I’m an indifferent cook but, as I’ve blogged once before, I make a very, very good chicken soup. Good as it is, I didn’t use to make it very often because of the incredible mess. After it had simmered for several hours, the chicken had fallen completely apart, with edible meat floating higgledy-piggledy with the inedible parts; mushy edible vegetables (carrots and celery) combined randomly with the ones no one will or can eat (parsnip, turnip and ginger root); and a broth filled with little bits of dill and parsley. All this mess meant running the broth through sieves (dirtying at least two additional pots, not to mention the splatter mess) and sorting carefully through greasy, boiling hot vegetable and meat pieces.
A few weeks ago, though, I had an epiphany that has completely revolutionized chicken soup in my family. The secret, in a word, is cheesecloth. I make separate cheesecloth packets for the chicken; for the vegetables we’ll eat after along with the soup; and for the vegetables, roots and herbs that I’ll toss later. I add these packets to the pot, along with water, salt, pepper, and whatever other seasonings I want. After I bring the water to a boil, I let the soup simmer for three hours. Then, I remove the cheesecloth pouches, put them in bowls and let them drain. The resulting broth is perfectly clear without any need for sieving, and I can easily get my hands on edible meat and vegetables to the broth. Clean-up takes minutes, not hours.
del.icio.us
digg itFiled under: Bits and Pieces |
Bookworm Room (ARCHIVES) 
The Age of Invention, Bookworm. Where someone’s idea saves hours from another person’s life, prolonging, extending, and enriching the life of the human race.
The only problem, of course, is entropy.
Sounds delicious. Can we all come over for lunch?
I throw chicken bones into NO NAME BLAND BRAND SOUP (heat & stir).It’s yuuuuuuu..mmmmmmmmmy! It is not easy to do …. with all the stirring and stuff! But a real time saver and then back to the important $tuff.
“The only problem, of course, is entropy.”
That expresses a very common misapplication of the concept of entropy. Entropy states that an orderly, isolated system (i.e., a system with no external energy being input) will degenerate into the state of most disorder over time. We do not live in a closed system, however, since we receive energy from the sun or in this particular case, Bookworm is expending energy to create order (chicken soup) from disorder (a group of ingredients.) Thus, it is relatively easy to demonstrate that entropy isn’t a problem.
I think this cheesecloth packet idea is something I’d like to try as we enjoy homemade chicken soup a lot during the colder months. Actually, I saw this done on a TV cooking show once & wondered if it would work.
Chicken soup hath charms to tame the savage beast, and mollify the scolding Greg too. Send some to your kids’ teachers before a parent-teacher conference request.
That is a very tunnel visioned interpretation of things. In fact, I could actually use kevin’s definition and give a very nice explanation of what I was talking about. So here we go. Not everything is limited to the closed system of definitions in physics and mathematics. There are forms and functions that may be inter-related and inter-connected, if you simply go to the effort of making the attempt. Otherwise, it is just a bunch of useless definitions for parochial subjects. All theory, no applications.
The Age of Invention, Bookworm. Where someone’s idea saves hours from another person’s life, prolonging, extending, and enriching the life of the human race.
The only problem, of course, is entropy.
So let’s talk about how to connect things together without sacrificing form and function.
As human progress continues at an ever rapid pace, it continues to connect the world together into one inter-dependent system. However, this also allows humans to create a closed system, a bubble, which is cut off from the dangers of nature and the rest of the human race. Within the greater globalized globule, are individual closed systems, that only exist because of globalization but also exist independent of the energies of the human race. Thus degradation occurs as the energy within the circles of Academia, Socialism, and MSM swirl and swirl while continuing to fall into entropy. They are closed systems, while globalization connects nations and people together so that more order is generated out of energy than chaos.
This cave of Academia and various other organizations could never have been achieved without technology and the Age of Invention, for it is only the Age of Invention that has allowed wealth to be generated in such quantities by the inter-connection of fully functioning closed systems with other closed systems (now creating total open systems of expression and trade) that the spheres of Academia can shut off osmosis and simply feed upon the energy it has stored from such advances.
