Two Bar was a name they gave a certain view of the Paris Basin, from their side of the river looking north past the clumps of muck and stranded flood wrack which would later host St. Chappel, Notre Dame and, set just upstream, the favorably disposed citydwellings of the anciently and permanently rich of present day Paris, but seeing then, instead, the place where by the wrestlings of chance and design it would become.

coil The controversial Barry Coat of Arms

The controversial
Barry Coat of Arms

coil

November reign

Argument is the fundament of discourse, in the plain spoken words of the Barry Family.

In the Barry Family view this cannot be gainsaid without engendering what would be denied, and, as properly offering an instance of a thing may never be used to prove the inexistence of the class to which it belongs, the irrefragable nature of the matter is assured.

Argument is the fundament of discourse.

November 28, 2005

November 28, 2005

Following the establishment of the bed of coals the fire may be continued indefinitely by adding as needed the addiitional fuel to the thing at appropriate intervals.

With any attention the minimum of fuel needed to arrive at that bed of coals and continue in its company may be adduced, just that calculated extra amount (settled in the boglore as a log) needed for the heated continuity of the glowing best evidence of fire, its coals.

This log, as idealized by the Barry Family, consists of exactly that bare minimum of fuel delivered to the coals in the course of regularly established rounds by the traditionally observant attendant at just the right time to extend indefinitely the warming course of established coals.

As idealized by the Barry Family the coals, thus adequately replenished, continously swab their immediate surround with valued heat.

The coals are ever the goal of the fire intended by the Barry Family, who even before their own ancient era of Discovery, in the prior time of pre-Barry and proto-Barry of before, had acquired the rudiments of maintaning the coals of a fire once achieved, delivering its satisfying supplement of heat to all there gathered.

The coals, goal of fire, once achieved, may be properly maintained to the presumed satisfaction of all, willfully enough continued by the added needed log of fuel from time to time.

Fire is the intermediary to be wrestled with if anyone is to have the desired coals of fire at all.

The way of firemaking is a consummately contentious issue,* and by the Barry Family Standards is simply granted a priori (as pragmatically referenced in the somewhat ill-lit representation of a small lighter to the right of the book in the commonly displayed image of Unordered Standards) curtailing as much as possible by this gesture the creative and destructive conversational give and take concerning miniumum number, disposition and diameter of logs and subtleties of inflamement so commonly ignited along with fire among the human males.

The Barry Family takes the firemaking granted from before, but ultimately looks to the coals of it, the nice concise container of the additional heat being so satisfyingly offered there, which tended might continue indefinitely with its additionally satisfying heat, as was known even in the time preceding the Discovery of the Barry Family when only pre and proto and putative Barrys may be presumed. To achieve the coals that might come of wrestling with the controversies of fire was the primary desire of the Barry Family all along.

*It is said in this regard that if you teach a man to fish, he will feed himself forever, but if you bother to teach a man to make a fire, he will often enough, irritated, turn on you with his spatula. Nevertheless, the overwhelming impulse remains among the human males to patronizingly teach the way of firemaking to one another given the least opportunity to engage in that hopeful if generally reduplicative effort. The urge of the human males to crowd around the firemaker anyway with their chat about exactly how it's to supposed be done is known.

November 27, 2005

November 27, 2005

The coating may be imposed, as in a wave of it, or it may be expressed, as in a sweat of it, or both at once depending on conditions of employment.

The Barry Family in all those long ages in the Paris Basin found common ways to rid the skin of either the overwave or oversweat of it that so often applied in their bogcentric home, preferring the ideally achievable pampering of skin unto the world which unsurprisingly they rarely did in fact experience for all the reasons.

Abraded by all the sogging other of it there in the bog, and exerting each their own expressive sweats all the while as well, the members of the Barry Family would at times salute a one among them who went to the trouble of appearing crud–free under such circumstances, using some stratagem or other by whose wiles all coatings expressed or impressed were made as nothing, if not completrely removed. A marvel down the ages, the celebrated appearance of the wellturnedout among the Barrys, based as ut was on the ideal of the clean clothed human so commonly recognized yet unexacted from the lot of them.

November 26, 2005

November 26, 2005

The coating may be applied, as in a wave of it, or it may be expressed, as in a sweat of it, or both at once depending on conditions of employment.

