OT 7 things that separate lesser humans.

On Aug 10, 8:54=A0pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : On Aug 9, 10:30?pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> Eh, fine. ?So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
> :>
> :> ? ? ? ? -- Andy Barss
>
> : I disagree.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 I very much doubt that.
>

What do you doubt I disagree with?

On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:10:04 -0400, Robatoy wrote:

> Found this and thought I'd share:
>
> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>
{Snip}

Thank-you for sharing, Robatoy.

I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements. I strongly
reject the tone of the arguments and the choice of the words used to
present the arguments. Whoever the author is, the author wrapped his
ideas within a socially, culturally, and maybe even an ethnic point of
view. A point of view that demonstrates a cultural chauvinism bent on
social Darwinism bordering on racism.

From my point of view, those statements are an attempt at a description
of a social / cultural norm that is instilled into a person starting at
childhood. My impression of those statements (the intended idea) are
they are culturally linked to the dominate Western European cultural
ancestral heritage of the USA.

My point: If one grew up in a Wealthy Suburb of a Major Metropolitan
city, then a young adult would have more exposure to such personal habits
as described, and that young person would (could be expected to?)
assimilate such in their own behavior.

(There are of course other social classes that would teach these ideal
behaviors to their children; but more likely, IMHO, it would be left to
an individual family and less across the board.)

However, people who grew up in other economic, social, and cultural
environments would not necessarily be exposed everyday to real roll
models who exhibited behaviors such as described in the statements. Or
in other words, if you grew up where it is the norm behavior of adults to
occasionally ride in the back of a Pickup Truck drinking whiskey as the
pickup truck barrels down the highway, well you can draw your own
conclusions as to the behavior of such a child at adulthood.

There may be some grain of truth in those statements. However, the
social and cultural "My-Culture-Is-The-One-and-Only-Correct-Society" that
oozes from those specific statements, as worded, makes them solely a
preaching-to-the-choir set of statements. If you believe in those
statements, they are good arguments to continue your believe, and maybe
hold those beliefs in more emphatic esteem. As worded and presented,
those statements will not convince anyone else; No One.

By The Way: Even using the words 'Better' and 'Lesser' becomes code words
(intended or not) to evoke the worst sort of thoughts of social
Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a short step away from a rigid class
society that inhibits upward mobility for all.

Phil

8) Usenet pissing contests.

--

FF

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:06:28 -0700 (PDT), celticsoc
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OK, so one guy posted something he found on the internet. Another guy
>assumed it reflected the first guy's sentiment. First guysaid that he
>did not necessarily agree. Second guy is dubious of this claim,
>First guy responds by saying that he didn't say that he disagreed with
>the sentiment of said article, only with (the supposition of) the
>second guy, and that Second Guy had no basis for his reasoning.
>Several others chimed in along the way.
>
>I must admit that my initial reading lead me to believe that there was
>a significant level of agreement on your part, else there would have
>been some commentary. That is, of course, not deifinitive proof of
>your agreement, but certainly is a basis for surmising it. I was
>ready to dismiss the supposition as incorrect, based upon a parsing of
>your words as a tacit (at least partial) disavowal of the ideas until
>your post indicating that you did not state disagreement with the
>article. (I also don't really care who is right. I just found this
>to be a strangely interesting exchange.)
>
>So, let's clear this up: First Guy - Do you agree with the sentiments
>presented in the original list you presented? Second Guy - Why do you
>care? All of us - Are we aware that there is an impending
>presidential election, a war, terrorism, illegal immigration, a gas
>crucnh, the prospect of confiscatory taxes, and dogs and cats living
>together?


As these things go, it is a subtle troll.

It's bringing up a different sorta fish than the usual 'strike it as
it hits the water' type. It's getting more of the heavy bellied 'I
already ate today but let me chew on this for a while' kind.

Rob might have been better off leading with, "This Oughta Start Some
Shit", as far as hit count goes but I like how this one is playing
out.



Regards, Tom.

Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

Phil Again wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:10:04 -0400, Robatoy wrote:
>
>> Found this and thought I'd share:
>>
>> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>>
> {Snip}
>
> Thank-you for sharing, Robatoy.
>
> I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements. I strongly
> reject the tone of the arguments and the choice of the words used to
> present the arguments. Whoever the author is, the author wrapped his
> ideas within a socially, culturally, and maybe even an ethnic point of
> view. A point of view that demonstrates a cultural chauvinism bent on
> social Darwinism bordering on racism.
>
> From my point of view, those statements are an attempt at a description
> of a social / cultural norm that is instilled into a person starting at
> childhood. My impression of those statements (the intended idea) are
> they are culturally linked to the dominate Western European cultural
> ancestral heritage of the USA.
>
> My point: If one grew up in a Wealthy Suburb of a Major Metropolitan
> city, then a young adult would have more exposure to such personal habits
> as described, and that young person would (could be expected to?)
> assimilate such in their own behavior.
>
> (There are of course other social classes that would teach these ideal
> behaviors to their children; but more likely, IMHO, it would be left to
> an individual family and less across the board.)
>
> However, people who grew up in other economic, social, and cultural
> environments would not necessarily be exposed everyday to real roll
> models who exhibited behaviors such as described in the statements. Or
> in other words, if you grew up where it is the norm behavior of adults to
> occasionally ride in the back of a Pickup Truck drinking whiskey as the
> pickup truck barrels down the highway, well you can draw your own
> conclusions as to the behavior of such a child at adulthood.
>
> There may be some grain of truth in those statements. However, the
> social and cultural "My-Culture-Is-The-One-and-Only-Correct-Society" that
> oozes from those specific statements, as worded, makes them solely a
> preaching-to-the-choir set of statements. If you believe in those
> statements, they are good arguments to continue your believe, and maybe
> hold those beliefs in more emphatic esteem. As worded and presented,
> those statements will not convince anyone else; No One.
>
> By The Way: Even using the words 'Better' and 'Lesser' becomes code words
> (intended or not) to evoke the worst sort of thoughts of social
> Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a short step away from a rigid class
> society that inhibits upward mobility for all.
>
> Phil

Yeah, we're all essentially equal. That's they the Green Bay Packers are
offering me $25 million to never come to training camp again...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 9, 10:30=A0pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> Eh, fine. =A0So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Andy Barss

I disagree.

r

On Aug 10, 10:47=A0pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : On Aug 10, 8:54?pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote::> Ro=
batoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> :>
> :> : On Aug 9, 10:30?pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> :>
> :> :>
> :> :> Eh, fine. ?So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
> :> :>
> :> :> ? ? ? ? -- Andy Barss
> :>
> :> : I disagree.
> :>
> :> ? ? ? ? I very much doubt that.
> :>
>
> : What do you doubt I disagree with?
>
> The original essay you posted.
>

Again, I found an article. I found it interesting. No more, no less.
For you to insist that I am in agreement with that article, is just
plain wrong. You have absolutely nothing upon which to base that
opinion. Whether I agree with the article or not.
I have also not said that I disagree with the article, just with you.

On Aug 9, 3:27=A0am, "Rick Samuel" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> "Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Found this and thought I'd share:
>
> > 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>
> > 1. Subtlety
> > In all things, but most evident when it comes to music, humor and art.
> > Lesser people like it loud and simple, your black velvet Elvises and
> > your glow-in-the-dark Jesuses, loud Harleys and big-titted, big-assed
> > women,
>
> =A0You, sir have no idea of what you say. =A0Big titties and big asses ma=
ke the
> world go round. =A0God love 'em.

What part of "FOUND THIS AND THOUGHT I'D SHARE" didn't you understand?
*I* am not saying anything, I just found it an interesting observation.

"Phil Again" <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote in message
>> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>>
> {Snip}
>
> Thank-you for sharing, Robatoy.
>
> I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements.

There was sediment? Was it like from a compost pile or rust in the toilet
bowl?

