The Briefing Room
Exclusive Content => Editorials => Topic started by: LateForLunch on March 09, 2017, 06:15:57 pm
-
This came up on another thread, the whole notion of whether or not intensity is a virtue or a liability/danger to society.
There are a lot of different ways to look at the topic of intensity.
In a legal sense (something to which I can speak, owing to the fact that I have three practicing attorneys in my extended fambly) there are some very clear demarcations in what may or may not be said or done legally in our culture. As with most things under the law, permissible conduct, be it verbal or overt comes down to "evidence of intent".
For example one may openly, publicly say that one wishes to see physical harm or even death come to another - even that they wish to see someone harmed illegally (murdered for instance) without violating the law. What constitutes a "threat" in the eyes of the law comes down to the commission of some "overt act" which might reasonably cause another to conclude that their safety was in jeopardy.
The demarcation in the view of "intent" in violent acts is in the context of any statement. Marching directly up to someone or mailing them a letter and stating something like "You should be murdered!" could be reasonably construed to be a threatening statement and therefore prohibited.
If on the other hand, someone writes a script for a play fantasizing about say, assassinating the President of the United States, (which happened in the early 2000s under Bush 43) the law generally views this as protected speech because it is "non directed" speech and "couched in the context of creative expression".
Web forums are another interesting wrinkle in this area of expression. Some forums (such as this one) are likely to take a conservative (heh) approach to threatening statements and therefore are inclined to err on the side of caution in that regard. That is entirely a matter of choice of the owners/management whose own preferences are themselves protected by law.
Some forums are inclined to have a very libertarian, laissez faire approach aka a "no holds barred" attitude in which only the most egregious encroachments on good taste or overt violations of legality are prohibited.
I have no opinion on which is the better approach, because the objectives of forum O and Os may vary. People have a right to run their forums any way they prefer.
What I am interested in discussing herein however is whether or not intensity in itself or expressions that are decidedly outside conventional demarcations of "nice" have equal or superseding value to culture or to discussions. I truly have no firm opinion but am anxious to hear others thought and feelings about it.
Sometimes I get into trouble because I go too far in my own expressions of intense thinking. Something like that recently occurred on a thread where I posted what some interpreted as inappropriate comments which could have been construed as "threats". That interpretation was if not legally valid, entirely valid from a style and message perspective.
I learned that this forum has more strict standards on talking about violence than others I post at regularly. I have no quarrel with that at all. It is not the site's responsibility to adapt to my preferences, but mine to adapt to it. Selah.
But this episode did raise something that has been on my mind for some time and that's the reason for this post. I want to know how others feel about whether it is in society's best interests to suppress or limit extreme expressions about feeling a desire to engage in violent acts (like the deliberate taking of a human life or injuring of others).
I had a friend who once told me, "In this world, there are sheep and there are wolves. Generally the sheep shun the wolves as being not "nice" people. The sheep respect the wolves to some degree but they often don't want the wolves around behaving like wolves. That is, they don't want them around until some violent bad actor or other needs to be taken out - then the sheep want the wolves to save them. But afterward they want them to go away until they are needed again." Hmmm.
For many years, I pondered this statement and observed the world around me with it in mind. I have decided that he was probably correct.
It's one thing to want to have people who are willing able and experienced and skilled at harming/killing people deliberately. But it is another entirely to have those people hanging around with you and standing next to you in line at the grocery store.
I long ago accepted the fact that I am a wolf. I take pleasure in the idea of harming others - but only in the context of righteous action, not in a wanton manner. I have also accepted that my culture and most of the self-described "civil society" doesn't want to hear about how people like me feel. In fact, if we express ourselves openly, we more likely than not will get a lot of negative feed back for it.
As I said, I have accepted this duplicity from our culture about the "wolves" but I am not at all sure that I like it or that it is healthy. Our warrior-class used to get respect just by rote.
But as time has marched on, and civilian governments have replaced military governments, the warrior class, it seems to me, has been increasingly disdained, marginalized and persecuted simply for being what they are "unrepentant killers".
So I hold my tongue, tolerate being "edited" when I am too honest or too intense with my comments without complaint. I joke with others who share my "unique" POV on things (other wolves) but in the back of my mind, I frequently think to myself, "Am I the one who is wrong? Am I the one who is 'abnormal' because I am not particularly ashamed (nor particularly proud) of my strong feeling that it is not morally wrong to guiltlessly, remorselessly take a human life or even ENJOY causing injury to wicked people or engaging in physical combat?" Or is my culture just becoming more and more hypocritical and duplicitous?
-
For centuries, the world has been a place where the cunning hide behind the strong. For the most part, the 'warrior king' is gone in Western Civilization, replaced by skulking bureaucrats, conniving courtesans, and deceiving politicians of all stripes who don't dirty their manicured hands but order or impel others to conduct the rough business that ultimately is policy.
In an age where the mere expression of an intent or desire to see harm come to another, no matter how deserving they are, that expression can and will be used against the person making it whenever and however possible. It will be claimed that that is a stated intent to do harm and used to neutralize any possible threat through shunning, ridicule, legal action, or other means.
In such conditions it is wise to keep one's own counsel. When the opportunity arises, causing those who spread misery to have a taste of their own medicine, directly or indirectly can indeed be satisfying, but again, discretion is the greater part of valor.
Thus, we find ourselves speaking softly and carrying our sticks, however limber or stout those may be. Adapt to the times, find ways to express your discontent, even express approval at the idea some ill might come to those who spread ill, but avoid publicly embracing the act, especially in terms which will afford sympathy to those who deserve none.
Like Hamlet's quandry, Now might I do it pat, now he is praying;
And now I'll do't. And so he goes to heaven;
And so am I revenged. That would be scann'd:
A villain kills my father; and for that,
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
O, this is hire and salary, not revenge.
He took my father grossly, full of bread;
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how his audit stands who knows save heaven?
But in our circumstance and course of thought,
'Tis heavy with him: and am I then revenged,
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and season'd for his passage?
No!
Up, sword; and know thou a more horrid hent:
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in the incestuous pleasure of his bed;
At gaming, swearing, or about some act
That has no relish of salvation in't;
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damn'd and black
As hell, whereto it goes.
(Rather than kill his father's murderer while he knelt at prayer and take a chance on sending him to heaven, he stays his hand to wait to catch him deep in sin and send him to hell).
To everything there is a season.
There is a time and place for action.
For now, couch displeasure in terms which will not give the snakes reason to strike.
No, I have no problem in the company of warriors, and I respect all who fight for what I think is right.
There are sheep, great in number. There are wolves, too, but you left out the sheepdogs. The question to answer is one of are you a wolf or a sheepdog?
-
For later.
-
A lot of "conservatives" are a bunch of mentally ill ingrates that nobody serious would want to hang out with on a weekend afternoon. Not all of them, but a lot. Many I've known IRL are like that.
