Salinger the Whore
Catawumpus
novel's run on the best-seller lists was petering
out, Salinger wrote that he was 'tremendously
relieved that the season for success of The
Catcher in the Rye is over.' In January of 1953,
already much taken with the Eastern philosophy
that variously buoys and burdens his later work,
he moved into his cottage at Cornish. In February
of 1958, his British editor, Roger Machell, is in
New York City on business and unable to get
Salinger to come see him in town: 'He realizes
books must be published but wishes they didn't,'
Hamilton quotes him. 'I would say he has a
profound hatred of all publishers.' There follows
a scene from a dinner that Salinger does attend
with his publishers. Playing a bizarre joke on his
publishers, his wife and her friend sit down at
their dinner table at the Stork Club pretending to
be call girls, 'talking tough and casting sly
glances.' We're meant to understand this as a
hostile comment on the exploitation of artists.
It's a pity Jerry thought himself a whore."
Troy Patterson, "The Two Salingers: How Jerome killed J.D."
http://www.slate.com/id/2242991/
If Salinger believed he was a whore he wasn't wrong, since
signing with Little, Brown made him a pro, i.e., someone who
does it for money. Doesn't set him apart: just makes him more
honest than average.
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
Sorry to hear that jerking off on Jacques Derrida hasn't made you a
fortune.
Time to assay another Ponzi scheme.
--
Michael Zel...@post.harvard.edu
http://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Catawumpus
> Sorry to hear that jerking off on Jacques Derrida hasn't made you a
> fortune.
"I ain't no fortunate son." Giving hand-jobs to academics
seems your sort of thing (didn't you tie your reputation to
the tip of Alonzo Church's dick? it's possible I'm
misremembering), but anyone aside from Lucille Bogan would have
trouble making a dead man come. Oh, jerking off on him is
what you said. My mistake then. Always nice to know what's on
your mind.
> Time to assay another Ponzi scheme.
Lemme know how it goes.
-- Catawumpus
Frank Lavarre
What the fuck is your rich successful ass doing here? Get back over
to Harvard where you belong and leave this place for miserable
bastards like me.
Arindam Banerjee
Is Zeleny rich?
Michael Zeleny
> > Sorry to hear that jerking off on Jacques Derrida hasn't made you a
> > fortune.
> "I ain't no fortunate son." Giving hand-jobs to academics
> seems your sort of thing (didn't you tie your reputation to
> the tip of Alonzo Church's dick? it's possible I'm
> misremembering), but anyone aside from Lucille Bogan would have
> trouble making a dead man come. Oh, jerking off on him is
> what you said. My mistake then. Always nice to know what's on
> your mind.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Yours is a
special case of that. A man of your distemper should find a way to
monetize it.
> > Time to assay another Ponzi scheme.
> Lemme know how it goes.
Your mistake again. I deliver value for my fees.
Michael Zeleny
> What the fuck is your rich successful ass doing here? Get back over
> to Harvard where you belong and leave this place for miserable
> bastards like me.
Are you the Frank LaVarre who got suspended from the University of
Virginia because of bad grades, then got sentenced to 20 years for
carrying 61 pounds of marijuana to friends in Atlanta?
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,844942,00.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=DFAEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30#v=onepage&q&f=false
Michael Zeleny
> Is Zeleny rich?
Zeleny is comfortable.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Jun 3, 12:06 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > Is Zeleny rich?
>
> Zeleny is comfortable.
>
> --
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.eduhttp://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Upon spikes?
Michael Zeleny
> On Jun 7, 2:07 pm, Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 3, 12:06 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > Is Zeleny rich?
> > Zeleny is comfortable.
> Upon spikes?
Shpilkes. It's Jewish yoga.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Jun 7, 1:08 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 7, 2:07 pm, Michael Zeleny <larva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 3, 12:06 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > Is Zeleny rich?
> > > Zeleny is comfortable.
> > Upon spikes?
>
> Shpilkes.
Made of diamonds?
Frank Lavarre
> On Jun 2, 1:29 pm, Frank Lavarre <frank.lava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What the fuck is your rich successful ass doing here? Get back over
> > to Harvard where you belong and leave this place for miserable
> > bastards like me.
>
> Are you the Frank LaVarre who got suspended from the University of
> Virginia because of bad grades, then got sentenced to 20 years for
> carrying 61 pounds of marijuana to friends in Atlanta?
>
>
> --
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.eduhttp://larvatus.livejournal.com/
No, that would be Frank Provost Lavarre of 3909 Whitland Ave.,
Nashville, Tenn. 37232-0028 tel number (615) 322-2880
No relation. I'm Frank H. Lavarre of 515 South Figueroa Street 11
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3301 tel number (323) 669-3966
Nice try, however.
Michael Zeleny
> On Jun 8, 3:06 am, Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 1:08 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 2:07 pm, Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 3, 12:06 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > > Is Zeleny rich?
> > > > Zeleny is comfortable.
> > > Upon spikes?
> > Shpilkes.
> Made of diamonds?
Upon your arrival in a Russian jail, righteous thieves will urge you
to choose between two notional seats: one stuck with a hundred knives,
the other jutting with a hundred pricks. As you contemplate this
dilemma, you will see one of your cellmates cupping his crotch, while
another fingers his shiv. Choose carefully. Your arse hangs in the
balance.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Jun 7, 6:33 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 8, 3:06 am, Michael Zeleny <larva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 1:08 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 7, 2:07 pm, Michael Zeleny <larva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 3, 12:06 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Is Zeleny rich?
> > > > > Zeleny is comfortable.
> > > > Upon spikes?
> > > Shpilkes.
> > Made of diamonds?
>
> Upon your arrival in a Russian jail, righteous thieves will urge you
> to choose between two notional seats: one stuck with a hundred knives,
> the other jutting with a hundred pricks. As you contemplate this
> dilemma, you will see one of your cellmates cupping his crotch, while
> another fingers his shiv. Choose carefully. Your arse hangs in the
> balance.
>
> --
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.eduhttp://larvatus.livejournal.com/
You seem to speak from experience, Zeleny. No doubt all is
comfortable to you, now. Good.
drschreber
> On Jun 2, 1:29 pm, Frank Lavarre <frank.lava...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What the fuck is your rich successful ass doing here? Get back over
> > to Harvard where you belong and leave this place for miserable
> > bastards like me.
>
> Are you the Frank LaVarre who got suspended from the University of
> Virginia because of bad grades, then got sentenced to 20 years for
> carrying 61 pounds of marijuana to friends in Atlanta?
>
>
> --
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.eduhttp://larvatus.livejournal.com/
Wow, this Frank Lavarre sounds like a really bad character. To think
that forty-one years ago he not only received bad grades, but was
actually caught transporting 61 pounds of marijuana!!
Thank god the judge gave him a 20 year sentence, although it should
have been life, and thanks for helping the community by smoking out
this criminal.
Catawumpus
>>> Sorry to hear that jerking off on Jacques Derrida hasn't made you a
>>> fortune.
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> "I ain't no fortunate son." Giving hand-jobs to academics
>> seems your sort of thing (didn't you tie your reputation to
>> the tip of Alonzo Church's dick? it's possible I'm
>> misremembering), but anyone aside from Lucille Bogan would have
>> trouble making a dead man come. Oh, jerking off on him is
>> what you said. My mistake then. Always nice to know what's on
>> your mind.
My memory wasn't too bad. You awarded yourself a place in
history as a footnote to Church and Quine. So you could
answer that instead of jerking off on them, you want to gratify
yourself with their dead hands.
> "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
G.B.S. "We have already established what you are. Now we
are merely haggling over the price."
> Yours is a
> special case of that. A man of your distemper should find a way to
> monetize it.
Or eminatize it per Aristotle in your former .sig. ObBook:
_ Eminent Dogs, Dangerous Men_.
>>> Time to assay another Ponzi scheme.
>> Lemme know how it goes.
> Your mistake again. I deliver value for my fees.
Congratulations on your career as a delivery boy. Someone
must be extra proud.
-- Catawumpus
Just Me
> Michael Zeleny <larva...@gmail.com>:
>
> >>> Sorry to hear that jerking off on Jacques Derrida hasn't made you a
> >>> fortune.
>
It is always so entertaining to see what mush Zeleny makes of this
endlessly envious poseur. ;-)
--
JM
Catawumpus
> It is always so entertaining to see what mush Zeleny makes of this
Then we have Mikhail the mush-maker spoonfeeding pablum to
eager but toothless Jervis.
-- Catawumpus
=z=
you forgot to tell us that
you have a 'jew' heritage;
you and you must love natzi reitoric
you and your natzi bitch...
tomorrow morning
i believe i shall
or maybe i shan't
but if i shall i will share me
with my friend zoë
if i still am able to share
tomorrow morning
i would wish
to write a poem to zoë
if my chary digits oblige
broken and torn
how awkward they present
they laugh at my challenge
they cry so when put to
"good use"
tomorrow morning
i should
tend zoë's hair
if zoë's hair still lives
(on top of her head silly)
or perhaps
tomorrow morning
i shall rise
with the smoke of souls
i would take zoë
if zoë is able
if I can find zoë
she may have already
melted
tomorrow morning
=z=
Catawumpus
>>> It is always so entertaining to see what mush Zeleny makes of this
Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> � � �Then we have Mikhail the mush-maker spoonfeeding pablum to
>> eager but toothless Jervis.
z <shul...@gmail.com>:
> you forgot to tell us that you have a 'jew' heritage
Obviously you already knew. If you can't remember, you're
the forgetful one.
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
> Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
>>>> Sorry to hear that jerking off on Jacques Derrida hasn't made you a
>>>> fortune.
> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>>> "I ain't no fortunate son." Giving hand-jobs to academics
>>> seems your sort of thing (didn't you tie your reputation to
>>> the tip of Alonzo Church's dick? it's possible I'm
>>> misremembering), but anyone aside from Lucille Bogan would have
>>> trouble making a dead man come. Oh, jerking off on him is
>>> what you said. My mistake then. Always nice to know what's on
>>> your mind.
> My memory wasn't too bad. You awarded yourself a place in
> history as a footnote to Church and Quine. So you could
> answer that instead of jerking off on them, you want to gratify
> yourself with their dead hands.