The real question becomes, if the closed systems that are decaying maintains its closed status only because of the energy and advancements of the open system(America) in which it is resides, then why is it a CLosed System in the first place? Why does academia suck off the energy of America, yet is also isolated from America, would not energy passing from America to Academia revitalize Academia?
And the answer was rather interesting a way, as I see it. Because All the energy academia and even Europe, all the energy they recieve from the other systems of function around them, is kept isolated from their internal functions and pathways. All that energy is not used to revitalize or change how things react inside their closed systems, that energy is not allowed to feed into swirls of disorder to give it order or new direction or form. All that energy, instead, goes to the containment system that holds that System closed, and closed forever.
In a political interface, this means that the energy of new ideas and what not, is strained out by the aristocracy of Europe and the Deciders of Academia, the courts, and the ACLU socialists. They keep this energy away from themselves, simply using it to counter-act the influx of new ideas and new energies from “Outside” so to speak. We all know action-reaction. So if academia had to protect itself from the new, it would have to “react” correct? And yet, reacting would mean that they change, if only a little, it would mean that they are being pushed, some affect is leaking through if only because the form of their body and energy changes as they react. However, if they use the energy outside, to form a shield, to block the newness from outside, then it is good. THen they have a self-contained system, and can wait until entropy takes its effect.
entropy. Entropy states that an orderly, isolated system (i.e., a system with no external energy being input) will degenerate into the state of most disorder
If it wasn’t for entropy, new inventions would allow the human race to accomplish many things. But for some reason, technology at the same time also causes huge portions of the human race to stagnant amazingly enough. The Western World, the most technologically advanced in the history of the human race, not just relatively speaking even, and yet its birthrates are falling to almost zero. This includes even Japan, which had their industrial revolution rather later than the USA. It is losing its form, its function.
Everything looks different out of the tunnel. Simple definitions are always short. Tunnels are always short, compared to the wider road outside.
It’s called suicide Ymarsakar.Nations and/or individuals in their confused LUST for GREED and HURT, WANT IT ALL, and leave the rest of us, to figure it out.For some, you may get to them early ,and help, (Europe)for others,(JAPAN) it may be to late).Toughen up like Israel, and be ready to go down swinging .
As usual, another long-winded and yet unsurprisingly, incorrect explanation. The systems you claim are closed are not since new people are constantly being introduced to each of the examples listed.
I forgot to mention something about my chicken soup recipe (see above). “It’s a good thing”. Now the next issue.
“Otherwise, it is just a bunch of useless definitions for parochial subjects. All theory, no applications.”
Actually, as one whose job entails utilizing theory to produce new applications on a daily basis, I find your perception of mathematics and science to be rather amusing. And what is it again that you do?
I talk about things that intrigue me. You attack people you don’t like. When was the last time you talked about physics here in a way that linked it to your political or philosophical views?
The difference between you and me, kevin, is a matter of character. Not a matter of ideological or philosophical differences. Character motivations is far different on a psychological level than any difference in philosophy. For example. Socialism, Nazism, and Communism. They all hate each other, but their beliefs are so very similar.
You try to attack me by attempting to judo position yourself as an expert on definitions and meanings. You’ll make fun of anything really, but what you won’t ever address is the substance. Either because you can’t, or because you won’t. Either way, it is good to know.
Because you see, kevin version number 2. It will never be about whether I am right or wrong. It will always be about who I am, to you. And that is something so predictable, that the counters to it are obvious and easy to make.
As usual, another long-winded and yet unsurprisingly, incorrect explanation. The systems you claim are closed are not since new people are constantly being introduced to each of the examples listed.
Earl, how many new people are introduced into Journalism or your field in the university, that disrupt the status quo of the energy field of administration and policies?
People are not new energy. Anymore than a cell that is created within an organism, an introduction of new energy into the organism. It uses the current energy of the system, the body, to make a new cell. Kevin calls it new people, as if new people automatically are new in the sense of energy.
Remember Kevin, That expresses a very common misapplication of the concept of entropy..
Why should you remember that? Because you will always try to attack my system, and make it your own. I can ignore you for 99 years and in that time, never feel a need to quote you in order to attack your sense of things. You don’t even exist to me. All that exist are words, not even a person or a personality. You are dead to me, do you understand what that means?