-
A lot of "conservatives" are a bunch of mentally ill ingrates that nobody serious would want to hang out with on a weekend afternoon. Not all of them, but a lot. Many I've known IRL are like that.
Like who? Give me an example?
-
Perfect example. @CatherineofAragon captured this interaction between @Right_in_Virginia and a learned gentlemen over at FR:
Go to FR, you will see many casual references to wanting to kill people on a regular basis.
I see. I don't think of TOS anymore when I think of conservatives. Reactionary populists - yes, conservatives - no.
-
I see. I don't think of TOS anymore when I think of conservatives. Reactionary populists - yes, conservatives - no.
Well I should say soi disant "conservatives". There's more of them around on the internet than you might think.
-
Well I should say soi disant "conservatives". There's more of them around on the internet than you might think.
No doubt that's true.
-
I learned that this forum has more strict standards on talking about violence than others I post at regularly. I have no quarrel with that at all. It is not the site's responsibility to adapt to my preferences, but mine to adapt to it. Selah.
But this episode did raise something that has been on my mind for some time and that's the reason for this post. I want to know how others feel about whether it is in society's best interests to suppress or limit extreme expressions about feeling a desire to engage in violent acts (like the deliberate taking of a human life or injuring of others).
For me, writing in a public forum, I typically take the stance if I won't say it in front of my Mother-In-Law or minor children, I won't post it. And if the forum often uses language those two would find offensive or insulting, I am not going to stay a part of it. Or perhaps I would say I'm not going to be part of something I would find a problem being exposed for a future political office.
I view this as public speaking. I have far looser standards in private conversation among those I consider close friends. Both in my own conduct and words, as well as theirs.
Hypocritical? Maybe. But that is the line I chose to draw in participation of forums.
-
For me, writing in a public forum, I typically take the stance if I won't say it in front of my Mother-In-Law or minor children, I won't post it. And if the forum often uses language those two would find offensive or insulting, I am not going to stay a part of it. Or perhaps I would say I'm not going to be part of something I would find a problem being exposed for a future political office.
I view this as public speaking. I have far looser standards in private conversation among those I consider close friends. Both in my own conduct and words, as well as theirs.
Hypocritical? Maybe. But that is the line I chose to draw in participation of forums.
No value judgments from me such as hypocrisy. 'Not my business. I wonder though if there is or should be a balance between the right of someone to blow of steam (which we may define as the personal value of expression) and the right or value to society to be enriched, reinforced, helped by expression.
I mean, don't you have the right to blow off steam and just cut loose once in awhile with your deeper thoughts/feelings without having to be concerned about how others may react or whether they will approve or disapprove or (horrors!) be offended?
See, I know people who have lived in cultures which place form over content in human discourse. A Japanese boy I know committed suicide at an unheard-of young age because of pressure from his family. He just snapped because of the overpoweringly dominant tradition of having to clamp down hard on one's own emotions, desires and needs in favor of "honor" and "family". Sometimes all human beings need to blow off steam, even (especially) young people so where do the needs of a person and the need of society set their limits?
Also in England, a friend reports to me that he and other foreign nationals who associate with Brits detest the duplicitous (two- faced) "civilized" phoniness where they say one thing to your face, then as soon as you are not around say exactly the opposite. IN addition, I am convinced that this obsessive focus by the British on "propriety" drives the well-known British proclivity to kinky, perverse sexual fetishes (as a means to blow off steam and ameliorate some of the horrible emotional repression they inflict on themselves).
-
No value judgments from me such as hypocrisy. 'Not my business. I wonder though if there is or should be a balance between the right of someone to blow of steam (which we may define as the personal value of expression) and the right or value to society to be enriched, reinforced, helped by expression.
I mean, don't you have the right to blow off steam and just cut loose once in awhile with your deeper thoughts/feelings without having to be concerned about how others may react or whether they will approve or disapprove or (horrors!) be offended?
See, I know people who have lived in cultures which place form over content in human discourse. A Japanese boy I know committed suicide at an unheard-of young age because of pressure from his family. He just snapped because of the overpoweringly dominant tradition of having to clamp down hard on one's own emotions, desires and needs in favor of "honor" and "family". Sometimes all human beings need to blow off steam, even (especially) young people so where do the needs of a person and the need of society set their limits?
Also in England, a friend reports to me that he and other foreign nationals who associate with Brits detest the duplicitous (two- faced) "civilized" phoniness where they say one thing to your face, then as soon as you are not around say exactly the opposite. IN addition, I am convinced that this obsessive focus by the British on "propriety" drives the well-known British proclivity to kinky, perverse sexual fetishes (as a means to blow off steam and ameliorate some of the horrible emotional repression they inflict on themselves).
Thackney did a good job expressing how I try to post online in a public forum and the difference of private conversation with people you are close to. I won't lie to get along. People who say one thing to your face and another to others are not people I want to know or associate with. Not using more colorful language or not saying things more directly is also a matter of respect, especially if you don't know them very well. I'll open up significantly more when I know them better and there is mutual trust and understanding.
As far as venting from time to time, if you don't make it a constant burden on others I don't have a problem with it. We're all human.
-
I mean, don't you have the right to blow off steam and just cut loose once in awhile with your deeper thoughts/feelings without having to be concerned about how others may react or whether they will approve or disapprove or (horrors!) be offended?
Yes we agree in that, but disagree in where that is. I don't see open public forum as that place for me.
-
As far as venting from time to time, if you don't make it a constant burden on others I don't have a problem with it. We're all human.
For me, discussion of causing the death of another, crosses the line. I recognize it not as a actual threat, but I don't want to be part of a forum where that line is likely to be crossed. There are other lines, and I probably couldn't recognize them until I tripped over them.
-
For me, discussion of causing the death of another, crosses the line. I recognize it not as a actual threat, but I don't want to be part of a forum where that line is likely to be crossed. There are other lines, and I probably couldn't recognize them until I tripped over them.
What I meant by venting is calling the other person names - like idiot - or cursing... Not threats of violence period.
-
I opened this thread because I thought it was about Tranny's.
And I'd find @Frank Cannon in here so we could have a discussion on the merits of the whole subculture.
-
A lot of "conservatives" are a bunch of mentally ill ingrates that nobody serious would want to hang out with on a weekend afternoon. Not all of them, but a lot. Many I've known IRL are like that.
Couple days ago, you did come clean and declare that you are not one. Have not seen what you ARE, though.
-
I opened this thread because I thought it was about Tranny's.
I wish this was about that. Instead it is a long winded train to nowhere.
-
I'm not a wolf, but a German Shepherd.
As to passion and fighting - I'm all about the art of combat and necessity to engage in it in order to preserve liberty and peace when it is threatened.
I do not play nice with those who bully or threaten, because doing so simply encourages the bully and prolongs the injustice.
