Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (36854)	5/6/1999 3:49:00 PM
From: jbe	Respond to of 108807

It is astounding how stupid the highly intelligent can be. nihil -- Q: What is a Phudnik? A: A Phudnik is a nudnik with a PhD. I heard that one when I was a grad student at Columbia. (Plenty of present & future Phudniks there.) I meet more pleasant and intelligent people here than I do in my common room. Again, may I suggest that it because you are more likely to meet more real intellectuals here than in your common room. To me, an "intellectual" is someone who is genuinely interested in ideas, who has a genuine curiosity about the world and an eagerness to learn. It has nothing to do with years of formal education. The sad thing is that most of the people in university common rooms entered the fields they are now in because they were truly interested in them -- at first. In short, they started out as intellectuals. But as time went on, many of them became "professionals". What was once their love has turned into routine, something one does in order to get promoted, or to win a reputation, or whatever; and they take little interest in much outside of their fields. Hence, as private individuals, they tend to be bo-oo-ring. On some other points you raise: Your are 100% right about the bullies. One SI thread bully, the other day, wrote (in justification of his insufferable behavior) that "this thread needs a Drill Sargeant, not a Cheerleader." (!!) (I posted him a message pointing out that what the thread really needed was solid, informative posts from intelligent and COURTEOUS people. Sad: it was a great thread, and this bozo is ruining it.) I don't agree with Frank Ramsey's division of all conversations into just two categories (personal experience/personal opinion). I suspect he did not either, and was just trying -- successfully -- to be "provocative". Joan

To: nihil who wrote (36854)	5/6/1999 4:59:00 PM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

A great deal of this posting is thoughtful and worth serious consideration. As for the approbation of the minds you have encountered, I, for one, thank you. However, With respect to Henry VIII, it's like the Shadow said "Who knows what evil lurks in the heart of men. The Shadow knows." So we have to quit because she can't convince me and I can't convince her regardless of how many Spanish or Venetian Archives of L. & P,. of H. we tamper with. You are factually incorrect. As you are in some of your discussion on the Reformation in England. It was far more complex than you appear to posit.

To: nihil who wrote (36854)	5/6/1999 7:46:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Vague musings, vaguely on this topic. At least on the topic of discussion/argumentation and the internet. The net as contrasted with the media in which ideas were exchanged earlier, I mean. When people engage with the various realms of information and of presentation, aka the media, they obviously aren't only doing it for entertainment and information. They are also seeking identities for themselves, and communities to belong to. In the days of text culture, varying viewpoints were expressed in proximity to each other. I'm thinking of general interest magazines, the various town-meeting-of-the-air programs, and even, to some degree, TV. And there were filters and controls involved in this process. Generally, writing had to meet certain formal standards, and standards of fact, to make its way into print. One striking thing about the net is that it provides sealed-off venues. In them, one particular viewpoint, (or argument for identity,) prevails without challenge. There is something frightening about what you see when there are virtually no 'controls,' meaning no... intellectual competition, I guess, on what is said, gotten into print, in the process of creating one of these sealed-off realms of identity. Another way of saying what i'm trying, confusedly, to say, is that we seem to be seeing a gradual retreat from the competitive formation of identity and identity-related opinion to a new paradigm where entrepreneurs of a particular worldview or identity are able to create 'sufficing' realms impervious to contradiction or reality-testing in general. This is particularly noticeable in the explosive growth of hate websites and fundamentalist religious websites, and cult sites generally. (These are increasingly accompanied by items, trademarked items, of dress, music, an approved literature, even dating networks, all aimed at making ideological encapsulation, or identity encapsulation, a comfortable experience.) I think what made me begin these musings is the thought that the old sitcoms were interested in providing a few models of how people of different sorts might wish to live and be; but in the present moment, the net offers thousands of models, and communities, and they're on 24/7, and don't depend on ratings.