And you should remember that, simply because as you demonstrate here, you are unable to ignore me, you are unable to leave me alone or prevent yourself from trying to hit me in the back as a way of feeling superior.
Your behavior is too predictable, kevin. It always was. It was when you were trying to hide your enmity towards me by asking hostile questions, and it is now. Because you are dead to me, kevin, your actions and behavior can be analyzed by me without any hint of emotional prejudice.
But of course if you seek to talk, well I can talk. I can also write. For as long as you wish.
You are petty, kevin. Can you not find something more dangerous and painful to say. Is that the extent of the personal grudge you hold? Do you not have something more worthwhile my time and effort to analyze than this static and dead thing you call an amusement of Ymar’s long winded writing?
Do you not understand that I did not make my explanations for your benefit, because I knew you would dismiss it as either long or incomplete or nonsensical, but for the benefit of the readers of Bookworm. I will face my accuser and I will defend myself.
For as long as I am attacked unjustly.
Sorry but as a scientist, I must admit that I allow myself a bit of pleasure exposing charlatans–from astrologers, to crystal shamans, to even you. Glad to see that you are so emotionally detached *snicker*
Forgive me for straying back to the topic, but BW’s idea is brilliant. I hardly ever (it’s been years) bother to make chicken soup anymore. Some canned varieties will do for convenience sake, but they can never match the flavor I remember from my mother’s recipe, even if I add extra fresh carrots and the kind of thin noodles she always used. Canned soup has been a somewhat acceptable substitute, considering what a collosal pain in the neck making chicken soup from scratch has always been. Well, not actually making it, but dealing with it once it’s ready, and cleaning up. You described that mess perfectly. But now, (drum roll please) armed with the perfect solution you have given us today, I can again produce the delicious, soul-warming concoction that I so enjoyed in my youth. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
I agree with Judy. Fancy that. 🙂
Kevin ,Ymarskar GO GET A BLOG !
Ymarsakar,
You see, it’s hard to discuss physics with someone who continuously expresses concepts only at level of understanding that can be achieved by watching NOVA. If you don’t understand how human input is energy, I can’t help you. Since I’ve actually majored in physics, it is my field of expertise. And as such, it’s glaring when someone is using the technical language while exhibiting a lack of comprehension—thus my terming your usage as a misapplication.
When was the last time you talked about physics here in a way that linked it to your political or philosophical views?
There is usually no need to. If I’m discussing politics and philosophy, I have no need to mention physics to make a point. To do otherwise would be either pointless bragging or the logical fallacy of appeal to irrelevant authority. I point to the fact that Bookworm rarely interjects law into her posts unless the point of the post is, in fact, law. When she starts to post on science issues, I may find the need to bring my area of expertise up.
Speaking of predictability, every time I ask you about your education or expertise, you revert to the “I’m a poor victim routine.” Sounds like a typical liberal technique to me.
Kevin , Ymarskar , go get a blog !
Sorry but as a scientist, I must admit that I allow myself a bit of pleasure exposing charlatans–from astrologers, to crystal shamans, to even you. Glad to see that you are so emotionally detached *snicker*
There are ways of scientifically analyzing someone’s feelings from their writings. And no, making a snicker at me isn’t one of them. See, it doesn’t do anything. It is not a controlled experiment, nor does it prove anything.
So you believe me to be a charlatan. Thanks for revealing critical data. Did you know that you used (196) words? That is also telling.
The thing is, I can basically use any definition you give me and incorporate it via assimilation into my system. The only thing you can do is try to argue from authority. A bad position for you. (100)
The only definition I used was yours, and it caused quite a lot of obfuscated technical jargon to be put into my writings where I would have prefered there not to be.
Kevin, I’m a liberal. Please, get with the program.
Ymarsakar–
What is it you do again–oh yeah, that’s right, you play an intellect (and poorly at that) in blogs.
Cheers
Ymarsakar,
Let me begin by apologizing, that was an inappropriate comment.
But I do want to address your comment, “The only definition I used was yours, and it caused quite a lot of obfuscated technical jargon to be put into my writings where I would have prefered there not to be.”
I’d like to remind you that I’m not the one who brought up entropy in a post on chicken soup. Now why is that? No one else feels the need to randomly drop reference (and always incorrectly) to entropy, quantum mechanics, etc. Entropy is neither a common concept (nor word for that matter) and since you used it incorrectly, I chose to point it out.
