQUIRES ATTENTION STOP

Finally, "I note that they [the two other contributors] do not seem to be able to explain your argument, let alone support it." Perhaps they believe me capable of responding to you myself. Perhaps they are just utterly sick of your squirming determination to get the last word. But most of all, they have probably learnt what I have at last learnt. There is no debating with you, you are too dishonest.



[ Parent ]
Debating with trolls (none / 0) (#88)
by QuickFox on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:42:33 PM EST

There is no debating with you, you are too dishonest.

Of course there's no debating with him. Of course he's dishonest. He's doing it on purpose. Trolls do this on purpose, that's the definition of a troll. Please read this.

In your previous comment you described basic trolling quite well:

You are intellectually dishonorable, OnLawn, in that you indulge yourself in never admitting an error, simply trying to shift the goalposts or muddy an argument until you can feel you emerge the victor. You create strawmen as a matter of course, assuming points of view, or presuming contentious facts on behalf of your opponents (or corresponders) that serve your own purposes, not theirs. You are fond of the sweeping statement without argument and appeal to audience, as if facts behind you were so evident to all there is no need to outline them. You selectively pick and choose facts to argue over, ignoring much of a post decrying your many flaws to concentrate on a single issue you can pick over and persevere on until your opponent exhaustively accepts defeat. Similarly, your favourit tactic seems to be a mixture of all of the above, with a determination to get the last word on any debate you are involved in.

Congratulations, even though you seem very naive of trolls, you have noticed and described the basic standard tactics of trolls quite well. There's only one error: A troll is not interested in getting you to admit defeat, nor in getting the last word. He's only out to provoke you to post yet another reply. Preferrably a frustrated or angry reply, but any reply will do.

When you see someone acting like you just described so well, please avoid replying. Replying to trolls is called "feeding the trolls", because it encourages them. The result is often a ruined debate. Concentrate your efforts on real debaters.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
[ Parent ]

If only he was (none / 0) (#89)
by A Bore on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 06:50:04 AM EST

If only OnLawn was a troll, if only. Sadly he isn't. Even the best troll in the world cannot keep up the consistent reality of OnLawn for so many years, they would crack and the game would be over. No troll would really spend so much time as one persona, wasting their time rephrasing op-ed articles from Men's News Daily here, on Slashdot and on his own web space. A troll would evangelise their message as far as possible, not stick to journalling. As difficult as it is to believe, OnLawn is not a troll, just a deeply misguided, self decieving individual. Or so I think, anyway. It is difficult to believe, sometimes.

[ Parent ]
Wow (none / 0) (#93)
by On Lawn on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:48:46 PM EST

I couldn't believe it. You agree I'm not a troll. That is the first correct thing I've seen you say.

[ Parent ]
Congradulations (none / 0) (#92)
by On Lawn on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:46:40 PM EST

You just pointed to a definitions of "troll" and without drawing any links, drew the conclusion that I was one.

With such a lack of logic, you could prove anything you want. Again, congradulations.

[ Parent ]

Enough of you, Troll (none / 0) (#90)
by On Lawn on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:42:46 PM EST

You keep making such egregious errors, I can only conclude you are following the rule of trolldom, "make obvious errors to encourage people to reply and point them out". The self-humiliating troll is an accurate description of yourself. At least the only one that makes sense.

I said "The whole subject of deus ex machina was introduced by yourself as a criticism of the story."

You said "No, .."

Now, what was the rest of that '...'? Something tells me you took a random 'no' and placed it in a new context. Very suspect.

I have asked a very simple question: "How are the actions of the parents inconsistent with the logic of the story?????"

You put that in quotes and you mention that you "have asked", yet such wording is not present in your previous posts. As pointed out previously such a question does not exist, even in generous attempts at rewording. Else you could provide a link.

You argue that, "Perhaps you should explain how the parents cleaning the room are not consistent to the logic of the story" was such an inquiry and was not answered. However, such a question (as with your story) is flawed in its premise, and that was duely pointed out. Pointing it out was met with nothing more than a tantrum. A tantrum that you were not able to sluff off yet another flawed premise. You didn't respond to the arguments made, just complained that I didn't accept the premise and answer the question.

What premise is that? As if you need ask as it was dealt with previously. However, assuming that your comprehensions skills are suspect rather than your ingeniousness, I will explain further. You presume that capacity to alter the outcome of the story, if inherent to the characters of the story is not Deus ex Machina. No? Heres your quote, "the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it."

Clearly you are arguing that the capacity to clean a room disqualifies the parents as performing a Deus ex Machina for the protagonist (I clumsily misspoke earlier describing the adolescent as a antagonist, something pointed out to me by an observer of this thread who, with me, doesn't see why you are so inept). Clearly you are arguing that this capacity is internally logical to the story, when it is simply a premise. Neither of these are the case.

Capacity, inherent to the charectars of the story, does not preclude an event to being a DeM. If it were so, then even Moses parting the Red Sea would be precluded as DeM. But that is a contradiction since it is a DeM therefore your logic is awry. As pointed out previously, "your logic is in err, to say that it is consistant to the internal logic of the story and is therefore not DeM would even disqualify Moses parting the Red Sea. After all it is just a river, and God can part it."

The flaw in your argument is not unknown. It was found and presented to you. It can be explained in the second part of the argument, that the capacity is internal to the logic of the story. There is a premise that "parents can clean a room". But then so can consider that in the ordinary workings of life, so can the protagonist. But can he?

I became more and more frustrated, lashing out at the rubbish with my gored fists, decimating it in my fury, and sending more fragments scattering around the room.
The task was greater than the protagonist, this was winding up to be a tragedy. The protagonist, you appear to be arguing, was incapable of cleaning the room. Yet, a protagonist can clean there room, can they not? No, not in this case, and you've already established that this room was more difficult to clean up, a special challenge. This is no ordinary mess, so we cannot presume that the parents can clean it up.

So then one is left to ponder, just how do the Parents do it?

Eventually my parents despaired and finally realised their responsibilities, sending me downstairs to bandage my hurts, and clearing the rest of the mess as best they could. When I came back later, they set me some small part to clear until finally the room was liveable again, though ever besmirched and stained with my lifeblood. I was pleased, until they called me downstairs for a chat.

There is no reason, hint, or clue given as to how the parents were able to clean the room. No hint to what capacity they had the protagonist did not that allowed them to clean the room. Quite simply there is no logic here to rely on that establishes their capacity. "Parents can clean a room," you may point out (as the author this is the only explanation you provided). But this, as pointed out previously, is simply the premise. It is not the "inherent logic". The premise becomes the conclusion, a tautological triumph, and a logical fallacy.

As I argued previously, "And to add stupidity to ignorance you take what should be called the 'premise' and instead call it 'the logic of the story,' as if declaring it as such makes it logical. Its not that you don't see the problems that people are pointing out to you, you are simply having a tantrum that people should accept your premise. And a tantrum is no way to convince people."

