...that unknown person might have descendants who might, if a patent could be extended for an indefinite length of time...

Perhaps you'll recall an earlier conversation where I mentioned that the number of descendants of a truly ancient inventor would be so numerous as to encompass all of humanity.

In any event, Egypt's new copyright claims are ridiculous and deserve nothing but contemptuous laughter, even though they are almost certainly nothing but a political publicity stunt.

It's true, that by this late date we might all be descended from the unknown inventor of scissors.  (I actually suspect that despite the argument that you presented in an earlier discussion, that there are some isolated populations whose common ancestry with the rest of the human race is farther back in time than you have asserted, but the general principle remains valid; any ancient ancestor is likely to have most or all of the human race as descendants.)  Even so, some people would be in a more direct line of descent than others.

Imagine, for example, that King Charlemagne had founded a dynasty which still ruled a large part of Europe (this, of course, implies an enormous change in history as we know it, but never mind that).  By this time, everybody on Earth might claim some degree of descent from King Charlemagne (or if not everybody, certainly a very large percentage of the global population).  Nonetheless, we wouldn't all be competing for the throne of Charlemagne.  There would still be an heir, whomever was most directly descended.  And so it is with the heir to the patent that might have been taken out thousands of years ago on the scissors.

That is a rather minor side issue, however; I see that you and I are entirely in agreement about the ridiculous effort by the Egyptian government to copyright the pyramids.

I actually suspect that despite the argument that you presented in an earlier discussion, that there are some isolated populations whose common ancestry with the rest of the human race is farther back in time than you have asserted

I don't have a problem denying the Yanomamo any of the scissor licensing revenue as long as I get my cut. (No pun intended. Oh, who am I kidding...pun intended!)

...why were you getting coached at some FranklinCovey seminar?

At the time I worked for a company whose CEO was a Franklin-Covey fanatic. He thought it would be a good idea to pay a small fortune to have managers who had received the Franklin-Covey indoctrination. (He was wrong, of course.) Attendance was mandatory.

And if you think FranklinCovey deserves creepy writeup, who here would be better situated than you?

You could do it. It would be another chance to do some faux-bashing of capitalism.

Sorry to hear about your forced indoctrination. At least you held out and still maintain your free will.

But why take chance that I would study up on FranklinCovey and become crazed convert? What if I wrote story and it extolled FranklinCovey and encouraged everyone to spend their money on "coaching"? If you wrote story, you could be sure of slant in advance.

I don't hate capitalism. (Maybe that explains why you wrote "faux-bashing".) I prefer social democracy to US "liberal" capitalism (aka "heartless, short-term obsessed" capitalism), but different flavours of capitalism remain basically capitalistic.

I don't hate capitalism. (Maybe that explains why you wrote "faux-bashing".)

No, I wrote "faux-bashing" because you are a troll, and you don't really believe anything you write here.

Generally speaking we have been able to maintain a pretty polite level of conversation here on treesandthings, and I find it a bit shocking that you should suddenly accuse novy of being a troll and of not really believing anything that he writes.  I wouldn't mind if you were to argue that novy is wrong, but why claim that that he doesn't believe what he is saying?  Even if he is wrong, he could still be sincere.  He sounds sincere to me. Sometimes it appears that people are insincere because they are inconsistent, or make statements that are so wildly ridiculous that they would have to be schizophrenic to believe what they are saying (although even then, they may actually be schizophrenic) but that doesn't seem to apply in the case of novy.  Incidentally, do you think that novy is an alien from another planet?  I am suspicious because of the way he often omits the word "the" or "a" where they would normally be used by a native Earthling.  

Generally speaking we have been able to maintain a pretty polite level of conversation here on treesandthings, and I find it a bit shocking that you should suddenly accuse novy of being a troll and of not really believing anything that he writes

Shocking because you take him at face value or shocking because I had the temerity to mention it?