To Bookworm and my fellow posters,
I would like to explain why I challenge Ymarsakar when he brings up such things as entropy when discussing chicken soup.
People have opinions and in a group discussion, it is up to each individual to support their opinion and then others can draw conclusions on a given point of view based on the quality of the person’s supporting argument. I take issue with someone randomly inserting scientific terms (and incorrectly at that) into a post since it is only used as a thin attempt at trying to sound educated. This is no different from a person misusing impressive sounding vocabulary or “name dropping.”
I am a professional scientist and through correspondence with Bookworm, I have presented ample evidence to that fact. I continuously run into people who will inaccurately claim something is based in science (not unlike a low-level bureaucrat claiming something is the law.) Unfortunately, many people will believe what they are being told unless they happen to be a scientist (or lawyer in the second case.) I believe that misstatements should be corrected, especially when they are obviously being used as a smokescreen in an attempt to sound intelligent.
There is an old saying, “if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle ‘em with bulls**t.” I will always challenge someone when they choose to pursue the second path.
hey kevin,
feel free to challenge ymarsakar as often as you like. so much of what that guy posts is such self-congratulatory hooey, that it’s nice to have someone with some authority around to give him a well-deserved smackdown.
frankly, he queers most threads that he posts on (which is virtually every one), and i choose to ignore him most of the time. but in this case, thanks for saying what should be said more often.
peace
Dagon, thanks (again we’re in agreement)—sometimes I just reach my limit and have to speak up.
I told a story a while back about how when I was a child, we drove cross-country to a new duty station and we had our dog with us. We would stop at various roadside rest-stops to let her do her business in areas designated for such things. Since dogs will try to scent over other dog’s scents in order to mark territory, she would squat and run while peeing, trying to cover as much territory as possible. It was absolutely hilarious to watch–just a funny anecdote that I think is apt.
Let me begin by apologizing, that was an inappropriate comment.
Not really. If all you have against me is some prejudicial belief from 3 months ago that I’m not your equal, then that has already been factored into my calculations. I talk to you now, only because I don’t particularly like you skulking around in the shadows requiring me to analyze every one of your comments for ulterior motives. So I might as well just challenge them outright if I am forced to deal with them. I didn’t challenge them before because I had assessed that it would be a waste of mental energy that could be applied better elsewhere. But if you’re going to push it, then fine.
I’d like to remind you that I’m not the one who brought up entropy in a post on chicken soup.
And instead of bothering to engage people in a discussion about what they meant, you instead jumped to a non-flattering conclusion about my use of the term. Based upon prejudice, as I said before. I’m the one who was being diplomatic in using your definition instead of calling you a crank or appealing to authority. I called your view “tunnel visioned” because it was a weak version of “prejudicial”. I gave you a chance to talk about the subject instead of talking about people. Let it not be said that I don’t give people the benefit of the doubt. Even when they don’t deserve it.
Dagon isn’t a liberal, kev. That is why he is not on my side. This is to perhaps help you better picture why calling me a liberal won’t send me into guilt like seizures of knee jerk hostility towards the concept. So you’re going to have to find another attack if you want some effect on me.
Entropy is neither a common concept (nor word for that matter) and since you used it incorrectly, I chose to point it out.
Entropy is not a word, and based upon this you are attempting to call bs on people? Amazing.
Link
Perhaps your problem is that you believe your definitions of things has to be the one and only definition and meaning of things, that other people like me can’t use it in a different manner than the way(s) in which you have proclaimed correct.
For example, 4. a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration..
The only problem, of course, is entropy.
The only problem, of course, is the (doctrine of) inevitable social decline and degeneration.
Call bs all you want. I’ll always be the diplomatic one that uses your dogmatic definitions to give you a chance that you will waste, and you will always be the one that will decide what people mean and which correct definition should be used. That, at least, is clear.
I will always challenge someone when they choose to pursue the second path.
Are you trying to cloak yourself with the advantage of the moral high ground for my benefit, yours, or the audience’s?
Remember kev, a person’s character is decided more often by the enemies he has than the words he speaks. It is predictable that dagon has an anti-liberal bias towards me. And it is also predictable that he would side with you.