When it sticks, it provides a new surface, the coating, as in a coating of paint. The coating masks the understuff, the stuff whose own surface reaches its terminus in the coating's sharp outward appearance there beyond the place that bonds them. And the coating if a coherent thing at all like the understuff has some frontier zone of its own out there where its last few final flecks commingle with what may be some other coating entirely, or even end up splashing itself against a surface of such remarkable relative density that when met goes unmet in actual instant slithering away from the smooth packed surface of that countering material. On the inner side of the coating the understuff inside the coating itself may be a coating of some sort or other, too, latching on in its own way to some other understuff beneath.

Some coatings are imposed, as the waves commonly impose on the beach, and some are expressed, as the sweats commonly express on the skin of things.

Unarguably a name is a suggested coating, a coating waved its way or sweated however naturally right out of the named stuff.

November 25, 2005

November 25, 2005

A coating, as in a coating of paint,suspends itself tenaciously against the matter of the intended surface.

If all goes well the coating may suitably commingle when applied with the stuff of the surface inside that bounded space where the stuff of the surface, finely unpacking, comes to its own material end in the last roughly connected stray elemental bits of itself, the coating slinking right in and making itself intractably at home too there in the far frontier of the material surface of the stuff.

There are the two known limits to this business of the coating of the surface of the thing and here they are:

One, on the application of the coating, the surface may be so permissive of its entry that the coating is no longer sensibly suspended against the intended surface at all but drawn instead entirely through the surface and incorporated into the material itself. Painting the beach sand with water has this effect. The sandy surface of the beach is forever coated with the water of the waves, but the coating of water intended by each individual wave is so generously admitted by the sandy stuff of the surface of the beach that no wave past can continue to be truly credited as a coating evermore, the everfresh application of discrete waves of water and whatnot that water brings along being the only guarantore that the word coating will continue to apply to the sandy stuff of the surface there. The beach as an extreme example of all the many like surfaces in which the coating, instead of being suspended against the stuff of the surface of the material is subsumed in it and lost.

And, two, on the application of the coating to a surface so smoothly packed with the stuff of the surface that the nice confusion of the bonding space of a frontier between the coating and the material of the surface is denied. The coating, having nowhere to slink in, will slither away, unable to join its own designs to that of the surface of the stuff at all, lost as a coating to the surface of the stuff as surely as the individual wave is lost to the sandy surface of the beach for its own reason.

The intended coating may not be applicable to the surface, or it may be subsumed by the stuff of the surface, or it may stick.

November 21, 2005

November 21, 2005

Department of what were we arguing about then

Mr. President, I commend President Bush for taking his case against Iraq to the American people last evening, and I agree with the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed. As many of us had hoped, the President has now clearly given the Iraqi regime an opportunity to avoid war. The President himself says he has not yet decided war will be necessary.

—Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressional Record, [vol 148 [Page S10089]] October 8, 2002

In the transcript Senator Kennedy clearly refers to remarks from his own mouth made by the President of the United States in public given the night before, October 7, 2002, to the effect that he, the President himself, had not yet decided war would be necessary. "Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable," said the President. The President kept saying that in public, that he was not seeking war, but rather disarmament under UN auspices all down the months leading to the shock and awe of the latterly revealed surprise: he'd long ago decided to thrust the nation into war in Iraq, in actual point of fact! Ha ha!

Inexorably this surprising realization spread out among the citizens of the nation in the ensuing months and years, eventually entering into the common lore among them: the President had lied repeatedly about his intent.

He did not form true statements. Whether or not he lied to himself about his intentions even as he lied to the general public, thus hindering his own realization of what the Chronicle's analysis calls widely understood, is immaterial. Thus what he believed and when came to believe it makes no nevermind. Whatever his words, the President acted singularly to realize the war.

He issued this typical blandishment on October 16, 2002, on signing the Congressional resolutions of the House and Senate authorizing the use of force in Iraq:

Iraq will either comply with all U.N. resolutions, rid itself of weapons of mass destruction, and in its support for terrorists, or it will be compelled to do so. I hope that Iraq will choose compliance and peace, and I believe passage of this resolution makes that choice more likely.

— Statement of the President, October 16, 2002

Nevertheless we here at HCE are offered this news analysis from the San Francisco Chronicle in a piece seeking to sift the claims and facts now made in current debate over the rush to war in Iraq:

What the vote meant

Claim: The White House says the October 2002 war-powers resolution passed by the House and Senate was essentially a vote on whether to invade Iraq. Democrats say it was merely a vote to give the president increased leverage over Hussein in jockeying over U.N. weapons inspections.

