CHEZ WATT in re Cool Hand Luke

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Category: "What we have here is failure to communicate."


>> ...yet another self-assigned honorific.
>
>I don't recall any others. Do you?

Since you asked, yes I do, else I wouldn't have said what I said. And
no, I won't mention others; this one makes the point just fine. You're
welcome.

[jillery]

In the category of "self-parody runs amok"

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[Mark Isaak]

On 5/15/23 6:49 AM, jillery wrote:
> In the category of "self-parody runs amok"
>
>> Category: "What we have here is failure to communicate."
>>
>>
>>>> ...yet another self-assigned honorific.
>>>
>>> I don't recall any others. Do you?
>>
>> Since you asked, yes I do, else I wouldn't have said what I said. And
>> no, I won't mention others; this one makes the point just fine. You're
>> welcome.

I'll mention now that this will not appear on the ballot. Chez Watts
are not supposed to be attack vehicles.

And yes, I know there have been others that could be construed as
attacks, but, first, those have always done poorly in the voting, and
second, this one is so blatant that I cannot construe it any other way.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:50:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 5/15/23 6:49 AM, jillery wrote:
> > In the category of "self-parody runs amok"
> >
> >> Category: "What we have here is failure to communicate."
> >>
> >>
> >>>> ...yet another self-assigned honorific.
> >>>
> >>> I don't recall any others. Do you?
> >>
> >> Since you asked, yes I do, else I wouldn't have said what I said. And
> >> no, I won't mention others; this one makes the point just fine. You're
> >> welcome.
> I'll mention now that this will not appear on the ballot. Chez Watts
> are not supposed to be attack vehicles.
>
> And yes, I know there have been others that could be construed as
> attacks, but, first, those have always done poorly in the voting, and
> second, this one is so blatant that I cannot construe it any other way.

You are placed in the awkward position of a parent who hears the
complaint, "Mom, he keeps hitting me back." "He hit me back first."

[peter2...@gmail.com]

It hasn't happened here. Keep in mind that I was VERY careful to give no hint of the identity
of any of the people involved. It isn't even completely clear that there were only two of them.

Also, don't you see how funny it is for someone to say "You're welcome"
while being evasive about a simple question that comes naturally from the context?
Divorced from any thought of enmity between any of the people involved,
the final outcome is really quite amusing.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 18:49:37 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specime...@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>On 5/15/23 6:49 AM, jillery wrote:
>> In the category of "self-parody runs amok"
>>
>>> Category: "What we have here is failure to communicate."
>>>
>>>
>>>>> ...yet another self-assigned honorific.
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall any others. Do you?
>>>
>>> Since you asked, yes I do, else I wouldn't have said what I said. And
>>> no, I won't mention others; this one makes the point just fine. You're
>>> welcome.
>
>I'll mention now that this will not appear on the ballot. Chez Watts
>are not supposed to be attack vehicles.
>
>And yes, I know there have been others that could be construed as
>attacks, but, first, those have always done poorly in the voting, and
>second, this one is so blatant that I cannot construe it any other way.

I am unsurprised that you don't apply your reasoning to the chez watt
it attacks.

[jillery]

On Mon, 15 May 2023 20:03:52 -0700 (PDT), Lawyer Daggett
<j.nobel...@gmail.com> wrote:

He volunteered for it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 05:50:26 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:06:42?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

The above is what passes for honor among trolls and their enablers.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

Just in case anyone reading this did not know: "Cool Hand Luke" is a classic 1967 film
starring Paul Newman at a relatively young age.
"What we've got here is failure to communicate" [I was quoting from memory.]
is probably the best known quote from the movie; its only competitor is what gives the
film its name (which is also the nickname Luke's friends gave him):

"Sometimes `Nothing' is a pretty cool hand."

[However, Wikipedia doesn't quote it. It just explains how the nickname originated.]


Of course, everyone who knows about poker knows what's behind the "Sometimes":
"Nothing" is a cool hand only if your bluff isn't called. But on that memorable
occasion, Luke's bluff was not called.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:


Your trolling of this thread is ironic, as it illustrates your failure
to even try to communicate.

