We like you just fine when you're miserable and blogging, ogged.
That's why I'm not looking to date anyone right now.
Is ogged telling people not to hint at happy relationships as a means to hint at a happy relationship?
Don't go changing to try to please us.
w-lfs-n, surely you've read Anna Karenina.
But I have read its opening lines.
Gawd. It's true. Y'all only loved me when I was tragically broken up with.
This is, like, a metaphor about the election, right?
Those opening lines aren't at all true. Otherwise, no complaints.
the happy families all being alike part. and the unhappy families all being unique, that part too.
s/b:
Some families are similar to each other: among those, some are happy, some or sad. Some families are unique: among those, some are happy, some are sad.
or actually:
Some families are unhappy relative to other families. Some families are relatively happy. No families are unique. All families are unique. Here's a fellow, sleeping on his couch. He's got fine whiskers . . .
If he needed those first lines in order to write the rest, I don't begrudge him. But they don't actually make sense.
It feels right, though. They've got a certain truthiness to them.
Mine don't make sense either, except in that they limn the no sense making of the other lines.
TEXT RUL3Z TH1S THR34D!11!!!!!!1!!!!1!1
From whose crap blogging did you glean this?
And what would text like this thread to do, then?
I believe you mean:
dance, motherfuckers, dance
A better and more obviously true quote from Tolstoy: "All journalism is an intellectual brothel from which there is no exit."
25: text is actually naming a novel by Haruki Murakami.
29: And I am actually naming a song by the Violent Femmes.
Tolstoy was a misogynist prick: what did he know about happy relationships?
I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with this Iranian-Russian nexus - are you guys sharing nuclear secrets?
And AWB is Russian? I thought she had a little Icelandic in her...
Clearly, Tolstoy knew nothing about anything, which can be easily proven by labeling him a mysoginist. Not only that, I heard Shakespeare was a bigot.
Murakami and The Violent Femmes can each have their due.
"I thought she had a little Icelandic in her..."
Why must you bring Bjork into everything?
David Markson's books are great sources of little revealing facts about the famous dead, like Tolstoy.
Literally "all alike" is of course ridiculous.
Jared Diamond's understanding of that sentence, which makes a little more sense, was that to be happy a family has to get a lot of elements right, but screw up just one of them and things can go wrong in many diverse ways.
IIRC, "resemble one another" might be a better translation. Unless I'm mixing it up.
Tolstoy's reputed last words, ostensibly upon being urged to turn to the Orthodox Church: "Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not make six."
No one has to worry about me on this count.
We should probably be watching the otherwise-most-excellent AWB very closely.
Tolstoy's reputed last words
I thought Tolstoy died alone in a train station?
I thought Tolstoy died alone in a train station?
Yes. In the fundamental attunement, boredom.
Tolstoy was a misogynist prick: what did he know about happy relationships?
In his youth he had lots of fun. Ted Hughes or somebody accused him of wanting to monopolize both the meat and the asceticism, leaving nothing behind for anyone wlae.
Tolstoy was a misogynist prick: what did he know about happy relationships?
This is the chickenhawk argument again, no?
I thought Tolstoy died alone in a train station?
He'd still have last words, wouldn't he?
He'd still have last words, wouldn't he?
Not that anyone would have heard.
per wikipedia:
After some restless and aimless wandering he headed for a convent where his sister was the mother superior but had to stop at Astapovo junction. There he was laid up in the stationmaster's house and died on November 7, 1910.
Thomas Mann called him a great moralizing infant.
I know this despite Donald Davidson.
But this makes it sound like he lingered for a while, so maybe.
I am very skeptical of overly clever last words, thus the "reputedly" caveats.
Not that anyone would have heard.
I guess that depends on whether he was alone in the physical sense or the existential sense.
We're agreed, Tolstoy could have had witnessed last words.
Anyway, who's happy, ogged? I demand you name names. It's w-lfs-n, isn't it? Well, we picked up both Houses of Congress, so I can live with that.
I guess that depends on whether he is happy in the physical sense or the existential sense.
For Emerson: bjork beating up a reporter.
Even with "resemble each other" it is patently false. Happy families don't resemble each other any more than sad families (assuming we can really divide families into happy and sad). It's a little canto that sounds nice, and what follows is quite excellent, but it's wrong.