This is true online as it is in the meat world.
However, unlike the meat world - online communities are exchanges of ideas and beliefs and often go without any interaction with the personage behind the ideas.
For that reason, I am more willing and ready to draw and cut comments down quicker than I am in the meat world, because it is the ideas that lend themselves to the imposition of tyranny on a large scale.
-
What I meant by venting is calling the other person names - like idiot - or cursing... Not threats of violence period.
I find a forum that allows name calling, persons insults and the like do more to shut down useful discussion than encourage it.
I wouldn't have conversations face to face that way, I'm not going to do it here.
-
Interesting topic, thank you @LateForLunch :beer:
I'm fairly plainspoken - how I type is much the same as how I speak. This does include the odd mild cursing, but nothing major. Dad told me back when I was about 6 and just discovering the wonderful world of swearing that a man only swears in normal conversation when he runs out of real words. Took that bit of advice to heart.
Of course, there are "impolite" words I don't consider impolite - shit for example. It's a descriptive word, nothing more. :tongue2:
As far as calling for hanging some rando schlub from the rafters by his thumbs before giving him a slow death - I don't. Not because there aren't people the world would be a cleaner place without. There are, I can think of about a dozen just from the stories posted in the last few hours.
But ...
I consider myself part of this forum. Got friends here and everything. And one thing you'll find on almost any forum is a tendency for people to try to one up each other. Normally harmless, sometimes hilarious - until it starts getting applied to the death of someone. I'm not going to start that one upping chain, or outrage signalling, as I've seen it called.
I make the same decision when it comes to someone being sent to prison for something. Prison is a legal punishment, with the sentences given out broadly agreed on by the citizens of whatever country/state we're talking about. Prison rape is another crime. It is not a flourish to the legal punishment meted out and should not be treated as such.
Just me tuppence on it. :shrug:
-
I long ago accepted the fact that I am a wolf. I take pleasure in the idea of harming others - but only in the context of righteous action, not in a wanton manner. I have also accepted that my culture and most of the self-described "civil society" doesn't want to hear about how people like me feel. In fact, if we express ourselves openly, we more likely than not will get a lot of negative feed back for it.
As I said, I have accepted this duplicity from our culture about the "wolves" but I am not at all sure that I like it or that it is healthy. Our warrior-class used to get respect just by rote.
I think you've slightly misread the cultural situation. Read this and reflect:
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs (http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html)
From your self-description I'd make you to be a sheepdog, not a wolf.
-
I think you've slightly misread the cultural situation. Read this and reflect:
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs (http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html)
From your self-description I'd make you to be a sheepdog, not a wolf.
Exactly.
A valued sheepdog is well behaved and only vicious against an actually attacker. A sheepdog that will harasses your guests and friends is eventually replaced.
-
I have never seen any "nice-nice culture"
-
I have never seen any "nice-nice culture"
Geron, if true, that is very, very sad.
-
Interesting topic, thank you @LateForLunch :beer:
I make the same decision when it comes to someone being sent to prison for something. Prison is a legal punishment, with the sentences given out broadly agreed on by the citizens of whatever country/state we're talking about. Prison rape is another crime. It is not a flourish to the legal punishment meted out and should not be treated as such.
Just me tuppence on it. :shrug:
Thanks for that viewpoint, @EC . While often mentioned around here as a possible fate for some of the more unlikely victims, yes, prison rape is a crime. I don't think any of us are advocating that that is part of someone's punishment, but the possibility exists for those who end up in that system.
What we often postulate is the extended presence of the privileged in the midst of the very people who they proclaim are downtrodden, which should be as educational as it is unlikely.
Certainly philosophical discussions are a possibility, however remote, especially in the presence of one who has a likely future which will be spent within those walls, but that same philosophy may fall victim to the realities of human nature at its worst.
The people in prisons, and the prisons, after all, exist because our culture has judged that these are people who have conducted themselves in a manner which we do not want in our society at large and that they should be isolated from the rest of us. Despite not wanting some of these people back in society, we lack the moral will to shorten their stay, perhaps because (especially now) our trust in the standards of 'proof', evidence, and faith in the intelligent discretion of the jury is at a low, perhaps because as a culture we are too timid.
By their behaviour those privileged few who engage in egregious lawbreaking, rely on the likelyhood that their relationships with those in power (coupled with a similar lack of societal will) will keep them from the same fate as more ordinary people, often the more ordinary people they claim to champion. That brings us back to the Senator's son in a cell with 'Bubba', the lonely lifer.
Some situations, regardless of outcome, will demonstrate that no one is immune to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, regardless of their station. After all, not even royalty (which we are not supposed to have here) is immune to the law, and especially the laws of nature, however twisted they may be in a particular context.
In postulating the results of such an unlikely outcome, that someone who is such a close relative to someone who occupied a high position in a Party which often seems to consider itself outside the law, schadenfreude's sweet seduction is sometimes overwhelming.
-
First of all.... I disagree with that premise. Not all people fall into that 'either sheep or wolves' category. I, myself, do not, IMO. For instance, I enjoy watching both the sheep and the wolves (and point and laugh at times) interact on various forums.
I am an outsider. I am the proverbial mountain lion that merely perches and observes, and that has....over the years.... grown weary of the taste of sheep OR of wolves. I'm a pseudo pacifist (perhaps even a reluctant one....lol) now.... since back in the good ole days (the wild wild west of the internet) I and others like me had great fun sparring and squabbling on forums. But things change. Now it's basically...."Don't mess with me and I won't mess with you". But threaten me or my family, and you will live to wish you had not. I think that's a reasonable stance.
-
I have never seen any "nice-nice culture"
"A man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest."
You are never rankled when people with slick PR skills posture as if mincing, courtly manners are a great substitute for plain speaking and honesty? Or by people who complain bitterly and put forth castigations and vehement railing when others speak truths simply, solely because they are coarsely articulated? Or by oily-mouthed prevarication deposited with a cheesy smile, or a glad-handed sleeve-job administered by some sneering amoral oaf in a $10,000 suit wearing $500 shoes, carrying a $3000 briefcase driving a $200,000 automobile? Not by some tyrannical elitist swine with hands as soft as a infant who lectures the unwashed masses on the "blessings of hard work"? None of that offends you in the slightest? Not people who believe that they can utter all manner of vile, execrable pompous inhuman Marxist lunacy and that so long as it is phrased with precise grammar, sung in dulcet tones, lain in erudite sentence structure and seasoned with droll aphorisms, it is to be regarded as perfectly acceptable and laudable speech?
Although I admire those with mastery and respect for language and the spoken word, I am also aware that, "There is no greater ugliness than beauty or virtue corrupted".
-
"A man hears what he wants to hear
and disregards the rest."