Your logical flaw predicted reductio-ad-absurdum, is revealed. One could even argue that such a tautological device is a good way to explain what Deus ex Machina is. But that comes later.

So lets compare what you wrote as an obvious Deus ex Machina to what I label as such in your story.

I continued to try to clean our mess with my parents, but no matter what we tried, nothing would avail. Luckily then, Dad pulled out his new vaccuum cleaner, an enormous red steam powered humming motherfucker. "LOL, I bought this the other day," he shouted gleefully, "It's one of those new Due Suxa Machines."

The mess was cleared up with a flash of light so we all flew to the moon on a crocodile and I got a choc ice.

I'll note for the humor impaired that a "Deu Suxa Machine" can clean up a room! Thus consistent with the logic of the story! Wait, no I'm just adding lemon juice to the open wound. I'll deal with it more seriously.

The use of the super-natural vacuum no more explains the capacity to clean the room than was offered in the origional story, "When I came back later, they set me some small part to clear until finally the room was liveable again". Clearly we see that with "some small part" the protagonist was given some role that was not dependant on the overall outcome. So we are left to wonder once again just how it was accomplished. Niether is the use of the vacuum any more expected to occur than the parents intervention.

Now lets look at Google's collection of definitions of "Deus ex Machina"...

An unrealistic or unexpected intervention to rescue the protagonists or resolve the conflict. [...] In a modern example of deus ex machina, a writer might reach a climactic moment in which a band of pioneers were attacked by bandits. A cavalry brigade's unexpected arrival to drive away the marauding bandits at the conclusion, with no previous hint of the cavalry's existence, would be a deus ex machina conclusion. Such endings mean that heroes are unable to solve their own problems in a pleasing manner, and they must be "rescued" by the writer himself through improbable means.

...

This refers to a plot contrivance in fiction, where the resolution comes from an outside source

...

Any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve an apparently insoluble difficulty.

...

a divinty who appears suddenly at the end of a play (usually a tragedy) to solve an otherwise insoluble solution.

...

the resolution of the plot by the device of a god ("deus") arriving onstage by means of a crane ("machina") and solving all the characters' problems.

...

reliance on providential intervention or other unspecified means for the solution of an otherwise unsolvable human problem.

...

any active agent who appears unexpectedly to solve and insoluble difficulty

That last definition specifically nails your plot device. But lets look at the others too. So what made the parents intervention unexpected? This is established by yourself...
I had told my parents what I was about to do. In fact, I had gone to them for their blessing. Of course, they didn't give it, not then; they felt my actions were senseless and stupid. ... they weren't convinced. [that term was used three times] ...

So I went to speak to my parents again, and brought them up to my room.

At first they couldn't believe I had gone ahead and acted anyway. "What was the point of that?" they asked, horrified at the wreckage. "If you had to smash something (for whatever reason) why weren't you more careful, why did you spread so much around and grind it into your carpet?" But they didn't get it. I informed them haughtily "It doesn't matter how or why the mess was created, or even by who anymore. The important point is that it is here, and we must deal with it like responsible adults." They looked unconvinced.

... They looked at each other, and left. I swear they can be so childish sometimes.

So I began to clean up our mess on my own.

In these passages you paint the parents as unwilling participants in cleaning the room. Their subsequent intervention is unexpected (and I'll point out that in analog, the UN's intervention to the degree you describe in the story is unexpected even now).

The story became a protagonist (alone) versus his room after the parents turned down numerous requests for help and their disdain for the whole affair established the unlikelyhood of their intervention. Yet they come in, through means unestablished and unknown to the story save the hero from what he was unable to conquer on his own.

They were the will that saves the house from being sold, the cavalry that saves the band of fighters, the god that comes in and solves the charectars problems. Your device is a Deus ex machina.

But then again this isn't anything I haven't explained adequately already. Your problem was in lack of comprehension, admit it.

On to some more points...

"Before the problem was that I didn't comprehended, now the problem is that comprehended what you meant to keep hidden." as though your interpretation is some iron clad certainty, shared by all the people who have read the story.

No, it is an iron clad certainty shared by the author who intended it in the story. A point you (as the author) conceded and was quoted as support for that phrase.

You taking phrases away from their supporting arguments is an egregious omission. Sometimes I am left to ponder who let you get away with such shenanigans in the past that you rely on them so heartily.

These "places where it does not resemble reality" are places where you are creating your own reality

One person has quoted real life events to establish their view of reality, another person wrote a work of fiction to support their view of reality. The latter has also complained on numerous occasions that the internal logic of their fictional representation is something to accept without argument, litterally throwing a tantrum at those questioning it.

As you are that latter person, (Disagree? Prove me wrong and show where you showed one reference to the UN being able to clean up messes in real life, or even answered my real life evidence to the contrary).

I dare say your stance on such a platform sevierly comprimises you ability to cast judgement. Your problem is not only that of arrogance and ignorance, but lack of comprehension.

I did see the future, when I said "do try to supply arguments, not just appeals to audience [...], or ad hominem attacks,"

False, and a red-herring even if it were true. A conclusion is not a logical fallacy, and it is the conclusion of your egregious fallaciousness that you quote. Once again you summarily remove conclusions from their supporting arguments and then complain that no supporting arguments were presented. How you expect to get away with it can be explained by the willing accomplices to your egregious behaviour, and multiple accounts you have activated for such a use. But even then truely the blame lies in yourself. Even as they play 'yes-men' to your fallacies, you should know better in and of yourself. Yet you do not, probably in desperation to be right in the face of such evidence against you.

[ Parent ]

Swamping the debate will not work either (none / 0) (#97)
by A Bore on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:05:17 PM EST

Again with the point by point tedium.

"Now, what was the rest of that '...'? Something tells me you took a random 'no' and placed it in a new context. Very suspect."

So very suspect you presumably took the time to look back over the ellipse, and finding nothing contentious ie. you had in fact written an obvious lie, decided to...say nothing else. Why are you wasting my time with this kipple? Do you confuse a long rambling post with having something to say?

Capacity, inherent to the charectars of the story, does not preclude an event to being a DeM.

Agreed. A counterexample would not be difficult to create. Is this the case in this story, however?

The task was greater than the protagonist, this was winding up to be a tragedy. The protagonist, you appear to be arguing, was incapable of cleaning the room. Yet, a protagonist can clean there room, can they not? No, not in this case, and you've already established that this room was more difficult to clean up, a special challenge.

The protagonist, the narrator, WAS capable of cleaning the room himself. The problem, as is clearly marked out, is not in the character of the mess, but rather the character of the protagonist!

Is this the way to clear a mess? I became more and more frustrated, lashing out at the rubbish with my gored fists, decimating it in my fury, and sending more fragments scattering around the room.

This is basic critical comprehension, OnLawn. The narrator could be capable of clearing his room, but in his annoyance at the small wounds he is recieving, any rational ability to act in the best way to achieve his end is lost. Let me emphasise: in this, your DeM argument is utterly nailed! The insoluble problem does not exist, from this passage it must be clear as crystal! The parents were not contrived or godlike salvation: there is no impossible task!