He sounds sincere to me...Incidentally, do you think that novy is an alien from another planet?  I am suspicious because of the way he often omits the word "the" or "a" where they would normally be used by a native Earthling

Come on, skeptic, try to live up to your nickname. Dropping an occasional article would be a common and understandable mistake for someone whose first language was not English, but missing every single one while the remainder of the comment showed nearly flawless grammar, spelling, and grasp of idiom shows calculation. (Though now that I've mentioned this in public perhaps he'll put more creativity into his grammatical prevarications.)

dropping an occasional article would be a common and understandable mistake for someone whose first language was not English, but missing every single one while the remainder of the comment showed nearly flawless grammar, spelling, and grasp of idiom shows calculation.

Actually, I have a friend in grad school who is Latvian, but has lived in the US for about eight years now (he was an exchange student his senior year of high school, then went to a four year college, and now has been in grad school for three years). Slavic languages don't use articles in the same way as English, so he almost always drops them (even in papers he turns in for grading, when he is trying as hard as possible to be grammatically correct), but since he has been in the US for a number of years his grammar and grasp of idiom is otherwise almost flawless. Novy may be faking or he may not be, but based on my experience with Slavic first-language speakers, his "accent" generally rings true.

Ce n'est pas une pipe. C'est une signature.

Actually, I have a friend in grad school who is Latvian...

Yes, he intends to invoke a Slavic accent; isn't that obvious? (Or maybe you no longer read Plastic? No matter.)

Z.  Let.it.fucking.go.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Let what go?

but missing every single one?

Why are you so het up about this?  I didn't even notice it until you mentioned it.

grammatical prevarications.

intr.v. pre·var·i·cat·ed, pre·var·i·cat·ing, pre·var·i·cates
To stray from or evade the truth; equivocate. See Synonyms at lie.

He's lying through the mis-use of grammar?  Perhaps you meant provocation?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Why are you so het up about this?

I'm not, really. Sockpuppets have been a big part of online discussions forever, and a significant aspect to discourse on Plastic, too. It's not really a big deal that this behavior exists, and it also shouldn't be a big deal when I mention it.

He's lying through the mis-use of grammar?  Perhaps you meant provocation?

No, I meant "prevarication" in the sense of "creating an incorrect impression." Why else would someone pretend to be writing with an accent? (At the moment I can't think of a better way to put it.)

ooops, I mean "I'm not so sure.  If it was a sockpuppet, who's would it be?  Mine?  Has anyone ever seen me write as much in five responses as Novy does in one?  No, the only person I have seen write as many long responses with as many links is...you.

But no...I don't think you're Novy.  I think what's got your drawers in a twist is after months of tossing your weight around like you were god's own voice of reason someone is calling you out at your own game.  Personally, I love it.  Not that I always agree with Novy...or always disagree with you, but it's fun to watch the site's cock-of-the-walk get knocked back on the heels once in a while.

So yeah, I still think prevaricator is the wrong word.  I think what you meant to say is provocateur.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

If it was a sockpuppet, who's would it be?

I don't know. The fact that novy is also "Joe Stalin" on Plastic, and that "Joe Stalin" was obviously a sockpuppet for someone who had, at the very least, been hanging around there for a long time, were pretty much casual observations I had made. I have my suspicions about who he is (or, perhaps  should say 'who he is also' because there are multiple sockpuppet names that show the same characteristics), but since I am not absolutely certain speculating would risk accusing the wrong person for no good reason. And anyway, why bother?

There is a specific intent in the design of the treesandthings web-site to encourage objective and reasonable discussions of topics of general public interest rather than the kind of personal attacks and feuding which have been so prominent on the plastic web-site from which treesandthings is a kind of spin-off.  Personally it is my feeling that EVEN IF novy really is a troll and really is not being sincere, it is still possible to either discuss what he is saying in a serious manner, or if that is not worthwhile, to simply ignore him, without attacking him personally.  After all, "personal attacks and name calling are discouraged" as we are advised every time we post a comment.  Of course, even though these things are discouraged, you can do them anyway, and in some extreme cases they might even be justified, but I don't really see any such necessity in the case of novy.