Come on kev. Your belief that I’m trying to work hard at appearing to be smart is not all that rare. Many flawed people have had the same thoughts about my writings, usually they attempt surprise attacks when they are frustrated beyond relief.
That isn’t challenging anybody, except for perhaps my patience.
A challenge obeys strict honor codes of conduct, devoid of insults either implied or explicit. A real challenge would have been stating your definition of what you believe entropy the word should be used as, and your reasoning why I incorrectly used the word.
It would not and should not be one of the numerous Dagon first strike attacks he used to do against Bookworm when he first started commenting here.
If I had responded to it as if it was a challenge, all you would have done was discard my reasoning as longwinded and trite. Therefore I went into the trap and created a counter-trap for you. And you stepped into it. So consider this finished, unless you have any energy to spare in forming a counter-argument, perhaps with some help from dagon or your other allies.
Ymarsakar, I cannot say this kindly enough. Your posts reveal extraordinary potential and suck. For God’s sake, listen to someone other than the voices in your head.
Ymarsakar,
You really can be obtuse, can’t you? When I wrote, “Entropy is neither a common concept (nor word for that matter),” I (incorrectly) meant the adjective common to apply to the phrase in the parenthesis (i.e., nor a common word for that matter.)
Social entropy is an incorrect application of the term generated and perpetuated by people who do not understand the concept. Societies do not experience an inevitable social decline or degeneration—this would infer that society has continuously declined from caveman days. Another quick example would be the current state of America since many believe we’re in a social decline but President Bush just added two new members to the SCOTUS (i.e., external energy has been added to the system, thus changing the dynamics.) Entropy ONLY explains evolution of a closed system, which brings me back to what I pointed out originally—it isn’t a problem. My original post was polite and pointing out a misconception that most people hold (and you were perpetuating) and you just weren’t able to handle the criticism. As you point out, that seems to be rather a telling flaw in character.
Thank you, Dagon and Greg for the support—I never thought I’d use that sentence.
Now for this:
“Your belief that I’m trying to work hard at appearing to be smart is not all that rare. Many flawed people have had the same thoughts about my writings, usually they attempt surprise attacks when they are frustrated beyond relief.”
I must say that did bring a chuckle; you really are full of yourself, aren’t you? I’ll let you in on a secret, I don’t attempt surprise attacks; I just call them like I see them. Is it even possible for you to post without pretending to be an expert in strategy or psychology?
I have to agree with Dagon that most of what you write is “self-congratulatory hooey.” And also like Dagon, I really do try to avoid reading your posts but like the little dog in my anecdote, you insist on pissing everywhere so sometimes it’s hard to miss.
I agree with everything Kevin’s said, Y, but I think he’d — and all of us — would be wrong to sweep your words aside, as if they were only the inchoate ramblings of a frustrated intellect. Fact is, you are a frustrated intellect, with minimal clue on how to channel your fecund thoughts. Are you in graduate school? You should be. Are you either man or smart enough to learn? I have my doubts. Prove me wrong.
I concur; there are times that Ymarsakar does post some well though out (albeit usually way too long) logical arguments. Succinct thought is an art.
I never thought I’d use that sentence.
Comment by kevin | January 21, 2007
When you are talking or communicating with me, there are many sentences that you will use that you never thought you would ever use.
It’s not like you can generate the Badonadonk Stillwell meter to a high enough degree that I don’t understand what you are trying to get at. If you want to say that you were too lazy to put the word “common” in front of “entropy”, then fine. I can do it in one sentence, you need more, and that is fine too.
Ymarsakar, I cannot say this kindly enough. Your posts reveal extraordinary potential and suck. For God’s sake, listen to someone other than the voices in your head.
I don’t know about that, Greg. Just tell us how you really feel.
Social entropy is an incorrect application of the term generated and perpetuated by people who do not understand the concept. Societies do not experience an inevitable social decline or degeneration—
See, this is why you don’t talk about physics in relation to politics or various other fields of thought and study. You don’t brainstorm about it in writing or contemptation, so when you do try it, it comes out totally mangled. You don’t so much lay out a thesis and try to explain it or support it, you just try to lecture as if your position is always right and anyone else you say is wrong, is wrong. Not much usefullness there, especially when the professor is incorrect.
