Fun!

[robinturner]

One of my less-noble activities is troll-feeding, particularly in philosophy forums. Some postmodernist/randroid/überschafe picks a fight and I can't help responding. I know I shouldn't, but they're just so cute! It's like a long, slender neck to a vampire. See this thread for an example.

Comments

[philipispdr.livejournal.com]

Wow, you manage to hide your ignorane so well behind that facade of politeness. Must be something to do with how nearly everything you say reveals how clueless you are. I love this guy's debating technique, I may use it in the essay I'm working on at the moment, throwing away my current approach and instead commenting on how Hobsbawm's a durrbrain, obviously confused about proto-nationalist sentiment among the working classes due to not understanding what he's talking about.

[philipispdr.livejournal.com]

Uh... I'm hoping it's clear that I'm mocking him in the above comment... I just read that back and feel I should confirm that neither you nor Professor Hobsbawm could justifiably be referred to as 'not having a fucking clue'.


In other news, some diseased portion of my brain has just contemplated whether a fucking clue might be something like a used condom. Time to retire I think.

[circumambulate.livejournal.com]

Jesus

somebody needs to take a deep breath and step away from their own sense of self-importance.

[solri.livejournal.com]

Like, duh, Hobsbawm? Todal lamer. I spose ur gonna quote AJP Taylor next. Like, get with the paradigm, d00d.

[hyperina.livejournal.com]

boring, boring! sokal pomo meme --> bleh! I'd be happy if none of this was mentioned again for at least another 30 years!

anyway, i thought it had potential to be an interesting duel until your "peer reviewed" blunder, after which I guess you simply lost all your intellectual credibility. then LJ_theoria commenced to hate your guts. shame.

[tempter.livejournal.com]

I just came to check out your lj page after reading that very thread.

It's an amusing read, if nothing else. =)

[solri.livejournal.com]

theoria has hated my guts for a long time. As for the "peer-reviewed" blunder, sure it was a mistake, but so what? The journal still has an editorial board, who ought to know better. theoria's defence that they simply don't have time to read what they publish is absurd.

I'd be happy if none of this was mentioned again for at least another 30 years!

I'd be happy if pomo wasn't mentioned for the next thirty years, but we live in an imperfect world.

[solri.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you found it amusing. Sometimes I feel childish for feeding trolls like this, but my aim is only to entertain (myself, and hopefully others).

[solri.livejournal.com]

btw, it often takes 3-5 months for uptake of prozac. did they tell you that?

They didn't, but as Lucy Liu says in Charlie's Angels, "It's amazing what you can find out on the Internet." I think that these days, at least in Turkey, you could go to the doctor with a cold and he'd prescribe Prozac.

[vret.livejournal.com]

[info]theoria's defence that they simply don't have time to read what they publish is absurd.

That's known as the Boris Johnson defence, after the Tory MP and editor of the Spectator who, when challenged by Ian Hislop about an exceptionally unpleasant article by his columnist Taki, admitted that he didn't have time to read articles before publication and the editing decisions were being made by his very overworked and underpaid secretary. A while later another article he published unread, about what a bunch of whingers scousers are, led to him losing his shadow ministerial post and having to spend a very embarrassing day in Liverpool apologising to anyone who would listen.

Embarrassment doesn't seem to be a pomo sort of thing, though.

[hyperina.livejournal.com]

No way, not absurd! I agreed with theoria on that, and didn't think it was a defence. But I thought it was a critical distinction at first. The articles just get submitted by "reputable" sources and then published. Hell, even with peer reviewed journals, errata happen! But if it's not peer reviewed then there's not as much of an academic obligation. It's pretty much like Time magazine. But even so, even assuming that they didn't have time to read it and they printed it anyway, take that scenario vs. it was a peer reviewed journal and they printed it anyway, and it would have been good to argue your points without getting stuck on that. Theoria thinks it wouldn't have made it in a peer-reviewed journal and I agree and so do you, probably, since even you thought that beyond the first few sentences anyone with half a passing familiarity would know that it was junk. The fact that it was published in a non-peer reviewed journal is not exactly a Turing test. Wait, let's not start this again. I'll have to go back and read the argument again.

It'll be good when all academic publishing becomes free. Remember that movement? (If you don't know of it I'll get the URL but you probably know about it already). The internet will make it happen! No more sexy topics getting the front covers, and no more dull but serious stuff falling by the wayside.

LJ_theoria, why hate?