As for novy's grammatical peculiarities, everybody is unique in the way they use language.  While it is unusual that novy writes so clearly in English except for his anomalous omission of articles (definite and indefinite) it is at least possible that this reflects his actual knowledge of the language.  But even if it's all an act, so what?  Let him put on his act.  It does no harm that I can see.

As for living up to my name, it all depends how you look at it.  I can be skeptical about novy, or I can be skeptical about your attack on novy.  Either way, I am skeptical.  Skeptics are not always right, of course.  Skepticism can be misplaced.  I make no claims of being infallible, merely of being skeptical.

Personally it is my feeling that EVEN IF novy really is a troll and really is not being sincere, it is still possible to either discuss what he is saying in a serious manner...even if it's all an act, so what?  Let him put on his act

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but that's exactly what I've been doing. (See the parasite discussion for an example.)

Well yes, that's what you have been doing (i.e., discussing his comments in a serious manner) EXCEPT for calling him a troll and accusing him of not believing anything that he says.  That was the part to which I objected.  

I don't think calling someone a troll when he is trolling is name-calling. Do you?

Balls.  You have no proof that anyone is trolling you except maybe they're calling you out.  If that's the case, every single comment that is one angstrom different from yours is a troll.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

You have no proof that anyone is trolling you...

I never claimed that anyone is trolling me.

Calling someone a troll is name calling.  You are arguing that you are justified in calling novy a troll, but your justifications do not mean that you aren't engaged in name calling.  We are trying to have a web-site that does not degenerate into pointless feuding the way plastic so often has, hence, we discourage name-calling.   ALL instances of name-calling come about because somebody thinks, rightly or wrongly, that somebody else deserves to be called a name.  It is always possible to come up with some justification for name-calling.  But it's still name-calling.  And it's not what we want on treesandthings.  OK?

...it's still name-calling.  And it's not what we want on treesandthings.  OK?

Fair enough. I'll try to refrain from calling anyone a "troll."* In the future if someone is doing what novy has been, I'll merely describe their actions: "this person is trolling."

* I wonder: is it still okay, under your rules, to call someone a "liberal"?

I accept your solution.  If someone is trolling you can reasonably make that observation.  Your footnote is also amusing.  The term "liberal" has indeed become a dirty word in the minds of many people - and it really is a pity that the glorious dreams of Lyndon Johnson, for a fair and equitable society in which poverty and racial injustice are no more, have worked out so badly in the 21st century.  There are still people who are proud to call themselves liberals, and the ideals of liberalism remain valid even if the execution has often failed.  So yes, you can call someone a liberal, but do it in good humor.

...the ideals of liberalism remain valid even if the execution has often failed.  So yes, you can call someone a liberal, but do it in good humor

The ideals of liberalism were mostly counter to logic and common sense, and were therefore doomed to failure. There's nothing funny about that.

When I urged you to speak in good humor about liberalism I didn't mean that you should make jokes about it, I meant that you should maintain a pleasant and friendly attitude toward people who may have different political opinions than yours.  You can accuse people of liberalism without getting nasty about it; there is still room for honest debate about liberal ideals and strategies.  Liberals are not Nazis.  Even if it is true as you claim that the ideals of liberalism are MOSTLY counter to logic and common sense, that implies that there are SOME liberal ideals which are not counter to logic and common sense.  There is still some good to be found in liberalism, although admittedly the liberal vision of America is largely a failure, and Lyndon Johnson, were he alive today, would not be happy to see the outcome of his visionary Great Society program.

I meant that you should maintain a pleasant and friendly attitude toward people who may have different political opinions than yours

Yes. It's called "suffering fools gladly." When you see someone being foolish it's not an insult to say, "You're being foolish. Please stop before someone gets hurt."

...admittedly the liberal vision of America is largely a failure, and Lyndon Johnson, were he alive today, would not be happy to see the outcome of his visionary Great Society program

No, he wouldn't be happy. He would be surprised, because he was a fool. If he had stuck to traditional liberal principles (individual freedom, the rule of law, etc.) rather than an imbecilic expansion of liberalism to encompass leftist economic ideas, then we'd be better off today.