Robatoy wrote:
> Found this and thought I'd share:
>
> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters

8. The firm conviction that your belief system makes you a better human
being than the others.

9. The pedantic need to create ridiculous lists that 'prove' your
superiority to others.

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 02:30:50 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>: If "X" were, "Seven Reasons Why Dogshit Tastes Better Than Cheerios",
>: and I prefaced this with, "Found this and thought I'd share:", would
>: you be entitled to conclude that I had a preference for one over the
>: other as a breakfast food?
>
>With a title like that, it'd most likely be a humor piece, so I'd conclude
>you thought it was funny. See how it works now?
>
>The OP's forwarded piece wasn't a humor piece. It was a ploddingly earnest
>opinion piece.
>
>So, I conclude that Robotoy agrees with it (and thus found his
>"who? me?" reply to Rick Samuel upthread to be so disingenuous).
>
>See how it works now?
>
>
>: As to your diminution of his attribution by the use of the term,
>: "allegedly", did you think before doing so to use, "7 Things that
>: separate lesser human beings from their betters", as the search terms
>: in Google? I did, and found several prior references.
>
>Eh, fine. So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
>
> -- Andy Barss



Non Sequitur.

Dicto Simpliciter.

Naturalistic fallacy.




Regards, Tom.

Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

OK, so one guy posted something he found on the internet. Another guy
assumed it reflected the first guy's sentiment. First guysaid that he
did not necessarily agree. Second guy is dubious of this claim,
First guy responds by saying that he didn't say that he disagreed with
the sentiment of said article, only with (the supposition of) the
second guy, and that Second Guy had no basis for his reasoning.
Several others chimed in along the way.

I must admit that my initial reading lead me to believe that there was
a significant level of agreement on your part, else there would have
been some commentary. That is, of course, not deifinitive proof of
your agreement, but certainly is a basis for surmising it. I was
ready to dismiss the supposition as incorrect, based upon a parsing of
your words as a tacit (at least partial) disavowal of the ideas until
your post indicating that you did not state disagreement with the
article. (I also don't really care who is right. I just found this
to be a strangely interesting exchange.)

So, let's clear this up: First Guy - Do you agree with the sentiments
presented in the original list you presented? Second Guy - Why do you
care? All of us - Are we aware that there is an impending
presidential election, a war, terrorism, illegal immigration, a gas
crucnh, the prospect of confiscatory taxes, and dogs and cats living
together?

On Aug 9, 3:08=A0pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> : What part of "FOUND THIS AND THOUGHT I'D SHARE" didn't you understand?
>
> Q: =A0What part of a joke don't you understand?
> A: =A0The joke part, apparently.
>
> : *I* am not saying anything, I just found it an interesting observation.
>
> If you post a long description of why certain people are better
> than others, it's pretty reasonabe to conclude you
> agree with the sentiment.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -- Andy Barss

I will try to explain this, and for you, Andy, I will do it slowly.

I found an article. I found it interesting.

If I find a 1937 German Mark and I show it to you, does that mean I
agree with the price of fish?

Woodie wrote:
> Robatoy wrote:
>> Found this and thought I'd share:
>>
>> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>
> 8. The firm conviction that your belief system makes you a better human
> being than the others.
>
> 9. The pedantic need to create ridiculous lists that 'prove' your
> superiority to others.

10. The terrifying thought that some or all of the aforementioned list
items could contain elements of truth or be flatly true.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk [email protected]
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Aug 11, 2:06=A0am, celticsoc <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped rather well thought out response for brevity's sake]

>
> So, let's clear this up: First Guy - Do you agree with the sentiments
> presented in the original list you presented?

Line item agreement/disagreement? Some things I agree with, some I
don't agree with.
My overall conclusion that it is an interesting take on the topic.
Period.


>=A0Second Guy - Why do you
> care? =A0

Indeed, why does he, and why do you?

