Getting the Last Word

Ah. You chose the wrong book. The Breast is more suitable to a guy such as yourself. Plus it has fewer pages.

BTW ed-- Billy Parker said that Molly always gets the last word in Hearts of Fire.

And you are Molly?

Not at all. I don't think there is such a thing as a last word except for what the Seal said to bin Laden. I'm up for endless conversation. I think these Last Word sophists are up a gum tree and up to no good as well. They are sulking.

I have a first edition of Auberon Waugh's The Last Word with a 27 word dedication to me on the fly leaf excluding the date. It's an exercise in how to do reporting of court proceedings by a real journalist.

Noisemobiles.

BTW ed--"Molly" is a word with an interesting history. As far back as Homer who opened every door.

Only today I made use of a molly bolt.

You weren't molly-coddling that bolt, were you, edgar?

Ah, you guys are doing a great, great job of illustrating my premise. Thankee.

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

It's not at all tough. Conversation flows everywhere and nobody ever thinks about getting in the last word. I certainly don't.

Molly Bloom has a lot of last words. The last being "Yes". A male version mind you. Joyce is supposed to have taken the name from Homer. Moly is a herb which protects men.



And you can readily see ed that females would not want men to know about a thing like that so to prevent run-on words going from things like the thread title to Hearts of Fire to a herb with such qualities, much as bromide has, the rumour goes, they chirp in about last wordism like as if it is some sort of henious faux pas and, as such, despicable and unworthy of gentleman who are suitable for holding conversations in their company which they prefer to go forward in an endless loop of disconnected drivel.

I think "getting the last word" misstates the situation. In fact, I believe folks grow irritated that a poster posts with the intent to control the conversation, thereby hijacking and diverting the thread intent and keeping it going until all others give up in exasperation. It is more a form of thought repression, forced upon the ones perceived as the opposition. Motives may vary, but results do not.

Nah!! That's just indicative of being unable to cope with the real world. Like Ignore is.

I can't think of a better example of trying to control the conversation than closing out other participants in it. And proudly announcing that somebody has been placed on Ignore is a frank admission of the fact.

One discreetly departs from conversations one finds unbearable.

In short, allow yourself to get censored. I have about three pages of ignores. I am not bragging. I just don't have time or tolerance for some of the foolishness.

As I said ed--there are other pubs. I don't see how anyone can stay in a discussion whilst closing out other participants. It's very bad manners.

You're trying to tailor your cultural environment the easy way.

Censorship might apply to someone involved with (or administering of ) excluding words or entries from a publication or a broadcast. He is not blocking them from saying whatever they want- just from his seeing those comments. Each individual has the right to exclude the ravings and rantings of the odd lunatic or annoying gadlfy.

That is not censorship at all...but selectivity of personal view. Ed seems to prefer to reply or interact with those whom he sees fit. That's part of the good design of the interface on A2K.

Why redefine words in the English language to suit yourself? That smacks of language pollution.

Culling the dead weight.

Not at all Rago. You're missing the point. It is staying in the discussion a part of which has been Ignored. I have no objection otherwise.

For example--on the evolution threads I asked about the psychosomatic effects of religious ceremonials. Some put me on Ignore because they didn't want to answer the questions relating to that. Yet they stayed in the discussion and that question is perfectly legitimate. It is not ravings and rantings at all. Psychology validates psychosomatic affects and that's a science. And those who put that stuff on Ignore are claiming to speak for science. Hence, they are staying in a discussion in which they have blotted out important and very relevant matters. They are asserting something important to be rantings and ravings as an excuse to Ignore it and thus never to consider it. And one might assume they will do the same for every uncomfortable question.

The evolution threads are a catalogue of woe in this respect. Obviously the materialists can never be wrong in their own mind if they blot out anything that seriously challenges their position. That's bigotry--bigtime. And incurable.

And saying that the questioner is talking out of his arse or drunk is just as bad. That's a species of Ignore. It's just a wimpy excuse to avoid the question just as is referring to rantings and ravings, lunatics and annoying gadflies is when the question is a valid one.

I missed no point. I just don't agree with your's . Are you are attemtping to intentilonally obfuscate or is it jsut your trypical way of communicating?.

Your's (as is the case for all) is but one man's opinion. Most of us are used to people having a discussion and some individuals ignoring others. It's a shame for that are aparrently might have been one who is/was.

He mischaracterizes the evolution persons who no longer pay attention to him. He should start a thread of his own if he does not intend to follow the intent of the threads.

Saying that I mischaracterize the evolution persons who no longer pay attention to me is just an assertion as valueless as saying that I'm drunk or talking out of my arse. It wins the argument without addressing the points I made. Another variation on Ignore.

I did a post on one of those threads on the 5th of Oct. and nobody added another post to the thread until I did earlier tonight. In that time the thread received 155 views. Why start another thread when there is that level of interest?

The evolution persons don't pay attention to my posts because the can't answer them. It is not a mark of superiority to not pay attention. It is a weakness.

And I haven't even got the big stick out yet. The NCSE has those arguments I have made on Ignore as well.

Another argument that they have Ignored is why is it that the seemingly objective obviousness of what they say about religion is not bought into by the vast majority of Americans despite it sounding so sensible, clear cut and backed up by facts? The only answer offered to that argument is that the vast majority of Americans are stupid. And I don't buy into that.