When someone has a different opinion than you do, you conclude that they are necessarily foolish, and you do not suffer fools gladly.  That appears to be based upon your presumption that you are always right, and indeed, you are always OBVIOUSLY right, so that only a fool would disagree with you.  That is an abrasive approach to political debate (although admittedly, quite a popular one).  People can have incorrect opinions without necessarily being fools, because the truth is not always obvious.  And even you are not ALWAYS right, although I think that in general you are a very astute commentator on political issues.  So people who disagree with you are not necessarily fools.  Be polite.

...your presumption that you are always right, and indeed, you are always OBVIOUSLY right, so that only a fool would disagree with you

I do try to confine my harshest criticism for people who are obviously wrong, such as when someone is mistaken about some economic fact. Those people are not exclusively liberals, but it seems that they are often enough that I think it's a truism to say that liberalism is caused by believing things that are not true. An analogous sort of belief is creationism, which requires its adherents to believe things about biology that are demonstrably false. Viewed this way, liberalism is a sort of economic fundamentalism, and many liberals behave in other ways consistent with fundamentalists, such as accusing their ideological opponents of being plain evil (conservatives are racist, hate the poor, only care about themselves, etc.)

It does seem to me that people make an error by becoming either too liberal or too conservative.  Extremism seldom yields a good result, and the world does not readily fit any of the simplistic models into which people would like to force it.  If we were to boil down these political philosophies to their most simplistic forms, it would be that liberals believe that every problem can be solved by increases in taxing and spending, and conservatives believe that every problem can be solved by cutting taxes and running a deficit.  Something like that, anyway.  

Neither of these political camps have had any great success in solving real problems.  I know that conservatives believe that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War all by himself, but a more objective view suggests that he accidentally happened to be President at the time the USSR collapsed on its own, as a result of its own unworkability.  Equally well, liberals believe that FDR solved the Great Depression with his visionary economic policies, when actually it was just the economic stimulus of WW II which ended the Great Depression, that and the repeal of Prohibition.

For the US to deal successfully with the horrendous problems that it now faces, it will have to do better than the same old liberal OR conservative solutions.

My enemy, my own. I believe every word of what I write here. I can barely believe you believe some of that drivel you write, but I will assume you do for sake of continued argument.

Some troll I am! I write stories while you can't be bothered, I try to jump start conversations while you express grumpy dourness and piss in all directions, I defend my perspectives with lengthy arguments while you engage in ad hominem attacks, and then you call me troll. When you get that beam out of your eye, I will take your criticisms of my mote more seriously.

I've never tried the boiling water thing with a frog, only with lobsters. (Did you know that lobsters mate for life?)

Also, the Monitor and Merrimac were the first armored ships used in battle.

"The word "consult" is the joining of the two words "con" and "insult".

And speaking of non-wisdom...

One place I worked had a "motivational" poster that said...

"Every morning a gazelle wakes up knowing he has to be faster than the fastest lion to survive...and the lion knows she has to be faster than the fastest gazelle.  So, whether you're a lion or a gazelle, the moral is 'hit the ground running!'"

Obviously, the writer never watched Animal Planet.  The gazelle only has to outrun the next slowest gazelle...preferably old uncle Morty who has sired plenty of little gazelles and is getting kind of wheezy.  And, the lion is thinking, "eee-fuck, I hope there's a good old and sick gazelle out there 'cuz I'm frickin' tired of running so much."

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

    A low level fighter and wizard are talking over the speed type spell the latter decided to memorize that day. The fighter says, "What, you think you can outrun a troll now with that minute long spell?" to which the wizard replies, "All I have to do is run faster than you." Ah, just the kind of party unity that is the joy of gamemasters everywhere . . .
    And as for the lion vs gazelle example, whoever made that sign also had apparently never heard that lions hunt in prides, a tactic that executed properly makes speed kind of beside the point. But management manuals might be the last place someone should look for wisdom, I guess.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras