Dr. Frank's What's-it

"...I am under no presupposition that the uniqueness and nuance of my individual thought somehow separates me from external scrutiny and subsequent political classification."

You're busted, my friend. Only a Real Intellectual could write prose like that. Bow down!

He really thinks he's something else eh? Well I don't. What drivel. He needs a serious reality check, someone needs to slap him in the face and let him know that no one is impressed.

Man, talk about overkill, but fun to read (once only, ever).

oooo... there were just so many WORDS. it made me all dizzy.

Doktor Frank,
I managed to read through this analysis of your blog. To me the writer seemed to contradict himself by being so "narsacistic" to think that he could write that much about a blogger as to me that would be foolish. Although this man criticizes your blog and attempts to understand your personality through it, guys like me have the added benefit of having listened to your music for a greater part of our lives. I also feel I've grown up just like you, being an angry leftist in the 80s, obsessed with finding a bride in the 90s, and now make fun of leftist thought as a hobby in the 00's due to the fact that I'm now hearing the bullshit I'd spout as a 15 year old being proclaimed by supposed "thinkers" especially in the God-forsaken punk scene that I still semi-pay attention to. I simply can't think enough of myself to believe I really had it all (or anything) figured out when I was 15, and am extremely pissed by the fact that these morons are saying what I said except they aren't drunk and stoned while doing it and they now get segments on CNN. I guess I just think that guys an idiot.

Ugh... I couldn't read the whole thing through. Just because you're pretty good at using a thesaurus and finding the largest and most obscure words to make a point that is easily made in about a seven word sentence, doesn't mean that you should. It makes for a very boring read. I got about as far as the part where he says you quote Noam Chomsky "ad nauseum". I was under the impression that you didn't like Mr. Chomsky very much. Oh, well I'm sure that he loves parading around like Niles and Frasier Crane would, poking fun at the mundane and simple knuckle-draggers such as ourselves. Ugh!

p.s. Please excuse any typos. I'm too lazy to spell check and this post has been been brought to you by the fine folks at Great Lakes Brewery. mmmmm beeeeeeeer.

that is the biggest load of incoherent jargan i have ever encountered. who is the narcissist? the blogger or the guy who dedicates his own blog to a 9000 word analysis someone elses blog?

oh frank! snap! he just deconstructed your blog! he go all foucault on your ass.

from his writing style (and taste in music) he sounds like one of those irritating kids who thinks they know it all from seminar. what's wrong with thinking chomsky is a joke?

i hope he's made some friends out of this, because i think that's what he wants.

wow,i wish i could drivel on that long,honest to pete,he could write a whole conjectured thesis...soley on this blog.

kinda sad.

16 Paragraphs? And lengthy ones at that. I think I slept through this guys Political Science class in Community college.

I love the comment at the end of his post and his reply to it.

"Sorry, Doktor Frank, but yes, there is such a thing as institutionalized thinking, and no, there is no such thing as objective reality"

"If there's no such thing as objective reality
why can't we quit our jobs and just imagine
we won't have to pay the rent?"

You found this while Googling yourself didn't you, you narcissistic bastard?

Also:

"Doktor Frank blurs the line between hyperbole and political commentary, losing the meaning of what he is attempting to say, and exchanging it for the moot congratulation of those who already tend to agree with him"

Look everyone! He's talking about us!

MTX, April 1, Santa Cruz? so says Pollstar.

it is no fantasy candyland it is absolutely true.

i saw a commercial for santa cruz's beach boardwalk and they showed a snippet of the "I fell for you" video. it was awesome.

i'm going if i can con my car owning friend into it. i am only concerned because the lookout site says its from 7-8pm and then they include the boardwalks notes about it and they say it starts and six. is that get there but it won't start for another hour time or am i terribly confused?

terribly off topic really,but i wanted to say yes.

Hello Doktor Frank,

I'm surprised that you found mention of yourself on my blog so quickly. It's great that you were willing to post a link to it, since I considered it nothing more than an inessential extension of a philosophical essay I felt like posting on a whim; something nobody would ever read outside of my pitiable livejournal friends list, and few on that list at that.

For the peanut gallery: no, I do not teach at a Community College, and no, I'm not a prolific blogger. I will say that I DO drink my own urine and skin cats, if that helps you along with your oversimplified criticisms of me. As for whether my analysis was "pathetic" simply for its very existence, or "pseudo-intellectual" itself, I'll leave it up to the reader to decide.

