June 03, 2006

Search terms!

Why do people come to SoR? Well, we don't really know. Some of you freaks are regulars (and being a regular makes you a freak, you know; normal people wouldn't waste time here). Others follow me back from my bomb-throwing over at Dawn Eden's, only to discover that I'm much more boring here than there. And many seem to stumble across us by accident, thanks to Google's inexplicable ratings bump to obscure blogs.


I guess an Elder Scrolls fan is having problems with virtual insomnia. Best of luck to you, my pseudocomrade in sleep-deprivation!

downloadable tbs gilligan's island pie fight

There were a surprising number of searches for videos and mp3s; you'd think people would try YouTube first, but maybe they don't have copyrighted material like commercials?

rutgers law

This is all MosBen.

staff of ra transformers movie

Transformers movie = sweet, even if it doesn't exist. What that has to do with the SoR is beyond me.

run dmc illin' code myspace

I think Run DMC would be one of the few times you may legitimately refer to something as old school. But then wouldn't illin' be anachronistic? I thought that was more mid-'90s slang.

why would i need to sacrifice myself to myself in order to change a rule i had made

An excellent question; one that I've never received a good answer to.


Well, the last round was about a year ago, so I expect this year's is coming up. But why not do a search at PA?

larry the cable guy terrorists pile laughed pictures

How did this link to us? No clue.

*677 was a direct link to State Police Dispatch

Always good to keep in mind. Remember that the police are required to let you reach a 'safe space' before pulling over.

pro choice views on a foetus

This actually linked to my '20 questions' post. One of the few SoR posts to actually get linked by non-search pages!

"rear entry" "blogspot"
sims porn games

I don't want to know.

Incredibles libertarian

It's not, as I argued almost a year ago now.

vegan blt

Mmmmm. Tasty. And my recipe is at the top of the search. Go me!


Colleen said...

Actually, I came back to see if you had ever apologized for ridiculing my polite request for permission to post a long essay here over at Pandagon.

I was also curious to see if you ever admitted that abortuary is, in fact, a word.

Admitting your failures and mistakes doesn't come easily to you, does it?

Noumena said...

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the first bit; I don't recall anything like that, nor does a search of the blog turn up anything, and I wouldn't normally have an objection to cross-posting or quoting me with appropriate credit. Can you link to the thread to refresh my memory?

And what evidence can you muster that 'abortuary' is a word?

Not acting smug and superior to everyone who disagrees with you doesn't come easily to you, does it?

Colleen said...

In the "Dawn Eden makes my Stomach Churn" post (May 11) "Lucy" wrote the following: By the way, abortuary is a word and can be found in the OED online, Dictionary.com and in Phrontistery.

As I said in regard to your referencing me as dismissive of other people (in another post), this particular post had me in hysterics. I have to hand it to you-- I can't beat this one for demonstrating self-awareness.

I don't really want to step into the sewer that is Pandagon and I doubt I will be able to find the particular thread which I don't remember. If I can do it quickly, I will. Otherwise, I will give you this one.

colleen said...

Hot dang! I am on a roll. I actually found it. Your first (I don't know if there were more) comment on Amanda's May 15 post: "Masochistic Post Where I Continue to Assert ... Parents. You ridiculed the request for permission to post here at some length.

I did confuse you with my syntax. "Lucy" asked for permission to answer you here in your Dawn/Churn/Stomach post. Over on Pandagon you ridiculed that. It wasn't very nice you know.

It was ... smug and very much an assertion of superiority over her and her opinions in a forum where there wasn't the slightest chance in hell that anyone would disagree with you.

I would say that posting at Dawn's was a good way to get familiar with the way others think but that is clearly not what you do. You go there to assure yourself of your superiority over those who think differently.

Well, OK. Whatever gives you pleasure.

Noumena said...

I'm unclear on the way you're using the word 'dismissive'. I'm answering your arguments as best I can in my limited free time, aren't I? And I do the same when I comment on Dawn's blog, and elsewhere. It's probably fair to say I'm slightly elitist because of my choice of language, but I don't, for example, consider someone's age a valid reason to reject their beliefs. I also try to avoid acting as though I have a good understanding of the motivations of others based on their comment history. Ad hominem attacks like these I would consider paradigm examples of dismissive behaviour.

Now, thanks for clearing up your earlier point. I stand by my comment on Pandagon: most of it is an entirely accurate description of the two discussions, and I simply don't know what to say if you consider 'not edifying' to be deeply offensive. Quite frankly, I'm not sure anything that's ever happened on this blog counts as edifying.