You are never rankled when people with slick PR skills posture as if mincing, courtly manners are a great substitute for plain speaking and honesty? Or by people who complain bitterly and put forth castigations and vehement railing when others speak truths simply, solely because they are coarsely articulated? Or by oily-mouthed prevarication deposited with a cheesy smile, or a glad-handed sleeve-job administered by some sneering amoral oaf in a $10,000 suit wearing $500 shoes, carrying a $3000 briefcase driving a $200,000 automobile? Not by some tyrannical elitist swine with hands as soft as a infant who lectures the unwashed masses on the "blessings of hard work"? None of that offends you in the slightest? Not people who believe that they can utter all manner of vile, execrable pompous inhuman Marxist lunacy and that so long as it is phrased with precise grammar, sung in dulcet tones, lain in erudite sentence structure and seasoned with droll aphorisms, it is to be regarded as perfectly acceptable and laudable speech?
Although I admire those with mastery and respect for language and the spoken word, I am also aware that, "There is no greater ugliness than beauty or virtue corrupted".
I'm sure that Lucifer ....and his forum troll minions (mostly lefties, if course...lol) would disagree.
-
I'm sure that Lucifer ....and his forum troll minions (mostly lefties, if course...lol) would disagree.
hah hah that was very well-phrased Chatelaine (sincere applause).
The ability to portray politeness as a vice rather than a virtue is IMO one of CS Lewis's greatest literary feats - I can't think of any other author who has done that with more mastery or abundant, incisive, surgical evisceration. IMO that accomplishment alone fully and absolutely qualifies his Space Trilogy as one of the greatest works of modern fiction. Anyone who does not loathe every last quality and facet of the N.I.C.E. by the end of That Hideous Strength needs a serious moral tune-up. Some of that theme is also explored in the manifestly brilliant Screwtape Letters of course.
-
"Or by oily-mouthed prevarication deposited with a cheesy smile, or a glad-handed sleeve-job administered by some sneering amoral oaf in a $10,000 suit wearing $500 shoes, carrying a $3000 briefcase driving a $200,000 automobile?
Why would what they wear or choose to spend money on have any bearing on their words or their impact on you. Do the words of those wearing hand-me-downs and scraps affect you differently?
-
For me, writing in a public forum, I typically take the stance if I won't say it in front of my Mother-In-Law or minor children, I won't post it. And if the forum often uses language those two would find offensive or insulting, I am not going to stay a part of it. Or perhaps I would say I'm not going to be part of something I would find a problem being exposed for a future political office. I view this as public speaking. I have far looser standards in private conversation among those I consider close friends. Both in my own conduct and words, as well as theirs. Hypocritical? Maybe. But that is the line I chose to draw in participation of forums.
@thackney
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
Thackney, you are wise to use those guidelines. I don't wish physical harm to anyone. I don't engage in word fights as it is useless. I consider what I write, knowing millions could be reading it as the internet is open to the world to read what is there. This old axiom is true: "The pen is mightier than the sword."
Trump is a wolf without any restraint at all. His latest is saying if any Republican in congress isn't in support of the new healthcare bill, he will go to their voting district and try to get them defeated at their next election. He is the worst vindictive person I have ever known about. This gives license to his supporters to do the same, and they are doing it - attack, attack.
-
I would add to all of this wonderful wisdom, that you don't always have to respond. Sometimes/frequently some members will post inflammatory posts with the apparent intent of generating negative responses from other members. I'm not obligated to respond to those, and sometimes the better part of valor is to simply not respond.
Not to be confused with those who drop little tuword bombs and then disappear when challenged or questioned.
-
Interesting topic, thank you @LateForLunch :beer:
Of course, there are "impolite" words I don't consider impolite - shit for example. It's a descriptive word, nothing more. :tongue2:
@EC
Story about "shit":
My husband told me this story: when he was about three years old, he heard a new word. He liked the sound of this word and was sitting on the floor repeating this word, he was saying "shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, etc.. His mom came into the room hearing this and had a fit - told him never to say that again. He didn't know why he shouldn't say it as it was a fine sounding word to him.
-
Why would what they wear or choose to spend money on have any bearing on their words or their impact on you. Do the words of those wearing hand-me-downs and scraps affect you differently?
They usually have better advice, but that's just my experience.
-
@thackney
@mystery-ak
@CatherineofAragon
Thackney, you are wise to use those guidelines. I don't wish physical harm to anyone. I don't engage in word fights as it is useless. I consider what I write, knowing millions could be reading it as the internet is open to the world to read what is there. This old axiom is true: "The pen is mightier than the sword."
Trump is a wolf without any restraint at all. His latest is saying if any Republican in congress isn't in support of the new healthcare bill, he will go to their voting district and try to get them defeated at their next election. He is the worst vindictive person I have ever known about. This gives license to his supporters to do the same, and they are doing it - attack, attack.
Well, I do wish physical harm to many and I am not the least bit ashamed of it. One cannot love good without hating the bad. I think it is a myth that "nice" people do not take pleasure in violence or violent thoughts.
I don't buy into the myth that people can be significantly influenced by posts on websites to commit violent felonies or harm innocent people. I would have to see some strong evidence of that ( other than someone's personal opinion) before I would believe it to be true.
In that same vein, the notion that DJT's verbal style or postings somehow promulgate violent or grossly irresponsible behavior is 100% unsupported. Unless one could provide a specific example of that, I would relegate it to the same status as most other prognostications of how Trump is or will be a bad person or an irresponsible leader. There are abundant examples of how leftist statements and attitudes have fomented the most horrible, lethal violence against innocent people, but as far as I know, only suppositions and morbid predictions in regard to DJT or his followers.
As far as DJT's behavior in regard to putting undue pressure on Congresscritters to pass ACHA, that methodology (strong political pressure aka negative reinforcement) is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. I would have to take Victoria33s word for it that he is using excessively harsh tactics if I were to believe it and ( forgive me) frankly I'm not. Owing to Victoria33's long-standing intense unabashed enmity toward DJT I cannot really take her at her word that he is behaving as badly as she presents.
-
Well, I do wish physical harm to many and I am not the least bit ashamed of it. One cannot love good without hating the bad. I think it is a myth that "nice" people do not take pleasure in violence or violent thoughts.
I don't buy into the myth that people can be significantly influenced by posts on websites to commit violent felonies or harm innocent people. I would have to see some strong evidence of that ( other than someone personal opinion) before I would believe it to be true.
As far as DJT's behavior in regard to putting pressure on Congresscritters to pass ACHA, I would have to take Victoria33s word for it that he is using harsh tactics. That methodology is sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. I will have to hear more about it before I pass judgment. Owing to the post author's long standing enmity toward DJT I cannot really take her at her word that he is behaving as badly as she presents.