[Lawyer Daggett]

Well bless your heart. I did form an opinion regarding any
worthy humor value of your nomination. I even paused to
ask myself if my take, on the humor value, would rank it
higher if I wasn't aware of those involved, but the needle,
so to speak, didn't budge. Heck, my mind flashed upon a
few humorous Chez Watt responses that ran back to 'honorific'
(and it's referent) but I decided that no good would come
of it. Too much of what I found funny (about my private chez watt)
depended on my prior impressions. And some bonfires
don't need added gasoline.

I wrote the above and decided to let it sit, probably delete
it without sending. But perhaps I'll be explicit.

I agreed with Jillery, and often do in a broad sense but I
don't see much value in echoing or piling on. Nor in giving
out affirmations. I viewed your chez watt as mean spirited
and riddled with denial of something I consider obvious.
At the same time, I figured you were successfully self-justifying
it to yourself (if to almost nobody else). My volunteering
that would have only induced you to dig in more with your
impression that you're being persecuted which would be
counter-productive. But above you push it.

As to Jillery's retort, it's close to fighting fire with fire, albeit
with a modest increase in heat and directness, still mostly
a tit-for-tat thing. I'm tired of tit-for-tat but I get it.

Of course I probably should delete and not post this but
expect I'll post it. Let it serve as an example for those who
wonder if they should avoid responding or not: avoiding
is often the better option: exhibit 384.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:46:25 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 8:55:23 AM UTC-4, [redacted] wrote:

Also redacted by you: the words of Jillery, whom you name below,
to which Mark was responding below.

> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:06:42 PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 9:50:22 PM UTC-4, Mark Isaak wrote:
>

[the original Chez Watt, not the one to which Mark was responding:]

> > > > >>>> ...yet another self-assigned honorific.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I don't recall any others. Do you?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Since you asked, yes I do, else I wouldn't have said what I said. And
> > > > >> no, I won't mention others; this one makes the point just fine. You're
> > > > >> welcome.

[Mark:]

> > > > I'll mention now that this will not appear on the ballot. Chez Watts
> > > > are not supposed to be attack vehicles.
> > > >
> > > > And yes, I know there have been others that could be construed as
> > > > attacks, but, first, those have always done poorly in the voting, and
> > > > second, this one is so blatant that I cannot construe it any other way.
> >
> > > You are placed in the awkward position of a parent who hears the
> > > complaint, "Mom, he keeps hitting me back." "He hit me back first."

> > It hasn't happened here. Keep in mind that I was VERY careful to give no hint of the identity
> > of any of the people involved. It isn't even completely clear that there were only two of them.

The first and third comments were by the same person via internal evidence;
a possible third person could have been the one to whom the first comment
had been addressed.

I hesitated for a long time before deciding to put in the first sentence, since
it does give a clue to a few readers who aren't playing the Chez Watt game for pure fun,
as to who was involved. Do you think it would have been better to omit it?

> > Also, don't you see how funny it is for someone to say "You're welcome"
> > while being evasive about a simple question that comes naturally from the context?
> > Divorced from any thought of enmity between any of the people involved,
> > the final outcome is really quite amusing.

The final outcome included the category, which I think neatly summed
up the whole exchange: "What we have [*sic*] here is failure to communicate."

Now we come to your words, Daggett:

> Well bless your heart. I did form an opinion regarding any
> worthy humor value of your nomination.

You haven't thought of all the possibilities. Perhaps you know of
Leo Rosten's books on *H*y*m*a*n* *K*a*p*l*a*n*. They rely
for most of their humor on awkward and oft-incorrect English by students
recently arrived from various countries. I give one such possibility below.

>I even paused to
> ask myself if my take, on the humor value, would rank it
> higher if I wasn't aware of those involved, but the needle,
> so to speak, didn't budge.

ISTM the well, er, needle had been poisoned in your mind too much for that.

>Heck, my mind flashed upon a
> few humorous Chez Watt responses that ran back to 'honorific'
> (and it's referent) but I decided that no good would come
> of it. Too much of what I found funny (about my private chez watt)
> depended on my prior impressions.