There is no need for you to ventriloquize on my behalf. A more fitting
analogy for the instant means of my gratification is sticking my boot
up your arse. All for your own good, to be sure.
>> "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money."
> G.B.S. "We have already established what you are. Now we
> are merely haggling over the price."
You have no idea, Weinles. All my credentials are in the public
domain.
>> Yours is a
>> special case of that. A man of your distemper should find a way to
>> monetize it.
> Or eminatize it per Aristotle in your former .sig. ObBook:
> _ Eminent Dogs, Dangerous Men_.
Eminence is not in the cards for production that conforms to Three
Myths of Bagpipes Dispelled:
Myth 1: It takes hard work and talent to play the bagpipes.
Fact 1: The only talent most pipers have is for avoiding work.
Myth 2: You can make fairly decent money playing the bagpipes.
Fact 2: People will pay you much better money to stop.
Myth 3: Your bagpipes will make you friends wherever you go.
Fact 3: This is true if you never go anywhere.
Nonetheless, while your ongoing dirge merits no more than a two bit
termination fee, the prospects of whining in the right venue are far
more favorable.
>>>> Time to assay another Ponzi scheme.
>>> Lemme know how it goes.
>> Your mistake again. I deliver value for my fees.
> Congratulations on your career as a delivery boy. Someone
> must be extra proud.
Imagination is failing you. Take-off delivers value, too.
Julian F Waldby
> On Jun 11, 10:30 pm, Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Eminence is not in the cards for production that conforms to Three
> Myths of Bagpipes Dispelled:
>
> Myth 1: It takes hard work and talent to play the bagpipes.
> Fact 1: The only talent most pipers have is for avoiding work.
>
> Myth 2: You can make fairly decent money playing the bagpipes.
> Fact 2: People will pay you much better money to stop.
>
> Myth 3: Your bagpipes will make you friends wherever you go.
> Fact 3: This is true if you never go anywhere.
It is a matter of personal preference. You may have noticed that there
are more than just one flavor at the ice cream shop. This is because
different people have different preferences.
You are just a French Horn kind of person, that's all.
Julian
Catawumpus
>> My memory wasn't too bad. You awarded yourself a place in
>> history as a footnote to Church and Quine. So you could
>> answer that instead of jerking off on them, you want to gratify
>> yourself with their dead hands.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> There is no need for you to ventriloquize on my behalf.
Agreed. Your attempt to memorialize yourself by reference
to your masters already said plenty. But it didn't hurt to
spell out the relation between your interest in self-pleasuring
and the claim you made on history.
> A more fitting
> analogy for the instant means of my gratification is sticking my boot
> up your arse.
Then you must be constantly dissatisfied. Best of luck in
locating that foot of yours. The idea you stuck it in
_something_ is believable, especially if you've been hopping on
one leg. Try looking in your mouth.
-- Catawumpus
Julian F Waldby
> Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>:
> Agreed. Your attempt to memorialize yourself by reference
> to your masters already said plenty. But it didn't hurt to
> spell out the relation between your interest in self-pleasuring
You've got it all wrong. I have a self-interest in pleasuring.
Julian
Catawumpus
>> Eminence is not in the cards for production that conforms to Three
>> Myths of Bagpipes Dispelled:
>> Myth 1: It takes hard work and talent to play the bagpipes.
>> Fact 1: The only talent most pipers have is for avoiding work.
>> Myth 2: You can make fairly decent money playing the bagpipes.
>> Fact 2: People will pay you much better money to stop.
>> Myth 3: Your bagpipes will make you friends wherever you go.
>> Fact 3: This is true if you never go anywhere.
Julian F Waldby <ich_bi...@yahoo.com>:
> It is a matter of personal preference. You may have noticed that there
> are more than just one flavor at the ice cream shop. This is because
> different people have different preferences. You are just a French Horn
> kind of person, that's all.
"Why is it that all those who have become eminent in
philosophy or politics or poetry or the arts are clearly
bagpipers, and some of them to such an extent as to be affected
by diseases caused by black bile, as is said to have
happened to Heracles among the heroes?"
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
>>> My memory wasn't too bad. You awarded yourself a place in
>>> history as a footnote to Church and Quine. So you could
>>> answer that instead of jerking off on them, you want to gratify
>>> yourself with their dead hands.
>> There is no need for you to ventriloquize on my behalf.
> Agreed. Your attempt to memorialize yourself by reference
> to your masters already said plenty. But it didn't hurt to
> spell out the relation between your interest in self-pleasuring
> and the claim you made on history.
Not unlike Clem the Gem, I am a modest man, who has a little something
to be modest about. "Biggest fucking sex symbol this country ever
fucking produced." Or nurtured, anyway.
>> A more fitting
>> analogy for the instant means of my gratification is sticking my boot
>> up your arse.
> Then you must be constantly dissatisfied. Best of luck in
> locating that foot of yours. The idea you stuck it in
> _something_ is believable, especially if you've been hopping on
> one leg. Try looking in your mouth.
Your flaccid tu quoque might be more credibly deployed by someone who
hadn't passed the last fifteen years carping about his piteous lot...
er, Job. Get laid, Weinles. Or get fucked. Anything to muffle your
whine.
Catawumpus
>> Best of luck in
>> locating that foot of yours. The idea you stuck it in
>> _something_ is believable, especially if you've been hopping on
>> one leg. Try looking in your mouth.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> Your flaccid tu quoque might be more credibly deployed by someone who
Already wrong. I simply noted that your boasted
ass-kicking remained a bootless fantasy. It isn't all bad news
for you, though: since the foot that you lost is still
missing in action, you have an extra shoe to pound on the table.
> hadn't passed the last fifteen years carping about his piteous lot...
> er, Job.
Your bait of falsehood, my carp of truth, as shown frex in
those discussions on _Job_. Your defense of Yahweh was
self-humiliating by your own definition, since it forced you to
persistently misread the Biblical story, and in the end you
went slinking off, denying that there was cause for controversy.
http://tinyurl.com/232xsop
http://tinyurl.com/23nfej8
http://tinyurl.com/29sytd2
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
>>> Best of luck in
>>> locating that foot of yours. The idea you stuck it in
>>> _something_ is believable, especially if you've been hopping on
>>> one leg. Try looking in your mouth.
>> Your flaccid tu quoque might be more credibly deployed by someone who
> Already wrong. I simply noted that your boasted
> ass-kicking remained a bootless fantasy. It isn't all bad news
> for you, though: since the foot that you lost is still
> missing in action, you have an extra shoe to pound on the table.
"Nicht einmal falsch." No need for me to raise a limb in view of this
spastic seisure. Humiliating a creature bereft of self-respect is
quite a feat. From carping about our fallen world to seething about
your want of money, you pull no punches in demeaning yourself.
>> hadn't passed the last fifteen years carping about his piteous lot...
>> er, Job.
> Your bait of falsehood, my carp of truth, as shown frex in
> those discussions on _Job_. Your defense of Yahweh was
> self-humiliating by your own definition, since it forced you to
> persistently misread the Biblical story, and in the end you
> went slinking off, denying that there was cause for controversy.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/232xsop
> http://tinyurl.com/23nfej8
> http://tinyurl.com/29sytd2
Whatever you say, Weinles. You cannot exist outside of this pit of
misery. In your case, perception is reality. Enjoy your sufferance.
Catawumpus
>> Your boasted
>> ass-kicking remained a bootless fantasy. It isn't all bad news
>> for you, though: since the foot that you lost is still
>> missing in action, you have an extra shoe to pound on the table.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> "Nicht einmal falsch." No need for me to raise a limb in view of this
Too late! You not merely raised a limb but lost one. The
boot you claimed to land on my rear never arrived -- which
raises some doubts about your asserted success as a
delivery-boy -- leaving you hopping around w/out any idea where
your leg is.
> spastic seisure. Humiliating a creature bereft of self-respect is
> quite a feat. From carping about our fallen world to seething
You already tried that one. Again, your bait of falsehood
vs. my carp of truth, not to mention your self-humiliation
according to your own definition in persistent misreadings frex
of Plato and Job: desperate, dishonest attempts to defend
Creator or Creation that nicely illustrate life's dependence on
the lie.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
> misery. In your case, perception is reality.
As is for all einsteinians.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Jonah Thomas
I was trying to remember what this extended conversation reminded me of,
and then it came to me.
Back before the internet was available to civilians, various people ran
BBSes locally. I used to look at a collection of local bulletin board
systems and exchange messages etc. And there were these people having an
extended argument. They insulted each other worse and worse, until
finally one of them challenged the other to a duel.
Monday: Meet me in person and say that!
Tuesday: OK, I will.
Wednesday: Meet me at the mall on Sunday, at the upper level parking
deck, at 2 PM.
Thursday: I'll be there. You'll know me because I'm 6'4", brown hair and
ice-blue eyes and I'll be driving my red Jaguar convertible. I'm a
special forces ranger.
Friday: OK. I'll be there. I'm 6'6, 220 pounds all muscle, red hair and
green eyes, and I'm a navy SEAL. I drive a black Mercedes.
Saturday: Oh yeah, I'm coming alone and you'd better come alone too or
I'll beat up all your friends.
Sunday:
Monday: Hey, I was there, where were you?
Tuesday: I was there but you chickened out. Chicken.
Wednesday: I was there wit a bunch of my friends and they'll all testify
that you never showed up.
Thursday: We never saw you, and we must have waited around for nearly an
hour. My friends will all swear to it.
Friday: You're a goddam coward! Show up this Sunday at 2 PM and I'll kick
your ass.
Saturday: I'll be there.
.... two weeks later ....
Monday: At last you showed up and I kicked your ass.
Tuesday: Don't lie, *I* kicked *your* ass.
Wednesday: You've got a lot of nerve! You wanna say that to my face? I'll
kick your ass a lot worse this time.
As long as it was guys mouthing off on the BBS they could say whatever
they wanted and nobody could hold them responsible. Then and now. So
Catawumpus can continue to claim he won whatever argument he claims he
was having with you, and there's nothing to say whether he's right or
wrong except perhaps disinterested bystanders might chime in with
opinions -- and he could make sock puppets to do that if he wanted to.
The rules of logic and evidence etc might have a say, but those are
things for you to interpret and for him to interpret, and so they don't
lead to a consensus.
If you design a bridge or a dam and it falls down, you can't just tell
people it's still standing. If you design an airplane and it falls out of
the sky, you can't just say it's still up there. But if you have a Usenet
argument you can claim you won no matter what. Because it isn't real.
There's an old riddle that goes: When a drunk and a fool have an
argument, how do you tell which one is the fool?
And the answer is, in the morning the drunk will sober up. The other one,
the one who argued with a drunk, is the fool.
Here is a slightly different version: If a drunk and Catawumpus have an
argument, how do you tell which one is the fool?
Here is another version: If Catawumpus and a fool have an argument, how
do you tell which one is the fool? That one is more like the first
version, because arguing with Catawumpus is quite similar to arguing with
a drunk.
Marko Amnell
> Michael Zeleny wrote:
> > Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>> Michael Zeleny <larva...@gmail.com>:
Your analogy is not quite apt. While Catawumpus
aka Moggin is almost certainly the proverbial
nerdy 90 pound weakling type, Zeleny is a
former consultant for the Illinois Law Enforcement
Commission, is familiar with fire arms, and looks
fairly muscular in photographs easily found on
the Web. I could find no photographs of
Catawumpus / Moggin so I guess theoretically it
remains possible he is one of those "tough geek"
types like, say, UFC cage fighter Rich Franklin
(former high school math teacher).
But as far as duels go, you're on the right track.
Zeleny challenged Mike Godwin (of "Godwin's Law"
fame") to a duel, but Godwin backed out, and if
I recall correctly, Zeleny even challenged me to
a duel with sabres once, in honour of his sabre-
wielding Russian ancestors.
ObBook. _A Jew on Horseback_, an upcoming
biography of Isaac Babel by Gregory Freidin.
as well as the title of a NYRB article on Babel...
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/jun/22/a-jew-on-horseback/
Catawumpus
> Zeleny challenged Mike Godwin (of "Godwin's Law"
> fame") to a duel, but Godwin backed out, and if
> I recall correctly, Zeleny even challenged me to
> a duel with sabres once, in honour of his sabre-
> wielding Russian ancestors.
First propagandizing for the Pope, now flacking for Zeleny:
nobody can deny that you're generous with your services.
Mikhail challenged Godwin to a duel, it's true, but then ducked
out after discovering Godwin's choice of weapon (namely the
game Trivial Pursuit). First he tried to hide behind a reading
of the 18th c. Irish dueling code. That failing, he made
"It's my party" his rather transparent excuse. (There was also
some chatter about an airplane ticket to Albania that his
second didn't send.) The whole thing went on for years -- like
certain other RAB discussions -- and got mentioned in the
Wall Street Journal. Jim Hartley quoted from the story like so:
Every so often, a bit of on-line fervor spills
into real life. Mike Godwin, an attorney with the
Electronic Frontier Foundation, a Washington,
D.C.-based advocacy organization, once accepted a
challenge to duel with one network bully who regularly
threatened people in a philosophy discussion group and
declared his familiarity with guns and swords.
"He wanted me to pick deadly weapons," says Mr.
Godwin. "He wanted to kill me." Mr. Godwin's weapon of
choice was Trivial Pursuit, and the battle was to occur
at the lawyer's home. The bully never showed up,
claiming he didn't want to waste his time with a board
game. "I was never worried that I was going to get
hurt by the guy," Mr. Godwin says. "I thought I would
call his bluff."
http://tinyurl.com/2v6zvyr
http://tinyurl.com/2vnjkg5
http://tinyurl.com/33j56e2
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> Catawumpus can continue to claim he won whatever argument he claims he
> was having with you, and there's nothing to say whether he's right or
> wrong except perhaps disinterested bystanders might chime in with
> opinions -- and he could make sock puppets to do that if he wanted to.
Since Jonah is unable to figure out what the arguments are
about here, it comes as no surprise that he's unable to
identify their rights and wrongs. At least he's learning to be
open about his limitations.
> If you design a bridge or a dam and it falls down, you can't just tell
> people it's still standing. If you design an airplane and it falls out of
> the sky, you can't just say it's still up there. But if you have a Usenet
> argument you can claim you won no matter what. Because it isn't real.
When you're in the wrong you can say so, you can just drop
the subject, or you can tell yourself stuff like, "It's on
Usenet, so it isn't real." Jonah's choice couldn't be any more
obvious.
> If Catawumpus and a fool have an argument, how
> do you tell which one is the fool? That one is more like the first
> version, because arguing with Catawumpus is quite similar to arguing with
> a drunk.
Jonah now replaces his pretence of argument with unadorned
name-calling. Same way things usually go with him. Maybe
he'd feel better about all of this if he had a few stiff drinks.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
>
> - Show quoted text -
obBook: "And quiet flows the Don" Mikhail Sholokhov. I was trying to
find the passage where Grigory Melekhov in a one-on-one sabre duel on
horseback shifts the blade to his left hand at the last moment, then
attacks the opposition's backhand by turning his horse in the
unexpected direction. Could not find it, too much matter. Does
anyone remember?
Marko Amnell
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> obBook: "And quiet flows the Don" Mikhail Sholokhov.
> I was trying to find the passage where Grigory Melekhov
> in a one-on-one sabre duel on horseback shifts the blade
> to his left hand at the last moment, then attacks the opposition's
> backhand by turning his horse in the unexpected direction.
> Could not find it, too much matter. Does anyone remember?
Are you sure you are remembering the fight correctly?
Does he really shift the sabre to his left hand?
Or is it this fight? :
"Six Hungarian hussars were busily occupied
with the horses of the field-gun on the extreme
right of the battery. One was dragging at the
bits of the excited artillery horses, another was
beating them with the flat of his sword, while
the others were tugging and pulling at the
spokes of the carriage wheels. An officer on a
dock-tailed chocolate mare was giving orders.
At the sight of the Cossacks the hussars leapt
to their horses.
" "Closer, closer," Grigory counted to the
rhythm of his galloping horse. As he galloped,
one foot momentarily lost its stirrup, and feeling
himself insecure in his saddle, with inward
alarm he bent over and fished with his toe for
the dangling iron. When he had recovered his
foothold he looked up and saw the six horses
of the field-gun in front of him. The outrider
on the foremost in a blood- and brain-spattered
shirt, was lying over the animal's neck, embracing it.
Grigory's horse brought its hoof down
with a sickening scrunch on the body of the
dead gunner. Two more were lying by an over-
turned case of shells. A fourth was stretched
face downward over the gun-carriage. Silantyev
was just in front of Grigory. The Hungarian officer
fired at almost point-blank range and the
Cossack fell, his hands clutching and embracing
the air. Grigory pulled on his reins and
tried to approach the officer from the left, the
better to use his sabre; but the officer saw
through his manoeuvre and fired under his arm
at him. Having discharged the contents of his
revolver, he drew his sword. He parried three
smashing blows with the skill of a trained fencer.
Grigory gritted his teeth and lunged at him
yet a fourth time, standing in his stirrups. Their
horses were now galloping almost side by side,
and he noticed the ashy clean-shaven cheek of
the Hungarian and the regimental number sewn
on his collar. With a feint he diverted the officer's
attention, and changing the direction of
his stroke, thrust the point of his sabre between
the Hungarian's shoulder-blades. He aimed a
second blow at the neck, just at the top of the
spine. The officer dropped his sword and reins
from his hands, and arched his back as if he
had been bitten, then toppled over his saddle-
bow. Feeling a terrible relief, Grigory lashed
at his head, and saw the sabre smash into the
bone above the ear. "
http://www.archive.org/stream/andquietflowsdon00shol/andquietflowsdon00shol_djvu.txt
Arindam Banerjee
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes, I read that account this afternoon. Was it some other book... I
don't know, read it more than 25 years ago.
You seem to have the same translation as I have, form Progress
Publishers, Moscow. 4 volumes
I seem to have confused two fights. The first one you published, other
one, Vol 4, p 439 is:
"When he had covered some forty yards he looked back. Fomin, Kaparin,
Chumakov, and several other men were following at a furious gallop
some twenty yards behind him. The machine-guns in the forest had
stopped firing; only the one on the extreme right was rattling away
with short, angry bursts at the Fomin men scrambling around the
baggage-wagons. Then that last machine-gun also fell silent, and
Grigory realized that the attackers were now right on top of the camp,
and that the men left behind were being sabred. He guessed it from
the desperate shouts, and the occasional shots fired by the defenders.
But he had no time to look back. As his horse carried him impetuously
towards the stream of men advancing against him, he chose his man. A
soldier in a short sheepskin was galloping towards him on a grey, not
very fast horse. As though in a flash of lightning, for one elusive
moment Grigory saw the horse with its white, foam-flecked chest, the
rider, his youthful face flushed with excitement, and behind him the
broad, sombre expanse of the steppe stretching away to the Don. The
next moment he would have to avoid a blow an wield his sabre. When
some ten yards from the rider, Grigory swung his body sharply over to
the left. He heard the cutting whistle of a sabre above his head and,
jerking himself upright in the saddle, touched the man on the head
with the very point of his sabre as he passed. His hand hardly felt
the force of the blow, but, looking back, he saw the man sag and
slowly slip out of the saddle and saw a thick stream of blood on the
back of his yellow sheepskin coat. The grey horse slackened into a
fast trot, running sideways as though afraid of its own shadow, its
head carried wildly high in the air."
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Latreides Amasa Carbuncle Corps
> Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com>:
> Jonah now replaces his pretence of argument with unadorned
> name-calling. Same way things usually go with him. Maybe
> he'd feel better about all of this if he had a few stiff drinks.
>
> -- Catawumpus
I do not want Jonah feeling better about it. He is Julius Caesar,
slated for death by dagger, and I am Tutankhamen the Overwhelmed. If
he attained the power I have achieved, I would feel threatened.
Julyssus
Jonah Thomas
> Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Jonah now replaces his pretence of argument with unadorned
>> name-calling. Same way things usually go with him. Maybe he'd feel
>> better about all of this if he had a few stiff drinks.