Facts: The White House version is correct. At the time of the vote, it was widely understood that the vote was about whether to invade Iraq.

— "The Claims and Facts on Iraq Weapons," San Francisco Chronicle, November 20, 2005, page A17

Perhaps it is now correct to say that at the time the vote was taken it was widely understood to mean the United States was about to invade Iraq, that in October of 2002 the die was thus cast by that vote. Those of us here at HCE who distinctly enough recall the matter of those many months ago are duly minded of the common premonition of coming war that descended on all the United States of America which surrounds us here during the sad period of months following that vote. Perhaps the glum understanding that war was already afoot that had first descended on us here at HCE in August of that year was as widely shared out among the populace by October as the Chronicle now indicates.

We never asked publicly that October, frankly, blessed as we were with a bounty of freely enunciated understandings given in all their unconscionable nuance by the growing pack of those who cared to voice such understanding as they might have had at the time.

The President was certainly not fazed by what the Chronicle claims was widely understood. Publicly he espoused exactly what the news analysis of the Chronicle claims is the current argument of the Democrats, that the war powers act was "…merely a vote to give the president increased leverage over Hussein in jockeying over U.N. weapons inspections," as the Chronicle phrases it, which is substantially all the President would admit about it at the time.

This claim, reputed to belong to the Demcorats of now, actually and originally belongs to the Republicans of then, if the President's consistent words on the matter aren't merely a case of his lagging a bit behind in his contemporaneous grasp of what is now deduced by the analysis of the Chronicle to have been widely understood at the time. Recently, e.g., he affixed the words, "we do not torture," to a public statement, once again lagging behind what's widely understood, as is his wont as a free man. Clearly his rhetoric is not always up to speed.

Likewise the Chronicle's news analysis transmutes the warning made by Democrats of then into the claim made by Republicans of now, that the vote was "…essentially a vote on whether to invade Iraq," a dire result many of the Democrats of then could not help going on about at length at the time only to be turned aside again and again by the President's often restated words to the contrary, that disarmament and adherence to U.N.sanctions was his true firm goal.

Well, little did he know, of course, in the event.

The Democrats of then who managed to vote against the resolution voted against it because they favored disarmament and U.N. sanctions but suspected that in spite of what the President avered, a favorable vote on the resolution would lead the nation almost inevitably to war. Their admitted suspicions were widely shared at the time, especially though unadmittedly among the Republicans, at least from what we can gather of the Chronicle's analysis. Everyone understood, apparently, though the President gave no witting sign.

November 19, 2005

November 19, 2005

Those of us here at HCE who acknowledge the benefits of civilization continue to admit, as did the Barry Family when first confronted with the stuff in the Paris Basin, the great gleaming benenfit of writing it down that civilization is so likely to offer.

It has that, civilization, the writing it down. The open prospect of the benefit of reading the writing made accessible by civilization mirrors in its own way the yet–open question of the summary benefit of civilization accrued by its sufferants. Each prospect, of having at that writing or of having at that civilization, has some golden something in its allure that goes a little vague when pinned to promises. There is no met promise to most of its literate sufferants that reading the writing will do much good in the end, practically speaking. There is no met promise to its net of civil sufferants that civilization will do them much good in the end, either.

The Barry Family was quick to percieve in its own measured reaction to the art of writing it down that although the civilization of the Romans was a sufficient cause of writing it down, it wasn't a necessary condition at all for its appreciation. Even in the abased state in which the Barry Family found itself just as the Romans came to the Paris Basin, that open prospect of some complementary vaguely golden benefit or other to be had from just reading what was written down was enough of an inducement for them. Absent all the other bother of civilization's many benefits, writing was a keeper, in the Barry Family view. It was that good.

All up untill that point the Barry Family had received word of civilization (endemic in its Downtown Historical District and flourishing among its many franchised followers) from the lips of others who for their own reasons abjured the stuff. What good those others may have found in writing went unmentioned, subsumed in the antipathy they held for civilization in general. They did not speak well of civilization, nor would they by choice long leave standing what they found of the distasteful stuff of it that constantly cropped up, writing or no.

At the very least the Barry Family was predisposed to skepticism when the Romans eventually arrived in the Paris Basin with their burdensome civilization. Added to the recieved dismissive wisdom of others on the matter was the innate Barry Family skepticism itself, outgowth of the fundamental practicum of the boglore, where necessarily every raised hoof was at best skeptically sent on its bowandering way.