Becks, why o why do you mock me? I thought we were C-64 buddies, with SB.
Not that anyone would have heard.
he was laid up in the stationmaster's house
Ogged, you classist snob, stationmasters have ears.
text, why are you being so uncharacteristically literal?
What exactly happened with the Violent Femmes going all gospel, anyway?
His name isn't pretext any more, Ogged.
56: It's totally true. That's why we find happy people boring and pointless. Well, that and spite.
Damn, it was textualist. I totally fucked that joke up. Ignore me.
Well, the difference is that "resemble each other" doesn't have to be taken absolutely. One can take it to mean "resemble each other in key ways." But yeah, agreeance.
So the literary criticism of the unfoggedetariat is that good stories are irretrievably marred if they're not, in fact, true? Teh lame.
It's worse than the chickenhawk argument. It's the people-with-faults-must-not-have-anything-valuable-to-say argument. Whereas with the chickenhawk argument, at least the fault is directly related to the thing they are saying.
If by "unfoggedetariat" you mean "text" then yes.
I thought it was people without faults who were uninteresting.
65: Also, religious teachings must never be interpreted metaphorically. Never, I say!
text: I don't understand ... are you saying Tolstoy wasn't (famously) misogynist?
John: Oh, misogynists can have lots of fun too ... I just don't see what that necessarily has to do with happy relationships.
Anna Karenina *is* a wonderful novel.
57 - I mock to hide my pain that you won't come over and play Jumpman with me.
60 - I actually kinda like "Jesus Walking On The Water"
No, B, you're taking two different meanings of "true." What I mean is that it is false on its face, untrue in all senses. It is an absolute statement, a proposition, which is false.
I don't think the story is at all marred. The opening line isn't really even a part of the story. It's this little truism that isn't true, is all.
OK, I think I've been guilty once or twice of being obnoxious in the way that ogged is identifying here (i.e., letting it slip out that I'm happily married). And I can recognize that that's repellent and must stop. But as for blogging the darker side of a marriage, it makes a big difference whether you're pseudonymous or not. And also, whether you've been stupid enough to tell your mother about your blog. That's why the sordid truth about my life must remain locked firmly within my wholesome Mr. Rogers persona.
Anyway, ogged is on the right track with his momentary-triumph-acceptable-only-as-prelude-to-further-misery idea, but not all the way there. The longer the oh-I'm-happy blogging goes on, the greater the suspense, and the greater the payoff when the blogger's life explodes into a thousand bitter little pieces. Patience, man. Patience.
Yeah, I like "Jesus Walking on the Water," too. But you have to admit it was a little incongruous.
Truisms are never true, that's why they're called truisms.
74: A comment so good I want to bronze it. Thank you for promising the darkness. (You must be Irish.)
I regret taking the handle "textualist." But there is no shedding my identity here. Think of the times we had.
75 - But so was the awesome "Country Death Song"
Now I'm thinking, I have to go reread Anna Karenina. Is the opening truism meant as a key to the novel, a riff from which the novel develops, or an ironic fillip?
Mark Twain began each chapter of Following the Equator with truisms, many of which were not true, but all of them repeatable.
Henry James said that each novel had a secret motto; maybe Tolstoy should have kept his a secret.
Clearly, "The Incongruous Femmes" would have suited them.
77: Thanks very much. Actually, I would have written more, but my wife just called me away to the living room for kisses and hugs in between checking her email and watching her tv show. God she's wonderful. I'd give her at least one kidney. At least. It's been five glorious years together, and I know this sounds a bit corny, but I really do love and respect her more ever single day.
"Truisms are never true, that's why they're called truisms."
Truisms are things that are supposed to be self-evident. A truism that is self-evidently false is problematic. Like the above.
I totally want to play Jumpman now. Hrmpf.
The opening lines are critical to the novel.
You read Anna Karenina for recognition. You look for what you share, have in common with Levin/Kitty; and how you differ from Anna/Karenin/Vronsky. This process of empathy/alienation accelerates as the book progresses.
Slo, maybe Tolstoy was being ironic or something. I dunno. An excuse for all the unhappiness we're about to witness, as we begin reading.