> for death by dagger, and I am Tutankhamen the Overwhelmed. If he
> attained the power I have achieved, I would feel threatened.
Regardless what you want, I feel fine. I am not in competition with you.
I am not in competition with silly Catawumpus.
If you show me some truth that I can use, I will use it and be better off
than before. If you tell silly Catawumpus lies I will not feel that I
have wasted much time on you.
If you participated in a medieval melee contest, then you would win if
you were the last man left standing. Kind of unambiguous who wins and who
loses, and if there is any ambiguity it gets cleared up before the award.
If you collect stamps and you know some other stamp-collectors, you can
make up reasons why you're the winner and the others are all losers,
but....
Michael Zeleny
> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
>>> Your boasted
>>> ass-kicking remained a bootless fantasy. It isn't all bad news
>>> for you, though: since the foot that you lost is still
>>> missing in action, you have an extra shoe to pound on the table.
>> "Nicht einmal falsch." No need for me to raise a limb in view of this
> Too late! You not merely raised a limb but lost one. The
> boot you claimed to land on my rear never arrived -- which
> raises some doubts about your asserted success as a
> delivery-boy -- leaving you hopping around w/out any idea where
> your leg is.
And yet my part in this exchange is vindicating this mosh pit of
misery whereof you have whined incessantly over the past fifteen
years. I am calling you out for being a dickless whingebag, Weinles.
Craft your non-response accordingly.
>> spastic seizure. Humiliating a creature bereft of self-respect is
>> quite a feat. From carping about our fallen world to seething
> You already tried that one. Again, your bait of falsehood
> vs. my carp of truth, not to mention your self-humiliation
> according to your own definition in persistent misreadings frex
> of Plato and Job: desperate, dishonest attempts to defend
> Creator or Creation that nicely illustrate life's dependence on
> the lie.
A case in point. No Creator whose Creation incorporates the bounties
of pussy and booze, stands in need of my attempts to defend Him. Not
that a creature of your gormless disposition could be counted upon to
know the first thing about either. And yet here you are, carping about
whores, bereft of gear salient in their regard.
Michael Zeleny
Godwin called my bluff like Weinles buttressed his whingebag dirge.
On Sep 16 1998, 12:00 am, m...@Steam.Stanford.EDU (Meg Worley) wrote:
> Jeff asks:
>
> >Whatever happened to the poster who once challenged Mike Godwin to a
> >duel?
>
> That's Mikhail Zeleny, and I'm sure he's still around (perhaps
> I'm invoking him). One of the highlights of my sad life was
> sitting between the two of them at a meal a few months after
> the challenge was issued. Godwin kept sending nervous glances
> over my head at Zeleny, who was wearing a Rambo knife on his
> belt. I am fairly sure that the duel was never enacted.
>
> ObBook: *The Rape of the Lock*
>
> Rage away,
>
> meg
>
> --
> m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/ea84ba3a9b58114f?hl=en
On Nov 2 1998, 1:00 am, zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny)
wrote:
> Torkel Franzen <tor...@sm.luth.se> wrote:
>> zel...@oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>> Herewith an impartial source on a current dueling custom that I could
>>> not have contrived or tampered with:
>>> http://cousin.stud.uni-karlsruhe.de/cousin/allgemein/mensur.html.
>> This is not a "dueling custom", but a cleaned-up version of a bizarre
>> old German custom whereby people took pride in having scars on their
>> faces. These days, as is clearly stated on the page you refer to,
>> scars are not aimed at, there is no "fighting" involved, nobody wins,
>> etc.
>
> You are right in your description, whereas what constitutes a genuine
> duel is a matter of definition. The historiography of dueling often
> subsumes mensur, and up through the Weimar period the participants in
> the custom (inter alia, Max Weber and Erich von Stroheim) thought of
> it as contiguous in principle with contemporaneously practiced life
> and death combat. The point remains that the custom is an educational
> rite of passage that I, in my collegiate presumption of seven years
> ago, sought to establish in this forum as a check on noxious verbiage
> its participants are apt to emit, since it has been my experience that
> properly administered and arbitrated exchange of blows is by far the
> best means of gracefully resolving disagreements that arise between
> querulous windbags exemplified by present company. Needless to say,
> any rules would do, from the Marquess of Queensbury to the Irish Code
> Duello, even if, by giving Godwin his choice of weapons I ensured his
> survival, though unpardonably taking wicked Schadenfreude in causing
> and witnessing his unwarranted tremors. Alas, what with his choice of
> Trivial Pursuit and water pistols, it appears that my chubby nemesis
> is determined to shirk, and I have neither the means nor the desire to
> force his compliance. Tant pis pour lui. Now we drink beer.
>
> Cordially -- Mikhail Zel...@math.ucla.edu * M...@ptyx.com **www.ptyx.com
> God: "Sum id quod sum." ** 7576 Willow Glen Road, Los Angeles, CA 90046
> Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." * 213.876.8234 (fon) * 213.876.8054 (fax)
> Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." ****www.alonzo.org
> established on 2.26.1958 ** itinerant philosopher * will think for food
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/4fc74a6cee9c049b?hl=en
On Nov 2 1998, 1:00 am, mnem...@well.com (Mike Godwin) wrote:
> In article <71l6up$e...@Steam.Stanford.EDU>,
>
> Meg Worley <m...@Steam.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>> MZ writes:
>>> [I]t has been my experience that
>>> properly administered and arbitrated exchange of blows is by far the
>>> best means of gracefully resolving disagreements that arise between
>>> querulous windbags exemplified by present company.
>
>> I never thought to hear the humilitas topos from you, Mikhail.
>
> I must confess it took my breath away.
>
> --Mike
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "I speak the password primeval .... I give the sign of democracy ...."
> --Walt Whitman
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/e53db071eaf293c5?hl=en
I have it on good authority that Godwin still trembles at the mention
of my name.
Sic semper ascaules.
Patok
> Marko Amnell <marko....@kolumbus.fi>:
>
>> Zeleny challenged Mike Godwin (of "Godwin's Law"
>> fame") to a duel, but Godwin backed out, and if
>> I recall correctly, Zeleny even challenged me to
>> a duel with sabres once, in honour of his sabre-
>> wielding Russian ancestors.
>
> Godwin. "He wanted to kill me." Mr. Godwin's weapon of
> choice was Trivial Pursuit, and the battle was to occur
> at the lawyer's home. The bully never showed up,
> claiming he didn't want to waste his time with a board
> game. "I was never worried that I was going to get
> hurt by the guy," Mr. Godwin says. "I thought I would
> call his bluff."
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2v6zvyr
> http://tinyurl.com/2vnjkg5
> http://tinyurl.com/33j56e2
Fascinating. In the end, did the WSJ print Zeleny's letter? Whatever
he is, "network bully" he's not. (How /can/ one be a "network bully" -
the very notion is funny.) Anyhow, it was interesting to read how
Goodwin did not (or pretended not to) understand Zeleny's Hoch-English.
Good stuff.
--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
--
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.
Mike Godwin
> I have it on good authority that Godwin still trembles at the mention
> of my name.
I do shake with laughter when your name is mentioned, yes. I'd think
anyone would. Too bad you chickened out that evening I wasted waiting
for you to show up.
--m
Catawumpus
> No Creator whose Creation incorporates the bounties
> of pussy and booze, stands in need of my attempts to defend Him.
So you say now. Yet you've repeatedly made it your job to
defend the Creator in the Book of Job. Likewise earthly
existence in the Socratic dialogues. In both cases you shifted
between misrepresenting the writings under discussion and
tap-dancing around them where they disputed you: your standard
contribution.
http://tinyurl.com/2emnslu
http://tinyurl.com/29gshem
http://tinyurl.com/2dj4vqd
http://tinyurl.com/257nvpf
http://tinyurl.com/2aw5con
http://tinyurl.com/2dq5zln
http://tinyurl.com/2elxmc5
http://tinyurl.com/287c5y9
http://tinyurl.com/29nehsf
http://tinyurl.com/2cjng4w
http://tinyurl.com/26lsh9p
http://tinyurl.com/2eohfqa
http://tinyurl.com/2elxmc5
Refusing to stand up for your ideas improves substantially
on your efforts to support them.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> "He wanted me to pick deadly weapons," says Mr.
>> Godwin. "He wanted to kill me." Mr. Godwin's weapon of
>> choice was Trivial Pursuit, and the battle was to occur
>> at the lawyer's home. The bully never showed up,
>> claiming he didn't want to waste his time with a board
>> game. "I was never worried that I was going to get
>> hurt by the guy," Mr. Godwin says. "I thought I would
>> call his bluff."
>> http://tinyurl.com/2v6zvyr
>> http://tinyurl.com/2vnjkg5
>> http://tinyurl.com/33j56e2
> Fascinating. In the end, did the WSJ print Zeleny's letter? Whatever
> he is, "network bully" he's not. (How /can/ one be a "network bully" -
> the very notion is funny.)
Isn't that the point? 'Talks like a bully on the
network but then doesn't show up.' His bluff thus being called.
> Anyhow, it was interesting to read how
> Goodwin did not (or pretended not to) understand Zeleny's Hoch-English.
Hooch-English is more like it, I was going to say, but the
joke doesn't fit his stiff-legged prose -- except maybe in a
"No, officer, I haven't been drinking" sort of way -- which has
been called Byzantine and unfelicitous by one of its
_defenders_. Clogged is probably the best one-word description.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> I have it on good authority that Godwin still trembles at the mention
> of my name.
He must be a jolly old soul who can't suppress his giggles.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> Maybe
>> he'd feel better about all of this if he had a few stiff drinks.
Latreides Amasa Carbuncle Corps <wichita...@msn.com>:
> I do not want Jonah feeling better about it. He is Julius Caesar,
> slated for death by dagger, and I am Tutankhamen the Overwhelmed. If
> he attained the power I have achieved, I would feel threatened.
Damn! I can see he won't be getting those drinks from you.
Not to boast, but since Mikhail has officially declared me
seething I've got the power thing squared away, "Can't fight the
seether" being a Veruckian truth.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> If you show me some truth that I can use, I will use it and be better off
> than before.
If you show Jonah truth he dislikes, he'll spit, fuss, and
call names.
> If you tell silly Catawumpus lies I will not feel that I
> have wasted much time on you.
> If you participated in a medieval melee contest, then you would win if
> you were the last man left standing. Kind of unambiguous who wins and who
> loses, and if there is any ambiguity it gets cleared up before the award.
> If you collect stamps and you know some other stamp-collectors, you can
> make up reasons why you're the winner and the others are all losers,
> but....
But if you're Jonah, then you're stuck tossing accusations
you never back up.
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
Your tremors in my presence have been richly attested in this venue by
Tal Kubo and Meg Worley. Seventeen years later, Paul Mitchell
witnessed your anxiety at the mere mention of my name in a meeting
with Jimbo Wales. My challenge is still open. To measure the depth of
your cowardice, I present you with additional options of wax bullets
at twelve paces and bamboo swords within a striking range. If you have
the balls, Jimbo and Paul can make the arrangements.
Michael Zeleny
God kills a kitten each time a rational man engages an attention
whore. You mistake your interlocutors' tendency to realize that for
their refusal to stand up for their ideas.
Catawumpus
>> Refusing to stand up for your ideas improves substantially
>> on your efforts to support them.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> God kills a kitten each time a rational man engages an attention
> whore. You mistake your interlocutors' tendency to realize that for
> their refusal to stand up for their ideas.
Hilarious. First you go running from your failed attempts
to defend Yahweh in Job and earthly life in the Socratic
dialogues, shifting to the position that they don't need you to
advocate for them, and now you're on the run from your own
running away. You won't even stand up for your refusal to make
a stand.
-- Catawumpus
Jonah Thomas
I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Jonah Thomas
I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Jonah Thomas
I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Jonah Thomas
I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Jonah Thomas
I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Jonah Thomas
I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Jonah Thomas
> I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
Sorry about the multiposting. My newsreader hung up and claimed it was
trying to post, it did not tell me it was posting many times.
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com>:
I have no expectation that anything interesting might come from you about
this, but maybe somebody else will read it and say something interesting.
>> Catawumpus can continue to claim he won whatever argument he claims he
>> was having with you, and there's nothing to say whether he's right or
>> wrong except perhaps disinterested bystanders might chime in with
>> opinions -- and he could make sock puppets to do that if he wanted to.
>
> Since Jonah is unable to figure out what the arguments are
> about here, it comes as no surprise that he's unable to identify their
> rights and wrongs. At least he's learning to be open about his
> limitations.
You repeatedly claim to be the arbiter of what the arguments are and what
the discussion is about. Why would anybody else be able to mind-read what
you have decided it's about this time?
I say that you often decide that the argument is about matters of
judgement and not matters of fact, though sometimes you switch back and
forth between them.
For example, there is the question of what the Book of Job says. This
varies among translations, and scholars sometimes debate subtleties among
the meaning in the original, and there is some reason to believe it was
translated into hebrew from phoenician and was originally about Ba'al.
But whatever, discussion about what Job says is discussion about facts
that can be argued by reference to experts and authorities.
The question about whether our interpretation of Job's moral stand is a
correct moral stand is different, it's a moral question. Should God be
praised or blamed? Is life worth living or is it better to die now? These
are questions of judgement, which is a different domain than questions
about fact.
There are people who say that morality is a question of fact, that there
is an absolute morality which is factually correct -- theirs -- and
everybody who disagrees with them about it is wrong. I assert that these
people are confused. We can judge competing moralities by various
standards -- do they encourage the survival and prosperity of the people
who espouse them? Do they encourage the survival and prosperity of the
societies that espouse them? Do they reduce the likelihood that humanity
will go extinct this year? Do they reduce the likelihood that life on
earth will all die off? -- but these are all standards that people can
accept or reject. Someone who believes that it would be a good thing for
all life to end today has a valid point of view, just one I disagree with.
"I can beat you and my dog can beat your dog." Question of fact. If we
have a fight and I get hurt to the point I beg you to stop beating me up,
then I have agreed that you are able to beat me up. If I am stubborn
enough to keep fighting until you kill me, likewise. It may be an
irrelevant fact since I don't have to agree to fight you and I can sue
you for assault and battery, but it's a factual question.
"My wife is more beautiful than your wife and my horse's ass is more
beautiful than your horse's ass." Question of judgement. There is no
objective measurement. We could perhaps ask 200 random people and see if
there is statistically significant agreement. We can somewhat go by
historical standards -- women with two eyes are considered more beautiful
than women with one eye, etc. But it's basicly subjective judgement.
"My moral standards are better than your moral standards and my cat's
moral standards are better than your cat's moral standards." Fact or
judgement?
Patok
Well, here you have one thing that has changed since the BBS days. :)
(Actually, I don't know - never seen a live dialup BBS. Was such a thing
possible with them? I think that such glitches are purely TCP/IP artifacts.)
Jonah Thomas
> Jonah Thomas wrote:
>> Jonah Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
>>
>> Sorry about the multiposting. My newsreader hung up and claimed it was
>> trying to post, it did not tell me it was posting many times.
>
> Well, here you have one thing that has changed since the BBS days.
> :)
> (Actually, I don't know - never seen a live dialup BBS. Was such a thing
> possible with them? I think that such glitches are purely TCP/IP
> artifacts.)
I know it was possible with some BBS software, but IME usually the sysop
would delete the extras. Usually there was so little traffic that sysops
could read it all, and they wanted to reduce bandwidth when they traded
messages across 1200 baud modems on local phone lines.
Michael Zeleny
> On Jun 24, 10:58 pm, Mike Godwin <mnem...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I have it on good authority that Godwin still trembles at the mention
>>> of my name.
>> I do shake with laughter when your name is mentioned, yes. I'd think
>> anyone would. Too bad you chickened out that evening I wasted waiting
>> for you to show up.
> Your tremors in my presence have been richly attested in this venue by
> Tal Kubo and Meg Worley. Seventeen years later, Paul Mitchell
> witnessed your anxiety at the mere mention of my name in a meeting
> with Jimbo Wales. My challenge is still open. To measure the depth of
> your cowardice, I present you with additional options of wax bullets
> at twelve paces and bamboo swords within a striking range. If you have
> the balls, Jimbo and Paul can make the arrangements.
I am pleased to announce that eighteen years, seven months, and twenty-
four days after the issuance of my dueling challenge to him, Mike
Godwin courageously amended his original choice of arms, from Trivial
Pursuit to my favorite weapon. As a result of his gracious choice, we
shall battle with shinai on a near future date. Watch this space for
further updates.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/da1c2df126ea598a
Michael Zeleny
> Catawumpus <kimm...@fastmail.fm>:
>> Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
>>> Refusing to stand up for your ideas improves substantially
>>> on your efforts to support them.
>> God kills a kitten each time a rational man engages an attention
>> whore. You mistake your interlocutors' tendency to realize that for
>> their refusal to stand up for their ideas.
> Hilarious. First you go running from your failed attempts
> to defend Yahweh in Job and earthly life in the Socratic
> dialogues, shifting to the position that they don't need you to
> advocate for them, and now you're on the run from your own
> running away. You won't even stand up for your refusal to make
> a stand.
Sorry, Weinles, you have been eighty-sixed from my argument clinic.
Try sucking up to Collier or Godwin.
Catawumpus
>> Since Jonah is unable to figure out what the arguments are
>> about here, it comes as no surprise that he's unable to
>> identify their rights and wrongs. At least he's learning to be
>> open about his limitations.
Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com>:
> You repeatedly claim to be the arbiter of what the arguments are and what
> the discussion is about.
You're repeatedly telling the same lie, so I don't need to
ask whether you have any evidence for your b.s.: you've
already failed to show anywhere I've claimed I'm arbiter or the
referee. By contrast, you assigned yourself the job in so
many words when you said, "Well, see, you think you're the
referee, when in reality I'm the referee" (message-ID
20070525183735.1...@cavtel.net), although you keep
removing that from your replies.
> Why would anybody else be able to mind-read what
> you have decided it's about this time?
If you knew how to read in the usual way you wouldn't have
to depend on the telepathic skills you also seem to be
missing. I'm not sure which ability would be easier to acquire
at your age.
> I say that
You say lots of things, tossing assertions and accusations
like confetti.
> you often decide
None of my decisions made it into in your post even though
you say you're giving an example.
> that the argument is about matters of
> judgement and not matters of fact, though sometimes you switch back and
> forth between them. For example, there is the question of what the Book
> of Job says.
An example that shows you're projecting again. We debated
about the meaning and contents of the Book of Job. I
mentioned that Yahweh doesn't try to excuse himself by claiming
he tortured Job for the good of the universe. I also noted
that the idea is nonsensical, since the Almighty isn't required
to torment his creatures before he can benefit them. You
responded by falsely comparing the Lord and Maker of this world
-- nature's author -- to a mere person, an engineer working
within its constraints. As I said back then, you couldn't have
come up with a weaker reply.
http://tinyurl.com/2egxwft
http://tinyurl.com/22upnqx
Next you reasoned that in the absence of a contract Yahweh
isn't under any obligations to mankind: no deal, thus no
terms to adhere to. True so far as it goes -- the covenants in
the Torah don't come up in _Job_ -- but no excuse for the
Creator's evil-doing. Part of _Job_'s significance lies in the
fact that Yahweh does his evil gratis, inflicting it on a
blameless, righteous man, not as a mandated punishment for this
or that supposed sin.
http://tinyurl.com/2adndgv
http://tinyurl.com/2eody7f
Seeing the way things were going, you then tried to switch
the subject to the story's historical truth. "Sure, but
there's no justifiable reason to believe in that," you answered.
"Somebody wrote it down." Well, of course they did -- and
their writing was the topic, not your willingness to believe in
the events it describes.
http://tinyurl.com/23mqraz
http://tinyurl.com/2cmzor3
You pulled the same trick with Isaiah when it disputed the
idea Yahweh advocates free-speech. First you made the
ridiculous claim that the Creator's demand for silence from his
critics in Isaiah 29:16 is just some guy making a helpful
suggestion (Isaiah explicitly credits it to "the Lord") -- then
you pretended we were arguing about whether to believe the
Bible ("Why should I accept Isaiah ...?") rather than about the
things it says.
http://tinyurl.com/27lr7xc
http://tinyurl.com/25u7wfh
One more example: you chopped my qualification "according
to the scriptures" off certain comments about the Bible's
depiction of Yahweh in order to make it look like I was arguing
about "what God does" -- your words -- not about how he's
described there. Lucky for me your dishonesty is as obvious as
your stupidity.
http://tinyurl.com/2gxmbeb
http://tinyurl.com/2468bsh
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>>> I have it on good authority that Godwin still trembles at the mention
>>> of my name.
Mike Godwin <mnem...@gmail.com>:
>> I do shake with laughter when your name is mentioned, yes. I'd think
>> anyone would. Too bad you chickened out that evening I wasted waiting
>> for you to show up.
Jonah Thomas <jeth...@gmail.com>:
> I don't know why I thought things had changed since the BBS days.
The story here differs from the one you told about guys on
a bulletin board. You said they argued on-line, agreed to
meet in person for a fight, then logged back in again to debate
about what happened. But in this case it's agreed that the
fight didn't take place because Zeleny rejected Godwin's choice
of weapons. Question is whether he was justified. He
initially relied on an old Irish dueling code, but after Godwin
raised several objections to his reading he made "It's my
party" the basis of his position, thereby permitting himself to
cry if he wanted to.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
>> Hilarious. First you go running from your failed attempts
>> to defend Yahweh in Job and earthly life in the Socratic
>> dialogues, shifting to the position that they don't need you to
>> advocate for them, and now you're on the run from your own
>> running away. You won't even stand up for your refusal to make
>> a stand.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> Sorry, Weinles, you have been eighty-sixed from my argument clinic.
Not the first time you've promised to shut up. See if you
can do better at making it stick. You certainly can't do
worse than the clinically dead arguments you relied on here, so
I can understand why you'd rather not try again. Let's
conclude (either for now or for good, depending on how well you
keep your word) with a summary.
You invited yourself in with a remark about jerking-off on
Derrida: not an effective provocation, but it did bring to
mind the hand-job you once tried to wangle from Alonzo Church's
corpse.
Moving on, you credited yourself for success as a delivery
boy while denying bad-tempered, dirge-playing bagpipers
possibly can achieve eminence: a sentiment contradicted by the
quote that you once attached to all your posts, where
Aristotle (or pseudo-Aristotle) asks how come the very opposite
is true:
Why is it that all those who have become eminent in
philosophy or politics or poetry or the arts are
clearly atrabilious, and some of them to such an
extent as to be affected by diseases caused by black
bile, as is said to have happened to Heracles among
the heroes?
Plato is even more of a problem for you. In the dialogues
Socrates is often though not always described carping in
precisely the world-rejecting way you dislike, putting him very
much at odds with your pussy-and-booze philosophizing.
Editing doesn't help much: his "suicide by jury" bewilders you
because you bowdlerized his explanation about the basic
defects of material existence and the conflict between life and
truth.
Anyway, one of your feet turned up missing. You contended
you aimed it at my ass, but it never got there, leaving you
with a spare shoe to pound but casting doubt on your success in
the delivery business.
Shoe in hand, you raised the topic of Job. Not really the
brightest thing to do considering how it went last time
through: the persistent misreadings you relied on to pretty-up
the picture of the Creator there were self-humiliating
according to your own definition, causing you to slink off much
the way you've done once again.
Apparently you realized your mistake, even though you were
reluctant to say so: instead of offering Yahweh another
incompetent defence you retreated to the position that he could
get by o.k. without you to help him. Genuine progress.
Refusing to defend the Almighty undeniably improved on the thin
excuses that you made for him before. Unfortunately you
couldn't manage to stand firm on your unwillingness to stand up
for your beliefs, switching to the position that you merely
had more important places to put your attention. First you ran
from your claims re Creator and Creation, then you repeated
the exercise by running away from your running. Meta-cowardice.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
"Michael Zeleny" <larv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
a4bb44df-6992-499d...@d12g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Congratulations. Let us hope you will finally have satisfaction.
And to think that if I had not mentioned this piece of unfinished
business between the two of you, it might never have been
resolved.
Michael Zeleny
Thank you. Going back a little further, if you had not aborted your
own challenge to this progeny of cut-throat Bolsheviks, Godwin might
never have been emboldened to defer to my choice of arms. Here's
hoping that his resolve endures better than yours.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/83e39bc47cb92362?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/50718abcd9a8cd63?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/d0cd5a04e0706293?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/3f769dab0ed91b66?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/20075185a4e3d324?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.books/msg/209e4689e3cf376a?hl=en
Marko Amnell
[...]
>>> I am pleased to announce that eighteen years, seven months, and twenty-
>>> four days after the issuance of my dueling challenge to him, Mike
>>> Godwin courageously amended his original choice of arms, from Trivial
>>> Pursuit to my favorite weapon. As a result of his gracious choice, we
>>> shall battle with shinai on a near future date. Watch this space for
>>> further updates.
>> Congratulations. Let us hope you will finally have satisfaction.
>> And to think that if I had not mentioned this piece of unfinished
>> business between the two of you, it might never have been
>> resolved.
> Thank you. Going back a little further, if you had not aborted your
> own challenge to this progeny of cut-throat Bolsheviks, Godwin might
> never have been emboldened to defer to my choice of arms. Here's
> hoping that his resolve endures better than yours.
Ah. I had forgotten our exchange. It seems what happened is I
claimed I could beat you in a boxing match. You interpreted that
as a challenge to a duel and suggested sabres on horseback
instead. Yet your comments suggest it was not real sabres you
had in mind. Now it seems you are to fight Godwin with bamboo
sticks so perhaps that is what you had in mind for our duel.
But the thing is, I didn't challenge you to a duel. I claimed I could
beat you in a boxing match.
Arindam Banerjee
> On Jun 24, 6:40 pm, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 24, 8:45 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 4:37 am, Marko Amnell <marko.amn...@kolumbus.fi> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 23, 7:16 pm, Jonah Thomas <jethom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Michael Zeleny wrote:
> > > > > > Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > > > > >>> Michael Zeleny <larva...@gmail.com>:
> > > > > >> Catawumpus <kimmer...@fastmail.fm>:
> > > > > >>>> My memory wasn't too bad. You awarded yourself a place in
> > > > > >>>> history as a footnote to Church and Quine. So you could answer that
> > > > > >>>> instead of jerking off on them, you want to gratify yourself with
> > > > > >>>> their dead hands.
>
> > > > > >>> There is no need for you to ventriloquize on my behalf.
>
> > > > > >> Agreed. Your attempt to memorialize yourself by reference
> > > > > >> to your masters already said plenty. But it didn't hurt to spell out
> > > > > >> the relation between your interest in self-pleasuring and the claim you
> > > > > >> made on history.
>
> > > > > > Not unlike Clem the Gem, I am a modest man, who has a little something
> > > > > > to be modest about. "Biggest fucking sex symbol this country ever
> > > > > > fucking produced." Or nurtured, anyway.
>
> > > > > >>> A more fitting
> > > > > >>> analogy for the instant means of my gratification is sticking my boot
> > > > > >>> up your arse.
>
> > > > > >> Then you must be constantly dissatisfied. Best of luck in
> > > > > >> locating that foot of yours. The idea you stuck it in _something_ is
> > > > > >> believable, especially if you've been hopping on one leg. Try looking
> > > > > >> in your mouth.
>
> > > > > > Your flaccid tu quoque might be more credibly deployed by someone who
> > > > > > hadn't passed the last fifteen years carping about his piteous lot...
> > > > > > er, Job. Get laid, Weinles. Or get fucked. Anything to muffle your
> > > > > > whine.
>
> > > > > I was trying to remember what this extended conversation reminded me of,
> > > > > and then it came to me.
>
> > > > > Back before the internet was available to civilians, various people ran
> > > > > BBSes locally. I used to look at a collection of local bulletin board
> > > > > systems and exchange messages etc. And there were these people having an
> > > > > extended argument. They insulted each other worse and worse, until
> > > > > finally one of them challenged the other to a duel.
>
> > > > > Monday: Meet me in person and say that!
> > > > > Tuesday: OK, I will.
> > > > > Wednesday: Meet me at the mall on Sunday, at the upper level parking
> > > > > deck, at 2 PM.
> > > > > Thursday: I'll be there. You'll know me because I'm 6'4", brown hair and
> > > > > ice-blue eyes and I'll be driving my red Jaguar convertible. I'm a
> > > > > special forces ranger.
> > > > > Friday: OK. I'll be there. I'm 6'6, 220 pounds all muscle, red hair and
> > > > > green eyes, and I'm a navy SEAL. I drive a black Mercedes.
>
> > > > Your analogy is not quite apt. While Catawumpus
> > > > aka Moggin is almost certainly the proverbial
> > > > nerdy 90 pound weakling type, Zeleny is a
> > > > former consultant for the Illinois Law Enforcement
> > > > Commission, is familiar with fire arms, and looks
> > > > fairly muscular in photographs easily found on
> > > > the Web. I could find no photographs of
> > > > Catawumpus / Moggin so I guess theoretically it
> > > > remains possible he is one of those "tough geek"
> > > > types like, say, UFC cage fighter Rich Franklin
> > > > (former high school math teacher).
>
> > > > But as far as duels go, you're on the right track.
> > > > Zeleny challenged Mike Godwin (of "Godwin's Law"
> > > > fame") to a duel, but Godwin backed out, and if
> > > > I recall correctly, Zeleny even challenged me to
> > > > a duel with sabres once, in honour of his sabre-
> > > > wielding Russian ancestors.
>
> > > > ObBook. _A Jew on Horseback_, an upcoming
> > > > biography of Isaac Babel by Gregory Freidin.
>
> > > > as well as the title of a NYRB article on Babel...http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1995/jun/22/a-jew-on-horseba...text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > obBook: "And quiet flows the Don" Mikhail Sholokhov.
