Eff's Rambles (Archive)


So, here's a request.

Well, for any persons so inclined, for whatever reason(s), to actually read my blog, I'd like a response to something. You might have noticed that I spend most of my time expressing my method of reasoning, or how I woud idealy like to do think about a given subject. Assuming I'm not so poor in writing and grammar overall that you need a translator to make sense of it, maybe you could explain to me who, if anyone, I emulate, to whatever degree. Perhaps I speak pure drivel and use the worst logic possible. If that's true, I accept that. Still, I wonder how flawed my thinking really is. I wonder which is more or less flattering, being compared to a philosopher or just being called unique. I think I'll be lucky if uniqu is the word people use.

Ok, so if you are out there, skim however much you want and tell me about myself.


  • How do you think your blog entries sound to you?

    It's one thing to know a bit about a lot of things as you obviously do but how you apply your knowledge will determine whether or not you have consistency and thus an aura of authority and validity.

    It's no good saying eat fruit and vegies 6 times a week for 3 months then saying eat bakery products 6 times a week for the next 3 months and expect anyone to take it all in.

    I'm not saying this is the extent of shifts in your reasoning, your shifts are way more subtle but they're there.

    It feels like you have a monster rock you want to get off your chest in a real bad way, but you don't want to offend anyone when you do. People choose to be offended, you seldom do. Also, you seldom provide others the opportunity to get offended. On boards, that's perfect. In this bit of e-space you call your own, the guests have to accept what you say, what you think and what you feel or they have two options: Leave their reactions in the comments or go read Sesame Street books.

    But then again, you also know how different our personalities are.
    But, you did ask.

    By Blogger Rat, at 7/23/2005 09:19:00 AM  

  • I think, honestly, I come across as someone that tries too hard to not only be as unoffensive as possible, but as someone too analytical; indecisive. My thinking centers around the process of others' analysis. How good I am at it is open to debate, or it is irrefutably one way or another, good or bad. I appear as someone more interested finding fallacies than in taking a stance on any issue where I do not feel certain of how right I am.

    I would not say that I know a little about a lot of things. I think I know a little about a few things but have an abstract (for lack of a better term) intelligence that makes me able to understand some concepts in a general way. That understanding I like to think I have, is a large part of why my writing seems to be so careful; I prefer to pre-empt other arguments by showing empathy with them, and sometimes challenging them.

    I doubt I could ever have an aura of authority. I do not have the presence or look for it. I am too private to allow my validity to be examined. But, in truth, while, at a given time, I believe in the reasoning I express, I do not believe I could ever live upto them. I do not like being pinned down to positions so I can avoid inconsistencies and hypocrisies. I like to be flexible.

    If you could explain the shifts and whether you think they have improved or worsened, please do so.

    I did ask, and I am thankful you took the time to give your observations. As far as how I present my opinions in a debate format and here, I think I am naturally this way.

    By Blogger Eff, at 7/23/2005 04:01:00 PM  

  • "I appear as someone more interested finding fallacies than in taking a stance on any issue where I do not feel certain of how right I am."

    How would you find fallacies if you're not certain of what's right or wrong? (Not good or bad.)

    As for the changes, they're neither good nor bad, they're just changes. Whether or not you personally see them as good or bad is entirely up to you. Once upon a time you were definite about the things in which you believed and you were ready to give your reasons. The shift has been more towards acceptance of the views and opinions of others but at the cost of your own assertiveness. That makes you a wonderfully easy person to be around, but the question remains whether this is of more importance to you.

    You probably know me as a bit of a bully, grumbling away at every little thing, being mean, nasty and foul tempered. But if you look at the things that set me off, you should be able to discern a pattern. I'm an advocate for human rights and the responsibility for cognition and active (as distinct from passive) thinking. When I see something wrong according to my values, I'll say so and I won't back down.

    It's up to you which you think is of more value to you. If you value acceptance of a broad range of views across a wide spectrum, then you are being true to your own values.

    By Blogger Rat, at 7/25/2005 11:02:00 PM  

  • It depends on the type of fallacy. Usually, I am referring to dubious comparisons and relevancy in arguments. Of course, I could be flawed in what I think is logical. But I will believe I am right until a persuasive defense, if ever, of the argument I criticised is made.

    Being right in ethics is a different matter. When I refer to being right, I am mainly referring to a person's deservance of condemnation.

    I do not like to presuppose things and am weary of induction where it might not be necessary.

    Politicians are a good example. I do not mind saying when a bad choice is made, if I understand the choice and the alternatives, but I dislike creating a basis for a politician's choice. Theories, though some may have some truth in them, that say a politician did something for reasons other than the ones the politician stated, are, to me, inherently unfair. One can discredit the stated reasons and leave his theory as the most likely one to be accurate, but one should not only use his cynicism as a reason to attack the sincerity of the motives of others.

    I am mostly interested in the necessity of the decision.

    I do, at times, express a more blunt view on specific issues. I think I have been pretty unassertive in most of my commenting going back to the early days at PandA (we should have a panda mascot), so I am not sure how accurate your assessment of me "once upon a time is," but I cannot remember everything I have said. I do know that qualifying statements is something I have done for a long time. I wish I could look over the old PandAs. They are lost to us.

    I would not say bully. I do not know if I would agree with everything you say or do, and I doubt you expect me to. I know that your are definitely more bold than me.

    By Blogger Eff, at 7/26/2005 07:20:00 AM  

  • It's easier for me to be bold. People can't drive around with guns in their jackets here. If I said half the stuff I said from your side of the Pacific, I'd have spawned vigilante groups by the dozen. Hell, even WhiskeyPat would be tempted to drive across country and throw acorns or something. If said I were moving to Ohio, Cheri would alert the National Guard and have me harpooned on site.

    Speaking of harpoons, you know what I think of cute furry animals and pandas definitely qualify for that definition. Tart would do it for a joke just to stir me up but no way on God's green earth am I going to put a panda up there. Feel free though, she likes any opportunity for a laugh.

    On a totally different note, one of my entries got a gripe. I was touched and moved by it, really.

    On a more pertinent note, I think it may have been Ardra a few years ago during that massive fight with chester who expressed her frustration with you for the position you appeared not to take during all that. That's when, if I remember rightly, you arced up about the damage it was doing to the whole comm. Not much, but that was the position you took - and it was just as valid as those on either side of the great chester debate.

    By Blogger Rat, at 7/31/2005 05:04:00 AM  

  • me love you, f.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8/02/2005 09:26:00 AM  

  • Uh, thanks??

    The formatting messed up in my stats post. Damn that thing. I suppose I'll have to learn how to make tables.

    By Blogger Eff, at 8/02/2005 05:56:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Online dictionary at www.Answers.com

Concise information in one click