There is no reason, hint, or clue given as to how the parents were able to clean the room. No hint to what capacity they had the protagonist did not that allowed them to clean the room.

Yes, the narrator goes downstairs and frankly takes little interest in the proceedings. Now, why do you think I deliberately gave him this attitude? It was part of the point, OnLawn. The destruction was fun; the clean up is uninteresting to him/her. Simply because the POV is the smasher rather than the cleaner, so the steps the cleaners went through to clean the room is left deliberately vague, does not make it a deus ex machina no matter how many definitions you make Google regurgitate!* Deus ex machina means "God from the machine", and it requires an unexpected (normally Godlike) intervention, and an apparantly insoluble quandry. I think I've just shown the problem was not insoluble, nor was it presented as such, as long as you are able to actually critically read what was written.

*I note the definition you finally find to support your argument comes from an online dictionary that commits a whole sentence to the concept of Deus Ex Machina.

Next you try to show their intervention was unexpected, by the mere fact the parents did not aid in the cleaning straight away. This is rather weak. At no point did they refuse to help in some determined way. They never ruled out their help. They did not disappear, run away or get kidnapped. When it was clear the protagonist was only making the mess worse, they then helped.

After confusing basic narration for deus ex machina , you now call a "tautology" the mere fact that the parents can act in a way characteristic to parents everywhere! By a similar argument, you could say any other fundamental assumed relationship in the story is a tautology; the behaviour of that object cannot be justified in words other than that this is the objects basic nature. Take gravity, for instance. In my story gravity pulls things to the ground, and if you were to ask me to justify this, I would be at a loss to say other than "but gravity pulls down". This is a tautology, but it is not a criticism of the story, it is a fundamental law of a realistic universe in which a story is based. I do not expect to have to justify gravity (or parents) acting as gravity at the start of my story to avoid the spurious cry of "tautology". The tautology is yours; your question boils down to "Why are parents acting like parents"

No, it is an iron clad certainty shared by the author who intended it in the story. A point you (as the author) conceded and was quoted as support for that phrase.

Here is the deal: you have made criticisms of the story, based on your own prejudices about the UN. The "problems" with the story are only problems where people have opinions about the UN identical to yours. This is what I have repeatedly tried to make clear to you. Along the way I mused somewhat on why I do not particularly like to be drawn on explaining the analogy, and this appears to have confused you. The problem is not that you "comprehended what I meant to keep hidden": to put it like that suggests that there is one interpretation; yours; and implies in some way that you have seen some secret flaw I was trying to obscure ie. "backpeddle back to ambiguity". All you need to recognise is that not everyone shares your opinion of the UN, and to claim that because your prejudices flaw your interpretation therefore the story = flawed, is simply false. Certain assumptions are made in the analogy behind the story; these are debatable. But rather couch the questioning of these assumptions as debate points, you make airy fairy statements which point to your own wilful blindness.

The latter has also complained on numerous occasions that the internal logic of their fictional representation is something to accept without argument, litterally throwing a tantrum at those questioning it.

I think some internal logical points of the story are unquestionable, surely you must agree. Are you going to argue with me over whether there really is a room in the story; a narrator who smashes it up etc. etc.? The logical point in question is whether parents would clean a mess in a room. I think the internal logic of "parents acting like parents" is sound, if I sound like I'm complaining you should read it again. And as for the "tantrum" charge, well, no matter how many times you repeat it, it does not make it true.

Disagree? Prove me wrong and show where you showed one reference to the UN being able to clean up messes in real life, or even answered my real life evidence to the contrary

Your "real life evidence" was unsupported statements such as "maybe you simply didn't hear they cut and ran at the first sign of trouble", "poor track record","fostering the post GW1 oil for palaces scandal", "food for sex scandals", "helping Milosovich get re-elected." I considered them at the time, and still do, firstly a smokescreen to move the debate away from your inability to back up you DeM nonsense. But I will happily debate them if you are so eager, now you have finally decided to stand behind your original accusations by detailing what you meant, so I can refute them. Secondly, I am somewhat unsure how to debate with someone who says the UN would be unable to have an effective peacekeeping role in Iraq because they "cut and ran" from some as yet unspecified thing, or because they had a food for guns scandal or even someone so myopic to blame the UN for the sanctions scandal, a dirty episode his own country was heavily involved in.

Finally OnLawn, and once again, quell your paranoia. I do not have multiple accounts, nor do I need them. It's a funny quirk of humanity that we accuse others of that which we are guilty of ourselves, is it not? If you are worried, please feel free to complain to rusty or another admin: they will confirm this ISP only visits one account, A Bore.

Thanks for playing. Come again.

[ Parent ]
Oh, the invectives I have to endure (none / 0) (#98)
by On Lawn on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 04:57:43 PM EST

So very suspect you presumably took the time to look back over the ellipse, and finding nothing contentious ie. you had in fact written an obvious lie, decided to...say nothing else. Why are you wasting my time with this kipple? Do you confuse a long rambling post with having something to say?

Such a collection of invectives and vague criticism amounts to a very exasperated non-response. Indeed it sets the tone that you are not going to respond to the arguments raised because nothing was even said. But then you do address the arguments, completely negating the meaning of this first paragraph.

One aspect of that tone remains in the writing, utter disdain at the critique of your most noble work. Throughout the work, you continue to throw a tantrum over your work being analysed, questioned, and even challenged.

Is this [the capacity to help precluding the act of helping being a DEM] the case in this story, however?

The argument is, "No, it is not." A point that you have backpeddled into agreeing with after having argued otherwise, but I won't complain as your newfound understanding is accurate.

The protagonist, the narrator, WAS capable of cleaning the room himself. ... any rational ability to act in the best way to achieve his end is lost.

Your just trying to find another way to say that the task was greater than the individual, and setting that up as a contradiction. It is not. Either by knocking down the individual or magnifying the task is a moot point. That is not a contradiction as in both circumstances they needed saving. While dealing with overly broad criteria previously, you are now overly constraining. Such flailing is rather telling of how you approach this argument, don't you think?

The argument stands, just how the parents avoid the same pitfalls is not developed in the story, which makes its introduction in your explanation as "internal logic" asenine, and the whole event a DeM. The accomplishment remains unexplained and the help unexpected (unless you consider a plot twist something people *should* expect, in which case you are begging more contradiction).

Your argument that the character is his own worst enemy does not preclude it from being a DeM either. It is not uncommon for a DeM to save a character from themselves. In fact it is a most popular DeM for teaching moral values. The important marker is to watch how the ability to save is developed in the story. No differences in approach or capacity is established, just a poorly written attempt to call one person inept and another as all powerful through fictional analog.

Feel free to write more of the story as you see fit, as the author you have the license to do so. It is interesting to read what you post-hoc intended in a work that shows little to no research or forthought whatsoever.

I note the definition you finally find to support your argument comes from an online dictionary that commits a whole sentence to the concept of Deus Ex Machina.

Your attempt to cast this as subtrifuge is noted. The last (in order) of the definitions was the most succinct, and noted as such. But the others said much of the same thing, even in their much larger forms. The link was provided to establish the very depth that you seem to insinuate I wished people not to see. And as such, you simply continue to kick and scream at just about every turn in your tantrum.

you could say any other fundamental assumed relationship in the story is a tautology

You are still lacking in some basic knowledge of logic. This was pointed out previously, you confuse premise with process of proof with conclusion. All of these fundamental assumed relationships are "premises". Specifically, you draw the parents capacity to clean a room as the moral and conclusion of the story elswhere in comments of the thread, "the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it." And you reverberate that in the analog of the parents, "UN Peacekeeping experience > US peacekeeping experience ... The analogy points to what would happen in the future if the UN were to step in and aid America in securing Iraq."

When you make your premise to also be your conclusion, that is a tautology. Otherwise it is just a premise. This was explained previously, and on top of that should be understood already.

You complained previously that it must be that I can never admit that I'm wrong that motivates me to point out your errors. Well, looking at the compendium of your verses complaining that you should not be questioned indicates that you are most probably projecting in that assessment. You are in error and seem to be avoiding it, throwing a tantrum about it, and margionalizing it all at the same time.

The logical point in question is whether parents would clean a mess in a room.

Back peddling into ambiguity again. Parents help clean rooms, but do the narrator's parents help clean his room? Yes, but their effortless act of salvation makes it a DeM.

But here is where you continue to be confused inspite this point being re-iterated constantly in this thread, while that is a criticism all on its use is as a label for the event. An event which you presume to be analogous to reality, and by extention that reality you presume to be unquestionable. Why the mear contention that you may be wrong is met with invectives calling me 'prejudiced' and the like. All the markings of a kicking and screaming tantrum.

As mentioned previously, one of us presents their view of the reality of UN capacity with real life events. The other draws on a fictional representation which they feel should not be questioned, at threat of throwing a tantrum.

Your "real life evidence" was unsupported statements

Hmmm, you really haven't heard of these events. Perhaps I should expect the problem to be your ignorance rather than your honesty. Allow me to help then...

Now that the support has been provided, and we clearly see who is arguing from fiction and who is arguing from reality, we will move on. Mostly because the question of if these events really happened or not seems less important to you than deflecting it, as I read into the following...

I considered them at the time, and still do, firstly a smokescreen to move the debate away from your inability to back up you DeM nonsense.

Actually I find your egregious tantrum over the labeling the event as a DeM to be the smokescreen. After all it matters little if it was a DeM or not, to me and probably to you. But it does matter, and it is a DeM, but that is still secondary to the breakdown of that event and reality. That you put it primary, though it is the most trivial of the arguments, is what makes me think you use it as a smokescreen.

And beyond that, you are untiringly trying to re-cast your previous arguments on the analogy. I admit I skimmed over those parts as I rarely find such post-hoc work to be very interesting. But one thing lept out at me, you seem to still have trouble deciding if you mean the analogy or not. And yes, that comes across as confusion which is confusing. But as you do so you keep dancing around the real impact it has on your piece. Is it a smokescreen or reality? You don't seem to be able to decide as an author, and mostly because you seem to gravitate to the most efficious argument to make at the time.

Either way, I have early on stated that your analogy breaks down long before the question of whether or not it is a DeM poses any real relevance to your story. It is a DeM but that is the most moot of the points. And as you have established the analog with its conclusions as your intent, I needn't have to argue from my own comprehension (except to note that it was dead on).

I do not have multiple accounts, nor do I need them.

Well one of those statements is true. You really don't need them. But either way, whether by multiple accounts or poorly enforced group think, that these other people can't seem to grasp your argument enough to explain it, let alone support it is what I pound on with the same clue-bat. I really don't care if it is either by multiple accounts, colusion, or unspoken groupthink censorship committee.

Then it is only after one establishes the problem with their sycophant support that your claim of not having multiple accounts (looking at the light use of this account) falls on incredulous ears.

[ Parent ]

Egregiously kippled to the brim (none / 0) (#99)
by A Bore on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 05:52:01 AM EST

Deus:

As your previous post added no justification or further argument to the question of whether the parents intervention qualified as a Deus Ex Machina, I will consider the matter closed. In summary, the parents actions were 1) Not unexpected 2) Not beyond the capability of the protagonist. I have not found it necessary to "write more of the story as [I] see fit"; I have quoted directly from source, with emphasis for the obtuse. You were, and continue to be, wrong, OnLawn

Tautology:

After confusing deus with something else, you now confuse the "premise of the story" as something else. My quoted example "gravity" is not a premise of the story, as you have said it was. Your attack here is based, yet again, on your misunderstanding of the purpose of the story. In keeping with your intellectual level, you call the "conclusion" the yah-boo-sucks "parent/UN can clean up what protagonist/US can't". I shouldn't be surprised at your lack of critical ability, it has been highlighted throughout your posting history in this thread. In effect you define the conclusion, then you call the premise I defined as identical to it! The problem is you!

Wider UN debate:

Alas, now you confuse providing links with arguments. Let me summarise:

  • Link 1: Link doesn't work, gives no body text
  • Link 2: Link doesn't work, takes me to a registration page
  • Link 3: Takes me to a BBC story about food for sex scandal involving numerous groups, including the UN Human Commission for Refugees. I bothered to read it and it stated repeatedly that local people were behind the scandal, indeed lack of supervision by international personnel was stated to be part of the problem! Leaving aside the fact that the story isn't critical of UN personnel at all, I am left at a loss how this URL supports your argument that the UN would be unable to secure a post US Iraq. Could you outline this please?
  • Link 4: Another link that doesn't support the contention you claimed it did. This is a timeline of Milosevic's activities and trial at the international criminal court. I am left at a loss how this URL supports your argument that the UN would be unable to secure a post US Iraq.

At first I thought you merely didn't get it. Now I can only conclude it is beyond your mental capability to get it. If you weren't so obnoxious and self deceiving, I could almost feel sorry for you. Finally, OnLawn if you are really worried that I have multiple accounts, please contact an admin at once, you have my blessing. I will do similar. Also, here. I think you need them.



[ Parent ]
**Sigh** (none / 0) (#100)
by On Lawn on Fri Nov 19, 2004 at 01:48:28 PM EST

I will consider the matter closed.

I will take this as I took your other attempts to close discussion by simply re-iterating without argument your beliefs. Your turning a blind eye, then back-peddling, then rewriting neither compels me to re-iterate it or be impressed at your punch-drunk stupor. The matter is obviously not closed in your mind as you continue to press an already discredited point. But in a way it is closed as you have decided to not add anything new, nor acknowledge the counter arguments enough to debate them.

My quoted example "gravity" is not a premise of the story, as you have said it was.