On Aug 11, 7:31=A0am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:06:28 -0700 (PDT), celticsoc
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >OK, so one guy posted something he found on the internet. =A0Another guy
> >assumed it reflected the first guy's sentiment. =A0First guysaid that he
> >did not necessarily agree. =A0Second guy is dubious of this claim,
> >First guy responds by saying that he didn't say that he disagreed with
> >the sentiment of said article, only with (the supposition of) the
> >second guy, and that Second Guy had no basis for his reasoning.
> >Several others chimed in along the way.
>
> >I must admit that my initial reading lead me to believe that there was
> >a significant level of agreement on your part, else there would have
> >been some commentary. =A0That is, of course, not deifinitive proof of
> >your agreement, but certainly is a basis for surmising it. =A0I was
> >ready to dismiss the supposition as incorrect, based upon a parsing of
> >your words as a tacit (at least partial) disavowal of the ideas until
> >your post indicating that you did not state disagreement with the
> >article. =A0(I also don't really care who is right. =A0I just found this
> >to be a strangely interesting exchange.)
>
> >So, let's clear this up: First Guy - Do you agree with the sentiments
> >presented in the original list you presented? =A0Second Guy - Why do you
> >care? =A0All of us - Are we aware that there is an impending
> >presidential election, a war, terrorism, illegal immigration, a gas
> >crucnh, the prospect of confiscatory taxes, and dogs and cats living
> >together?
>
> As these things go, it is a subtle troll.
>
> It's bringing up a different sorta fish than the usual 'strike it as
> it hits the water' type. =A0It's getting more of the heavy bellied 'I
> already ate today but let me chew on this for a while' kind.
>
> Rob might have been better off leading with, "This Oughta Start Some
> Shit", as far as hit count goes but I like how this one is playing
> out.
>
*haughty sniff* Well I NEVER!

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>If you post a long description of why certain people are better
>than others, it's pretty reasonabe to conclude you
>agree with the sentiment.


On a logical level alone, that is one seriously fucked up sentence.




Regards, Tom.

Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

>> I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements.
>
> There was sediment? Was it like from a compost pile or rust in the
> toilet bowl?

My bad, I should have selected sentiment from the spell checker list.

On Aug 9, 3:24 pm, Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> If I find a 1937 German Mark and I show it to you, does that mean I
> agree with the price of fish?

Damnit... I've been waiting on the answer now for a while, and now I
have to leave.

I'm on pins and needles.... does it or doesn't it?

STILL.. LMOA

Enjoyed the post, BTW.

Robert

On Aug 10, 8:28=A0pm, "Lee Michaels" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "J. Clarke" =A0wrote
>
> > Roll model: An attractive woman tasked to lure drunks into an alley
> > preparatory to a mugging.
>
> Presumably wearing roller skates.

Roll model....think love-handles...

"Robatoy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Found this and thought I'd share:
>
> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>
>
> 1. Subtlety
> In all things, but most evident when it comes to music, humor and art.
> Lesser people like it loud and simple, your black velvet Elvises and
> your glow-in-the-dark Jesuses, loud Harleys and big-titted, big-assed
> women,

You, sir have no idea of what you say. Big titties and big asses make the
world go round. God love 'em.

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:

: What part of "FOUND THIS AND THOUGHT I'D SHARE" didn't you understand?

Q: What part of a joke don't you understand?
A: The joke part, apparently.

: *I* am not saying anything, I just found it an interesting observation.

If you post a long description of why certain people are better
than others, it's pretty reasonabe to conclude you
agree with the sentiment.

-- Andy Barss

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
: <[email protected]> wrote:

:>If you post a long description of why certain people are better
:>than others, it's pretty reasonabe to conclude you
:>agree with the sentiment.


: On a logical level alone, that is one seriously fucked up sentence.


No, it isn't. He posted a long, allegedly forwarded post
on X. X distinguishes between two groups of people, with
one group highly favored over the other (see the title of his post,
"... lesser humans") in the description
expressed by the post.

One may reasonably conclude from that fact that Robotoy
agrees with X.

And as I pointed out, one may also conclude he's a humorless
nitwit, given his response to Rick Samuel.


-- Andy Barss

Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:


: If "X" were, "Seven Reasons Why Dogshit Tastes Better Than Cheerios",
: and I prefaced this with, "Found this and thought I'd share:", would
: you be entitled to conclude that I had a preference for one over the
: other as a breakfast food?

With a title like that, it'd most likely be a humor piece, so I'd conclude
you thought it was funny. See how it works now?

