Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Mandatory voting in the US? (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Mandatory voting in the US?
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seriati, you assert that there is no evidence that Republicans are trying to suppress the votes of legitimate voters.

Yes, though to qualify, I mean no evidence of any wide spread attempt at this or strategy thereof. You can find "evidence" of any concept if you lower the threshold low enough, and include any words from anyone even plausibly linked to a party.
quote:
I cite as evidence the scandal in the Bush era when nine members of the Justice Department resigned when it was exposed that they were firing a wide range of Republican-appointed US attorneys because they were unwilling to fabricate false cases about non-existent voter fraud
I think your memory is faulty, or else you are remembering what you wished had occurred rather than what did occur. The resignations came because of the scandal created by the mid-term replacement of AG's, but the "left" allegation was that they were replaced because they weren't loyal to the president. That involved not only failing to file voter fraud cases but also other unsavory loyalty to the President issues. Of course the explanation from the other side about the reasoning was less plausible, but the rationale about the President's authority to act was pretty convincing in light of AG's making independent decisions not to enforce the law in the way the President directed (Obama doesn't let that happen in any federal agency for point of reference).

The resignations were tied into the charge that the offices in question abused their discretion by acting arbitrarily, which was probably the case, but even that isn't actually clearly the correct standard that should have applied. The simple fact is, if the officials had been democrats they wouldn't have resigned, and no one could have forced them to do so or even held them accountable (see Eric Holder on virtually any controversial decision, even being held in contempt of Congress).

But interestingly, to get to the idea that this was about voter suppression you have to not only prejudge the claims (no actual voter fraud) but also impute a motive that was not particularly persuasive (voter suppression versus either reputational damage to the Democrat or legitimate concern over voter fraud). And you have to believe that if a Republican legitimately believes that their Democratic opponent is encouraging voter fraud they shouldn't have any recourse to the law.

Maybe there's a second scandal that you were talking about, but this one is not particularly convincing.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scifi:
quote:
No, nobody's complaining about typos.
Not specifically in this thread, no--that was intended in to have more of a parenthetically macroscopic sense to it. From my perspective, I'm sometimes forced to deal with the conflict of readers who are angry at me to some degree over my linguistic choices.

I don’t really assume such a conflict is only about a time limit off of the editor button, or that resolving such an issue to my liking would effectively end such the conflict, I was just illustrating a personal problem and offering my view of how part of how I think part of the problem might be fixed, in a way that could paranomastically play on the topical theme of the base limitations to the ideals which can be made into rules by a democracy.

And even that was only meant to be a tongue-in-cheek way to segue--the flight of fancy (an admittedly solipsistic conceit) I needed to take to arrive at the actual point of my post, which at the bottom of everything wasn't about anything all too deep, but really just about remedying a scratched “wing."

I get that my devilish advocacy dervishes across sacred ground sometimes, and I see why such blasphemous indiscretion gets folks so up in arms, but to me it isn't really about any interpersonal thing, I'm just dancing out the steps which correspond to my own beat.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TD:
quote:
For what it's worth, I really don't believe this.
Perhaps you haven’t wits quick enough to glimpse more than just the jest which gives a little lie to my earnest gist? (But must you be so dull whenever I kid? In all sincerity, you seem so quick to the uptake, why are you so slow to profit whenever I freely offer you wit?)

At any rate, please do see: thus bleating answers not my argument aptly, but raps only raptly at the bell of your own personal antipathy--even if your accounting of this personal stock tries to transfer your interest to me.

So, if there is any way to cough away this personal stream of pleurisy of the second person singular, so that we may better breathe the rarer air at the elevation of society’s plurality--then hear soothe my truth: SP disdains not the commoner, but the common! I contemn nary a one of ye! I hate ye not, even if I contradict your liturgy, and will not worship with ye! Do see: it is the demotic deme which seems to me to keep all of this class in Ass’s form, that is the demon who earns my condemnation--that’s the thing which always buggers me to such an as*hole seem.

If y’all’s feelings feel unforgivably hurt by the hurtfulness of my immodestly immoderate meaning, in all truth that brings true sorrow to me! But hear this please: my exercise of excoriating words is never actually aimed at any of you, but at exorcising the demon I believe possesses ye. This may not be a matter you might kindly see, but this kind of matter matters mightily to me.

The problem as I see is it, is merely the rareness of my apology.

In any case, whatever all of this may or may not be worth, I doubt we really need to overthink it--here’s how simply we might see this thing: the only conversational evil more cussed by discussants than the oversimplification of the reductionist, is the coarse currency of the purveyor of puns, and it cannot be denied that I have reduced a great deal in order to coin irony.

