First off, you're wrong on your history. The more
appropriate lineage (albeit, not comprehensive) is; clay impessions,
cave drawings, wood carvings, stone carvings, stone tablets, papyrus,
rice paper, scrolls, manuscripts, loose-leafs, printing press, then
He's not wrong on his history. I don't see any assertions on his
part that the media he mentioned were the only forms of persistent
nonverbal communication ever used by humans. If he were writing a
thesis on methods of persistent nonverbal communication you would
get to complain about him leaving things out, but only of you were an
archaeologist or a historian. If he'd gone and added all the
information you seem to think he needs to to have to not be "wrong on
his history", it would have ruined the flow of his document and then
you would have been bitching at him for that.
And you get to have a non-comprehensive list when you're bitching
at him for not having a comprehensive list and calling him wrong for
Hair splitting? You betcha--and I might very well have
missed something too, but none of us are perfect.
So "no one's perfect" is an adequate defense for *you* not going
off and doing the 20 hours of research you say he should have done on
the history of persistent nonverbal communication, but not for *him*
not doing so? I'm confused.
Besides you're the one with the rant, so
What the hell are you talking about here? Do you believe there is
some law of nature or culture that obliges him to listen to you bitch
because he posted a rant? You can bitch, and he can listen or ignore
as he chooses, and if he feels obligated to listen or respond to you
(which I don't think he should have bothered doing), it's only because
of his own code of rules or ethics.
Why am I wasting my time replying to you when I say he shouldn't
have? Simple: the sort of arguments you are levelling against him and
the sort of viciousness you are displaying can't be adequately
debunked by the author of the article you are attacking, though I
don't blame him for wanting to try; you'll just sit there feeling smug
that you showed him and put him on the defensive, and any arguments he
makes will sound hollow and useless to your ears because you've
already concluded he's hopelessly wrong and there's no point in paying
attention to him. So a third party (me) has to come by and thwap you
for him. Such is the nature of social dynamics.
Second, printing presses were not initially controlled
by governments, it was the church. Only later did governments
follow. Of course, at the behest of the Church.
I'm guessing you must be referring to this line, since I can't see
any other that this complaint might reference: "To a lesser extent,
most governments employ methods of controlling the press." If you
look at that line in context, it becomes clear that he is using the
term "press" in its modern definition that is synonymous with "the
media" in that it refers to the industry of journalism as a whole. I
hope this was a misunderstanding on your part.
Third, how did we all of a sudden get from the 1436 to
the 20th century, the USSR and the iron curtain? How many hundreds of
years of history are you gonna leave out of there anyway? Something
in there musta happened, so its relevant, yet not included. Hmmmm,
This is a ridiculous claim. Someone who lives on my street went to
Church last Sunday. Probably more than one person, but I don't know
and don't care. It happened, so it's relevant?
Puh-lease. Lots of things happened in that time- I
believe the sextant was invented, for one, but the sextant isn't
relevant to our little flamefest.
I'm pretty much going to stop there. As an
introduction, you've lost my interest because its
inaccurate. Inaccurate data is a clear indication of inaccurate
understanding on the part of the author. So if the author doesn't know
what their talking about, why would anyone waste their
No, his data was not inaccurate. He selected certain historical
situations that he had some knowledge of and used them as *supporting
points* in his discussion. The nature of a supporting point is that
its accuracy or lack thereof does *not* invalidate the entire
discussion, it merely adds a little to or detracts a little from the
warm glowly feel of agreement you have when he's done with his main
point- which is that things are going to hell in a handbasket
now. (In your case, I guess it adds a little to or
detracts a little from the warm glowy feel of vicious scorn you have
when he's done making his point.)
It would go a long way in convincing us that you
actually have something of importance to discuss, if you gave us an
indication that you know what you're talking about.
Enh? That's what the rest of the rant was about!
Didn't you read it? You've nitpicked (inaccurately) and bitched about
all of his supporting points without apparently ever looking at the
arguments he made for his main point!
As it stands, its just rash decisions by a "young
person" that doesn't quite understand what the hell is going on. Mind
you, I understand what you're saying and what you're getting
Do you? From your arguments against the article, I wouldn't
believe so. From what you've said here, you have no understanding of
what his article was even about, so I don't think you get to tell him
he doesn't know what's going on.
but I haven't figured it out yet either (neither has
anyone else, apparently) because the world just ain't a simple place,
and it never will be-- nor would I want it to be.
So if the world is such a complicated place, maybe you should be a
little more charitable toward those of us with intellects too inferior
to understand it. No? Well, I thought I'd ask.
So don't get yourself in a tangle over things you don't
yet fully understand,
I don't believe I am hearing this. Just because I don't know the
answer to a percieved problem, I shouldn't get upset over it?! What
the hell?! If I'm not upset about it, how the hell
and I ever going to be motivated enough to figure out what to do to
fix it? Your attitude is extremely rude and condecesnding, suggesting
that solving problems should be left to those who are "older" and
"wiser". Who are these older and wiser people whose authority you ar
implying he usurps by being upset about a problem? I'd like to meet
them, and decide if I, young, iggerant, childish 21-year-old that I
am, like their proposed solutions to the problems I'm pissed about
right now. And if you're one of these magic elders, I'll go throw
myself off a cliff in dismay.
because its really very good for things to be a bit
broken. "A bit broken" are the dynamics that brought life to this
planet, so it isn't all bad.
It's "really very good for things to be a bit broken"? I do
believe you are setting yourself up as one of those magic elders!
Man, we're in trouble, guys. Where's the nearest cliff?
*You* may think it's good, but that doesn't mean I do- and your
definition of "a bit broken" and mine are obviously not the same. How
about describing for the audience what you mean by "a bit broken" so
that I may more usefully argu the point with you?
And now you are most *definately* the one who is speaking with
knowledge he doesn't have. I'm a biologist, and last I checked with
others of my persuasion, the jury was still out on what "dynamics"
"brought life to this planet". You are being
Having been young person (still am, relatively), I
understand where you're are coming from and can see your side of the
I would be comforted that one of the magic elders said so were I
more confident that it was true.
However, what I also see is that you've based your
opinions on conjecture and a somewhat lacking understanding of how
things came to be and therefore, of how things work
I don't feel like belaboring the accuracy point any further
Do I like the way things work, even still? No. But if
there is nothing else that I've learned in my life that is important,
I have learned this: If you see a problem, either get off your butt
and do something about it, or keep quite--simple as that. If you're
just complaining about it, you've now become part of the
But wait a minute- you just told us not to get upset about things
we didn't understand! And if we don't understand it, that means we
can't act, right? So the only choice you've left us is to sit down
and be quiet. Man, that sucks. But I guess there's nothing else I
can do. I can't attempt to write an article to attract the attention
of like-minded people so that we might figure out what to do, cuz that
would mean I was upset about something I didn't understand, and I
can't do that. Well, I guess I'll go sit quietly in my corner, as
long as you promise to make it all better for me. Okay? Will you do
Good luck to you.
I hope this was an empty social formality, because otherwise it's
really very patronizing ang rude, coming on top of the rest of the
attacks in your post.
Well, that's it for me, I'm off to find my cliff...
[ Parent ]