> > > I was trying to find the passage where Grigory Melekhov
> > > in a one-on-one sabre duel on horseback shifts the blade
> > > to his left hand at the last moment, then attacks the opposition's
> > > backhand by turning his horse in the unexpected direction.
> > > Could not find it, too much matter. Does anyone remember?
>
> > Are you sure you are remembering the fight correctly?
> > Does he really shift the sabre to his left hand?
> > Or is it this fight? :
>
> > "Six Hungarian hussars were busily occupied
> > with the horses of the field-gun on the extreme
> > right of the battery. One was dragging at the
> > bits of the excited artillery horses, another was
> > beating them with the flat of his sword, while
> > the others were tugging and pulling at the
> > spokes of the carriage wheels. An officer on a
> > dock-tailed chocolate mare was giving orders.
> > At the sight of the Cossacks the hussars leapt
> > to their horses.
> > " "Closer, closer," Grigory counted to the
> > rhythm of his galloping horse. As he galloped,
> > one foot momentarily lost its stirrup, and feeling
> > himself insecure in his saddle, with inward
> > alarm he bent over and fished with his toe for
> > the dangling iron. When he had recovered his
> > foothold he looked up and saw the six horses
> > of the field-gun in front of him. The outrider
> > on the foremost in a blood- and brain-spattered
> > shirt, was lying over the animal's neck, embracing it.
> > Grigory's horse brought its hoof down
> > with a sickening scrunch on the body of the
> > dead gunner. Two more were lying by an over-
> > turned case of shells. A fourth was stretched
> > face downward over the gun-carriage. Silantyev
> > was just in front of Grigory. The Hungarian officer
> > fired at almost point-blank range and the
> > Cossack fell, his hands clutching and embracing
> > the air. Grigory pulled on his reins and
> > tried to approach the officer from the left, the
> > better to use his sabre; but the officer saw
> > through his manoeuvre and fired under his arm
> > at him. Having discharged the contents of his
> > revolver, he drew his sword. He parried three
> > smashing blows with the skill of a trained fencer.
> > Grigory gritted his teeth and lunged at him
> > yet a fourth time, standing in his stirrups. Their
> > horses were now galloping almost side by side,
> > and he noticed the ashy clean-shaven cheek of
> > the Hungarian and the regimental number sewn
> > on his collar. With a feint he diverted the officer's
> > attention, and changing the direction of
> > his stroke, thrust the point of his sabre between
> > the Hungarian's shoulder-blades. He aimed a
> > second blow at the neck, just at the top of the
> > spine. The officer dropped his sword and reins
> > from his hands, and arched his back as if he
> > had been bitten, then toppled over his saddle-
> > bow. Feeling a terrible relief, Grigory lashed
> > at his head, and saw the sabre smash into the
> > bone above the ear. "
>
> >http://www.archive.org/stream/andquietflowsdon00shol/andquietflowsdon...Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yes, I read that account this afternoon. Was it some other book... I
> don't know, read it more than 25 years ago.
> You seem to have the same translation as I have, form Progress
> Publishers, Moscow. 4 volumes
>
> I seem to have confused two fights. The first one you published, other
> one, Vol 4, p 439 is:
>
> "When he had covered some forty yards he looked back. Fomin, Kaparin,
> Chumakov, and several other men were following at a furious gallop
> some twenty yards behind him. The machine-guns in the forest had
> stopped firing; only the one on the extreme right was rattling away
> with short, angry bursts at the Fomin men scrambling around the
> baggage-wagons. Then that last machine-gun also fell silent, and
> Grigory realized that the attackers were now right on top of the camp,
> and that the men left behind were being sabred. He guessed it from
> the desperate shouts, and the occasional shots fired by the defenders.
> But he had no time to look back. As his horse carried him impetuously
> towards the stream of men advancing against him, he chose his man. A
> soldier in a short sheepskin was galloping towards him on a grey, not
> very fast horse. As though in a flash of lightning, for one elusive
> moment Grigory saw the horse with its white, foam-flecked chest, the
> rider, his youthful face flushed with excitement, and behind him the
> broad, sombre expanse of the steppe stretching away to the Don. The
> next moment he would have to avoid a blow an wield his sabre. When
> some ten yards from the rider, Grigory swung his body sharply over to
> the left. He heard the cutting whistle of a sabre above his head and,
> jerking himself upright in the saddle, touched the man on the head
> with the very point of his sabre as he passed. His hand hardly felt
> the force of the blow, but, looking back, he saw the man sag and
> slowly slip out of the saddle and saw a thick stream of blood on the
> back of his yellow sheepskin coat. The grey horse slackened into a
> fast trot, running sideways as though afraid of its own shadow, its
> head carried wildly high in the air."
>
> Cheers,
> Arindam Banerjee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now, that's what I call writing... unknown, in these decadent days!
Howard Sherman
>
> If Salinger believed he was a whore he wasn't wrong, since
> signing with Little, Brown made him a pro, i.e., someone who
> does it for money. Doesn't set him apart: just makes him more
> honest than average.
>
> -- Catawumpus
Back then an author's only route to recognition was to be published
following the established protocols of the time.
Here's a "what if" question to ponder:
What if the Internet existed back in JD Salinger's hey day? Would he
have "whored himself out" and be published or take his works right to
the Internet with any intermediaries?
Howard Sherman
Catawumpus
[http://www.slate.com/id/2242991/]
>> If Salinger believed he was a whore he wasn't wrong, since
>> signing with Little, Brown made him a pro, i.e., someone who
>> does it for money. Doesn't set him apart: just makes him more
>> honest than average.
Howard Sherman <How...@malinche.net>:
> Back then an author's only route to recognition was to be published
> following the established protocols of the time.
True enough. I'm not blaming Salinger for needing to make
money to live on -- a problem both then and now -- I'm
crediting him with considerably better-than-average honesty and
perceptiveness.
> Here's a "what if" question to ponder:
> What if the Internet existed back in JD Salinger's hey day? Would he
> have "whored himself out" and be published or take his works right to
> the Internet with any intermediaries?
Disintermediation removes the pimp, not the street-walking.
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
>>> Hilarious. First you go running from your failed attempts
>>> to defend Yahweh in Job and earthly life in the Socratic
>>> dialogues, shifting to the position that they don't need you to
>>> advocate for them, and now you're on the run from your own
>>> running away. You won't even stand up for your refusal to make
>>> a stand.
>> Sorry, Weinles, you have been eighty-sixed from my argument clinic.
Weinles, I define cowardice as keyboard kommando action falling short
of armed personal appearance, If you want to get to the next level,
I'll be happy to engage you on the same terms as Godwin. Till then,
your bootless bluster leaves me unmoved.
Arindam Banerjee
> of armed personal appearance, If you want to get to the next level,
> I'll be happy to engage you on the same terms as Godwin. Till then,
> your bootless bluster leaves me unmoved.
>
> --
> Michael Zel...@post.harvard.eduhttp://larvatus.livejournal.com/
What will you do unto him with your bamboo sword, Zeleny?
Marko Amnell
"Arindam Banerjee" <adda...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
f1a469cc-0d9d-479d...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Michael Zeleny wrote:
>> Weinles, I define cowardice as keyboard kommando action falling short
>> of armed personal appearance, If you want to get to the next level,
>> I'll be happy to engage you on the same terms as Godwin. Till then,
>> your bootless bluster leaves me unmoved.
>>
> What will you do unto him with your bamboo sword, Zeleny?
Come now, let us not underestimate the power of the
practice sword. Miyamoto Musashi, one of the greatest
swordsmen who ever lived, defeated many opponents
armed only with a wooden sword. In his most famous
duel, he killed Sasaki Kojiro with a wooden sword:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GQGLvsVeXo
"In April 13, 1612, Musashi (about age 30) fought his most
famous duel, with Sasaki Kojiro, who was known as
"The Demon of the Western Provinces" and who wielded
a nodachi. Musashi came late and unkempt to the appointed
place - the remote island of Funajima, north of Kokura.
The duel was short. Musashi killed his opponent with a
bokken that he had carved from an oar while traveling to
the island. Musashi fashioned it to be longer than the
nodachi, making it closer to a modern suburito."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi#Duel_with_Sasaki_Kojir.C5.8D
Arindam Banerjee
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> f1a469cc-0d9d-479d-b82f-3c749dbfb...@z30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
My thinking was along different lines, Marko. Thanks for your
information though. I saw a movie of a blind samurai who was simply
invincible, he too had a bamboo sword I think. Safer and lighter to
carry around, of course.
Anyway, in ancient India there was this devout royalist who was also
very poor. He wanted to give something to his king, but he had
nothing. Then he found that his banana tree had borne fruit, and
there was an outstandingly good banana in that clump.
He went to the palace, and announced that he had a gift for the king.
The king was in a tense meeting, with shortage of money being the key
aspect under discussion. He was incensed when he found what the gift
was, and told his men to shove it up the giver. After this unpleasant
task was done, the man laughed out very loudly. This really annoyed
the king. He said with fury that unless good reason was given for
this humour, he would have him executed on the spot. The man sobered
up at once and said, "My neighbour is bringing a pineapple".
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Catawumpus
> Weinles, I define cowardice as keyboard kommando action falling short
> of armed personal appearance, If you want to get to the next level,
> I'll be happy to engage you on the same terms as Godwin. Till then,
> your bootless bluster leaves me unmoved.
Back again? I wonder how often you'll fuck off before you
stay fucked. Anyway, you dodged Godwin's choice of weapons
the same way you ducked evidence and arguments re Job, Socrates
and so on in the issues you raised with me. So yeah, same
terms: you're unable to put up or to shut up, though you lapse
into silence from time to time.
-- Catawumpus
Marko Amnell
Note, however, that Musashi was using a practice
sword made from wood, known as a bokken.
The bamboo sword, or shinai, is used as a practice
sword in kendo. That is the weapon Zeleny and Godwin
will use in their duel. The suburito is a large wooden
sword used with two hands, and thus rougly the same size
as a nodachi or dai-katana (two-handed katana).
Musashi carved a particularly large wooden sword
from an oar so that he could reach his opponent's
head in the duel, as is shown in the Youtube clip.