The OP's forwarded piece wasn't a humor piece. It was a ploddingly earnest
opinion piece.

So, I conclude that Robotoy agrees with it (and thus found his
"who? me?" reply to Rick Samuel upthread to be so disingenuous).

See how it works now?


: As to your diminution of his attribution by the use of the term,
: "allegedly", did you think before doing so to use, "7 Things that
: separate lesser human beings from their betters", as the search terms
: in Google? I did, and found several prior references.

Eh, fine. So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.

-- Andy Barss

jo4hn wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>> "Phil Again" <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote in message
>>>> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>>>>
>>> {Snip}
>>>
>>> Thank-you for sharing, Robatoy.
>>>
>>> I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements.
>>
>> There was sediment? Was it like from a compost pile or rust in the
>> toilet bowl?
>>
>>
> Sounds suspiciously like the dogma of the Church of the Random
> Variable.
>
> Oh, and WTF is a roll model? The opposite of the slide model?

Roll model: An attractive woman tasked to lure drunks into an alley
preparatory to a mugging.


--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Aug 9, 10:30?pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:

:>
:> Eh, fine. ?So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
:>
:> ? ? ? ? -- Andy Barss

: I disagree.



I very much doubt that.


-- Andy Barss

Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
: On Aug 10, 8:54?pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
:> Robatoy <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> : On Aug 9, 10:30?pm, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
:>
:> :>
:> :> Eh, fine. ?So he's an agreer, as I originally surmised.
:> :>
:> :> ? ? ? ? -- Andy Barss
:>
:> : I disagree.
:>
:> ? ? ? ? I very much doubt that.
:>

: What do you doubt I disagree with?



The original essay you posted.


- AB

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "Phil Again" <notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote in message
>>> 7 Things that separate lesser human beings from their betters
>>>
>> {Snip}
>>
>> Thank-you for sharing, Robatoy.
>>
>> I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements.
>
> There was sediment? Was it like from a compost pile or rust in the toilet
> bowl?
>
>
Sounds suspiciously like the dogma of the Church of the Random Variable.

Oh, and WTF is a roll model? The opposite of the slide model?

querulously yours,
jo4hn

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 13:13:01 -0500, Phil Again
<notwantspam_@_1-2-3-4-5.nospam> wrote:

>
>>> I disagree with the sediment contained in those statements.
>>
>> There was sediment? Was it like from a compost pile or rust in the
>> toilet bowl?
>
>My bad, I should have selected sentiment from the spell checker list.


I actually thought 'sediment' was more interesting.

As though it was the residue of failed ideas.

Sometimes spielchuck is more sophisticated than we give it credit for.



Regards, Tom.

Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet

"J. Clarke" wrote
>
> Roll model: An attractive woman tasked to lure drunks into an alley
> preparatory to a mugging.
>
>
Presumably wearing roller skates.

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 23:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>: On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:08:11 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
>: <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>:>If you post a long description of why certain people are better
>:>than others, it's pretty reasonabe to conclude you
>:>agree with the sentiment.
>
>
>: On a logical level alone, that is one seriously fucked up sentence.
>
>
>No, it isn't. He posted a long, allegedly forwarded post
>on X. X distinguishes between two groups of people, with
>one group highly favored over the other (see the title of his post,
>"... lesser humans") in the description
>expressed by the post.
>
>One may reasonably conclude from that fact that Robotoy
>agrees with X.
>
>And as I pointed out, one may also conclude he's a humorless
>nitwit, given his response to Rick Samuel.
>
>
> -- Andy Barss


If "X" were, "Seven Reasons Why Dogshit Tastes Better Than Cheerios",
and I prefaced this with, "Found this and thought I'd share:", would
you be entitled to conclude that I had a preference for one over the
other as a breakfast food?

As to your diminution of his attribution by the use of the term,
"allegedly", did you think before doing so to use, "7 Things that
separate lesser human beings from their betters", as the search terms
in Google? I did, and found several prior references.



Regards, Tom.

Thos. J. Watson - Cabinetmaker
http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet