Recent Posts

I think its a ridiculous term to use for a movie. there is nothing called art or Commercial movie. There is only good or bad movie.

WOW! this is truly stupid! i got 33%! everything that i put as fake art was true art! i mean, anyone can draw that stupid picture wih a huge black circle, and u call that true art! wow. true art is not that crap that they showed a second ago.i can draw myown squigly lines...

Great and so cool.

So I hope you won't mind if I ignore the Citations section of your "Opium for Scholars" page. After all, what's the point of taking seriously and looking up links to three random articles, and to other articles cited by those first three? What are the chances that such links would take me to something that's actually relevant? 

You can check the references and see for yourself that they are relevant (can you offer a way to see that there really are great generals?). Moreover, if someone will copy them from my article after reading it he still can cite them in a relevant way, since my article explains what was reported in those references. The model of random-citing scientists is a simplification of reality. But this is how all scientific models are built.

[liberal]

Yes

Then it is very strange that in your previous post you wrote "Am I in any of the groups she targets?" Liberals are the group she ridicules most prominiently.

but I'm a different kind of liberal from the kind apparently found in the cesspool of Ann's mind

Yes, but only in your mind.

Can you remember when people chose science over prejudice, and love and kindness over mean spiritedness?

When did they do it? In 1789?



So much of love and kindness.

When it was fashionable to express appreciation for a system which brought us health, prosperity and freedom? When respecting the beliefs of others, even when they differed from  our own, was the mark of an educated, decent person?

So that such decent people like Saatchi  can by titles. And afterward these noble lords make strippers into artists (or art into brothel).

By the way, do you know, that Ceau?escu was also knighted? And banished just hours before their execution by a gang of liberals. So much of decency.

".. when we thought the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate was by means of reason, common sense, clear-thinking, and good-will.

We called this being scientific. We called this being rational. We called this being enlightened. We called this being liberal.

We called this being modern."

And when a scientist, who made one of the greatest discoveries of the XX century, challenges your catechism you snub him impudently "elementary, my dear Watson". After what the scientist loses his job.

If you can find even the slightest overlap between the liberalism Ann Coulter attacks and the liberalism which I espouse, then I will agree that she is attacking me.

Why then you are offended? People do not get offended, when hear lies about them. Only when they hear the truth.

[liberal]

Aren't you a liberal? 

Yes, but I'm a different kind of liberal from the kind apparently found in the cesspool of Ann's mind, the kind that she makes a living out of attacking. Their liberalism is, according to Ann, a "mental disorder" which rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, while bearing all the attributes of a religion itself. In this Church of Liberalism lies, injustice, cruelty and hypocrisy are seen as virtues. In other words, it is so similar to Ann's own way of thinking that I am unable to comprehend why she does not embrace it wholeheartedly.

Try to think back to a time B.C. (Before Coulter). Can you remember when people chose science over prejudice, and love and kindness over mean spiritedness? When it was fashionable to express appreciation for a system which brought us health, prosperity and freedom? When respecting the beliefs of others, even when they differed from  our own, was the mark of an educated, decent person?

".. when we thought the best way to overcome misunderstanding, prejudice, and hate was by means of reason, common sense, clear-thinking, and good-will.

We called this being scientific. We called this being rational. We called this being enlightened. We called this being liberal.

We called this being modern."

(I'm quoting from Edward R. Friedlander's "Why I am Not a Postmodernist" at http://pathguy.com/postmod.htm because he puts it better than I can. I think you would do well to read it in its entirety).

This is the liberalism which I espouse. It is the pinnacle of Western civilisation, end encompasses everything that is or has been worthwhile about that civilisation. It takes the light of the greatest minds of the past, and carries it forwards (though the light is in severe danger of being extinguished now). It is the philosophy espoused by the editors and compilers of such great works as "Encyclopaedia Britannica" and the "60 Great Books of the Western World" (which may be why you don't hear so much about those projects nowadays). It is something I would hope to be considered a part of, and if I am then that is a badge to be worn with pride.

