Noyau (2)

…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation

Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.

[to work around page bug]

2,913 thoughts on “Noyau (2)

  1. walto, to Alan:

    Yes–I think sometimes a poll is required to indicate just who is actually nuts.

    You might try looking at the evidence. When a grown man is pulling the infantile hands-over-the-ears, “la la la I can’t hear you” routine — 20 times in a row — that’s a pretty good sign the problem is on his end.

  2. walto,

    I don’t have the energy to explain why I think the evidence to support my claim that those remarks were NOT actually responsive…

    Fixed that for you.

  3. The evidence is right there in your own post for anyone with the interest to look at it. I nominate Bruce–who has followed the discussion from the outset–to opine on whether those are more justly termed responses or reiterations. Anyone care to second?

  4. DNA_jock:

    Aww!, dateline= 18th October 1982, a day I remember well, thank you for the trip down memory lane!

    For you DNA_jock. Thanks for the conversation. You’re certainly more capable and knowledgeable than Mung and you’re a far better opponent in these exchanges. Cheers.

  5. Alan,

    You often manage to bring out thé worst in people with your regular injections of snark and insult.

    That was the excuse you gave for your lying problem:

    @ walto

    Please don’t get involved on my behalf. It’s my problem. Keiths brings out the worst in me. The lying; it’s an emotional response that I’m learning to curb.

    Take responsibility for your actions, Alan. You are the one who types your comments, and you are the one who clicks ‘Post Comment’.

  6. walto,

    As no one has seconded my nomination of Bruce to assess our two posts above, and he hasn’t stepped up to the plate of his own volition, we’re back where we usually are in these confabs. Your word against mine.

    I’m comfortable with that.

  7. Incidentally, here at Noyau would be a good place for patrick to disabuse me of the notion that he only reads political philosophy by Rand (and you can maybe add in “, Nozick, and their ilk” although, based on the style, I think it’s basically Rand). I take a non-response to be further evidence of my contention. Again, not entirely dispositive, but additional.

    There’s certainly no whiff of Rawls or Sidgwick or George in Napoleon’s posts here. Just Reason Magazine stuff. Libertarian palm cards.

  8. keiths: You are the one who types your comments, and you are the one who clicks ‘Post Comment’.

    Are you certain about that? You could be in a simulation.

  9. keiths: You got caught in yet another blatant lie.

    Ah the Dr Goebbels approach!

    I’ve never lied in this forum. I stand by all my statements and have never written anything here that I knew at the time to be wrong.

    I’m not bothering to argue with you on this as you seem to have some pathological problem. You will reject whatever I say and repeat your baseless allegations. I’d be concerned if anyone else thought that your claims had any merit.

    Whilst you may not be an arsehole, you certainly play one to perfection on the internet.

  10. I’d be concerned if anyone else thought that your claims had any merit.

    The real question is, who doesn’t think they have merit?

    Everyone can see the evidence, Alan.

    You tried to cover up a stupid mistake by claiming I had missed the irony in your statement. Then you told KN your statement was completely sincere:

    BTW, notwithstanding, I meant what I said, which I’m sure you realise.

    It doesn’t take a genius to spot the contradiction, though you obviously didn’t — until it was too late.

  11. Well, if anyone else doubts the possibility of being ironical when stating a fact deadpan, I’m open to persuasion.

  12. So much for “I’m not bothering to argue with you on this”. That lasted for two whole hours.

  13. The whole thing is a textbook example of how liars get confused and incriminate themselves.

    More on this tomorrow.

  14. keiths [quoting Alan]:

    I’d be concerned if anyone else thought that your claims had any merit.

    The real question is, who doesn’t think they have merit?

    Everyone can see the evidence, Alan.

    I, for one, welcome our do not think that keiths’s claims have any merit. As I noted at the time.

  15. Do I even have to say?

    OK if I do, I’ll say ‘very limited merit’ since I admit to having been a little slow on the uptake with respect to one of Alan’s jokes.