There is perhaps a fine line here. I'm not a philosophy major/expert, so I couldn't say for sure and this is just my personal opinion. But I do, in fact, hope that Karma will indeed "come around" for those that have damaged or who seek to damage and/or destroy this great nation. If that is equated to "wishing harm" on some folks, so be it. I'll take that hit when the time comes (ie Judgment Day). I'm good with it. :laugh:
-
@EC
Story about "shit":
My husband told me this story: when he was about three years old, he heard a new word. He liked the sound of this word and was sitting on the floor repeating this word, he was saying "shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, etc.. His mom came into the room hearing this and had a fit - told him never to say that again. He didn't know why he shouldn't say it as it was a fine sounding word to him.
The history of S.H.I.T. is fairly amusing. Apparently it is an acronym. Years ago (1800s?), ships transporting manure fertilizer would pack the pallets into lower holds and owing to chemistry, the methane fumes given off by the manure would build up below decks and sometimes ignite, causing a fire or explosion. This was intolerable so the workers who loaded the cargo would be instructed to store the manure above decks or in a place where ventilation would evacuate the fumes IOW the upper decks. So the acronym was born because the loaders would place written notes on the manure instructing that it be "Shipped High In Transit" S.H.I.T.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3bb38d716faca6b6a6c900d7fb90bec86359a5d144837b5ef315c71202d3edd4.jpg)
-
I would add to all of this wonderful wisdom, that you don't always have to respond. Sometimes/frequently some members will post inflammatory posts with the apparent intent of generating negative responses from other members. I'm not obligated to respond to those, and sometimes the better part of valor is to simply not respond.
Not to be confused with those who drop little tuword bombs and then disappear when challenged or questioned.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/c1/c1fdd8e9e6778a6e41bf545b1e0bf23355e4f653dde183e8e9719b486cc89f1c.jpg)
-
@EC
Story about "shit":
My husband told me this story: when he was about three years old, he heard a new word. He liked the sound of this word and was sitting on the floor repeating this word, he was saying "shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, etc.. His mom came into the room hearing this and had a fit - told him never to say that again. He didn't know why he shouldn't say it as it was a fine sounding word to him.
I had a different experience on learning the 'f' word from my friend. We were gradeschoolers riding in the back seat with my brother, and my parents and his mom were sitting in the front seat of that old Ford. When he told me it was the trump card of cusswords, well, I didn't believe him. So I tried it out.
In retrospect, there was a little stiffening of shoulders up front, and the slow pivoting of heads as the adults silently looked at each other, but no repercussions.
I sang the word, as kids do, for a few miles, likely to the great consternation of my parents and his mom, but in the end decided that the absolute lack of reaction rendered the rumor false (otherwise, Dad would have stopped the car, or the Hand of Discipline would have snaked over the back of the seat seeking me). I forgot all about it for a few years after that...
-
Why would what they wear or choose to spend money on have any bearing on their words or their impact on you. Do the words of those wearing hand-me-downs and scraps affect you differently?
Someone with a $10,000 suit and $200,000 car might view as a relatively minor inconvenience what would be economic devastation for folks who would have spent the 10K on a car and the other on a house. It is a question of degree, but also one of frugality.
A 2-3K suit and a 70K car would have sufficed in my circles, if not have been a trifle ostentatious.
As for slick talkers in slick suits, when I was trying to start with investments, and the person heard I only had low 4 figures to work with at the time (making a comeback off an oil bust), they sneered on the phone and said 'call me back when you have at least 50K' and hung up.
I thought 'I'll never call you, you sorry SOB. We all have to start somewhere, but it won't be with you or your firm'.
In '99 the same puke called me back and said he thought it was a great time to invest in tech stocks. I told him that wasn't what my research showed, but thanks for the offer and hung up the phone. Twp weeks later the 'dot bomb' hit.
It''s real simple. If people are dressing like they sit at the no limit table, one of us is in the wrong game.
-
The history of S.H.I.T. is fairly amusing. Apparently it is an acronym. Years ago (1800s?), ships transporting manure fertilizer would pack the pallets into lower holds and owing to chemistry, the methane fumes given off by the manure would build up below decks and sometimes ignite, causing a fire or explosion. This was intolerable so the workers who loaded the cargo would be instructed to store the manure above decks or in a place where ventilation would evacuate the fumes IOW the upper decks. So the acronym was born because the loaders would place written notes on the manure instructing that it be "Shipped High In Transit" S.H.I.T.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3bb38d716faca6b6a6c900d7fb90bec86359a5d144837b5ef315c71202d3edd4.jpg)
Then there is this: SPECIAL HIGH INTENSITY TRAINING MEMO
In order to assure the highest levels of quality work and productivity from our employees, it will be our policy to keep all employees well trained through our program of Special High Intensity Training (SHIT).
We are trying to give employees more SHIT than anyone else.
If you don't feel that you are receiving your share of SHIT on the job, please see your manager immediately. You will be put at the top of the SHIT list ASAP, and our manager is especially skilled at seeing that you take all the SHIT that you can handle. Since our manager has take SHIT before he was promoted, he does not have to take SHIT anymore, and is full of SHIT already.
Employees who don't take any SHIT will be placed in a Departmental Employee Evaluation Program (DEEPSHIT). Those who fail to take DEEPSHIT seriously will have to go to Employee Attitude Training (EATSHIT).
If you are full of SHIT, you may be interested in a job training others. We can add your name to our Basic Understanding Lecture List (BULLSHIT). Those who are full of BULLSHIT will get the SHIT jobs and can apply for a promotion to Director of Intensity Programming (DIPSHIT).
If you have any further questions, please direct them to our Head of Training (HOTSHIT).
Thank you,
Boss In General (BIGSHIT)
which has circulated in companies I have worked in/with since I have been in the oil patch, in one form or another.
I won't go into the Field Unit Cleaning Kit requests…
-
The history of S.H.I.T. is fairly amusing. Apparently it is an acronym. Years ago (1800s?), ships transporting manure fertilizer would pack the pallets into lower holds and owing to chemistry, the methane fumes given off by the manure would build up below decks and sometimes ignite, causing a fire or explosion. This was intolerable so the workers who loaded the cargo would be instructed to store the manure above decks or in a place where ventilation would evacuate the fumes IOW the upper decks. So the acronym was born because the loaders would place written notes on the manure instructing that it be "Shipped High In Transit" S.H.I.T.
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3bb38d716faca6b6a6c900d7fb90bec86359a5d144837b5ef315c71202d3edd4.jpg)
Wow.... now that is a fascinating bit of history and information (learn something new every day).
Thanks!
-
The history of S.H.I.T. is fairly amusing. Apparently it is an acronym. Years ago (1800s?), ships transporting manure fertilizer would pack the pallets into lower holds and owing to chemistry, the methane fumes given off by the manure would build up below decks and sometimes ignite, causing a fire or explosion. This was intolerable so the workers who loaded the cargo would be instructed to store the manure above decks or in a place where ventilation would evacuate the fumes IOW the upper decks. So the acronym was born because the loaders would place written notes on the manure instructing that it be "Shipped High In Transit" S.H.I.T.
interesting story. Probably not true if you think of a probable Germanic beginning for the word. I have no idea how to spell it ... but "Scheisse" has probably been around longer than exploding methane bombs on ships.