Oh, and it seems 'abortuary' has gotten its way into a few dictionaries; just none of the ones on answer.com. "Lucy" was right about that. But, for the sake of clarity and neutrality, I still think she could have chosen her words more carefully.

Colleen said...

OK, nosce te ipsum and all that. I don't *really* mind if you want to tell all your readers that I am dismissive of other people's opinions and whatever else you said here. It is touching that you remembered me.

Superiority (or seeming superiority)and dismissing other people's arguments as being of little or no account is not an unknown flaw among those of us who hold strong opinions and love to argue.

*But* I had to burst out laughing that you laid that particular charge to my account in a post entitled "Dawn Eden Makes My Stomach Churn". (or maybe it was another one posted in the same week. I can't remember any more) Do you really not see the problem when you make that charge in such a post? Pot? Kettle? etc.?

By the way, I am not concerned with the quality of your answer(s). Even when I don't agree with you, I think you write well and make your point clearly. I do dislike the fact that you held the comments made by Lucy (and they were comments or propositions, not arguments) up to ridicule on Pandagon and never bothered to give her permission to go ahead and post her argument, even if it did turn out to be a little long. You simply dismissed her request as ... I don't know what the word is. Of no account? Ridiculous?

Well, I suppose it is too bad I didn't use my blogger account to post because I could then delete my comments. I am really not interested in scolding you in public. But it seemed worthwhile to me to point out to you that you fail to play by the rules you hold others to.

Noumena said...

Sorry, I'm still confused. Are you saying I'm at fault and 'dismissive' because I didn't take "Lucy's" excuse -- she didn't want to adequately explain her views because she was worried about our bandwidth -- seriously?

MosBen said...

Wait, now I'm confused. Is someone asking permission to post here on the blog? Why would they need permission to do that? I think the only comments I've ever deleted were the spam we were getting before we put in the word verification way back when. Personally, I love having people come on over to the Ra to argue. It certainly makes the place a little more interesting.

Noumena said...

Explanatory thread one. Explanatory thread two (search in-page for Noumena).

Colleen said...

Are you saying I'm at fault and 'dismissive' because I didn't take "Lucy's" excuse -- she didn't want to adequately explain her views because she was worried about our bandwidth -- seriously?


She made no such excuse. She asked if it would be ok to make a long answer. I don't blame her. If I were going to go to the trouble of taking the time to do a good job of writing on a fairly complex subject, I would want to be sure that it was ok, too.

Whether she understands adequately what bandwidth is another question.

What really provoked this whole tirade is that not only did you dismiss her (and even when shown that abortuary is a word, you still don't admit that you were wrong. Just plain wrong) but you felt obliged to hold me up, by name, as exemplum #1 of someone who is smug, dismissive of others' opinions, etc.

While I can admit that I am, more often than I should be, guilty of that, you still don't seem to understand that you are in the same boat with me. It is a very easy trap for the highly educated and very opinionated to fall into.

Nosce te ipsum.

Noumena said...

I wanted to get the opinions of neutral observers before I said anything else, but they don't seem to have followed through *pointed glance*, so I guess I'm doing this now.

Lucy's apologia for not defending her views still strikes me as nothing more than a lame excuse. But if it was sincerely meant, then I'm sorry I didn't make it explicit that she was welcome to make a longer comment or link to an essay hosted elsewhere.

Does that count as dismissive or an ad hominem? We could quibble over semantics and blame, and I could defend not stopping back into the thread, but if it was disrespectful, it still strikes me as fairly mild, and was unintentional in any case.

In other words, Colleen, get over it. You're welcome to make cogent, topical arguments, but if you're just going to fling insults around to get the liberals all riled up, you're wasting everyone's time.

Colleen said...

There is nothing to get over. If you can concede that you *might* have been too quick to dismiss "Lucy", then my work is done.

I am not quite sure what you mean about flinging insults to rile up liberals. I do not read this blog nor post on it, except on the rarest of occasions, usually when you have been setting us all to rights over on the Dawn Patrol.

Neither do I "fling" insults. I called you on a particularly unpleasant bit of elitism (which started with the very title of the one post, "Dawn Eden makes my stomach churn), passed by "Lucy" and ended with insulting me (though I thought it rather funny) by name. You could not be bothered to respond to my objection at the time.

The fact that "neutral observers" didn't weigh in on this thread may mean something, if you get my drift.

Now, as I said early on, I did not wish to scold you in public (you may certainly delete all of this, if you like) but, rather, bring something to your attention that you need to know. Intelligence is wonderful but without charity it is a cold instrument.