So come T: I see that you will not take both face-values minted on my counterfeits, so it is your business to deny me half the purchase power of my coin's duplicity. But must you hold that I lie, or can we agree at least that the root of all this evil is actually my funny money?

[Big Grin]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrt:
quote:
IT is your unsubstantiated and very classist assertion that there is do difference between collective, civilized human effort and mob mentality, not mine.
Yes, I claim that democracy is a mob. But I have substantiated that view, I think, substantially.

And you skip the point (again) Pyrt: Pete asked you to specify more specifically your perception of the nature of the difference between the two concepts you claim are not the same, and you were the one who offered up the idea that the mob is differentiated by dint of a unique dysphoria which diffuses over time.
quote:
originally by Pyrtolin:
A mob acts to find an outlet for shared pain and anger, and dissipates once that emotional state is spent.

I could concede that it was somewhat captious of me not to confess you had actually won a point--given the way in which Democracy takes the anger and pain of its constituents, and gives it vent through a special kind of cyclical system which doesn’t ever actually clean the animal of its spleen, but rather re-feeds the beast its own bile. Because there is indeed a valid difference your distinction has precisely noted: Democracy is not exactly a common mob, which might sate an urge by glutting its gut with fresh-killed flesh and wicked spirits, passing out, and then burying whatever p*ss and sh*t have ensued in shallow dust; Democracy dungeons its dudgeon deep--it wakes to its poison’s pain again, again, again, and again! For each time it wakes from a night of its rage, it forces fully half of its face to choke back down its own excrement, and to suffer such pain until that next night of strife when beastly body politic may take its raving revel again! Democracy is the mobly piece of work that works to part all of its individual parts into a mutiny of perpetually dysphoric partisanship! Democracy uses its own constituents as tools to dismantle the well-being of one another. Even the way it chews its food fuels feud--for look at the ravenous way the beast fights over its crude cud! Is it any wonder the beast is always such an ill-at-its-ease ass? or that its never-ending indigestion leads to such an obnoxious gas?

It is a mob, by swounds! even if it is a rare unending one, as the logic of what you have writ can force me to admit.

But I’m not certain you’ll see how such would be much of a concession speech. I am not actually of your cult’s language, dispositively, and thus my tongue may lack the knack of the democrat's sophistical political-speak.

[Wink]

[ April 06, 2015, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In all sincerity, you seem so quick to the uptake, why are you so slow to profit whenever I freely offer you wit?)
Because I love the barest whiff of a whit of wit, but cringe at clowns. [Smile]

Or, to put it more concisely: one can converse, or one can perform. I actually enjoy watching a good performance, even in a venue usually given over to conversation, but I find it a little gauche when the performer then demands that his performance be integrated into the conversation and acknowledged by the other participants. There's a brilliant poet who goes by the handle "deerpark" who occasionally posts in the Hatrackverse; his worst stuff is marginalia and drivel, but his best stuff is profound and quirky and enlightening. But his work generally only obliquely intersects any given conversational topic, and it's very rare for him to even openly acknowledge other posters. This can be profoundly annoying, but I suspect it is less annoying than it would be if he came into a political thread, posted one of his many riffs on the old tapeworm/pie joke, and then followed it up with a "Hey, why is no one responding to my cogent, telling observation about how the modern voter is very much like a tapeworm. If that was my observation, which it may not have been."

In other words: I don't mind when you play with words. It's sometimes fun to watch. Just don't expect people to play with you. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

Does it sometimes seem I expect others to play by the incomprehensible rules of my game? I don't--especially not when I mock rage--but I do expect others to understand that we all share this life's stage...

[Smile]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
I'm not sure if it stands to reason or not. Humans definitely have instincts, its the instincts of animals that cause them to form packs. But not all animal groupings are properly described as packs, and that's the point here. Dominance behaviors exist in animals that live in colonies, or herds, or that normally live solitary existence. Pack-like is a concept sure, but it's only an analogy and it gets strained incredibly quickly when used to explain behavior in humans.
if you arent sure, dont be so quick to dismiss a theorem as a mere metaphor.
You misunderstand me. I have no doubt that pack doesn't properly apply to humans and is a metaphor or similie when used to describe them.

I'm not sure it "stands to reason" that humans would have vestigial pack instincts.

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Seriati, you assert that there is no evidence that Republicans are trying to suppress the votes of legitimate voters.

Yes, though to qualify, I mean no evidence of any wide spread attempt at this or strategy thereof. You can find "evidence" of any concept if you lower the threshold low enough, and include any words from anyone even plausibly linked to a party.

How about Republicans in multiple states enacting voter ID laws and reducing times available for early voting. Why the two together?

If the goal was having fraud proof elections voter ID is the worst way to go. It has the most adverse consequences for the least gains of any election fraud prevention reform I can think of.

Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
I'm not sure if it stands to reason or not. Humans definitely have instincts, its the instincts of animals that cause them to form packs. But not all animal groupings are properly described as packs, and that's the point here. Dominance behaviors exist in animals that live in colonies, or herds, or that normally live solitary existence. Pack-like is a concept sure, but it's only an analogy and it gets strained incredibly quickly when used to explain behavior in humans.
if you arent sure, dont be so quick to dismiss a theorem as a mere metaphor.
You misunderstand me. I have no doubt that pack doesn't properly apply to humans and is a metaphor or similie when used to describe them.

I'm not sure it "stands to reason" that humans would have vestigial pack instincts.

In that case, you surely dont grasp what the word metaphor actually means. if a proposed model of behavior is erroneous, weather completely erroneous or partially erroneous, that error does not magically transform the proposed model into a "metaphor."

nothing you have said begins to address my theorem vet vestigial hack impulses may be responsible for some human mobbing behaviour, and for other phenomena such as Stockholm Syndrome.

at no point in what I just said did I attributed full-fledge pack behavior to humans, nor at any point did I use a metaphor.

[ April 06, 2015, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
[LOL]

Does it sometimes seem I expect others to play by the incomprehensible rules of my game? I don't--especially not when I mock rage--but I do expect others to understand that we all share this life's stage...

[Smile]

Do not forg...do not lose how to play the game!
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do not forg...do not lose how to play the game!
[LOL]

Wanna to know what the real bitch behind this is? I've really just been writing this to pass the time while stuck on jury duty!

[ April 07, 2015, 01:46 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by yossarian22c:
How about Republicans in multiple states enacting voter ID laws and reducing times available for early voting. Why the two together?

Because both legitimately address voter fraud and voter manipulation. Anything that takes voting out of a polling place and out from under the eyes of monitors, or that increases the length of time and number of monitors that are required introduces additional opportunities for fraud and manipulation.

Can you positively assert that it has never happened that someone has voted someone elses mail in vote, that no one has ever canvassed areas for votes and only brought those they know will vote for their candidate to the polls? Of course you can't. The debate is whether you believe that behavior is statistically insignificant, or like I do, endemic and increasing.

I don't think its any accident at all that the Democrats have a put a massive effort into changing how voting has been handled to move more of it than ever before out from the ability of poll monitors to monitor it.
quote:
If the goal was having fraud proof elections voter ID is the worst way to go. It has the most adverse consequences for the least gains of any election fraud prevention reform I can think of.
I disagree. Photo ID is used in any number of interactions with the government and financial world as a fairly effective fraud check. Not perfect, but certainly better than, the current alternative, "trust me I am who I say I am," or "just mail it to my address, and it will definitely be me who returns it." Could we go to a higher standard like biometrics? Sure, and we may go there someday, but its not really cost effective, ready or fair to do it today.

My point on this is simple. There is nothing that the Republicans advocate, that attempts to disenfranchise even a single legitimate voter. And while their suggests may make it more difficult to vote, they don't really impose any substantial burden on that ability, while they do reduce the potential for fraud. Is it really your view that no efforts should be made to reduce (or even attempt to confirm) fraud? That a democracy will survive just fine with bogus elections?

Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
In that case, you surely dont grasp what the word metaphor actually means. if a proposed model of behavior is erroneous, weather completely erroneous or partially erroneous, that error does not magically transform the proposed model into a "metaphor."

I give you a frowny face for this comment. A metaphor is a description, so by the way is a model, not sure why anything needs to be transformed.
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
--given the way in which Democracy takes the anger and pain of its constituents, and gives it vent through a special kind of cyclical system which doesn’t ever actually clean the animal of its spleen, but rather re-feeds the beast its own bile
Presuming, of course that there is such to refeed- that's the action of certain politicians or leaders in _any_ system, not an inherent trait of any given democratic decision making process.

The Democratic process provides people with the most opportunity to rise above such behavior, which, as a rule they do, so long as they take care to ensure that enough voices participate in the debate to make it hard for such bad actors to dominate the conversation. That's the core goal behind those that seek to depress democratic deliberation by silencing people- by preventing them from voting or teaching them to think that they are making a statement by not participating. What you describe is not the normal function of democratic decision making, but rather a specific subversion of it to bend it into de facto oligarchy by those that remain engaged after they've chased everyone that opposed them out of the process.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seriati:
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
In that case, you surely dont grasp what the word metaphor actually means. if a proposed model of behavior is erroneous, weather completely erroneous or partially erroneous, that error does not magically transform the proposed model into a "metaphor."