Not everything you believe to be wrong, is a lack of understanding by others. Sometimes it is a lack of understanding by you, numeral uno.
As I predicted, kev, here comes your other allies. Oh, they were already here, my bad.
I’ll let you in on a secret, I don’t attempt surprise attacks; I just call them like I see them.
Oh, they weren’t surprise attacks through intention. In war surprise attacks may sometimes result from the fog of war, or simply taking advantage of luck and situation. Opportunism is equated with surprise then. Usually surprise attacks are defined as making an attack upon a party without declaring your hostile intentions first. Tactically, speaking though, in actual conflicts surprise may either come because it was planned or maybe just because of lady luck.
And also like Dagon, I really do try to avoid reading your posts but like the little dog in my anecdote, you insist on pissing everywhere so sometimes it’s hard to miss.
You don’t have to apologize for my sake, kev. Do you apologize because you believed your comment was unfair? Not really, you believed it to be quite fair. Did you apologize because you believed your comment was untrue? No to that as well. Did you apologize because you realized that you let out too much of the ugliness inside for all to see and was sorry for yourself? Probably.
Ymarsakar–
What is it you do again–oh yeah, that’s right, you play an intellect (and poorly at that) in blogs.
Cheers
Comment by kevin | January 20, 2007
So by all means, take the advice that Greg got. Tell us how you really feel.
I concur; there are times that Ymarsakar does post some well though out (albeit usually way too long) logical arguments.
Come on kev, don’t tell untruths just to appear moderate. You cannot really agree with me, because you disagree with the means I derive my views from. It would be like saying Saddam was a dictator and had to go, but not supporting the invasion that kicked him out and hanged him.
Nothing I say is of value to you, regardless of how you view it, simply because of how I came about it. If it ever was of value to you, I would have to recalculate certain formulas but in the end I would be confident in that the value you saw in my writings was not the value I put in there.
Is it even possible for you to post without pretending to be an expert in strategy or psychology?
How can you even pretend to be right on the subjects of strategy and psychology when you can’t even hold your own in an argument against me? I’m not asking you to win, but certainly you have to able to have a reasonably rational conversation at the least.
There is too much baggage you bring to the conversation for it ever to be about subjects like strategy or psychology, because in the end it will always be about you. Why you are right, and everyone else you see as wrong, being wrong. Strategically speaking, that’s not even On Death Ground. While you are busy telling people why you are right, I might as well just move across this river to get out of your way.
I’ll let folks in on a strategic clue that might help. Everything people have said about me concerning Greg’s comments and Dagon’s comments, I have already heard before. So you guys got to come up with something new. I mean, the trick of trying to get into people’s good graces with the ‘Ymar sometimes has well thought out comments’ is not new enough to surprise me.
Can’t you come up with something like ‘Ymar doesn’t write enough words’ or ‘Ymar uses too many big vocabulary’ or ‘Ymar uses too many words when he can just condense it down’ or how about ‘Ymar tries to use high level vocabulary on Greg’s scale and fails catastrophically’. Or, the finisher, ‘Ymar, why don’t you stop brainstorming on this blog with your blowhardiness and come up with a finished draft’.
He who does not know himself, does not know his enemies. How are folks going to know their enemies if they don’t even know themselves? Ridiculous folks.
Prove me wrong.
Why would I do that? Given that Greg is right, but Kev is wrong. You see, Greg is right, but Kev is wrong. How exactly does that work? *shrugs* Here we go, where we stop, only Kev knows.
For example, Greg is right in that he is projecting unto me, what he knows to be true of himself.
Fact is, you are a frustrated intellect, with minimal clue on how to channel your fecund thoughts.
Greg=fecund=really!
Come on, tell me I lie.
Ymarsakar,
You stated:
“You don’t so much lay out a thesis and try to explain it or support it, you just try to lecture as if your position is always right and anyone else you say is wrong.”
What part of:
“Societies do not experience an inevitable social decline or degeneration—this would infer that society has continuously declined from caveman days. Another quick example would be the current state of America since many believe we’re in a social decline but President Bush just added two new members to the SCOTUS (i.e., external energy has been added to the system, thus changing the dynamics.) Entropy ONLY explains evolution of a closed system, which brings me back to what I pointed out originally—it isn’t a problem.” do you have a hard time understanding. It is a complete explaination of why your original comment is wrong.