You perhaps are right, though it is difficult to say as your points are getting more incoherent as the discussion goes on. You could argue that gravity has no bearing on the logic of the story in that with or without gravity the same conclusion is drawn. Of course the fact that the parents can clean a room is something you have stated as internal to the logic of the story, therefore it is either premise, proof or conclusion. As it is not part of the proof (it is not argued or shown how they can accomplish it) their ability is presumed and is therefore a premise. And as shown through your own commentary as the author it is part of the conclusion you wish people to draw.

In effect you define the conclusion

You didn't conclude that the UN can clean up Iraq? In fact you seem to wish people to think that through their superior rationality they are able to clean the room where the main character foils himself. So you are right that is news to me, and inconsistent to your expressions to the contrary in this thread (previously pointed out ad naseum). But if that is the case then we are in agreement that it is not a conclusion that is based in reality and you can work as you will. But me thinks that you are not about to argue against your own work and that is not what you meant. It was only another incoherent blurb of your punch-drunk stupor.

In fact, you are way to punch-drunk to continue this conversation. I would end it here but you did impugn the links so I will touch on that before making a final plea for your sanity. In fact helping you be able to see the stories you seem to have so much trouble seeing and understanding was the only real reason I chose to respond.

  • Try again, it is the first one that comes up in that search but there are numerous others to choose from. Your inability to navigate the web seems to be another symptom of your punch-drunkenness.
  • A registration page is too intimidating to you? Or just when you are as punch-drunk as you are. Choose any of the following.
  • Again take your pick. These scandals involve Kofi turning a blind eye to the problem while it is a wide spread problem. But let me just chuckle a bit at more punch-drunk stupor you are trying to pass off as commentary. Along with the inebriated self-proclamations and invectives you about describe the situation, even down to the UN inability to do anything about it but let it continue and then say you don't see it.
  • As the year draws to a close it is announced that despite his being on trail, Miloševic intends to run as the principal candidate for the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) in elections to be held in Serbia on 28 December. While convicted prisoners are banned from contesting elections in Serbia, suspects or those who have served their jail terms can stand for parliament. However, The Hague tribunal stops Miloševic from campaigning for the election from his prison cell.

    As it eventuates, the SPS wins 22 seats in an election that sees a general swing to nationalist candidates and the removal of the pro-Western Democratic Party from government. However the SPS decides not to protest Miloševic's trial by allocating him a seat, pledging instead to make room for him "as soon as he returns from The Hague".

    It was there, you were probably just to punch-drunk to see it.

In the end, you should take your own advice and when the matter is closed, actually close the matter. Watching you wander aimlessly from different deus ex machina contradictions and discounting your own posts in order to re-define your story around the counter-point du jour is about as fun as watching a boxer get beat near a inch of their life on the ropes. Its time for you to throw in the towel (as you have threatened to do constantly in this thread) and cut your losses.

Though I suspect that is the main point of reality you are avoiding so will push you onward, hoping like Rocky Balboa to look like simply surviving is a victory. You should really take stock before you ask for more.

[ Parent ]

The End (none / 0) (#101)
by A Bore on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 05:27:27 PM EST

Dear reader, is it coincidence that a certain popular word-of-the-day email from an online dictionary had both "egregious" and "punchdrunk" as recent entries? Word power, OnWrong. Word Power.

Let us review, one final time. I count 4 WRONGS from OnWrong in this thread alone, although I noticed you have likewise been made a fool of in another recent thread. It seems showing OnWrong up for the obvious fool he is has become "chick of late".

Wrong 1:
OnWrong charges that the parents are an obvious deus ex machina How so? Because the UN could not clean up the Iraq situation better than the US. But that is a "problem" in the analogy, is it not? Oh..err. well then, it is because the parents could clean the room where the protagonist couldn't, thus making it an impossible task, thus making the parents salvation a deus ex machina. But the protagonist could clean the room had he not been so frustrated, so the task was not impossible, therefore it was not DeM. No..err..uh..um...LOL! Yuo are teh punchdrunk!!
OnWrong 0 Reality 1

Wrong 2:
OnWrong claims that the story contains a tautology, revealed by my insistence that the parents could clean a room, that being the nature of parents. I explain a fundamental property of a story, such as gravity, can not be explained in terms other than generic ones. OnWrong calls this a premise of the story. A premise is basically a "IF premise THEN... ", which obviously rules out gravity, and the parents. OnWrong prevaricates...errr.emm..LOLOL! U = Pnuchdrnuk!!!
OnWrong 0 Reality 2

Wrong 3:
OnWrong further backs up his "tautology" claim by saying that the conclusion of my story is that the UN could clean up the US's mess, and that I said this was so. His evidence? That I said the story "points to" what would happen should the UN help in Iraq. Note: points to, not "concludes". Furthermore, I pointed out a further chain of reasoning, showing the story goes on from that premise to suggest such behaviour would encourage the US to think it is right and plan further, similar acts. OnWrong ignores this point, claims that I concluded the story by saying Yah-boo-sucks UN penis > US penis LOL! Therefore premise = conclusion = tuatologieee. Err, but that isn't my conclusion, nor have I said it was. It was your strawman, not mine, OnWrong. Errrr....uuuuummm... OMG:WTF??? That = U= Pnuchdrnuk!!!LOL!!
OnWrong 0 Reality 3

Wrong 4:
OnWrong tries to argue the UN is no good at peacekeeping. To this end he gives me 4 urls to "prove" what he is talking about wif da real lif evidunce. 2 of the urls don't work. I tell him one of them doesn't render the body text properly...so he helpfully googles the article and links to the same article...with the same body text fault that is unreadable. OnWrong reasoning at its finest. Furthermore, none of the urls actually shed light on OnWrong's opinions on the UN's peacekeeping experience. Instead they point to local scandals or the International Criminal Courts trial against Slobodan. Nor does OnLawn fill in the gaps where one might reasonably expect him to say why these URLs, even taken at face value, have any bearing whatsoever on the question of UN peacekeeping experience. A student at school providing a similar essay to his teacher would fail. OnWrong fails again...and his response?? LOL@U: teh punchdrunkest!!!
OnWrong 0 Reality 4

Bonus Wrong:
Hey, yuo are the one with the multiple accounts what are supporting you in the comments? WTF?? Er..no OnWrong, why not just contact an admin, we will see then if I have multiple accounts. <silence> Err...no...I can't do that because....err....PNUCHDRNUK=YOU, OK?

In short, I have barely scratched the surface of OnWrongs inability to deal with the reality around him. As a true Bsuh voter, he has maintained all along his own rectitude, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of his own crass stupidity. Congrats, OnWrong. You FAIL at ALL.

My new sig: Enjoy


[ Parent ]
No Bore (none / 0) (#102)
by On Lawn on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 06:48:19 PM EST

I noticed you have likewise been made a fool of in another recent thread.

Are you trying to imply that IHBT by yourself? That, like Gdanjo you didn't mean what you were saying? That you have some alterior narcisistic reason that explains your actions rather than trying to disagree with me?