You should read Anna Karenina, and you should read it in the Pevear-Volokhonsky translation.
I remember that entire Violent Femmes CD as being pretty great. It's old-timey religious in sort of the way that Jenny Lewis' solo CD, which is also great, is old-timey religious.
84: You're only saying that because he's black.
87 sounds like how pretty much everyone approaches politics, no?
And then there's an election...
Just catching up. 32: That fucker was HUGE.
Happy familes are all alike. It's just hard to get used to the idea that happiness is vulgar and shallow and that there's no hope, so we pretend that there's some other option.
Now McManus will come along and accuse me of hating all people, as if there was something wrong with that.
Bjork doesn't seem to punch like a girl. I don't have sound, what was the narration?
92: You can't just say "HUGE." Are we talking girthy as w-lfs-n's wrist or what?
Jumpman was awesome.
No one cares why I am right and LB is wrong about the future of the Democratic party, right?
This makes me think a real life acquaintance of mine--she was this writer who never shut up about how happy her marriage was and in fact wrote a book of poems about how incredibly happy her marriage was, and then, within a month of publication, found out her husband had been sleeping with her best friend and wanted a divorce. Teh schadenfreude! She seemed a lot angrier about the book being undercut than about losing the husband, and really who could blame her? You can get a new husband, but who knows if your new schtick is going to click?
w-lfs-n's wrists are wee, no? I forget. Maybe they are Paul Bunyany trunks of veiny manliness. If the latter, then yes.
76 is really just completely wrong.
94: I started on the Constance Garnett, but it was too much of a slog. Her translations are old and stiff. Pevear and Volokhonsky's, like all of their translations I've read, is much more vivid and fluid. (David Remnick, I think, did an interesting piece on them not too long ago in the New Yorker.) I haven't read David Magarshack's.
w-lfs-n's wrists are wee, no?
The wrists to me are as wide around as the average man's thigh.
Aww, c.mon. Would anyone not make the choices made by Levin/Kitty? Or make the choices made by Anna/Karenin/Vronsky?
I buy the opening sentences 100 per cent; but am not prepared to say exactly what it is that makes all happy families alike. That is the point.
This novel, IMO, may be the greatest work of art in Western Civilisation.
When P & V's translations of Gogol came out, they got reviewed in The New Criterion by someone who really, really didn't like them. I recall that it ended with a joke about noses.
97: I felt that way about my last relationship. For two and a half years, I complained about his distance, his coldness, his refusal to engage emotionally. The day I decided I didn't care about all that any more and started writing unapologetic analyses of why my boyfriend was the greatest, he dumped my ass.
Somehow, Bob, I had you pegged as more of a Dostoevsky type.
103: I've come across a couple of reviews by people who just hate those two for some reason. Then again, one of the reviewers seemed deeply insane.
97: Now, see? Ogged would have cut her off after a poem or two, thereby losing the richness and the complexity of the Shadenfreude generated by the collapse of her marriage after an entire book of such poems. It's all about pacing and build-up.
Speaking of which, if 84 is to 82, I was actually only being a little sarcastic.
In case it's unclear, the "them" at the end of the sentence in 103 is supposed to refer to "their translations", not "P & V".
105:Mostly wrong. The Idiot was my first litcrush, but mostly I think Dosty self-indulgent despair.
bhd pegged me last night, alameida put me up front with an entirely appropriate header. My nihilism twinkles.
85: But problematic is good. See the original post.
111: You know, Bob, I was too drunk at that point to really remember the pegging very well. We'll have to do it again sometime. Soon.
85 has nothing to do with nihilism.
And although not certain of Ogged's topic, Firedogglake and Feministe do some great positive blogging. I should think of others.
My nihilism twinkles.
I read this as "My Muslim Twinkies".
Ogged is just being a foul-weather friend. Don't say you're happy. Don't avoid saying you're happy. Just don't be happy.
I read the Garnett, and thought it was excellent. I've read--I think it was that New Yorker piece--that the new duo made big improvements in the Dostoevsky, got his variety of styles, or something. I'm sure their Tolstoy is also good.
AWB, we can't forgive you if you don't admit that you're wrong.
116: Funny, "Muslin Twinkie" is ogged's pet name for his cock.