I only know of your public chez watts, and I voted for one of them
despite your self-deprecating humor telling people to ignore it. You laid it
on a bit thick to be getting maximum humor out of it, IMO, but others' mileage may vary.
As the old Latin saying goes, "De gustibus non est disputandum."

> And some bonfires
> don't need added gasoline.
>
> I wrote the above and decided to let it sit, probably delete
> it without sending. But perhaps I'll be explicit.

Or you could have stopped after writing the above and let well enough alone.

> I agreed with Jillery, and often do in a broad sense but I
> don't see much value in echoing or piling on. Nor in giving
> out affirmations. I viewed your chez watt as mean spirited
> and riddled with denial of something I consider obvious.

I have no idea what meaning you are attaching to the word "denial."


Anyway, the "You're welcome" could be construed as having been written by
a socially awkward German who is unaware that the word "Bitte" has several incompatible
translations in English, one of which is indeed "You're welcome."

Here is an example of a true-to-life exchange auf Deutsch between two laconic speakers:

"Bitte." ["Please," perhaps asking for something.]

"Bitte." ["Here you are." or "Help yourself."]

"Danke." ["Thank you."]

"Bitte." [You're welcome."]

On that note, I close at the end of this sentence, leaving in the rest of your ruminations,
with which I disagree, except for the sentence at the end, which
gives leeway for us to have varying reactions to it.

[jillery]

On Tue, 16 May 2023 12:30:45 -0700 (PDT), PeeWee Peter continues his
mindless trolling. This is what turns T.O. into a Hellhole.

<the following left uncommented for purposes of documentation>


>On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:46:25?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

>> On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 8:55:23?AM UTC-4, [redacted] wrote:
>
>Also redacted by you: the words of Jillery, whom you name below,
>to which Mark was responding below.
>

>> > On Monday, May 15, 2023 at 11:06:42?PM UTC-4, Lawyer Daggett wrote:

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:11:39 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2023 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
> <peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:

Readers, note how the above attribution line is partly jillery's doing.

Below, we see what counts as trolling in the World According to Jillery:

<snip to get to what I added and what jillery calls "trolling">

> >
> >
> >Just in case anyone reading this did not know: "Cool Hand Luke" is a classic 1967 film
> >starring Paul Newman at a relatively young age.
> >"What we've got here is failure to communicate" [I was quoting from memory.]
> >is probably the best known quote from the movie; its only competitor is what gives the
> >film its name (which is also the nickname Luke's friends gave him):
> >
> >"Sometimes `Nothing' is a pretty cool hand."

This was also quoted from memory. Not so easy to check as the other quote, whose correct version
was given by Wikipedia:

> >[However, Wikipedia doesn't quote it. It just explains how the nickname originated.]
> >
> >
> >Of course, everyone who knows about poker knows what's behind the "Sometimes":
> >"Nothing" is a cool hand only if your bluff isn't called. But on that memorable
> >occasion, Luke's bluff was not called.
> >
> >
> >Peter Nyikos

Perhaps jillery will provide us with a Chez Watt explaining her private definition of "trolling."

Nah.


Peter Nyikos

[jillery]

On Wed, 17 May 2023 07:36:06 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
<peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:

>On Tuesday, May 16, 2023 at 1:11:39?PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 May 2023 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT), "peter2...@gmail.com"
>> <peter2...@gmail.com> trolled:
>
>Readers, note how the above attribution line is partly jillery's doing.
>
>Below, we see what counts as trolling in the World According to Jillery:
>
><snip to get to what I added and what jillery calls "trolling">

Incorrect. Your trolling in this topic started with your OP, none of
which appears in the quoted text below. Your OP bastardized a CHEZ
WATT into an attack vehicle, inspired by me daring to answer your
pointless question in the same spirit you asked it. Bad jillery, bad,
bad, bad, so very bad.

>> >Just in case anyone reading this did not know: "Cool Hand Luke" is a classic 1967 film
>> >starring Paul Newman at a relatively young age.
>> >"What we've got here is failure to communicate" [I was quoting from memory.]
>> >is probably the best known quote from the movie; its only competitor is what gives the
>> >film its name (which is also the nickname Luke's friends gave him):
>> >
>> >"Sometimes `Nothing' is a pretty cool hand."
>
>This was also quoted from memory. Not so easy to check as the other quote, whose correct version
>was given by Wikipedia:
>
>> >[However, Wikipedia doesn't quote it. It just explains how the nickname originated.]
>> >
>> >
>> >Of course, everyone who knows about poker knows what's behind the "Sometimes":
>> >"Nothing" is a cool hand only if your bluff isn't called. But on that memorable
>> >occasion, Luke's bluff was not called.
>> >
>> >
>> >Peter Nyikos
>
>Perhaps jillery will provide us with a Chez Watt explaining her private definition of "trolling."
>
>Nah.

Perhaps PeeWee Peter will stop posting willfully stupid trolls.

Perhaps posters who act as if they are above such things will stop
enabling PeeWee Peter's willfully stupid trolls.

Nah.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

To use a familiar talk.origins convention: Lawyer Daggett "fixed it for Mark" by making
it look like Mark WAS applying the identical reasoning to my Chez Watt:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RkWQ6hJfp2w/m/yDPq995rAgAJ
May 16, 2023, 1:46:25 PM

He did this by deleting the following two lines from a post where I was replying to him:

> >On 5/15/23 6:49 AM, jillery wrote:
> >> In the category of "self-parody runs amok"

He also made it look like my defense against something Daggett claimed about both you and me
was a defense against Mark's criticism itself.

He also fixed it for Athel, Bob Casanova, DB Cates, erik simpson, and everyone else
who reads Lawyer Daggett's posts but not mine, and who may not have noticed what Mark's
words were originally about.


I believe that it is best for all concerned for you to be satisfied with that and to not pester
Mark again about what he did and didn't do. He has a very difficult role to perform in making sure
things are done in the true spirit of Chez Watt.


Peter Nyikos

[Lawyer Daggett]

It's tempting to believe in my Olympian godlike stature, or my grasping and
wielding the ring of power, but ultimately I'm left laughing.
Ultimately, "I will diminish, and go Into the West, and remain Galadriel."
Or perhaps I'll just laugh and frolic with Goldberry.

[DB Cates]

[snip]

> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 9:25:25 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

>>
>> He also fixed it for Athel, Bob Casanova, DB Cates, erik simpson, and everyone else
>> who reads Lawyer Daggett's posts but not mine, and who may not have noticed what Mark's
>> words were originally about.
>

When I saw these 'Chez What?' nominations (in Mark's post) i did not
think either of them was 'Chez What?' material. IMO they should be stand
alone without requiring commentary or knowledge of the thread they were
pulled from or the participants. End of interest for me and so there was
nothing for anyone to "fix". But Peter, in his paranoid fantasy, can't
help but invoke uninvolved third parties in his self important rant. So
once again Peter, fuck off.

[snip]

>>
>> Peter Nyikos
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 18 May 2023 23:49:19 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>:

>[snip]

>
>> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 9:25:25?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>
>>> He also fixed it for Athel, Bob Casanova, DB Cates, erik simpson, and everyone else
>>> who reads Lawyer Daggett's posts but not mine, and who may not have noticed what Mark's
>>> words were originally about.
>>
>When I saw these 'Chez What?' nominations (in Mark's post) i did not
>think either of them was 'Chez What?' material. IMO they should be stand
>alone without requiring commentary or knowledge of the thread they were
>pulled from or the participants.
>

From what I recall of the CW "rules" (actually, conventions)
you are correct; CW should be stand-alone with their "Say
WHAT?!?" nature obvious , and no attribution of source
should be included.

>
> End of interest for me and so there was
>nothing for anyone to "fix". But Peter, in his paranoid fantasy, can't
>help but invoke uninvolved third parties in his self important rant. So
>once again Peter, fuck off.

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[jillery]

On Thu, 18 May 2023 23:49:19 -0500, DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>[snip]

>
>> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 9:25:25?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>>
>>> He also fixed it for Athel, Bob Casanova, DB Cates, erik simpson, and everyone else
>>> who reads Lawyer Daggett's posts but not mine, and who may not have noticed what Mark's
>>> words were originally about.
>>
>When I saw these 'Chez What?' nominations (in Mark's post) i did not
>think either of them was 'Chez What?' material.

