| 17 comments ]

Just like Sodom & Gommorrah could have be spared by a few righteous among them, T&S is being spared total snoozerdom by the few Arhipelagists among them. First GeoffJ, then JStapley, then Roasted Tomatoes, and now Rusty. The guest bloggers are steam rollering the permabores when it comes to content and comments, and it isn't hard to see why. You have Matt Evans doing a cut and paste of a historical document about his great-great-great grandfather's polygamous jail time, Nate picking at belly button lint and Adam tells us to either have more kids or convert our neighbors. Yawn...uh...wha...oh, sorry...dozed off there for a minute. Yeah, and don't forget those Sunday School lessons.

T&S is worn out and tired, their river of inspiration has dried up to a slow muddy trickle. You're going to run out of Moarch Founders to invite, so then what next? You guys need some new blood. Hmmmm, lets see, who is available...oh, hey, Dastardly Dave has been guest posting around the Nacle...and he did you guys a big favor with that LDSdelectible thing...and he was recently unbanned there...a match made in he...aven. Maybe that would get Rosalynde going too.

17 comments

Steve EM said... @ March 7, 2006 at 7:57 AM

Maybe some are scared off my the T&S abbreviation, sounds like a porn site. Am I still banned there?

Christian Y. Cardall said... @ March 7, 2006 at 11:12 AM

Bottom line: scoreboard. They're still pulling in the visitors.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ March 7, 2006 at 11:40 AM

They are pulling visitors because of the guest bloggers, not the permabores. When the Archipelagists run out, then whats left? Nate's navel lint? Oooooh, goody.

Stephen said... @ March 7, 2006 at 12:16 PM

Well, Kaimi and Nate are both newly minted law professors.

They need to spend every spare moment on scholarship rather than blogging, at least until they get tenure.

a random John said... @ March 7, 2006 at 1:38 PM

It isn't clear if they are pulling in visitors because of the guests or not. What is clear is that the guests pull in comments. Nate's recent post confirmed my suspicion that some of the T&S types don't care about comments. They are lecturing rather than starting discussions.

Anonymous said... @ March 7, 2006 at 5:00 PM

ar john: I think that you are wrong about bloggers at T&S not caring about comments. It seems to me that certain kinds of posts lend themselves to comment discussions and some do not. There are never big long comment threads on Jim F's Sunday School lessons, but that hardly means that they worthless.

As for lecturing, that seems to imply that one has some sort of a captive audience that one is hectoring. I don't think that is a fair characterization of non-comment-intensive T&S posts. I think a better way of thinking about it is throwing out a piece of writing that you hope someone finds interesting.

The other thing about using the word "lecturing" is that it implicitly assumes that blogging is a spoken medium, where long, uninterrupted bits of language imply some sort of closed-mindedness or claim to authority. On the other hand, if blogging is a print medium this doesn't really hold. If I open the WaPo and read George Will's collumn, the fact that he goes on for a dozen paragraphs doesn't mean he is lecturing. It means he has written an op-ed collumn.

Anonymous said... @ March 7, 2006 at 5:50 PM

“Class is fundamentally elitist,” says Baudrillard. But in Satyricon, Fellini analyses precultural semioticist theory; in Amarcord he affirms the pretextual paradigm of reality.

A number of conceptualisms concerning the role of the poet as artist may be discovered. It could be said that the example of patriarchialist theory depicted in Fellini’s Satyricon is also evident in La Dolce Vita.

Lacan uses the term ‘Lyotardist narrative’ to denote the bridge between society and class. Therefore, Foucault promotes the use of precultural semioticist theory to read and analyse society.

2. Fellini and deconstructive discourse
The primary theme of the works of Fellini is not theory per se, but posttheory. Buxton[1] holds that we have to choose between subcultural theory and Batailleist `powerful communication’. However, if patriarchialist theory holds, the works of Fellini are an example of self-fulfilling Marxism.

“Class is part of the stasis of art,” says Foucault; however, according to Brophy[2] , it is not so much class that is part of the stasis of art, but rather the rubicon, and subsequent collapse, of class. Bailey[3] implies that we have to choose between textual libertarianism and Sartreist existentialism. Therefore, the characteristic theme of Dietrich’s[4] essay on deconstructive discourse is a prematerialist totality.

The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is the stasis, and some would say the dialectic, of cultural sexuality. The subject is contextualised into a subtextual paradigm of consensus that includes reality as a whole. Thus, precultural semioticist theory suggests that reality is a product of communication.

Baudrillard suggests the use of deconstructive discourse to attack class divisions. However, if patriarchialist theory holds, we have to choose between dialectic narrative and the prestructuralist paradigm of consensus.

In Midnight’s Children, Rushdie examines deconstructive discourse; in The Moor’s Last Sigh, however, he affirms precultural semioticist theory. In a sense, Lacan promotes the use of patriarchialist theory to modify sexual identity.

The subject is interpolated into a deconstructive discourse that includes language as a reality. But Marx uses the term ‘patriarchialist theory’ to denote not, in fact, dematerialism, but postdematerialism.

Derrida’s analysis of deconstructive discourse holds that the law is capable of significant form. However, the subject is contextualised into a precultural semioticist theory that includes culture as a whole.

DKL said... @ March 7, 2006 at 8:34 PM

Look who found the post modern essay generator.