But I still give it a thumbs up because I love this sort of story.
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp
-
interesting story. Probably not true if you think of a probable Germanic beginning for the word. I have no idea how to spell it ... but "Scheisse" has probably been around longer than exploding methane bombs on ships.
But I still give it a thumbs up because I love this sort of story.
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp
:silly: :silly: :silly:
I think it is kinda funny watching people disagree about the origin of sh*t. :silly: :silly: :silly:
-
:silly: :silly: :silly:
I think it is kinda funny watching people disagree about the origin of sh*t. :silly: :silly: :silly:
Times when sighing is appropriate:
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances2/500x/4028843.jpg)
heh heh to be honest, some of the best posts are often the ones that are off topic. That never seems to change from forum to forum. For example some of the ones on this thread are awesome!!
-
(http://cdn.meme.am/instances2/500x/4028843.jpg)
I think one thing to consider is an open forum is closest to a group of acquaintances riding the same city bus, with plenty of other people coming and going near by. It is not like a group of close friends in my living room.
How I speak to people in the former setting is quite different to the latter.
-
I think one thing to consider is an open forum is closest to a group of acquaintances riding the same city bus, with plenty of other people coming and going near by. It is not like a group of close friends in my living room.
How I speak to people in the former setting is quite different to the latter.
Amen Brother! Oh and put a coaster under your GD drink. Thats a new table you jerk.
-
Most people prone to arguing on the internet have a form of OCD IMO.
-
interesting story. Probably not true if you think of a probable Germanic beginning for the word. I have no idea how to spell it ... but "Scheisse" has probably been around longer than exploding methane bombs on ships.
But I still give it a thumbs up because I love this sort of story.
http://www.snopes.com/language/acronyms/shit.asp
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit)
-
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit)
That's some shit right there.
-
That's some shit right there.
Yes, but it is a good thing to know your sh*t! Now we's all educated!
-
Yes, but it is a good thing to know your sh*t! Now we's all educated!
Is there a word that has more meanings based on context?
-
Is there a word that has more meanings based on context?
F :nometalk: ck if I know?
-
Is there a word that has more meanings based on context?
There might be, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with one.
-
Why would what they wear or choose to spend money on have any bearing on their words or their impact on you. Do the words of those wearing hand-me-downs and scraps affect you differently?
Elitists. Materialists. Nepotists. Plutocrats. Aristocrats. None of them are in the best tradition of the American Way. A whole buncha folks missed the boat on the "egalitarianism" part of Classical Liberalism. Perhaps in the circles you travel there is little snobbery. I see it a great deal - not so much the brunt of it as an observer.
Leftists are among the most vile materialists walking. I loathe them not because they are wealthy - on the contrary, but because they are so detached from reality that they do not see their own wealth for what it is - power - either to do great good or great harm, nothing more or less.
I have good friends who are very well to do but virtually all of their wealth emerged from merit, not *ss sucking (nepotism). Perhaps you've never read Vonnegut. Sirens of Titan for instance or God Bless You Mister Rosewater? For all of his leftist proclivities, Vonnegut had what is wrong with capitalism nailed down and bleeding from every extremity ( nods to Hunter Thompson). Green heads suck almost as much as leftists.
If you disagree perhaps you have not seen as much of the sick part of Humanity as I.
-
Elitists. Materialists. Nepotists. Plutocrats. Aristocrats. None of them are in the best tradition of the American Way. A whole buncha folks missed the boat on the "egalitarianism" part of Classical Liberalism. Perhaps in the circles you travel there is little snobbery. I see it a great deal - not so much the brunt of it as an observer.
Leftists are among the most vile materialists walking. I loathe them not because they are wealthy - on the contrary, but because they are so detached from reality that they do not see their own wealth for what it is - power - either to do great good or great harm, nothing more or less.
I have good friends who are very well to do but virtually all of their wealth emerged from merit, not *ss sucking (nepotism). Perhaps you've never read Vonnegut. Sirens of Titan for instance or God Bless You Mister Rosewater? For all of his leftist proclivities, Vonnegut had what is wrong with capitalism nailed down and bleeding from every extremity ( nods to Hunter Thompson). Green heads suck almost as much as leftists.
If you disagree perhaps you have not seen as much of the sick part of Humanity as I.
I have seen both sides, where the moneyed look down their noses, and the poor look up theirs, I have been fortunate enough to be in both places, I just didn't fit in because I don't give a squat how much money someone has, whether they are 'in style' or not, I look at the person.
In my little estimation (good for nothing but my own reference perhaps), the person is what matters.
I have seen people in very expensive suits kneel in blood to help a stranger who was poorly dressed. I have seen people practically in rags do the same, but I have seen the downside of both groups as well. (Let me have your tie, if I may so I can use it to tie this in place...and they do.)
You can't pick and choose good or evil on the basis of what people wear. It's a vile stereotype.
Their actions will tell you all you need to know, especially in a pinch.
And yes, the leftists are usually the ones who tend to walk away and not look back, whining about how traumatic it was to see that guy bleeding, without offering to help. They may be sending smartphone video to their friends, but they won't think to call 911.
-
Elitists. Materialists. Nepotists. Plutocrats. Aristocrats. None of them are in the best tradition of the American Way. A whole buncha folks missed the boat on the "egalitarianism" part of Classical Liberalism. Perhaps in the circles you travel there is little snobbery. I see it a great deal - not so much the brunt of it as an observer.
You speak of attitudes, when I was commenting on your comments of their clothes.
I don't judge people based on how they choose to spend their money. Lots of people would not choose to spend as I have.
-
You speak of attitudes, when I was commenting on your comments of their clothes.
I don't judge people based on how they choose to spend their money. Lots of people would not choose to spend as I have.
hah hah well, fair enough. The French have a saying, "One should dine for one's own pleasure and dress for everyone else's" I've always liked that saying (and I generally don't like a lot of French sayings). 'Don't wear sloppy clothing in public. I don't leave my shirt tails hanging out unless they're designed to be worn that way. I don't wear white tee shirts in public places like stores or restaurants (a colored tee shirt is different). White tee shirts are underwear and don't get me started about wife-beater shirts.
Sure, decent folks can have nice things. But people who flaunt it or are ostentatious about them or who otherwise put their finery front and center of how they present themselves are a joke. So many leftists I have met or seen seem to do that it's sort of become a cliche'.
People with a lot of wealth who are yet not really part of the meritocracy rankle me. The fancy crap often is as much a give-away for people like that as feathers on a peacock.