November 14, 2005

November 14, 2005

Following the narrative, we here at HCE who witness events in civilization's Downtown Historical District, currently dubbed with famous contention "Iraq," see reason for the Barry Family's instant suspicions of the stuff when it first came to their country with the Romans.

Civilization has had its first six millennia to prove out in the long, long term collected there in Iraq, certainly field tested sufficiently in those parts down the days to at last in its natural course perceptibly begin to outweigh in the bounty of its assumed benefit the inherent risks saddled by its necessarily burdened sufferants if that were truly possible by its extended operation, and yet given all that time to make of itself what it might become, found its way naturally enough at long last to offer up Saddaam Hussein, paragon of the bad man in charge of everything, instead. With home field advantage, right there downtown in civilization's original site, more's the pity.

It might be said that civilization has not been given a fair shake there in its Downtown Historical Distrit, even withal the six thousand years allowed, because the years of those miillennia were discontinuous years of civilization plotted against its intended domain in those parts. Constantly interrupted there, it cannot be assumed that the evident appearance of Sadaam represents the inevitable appearance of a Sadaam under the constant operations of civil society over that span. Exculpatory discontinuities abound in those millennia.

But often enough civilization has been laid low there to recognize from its unflagging reappearance that it is endemic in those parts by now, civilization, the Downtown Historical District itself and all its six millennia and more there direct evidence that it is not going away at all, civilization. For whatever good it may do it is a permanent feature of that land endemic enough to pass for continuous down the years.

It is the sad fact that no one can point to a golden age in that Downtown Historical District in which the benefits of civilization were field tested without creating a nearby class of sufferants from which those benefits were being subtracted. It is not ours to say if the class of sufferants under Sadaam Hussein represented the nadir of such suffering as civilization in the Downtown Historical District has meted out in all those six thousand years there; perhaps there is some better set of claimants to that cruel distinction.

But we can say that his narrated story, the story of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq, is consistent with past practice there, and given the risks which the Barry Family has long suspected inhere in civilization, not unexpected. The absolute ruler is the absolute monad of whatever benefit civilization has to offer, and the class of sufferants extends outward from that monad to all else. The ruler will have up and the sufferants will give up what benefit there is to be had, in this scheme of things.

The minsitrations of civilization, based on six thousand years of best evidence built up on the ground and as often tipped over there in its Downtown Historical District, incline notably toward this monad, this singular scheme of the absolute ruler, this Sadaam Hussein. Sadaam Hussein is not a lesson in history, he is merely unsurprising, given it. He stands as latest if not provably last in civilization's readily apparent inclination to gravitate that way given six thousand years or so head start and home field advantage.

We here at HCE who allow the civilized their head start of six thousand years of the stuff in that Downtown Historical District note the unhappy conclusion, reached in the event, of Sadaam the bad man for the job absolutely in control.

Sargon might have sneered at the thought of such a pallid successor to his own magnificently benefited self, but could never deny, given the unlikely opportunity to do so, his own Sargonic scheme of civilization all down the many millennia clearly continuing in Sadaam, all the benefit of civilization gravitating to the limit of the absolute monad of the absolute ruler again and again over time in the narrated ages of the the home acres of civilization, an inherent risk in the scheme sensed at once by the bogwary Barry Family when the Romans first came to the Paris Basin.

The Romans came eventually to the Paris Basin, bearing with them a thriving subset of the original and on its own home acres continuing strain of civilization of the Downtown Historical District, foisting their own Roman way with it on the Barry Family who had occupied for their own six thousand years those pleasant parts.

In principle the Barry Family could scarcely opt for the stuff of civilization without a more clearly defined sense of what good it would ever do to jettison the mean benefit already derived from the serviceable toolkit of its age–old boglore for the newly proposed supposed surplus of benefit had by civilization.

Oh, and the benefits were there: the permanent galvanizing effect of the supposed benefit had by writing it down on the ongoing Barry Family conversation alone was a particulaly satisfying example to the Family's members of what good civilization might do. Undeniably a benefit of civilization, writing, yes. Nothing the Barry Family would have thought to come up with on its own, but ah! Over time many members of the Barry Family took it up.

