Philosophy Now Forum

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:You don't understand what is being said, Hobbles, it goes over your head. You have no argument, no grand idea you work with. You represent 'splintering' and fracturation. So does GIA. Were I to listen to your 'critique' (laughs) I would have descended to your level. That is a loss right there. It is not your fault, really, it is an outcome of our time.

Hobbles: The abstract and brief chronicle of his time: a hobbling intellect!

I've been following your posts more than my responses might indicate. Write a book and I'll buy it.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:They say even death can't cure an idiot.

I still reckon you should give it a try.

The Inglorious One wrote:Yeah, and I like your posts.

Go tell it on the mountain, brother, why am I not surprised?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:You don't understand what is being said, Hobbles, it goes over your head. You have no argument, no grand idea you work with. You represent 'splintering' and fracturation. So does GIA. Were I to listen to your 'critique' (laughs) I would have descended to your level. That is a loss right there. It is not your fault, really, it is an outcome of our time.

Hobbles: The abstract and brief chronicle of his time: a hobbling intellect!

Well it seems you have Inglorious to massage your huge ego. I'm sure you two will be happy together.

Ok, but Esteemed Obvious: demonstrate in clear prose why this is so? I have very clearly provided my reasons why I think some of your formulations are questionable.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Ok, but Esteemed Obvious: demonstrate in clear prose why this is so? I have very clearly provided my reasons why I think some of your formulations are questionable.

What formulations? I didn't even know I had any formulations, unless you're referring to my mum's recipe for shortbread biscuits which I'd never release to the whims of cyberspace on pain of death.

I am a prolific motormouth, Gustav, thus we are kindred spirits, but I do not read the tarot and my crystal ball is on the blink and therefore I can't read your polluted little mind. Why don't you help me out by telling me what the fuck you're talking about when you refer to my "questionable formulations?"

Exchanges of ideas are - best-case scenario - collaborations and sharings of perspectives - not dramatic, unproductive head-butting.

The word 'formulation' as in idea-formulation, conceptual formulation, is pretty common usage. Are you saying you have no ideas, no concepts? (Obviously that couldn't be the case).

I am a prolific motormouth, Gustav...

Would it not be more germane to say 'prolific arsehole'? Or how do you describe the deliberately offensive edge? Dyspepsia?

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote: Or how do you describe the deliberately offensive edge?

Not everybody finds me so, Gustav, so your answer might lie within. Disguising your insults within your florid rhetoric does not make them any the less deliberately offensive. Indeed it makes them more so because you impugn the intelligence of your readers by doing so. At least if I think somebody's a fucking idiot I have the decency not to leave him wondering about it.

Under no circumstance will I trade barbs with Gustav.

But the only thing that really matters on a board like this is demonstrating 'why someone is a complete idiot'. Just yelling it (so to speak) always results in the same.

The efforts I have made (barbs or sarcasm aside) have been substantive efforts to describe why some of your (erhum) formulations seem questionable.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:You don't understand what is being said, Hobbles, it goes over your head. You have no argument, no grand idea you work with. You represent 'splintering' and fracturation. So does GIA. Were I to listen to your 'critique' (laughs) I would have descended to your level. That is a loss right there. It is not your fault, really, it is an outcome of our time.

Hobbles: The abstract and brief chronicle of his time: a hobbling intellect!

Better to hit the highlights instead of losing the reade4r with a self-centered tirade that goes on and on and on.

Some know how to connect dots without having to be told where the next is all the time.

Regards
DL

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:The efforts I have made (barbs or sarcasm aside) have been substantive efforts to describe why some of your (erhum) formulations seem questionable.

OK, mate. In a spirit of reconciliation I'm willing to put the knuckledusters back in my pocket for the time being and give you a chance to explain yourself. Which one of my (erhum) formulations seems to you to be the most questionable?

I'd advise you to keep it brief for fear of scaring off the punters and in return I'll keep my response correspondingly brief.

Obvious Leo wrote: Not everybody finds me so, Gustav, so your answer might lie within. Disguising your insults within your florid rhetoric does not make them any the less deliberately offensive. Indeed it makes them more so because you impugn the intelligence of your readers by doing so. At least if I think somebody's a fucking idiot I have the decency not to leave him wondering about it.

That's one of the charming (and entertaining) things about you Leo. I am often in agreement with your powers of perception. And your skill in weaving such insights into no-nonsense, masterful phrasing is a beauty to behold.

Those who lure people in with feigned interest, only to lunge and bite into the person's neck the minute they speak, are nothing more than slithering snakes in human form. I suspect they've been doing it that way for so long, they don't even realize what they've become. And MOST surprising is that they seem oblivious/immune to the fact that everyone else can SEE what they, themselves, apparently no longer can. It's all very interesting! And thank goodness for those who keep it truly informative and immensely entertaining. Sometimes I'm laughing so hard at how it unfolds, I have tears in my eyes.

That's the spirit Lacewing!

We tend to agree, and applaud, those we feel linked to, that is quite normal.

If any part of your sideways comments about 'human snakes' was directed toward me (open-letter type complaints are problematic) I beseech you to both banish the idea of 'malice' in an Iago-like deliberate sense, and also try to see that my focus is on 'destructive ideas' as I understand them. I want you yo know that if it seems there is 'anger' that seems directed personally in what I write it is sham.

I strongly suspect I'm the "human snake" Lacewing was referring to, Gustav.

Thank you for your gracious words, Lacewing. Everybody likes it when others say nice things about them, and this inevitable vanity is doubly so for wordsmiths who like to regard their words as their toys as much as their tools. Philosophy is not a game to me but a deadly serious business. However this doesn't mean we shouldn't be having a bit of fun in the process of transacting it.