(http://www.undershirtguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/5122308_gal.jpg)
-
I have seen both sides, where the moneyed look down their noses, and the poor look up theirs, I have been fortunate enough to be in both places, I just didn't fit in because I don't give a squat how much money someone has, whether they are 'in style' or not, I look at the person.
In my little estimation (good for nothing but my own reference perhaps), the person is what matters.
I have seen people in very expensive suits kneel in blood to help a stranger who was poorly dressed. I have seen people practically in rags do the same, but I have seen the downside of both groups as well. (Let me have your tie, if I may so I can use it to tie this in place...and they do.)
You can't pick and choose good or evil on the basis of what people wear. It's a vile stereotype.
Their actions will tell you all you need to know, especially in a pinch.
And yes, the leftists are usually the ones who tend to walk away and not look back, whining about how traumatic it was to see that guy bleeding, without offering to help. They may be sending smartphone video to their friends, but they won't think to call 911.
@Smokin Joe
Very well said.
Class envy tends to rankle me. My in-laws are some of the best people you would want to meet, and they have done very well for themselves. They did so by working hard all their lives, focusing on building a business and giving it everything they had.
They are both solid Christians and they'll do anything to help people out. Their church has benefited from their generosity, and so have their employees.
As a result of their labor, my mother-in-law is able to indulge herself with the clothing and the jewelry she wants. Am I bragging? No, just stating a fact. It's their money, not mine. My husband and I are just middle-class. But it burns me to think there are people who would judge her based on what she's wearing, and find her wanting.
They can kiss her rear, as far as I'm concerned. She might be nicer about it.
-
@Smokin Joe
Very well said.
Class envy tends to rankle me. My in-laws are some of the best people you would want to meet, and they have done very well for themselves. They did so by working hard all their lives, focusing on building a business and giving it everything they had.
They are both solid Christians and they'll do anything to help people out. Their church has benefited from their generosity, and so have their employees.
As a result of their labor, my mother-in-law is able to indulge herself with the clothing and the jewelry she wants. Am I bragging? No, just stating a fact. It's their money, not mine. My husband and I are just middle-class. But it burns me to think there are people who would judge her based on what she's wearing, and find her wanting.
They can kiss her rear, as far as I'm concerned. She might be nicer about it.
Heartily agree in all. I have a Dutch friend who may have put it best - some are just real people. Other real people tend to recognize them fairly quickly. It's not really an exclusive club but it's nice to be in it - for everyone. :amen:
-
Exactly.
A valued sheepdog is well behaved and only vicious against an actually attacker. A sheepdog that will harasses your guests and friends is eventually replaced.
Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog, Steal Wool (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3ao1g5_sam-sheepdog-ralph-wolf-steal-wool-jones-lt_fun)
-
I had a friend who once told me, "In this world, there are sheep and there are wolves. Generally the sheep shun the wolves as being not "nice" people. The sheep respect the wolves to some degree but they often don't want the wolves around behaving like wolves. That is, they don't want them around until some violent bad actor or other needs to be taken out - then the sheep want the wolves to save them. But afterward they want them to go away until they are needed again." Hmmm.
[...]
I long ago accepted the fact that I am a wolf. I take pleasure in the idea of harming others - but only in the context of righteous action, not in a wanton manner.
Good post. But the problem in your analogy is that it leaves out the sheep dog. I wonder how the sheep know the difference, or if there is a difference to them - One canine looks much like another.
All the sheep cares for is stuffing it's belly and not getting eaten.
But the dog knows the wolf, and the wolf knows the dog.
Let the sheep be sheep. It's what they are.
But the dog will be the dog - It's in his every sinew, it's in his very marrow.
He'll do what he does without the sheep understanding why, because it doesn't matter if the sheep understand it.
What matters is that the wolf understands it.
That's me. I'm the dog. Kin to the wolf. Understanding, like the wolf, blood and fang and claw. Capable of wildness and freedom, but content in the beneficial wisdom of order. The difference is in the Master.
-
There are sheep, great in number. There are wolves, too, but you left out the sheepdogs. The question to answer is one of are you a wolf or a sheepdog?
Ha! GMTA... I'll bow out now.
-
Exactly.
A valued sheepdog is well behaved and only vicious against an actually attacker. A sheepdog that will harasses your guests and friends is eventually replaced.
Aw, to a degree, I suppose... But a dog is still a dog. He ain't always going to stay on the porch, he is going to roll around in dead things for no apparent reason. And he'll probably lift your hamburger if you walk off and leave it...
After all, he's a dog.
-
Is there a word that has more meanings based on context?
Yes, but it's also even more impolite.
-
Sure, decent folks can have nice things. But people who flaunt it or are ostentatious about them or who otherwise put their finery front and center of how they present themselves are a joke. So many leftists I have met or seen seem to do that it's sort of become a cliche'.
The question swings upon a thread. One must necessarily agree upon what 'nice things' are. I don't think the term would mean the same thing to everyone.
I wouldn't be caught dead in a luxury car - It literally means *nothing* to me... but I'll spend 10k putting a ground-pounding engine in a beat up old pickup, and jacking that puppy up to fit a set of 44's - That is traveling in style to me.
$40 worth of kit in a beat up old bushpot means more to me that an expensive watch ever could. That old pot has been with me to hell and back, and is proven trustworthy beyond most humans. Same with my tommy and my knife. Guns have come and gone, but those things have been with me my whole life.
I'd set more store in a new set of leathers and a fine pair of mocs, than I ever would in a suit and tie (which I will ever own again)
My 'nice things' ain't yours - that does not diminish their value to me.
-
The question swings upon a thread. One must necessarily agree upon what 'nice things' are. I don't think the term would mean the same thing to everyone.
Exactly. Maybe my only indulgence of what others would call "nice" are the four Gibson Les Paul guitars I'm
lucky enough to own and play. Each is different (and one is set up for playing slide), but they all do what I
want when I play my music. To another guitar player, Les Pauls might be no great shakes.
And they're not even the most expensive guitars Gibson makes, depending on the particular instrument. I've
seen big Gibson archtop hollowbody guitars with five-figure prices on them new. Including the only one I'd
ever really wanted a crack at playing---a variation on the L-5 model with an unusual (for that model) slim
body. It was once made as a special for comedian George Gobel, a long time ago, and Gibson is making it
now as the L-5 CT, whatever the CT means. Beautiful instrument. I don't have ten large to lay out for it.
But I'm not even close to complaining when I think of the instruments I do own.
-
Ha! GMTA... I'll bow out now.
Yes, they do. You said it well, no need to bow out. Maybe some stray sheep will read and understand.
-
Yes, they do. You said it well, no need to bow out. Maybe some stray sheep will read and understand.
GMTA = Great Minds Think Alike (for those who may not know).
In general I think most normal people agree that people who push their material possessions front-and-center to their identity in an ostentatious way are displaying an attitude that is not really in the best tradition of the American Way.