Aw, c'mon, Text. Don't ruin my fun.
it's unkind to troll trolls. we're not used to the attention.
Here at Unfogged we're all about ruining fun.
In the interest of a more perfect pedantry, "those two" in 107 could refer to either P & V or their two Gogol translations.
It's a new day in Amerikkka!
And the order of the day is less fun and more marrying dogs. Get to it.
120: I hereby renounce my joy and all its minions.
I think the opening lines make sense. When you're happy, you've got a broad, bland world-view. When you're unhappy, you only see your tragic specific circumstances, and through a zoom lens at that.
128: Can I get a dispensation on the grounds of preexisting sluttiness, albeit of the straight variety?
131: I might be willing to grant you a special dispensation, but first you'd have to provide me with clear and incontrovertible evidence of preexisting sluttiness. See me in office hours.
I'm afraid I can't make office hours. Maybe we can meet in the evening? Someplace quiet?
I liked laundrymat. But if they meet there, teo will just sit in silence, thinking about whether he should say something, and then blog about it.
Do you have any better suggestions, text?
all laundromats are the same. but each laundrymat is laundrymatical in its own way.
Oh dear, I seem to have left my detergent at home.
all people sit in silence in the same way. but those who blog about it blog about it in their own unique ways.
so all is sunny after all!
143: Wait, what does the detergent represent in this situation?
I think it's a pretext for her borrowing Teo's detergent and leaning over to pick it up all seductively.
An attempt to give Teo something to say.
Darn. No detergent. Whatever shall I do?
psssst--Teo! Here's where you just say whatever comes to mind, provided it isn't creepy.
Excuse me, ma'am, would you like to borrow some of my detergent?
provided it isn't creepy.
Don't freak him out like that.
Teo! Never call someone you're hitting on "ma'am".
Especially if it is someone older than you and you don't want to remind them about a questionable age difference.
Now ask the nice lady about the nature of the stains on her clothes.
Happiness is selflessness.
Joyce once said something like:"The extraordinary is for journalists, not artists." Tolstoy illuminated the quotidian, with a craft that is almost invisible. I put Tolstoy over Joyce for his accessibility, and for his skill in hiding himself in the novel. For I suspect AK is 100 percent ironic, darker than Dostoevsky's little brain could even imagine.
I like Anne Tyler a lot.
ah, good point, that. M'lady. Or SnackyCakes.
Don't call anyone you might ever hit on at some point in the future "ma'am".
There we go. Sure, thanks--I'll have to pay you back. But how?
Actually, I don't think I'm hitting on her at all. Isn't she hitting on me?
153: This is not necessarily true if the person in question is younger than you. Though you are correct here.
But how?
How about a game of cribbage while we wait?
(Becks is right, but we're letting it go on the grounds of cuteness.)
[utter the first fragment that enters your mind--then try to make it sensical--fun! sometimes effective!]
I don't think I'm hitting on her at all.
Now you see the problem.
162 - Yes, 153 was more refined by 154. Calling someone younger than you or close to your age "ma'am" can be endearing if done in the right tone. But calling someone more than a few years older than you "ma'am" signals "I see you as completely asexual. I may as well make out with my mom."
This scenario is very confusing. Much of the advice conflicts.
I would love it if, someday, someone calls me SnackyCakes while hitting on me.
But calling someone more than a few years older than you "ma'am" signals "I see you as completely asexual. I may as well make out with my mom."
Yes, well, in real life I wouldn't be hitting on someone more than a few years older than me.
I imagined him saying "ma'am" in a "I've come to root around in your pipes, and find out what's clogging them, ma'am" kinda way.
I imagined him saying "ma'am" in a "I've come to root around in your pipes, and find out what's clogging them, ma'am" kinda way.
Is this good or bad?
Okay, I think that the ma'am + cribbage combo has revealed our problem. Teo, you need to see *me* during office hours.
172 - Good. Very good.
And since he drives a truck, he could probably pull it off.
Let it be known that I would not actually use the words "ma'am" and "cribbage" when trying to pick someone up.
I'm not hitting on her.
I think "flirting" is what you would want to be doing. "Hitting on" reeks of too much of A Night at the Roxbury.
174: Make up your mind, dammit.