Anonymous said... @ March 7, 2006 at 8:48 PM

DKL: “Culture is used in the service of hierarchy,” says Debord. Therefore, if neoconceptualist discourse holds, the works of Fellini are postmodern.

In the works of Fellini, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist consciousness. The main theme of la Fournier’s[1] analysis of subdeconstructivist nationalism is the role of the poet as writer. However, the subject is interpolated into a capitalist paradigm of reality that includes art as a reality.

Von Junz[2] suggests that we have to choose between subdeconstructivist nationalism and postdeconstructive textual theory. It could be said that the subject is contextualised into a presemantic narrative that includes truth as a totality.

Lacan suggests the use of subdeconstructivist nationalism to modify class. In a sense, a number of desituationisms concerning the capitalist paradigm of reality may be discovered.

Marx uses the term ‘Baudrillardist hyperreality’ to denote a self-fulfilling paradox. Thus, if subdeconstructivist nationalism holds, we have to choose between dialectic theory and submodernist capitalist theory.

2. Expressions of rubicon
If one examines subdeconstructivist nationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept prematerial libertarianism or conclude that language may be used to reinforce class divisions, but only if the premise of subdeconstructivist nationalism is invalid; if that is not the case, we can assume that truth is part of the genre of sexuality. In Chasing Amy, Smith deconstructs neoconceptualist discourse; in Mallrats he reiterates the capitalist paradigm of reality. However, the primary theme of the works of Smith is the failure, and subsequent genre, of deconstructivist reality.

The main theme of Reicher’s[3] critique of neoconceptualist discourse is the common ground between society and class. The example of neotextual narrative which is a central theme of Smith’s Chasing Amy is also evident in Clerks, although in a more mythopoetical sense. Therefore, de Selby[4] states that we have to choose between subdeconstructivist nationalism and the cultural paradigm of discourse.

Lyotard promotes the use of the capitalist paradigm of reality to deconstruct capitalism. Thus, the primary theme of the works of Smith is the role of the reader as poet.

Lacan uses the term ’subtextual capitalist theory’ to denote the difference between sexual identity and class. But the characteristic theme of Finnis’s[5] essay on the capitalist paradigm of reality is a self-falsifying whole.

Bataille suggests the use of neoconceptualist discourse to analyse and challenge sexual identity. It could be said that Lacan’s model of the capitalist paradigm of reality suggests that the purpose of the writer is social comment, given that consciousness is distinct from culture.

If subdeconstructivist nationalism holds, the works of Madonna are reminiscent of Mapplethorpe. Therefore, the capitalist paradigm of reality holds that consciousness, surprisingly, has objective value.

3. Madonna and neoconceptualist discourse
If one examines neodialectic desublimation, one is faced with a choice: either reject subdeconstructivist nationalism or conclude that the collective is capable of significance, but only if Bataille’s essay on the capitalist paradigm of reality is valid. Marx uses the term ‘neoconceptualist discourse’ to denote the bridge between society and truth. But any number of narratives concerning the role of the participant as writer exist.

Bataille uses the term ‘modern postcultural theory’ to denote the absurdity, and some would say the paradigm, of capitalist class. Therefore, Hanfkopf[6] implies that we have to choose between neoconceptualist discourse and neocultural construction.

Marx promotes the use of the capitalist paradigm of reality to attack elitist perceptions of narrativity. However, subdeconstructivist nationalism holds that art is used to marginalize the underprivileged.

NFlanders said... @ March 7, 2006 at 10:22 PM

Wait, those posts are from a website? I just thought Rosalynde was posting anonymously.

I should have known they weren't her. They didn't use enough jargon.

Stephen said... @ March 8, 2006 at 6:30 AM

I saw that the number of comments had reached ten, and that this post would be saved ... err, or have I missed the point.

Oh, I should have known they weren't her. They didn't use enough jargon. humor, that's the point.

;)

Anonymous said... @ March 8, 2006 at 7:10 AM

Have you stumbled upon the source code for Languatron?

Snarkimus Prime said... @ March 8, 2006 at 8:22 AM

Languatron definitely has a human front end. I baited them by posting the recent M* link to BG at their blog and they showed up at M* within 24 hours, suggesting a human read a comment at the blog and then went to M*, I mean M0. I am assuming whoever is doing it has a bunch of text they cut and paste seemingly at random and then they do a simple search and replace for whoever the target is, or it may be automated with a relatively simple awk/gawk/sed or perl script.

Anonymous said... @ March 8, 2006 at 11:35 AM

Snarker: Your problem is that if one examines the patriarchialist paradigm of context, one is faced with a choice: either accept Debordist situation or conclude that the task of the writer is social comment. Frankly, I just don't think you are up to it.

As for your friends, the patriarchialist paradigm of context suggests that language serves to disempower the Other. In a sense, the subject is interpolated into a Debordist situation that includes reality as a totality.

In the works of Eco, a predominant concept is the concept of prematerial sexuality. Several sublimations concerning a constructivist whole may be revealed. Therefore, the main theme of the works of Eco is the role of the participant as poet.

Snarkimus Prime said... @ March 8, 2006 at 12:18 PM

Anonymous wordsmith,

I fart in your general direction.

Anonymous said... @ March 9, 2006 at 12:46 PM

Your greatest bit of eloquence yet Snarky. Also the funniest bit of humor. Your improving. Slowly.

Sarebear said... @ March 11, 2006 at 3:04 AM

My brain just exploded.

Post a Comment