New now reading

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 39613
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: New now reading

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 09 Feb 2018, 14:18

I NEVER SAID IT WAS "INTELLECTUAL".
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
mission
Posts: 2146
Joined: 04 Apr 2008, 13:39

Re: New now reading

Postby mission » 09 Feb 2018, 14:27

A HANDY GUIDE TO FUCKHEADEDNESS

1. Make a forceful statement for no real reason other than you are fond of the sound of your own voice. Preferably an incorrect statement. It helps if you are talking about something you are ignorant of.

Beer isn't distilled at all, stupid analogy, fancy putting that on the front of the book

2. When someone points out part of the substance of your error ("The quote doesn't suggest beer is distilled. It suggests whisky is distilled"), unfurl your full array of fuckheadedness:

* add another error to create confusion and to hear that sweet, sweet roar of your own blustery gobshite:

Whisky isn't twice distilled either, it is generally continuously distilled until as much of the ethanol as possible is taken out of the distilling liquid.

* create the illusion you know what you're talking about.

I was at Laphroig a year ago and saw the process. Some Whiskey is double or triple distilled but it doesn't make it better so I don't understand that at all.

* if you can - and let's face it, you can - be pretentious.

I'll stick with Nietzsche or Camus.

* compound your initial error by demonstrating you really don't understand what you are talking about. Remember, be forceful in your stupidity.

Face it, it is a crap analogy. Whisky not beer I get but why bring distillation into it and confuse matters?

3. When someone tries harder to point out your real error - and not get sucked in by your diversionary lies and bluster - ("For one thing, that quote on the cover is a blurb, not an aphorism, and for another, if you can't understand the idea of the distillation of prose then I don't think it's worth discussing modern literature with you") - well, go straight back to step 2 and go in harder. Life is an online argument, after all, and the last one standing, shouting ill-informed shit, is plainly the winner.

And for your information Beer is distilled, it is how you make Whisky.


It helps if you completely ignore what others say - It is just a rather confused metaphor because I imagine they realised just a simple whisky/beer analogy would be hackneyed so they tried to gussy it up and just made you think "what the fuck are they doing that for?". - and make up what they said instead. That's far easier to argue against and brings extra fuckhead points.
Good.

User avatar
Darkness_Fish
Posts: 4968
Joined: 27 Jul 2015, 09:58

Re: New now reading

Postby Darkness_Fish » 09 Feb 2018, 14:52

Anyone fancy a pint?





Distilled or otherwise.
Like fast-moving clouds casting shadows against a hillside, the melody-loop shuddered with a sense of the sublime, the awful unknowable majesty of the world.

caramba
Posts: 112
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: New now reading

Postby caramba » 09 Feb 2018, 15:23

Copehead wrote:
Robert wrote:
Copehead wrote:
I am a native speaker who got an A in O level English



Copehead wrote:
Why are their so many people who can't follow a simple argument on a thread about the appreciation of literature?




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Who did you blow to get your A in O?


That would have been illegal in 1981

Isn't an occasional typo to be expected when using a chat board or do you proof read all your dreary verbiage?


Typing "ther" or "theree" when intending to type "there" would be a typo.

The above poster's inability to distinguish between "there" and "their" isn't a typo, though, is it? No, it's a lack of basic literacy...

User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 39613
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: New now reading

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 09 Feb 2018, 15:34

Lol

Welcome to BCB, Caramba.
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 23524
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: New now reading

Postby Copehead » 09 Feb 2018, 16:31

Jimbo wrote:Distilled Beer: New IPA Whiskey from Charbay

Image


I wouldn't necessarily want to drink fermented malt mash or wort but it is essentially beer.
And sometimes I ride on bus x82, say what!

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 23524
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: New now reading

Postby Copehead » 09 Feb 2018, 16:32

Harvey K-Tel wrote:I NEVER SAID IT WAS "INTELLECTUAL".


I know I did.

Would you say it isn't intellectual
And sometimes I ride on bus x82, say what!

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 23524
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: New now reading

Postby Copehead » 09 Feb 2018, 16:33

mission wrote:
A HANDY GUIDE TO FUCKHEADEDNESS

1. Make a forceful statement for no real reason other than you are fond of the sound of your own voice. Preferably an incorrect statement. It helps if you are talking about something you are ignorant of.

Beer isn't distilled at all, stupid analogy, fancy putting that on the front of the book

2. When someone points out part of the substance of your error ("The quote doesn't suggest beer is distilled. It suggests whisky is distilled"), unfurl your full array of fuckheadedness:

* add another error to create confusion and to hear that sweet, sweet roar of your own blustery gobshite:

Whisky isn't twice distilled either, it is generally continuously distilled until as much of the ethanol as possible is taken out of the distilling liquid.

* create the illusion you know what you're talking about.

I was at Laphroig a year ago and saw the process. Some Whiskey is double or triple distilled but it doesn't make it better so I don't understand that at all.

* if you can - and let's face it, you can - be pretentious.

I'll stick with Nietzsche or Camus.

* compound your initial error by demonstrating you really don't understand what you are talking about. Remember, be forceful in your stupidity.

Face it, it is a crap analogy. Whisky not beer I get but why bring distillation into it and confuse matters?

3. When someone tries harder to point out your real error - and not get sucked in by your diversionary lies and bluster - ("For one thing, that quote on the cover is a blurb, not an aphorism, and for another, if you can't understand the idea of the distillation of prose then I don't think it's worth discussing modern literature with you") - well, go straight back to step 2 and go in harder. Life is an online argument, after all, and the last one standing, shouting ill-informed shit, is plainly the winner.

And for your information Beer is distilled, it is how you make Whisky.


It helps if you completely ignore what others say - It is just a rather confused metaphor because I imagine they realised just a simple whisky/beer analogy would be hackneyed so they tried to gussy it up and just made you think "what the fuck are they doing that for?". - and make up what they said instead. That's far easier to argue against and brings extra fuckhead points.


:lol:

Haven't you got anything better to do?

I've got all day.

And the original quote is ambiguous, if you didn't know what beer and whisky were you could easily assume that both were distilled because the sentence is poorly written. I don't think beer is a distilled liquid but a well constructed sentence wouldn't leave it ambiguous like that.

My only issue with the sentence is it is banal, hackneyed, ambiguous and poorly written and therefore not a great advert for the book.

And something can be both a blurb for a book and an aphorism you know they are not mutually exclusive, but I have to imagine you may not be bright enough to realise that.

The rest of it is all in what passes for a brain in your case.

You need to get a life or you will end up like Min spending all your waking hours following me around the internet to make a point that was addressed years ago, is that really how you want to end up?

Anyway this is becoming just simple trolling and I really shouldn't do that it isn't nice however amusing it may be.
And sometimes I ride on bus x82, say what!

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 23524
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: New now reading

Postby Copehead » 09 Feb 2018, 16:41

caramba wrote:
Copehead wrote:
Robert wrote:




:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Who did you blow to get your A in O?


That would have been illegal in 1981

Isn't an occasional typo to be expected when using a chat board or do you proof read all your dreary verbiage?


Typing "ther" or "theree" when intending to type "there" would be a typo.

The above poster's inability to distinguish between "there" and "their" isn't a typo, though, is it? No, it's a lack of basic literacy...


Welcome fuckwit

I look forward to spending the rest of my days here scouring your posts for misspellings and then calling you a stupid cunt when I find one.

Better use a proof reader you pedantic arsehole :)
And sometimes I ride on bus x82, say what!

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Minnie the Minx
funky thigh collector
Posts: 29429
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 16:00
Location: In the naughty North and in the sexy South

Re: New now reading

Postby Minnie the Minx » 09 Feb 2018, 16:50

Copehead wrote:
mission wrote:
A HANDY GUIDE TO FUCKHEADEDNESS

1. Make a forceful statement for no real reason other than you are fond of the sound of your own voice. Preferably an incorrect statement. It helps if you are talking about something you are ignorant of.

Beer isn't distilled at all, stupid analogy, fancy putting that on the front of the book

2. When someone points out part of the substance of your error ("The quote doesn't suggest beer is distilled. It suggests whisky is distilled"), unfurl your full array of fuckheadedness:

* add another error to create confusion and to hear that sweet, sweet roar of your own blustery gobshite:

Whisky isn't twice distilled either, it is generally continuously distilled until as much of the ethanol as possible is taken out of the distilling liquid.

* create the illusion you know what you're talking about.

I was at Laphroig a year ago and saw the process. Some Whiskey is double or triple distilled but it doesn't make it better so I don't understand that at all.

* if you can - and let's face it, you can - be pretentious.

I'll stick with Nietzsche or Camus.

* compound your initial error by demonstrating you really don't understand what you are talking about. Remember, be forceful in your stupidity.

Face it, it is a crap analogy. Whisky not beer I get but why bring distillation into it and confuse matters?

3. When someone tries harder to point out your real error - and not get sucked in by your diversionary lies and bluster - ("For one thing, that quote on the cover is a blurb, not an aphorism, and for another, if you can't understand the idea of the distillation of prose then I don't think it's worth discussing modern literature with you") - well, go straight back to step 2 and go in harder. Life is an online argument, after all, and the last one standing, shouting ill-informed shit, is plainly the winner.

And for your information Beer is distilled, it is how you make Whisky.


It helps if you completely ignore what others say - It is just a rather confused metaphor because I imagine they realised just a simple whisky/beer analogy would be hackneyed so they tried to gussy it up and just made you think "what the fuck are they doing that for?". - and make up what they said instead. That's far easier to argue against and brings extra fuckhead points.


:lol:

Haven't you got anything better to do?

I've got all day.

And the original quote is ambiguous, if you didn't know what beer and whisky were you could easily assume that both were distilled because the sentence is poorly written. I don't think beer is a distilled liquid but a well constructed sentence wouldn't leave it ambiguous like that.

My only issue with the sentence is it is banal, hackneyed, ambiguous and poorly written and therefore not a great advert for the book.

And something can be both a blurb for a book and an aphorism you know they are not mutually exclusive, but I have to imagine you may not be bright enough to realise that.

The rest of it is all in what passes for a brain in your case.

You need to get a life or you will end up like Min spending all your waking hours following me around the internet to remind me I have a selective memory and that I would rather put someone on ignore than ever answer a direct question because shit, that's one way of evading something my conscience could not handle is that really how you want to end up?

Anyway this is becoming just simple trolling and I really shouldn't do that it isn't nice however amusing it may be.


Crikey - someone got woke!
You come at the Queen, you best not miss.

Dr Markus wrote:
Someone in your line of work usually as their own man cave aka the shed we're they can potter around fixing stuff or something don't they?

User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 39613
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: New now reading

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 09 Feb 2018, 17:11

Copehead wrote:
Harvey K-Tel wrote:I NEVER SAID IT WAS "INTELLECTUAL".


I know I did.

Would you say it isn't intellectual


I wouldn't call it intellectual, and I wouldn't say it's not intellectual. Would you call a painting "intellectual"?
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
Copehead
BCB Cup Stalinist
Posts: 23524
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:51
Location: at sea

Re: New now reading

Postby Copehead » 09 Feb 2018, 18:23

Harvey K-Tel wrote:
Copehead wrote:
Harvey K-Tel wrote:I NEVER SAID IT WAS "INTELLECTUAL".


I know I did.

Would you say it isn't intellectual


I wouldn't call it intellectual, and I wouldn't say it's not intellectual. Would you call a painting "intellectual"?


Perhaps if it was a painting of Albert Einstein.

Doesn't seem that controversial to say some books are intellectual, perhaps highfalutin would be nearer the mark.
And sometimes I ride on bus x82, say what!

Image

Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.

User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 39613
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: New now reading

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 09 Feb 2018, 19:29

Copehead wrote:
Harvey K-Tel wrote:
Copehead wrote:
I know I did.

Would you say it isn't intellectual


I wouldn't call it intellectual, and I wouldn't say it's not intellectual. Would you call a painting "intellectual"?


Perhaps if it was a painting of Albert Einstein.

Doesn't seem that controversial to say some books are intellectual, perhaps highfalutin would be nearer the mark.


I have no problem with books being called intellectual - I just wouldn't use the term for the particular book under discussion.
I've seen the author referred to as a "literary artist", and, having read the book, I'd have no problem using that term to describe her.
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
Darkness_Fish
Posts: 4968
Joined: 27 Jul 2015, 09:58

Re: New now reading

Postby Darkness_Fish » 09 Feb 2018, 20:54

Anyone reading a fucking book around here?
Like fast-moving clouds casting shadows against a hillside, the melody-loop shuddered with a sense of the sublime, the awful unknowable majesty of the world.

User avatar
Harvey K-Tel
Long Player
Posts: 39613
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 23:20
Location: 1220 on your AM dial

Re: New now reading

Postby Harvey K-Tel » 09 Feb 2018, 20:56

Nah. I've been put off 'em.
If you've got nothing to do, don't do it here.

User avatar
Pansy Puff
Posts: 8014
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: New now reading

Postby Pansy Puff » 09 Feb 2018, 21:07

Darkness_Fish wrote:Anyone reading a fucking book around here?

I'm re-reading Ulysses. It's an incredible piece of work, startling in its scope. I've never read a book that mirrors thought more accurately.

I'm also bald.
“He’s got the memory of an elephant ... and the trophy cabinet of one too.”

User avatar
the masked man
Schadenfreude
Posts: 26729
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 12:29
Location: Peterborough

Re: New now reading

Postby the masked man » 09 Feb 2018, 21:31

K wrote:
Darkness_Fish wrote:Anyone reading a fucking book around here?

I'm re-reading Ulysses. It's an incredible piece of work, startling in its scope. I've never read a book that mirrors thought more accurately.

I'm also bald.


It's OK, I suppose, but what do you make of its brewing and distilling content? Is it accurate?

User avatar
Ray K.
Posts: 5608
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 21:06
Location: Philadelphia PA

Re: New now reading

Postby Ray K. » 09 Feb 2018, 21:31

Image

Positive Passion
Posts: 495
Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05

Re: New now reading

Postby Positive Passion » 09 Feb 2018, 21:33

Ihave been reading Carrying the Fire, by Michael Collins, an absolutely brilliant read about his time as an astronaut. It is quite brilliant.

User avatar
Pansy Puff
Posts: 8014
Joined: 22 Feb 2012, 21:10
Location: Under the watchful eye of the Clive police

Re: New now reading

Postby Pansy Puff » 09 Feb 2018, 21:33

the masked man wrote:
K wrote:
Darkness_Fish wrote:Anyone reading a fucking book around here?

I'm re-reading Ulysses. It's an incredible piece of work, startling in its scope. I've never read a book that mirrors thought more accurately.

I'm also bald.


It's OK, I suppose, but what do you make of its brewing and distilling content? Is it accurate?

:lol:

Wait, I need to move the goalposts before I answer that.
“He’s got the memory of an elephant ... and the trophy cabinet of one too.”