I give you a frowny face for this comment. A metaphor is a description, so by the way is a model, not sure why anything needs to be transformed.
I give you a patient face for that, because you are trying, but not quite there. [Smile]

A metaphor is a figurative analogy. An Analogy is A type of description. Imprecision does not convert a model into analogy, and it certainly does not render it figurative .

if you meant to say that pack behavior works better as a metaphor than as a model or mechanism re human behavior, that could be true. but that doesn't mean that what I had said was in any way a metaphor. Whether something is used metaphorically, depends on the intent and usage if the speaker

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seriati
Member
Member # 2266

 - posted      Profile for Seriati         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, all I was pointing out is that humans are not pack animals. To distinguish a mob versus a pack is not comparing apples and oranges, and the terms have no relative meaning. If you're describing specific behaviors as pack-like, knock yourself out, though I doubt many of them, if any, are the actual result of pack instincts, and certainly not enough of them to use "pack" as a description of a human group in a manner that couldn't be more accurately done with terms that actually apply to humans (e.g. gangs, families).
Posts: 2309 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyrt,

Most percipient peer!
I love thee dear,
compersive queer--
none else here
can sing so clear
of notes of altruistic love!

Of love it is I sing so softly here:

What you and your gathering would take of me, I would not give of my own free will.

I beg ye: take not my treasured prize from me, I would not join this group's revelry, not of my own true-given love! Hear me please--though thou art ardent for thy goal!

I would happily admit that I have flattered thee foolishly, and I see how you have spent your resource on me: I would willingly give payment, and apology. I have but a little coin of irony, but all I have, I offer thee, if ye will only let me go with the consent of my heart kept as my own.

Ye are not a mob! well-mannered gentlemen! And thou truly art the best of them, bard, and friend. Please, keep your merry party, but champion for me my most cherished integrity--let me go my own way free, and bid thy friends they let me be!

[ April 07, 2015, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
teased thee foolishly
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
though thou art ardent to thine end

Hermia:
"So will I grow, so live, so die, my lord,
Ere I will my virgin patent up
Unto his lordship, whose unwished yoke
My soul consents not to give sovereignty."

(The 'yoke' is that of Demetrius, and it is before Athenian Law she pleads.)

Puck:
"If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber'd here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to 'scape the serpent's tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends."

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All right...so when did this become a flirting thread? [Roll Eyes] [Wink]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, my murder came late to this party of murrion flock.

That I heard, there was early talk of rape, but I think the froth only fully came on us when another made out my issue handily, and in return, I determined to reach around and wring this thing til it might bring a happy ending for one and all...

(See? if it were unearned luck, I shall not long miss the serpent's kiss before she swift and sweetly comes again.)

[Wink]

[ April 08, 2015, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
All right...so when did this become a flirting thread? [Roll Eyes] [Wink]

FWIW, he meant by the Midsummer quote to winkingly apologize for rhapsodising in such a way as to effect a net displacement of zero.

As it happens, what Puck is actually saying is that the happy ending of the play is a farce and that the true ending (if not for deus ex machina) should properly have been misery of all involved. This is standard construction for a comedy, and if we want to give SP full credit we can therefore suppose he knows this and deliberately meant the apology to be false, knowing that he did, indeed, create chaos whose net effect was not zero.

I'm sure some emoticon will follow in order that the mystery of it all can remain [Wink]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin]
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
FWIW, he meant by the Midsummer quote to winkingly apologize for rhapsodising in such a way as to effect a net displacement of zero.
Oh, poo! I thought we finally got a little romance on this board (of which it is sorely lacking). [Frown]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Worry not this wayward way, Wayward one!

In spite of all its counterfeits, my love for all of you is true.

[Smile]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The line below is part of one of the cruelest pieces of my Puck’s play, so I’m hesitant to do more harm than good by dropping more amends in from out of the machine in the post-mortem, but it has original intents I couldn’t find a sanitary sense for fast enough to fit them in in quick-time, the context of which contains the missing key to the MD alliterative treatment scheme which afterwordly following proceeds.

"It would be indeed the vainest vanity to answer rhetorical questions rhetorically. But the optometric eye may espy the prescription of a humbling homily hid in this physician’s script: You see, it was proposed that you should put forth more precisely the difference you conclusively claim distinguishes the mood of a mob from the mindset of a democracy--and thus was forged this irony: this “diffusive dysphoria” may be a meming molded in the replicative melding of my own mouth's morphemes, but the idea's original meaning was demarcated in our dialogue in your own denotation as a definitive delineation dividing a mob from a democracy."

I really am sorry about these mounting literary conceits, but I’m also Ornery enough that I can’t help but make the claim that the blame here lies more truly with my abusees...because in my ideal ethereal world, I believe free speakers should be free to edit their free speech. But I should let you go...I cannot help this wicked habit, but as my love is truly free, I have other beloved nags to beat...

[Wink]

[ April 09, 2015, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1