Vigil on 16/7/2006 at 18:31
Has demagogue contracted some kind of Hellenic curse, whereby every lengthy well-argued tract that he posts is doomed to be immediately responded to with inane and lazy tangents?
<small>(not you, Shadowlord)</small>
Aircraftkiller on 16/7/2006 at 20:02
Aren't you just a clever little man.
Para?noid on 16/7/2006 at 20:12
Quote Posted by Aircraftkiller
I was gonna be cutting edge like some folks and post some witty cartoon to explain how I feel, but I can't find it.:rolleyes:
So I'll just quote it.
Hey ACK do you still need money to feed your cats
Aircraftkiller on 16/7/2006 at 20:21
Just as much as you need money to get drunk!
Shadowlord on 17/7/2006 at 01:50
so virgil, I'm guessing demagogue makes comments like that all the time?
Tumbleweed on 17/7/2006 at 08:34
His username isn't virgil, you know.
Shug on 17/7/2006 at 08:44
more like virgin haha!
Vigil on 17/7/2006 at 09:19
shug you said we had to wait until the time was right :(
Para?noid on 17/7/2006 at 10:08
Quote Posted by Aircraftkiller
Just as much as you need money to get drunk!
then dude you must own a LOT of fat fucking cats
zzzzzzzing
demagogue on 17/7/2006 at 15:48
Quote Posted by Shadowlord
so virgil, I'm guessing demagogue makes comments like that all the time?
Virgil, cute... He (the Roman) would be the one to worry about a Hellenic curse, anyway.
I was getting under the impression no one bothered to ever read my posts anyway, since no one (or few) ever responded to them, so they started to inflate ... like it seemed important to at least say what I mean if I'm going to keep posting.
But really, I just like making a full argument sometimes, and I'm not sure I could do it in two or three sentences if my life depended on it. I'd probably keep right on talking when they release the dogs. It's not really intentional. At least I try to keep up a high signal/noise ratio so it's not just long tracts of crap, and says a lot sentence for sentence, and says most everything I want to say so I don't just open myself up to an obvious knee-jerk counter-reply. And (responding to Vigil's post) I don't mind the innane tangents ... usually funnier than the alternative.
In this case, though, I like ACK's quote. It captures a lot; sometimes you have to call a duck a duck.
----------------------------
Well, while I'm on a roll, though, I think some of my opinion about art interpretation changed from law school. In lawschool, you simply can't get away with saying my personal interpretation of a law differs, so it can apply differently to me. You can't say, "Look, I just don't agree that murder is a bad thing, so your interpretation that this law prevents me from doing it just doesn't apply to me. Interpretation is a matter of personal opinion, after all." For law, practically everyone is on board with its interpretation being a public thing, with a "best" interpretation for any law trumping the alternatives. And then I noticed that the actual principles of interpretation for law and art and literature, etc, are about the same; you look at what the author intended; you look at the most obvious, public meaning of this or that feature; you look at the background norms, which can evolve over time; etc ... So I wondered why art should get special treatment in interpretation that law and literature don't get. Why, if it's so terrible to say personal interpretations of law are forbidden and we should really try to find the best, public interpretation, do we think its ok to do it with art (aside from the fact that consistent law interpretation is critical to social order and art isn't, or is that the only reason)? I'm happy to let people find whatever personal meaning they want from art, by all means; but when push comes to shove it seems to me the traditional rules of interpretation have a kind of priority. When an artist says "no, that isn't what I meant" to my personal opinion, and then explains why I'm "wrong" in my interpretation and what he actually "meant", it's something to take seriously. I haven't thought all the way through it, so I don't have an answer, and art interpretation may really be special and I'm wrong in my intuition that it's like legal or literature interpretation. It just struck me at the time. I like hearing other people's opinions about it, though. I'm not an expert here by any means.