Still and all the suspicion of civilization's risks lingered, particularly with regard to the nature and number of the nearby class of sufferants it unfailingly must entail, that uncomfortable class from which benefit must obviously be subracted in such a scheme to fuel its obvious benefits, benefits extracted from the class of suffereants whose members must be negligibly or passably or excrutatingly affected by the transaction, as required. The sufferants were a drawback, in the settled view of the Barry Family.

In only a few decades after the arrival of the Romans in the Paris Basin the matter was thoroughly aired and the decision taken with confirmed reluctance so characteristic of conditioned Barry motion in the bog to remove from the Paris Basin irrevocably out of the Roman way. In spite of best efforts to accommodate the boglore with the civil way, insufferable incommensurabilities remained.

November 14, 2005

November 14, 2005

With scant few days of climatic clarity in all those many millennia, it came only indirectly to the Barry Family's otherwise distracted attention that the whole business of light roiling out from one hot skyspot somewhere to the east each day and arcing across its skypath in due time to its last share of sky in the west happened to be the big important detail it turned out to be. The crucial fact of sun is sketchily recorded in theboglore, with much mirth made of the warning never to look directly at the ordinarily unseeable thing, should it ever come to that, but little else.

A wan theory of the sun, based on tested surmise and assiduous attention to traveler's tales was roughed out there in the boglore, but it had little weight. The water was the thing in the boglore.

Immemorially in conversation of the sort the Barry Family would ever have, the word for sky and the word for cloud were ever the same unsurprisingly pronounced word, the word saluting, above, the sodden intercessionary sky brimming with water: tens of thousands of years of rain in point of fact, predating even the barest hint of putative proto-Barry in those parts, the barrier ice slumping into liquidity under the drip of the influential drizzle, uncovering the northern lands and all their proto-muck which would earn one day the name of Europe and the one word for the clouded sky of it.

Down, then, the waterpath, down, the cardinal direction in the boglore. From above, to below, time's arrow points along the waterpath, in the boglore's liquid–based reckoning, not along the path of the admittedly considerable sun.

The leveling course of water, in the Barry Family view, is down, ever down the watercourse and down the cardinal direction. Appreciably it is true the watercourse tends generally east as well, subsumed in water's distinguishing way with the sunpath, drawing its wet self to and then past the famous hot skyspot each day. Though first and cardinally it is directly down, the watercourse goes east a little too, each day, in the main, married to airs made motive by the forceful quotidian passage of what is ordinarily unseeable in the boglore and, as it turns out, not so much moving at all itself as it turns out, but being revolved around instead by the seemingly stationary earth inhabited by humans.

Down, the watercourse will have with it all loosed manner of stuff coming along water's recently made way, sluiced from some previous securement and borne along in the overriding currents of the waterpath, the jumbled lot of it all going down and a bit east too overall under the influential watermotion, then banked, deposited in some place, often aggregated by the deft chemistry of the journey on the waterpath into some one big clump of a kind left where the water made some other fated turning.

November 11, 2005

November 11, 2005

Obviously the simple English phrase "in brushed steel or brass," into which we wandered recently here at HCE is a member of that set of sentence fragments containing each of the vowels of the English language, a, e, i, o, u.

The phrase may be viewed here, although the looker is advised: at best all that will come of looking is a compressed copy of a pdf file of the thing, the phrase in brushed steel or brass with all the expressed vowels of the English language in it being parenthetically a part of some other context entirely.

Here at HCE, where our devotion to the farings of the English Language derives from the Barry Family's long and truculent attention to its usages, we reluctantly acknowledge the existent set of things populated inclusively by all the many makeable all–vowelled sentence fragments of the language, which in counted number of the things we immediately assume is a large, large number indeed whatever it might run out to in the end. Should we be set out to gather all the members of that set we should certainly cavil at the task, intuiting the time–consuming lengthiness and bother of it all instantly.

We admit it. It is a populous set, readily knowable by reference to the earlier example in brushed steel or brass. Its many members each bear all the vowels, a, e, i, o, u. We'd rather not have to attend to it is all. We'd sooner mark the whole set unimportant to our purposes and move on.

Oh, sure, we could have the hypothetical monkeys after it, task some robust number of the famously active things to type instead of their usually assigned complete works of Shakespeare, the complete list of sentence fragments bearing all vowels of the language. Then we could hand in the monkey's work as our own. We don't have the monkeys, mind, and even suspect the utility of owning such a list should sufficient simians be assigned.