Next, you said,“Did you apologize because you realized that you let out too much of the ugliness inside for all to see and was sorry for yourself? Probably.
Wrong, I actually felt sorry for you but don’t worry, it’s passed.
Ymarsakar,
You wrote, “everything people have said about me concerning Greg’s comments and Dagon’s comments, I have already heard before. So you guys got to come up with something new,” so here goes:
You wrote, ‘Ymar uses too many big vocabulary’
Based on that sentence alone, I can say that English is Ymar’s second language. Also, based on my travels, I would say that this sentence alone clearly indicates that you hale from somewhere in the Far East.
Since you seem to have a thing for sake, and since sake is a Japanese liquor made from fermented rice that you would likely be of Japanese heritage (since I would find it hard to believe that a Chinese would embrace it due to the hard feelings between the countries.)
I also know Ymar is young–you used to list you age as 23 until I pointed out that at that age you have little life experience to draw from–then you changed it to 115. Now since you are probably a Gemini, that would indicate you’ve had a birthday since that point so you’d probably be 24. You have also used the word “whacked” before as in “that’s whacked.” Since I don’t know of anyone past thirty that would use that particular slang (without sounding like an idiot that is), this further indicates Ymar is a twenty-something.
I can’t locate the particular comment but you stated, “ask any college student what it means to be an American” followed by an answer “partying, drinking and sex.” This would indicate to me that if you have been to college, it wasn’t in the States because you would realize the ridiculousness of that statement–just something you’ve read, huh?
I’m guessing, based the times you post, that you live in the states and possibly the Pacific Time zone. You have mentioned living in the Deep South but that could have been in the past (or just something you made up.)
You aren’t married which is no surprise due to the condescending tone you have used towards Bookworm (who incidently, is by far your intellectual superior.) Also, you seem to live on blogs which would indicate a non-existent social life and therefore, no wife. Here’s a suggestion for you—get a life!
You list Enya, The Corrs, and Evanescence as your favorite music. Let’s see, they’re all groups with very attractive women. You also kiss up to Bookworm every chance you get (when you’re not being condescending explaining things like deductive logic that is.) Again you come across sounding like a young male.
As a person, you seem to have an inferiority complex so you have created this persona of “Ymarsakar” who dispenses wisdom wherever he goes. This inferiority complex does not allow for any criticism of your views otherwise you become exposed as a charlatan (by the way, you had to look that word up didn’t you?) You play games with your profile so you can seem mysterious, you constantly talk about your “inherent” abilities on psychology and how people’s writings offer “critical data” that enables you to see through them. First of all, what a crock and trust me, women don’t think you’re James Bond so if you think it makes you mysterious and sexy, it’s going to be a long wait on your part (if you get my drift.)
Since you won’t even discuss your job (as many here in Bookwormroom have without compromising their anonymity), I would guess you believe it to be beneath you. And as such, you probably fume that all those above you are imbeciles and they should recognize your superior brain and immediately promote you to top management.
You are a braggadocio, as evidenced by your constant self-congratulatory hooey and everyone knows it (whether-or-not you believe it.) If you actually held any serious or responsible position, you are the type that would be telling us about it. This also fits with you being young because we all have to pay our dues while climbing the career ladder so a lower level position is consistent with my observation.
Your contempt for college educated people leads me to believe that maybe you haven’t been—especially since when discussing your education, you only mention your AP classes (which are only High School) but never mention college classes. Very telling—a tad resentful are we? Again, due to your bragging nature, if you’d been, you’d tell us. I would like to commend you on your honesty in not just making it up, however.
I’ve noticed in the past that you assimilate words I’ve used into your future posts. I’ll use a word and not long after, you will use it (where you had never used it in previous posts.) This would further support my observation that English is not your first language (since you are still learning) but don’t forget, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
So Ymarsakar, the balls in your court–as you so eloquently stated, “Come on, tell me I lie.”
Anyone else care to offer any other observations for Ymar since he’s heard it all before?