I agree, which "obviously" was the point of my Chez Watt. It's
"obvious" the point of PeeWee Peter's post was to troll yet another
almost certainly unintended self-parody

>IMO they should be stand
>alone without requiring commentary or knowledge of the thread they were
>pulled from or the participants. End of interest for me and so there was
>nothing for anyone to "fix". But Peter, in his paranoid fantasy, can't
>help but invoke uninvolved third parties in his self important rant. So
>once again Peter, fuck off.
>
>[snip]
>
>>>
>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>
>--

--

[Lawyer Daggett]

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 2:32:28 AM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2023 23:49:19 -0500, DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >[snip]
> >
> >> On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 9:25:25?PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >[snip]
> >>>
> >>> He also fixed it for Athel, Bob Casanova, DB Cates, erik simpson, and everyone else
> >>> who reads Lawyer Daggett's posts but not mine, and who may not have noticed what Mark's
> >>> words were originally about.
> >>
> >When I saw these 'Chez What?' nominations (in Mark's post) i did not
> >think either of them was 'Chez What?' material.
> I agree, which "obviously" was the point of my Chez Watt. It's
> "obvious" the point of PeeWee Peter's post was to troll yet another
> almost certainly unintended self-parody

Mostly true and appropriate.
Humor is a strange thing. It can be cruel.
In a modern context, it is actively debated about whether certain
sectors of humor involve punching up, or punching down.

Sometimes it becomes very situational to decide if something is
punching up or down. Situational here means what context exists,
or is imported. Importation is itself contextual in ways that evolve.

One could go on (and on, and on), but doing so sucks the life
out of any humor like a thirsty emaciated vampire with an
exsanguinated corpse.

[peter2...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 19, 2023 at 12:50:25 AM UTC-4, DB Cates wrote:
> [snip]
> > On Thursday, May 18, 2023 at 9:25:25 PM UTC-4, peter2...@gmail.com wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >> He also fixed it for Athel, Bob Casanova, DB Cates, erik simpson, and everyone else
> >> who reads Lawyer Daggett's posts but not mine, and who may not have noticed what Mark's
> >> words were originally about.
> >
> When I saw these 'Chez What?' nominations (in Mark's post) i did not
> think either of them was 'Chez What?' material. IMO they should be stand
> alone without requiring commentary or knowledge of the thread they were
> pulled from or the participants.

Mine does stand alone: the category is an integral
part of what makes a Chez Watt effective.
The rest requires absolutely no knowledge of who the participants
are or whom the first participant was addressing.
See the OP to the original thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/RkWQ6hJfp2w/m/8IageygMAgAJ
CHEZ WATT in re Cool Hand Luke
May 15, 2023, 8:32:28 AM

On the other hand, jillery's is unintelligible as it stands:
the quoted material contains NO support for the allegation,
"In the category of "self-parody runs amok".
At minimum, one would have to know the identity of the person
making the second comment in my Chez Watt to make sense of the "self-"

So Cates's description falls full force on jillery's "Chez Watt"
and has nothing to do with mine.

And I hereby accuse Cates of arguing in bad faith.

I don't care whether Cates ever reads this accusation or not.
I state it for anyone reading this who cares what Cates is up to.

> End of interest for me and so there was
> nothing for anyone to "fix".

What was "fixed" was meant to create an illusion that I was trying to
refute what Mark said about my Chez Watt.

Cates may not have read Daggett's post, but I had no way of knowing
that, and I wanted to make it clear that the set of people whom Daggett
has the potential of deceiving is far from being the empty set.

There may be many others, including lurkers, in that set, but the four
I named are the only ones I was reasonably sure of when I named them.

> But Peter, in his paranoid fantasy, can't
> help but invoke uninvolved third parties in his self important rant. So
> once again Peter, fuck off.

The last sentence is vitiated by the trumped-up charge that precedes it.


Peter Nyikos