An infinite number of monkeys put to the task at an infinite number of keyboards would be done with the assignment at once, of course, even without proper training, given a go at the job. Coming along after we should expect embedded in their summary report among every makeable sentence fragment of the English Language all those sentence fragments that manage for whatever good it does to contain all the vowels of the language, as well as all the works of Shakespeare embedded in that same summary report amid all the varied expressions of near–Shakespeare and non–Shakespeare and neo–Shakespeare such capaciously endowed staffing would simultaneously provide.

We deny what good would it do us here at HCE, having a list of all the sentence fragments of the English language that share the knowable quality of the representative in brushed steel or brass, and even deny the commonly assumed benefit of a representative sample of the things sifted through for commonalities and taxonomies with all the finest tweezers of the critical apparatus on hand together with a firm resultant opinion on the uncollected rest. The set of sentence fragments bearing all the vowels is a vacuous unitary: clearly named and marked no nevermind.

We admit here at HCE we wouldn't mind having on hand a sampling of the near and non and neo Shakespeare embedded in the proposed report of primates for the sake of extended comparison with the fine real stuff known as daunting Shakespeare's own, which we here at HCE, following the Barry Family example in this, have consistently striven to admire all down the years.

Those of us here at HCE at all inclined to follow along in the Barry Family's incessant bother over the English Language and its usages naturally share that family's long tradition of astonishment in the usages of Shakespeare in the fine real stuff known as his daunting own. What a way with the usages that fine real stuff has! Ah!

Here at HCE we cannot make no nevermind of the set of fine real stuff of Shakespeare. We recognize that good people and true may for their own reasons realize that Shakespeare and all his trailing ilk comprise for their purposes a vacuous unitary, a thing easily enough described, populated by real enough members and clearly marked no nevermind, just as we here at HCE with our own mark have branded the set of all–vowelled fragments just instanced in brushed steel or brass.

It is clear there are those who out of practicality would mark off the complete report of the monkeys were it offered as an utterly vacuous unitary, paying the whole of it as much as possible no nevermind at all, and out with it and thus dismissed as well all the astonishing daunt of every kind of Shakespeare and all the all–vowelled fragments of English harvested for whatever good it will do and with all and every manner and meander of that greatly expressive language and all the makeable many others gathered up together there in that prodigious compendium of a thing . Whatever is was must should wasn't isn't mustn't shouldn't be reputed in that encompassing report of monkeys can be done without, in this view, at no great loss, a view which is not easily gainsaid on grounds of practicality.

By temperament and training, however, we here at HCE cannot resist being daunted into astonishment by Shakespeare's own. As little as we value whatever unimportant else it might contain, the report of monkeys would have that, we admit. Given our fondness for the non–vacuous meaning we give the unitary "Bard," our inclination is to let the monkey have at it.

November 8, 2005

November 8, 2005

That said, I do delete "obnoxious" comments, which includes stupid shit like "are you even a professor"? And "see, this just proves that the left doesn't tolerate dissent" and other ridiculous bullshit.

— Prof B. in response to comments on her own earlier remarks.

The number of the verb "includes" does not agree with the number of the subject, "'obnoxious' comments" in the sentence given by Prof. B.

Includes indicates some singular subject, though the subject is clearly an irritatingly plural raftload of the things, "obnoxious" comments, thudding out disruptively enough from the keyboard of one commenter in an earlier argument given by Prof B against the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court.

The Professor is in error in using the singluar form "includes" here rather than the plural form "include" to sensibly carry out the sentence.

Likewise, convention demands and proper typing technique make possible the insertion of the question mark in the sentence before the trailing inverted commas resulting in stupid shit like "are you even a professor"? correctly becoming stupid shit like "are you even a professor?"

The sentence beginning "And…" is actually a subordinate clause of the previously disposed sentence. And is properly decapitalized here.

The amended sentence of the Professor is offered:

That said, I do delete "obnoxious" comments, which include stupid shit like "are you even a professor?" and "see, this just proves that the left doesn't tolerate dissent" and other ridiculous bullshit.

Some might say pointing to these matters of usage irritatingly hijacks attention away from the plain plan of the Professor's sentence, and this would be true. Just as the commenter drew attention off the argument against Alito's nomination and on to his own insistent behavior, so too such insistent editorial emendation as proposed here deflects attention even further from the argument against Altio's nomination.