I think the following is useful in understanding what we’ve got here:
Narcissism: At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis:
* has a grandiose sense of self-importance is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
* believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by other special people.
* requires excessive admiration strong sense of entitlement.
* takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends.
* lacks empathy.
* is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her.
* arrogant affect.
Wow Greg,
We agree again and being that we do fall on opposite sides of the political spectrum, this proves that there are some issuse with a common middle ground.
And to Ymarsakar, I meant hail from the Far East (just to save you the trouble of pointing it out.)
well spoken Kevin!
The top three smartest posters on this blog:
1. Me (smartest)
2. kevin (my favorite intern)
3. Dagon (keep trying grasshopper)
And your modesty is stunning too.
*bows*
You know, I was going to say “you really really love me”, but that was a little bit too sappy. Not exactly fitting, you know.
I think it proves that you need to reconsider who you find agreeing with you, Kevin. Your ideological straitjacket prevents you from realizing that you need to reconsider things based upon the possibility that you might be in the wrong, I know, but you should still reconsider anything that agrees with Greg simply on basic principles.
Ridiculous, kev, I’m not Japanese. And everyone knows it. After all, Greg knows everything. Your analytical skills need brushing up. Or maybe you need to consider the opposition’s disinformation campaign, not just your own strategies.
woot, woot, as they say. This is quite the entertainment, really.
You are a braggadocio, as evidenced by your constant self-congratulatory hooey and everyone knows it (whether-or-not you believe it.) If you actually held any serious or responsible position, you are the type that would be telling us about it.
Btw kev, if the only way to not be a braggart in you view is for me to talk about mysef as being in a serious and responsible “position”, then I have the sad (but satisfactory duty) to tell you that you would not complete a basic logic course.
It is a good thing you tell us how you really feel, kev, I thought I would have to hit the 50 comment mark to get to real progress.
Again, due to your bragging nature, if you’d been, you’d tell us.
But given that we know Bush is a warmonger, this means that he would be invading Syria and Iran and his inability to do so means the US military is obviously over-stretched. By your logic. But then, your logic wouldn’t cut butter. Not that butter would melt in my mouth anyways.
One last thing. I am honored to have you as an enemy, Kevin of the world travelers. For I have always believed, in my heart of hearts, that my progress in this world depends upon the character of my enemies.
It is always unfortunate when one must fight against an honorable enemy, but since you have no honor, I do not believe I need expend such regrets there.
You don’t have enough strength of character for your words to affect me, one way or another. Perhaps you never will. Do I remind you of yourself before the Code of Values you learned? A little projection going on perhaps? Does satisfy some secret desire of yours to make me out to be everything that you dislike, simply for your own self-aggrandizement? But regardless of that, your behavior (here at least) is not something I believe people should look upon as a role model.
Btw kev, if the only way to not be a braggart in you view is for me to talk about mysef as being in a serious and responsible “position”
You really do have a problem with English don’t you? Talking about your job wouldn’t prove that you weren’t a braggart, I am saying since you obviously ARE a braggart, you WOULD talk about your job unless you were embarrassed to do so. I have the sad (but satisfying duty) to tell you that you should ask someone who understands English to read my posts and explain them to you before you answer so you don’t continue sounding like a complete fool.
Well, Ymar, just keep playing your childish games but we’re all on to you. Based on the little you’ve objected to, I’m still 90% right and I suspect even better than that due to your docile response. Have fun because I am laughing at you (as I suspect are the many who have followed this encounter.)
#45 Ho-hum, that the best you can come up with?
You’re free to be obsessed over some person you met on the internet all you want, kev, and think it is I that is playing the games.
Since I’m not going to devote a major portion of my time on the net to you kev, it does indeed look like 45 is the most time I’ll give you, my supplicant.
The docile response you allude to is actually a way to better contrast your viciousness and nastiness to how I react to vicious and nasty personas. You lash out in anger and rage, I respond with humour and reason.
By the way, I’ll add this just so you break the 50 comment barrier and not me. Making fun of my choice of words isn’t very original of you, simply because I think you only do that because you thought I did it with you. So like any kid playing get back, you need to do the same to me to even things up. That’s not exactly a good thing to do.
Cheesecloths? now i’ve seen it all