Madcap adventures from the mind of Aesop's favorite badger....
17 September 2007
Point:
If life is every bit the stage player that d’Angoulême claimed she was (Roman numerals aside), it should fall to mystics, not the intellectual elite, to steer young scholars away from “backhoed” contingencies.
I await your counterpoints.
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
You present the issue as if it’s legitimate, worthy of response. Why not ask how, given the propensity we all have for iron and, in some cases, bacon, do “ideas” make neither a good basis for warrants nor a decent vodka mix? As it stands, I’m somewhat afraid of tricksters for which I needlessly halve the amount. Still, one has to guffaw at the transitory nature of it all—or perhaps fork over the ruins of Galactica, LOL! (BTW, don’t let the witticism fool you—I’m quite serious about this issue.)
Actually, a better analogy would be ‘Why do greeting cards impose their brand of waffling on every damn person in sight?!’ Excuse the play on words, but I feel strongly that one should not make light of the issue at hand, be it a bit “Isaac Tummani” of me to say so (a little something for those sporting certs). What, you might ask, brought about such villification? Just this, Bubba: Can’t see for the hills; must be time to water the old woman’s backside!
Look, just because the intelligentsia can—while getting paid, mind you—separate empiricism from, say, cutesy little Disney sitcoms, that doesn’t mean I should have to make my way past 4 bookshelves of statuettes and dusty printouts just to render defenseless the argument that facts determine cognition. I mean, what are we—Millard Fillmore impersonators?
Low blow Duke. In reality, our views are not as different as you imply. Empiricism is performed by the same neural pathways used for mysticism. Insofar as we’re able to tell, anyway, using hand tweezers, 8 mm film, and the computer graphics program that came with my Superdrive.
Wir muss indeed der Relationship geunderstanden, aber willst Sie haben ein scheisskopf grad assistant mit kein abilitisch zu das yellow brick road gefollowen?
Aha! So your ilk IS saying that expertise in what are now 3 disciplines is not only possible, but proper. LOL! Look at the archives some time. The Farmers’ Market wishes it were stocked so!
That’s the difference right there. With exploratory research, assertions of technicality are rampant. Can one say the same for "fact finding missions"?
That’s a nice ivory tower argument. Now it’s time to join the real world and admit that someone needs to say, “Hold the Mayo. And also the Cleveland Clinic.” Like you, I wish it weren’t true. News flash: It is.
If I assume, for the sake of argument, that you have even an ounce of data to back up that claim, what you’re describing is a problem of derelecutionism, not conceptualization. Perhaps if your profession were as concerned with random numbers tables as it is with coercion, they could actually time sequence objectively.
Everybody, you need to face facts. Delerectorism is here to stay. Regardless of what muessalitionists say, students of theory scaffolding need to learn it. Not like it, necessarily. But learn it nonetheless. Now eat me.
14 comments:
You present the issue as if it’s legitimate, worthy of response. Why not ask how, given the propensity we all have for iron and, in some cases, bacon, do “ideas” make neither a good basis for warrants nor a decent vodka mix? As it stands, I’m somewhat afraid of tricksters for which I needlessly halve the amount. Still, one has to guffaw at the transitory nature of it all—or perhaps fork over the ruins of Galactica, LOL! (BTW, don’t let the witticism fool you—I’m quite serious about this issue.)
Actually, a better analogy would be ‘Why do greeting cards impose their brand of waffling on every damn person in sight?!’ Excuse the play on words, but I feel strongly that one should not make light of the issue at hand, be it a bit “Isaac Tummani” of me to say so (a little something for those sporting certs). What, you might ask, brought about such villification? Just this, Bubba: Can’t see for the hills; must be time to water the old woman’s backside!
What the hell ever happened to me?
Look, just because the intelligentsia can—while getting paid, mind you—separate empiricism from, say, cutesy little Disney sitcoms, that doesn’t mean I should have to make my way past 4 bookshelves of statuettes and dusty printouts just to render defenseless the argument that facts determine cognition. I mean, what are we—Millard Fillmore impersonators?
Low blow Duke. In reality, our views are not as different as you imply. Empiricism is performed by the same neural pathways used for mysticism. Insofar as we’re able to tell, anyway, using hand tweezers, 8 mm film, and the computer graphics program that came with my Superdrive.
What about reverence? Are we to pretend it’s divorced from said quibbles? That it’s secondary?
Wir muss indeed der Relationship geunderstanden, aber willst Sie haben ein scheisskopf grad assistant mit kein abilitisch zu das yellow brick road gefollowen?
Aha! So your ilk IS saying that expertise in what are now 3 disciplines is not only possible, but proper. LOL! Look at the archives some time. The Farmers’ Market wishes it were stocked so!
That’s the difference right there. With exploratory research, assertions of technicality are rampant. Can one say the same for "fact finding missions"?
That’s a nice ivory tower argument. Now it’s time to join the real world and admit that someone needs to say, “Hold the Mayo. And also the Cleveland Clinic.” Like you, I wish it weren’t true. News flash: It is.
If I assume, for the sake of argument, that you have even an ounce of data to back up that claim, what you’re describing is a problem of derelecutionism, not conceptualization. Perhaps if your profession were as concerned with random numbers tables as it is with coercion, they could actually time sequence objectively.
Wango tango sweet poontang-o! I no I no I no I no I no I no I no I no—I no won thang! Da Democraps dey SUCK! Yeahhhhhhh!!! I say YEAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
I’m still dead!
Everybody, you need to face facts. Delerectorism is here to stay. Regardless of what muessalitionists say, students of theory scaffolding need to learn it. Not like it, necessarily. But learn it nonetheless. Now eat me.
Post a Comment