The Youtube clip showing the famous duel is
from a Japanese television remake of the
1954 three-part series about the life of Musashi
starring Toshiro Mifune:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047444/
> Safer and lighter to carry around, of course.
Well, steel swords are not as heavy as many
people think. In movies, women or weak persons
are sometimes shown trying to hold up a two-handed
sword and having trouble. That is not really realistic.
Even a very large two-handed steel sword, such
as a Scottish claymore that is six feet long, weighs
at most about seven pounds (less than four kilograms).
One-handed swords such as a Japanese samurai
katana weight considerably less (3-4 pounds).
> Anyway, in ancient India there was this devout royalist who was also
> very poor. He wanted to give something to his king, but he had
> nothing. Then he found that his banana tree had borne fruit, and
> there was an outstandingly good banana in that clump.
>
> He went to the palace, and announced that he had a gift for the king.
> The king was in a tense meeting, with shortage of money being the key
> aspect under discussion. He was incensed when he found what the gift
> was, and told his men to shove it up the giver. After this unpleasant
> task was done, the man laughed out very loudly. This really annoyed
> the king. He said with fury that unless good reason was given for
> this humour, he would have him executed on the spot. The man sobered
> up at once and said, "My neighbour is bringing a pineapple".
Funny story but what does it have to do with dueling?
Michael Zeleny
>> Weinles, I define cowardice as keyboard kommando action falling short
>> of armed personal appearance. If you want to get to the next level,
>> I'll be happy to engage you on the same terms as Godwin. Till then,
>> your bootless bluster leaves me unmoved.
> Back again? I wonder how often you'll fuck off before you
> stay fucked. Anyway, you dodged Godwin's choice of weapons
> the same way you ducked evidence and arguments re Job, Socrates
> and so on in the issues you raised with me. So yeah, same
> terms: you're unable to put up or to shut up, though you lapse
> into silence from time to time.
After eighteen years of windbaggery, Godwin mustered the dignity to
choose a real weapon, and my favorite one at that. No surprise in
observing Weinles limited to blowing hot air. To plumb the depths of
his cowardice, I hereby propose to engage both of them simultaneously.
Michael Zeleny
>> Weinles, I define cowardice as keyboard kommando action falling short
>> of armed personal appearance. If you want to get to the next level,
>> I'll be happy to engage you on the same terms as Godwin. Till then,
>> your bootless bluster leaves me unmoved.
> What will you do unto him with your bamboo sword, Zeleny?
Affairs of honor end in apology or incapacitation.
Catawumpus
>> Back again? I wonder how often you'll fuck off before you
>> stay fucked. Anyway, you dodged Godwin's choice of weapons
>> the same way you ducked evidence and arguments re Job, Socrates
>> and so on in the issues you raised with me. So yeah, same
>> terms: you're unable to put up or to shut up, though you lapse
>> into silence from time to time.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> After eighteen years of windbaggery, Godwin mustered the dignity to
> choose a real weapon, and my favorite one at that. No surprise in
> observing Weinles limited to blowing hot air. To plumb the depths of
> his cowardice, I hereby propose to engage both of them simultaneously.
No surprise Zeleny's still on the run. Unable to stand up
for his claims about _Job_, Plato, Derrida, etc., and
contradicted by his own .sig file, he takes the nearest door he
sees. Wise move. Then again, he didn't have the smarts to
stop exhibiting his difficulties, so it's only natural he keeps
poking his head back in.
-- Catawumpus
Michael Zeleny
>>> Back again? I wonder how often you'll fuck off before you
>>> stay fucked. Anyway, you dodged Godwin's choice of weapons
>>> the same way you ducked evidence and arguments re Job, Socrates
>>> and so on in the issues you raised with me. So yeah, same
>>> terms: you're unable to put up or to shut up, though you lapse
>>> into silence from time to time.
>> After eighteen years of windbaggery, Godwin mustered the dignity to
>> choose a real weapon, and my favorite one at that. No surprise in
>> observing Weinles limited to blowing hot air. To plumb the depths of
>> his cowardice, I hereby propose to engage both of them simultaneously.
> No surprise Zeleny's still on the run. Unable to stand up
> for his claims about _Job_, Plato, Derrida, etc., and
> contradicted by his own .sig file, he takes the nearest door he
> sees. Wise move. Then again, he didn't have the smarts to
> stop exhibiting his difficulties, so it's only natural he keeps
> poking his head back in.
No guts; no wonder. Something for the history books: doubtless Weinles
is the first sentient being ever to be outclassed by Godwin.
Arindam Banerjee
> "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
Thanks, I studied that with interest. I also studied other clips
where Musashi had a steel sword as well. However the one you posted
(where he only had the wooden sword) was most interesting. It was
taking a very calculating risk, but if Koricha did not get his
strategy, he would stand no chance. Evidently Koricha was very good
with steel swords, so Musashi did not match it. He depended upon
strategy, and what strategy! He got Koricha annoyed, got the sun
behind him, fooled him about the length of his wooden sword, slowly
extended its effective length, then judging time and space to
perfection got him with just the point! Perfect. Koricha was fooled
about the point, and that is the most basic thing in warfare isn't it.
However there was this risk that if Koricha got on and became
defensive and then attacked both the sword to cut it and also Musashi,
the odds would have been on his side. The duel was so brief, it did
not get to that stage. In the other clip, the battle was longer and
Musashi was in a position to defend with his steel sword, and attack
with the longer wooden sword.
I was thinking of the ultimate humiliation our hero Zeleny could cause
his opponent. Won't venture further, for modesty's sake.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Arindam Banerjee
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, I wrote Kochira, should be Kojiro of course!
Catawumpus
>> No surprise Zeleny's still on the run. Unable to stand up
>> for his claims about _Job_, Plato, Derrida, etc., and
>> contradicted by his own .sig file, he takes the nearest door he
>> sees. Wise move. Then again, he didn't have the smarts to
>> stop exhibiting his difficulties, so it's only natural he keeps
>> poking his head back in.
Michael Zeleny <larv...@gmail.com>:
> No guts; no wonder. Something for the history books: doubtless Weinles
> is the first sentient being ever to be outclassed by Godwin.
Amusing to watch Mikhail toss insults over his shoulder as
he beats it on down the road.
-- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> I was thinking of the ultimate humiliation our hero Zeleny could cause
> his opponent. Won't venture further, for modesty's sake.
You modestly allow your hero do your fighting, so I'm sure
you're humble enough to let him do your fucking, too. You
should offer him your daughters in return for doing your chores
with your wife.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
> Arindam Banerjee <adda1...@bigpond.com>:
>
> > I was thinking of the ultimate humiliation our hero Zeleny could cause
> > his opponent. Won't venture further, for modesty's sake.
>
> You modestly allow your hero do your fighting, so I'm sure
> you're humble enough to let him do your fucking, too.
I am not fighting anyone, and your lack of comprehension skills is
matched only by the peculiar quality of your innate rudeness;
unredeemed by any positive, let alone, heroic, quality. So, humour is
beyond you.
> You
> should offer him your daughters in return for doing your chores
> with your wife.
My, you do seem to take quite a lot of interest in my personal life.
Which of course, is Divinely Blessed. Fool, these days women are no
longer chattel, to be disposed off by men. Now, rude scum, fuck off.
>
> -- Catawumpus
Catawumpus
> I am not fighting anyone
My point precisely. If you fuck your wife in the same way
you fight your battles, some other man must be in your bed.
Presumably the hero you've already enlisted (though it could be
whoever lives next door).
> My, you do seem to take quite a lot of interest in my personal life.
> Which of course, is Divinely Blessed.
You already admitted the divine sent you to hell, which is
less than complimentary.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
Now, what has driven this stupid disgusting chap totally crazy? Heh-
heh, I can guess!!! The pineapple, or its equivalent. :) :)
Vomit, crap and pee some more, rude and cowardly freak, since you
won't fuck off. Pollute from all your orifices!
Really, what a curse it is, to be you. Bit sad, I feel.
Catawumpus
> - gratuitous rubbish from an extraordinary arsehole deleted -
Proving me right about your inability to keep up your side
of a fight, and explaining why you were pleased to find
somebody else waging your battle for you, though you don't seem
even half so happy with the thought of your hero bedding
either your wife or -- his earlier suggestion -- your daughters.
You also removed my unhelpful reminder that your "divinely
blessed" life is a sentence to hell going by your own
description, which suggests that your modesty has narrow limits.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
Catawumpus
> Pitiable moron, get lost.
More proof you can't muster a reply -- you keep on erasing
everything you can't respond to -- which reinforces my
observation that you needed someone to do your fighting for you.
> Your useless life is of no interest to me.
But your life is the one we've been discussing. "Divinely
blessed" you called it, forgetting that you'd already
described it as a trip to hell. Somehow you mixed up blessings
with condemnation.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
Catawumpus
> Get lost.
You continue to resemble your equally spherical
counterpart from the northern hemi. But he would suddenly lose
his way here when faced with difficulties, while you much
prefer your questioners to do the same. I understand why you'd
rather not be reminded that you described your life as a
condemnation instead of a blessing, especially since it implies
your gods are less impressed with you than you are with
yourself; still, putting your hands over your ears isn't a very
effective reply.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
Catawumpus
> I ignore the low-minded.
Maybe. But you've compulsively followed-up my posts while
conveniently deleting all of their contents, indicating you
paid enough attention both to know you disliked what saw and to
realize you didn't have a reply.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
Catawumpus
> Rude and abusive scum need also be despised.
You can despise whoever you like, of course, yourself very
much included. What you obviously can't do is manage a
response; by now you can't even stand to quote the comments you
aren't able to reply to. Which brings us back to the
beginning: your need for a hero to fight your battles, and his
interest in fucking your girls.
-- Catawumpus
Arindam Banerjee
Catawumpus
> May arseholes luxuriate in their own little wells of stink.
Be careful you don't condemn yourself is what I started to
say. It would have been too late, though, and the typical
sort of asshole (no offense, but you're more of a type than one
of a kind) enjoys his own stink. Besides, you've been
condemned by your own gods, so I doubt you can make things much
worse with self-curses.
-- Catawumpus