176: Exactly.
Ye gods, not to mention 170/175! I believe my predatory and dessicated corpse has suddenly remembered a very pressing appointment! To buy a washing machine and drier so that I need never, ever return to this laundromat again.
Make up your mind, dammit.
We women can be fickle creatures.
"This scenario is very confusing. Much of the advice conflicts."
It's like that show, Herman's Head. Only with more zany.
And I thought Teo chose cribbage solely for the "pegging" possibilities...
Just saying that if the "ma'am" is delivered in a workable "hey there, little lady" tone it could be salvaged as seductive. If said overly polite, you've got no shot.
I'm not saying women older than me are not teh hott, just that I don't see myself flirting with them in laundromats.
I believe most hitting on can be done with a very fixed, but gentle eye contact.
Just saying that if the "ma'am" is delivered in a workable "hey there, little lady" tone it could be salvaged as seductive.
Uh, what?
Don't listen to anyone else here, Teo. Stick with me. You did fine, only next time, don't say anything you said this time.
I believe most hitting on can be done with a very fixed, but gentle eye contact.
This is actually a problem too.
187: Got it.
Also, 182 gets it exactly right.
Also, tip your hat as you deliver the "ma'am". It's a nice touch that'll put a run in her stockings.
I'm really tired after getting no sleep last night and if I keep commenting in this deluded state will likely confuse Teo to the point that he gives up on women altogether. I know what I mean but should probably STFU until I get a good night's sleep lest I complicate matters more.
just that I don't see myself flirting with them in laundromats.
Ah, you're missing out. Just keep in mind that flirting doesn't have to really go anywhere; knowing that might make it easier; less pressure.
Although I will say 190 is right. I'm sure Smasher could give you tips on the fine art of ma'am-ing.
I think I understand what Becks is saying actually. You mean handymen are teh hott, right?
188: Someone once suggested I look at the spot right between people's eyes, rather than directly into the pupils. It seems a bit disingenuous, but I've since transitioned into more-direct and -sincere eye contact. Not sure if this is good advice or not, but there it is.
Ignore my overenthusiastic semicolon usage.
190: Thanks for the tip, SnackyCakes.
194 - More that we uptight, liberal East-coast types have a soft spot for a certain type of Southern/Western charm.
Just keep in mind that flirting doesn't have to really go anywhere; knowing that might make it easier; less pressure.
I've actually got this part down okay; it's the next step that's the problem.
198: Sounds about the same. Chivalry, etc.
195: That sounds like pretty useful advice. Thanks.
The thing is, you have to follow the leads you're given. If they're like really broad and obvious, the invitation is to the game of We Are Flirting in a Silly and Obvious Way, Ha Ha. You mustn't hold back when someone is throwing themselves at you, it makes the other person feel foolish.
Luckily, we old people have leathery skin.
Re: ma'am, the point is to use it a way that doesn't sound diminutive. Self-confident politeness, rather than schoolboy deference.
You had me at SnackyCakes. *bats eyes*
The thing is, you have to follow the leads you're given.
Yeah, I get this, but I can never figure out what they are.
203 - Exactly! That's what I've been inarticulately trying to say.
it's the next step that's the problem.
Clearly, then, you should go for broke. In place of "ma'am" and "cribbage," try "sugarwalls" and "shagging."
206: That's pretty much what I was going for in the first place. Tone doesn't come across well on the internets.
202 is quite sound advice. Coyness is sometimes good, but not with slutty women.
I think I need to meet some slutty women.
209 - So, upon meeting a woman you find attractive, you should immediately ask "Are you slutty?" to figure out the best approach.
194: Not so much that, but that it's an obviously playful kind of thing to do. Using archetypal roles while flirting can be like puncturing nerves before public speaking by announcing "I'm really nervous"--a kind of invitation to giggle with recognition, and then plow on ahead anyway.
"Yeah, I get this, but I can never figure out what they are."
Ah, there's no easy solution for this. When you feel more confident, you pick up on things more. But then maybe you're deluding yourself sometimes. Muddle along. We all look foolish from time to time.
211: Sometimes I wonder if you really have my best interests in mind, Becks.
"Whoops, I left my detergent at home."
"Excuse me, ma'am. Are you slutty?"
"Um...just dirty?"
214 - I always have your best interests in mind, dear Teo. But I also can't resist the sweetness of low hanging fruit.
"Well I've got some detergent right here."
Right, so we're back on track.
Yay, detergent! Thanks so much, I just *hate* the idea of walking all the way back to my apartment all alone in the dark. Oh no, but now I'm using your detergent, and that's not nice--you have to let me pay you back. Have you had dinner?
213 doesn't sound upbeat enough. Try it this way: people often get the signals wrong. But you try to get them anyway! Because when you pick up on them correctly, that's a fine time. And if you were wrong, that's embarassing, but only for a moment. Then you've got a funny story. ha ha! It was a baby she was making faces at, not me!
219: Exactly. "There I was, flirting with this cutie in the laundromat, and he called me ma'am! I almost died! I've absolutely got to stop flirting with undergrads, I'm going to go directly to hell!"
Have you had dinner?
No. Would you like to grab a bite?
Darn. No detergent. Whatever shall I do?
I can't leave you people alone, can I?
"Dirty's not so bad. [Pause, smile, offering] You're welcome to mine."
Come on.
And if you were wrong, that's embarassing, but only for a moment.
You know, text, in some ways you and I are very different people.
Yeah, I get this, but I can never figure out what they are.
Just go by how easy it is to engage the other person in conversation (not how easy it is to come up with something to say--that's a different issue). It shouldn't be a situation where one person is only passively reacting to what the other person is saying, rather than being actively involved. If it is, that's a "no flirting" sign; if it isn't, carry on.
no, ogged, you can't just feed him the lines. that's no kind of learning experience.
Ogged is the superior teacher. Maybe you should be macking on him, Teo.
Back to the flirting. Well, I left some really nice coq au vin simmering at home, actually, and was going to have that after I'm done here--do you eat meat?
Dear lord. This place gets *so* weird after hours.
I think Matt F is the superior teacher. You should rope him into playing wingman for you when you visit D.C.
Well, teo, we may be less different than you think. I am, after all, commenting on a blog. What you need is a group that actively demands embarrassing stories from you. That will be us. Hence, no failure. whaddya say?
228: That really would be the blind leading the blind. It would make for a pretty hilarious evening, though.
Right now, what you should do, is e-mail B. She's not one of the coy ones.
Well, I left some really nice coq au vin simmering at home
And then you say, "Heh. You said 'coq'."
"I've come to root around in your pipes, and find out what's clogging them, ma'am"
"Hey, you're not my regular Intertube repairman. . .
Ooom-chukka-Wow-wow
I recommend ignoring b. Also, "How about a game of cribbage while we wait?" should be "May I entreat my lady to play at whist?".
You should listen to w-lfs-n; he's having sex right now.
Right now, what you should do, is e-mail B. She's not one of the coy ones.
Unfortunately she's way the hell and gone on the other side of the country.
Well, I left some really nice coq au vin simmering at home, actually, and was going to have that after I'm done here--do you eat meat?
I'm a lacto-ovo-tube steak-vegetarian.
In America, of course, it's extremely unlikely that what you were cooking might accurately be called "coq au vin", given the nature of the poultry on offer.
"May I entreat my lady to play at whist?"
That only works if you can see a cape in her laundry basket, or other clear evidence of SCA membership.
I think I'll let Ben take it from here.
I've heard some weird Unfogged-related stories but never of someone commenting while actively engaged in sex. I almost want to say someone should go for it but, as that still likely wouldn't rate in the top 5 weirdest site moments, I don't know if it's really worth cheerleading.
Oh noes, dissed twice in the same thread! The new Amerikkka sucks.
240: it's from Achewood, but the site is down and I doubt I could have found the particular strip in the archive in a timely fashion anyway.
Becks, I'm off to sleep momentarily, but honestly have we really had five moments weirder than Ben having sexual intercourse?
that still likely wouldn't rate in the top 5 weirdest site moments
It wouldn't? What the hell did you people get up to over the summer?
In the new Amerikkka everyone must emulate Achewood at all times.
I said weirder than someone having sex while commenting. Not Ben having sex while commenting. Or Ben having sex.
as that still likely wouldn't rate in the top 5 weirdest site moments, I don't know if it's really worth cheerleading.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, Becks. Cheer away.