If you can find even the slightest overlap between the liberalism Ann Coulter attacks and the liberalism which I espouse, then I will agree that she is attacking me.

Your "joke" said nothing about Bush's assertions, or bin Laden's enzymes. You're really stretching now, to defend a point which should be conceded.

But the phrase, quoted by me,  also says nothing about Plato's assertions.

The joke insults Colmes and his employers in equal measure. His employers, for pretending to be "fair and balanced" while employing only one token liberal and dumping on him mercilessly. Colmes, for being a wimp and putting up with such treatment. However, it is a gentle form of insult. I can imagine Colmes reading it and raising a smile, and thinking "true, so true".

So it insults even more people. More reason for you to laugh.

I'm not sure if Ann's "jokes" do insult me. Am I in any of the groups she targets? I'm not American, so I've never had the opportunity to vote Democrat. I didn't lose any loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist outrage. I'm not a single mother - I'm not even female. I'm not Canadian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or homosexual. I'm not the Earth.... No, Ann's "jokes" don't insult me. They do insult my intelligence, though.

Aren't you a liberal? 

"You wrote that Plato's assertion was located in his theory of forms. Similarly, Bush's assertions can be  in his thinking, or Bin Ladin's enzymes participate in his metabolism. "

Your "joke" said nothing about Bush's assertions, or bin Laden's enzymes. You're really stretching now, to defend a point which should be conceded. Anyway, for it to actually be a joke, there would have to be some conceivable reason why people would find it funny.

"The results of the test fully support the thesis that Franken's jokes are indistinguishable from my scribles."

Already explained. If previous takers of the test scored badly, that suggests to me that many of them had a poor opinion of Franken for one reason or another. They expected him to be unfunny, so they guessed that the unfunny answers were Franken's.

"Isn't it hubris that you make such statements, after you made mistakes in the quiz?"

No. Thinking that people can only make valid points if they are always 100% correct, and that all of your own points are necessarily valid (implying that you are always 100% correct), that is hubris. I've already explained how I made the mistakes, and won't repeat myself. It's all up above.

"I am also not an expert on Francken, but it is easy to understand that he does not windsurf. "

What does that have to do with whether an alleged joke about windsurfing is actually funny or not? What is it about the alleged joke which is supposed to make it funny?

"I know that. But it only made the test easier for you.  So your result is even more scandalous."

There was a dead giveaway in the test, making it all but certain that I would get that particular question right, and I *did* get that question right. How, precisely, does that make my result even more scandalous?

OK, I'll concede that my result was scandalous, but that is because there were actually five dead giveaways in the test, and not just one, so I should have got 10/10. I failed to spot the humor in #4 until after I had pressed submit, and for that I am at fault. Mea culpa. But there is humor in there, even though I initially failed to spot it. I still fail to see the humor in any of the Simkin "jokes".

"Franken also writes insults. The one you quoted insults Colmes and you are laughing. "

The joke insults Colmes and his employers in equal measure. His employers, for pretending to be "fair and balanced" while employing only one token liberal and dumping on him mercilessly. Colmes, for being a wimp and putting up with such treatment. However, it is a gentle form of insult. I can imagine Colmes reading it and raising a smile, and thinking "true, so true".

"Ann's jokes insult you. So you don't find them funny. But very many people do."

I'm not sure if Ann's "jokes" do insult me. Am I in any of the groups she targets? I'm not American, so I've never had the opportunity to vote Democrat. I didn't lose any loved ones in the 9/11 terrorist outrage. I'm not a single mother - I'm not even female. I'm not Canadian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or homosexual. I'm not the Earth.... No, Ann's "jokes" don't insult me. They do insult my intelligence, though.

wow, super pictures!


______________________
? ?? ?? ?? (?) ?? ?

So, your premise stands, maybe, but it's a close-run thing.

No. It stands firm. Here is the Random House  list of 100 best novels.

http://www.randomhouse.com/modernlibrary/100bestnovels.html

Joyce got 1st and 3rd places. Stephen King does not appear on the Board's list at all. This suggests a huge difference in status.