I don't think you read that thread before linking to it :)

As you said previously:

I don't feel I have to stand up for my story, I think it should impress people of its own merits (or lack thereof). I also dislike stating what my intentions were when writing it; you drew me out into territory I would prefer not to define. It might sound pretentious, but analogies are only powerful where they are undefined, in that, undefined, they force you to examine a situation where before you might simply have accepted it.
That is rich. That was just one of your attempts to dodge criticism of your story by re-inventing what you were saying, and stomping your feet in a tantrum saying in essense that you should not be questioned.

But now, in your punch-drunken stupor, you've tried to tie yourself to another simular situation. A simular situation indeed, where someone at first tried to make a point and was so humiliated (by votes as well as argument) that they tried to runaway and save face in a most comitragical way.

Is your hope that if you can find enough of these poor unfortunate souls that you can somehow form a club? Maybe a lynch mob?

I'm sorry if you've only recently come upon the phrase 'punch-drunk' (and 'egregious') through an email. I can hardly read your posts without imagioning the inubreatied stupor and comical voice influxions, or seeing how you have to wrest reality to fit your ideals in such dishonest methods.

Yes I am chuckling as I write this.

But that isn't even as funny as your reliance on re-iteration and repitition to support your discredited points. So for a review of your wrongs...

  1. The deus ex machina and UN's capacity to fill that roll analogously in society are two seperate issues, unrelated in logic. It is disingenuous of you to cut and paste them as following to a conclusion. In fact, by the end of trying to make your point you get so punch drunk that you don't even seem capable of speaking straight, let alone recast an argument correctly.
  2. The premise:
    It is just a room, and the parents can clean it.
    The conclusion:
    The analogy points to what would happen in the future if the UN were to step in and aid America in securing Iraq.
    The UN being the parents, and the USA beign the main character. Your use of the same point as a premise, then expecting it to be your conclusion also is a tautology.

    To put it as an if-then statement: If the parents/UN can clean up the room/Iraq, the story shows that the parents/UN would clean up the room/Iraq.

    Or as you said yourself (in a more full quote of the "if" statement):

    Anyway, the point was, the ending is perfectly consistent with the internal logic of the story. It is just a room, and the parents can clean it.
  3. Ibid.
  4. You are having far too much trouble accomplishing very simple tasks. Your ability to refuse to see points in front of you has already been noted.
Well, if you are done then that is that. Your problematic work, your arrogant attitude (which I must say more mirrors the attitude of the protagonist in your story than anything else I've observed here), your predictable wandering into incoherent babbling stands as sufficient discrediting of yourself and your points.

Your tantrum has long since turned into a punchdrunk rage, and as you are in no position to determine whether or not you should proceed re-iterating over and over your discredited points. You need a coach, trainer, someone to throw in the towel for you as you are incapable of making that call on your own.

[ Parent ]

Prologue (none / 0) (#103)
by A Bore on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 03:45:02 AM EST

The word-of-the-day instapundit returns with more hilarious misspellings, logical fallacies and ridiculous accusations.

Are you trying to imply that IHBT by yourself?

No.

That, like Gdanjo you didn't mean what you were saying?

Uh, no. I can't speak for Gdanjo, but I think actually he might have meant what he was saying.

That you have some alterior narcisistic reason that explains your actions rather than trying to disagree with me?

Uh, no.

I don't think you read that thread before linking to it

Uh, yes. Yes, I did. I think you should re-read it again, this time with a dictionary and/or one of your parents to help you understand.

I'm sorry if you've only recently come upon the phrase 'punch-drunk' (and 'egregious') through an email. I can hardly read your posts without imagioning the inubreatied stupor and comical voice influxions, or seeing how you have to wrest reality to fit your ideals in such dishonest methods.

Here's a useful online spellchecker. You would be more plausible using these words if you could actually spell them, and place them in an appropriate grammatical context. As it is, you appear like someone trying to give his posts a veneer of legitimacy or intellectual rigor without the ability to pull it off. As for the e-mail word of the day, I had a hunch, and the recent lists are available on the web. Is this a confession? Do you use WORD POWER, OnWrong?

The conclusion:

The analogy points to what would happen in the future if the UN were to step in and aid America in securing Iraq.


Let's continue that quote, to see if that phrase you are using is the conclusion of the whole story, or if I have called it such. Hmmmm..

"US takes too many casualties "the deep cut", US complains to UN, UN helps out, US refuses to change its ways, free to contemplate even more senseless acts "smashing up the bathroom" with even more disproportionate force "the sledge". "

Wow, it appears as though I wrote more that you decided to remove from your quoted excerpt! It's almost as if this last sentence describes the point of the analogy, the conclusion at which you may (or in your case) may not arrive! It appears you may be selectively quoted to give evidence to your charge that my premise was also my conclusion! So, how is the premise the conclusion again, OnWrong??

My "arrogant attitude" stems from your complete lack of ability, OnWrong. My re-iteration is necessary as, as we have seen above, you bring up discredited arguments again and again in your increasingly pathetic attempt to win an argument you could never have won to begin with, given that your criticism was not justified in the slightest. I can only conclude You Are A Moron. Goodbye, Moron.



[ Parent ]
Back for more Mr Palooka? (none / 0) (#105)
by On Lawn on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 01:33:18 PM EST

I can't speak for Gdanjo, but I think actually he might have meant what he was saying.

Then he can speak for himself...

OMG! YHBT! IHBS! [from the title of a post in my diary about that thread]

Granted, it wasn't a funny joke, but for you to refuse to acknowledge this attempt at humor is one thing; for you to throw this back in my face, as if it were a serious statement, is borderline dishonest... I confused your humor/irony glands by writing the whole fucking post as a pseudo-joke to attack you, and the conclusions you made about the situation. [from his last post in that thread]

Yes, I did [read Gdanjo's thread]. I think you should re-read it again

I just threw that comment in there to remind you that you said you read the thread.

I wrote more that you decided to remove from your quoted excerpt!

News flash: an excerpt is only part of what someone wrote!

Or did that word not show up yet in your learn-a-word-a-day email.

US refuses to change its ways, free to contemplate even more senseless acts "smashing up the bathroom" with even more disproportionate force "the sledge".

What relevance your commentary on the US has in a discussion on the UN in your analogy is tenuous at best. But any straw you can grasp, eh?

So, how is the premise the conclusion again?

Your inability to understand logic, and poor reading comprehension skills are no reason for me to repeat myself. You can simply re-read the thread. Its been pointed out, and you still don't get it? Your persistance in ignorance only makes your wresting of reality more visible. Thats a helpful tip for the future when you (finally) decide to move on.

you bring up discredited arguments again and again

Are you running so low on invectives that you have to grep my post for anything that you can possibly use? Zero points for originality, zero points for useful context.

As a whole though I can't help but notice that you've abandoned a number of bad arguments. That would normally be good, but that you've abandoned them for more swaggering invectives, and that is telling in a way that even you in your willful ignorance should be able to see. Its simply chasing horrible arguments after bad ones.

[ Parent ]

YHBT, yet you win (2.33 / 3) (#62)
by QuickFox on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:43:32 PM EST

A Bore, you can safely ignore On Lawn. He's just trolling you. But he's making such an amazing mess of it that he only makes himself look more foolishly ignorant with every comment that he posts. Even though he got you to bite several times, everyone is laughing at him, not at you.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
[ Parent ]
Oh the inanity... (none / 0) (#79)
by On Lawn on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 11:03:00 PM EST


On k5, for every 100 commentators ready to declare victory there is only one athlete.

He needs help presenting his case, not mocking people openly discussing it. That you choose the latter displays your lack of faith in persuing the former. Which, says more about you and his case than anything else.

[ Parent ]

I needed a reason (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by mcherm on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:53:41 AM EST

I couldn't decide whether to vote this story up or down. This comment is what led me to my decision.

-- Michael Chermside
[ Parent ]
Thanks for participating (2.00 / 2) (#71)
by A Bore on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:26:07 PM EST

Undecided as to the stories merit, you voted on personality. Do you vote for the politician with the whitest teeth?

[ Parent ]
Well, it -is- in the end about a kid's room. (none / 1) (#22)
by cburke on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 09:56:57 PM EST

Would that our real life problems were a thorough vacuuming away from being solved.

[ Parent ]
This is a story about Iraq? (2.00 / 8) (#12)
by Fon2d2 on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 04:54:06 PM EST

I didn't catch on to that until perusing the comments at the bottom. The story was good from a WTF standpoint, but I think cramming it into some political idealogy detracts from it. I liked it better from my original (ignorant) perspective.

Come ON (2.80 / 5) (#14)
by rpresser on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:17:58 PM EST

Even if I hadn't noticed the "Topic: Politics" in the "Moderate Submissions" list, it is so obviously an anti-American Iraq diatribe that I caught on by paragraph three.

Either you are extremely oblivious or you just live in a very different environment than I.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]

ooh, paragraph THREE, impressive (1.50 / 4) (#36)
by boxed on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:26:30 AM EST

we normal mortals who aren't living under the regime of the DemoRepublican Party and the Ministry of Fox caught on at the first sentence. But well, we all know how the americans are digging their head into the sand as fast as they can to avoid seeing the truth.

[ Parent ]
+1S Fiction (1.40 / 5) (#15)
by rpresser on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 05:19:40 PM EST

All fiction should be encouraged.  Well, maybe not ALL fiction, but my threshhold is apparently lower than most peoples'.
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
If your parents were the UN (2.30 / 10) (#23)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:04:37 PM EST

Your father would be taking money from the sledge hammer salesman to look the other way, while your mother stood in the living room and threw tantrums about how oppressed she was.


Now where did I leave that clue? I know I had one just a minute ago! - PDC
Really, If your parents were the UN... (3.00 / 5) (#25)
by herbietmac on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:34:27 PM EST

They'd send you a stern letter, telling you just how displeased they were.

_____
Don't forget to enjoy the *sauce*!
[ Parent ]

unlikely (3.00 / 7) (#30)
by Delirium on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:15:07 AM EST

They would be unable to agree on the proper wording for the letter.

[ Parent ]
Hmmm, no (2.00 / 2) (#39)
by A Bore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:34:39 AM EST

If your parents were the UN, they would decide on things in full consultation with you. But at every meeting you would disrupt any decision they were trying to make, ignore it, and act in your own interest. Then you would turn around and accuse your parents of ineptitude, as they were unable to deal with you refusing to deal with them under their terms. The point of the UN is that it is a co-operative body. If it is weak - it is so because your actions have made it so. By sidelining it you have caused the very situation you decry.

[ Parent ]
Wrong (2.50 / 6) (#44)
by LO313 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:50:41 AM EST

If my parents were the UN they would be consutling numerous rapists, murders and pedophiles on how best to raise me and what descisions to make giving them an equal say.

[ Parent ]
Question (1.20 / 5) (#49)
by A Bore on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 11:37:38 AM EST

Is George a murderer?

[ Parent ]
Huh? (none / 1) (#70)
by A Bore on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 04:20:42 PM EST

Why is this voted down instead of answered? Come now, is George Bush a murderer?

[ Parent ]
Come now, You know... (none / 0) (#83)
by lightcap on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:49:51 AM EST

Dissent, when cast in terms of morality, and using words of burden, such as murder, is socially disallowed.  Especially in places where so much intellectual masturbation occurs like k5 of late.

Now, when used to defend a position of power-- please take careful note --usage of morality laden wording is encouraged.

This is The Way Things Work.  Where have you been?



Mommy, what were trees like?
[ Parent ]
Possible explanation (none / 0) (#87)
by QuickFox on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 09:31:00 PM EST

Why is this voted down instead of answered?

I can't really say since I didn't vote, but I'd guess it's because people can't make head or tail of your comment. LO313 complains that the UN does not consist only of democratic countries. You answer by asking if Bush is a murderer. What's your point? I don't get it. Many people vote down when a comment doesn't seem to make much sense. You need to explain what you mean.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
[ Parent ]

No, LO313 (none / 0) (#96)
by A Bore on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 04:50:36 AM EST

Complains the UN is composed of, or consults with "rapists, murders and pedophiles". Well, if the heads of states of undemocratic countries are murderers, can George Bush be said to be any different?

[ Parent ]
Wrong again (3.00 / 5) (#67)
by Filip on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 09:36:59 AM EST

Your parents are not the UN. The UN is when the family gets together afterwords to have a chat.

A funny thing is that the kid in the story has all the guns, in that meeting.

What you US'ians never realize is that the UN is very much dominated by you your own selves. If you're so displeased with it, you might actually have to engage a bit, instead of whining. Haven't you noticed that the UN is situated right there in your lap? Why do you think others have a problem trusting the UN? Do you have any idea who founded the UN?

As long as you're alienating yourself like, the UN would be better off moving its HQ somewhere else, and leave its heritage behind.

Disclaimer: Just because I'm not an american, it does not mean I hate the US.
-- I'm just a figment of your imagination.
[ Parent ]

do you spit on the floor (1.00 / 14) (#24)
by Liberal Conservative on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:26:03 PM EST

when you want to look tough?

say you're passing a group of males and you want to look tough

who here spits on the floor just to look tough?

like to mark your ground

i'm sure it's very common

miserable failure

signed,
   liberal conservative

I think its disgusting. n/t (none / 0) (#82)
by VoiceOfGod on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:10:03 AM EST

Watching the world series was pretty gross
cat /dev/america | grep "common sense"
[ Parent ]
+1 and well deserved (1.62 / 8) (#26)
by Peahippo on Thu Nov 11, 2004 at 10:49:03 PM EST

When I got to this point:

My father was not convinced. He sadly could not grasp the complexities of the situation.

... I was laughing quite a bit. Good work.


+2 Tells the truth. (1.10 / 10) (#31)
by Gerhard on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:35:20 AM EST

+1 fiction. Some of the fiction submitted to K5 is crap, but this readable.
+1 Politics. This is a apt parable of the current US situation in Iraq. And easy enough for Americans to understand and get upset about.
Now if only there was a +2 FP button to get this story out of the negative territory. The inability to accept criticism is a flaw. For some GI it has become a lethal flaw.

Why didn't he just use a vacuum cleaner? (1.00 / 3) (#32)
by Russell Dovey on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:51:18 AM EST

He could have borrowed it from the UN, or something.

(In other words, nice analogy, but not tight enough for a story. Diarise this when it's voted down, please.)

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

you can't vacuum glas (2.33 / 3) (#35)
by boxed on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 05:23:28 AM EST

what, have you never used a vacuum cleaner or something?

[ Parent ]
Use one without a bag <nt> (none / 0) (#38)
by GenerationY on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 06:13:00 AM EST



[ Parent ]
will take damage anyhow [nt] (none / 0) (#42)
by boxed on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:20:48 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Of course you can. I do it all the time. (none / 0) (#104)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Nov 23, 2004 at 06:39:15 AM EST

You just have to make sure the bag's half-full already, so there's a nice thick layer of dust-felt to slow the otherwise deadly glass shards.

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

but... (2.83 / 6) (#40)
by onealone on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 07:21:58 AM EST

surely the kid should be smashing up his little brothers room, or maybe some other room like the attic, rather than his own room.

Yes. (none / 1) (#56)
by bakuretsu on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:52:01 PM EST

That is a very good point. A very good point indeed.

It makes more sense that the parents be the UN (or world leaders), and the house be like the world, or at least the world community of first- and second-world countries.

Perhaps he should smash up the basement, or another "third-world" area.

-- Airborne
    aka Bakuretsu
    The Bailiwick -- DESIGNHUB 2004
[ Parent ]

Clever but.. (2.57 / 7) (#45)
by siberian on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:21:27 AM EST

You room is a horrible analogy for geopolitical situations 60 years in the making. Oh wait, this is Kuro5hin, we like to micro-analyze complex events so that we can feel smarter then everyone else. Bully for you FP!

Gerhard's Guide to Rating (2.00 / 10) (#46)
by mikpos on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 10:34:54 AM EST

0 = insults this story
1 = constructively criticizes this story
2 = praises this story
3 = no comments may get a 3! Only Gerhard gets 3s!

What I find most interesting.. (2.42 / 7) (#52)
by Kwil on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 12:07:55 PM EST

..is how many folks easily spot the US's role as the main character in the story.  They quite easily identify the US as being the lunatic main character, even those who criticize the story thereafter. You'd think that'd send some warning signals about what their government is doing.

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze


I can't explain it ... (1.50 / 2) (#54)
by On Lawn on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 01:00:33 PM EST

... but apparently it has something to do with how much one doesn't watch Fox News.

[ Parent ]
I didn't even have to read it (2.33 / 3) (#60)
by Wateshay on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 03:15:11 PM EST

I caught on to what the story was going to be about when I saw it filed under "politics." Contrary to popular belief, though, not all of us "non Bush haters" are drooling morons. Nor do we all watch Fox News (all of the TV news channels suck---I read a variety of online news sources from both the right and left, and consider myself more well informed than a huge majority of people). However, not being drooling morons, some of us are informed enough to understand why the left feels the way they do about the Iraq war (we just don't agree with it) and therefore capable of spotting a (very thinly veiled) analogy in a story, even though we don't agree with the point that story is making.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."


[ Parent ]
Sure (1.14 / 7) (#63)
by QuickFox on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:45:33 PM EST

not all of us "non Bush haters" are drooling morons.

Yeah, right.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
[ Parent ]

Oooh... (2.50 / 4) (#77)
by Wateshay on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 07:40:44 PM EST

Yeah, right

Well, I stand corrected. I can't see how I can argue with such a powerful rebuttal.


"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."


[ Parent ]
Vote by state and IQ (none / 1) (#85)
by vetgirig on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 04:44:41 PM EST

This information says it is so: Vote by state and IQ

[ Parent ]
A known hoax, recycled from four years ago... (none / 1) (#91)
by On Lawn on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 01:44:24 PM EST

Details

[ Parent ]
Haiku (2.00 / 6) (#58)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 02:10:38 PM EST

Right, left, whatever
Please shut the fuck up, enough
It has all been said

Apparently not (2.50 / 4) (#64)
by QuickFox on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 08:59:35 PM EST

They're still shooting and dying.

Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fi
[ Parent ]
Haiku (1.50 / 4) (#66)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Nov 12, 2004 at 09:40:51 PM EST

Life, Death, War, Plauge, Guns
Man fights, loves, dies. But in the
end, fleeting moments

Never compare men fighting and dying on the field of war to the windbags bleating at home. None of them, democrats, republicans, whatever give a shit about them.

[ Parent ]

but haiku (2.00 / 2) (#75)
by etherdeath on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 05:46:46 PM EST

makes it so fucking original

[ Parent ]
What to say: (none / 0) (#68)
by bjlhct on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 02:57:16 PM EST

The parents keep telling the kid WTF and STFU. To save them time, I suggest they adopt the use of WTFU instead.


*
[kur0(or)5hin http://www.kuro5hin.org/intelligence] - drowning your sorrows in intellectualism
Awesome! (none / 0) (#69)
by chizzadwick on Sat Nov 13, 2004 at 03:55:14 PM EST

I thought this was a story about the environment.

Sure this is Iraq? (2.33 / 3) (#84)
by lightcap on Sun Nov 14, 2004 at 10:54:08 AM EST

Also seems quite apt as a parable representing the current administrations attitude and actions toward the global environment. It is, after all, a big, dangerous, ugly green chair. Plus, the destruction is so fitting.
Mommy, what were trees like?
Specks take your partisan comment rigging and... (none / 1) (#94)
by lightcap on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:49:18 PM EST

Nice comment rating history you've got going. Let's sum it up. Your conservative, small-minded worldview +2, everyone else's worldview -2. Thanks for the contribution.
Mommy, what were trees like?
[ Parent ]
Er, that would be comment history... (none / 0) (#95)
by lightcap on Mon Nov 15, 2004 at 04:51:06 PM EST

not comment rating history. =P
Mommy, what were trees like?
[ Parent ]
eyes burn (none / 0) (#106)
by Hentai chibi on Wed Dec 01, 2004 at 03:33:35 AM EST

good story, nice tactic to use IRL but not possible, nobody will ever listen about the enviroment whatever format its in, just wait til all the hydroxil is drained from the atmosphere and we are all truly bathing in our and breathing in our mess, nothing will be clean, nothing will get clean, we would have to use CFC's just to create a hole to get rid of the toxins before we all choked on our own filth
I Live In The Weak And The Wounded...
Bathroom (none / 0) (#107)
by dogeye on Fri Sep 23, 2005 at 05:44:39 AM EST

Forget about the bathroom, go for the gazebo.

My room | 107 comments (78 topical, 29 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!