The reason b isn't commenting at the moment is that she's blowing me as I type. (NB I didn't write "the reason ... is because", and neither should you.)
Becks, I demand your top 5 weird unfogged moments.
Hey, "huh hebun ib behawb" ib hunking *I* hey!
We've just had two out of five, fersho.
All right, goddamnit, give me the keyboard. "The reason is because" is something *I* say. Mocking women while they're sucking your cock is not the way to a return engagement.
You shouldn't say "the reason is because". For one thing, it makes absolutely no sense. Or rather, there is one interpretation on which it makes sense, but no one ever means that.
The interpretation would apply in something like the following case. Suppose someone said "The reason for the layoffs is that we're losing cash like nobody's business. Now, the reason [ie, the loss of cash] is, because management is incompetent"—ie, the reason is, exists, for the following reason.
But, as I said, no one ever means that.
I say it because it amuses me. Which is more than I can say for that blow job.
But, as I said, no one ever means that.
People don't always mean to convey the literal meaning of their words? I'm shocked, shocked!
I think you say that you say it because it amuses you because you know it's wrong but it's a habit you're in, got in because you thought it was right. I doubt highly that it actually amuses you. Even if it does amuse you, the vast majority of its utterers, I'm sure, are not as sophisticated as you are, and you shouldn't encourage them.
Which is more than I can say for that blow job.
That makes two of us, more's the pity.
Now, the reason [ie, the loss of cash] is, because management is incompetent"
That's a shitty construction that doesn't even have the virtue of being playful. Subject verb comma? One would say "The reason is that."
You know who shouldn't get to make authoritative pronouncements about grammar? Philosophers.
Er, "subject verb comma" happens all the time. Eg, "It's raining, so I stayed indoors". "Fire exists, so be careful!". In this case, however, the comma was meant to indicate a pause in speech, because if what one meant is what I described, one would probably pause there. If you think about it for a moment you'll see that you're wrong and I'm right.
Don't tell me, teo, that you don't cringe when you here someone say "the reason is because".
Addendum to 265: saying, in the sentence quoted in 263, "the reason is that" would change what it means.
I'm not sure what playfulness inheres in "the reason is because" unless it's one that derives from its not making sense.
I do NOT think that "the reason is because" is grammatically correct, jesus christ. Nor "because why," for the record. Nor any of the other verbal tics I exaggerate on purpose to yank your pedantic chain, Mr. w-lfs-n. And I'm not encouraging anyone. I deliberately write in a colloquial and highly informal voice unless I'm annoyed, if you haven't noticed. It entertains me to do so.
Also, piss off.
Finally (for now), I'm pronouncing not qua philosopher (because, as Schlegel observes, one can only become a philosopher, never be a philosopher), but qua little bitch.
I do not in fact cringe when I hear that. I may even say it myself; I can't say I've ever paid close enough attention to notice.
That? Sorry, I already threw it at w-lfs-n's head. Still interested in picking something up somewhere?
you don't cringe when you here someone say
Thanks, Ben.
Still interested in picking something up somewhere?
Eh, most places are probably closed at this hour. Maybe another time.
teo is descriptive, I think.
I am indeed. Have you started that book?
277: I have. This week, though, it's been bumped by Obama's new book, about which I'm supposed to write a response of some sort. Regardless, I like both books so far.
The words understand themselves better than those who use them.
But you're on record as agreeing with me regarding "reason is because", Persia boy.
The words understand themselves better than those who use them.
What does this even mean?
280: Ask Friedrich Schlegel. It's from the perhaps appropriately titled piece "On Incomprehensibility". (Here, though, what it means is because I'm lamenting the inevitable mistake one makes in the midst of a righteous jeremiad about others' mistakes.)
This is a good thread, but it needed more pie.
282: It had Muslim Twinkies. Are you not sated?
If I were sated by this thread I would, according to the thread itself, be boring.
I am not boring.
[Is there html for the three dot/quod erat demonstratum thingy?]I am not sated.
And really, how could anyone be sated if they don't know who won that game of cribbage?
So I should lay off the adorable-children blogging. Got it.
Wow, you weren't kidding about the html.