Having nice things and flaunting them are two entirely different things to a large degree which is the central point.
One way to test the attitude of people with nice things that I've used is to give someone a small compliment or ask a question about something that is somewhat pricey or extravagant and observe the owner's reaction. If they make a big f-ing deal about how much it costs as opposed to the qualities which make is desirable or superior from a substantive, operational or compositional standpoint, one can gauge fairly accurately whether they are a "real person" or someone who is a pretentious "poseur".
-
One way to test the attitude of people with nice things that I've used is to give someone a small compliment or ask a question about something that is somewhat pricey or extravagant and observe the owner's reaction. If they make a big f-ing deal about how much it costs as opposed to the qualities which make is desirable or superior from a substantive, operational or compositional standpoint, one can gauge fairly accurately whether they are a "real person" or someone who is a pretentious "poseur".
^^^^^ This!
Although I do also rate highly the person who just gives an embarrassed sort of shrug and says "I just liked it." Sometimes something is a bit too personal to just talk on about to people you don't know really well.
-
Exactly. Maybe my only indulgence of what others would call "nice" are the four Gibson Les Paul guitars I'm
lucky enough to own and play.
I know exactly what you mean... Mine are Guilds, but otherwise all the same. I am currently looking to replace my Aida banjo, which I lost by loaning it to a friend. And I never got around to buying an electric bass or a dobro/steel... but I would if I could. My instruments are among my most prized possessions.
Chief among them would be my old '77 Guild F20 flat top, which is not quite in as bad of repair as Willie's Trigger, but you get the idea... Broke her neck right up by the head on a cattle drive east of the mountains... Put it back together as artfully as I could (which is considerable, but still)... She got thumped hard in the belly. got a helluva dent from that one... Some years ago, I took her finish down and steamed out most of her 'character, and gave her a new sunburst, and spankin new Schaller heads which probably cost half of what the guitar cost me new ...
But like most things that have a hard life, when she sings, it's a beautiful thing. I doubt anyone would give me 20 bucks for that old guitar, but to me, she's priceless.
-
I know exactly what you mean... Mine are Guilds, but otherwise all the same. I am currently looking to replace my Aida banjo, which I lost by loaning it to a friend. And I never got around to buying an electric bass or a dobro/steel... but I would if I could. My instruments are among my most prized possessions.
I bought a Gold Tone eight-string lap steel guitar last year. Bargain price, beautiful sound. I'm actually pretty decent
playing it, too, I'd never tried playing that kind of thing before, but I'd heard a guy named Sonny Rhodes playing
amazing blues on a lap steel and thought I'd give it a try, since I play blues. (Most of my stuff is blues on the jazzier
side with a lot of free group improvisation, but I have a couple of numbers where the sound of a lap steel works
great.) I figured, if I could play slide guitar it wouldn't take me too long to get comfortable playing lap steel.
And it hasn't.
This is the lap steel instrument:
(http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=7118&pictureid=79696)
And this is the fourth of the Les Pauls I own, I acquired her last summer:
(http://www.mylespaul.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=7096&pictureid=79551)
Chief among them would be my old '77 Guild F20 flat top, which is not quite in as bad of repair as Willie's Trigger, but you get the idea... Broke her neck right up by the head on a cattle drive east of the mountains... Put it back together as artfully as I could (which is considerable, but still)... She got thumped hard in the belly. got a helluva dent from that one... Some years ago, I took her finish down and steamed out most of her 'character, and gave her a new sunburst, and spankin new Schaller heads which probably cost half of what the guitar cost me new ...
But like most things that have a hard life, when she sings, it's a beautiful thing. I doubt anyone would give me 20 bucks for that old guitar, but to me, she's priceless.
And that's all you need to know, how priceless she is to you.
-
I'd heard a guy named Sonny Rhodes playing amazing blues on a lap steel and thought I'd give it a try, since I play blues.
You wanna hear somebody wail a steel? look for Robert Randolph - Nothing comes to mind except Sawyer Brown's 'Mission Temple Fireworks Stand' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZBOvHf-NHE (Sorry if the religious/Pentecostal content offends, but that guy can rock a steel like no one I've ever seen)
Most of my stuff is blues on the jazzier side with a lot of free group improvisation[...]
I'm Country, Outlaw Country, Southern Rock, Bluegrass, and Delta Blues... I can go as far as Big Hair rock, but it ain't really my preference... Chicken Pickin is where I live. Jazz ain't my thing, but I can do Chicago blues.
This is the lap steel instrument:
Nice.
And this is the fourth of the Les Pauls I own, I acquired her last summer:
Right up my alley - My Guild electric (I can't remember her model for the life of me) is Guild's answer to the Les Paul. The form factor is nearly identical.
And that's all you need to know, how priceless she is to you.
Funny how that works, ain't it? That ol gitfiddle spent most of my marriage in her case... My ex hated me playing, especially once the kids came. She didn't like the jam sessions or the dive bars and honkytonks much either. Probably close to 15 years, I never touched the thing.
Since the divorce, she hasn't seen the inside of that case for even a minute. There hasn't been a day that she hasn't been in my arms. I have no idea why I ever put her down. That'll never happen again. My priorities have been straightened out.
-
You wanna hear somebody wail a steel? look for Robert Randolph - Nothing comes to mind except Sawyer Brown's 'Mission Temple Fireworks Stand' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZBOvHf-NHE (Sorry if the religious/Pentecostal content offends, but that guy can rock a steel like no one I've ever seen)
I'm Country, Outlaw Country, Southern Rock, Bluegrass, and Delta Blues... I can go as far as Big Hair rock, but it ain't really my preference... Chicken Pickin is where I live. Jazz ain't my thing, but I can do Chicago blues.
Alas, country ain't my thing, except for Johnny Cash. I like a lot of different blues, Chicago, Delta, some Texas blues, and
when it comes to jazz my first favourites are the jazz people who didn't forget the blues, people like Count Basie, Art Blakey,
Kenny Burrell, John Coltrane (before he went right out of his noodle circa 1965), Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie,
Jimmy Giuffre, Grant Green, Bobby Hutcherson, Milt Jackson, Charles Mingus, Thelonious Monk, Wes Montgomery, Sonny
Rollins, Jimmy Smith, Stanley Turrentine . . . among others.
Right up my alley - My Guild electric (I can't remember her model for the life of me) is Guild's answer to the Les Paul. The form factor is nearly identical.
Funny how that works, ain't it? That ol gitfiddle spent most of my marriage in her case... My ex hated me playing, especially once the kids came. She didn't like the jam sessions or the dive bars and honkytonks much either. Probably close to 15 years, I never touched the thing.
Since the divorce, she hasn't seen the inside of that case for even a minute. There hasn't been a day that she hasn't been in my arms. I have no idea why I ever put her down. That'll never happen again. My priorities have been straightened out.
Way to go!