    But, once he clarified, keiths’ continued attacks are just obnoxious, as I tried to explain nicely to him the other day.

    No avail.

  16. DNA_Jock, Allan,

    We’re talking about something that happened yesterday.

    Click on the link I gave above.

  17. walto,

    But, once he clarified, keiths’ continued attacks are just obnoxious, as I tried to explain nicely to him the other day.

    His “clarification” doesn’t help him. The lie is still there.

  18. keiths: We’re talking about something that happened yesterday.

    Yes, yet another occasion when you failed to detect sardony. KN spotted it.
    Yawn.

  19. As I said yesterday, this whole episode is a textbook example of how liars get confused and incriminate themselves.

    KN wrote this, in an ironic dig at phoodoo:

    (My apologies if any of this requires reading at a college level.)

    Alan missed the irony and responded in earnest:

    Requires some effort but the effort is repaid. All good points! I sense a book in the offing

    I noted the irony that Alan had missed:

    I’m pretty sure KN is taking a dig at phoodoo, who is definitely not a college-level reader.

    In an effort to cover up his mistake, Alan claimed that his statement was actually ironic:

    Your inability to spot irony continues to surprise me. You can’t then be in my simulation.

    The problem is that his statement doesn’t make sense if read ironically. It slams KN, not phoodoo, which was obviously not Alan’s intent.

    Alan realized this and tried to undo the damage:

    BTW, notwithstanding, I meant what I said, which I’m sure you realise.

    My amazed reaction:

    You just told us it was irony!

    And:

    That was one of the more spectacular foot-shots I’ve seen.

    In summary:

    1. Alan made a mistake.
    2. To cover up his mistake, he pretended that his statement was ironic.
    3. He then realized that his pretense, if taken seriously, meant that he was slamming KN.
    4. He hastened to reassure KN that he meant what he said, not realizing that this totally undermined his claim of speaking ironically!

  20. DNA_Jock,

    Yes, yet another occasion when you failed to detect sardony. KN spotted it.
    Yawn.

    You need to brush up on what “ironic” means.

    To assert that a statement is ironic and also completely sincere is a contradiction.

    ETA: Just to help you out, here’s the definition of irony (from dictionary.com):

    1.
    the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:
    the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

  21. I dunno about the rest of you, but I’m really looking forward to keith’s OP on the psychological and moral failings associated with the inability to admitting when one is wrong…..

  22. I dunno about the rest of you, but I’m really looking forward to keith’s OP on the psychological and moral failings associated with the inability to admit when one is wrong…..

  23. walto,

    Regarding Alan’s “clarification”, it doesn’t even address the actual issue. He wrote:

    Let me make this clear. I noticed, as I imagine anyone would reading thé comment, KN’s dig at phoodoo. I did not feel the need to state thé bleeding obvious. A mistake, obviously! 🙁

    He’s making an excuse for not pointing out KN’s irony.

    That has nothing to do with his claims that his own statement was both ironic and absolutely sincere.

    Perhaps you can explain how Alan’s statement was ironic and totally sincere at the same time.

    I look forward to it.

  24. keiths:

    DNA_Jock,

    Yes, yet another occasion when you failed to detect sardony. KN spotted it.
    Yawn.

    You need to brush up on what “ironic” means.

    To assert that a statement is ironic and also completely sincere is a contradiction.

    ETA: Just to help you out, here’s the definition of irony (from dictionary.com):

    Well, thank heavens I didn’t use the terms “irony/ironic” then!

    Keiths, please try to slow down and read what people actually wrote, not what you think they wrote. Please try to detect the underlying tone of their comments, the possibility that they might use humor to get their point across. You really do have an unparalleled track record of getting the wrong end of the stick.

    “Irony” comes in multiple forms; so the word is somewhat ambiguous. The last time I tried to explain to you how your “irony meter” was failing you, I quite deliberately switched to using the word sardony, as it’s a far more precise description of the form of subtle communication that you frequently fail to recognize…
    People often use the term “ironic” colloquially when “sardonic” would be a better and more precise description. Most people can detect the author’s intent from the context.
    Most people.

  25. DNA_Jock,

    Care to explain to us how Alan’s statement was ironic and totally sincere at the same time?

  26. PaV. being a dick:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-war-is-over-we-won/#comment-611083

    “…Entropy is connected to information. All of science accepts this. Entropy is all about degrees of freedom. And, any nucleotide sequence has 4 degrees of freedom at each site. Do the math. It’s quite straightforward and easy.

    But, of course, if someone chooses to be willfully ignorant, no one can help them “see.”..”

    He should read himself before:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/on-the-calculation-of-csi/

  27. Alan, Keiths, DNA Jock

    Is the Juice worth the squeeze?

    *puts virtual kettle on*

  28. petrushka,

    Sardony is the sincerest form of derision.

    But of course Alan wasn’t attempting to deride KN. His statement wasn’t ironic — it was in earnest.

  29. Richardthughes:
    Alan, Keiths, DNA Jock

    Is the Juice worth the squeeze?

    *puts virtual kettle on*

    It’s almost as if you were being humorous and sincere at the same time
    Inconceivable!

  30. DNA_Jock,

    Don’t be shy. Tell us how Alan was being both ironic and absolutely sincere when he wrote this to KN:

    Requires some effort but the effort is repaid. All good points! I sense a book in the offing

    If that statement had been ironic, it would have been mocking KN, not praising him.

  31. DNA_Jock:

    It’s almost as if you were being humorous and sincere at the same time…
    Inconceivable!

    Let me fix that for you:

    It’s almost as if you were being humorous insincere and sincere at the same time…
    Inconceivable!

    Do you begin to see the problem? “Ironic” is not synonymous with “humorous”.

    It simply makes no sense to say that Alan meant his statement and didn’t mean it.

  32. keiths: Do you begin to see the problem? “Ironic” is not synonymous with “humorous”.

    Yes I do see the problem. “ironic” is not synonymous with “insincere” either.

    Really, keiths,
    Perhaps he was being ironic in the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” (i.e. Conley) sense, which is, of course, simultaneously sincere.
    Or maybe he was using “ironic” in the colloquial sense meaning “sardonic”. Phoodoo being the target in both these scenarios.
    Or maybe, just maybe, he was trolling you.

    Like I did with my Matt 7:20 comment. You are a tad predictable, y’know…

  33. keiths: As I said yesterday, this whole episode is a textbook example of how liars get confused and incriminate themselves.

    KN wrote this, in an ironic dig at phoodoo:

    (My apologies if any of this requires reading at a college level.)

    I would just like to note for the record (since this discussion has not gone on long enough*) that technically KN was being sarcastic (with a liberal sprinkling of facetiousness.)

    Speaking of…

    In Alanis Morisette’s song Ironic, not one of the events she mentions is an example of irony; that is actually why the song is called ironic (double subverted trope! Shear pedantic brilliance!!)

    * See reference to the song Ironic

    /snark

  34. Robin,

    I would just like to note for the record (since this discussion has not gone on long enough*) that technically KN was being sarcastic (with a liberal sprinkling of facetiousness.)

    Sarcasm is a form of irony, Robin. Here’s the definition of irony I quoted earlier:

    1.
    the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:
    the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

    KN’s statement fits perfectly:

    (My apologies if any of this requires reading at a college level.)

    It was both sarcastic and ironic.

  35. keiths:

    Do you begin to see the problem? “Ironic” is not synonymous with “humorous”.

    It simply makes no sense to say that Alan meant his statement and didn’t mean it.

    DNA_Jock:

    Yes I do see the problem. “ironic” is not synonymous with “insincere” either.

    Of course it isn’t, but you’re missing the point. A comment can be humorous without being ironic, but it can’t be ironic without being insincere.

    So when Rich said this…

    Is the Juice worth the squeeze?

    *puts virtual kettle on*

    …and you responded thus…

    It’s almost as if you were being humorous and sincere at the same time…
    Inconceivable!

    …your point was irrelevant. There’s no question that a statement can be humorous and sincere at the same, but that doesn’t mean it can be ironic and sincere at the same time. Rich’s comment wasn’t ironic.

    Verbal irony is when we say something but mean the opposite. Watch the video, if you haven’t already.

  36. Keiths,
    Having a conversation with you takes more effort than it really should. You aren’t that stupid. Let me continue to encourage you to actually read, and make the effort to comprehend, what others write.

    “Irony” comes in multiple forms; so the word is somewhat ambiguous. The last time I tried to explain to you how your “irony meter” was failing you, I quite deliberately switched to using the word sardony, as it’s a far more precise description of the form of subtle communication that you frequently fail to recognize…
    People often use the term “ironic” colloquially when “sardonic” would be a better and more precise description. Most people can detect the author’s intent from the context.
    Most people.

    and

    Really, keiths,
    Perhaps he was being ironic in the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” (i.e. Conley) sense, which is, of course, simultaneously sincere.
    Or maybe he was using “ironic” in the colloquial sense meaning “sardonic”. Phoodoo being the target in both these scenarios.
    Or maybe, just maybe, he was trolling you.
    Like I did with my Matt 7:20 comment. You are a tad predictable, y’know…

    Please take the time to consider the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” type of irony. Seriously, that’s why I brought it up. My read is that this is what KN and Alan were indulging in during their exchange:
    KN: (My apologies if any of this requires reading at a college level.)
    AF: Requires some effort but the effort is repaid. All good points! I sense a book in the offing
    There’s a little bit of hyperbole for humorous effect, but BOTH protagonists are gently poking fun at phoodoo, whilst remaining otherwise sincere (with each other).
    Using his (overly restrictive) definition of verbal irony (wow, that qualifier came late to the party!), i.e.“the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning:“, keiths states that “KN’s statement fits perfectly”.
    Really? So KN wouldn’t feel sorry if what he wrote was beyond the reading abilities of his target audience? He’s specifically NOT apologizing for that scenario? His meaning is actually the opposite of his literal meaning?
    I don’t think so. So KN’s statement doesn’t “fit perfectly” with your definition of irony. We are, however, all four of us being sardonic. You may have missed this…

  37. We all need your OP, definitely! It’s like a pandemic in some zombie movie and you’re the only one with antibodies!!

  38. walto,

    My OP doesn’t contain a cure. It just explores the psychology.

    But stay tuned. It’s coming.

  39. DNA_Jock:

    Using his (overly restrictive) definition of verbal irony (wow, that qualifier came late to the party!)…

    You’re getting a bit frantic and starting to compound your mistakes.

    Of course we’re talking about verbal irony. Did you think Alan communicated his comment through interpretive dance?

    Slow down, dude.

  40. Dayum. That sucks. I wanted to take the cure. Too good to be true I guess. Ah well, we should just be thankful that there’s someone here qualified to discuss the syndrome, its signs, and causes. Someone immune.

    Gotta be thankful for what we’ve got!

  41. DNA_Jock:

    Please take the time to consider the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” type of irony.

    That isn’t irony. Under that interpretation, Alan’s statement means what it says: KN’s comment does require effort, and the effort is rewarded; the points are all good; and Alan does sense a book in the offing. Completely unironic, yet Alan claims it was ironic.

  42. walto,

    Dayum. That sucks. I wanted to take the cure.

    Believe me, if I had a cure, you’d be one of the first people I’d administer it to.

    ETA: Even before DNA_Jock. But definitely after Alan and Neil. 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.