However good an argument it might have made, the argument against Alito's nomination was effectively adjourned around the irritating matter of the "obnoxious" comments profusely pounded out on the keyboard of one particularly insistent fellow. Pointing insistently at easily emmendable errors in form to the exlusion of the plain matter of the sentence itself does this same thing in its own way.

Considered soley as a tactic to disrupt an argument against the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court, this offensive of the indicated fellow was a success. If his only motive was to see to it that the argument against Alito not go forward, that motive was accomplished.

Deleting a comment that reads, "see this just proves that the left does't tolerate dissent" is entirely appopriate if stupid shit and other ridiculous bullshit is to be the standard of what's disallowed from comments by the Professor.

"This," whatever it may amount to, does not and cannot in and of itself prove anything at all about the left, which all must allow sustains in practice more than a merely tolerable amount of dissent in spite of the commenter's claim. Saying it does prove anything at all constitutes the sort of stupid shit that might reasonably be removed from any argument if the fine art of generalizing from the particular is to be properly observed.

November 6, 2005

November 6, 2005

In melodrama the cad or blackguard must be dealt his due, recieving or evading deserved punishment as the nefarious features of the melodramatic moral calculus may dictate. Typically the resolution of the nefarious features of the moral calculus of the story coincides with the culmination of its plot, so that the limit of the nefarious features is reached by the cad just in time to end with all the rest of the story, and due thus dealt to the bad actor's actions just as the story itself leaves off. The resolution happens inside the story in melodrama, as it so often does in true drama.

In practice, the cad or blackguard may get away to a comfortable old age harvesting the sweet fruit of some duplicity or other without any bother ever over the nefarious features of the moral calculus that aided him in getting there.

In most stories, in stories that are not made of the stuff of melodrama the matter won't come up, the matter of what's implicitly due. It won't converge on some culminating plot–point where the blackguard's personal limit of nefarious features is reached in frenzied tandem with all the rest of the suddenly surrounding story, in the main.

However justified, what's due may never be dealt the cad in life. People have certainly taken advantage of this insight over time, should past acts be properly credited.

For obvious reason of culpability down the ages discerning conversation on this topic has been hushed and indirect when not outright eluded except as it might arise among those constantly demanding many other humans who would wish to limit for their own good reasons some particular nefarious act or, given the extremes of religious thought on the matter, all nefarious acts entirely from the common practices of humans.

Whether for the good of self–interest's direct sake or for the even more dramatically espoused general good of religion, the common enough call for a resolution of the matter of the cad or blackguard is a call for the imposition of the satisfying props of melodrama on the fellow, at the very least, a call to finally arrive at the punishing limit of the nefarious acts, satisfying the the resolution of what's due inside the story just as melodrama forever dictates.

November 1, 2005

November 1, 2005

By the lore of the bog what can no longer be joins with what is not yet in the genrous ranks of the Undone there in the bog, the Undone in the bog the antithesis of the matter of what is being done there, but a pleasing subject of conversation when the actual and impinging bogdoings habitually distracting the attentions of the Barry Family are outflanked on either side of the procedings by the firm temporal curb fore and aft of the Undone. All the famous many items collected in the Museum of Alexandria that went away with its destruction so long ago join together there in the capacious precincts of the Undone with all the prospectively resultant gestures of humans yet to come, if any.

What is understood to be gone from the ongoing acts of humans is understandably joined with what is not yet come of any of those acts in the Undone.

What's done is done, of course. In the continuous stream of human acts what's done is done, world without end should it ever come to that, in the Barry Family view.

The unknowable past subtracts from the continuous doings of humans the knowing use of matter lost forever by its intentioned or collateral destruction.

The unentered future is Undone as well, allowing the not yet addable to the doings of humans.

squiggly

Bogsniffings:

(Should our business plan here at HCE go not too far awry, this portal to the previous year's Bogsniffings will someday be attended by the necessary machineries of commerce, erected to collect the agreeable sum on the looker's entering there — something much like the estimable Paypal system, perhaps.

At present, the Bogblog is freely entered to whatever depth the looker may choose to reach.

Use the Volume control to descend to the desired annum).

 

Volume III: 03.03.05 to —;

Collected incompletions of the current year, by monthname.

Volume II: 03.03.04 to 03.02.05

Accumulated incompletions of the indicated annum.

Volume I: 03.03.03 to 03.02.04

A year's worth of freely sniffable Bog in one compact spot!

Up↑

One click away, the very top of the Bog to you.