It's understandable that your supporters want to stand up in your defense, so I'm all for them firing away at me. We may disagree on certain issues, but that does not diminish either of our rights to speak our minds.

Fellow Recalcitrant Pseudo-intellectual,
Nathan

Windbag. ^

YOURE BRINGING SAND TO THE BEACH, NATHAN!

Wow. blah blah blah.

One thought: If I call that an "article" but language is imprecise. Does that mean that that "article" didn't exist? Does that mean I didn't read anything at all? But does reading exist since we cannot be in complete agreement one what it is to "read?" Is it a tube of toothpaste or a bag of toothpaste? Holy crap! That means there must be no toothpaste at all. Oh man, my head is spinning I need to sit down, but how can I be sure this chair exists? I can't, therefore it doesn't and my ass has become swollen thanks to the imprecision of language. But what is swollen? Ah, that's better.

"I will say that I DO drink my own urine and skin cats..."

You don't make the cats drink your urine before you skin them, do you? 'Cause that would be wrong.

You're going to have to put in a lot of effort to work your way up to pseudo-intellectual, my lad.

Saying that you drink your own urine and skin cats does not help at all. Both things are disgusting and disturbing, yet somewhat interesting. Therefore we know they cannot be true.

However, reading my prior statement as an insult, which it is, we can see that what you said really did help......

....Dear God! I can't control my thought patterns. I'm only a step away from using unneccesarily large words to show how smart I am.

Excuse me while I go stick my head in the toilet and flush repeatedly.

All I can say is, I've never drank a skin cat.

Those that can't think, communicate. Those who can't communicate, deconstruct. Those that can't deconstruct, have livejournals.

I agree. See my live journal at: www.livejournal.com/users/lucky409

oh yes. now i remember why i loathe livejournal.

deconstructionism is one of the greatest injustices plaguing universities. it makes anybody think they're intelligent.

irreverent doest not equal genius. neither does confusing. sorry kids.

Mitch, I totally agree. One question though. Does that mean that Dr frank

A) can't deconstruct but has $20 a year to register a domain name for his weblog.

B) is totally capable of deconstruction, just putting it off

C) is using a writing medium that is arbitrary, and your comment was a classic oversimplification.

D) thinks that deconstruction and my question are irrelavent, and i'm a newly coined wannabe-pseudo-intellectual (see Angie's post above).

no, there is no such thing as objective reality

and

the existence of those beliefs predated any idea of what a liberal was

sound contradictory to me but then they dont learn us Descartes in the Red States. Also he attacks Frank for being a liberal who attacks other liberals instead of Republicans but this is precisely what he does in his essay. But more of this thinking can only lead to a game of "I'm not a walking contradiction- you're a walking contradiction. My dad can beat up your dad Nener Nener Nener." Only with pseudo-intellectual pipes and sweater vests.

I think that was a brilliant parody, Nim. I don't have the skill to match it, but I think a pseudo-critique of your pseudo-critique is in order:
The livejournal (and I must put aside, for now, the self-evident disconnect implied in this neologism, for what is a journal but the translation of events in standard chronological space-time, and what is 'live' but the annihilation of chronology itself; 'live' is chronology's 'other' - the irony is made more poignant by the fact that a 'journal' is traditionally an artifact for the preservation (and elevation) of the past, that sub-strata of chronology that 'live' is most hostile to. These two halves, joined in a tenuous marriage of convenience, reflects the... no, I MUST put this aside) post reflects a particularly arresting instance of Lacanian desire. The author's struggles with Frank's critique of DK fans exemplifies this. In this passage, it appears that the author feels rejected by an object of desire. Whether or not the japery in Frank's post indeed carries 'rejection' is ambiguous, and for the reasons cited by Nim himself. Nathan's twist on this age-old tale is to present political disagreement as the failed dialectic in their would-be relationship. As we all know, this is highly speculative, as it leads to a reliance on supposedly rigid boundaries between arbitrary compartments labeled 'liberal' and 'conservative.' Note instead the importance, the vehemance, given to these labels, and the near palpable sense of injury when describing Frank's failure to chide the compartment of the Other. While Nim is painfully aware of the imprecision of language and the elaborately constructed artifice of politics, in this case his desire overwhelms all. Instead of an attempted synthesis, this spurned desire metamorphoses into a demonstration of the illusion of objective reality. The symbolism here is painful - the rejection of desire, the lack of fulfillment leads to an examination of reality itself. But there can be no solace from a desk, a chair or an orange; having seen through the construct of reality, and the role language has in this construction, language itself is, paradoxically, the only balm to the estranged mind. Knowing the impotence of language, Nim is able to use language itself to reinforce a hierarchy - Frank has spurned him, but language is powerless. Language is created, and situated, by men like nathan; it will bend to a will where Frank obstinately refuses. Thus, the synthesis of this menage-a-trois involves the use of language to create and reinforce self-worth.

Marc W:

Thanks for the wordy analysis. It's a perfect remedy to mine, if you're of the school of thought that my work was only complex for the sake of complexity. It's a great divergence from the Circular Firing Squad I've been witnessing here.

I was unaware of an ongoing conflict between the schools of thought commonly subscribed to by Dead Kennedys fans and MTX fans, and I'll look further into it. I'd assume that being a Biafra fan does not exempt me from understanding, and then either agreeing or disagreeing with what Doktor Frank has to say.

As for your critique of me, I tend to believe that my "language deconstructing" approach was necessary for the circumstances, since it developed my point about objective reality.

As for me: I don't believe that I actively seek the approval of Doktor Frank - I see him as an equal, in the same manner as I see all people as equals with regards to the validity and necessity of their presuppositions about politics and reality - but it's certainly something I might want to take up with my psychologist.

I simply disagree with Doktor Frank's unwillingness to acknowledge his own Ivory Tower. Whether my analysis is worthy of provoking personal attacks is purely up to the maturity of the reader.

My advice to this blowhard is to "Eschew Obfuscation" and get a life. Man, alive Frank! How could you even stand to read the whole thing?

Often in disagreement, but always in admiration.

Your Conservative minion,

DaPope

He just doesn't give up does he?

fan: no, that would be more in the line of a joke.

After all, as Andy Warhol once said, "in the future, everyone will have a livejournal."

Hey there BIQ,

No offense intended; I too will leave judgments about my maturity for others. Still, in all seriousness, I was really struck by this, "I tend to believe that my "language deconstructing" approach was necessary for the circumstances, since it developed my point about objective reality."

This is a satisfactory explanation only if the reader is prepared to accept that points about objective reality are necessary. Readers here vote no. I mean really: you think Frank should taunt conservatives as well as liberals- a debatable, but fair critique. I think people can disagree on that. How, outside of a need to display philosophical concepts, do we get to fundamental metaphysical principles from this? Sometimes I'm really torn between drinking gin, or just drinking beer. I don't ruminate on teleology before making this decision. That's just me, and your results obviously vary. I think that's fascinating, I'll leave it at that.

As for the rest of my critique, I don't believe a word of it. I harbored some suspicion that your post was satirical; I guess it's not. My bad. I don't think you need Frank's approval at all, and you sure as fuck don't need mine. It's not serious. Go on and fulminate against self-importance with six-part diatribes laced with references to 20th century philosophers. That'll show 'em.

I, for one, am perfectly capable of judging my own maturity level: 29 going on 12 and willing to admit it.

Good thing the comments are back up.

Yeah, because who coulda lived much longer without this riveting discussion?

Not for nothing, but this scene just totally highlights the anti-intellectual streak running rampant in our culture.

Dammit that person needs to get out more. This is a great example of why i hate intellectuals and politics and to be honest blogs. To be honest when MTX arnt touring or recording I find this blog almost as boring as Mr my-mummy-didnt-love-me over theres blog. No offence intended Frank. It matters little, the world is not about blogs....A much more important question would be: When is the Mr T Experience gonna rock some!? (Specifically in England, 2001 was a long time ago!)

Mark W: Thanks for being the first to offer the seeds of reasonable discussion. My honing in on the idea of "objective reality" is directly due to the line of "Institutionalized Misogyny" in which those words appear.

The demeanor with which he approaches these subjects tends towards outright rejection of the notion of institutionalized thinking. This is a presumption upon which his inordinate dismissals of what he perceives to be common leftist thought ("inordinate" in the lack of a proper emphasis on the right's numerous and consistent failings) seem to be founded. The matter is rooted directly in both politics and philosophy, so I spoke in the terminology of both.

Christopher: I agree.

Antagonists: Your assumptions crack me up. I'm a Community College professor? This is exactly what I was writing about - chimerical prejudices; black-and-white disjunctive thinking; visceral disdain for all things remotely intellectual; and kneejerk responses to things you haven't taken the time out to understand. It's not just a DK vs. MTX thing.

- Nathan

Correction. Pompous windbag. ^

well, i draw at the line at agreeing about anti-intellecualism. MTX OVER DK 4EVER!

"visceral disdain for all things remotely intellectual; and kneejerk responses to things you haven't taken the time out to understand"

It didn't take much time to understand you, jackass. The thoughts contained in your critque simple and flawed. You're writing style is obnoxious and designed to impress not express.

For the record I don't think you are a community college professor. My guess based on the way you try to present yourself in your writing would be that you are a reasonably bright seventeen year-old with little experience in dealing with other intelligent people.

You're writing style is obnoxious

your right on with this one, champ!

I guess I'll just say this:

Nate-dawg,

It doesn't take a genius to pump their Flesch-Kincaid Index score on Microsoft Word up to impressive levels. It's entirely possible to convey complex ideas to others using the language of the common man.

Academic English is great for sharing and exploring knowledge (and showing off) with other academics. If you don't want other people (i.e. people outside of an academic setting) to bother with what you have to say, speak AE all the time: in all your writings as well as casual conversation. You'll bore people to sleep and generally put them off. Anyone engaging in such behavior would seem either a social moron or a pompous jerk. (Although I'm open to other possibilities.)

Purposefully or not, you're putting more value on how you say things than on what you have to say. The English language is a vast and delectable thing full of opportunities to use the right word at the precisely right time. When you try to use all the good ones at once, they lose their impact.

If you're going to bring up your hidden need for Dr. Frank's approval with your psychologist you might bring up your inability to communicate with others on a level similar to that with which you are being addressed. It's not hard to do, and you can even make friends. That doesn't mean lower yourself to the standard of others; it just means when you aren't blogging out a philosophical explication of someone else's blog or writing a research paper--talk normal! (And I recommend using "normal speech" in academic work whenever you can. Fight the power and all that.)

Of course, I've only seen what you have to type, so maybe I misjudge.

Your misguided servant,

DNB

coupla thoughts on our boy big nate --

1) hey, i'm a former comm. coll. english professor, so i'll give you my first tip: if you've got something important to say, why not say it so everyone gets it?

2) wouldn't it be great if big nate had a high, squeaky voice? imagine.

3) zzzzzzzzzz.

lefty

okay...two cents more...

i don't know if i'd call myself a Dr. Frank defender,he's just not that important in my little universe. if i thought he was,i'd probably be crazy. i just think there are better things to analyze than a flipping blog for the love of all that's holy. i mean seriously...

like the part where our favorite lovable friend mister noam chompsky goes too crazy for me...

that is where he thinks "On the Waterfront" is not an American classic but a plot against unions.
I mean i always thought (if anything,i don't know)
it was more like the little guy(aka the people)
taking back the union(aka the government).

that's what he wants right?

(bwahahahaha...45 more post on inane topic)

So my analysis was overreaching, unnecessary, and so on. That much may be true depending on how you look at it, and you all may now congratulate yourselves for being right about me being a pompous idiot.

My post has provoked 40+ comments of discussion, much of it failing to highlight the actual contents of the post in question but rather the wordy way in which I presented it. I see that as a vindication of my statements about the anti-intellectualism rampant here. Why hate Chomsky when Limbaugh/Savage/Hannity/Coulter etc. are much more valid targets? Could it be that a *political ideology* is preventing you from doing so? Are you simply being contrarian?

I'm to believe that the terminology I used was too complex to appeal to the "common man" (DNB), although it was "flawed" and "didn't take much time to understand" (josh). I didn't "say it so everyone gets it" (rosen), and I need to "talk normal" (DNB again), however my comments were somehow redundant and complex for the sake of complexity. Different levels of comprehension, different interpretations of my intent, but not one reasonable counterargument.

Why, then, did some of you take so much time out to criticize the aesthetic structure of my statement rather than simply pointing out what was wrong with it in the first place? Or any of my responses, for that matter? I offered a valid analysis, and you got off criticizing the boring, brown paper bag it was wrapped in.

Just standing up for what I believe in,
- Big Nate (?)

Oh, easy answers to easy questions: because I started out vaguely interested in what you had to say and then quickly grew bored with, well, the "brown paper bag it was wrapped in" as well as the content of the bag. And then I turned my boredom into superficial criticism, which was fun for a bit, but now I refer you to point three of just me's last post: Zzzzzzzzz.

I'm not an intellectual, but sometimes it's fun to pretend. I generally leave the thinking to the smart folks, but I really needed to get something off of my chest. I'll bypass all of the jibber-jabber about Objectionable Reality (shoot, even an unemployed moron knows that Reality is Objectionable) and cut to something else.

BIQ, here's something that's wrong with what you wrote. You attacked (yes ATTACKED) Dr. Frank, based on the lyrics of a (single) song and a handful of posts that he's made on his blog. You don't read the thing regularly (is this right? Didn't you tell us that your friend directed you to it), but you somehow decided that you needed to come up with something snarky to say about it.

Let me tell you how I've read the blog, over the course of the last few years. I find Dr. Frank to be pretty even-handed, actually. He gives reasoned and reasonable opinions their due. I've never once read something like "Mad props to my big homie Rush Limbaugh. Word, Rush. Megadittos!" Nope. Not once.

The sense that I get is that his reaction to "liberals" is one based on his own experience growing up in the SF/Bay Area, his experience going to Cal and living in the East Bay presently. If you're familiar with any of these things, then you'd know that the "chimerical contingent of liberals" that you allude to is alive and well and breathing its fire all over the telephone polls and airwaves of the Bay Area. In fact, the chimera blocked up the streets of the San Francisco Civic Center last Saturday.

I've lived in Berkeley for most of my life, and the sense of PCiety here is palpable. It's stifling, as a matter of fact. There was an article today in the paper about how some parents who send their children to Jefferson Elementary School are offended because the school's namesake was a slaveowner. Do you think that it's worth it for anyone who opposes changing the school's name to say something? No. The lefty groupthink will paint those in opposition as racists. Am I making this up? Nope. That's how the Berkeley Chimera works.

Check this out, BIQ, I took a look at your blog, just to see what else you had to say about other stuff. I got a kick out of your description of the "Ghetto Thug" outside of your kitchen window. I was engrossed, actually. Too bad you didn't have a tape recorder. Guess what, though. In Berkeley, and in other parts of the Bay Area, you'd be branded as a bigot, because you *assume* that the guy is a "Ghetto Thug." Why did you assume that, because he's Mexican? Because he doesn't use ten dollar words? Why, BIQ? I ask that semi-rhetorically, but you know what, that's the line of questioning that you'd get from a Berkeley Lefty. They're out there, in their Volvos (yeah, I said VOLVOS!) with their Kerry bumper stickers, and their "Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Meat" bumper stickers. (Actually, one of my favorites is a Palestinian Flag with "Hookas, Not Bazookas" written on it.)

BIQ, Here's something fun you can do. Tune in KPFK where you live. I'll do the same up here, with KPFA (Sometimes I *want* an alternate viewpoint, and I'll do this just for fun, anyhow). Tell me that the shit coming through the speaker isn't predictible lefty programspeak. Yeah, it is, just as surely as the shit that Rush Limbaugh spews is Right-wing blowhard programspeak. The veiwpoints on Pacifica Radio are so predictible, as a matter of fact, that they are no longer "alternative". They're just lefty program speak. You see, this is the sort of thing that I think Dr. Frank points out from time to time. It's not that he thrashes the left because he was brought up in right-wing sheep-ranch Wyoming. He thrashes the left because he sees staunch lefty dogma as no better than staunch right-wing dogma. He was rasied in the thick of that dogma, and I think he knows what he's talking about. This is what I think you miss.

BTW, how many hit points does a Chimera have?

I've kept it short and will continue to keep it that way. Nate, the fact that you have a large vocabulary and are able to use a thesaurus means nothing. You can easily see by the many post here, that we can do the same. The point is simple. You come accross as a Frasier or Niles Crane wannabe, you attacked a semi-celebrity, you've done nothing to defend yourself other than write useless dribble. We all can read and comrehend your posts but they're exhausting to read and frankly I get bored about half way through the first paragraph and stop. You asked for our opinion and there is mine. Now, keep your opinions for somebody who cares, especially when it's critiquing somebody else's opinions. (* bows and leaves the podium *)

Sheckie: All things considered, I wouldn't classify my commentary as an "attack". There were some simple observations I felt needed to be expounded upon, but I had read a good selection of recent entries before formulating an opinion on the subject. Doktor Frank and I have also traded correspondence over the past day or so, and our exchange has reinforced something that I already assumed: he's an intelligent, personable man with which I have some minor passing disagreements. I have never claimed otherwise.

The notion of "even-handedness" in political commentary is a dubious one. My belief, as I have pointed out to Mr. Doktor (?), is that there is a distinction between "apolitical thought" and "well-informed independent thought". Whereas the former tends towards skepticism, the latter is swayed in unnoticable ways by the polemical biases in popular forms of news-media, namely the "independent press" which are often beholden to some very dependent corporate interests (which are, in turn, beholden to a right-wing power structure which supports them).

On a lighter note, my assumptions about the "ghetto thug" are based on the fact that he's our neighbor, and he has used those terms to refer to himself on numerous occasions. You are correct about the castigation my blog would receive from some of the more anally-retentive components of the left, but your extended point served only to reaffirm your belief in Doktor Frank's subjective, localized political purview than to confront my criticism of it.

P.C. exists, and I agree that it can be annoying and counter-productive - to a degree. However, when put in direct context with the current trends of religious fundamentalism, nationalism and right-wing extremism, it simply pales in comparison. At least to me it does.

We have already discussed this matter and have come to conclude that general consensus on this site dictates that liberals are simply more fun to poke with a crooked stick, since they are most likely to churn with righteous indignation and type up labored letters-to-the-editor. From that perspective, one's independent thought has fallen victim to one's polemical leanings, and it becomes an Ivory Tower of its own. I find myself having to reiterate this point, although it was highlighted in my original writing on the subject.

I am a KPFK listener, Sheckie, and I contribute to the station regularly. Their programming is so much more socially and politically aware than our local right-wing radio affiliates that, when I stumbled upon the station for the first time, I was startled at the sheer wealth of actual issues discussed. Personally, I don't hear the consistency of "predictible lefty program speak" that you hear. They offer a variety of programming - the political content of which is unavailable on many stations. Perhaps you're tuning in at an hour inopportune for your personal political leanings.

The Chimera has 240 HP. How many hit points does the Cockatrice have?

Zaphod: Accessibility does not dictate validity. I could have shortened my original criticism to a few points, gaining readership but losing the precision of what I was attempting to say in the process, but that would be nothing more than an exercise in soundbyte politics and rhetoric.

"Now, keep your opinions for somebody who cares, especially when it's critiquing somebody else's opinions." - You

Firstly, I am defending my critique. Secondly, ah... nevermind.

"swayed in unnoticable ways by the polemical biases"
Well you noticed them you amazing genius!

"but your extended point served only to reaffirm your belief in Doktor Frank's subjective, localized political purview"
Or maybe he was referring only to a specific, localized group of people. Golly!

"P.C. exists, and I agree that it can be annoying and counter-productive - to a degree. However, when put in direct context with the current trends of religious fundamentalism, nationalism and right-wing extremism, it simply pales in comparison. At least to me it does."
So what?
'The crust on the pizza was too thick.'
'Yeah, but the holocaust, now that was really bad.'
'You're right, I shouldn't have said anything.'

"From that perspective, one's independent thought has fallen victim to one's polemical leanings, and it becomes an Ivory Tower of its own."
[Fragment]. It must be that I have "fallen victim to [my] own polemic leanings" if I think that you're a condescending douche-bag?

"the precision of what I was attempting to say in the process, but that would be nothing more than an exercise in soundbyte politics and rhetoric"

Do you really think that that arguments in your critique were expressed with precision? Reread your three-sentence proof the lack of existance of object reality. I'm sure Aristotle would throw his hands up and shout he's done it. All of the worlds physicists have up and quit because now they realize that they have been trying to understand someting that doesn't exist.

If you had just presented some mediocre arguments it wouldn't be interesting. It's not anti-intellectualism. It's anti-people-who-write-things-like-this: "Firstly, I am defending my critique. Secondly, ah... nevermind." Man, you are a condescending ass. Okay, now I'm done.

I don't understand why everyone is throwing a shit-fit over this guy's writing style. Let's be realistic, he's probably smarter than most of us. So what? Get over it, stop crying and insulting him because he "sounds like he is trying to sound smart" - I mean, we went to HIS blog and read HIS thoughts. He didn't come here and start shitting in the bed.

I don't want to pile on here, Nathan, but really: what is your thesis, exactly? As near as I can figure, you are irritated that I am not amused or outraged by precisely the same stuff that amuses or outrages you. And you believe the explanation for this puzzling situation must lie in my own complex of "character flaws." I'm not saying I don't have character flaws. But, in my opinion, the fact that I enjoy skewering the occasional entrenched Bay Area piety or sacred cow is not one of them. At worst, it is merely an attempt to wring an extra dribble of fun or joy out of the wretched dishrag of contemporary culture. Is that so wrong?

Anyway, your results appear to vary, and it takes all kinds to make a world. But, honestly, I'm not sure the argument you are defending is quite as rigorous and cogent as you think it is. And I don't think that is solely because I'm not sophisticated enough to grasp your analytical methods.

As for my being a narcissist: as a great man once said, it there were a figure from Greek mythology with whom I'd most closely identify, it wouldn't be Narcissus. It would be Zeus.

Finally, maybe you could help me out with this question: if there's no such thing as objective reality, why *can't* we quit our jobs and just imagine we won't have to pay the rent?

Dr. Frank, I sing the answer to that question in my car whenever I play 8 little songs. The answer, in sing song, said quickly before the refrain ends, is "because we don't object to subjecting ourselves to the reality of the man."

I tried reading this guy's comments but it was as if he was being paid by the long-winded word. Dr. Frank's blog is great. Keep up the good work.

I have a lot I should be doing, so I'll make this quick.

Dr. Frank: No "piling on", just honest questions. If you read the body of my post - that means the eleven paragraphs that were written before a mention of your name even appeared - I was hashing out my own political beliefs, using common terms of philosophy to do so. I make the transition:

"Schoolchildren laugh at and alienate others based on relative distinctions such as 'ugliness' or 'stupidity' - and such responses cascade into exponents when experienced in the midst of others who share the same prejudices. It seems a necessity of the human condition for people to voluntarily classify themselves and others, and create hierarchies based on those distinctions." - Me

That is a key point - maybe not a particularly new one, but one I tend to believe in. I noticed some of those peculiarities with regards to the "sacred cow skewering" on this blog, and proceeded to comment upon it.

We can't both be Zeus, Frank!

And, as for the question of objective reality - and I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but I'm going to have to start "blowing wind" for this one. It seems to me that people are players within the circumstances they create, and the power structures they build over time. No God created rent laws, and no God enforces them: just hot "man" on "man" action which, unfortunately, makes life pretty subjective - at least culturally speaking.

The idea of objective reality being justified by a "killer argument" is just about as silly as me thinking that notions of it can be dispelled in a single blog post.

"No God created rent laws, and no God enforces them: just hot "man" on "man" action which, unfortunately, makes life pretty subjective - at least culturally speaking"

I wish I could make you understand what Woody Allen meant.

i love big nate's vague references to "a lot (he) should be doing." if that is the case, then i stand in silent wonder at big nate's ability to crank out reams and reams of humorless, earnest, over-worded (though calm, in a superior way) rebuttals. dude must be the intermural typing champ at his school. hats off to big nate!

and yes, i am sorry, but i have to remained chained to my earlier point. call this petty and small, but after all, i do make my living through reading and writing -- i haven't been able to get completely through any of big nate's posts because i keep nodding off.

zzzzz. indeed.

yes, yes, access to a large (if ineffective) vocab offers a thick, barry bonds-like protective shell, but what good is the message if the messenger is purposely cloudy?

frank, i've got to say, ten years as a fan/journalist and i am still impressed.

lefty

So much for Barry Bonds protective shell...

Ponders Doktor Frank as tragic hero. I forgot all about those "character flaws" from the original post. That cracked me up.

frank, seriously, think about it. some people dont have to work and dont have to pay rent. rich people. i think objective reality, in his sense of the chair argument, would dictate everyone was in the same working/paying rent situation.

hey nate, put that in your purse and swing it over your shoulder.

Rosen: It may interest you (or immediately put you into a coma from sheer boredom) to know that, when I said that I had "a lot I should be doing", it was not intended to be a pompous rejoinder but rather the truth. I was supposed to be studying for a test.

You used your personal prejudices about the typical thesaurus-toting liberal academic to draw assumptions from there. And just to add another unnecessary fact to the pot: I didn't use a thesaurus once (although I did use dictionary.com to check my spelling, if any of this matters more than the points I made) while making my original post, but you may believe whatever you wish. Some of you may consider my last statement to be back-pattery or self-congratulation - I would contend that it would be missing the point altogether. Again, this precisely the type of thinking I was criticizing in the first place.

Christopher: We all make judgments based on our own immediate personal experience, and prioritize them based on the prejudices we form over time. Doktor Frank's Berkely-itis is his reality, and his circumstances have led him to criticism of certain forms of liberal thought. In response, I claim those forms are "chimerical", although it would be more accurate to say that they are "not existent to the extent that have a pressing demand to be commented upon." Kind of like the notion of the "welfare queen". Again, make of it what you will.

Just so people know, it was never my intention to piss on anyone's parade, or to manifest myself here as some sort of self-proclaimed "intellectual thought-police". I did nothing more than post my opinion on my personal blog, and Doktor Frank took the initiative to pick up on it - giving me the motivation to defend my critique, and reassess my argument if need be.

HUH? Please talk down to me, not only am I stupid I am also a pothead. I have no idea how the paragraph addressed to me relates to anything I said, please do it again but this time with words containing three or less syllables. thanks.

big nate --

"studying for a test." that is very revealing. but who said anything about thesaurus-toting academians? everyone in the ivory tower knows that the thesaurus is strictly amateur night. again, my hat is off to you, big nate, for storing all of those overwhelming, exclusive words in your massive dome. as for the "liberal" blast, take a look at how i sign these posts.

sorry, kid, but you're not an academic until you've got that sheepskin right there in your grimy little hands. trust me. i've got one.

please, please tell me you're not an english major. lord help us if you are.

lefty

Rosen/Fellow Lefty: I didn't know that being an English major excluded those who were capable of expressing themselves with an extended vocabulary.

If you take issue with any *specific* things I've said, or the way I've said them, then please bring them up - preferably in a private e-mail to magicalspork@gmail.com. Your unfairly condescending manner ("kid"?) doesn't help your point along any.

Christopher: Everyone's reality is a subjective one. That's all.

We can't both be Zeus, Frank!

I must say that if only one of you get's to be Zeus, I'm going to have to choose Dr. Frank.

Though I do find it humorous that between the two of you, he's seems the most human. He has a degree in English, he could write at levels far beyond most of his audience, but he doesn't. He knows that this does not serve his purpose. He can blend his philosophical thoughts and stellar grammer into a readable, downright enjoyable composition. The "Blogger in Question", however, seems to fill no greater purpose than to glorify his own talent in his own eyes.

In short, Vote Dr. Frank for czar.

I thought Frank's degree was in History? Oh well, it's time for some low-brow fun: Nate, I fart in your general direction. That pretty much sums up how I feel about your posts.

Mr. Beeblebrox I may be wrong about his degree, but I think we're all very familar with his command over the English language.

Regardless of the Dr.'s degree, he's written and performed a ton of great songs that I enjoy regularly at high volume levels, and Nathan just comes up short on that score.

Well, I'm in total agreement with you about Frank's command over the English language, Manda. I also agree with Ian about Frank's body of quality work - and, honestly, the idea of someone named Zaphod farting in my general direction cracks me up.

Thanks for taking such an interest (or aggravated disinterest) in my LiveJournal, Doktor Frank fans, but it seems as though we must simply agree to disagree on this one.

I don't see how this discussion can descend any farther into absurdity than it already has. While it's been fun, I am officially bowing out from further comment on this thread.

Agree to disagree? About what? You mean all this had some kind of point? I thought we were just trying to get to 100 posts.

Mr. Blogger in Question,

What kind of intellectual would not know that Zaphod Beeblebrox is the name of the leader of the galaxy in Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker "triolgy"? A piss poor one, that's for damn sure.

I couldn't resist.

Manda: I am familiar with Zaphod, and I also realize that the number 42 is the meaning of "life, the universe and everything." I played the Infocom text adventure back in the old days, and I was excited to know that the BBC recently had a contest which involved making a graphic-based version of the game. I'm sure Zaphod already knew about that.

Hope that helps my "intellectual street-cred" a little!

Not a thing you could ever say or do would impress me. And I realize this isn't your goal, but I really do think I'm better than you, so you can go find someone else that might think you're impressive, and bore them.

Ooooooo! Just 25 more posts to go!

24, you mean.

23.

Manda: Wow. Sorry for the flat attempt at casual conversation. I was unaware that you took your sacred cows seriously enough to develop such a loathing for me (or is it my imagined ilk?).

"I really do think I'm better than you" - are you kidding? Is this third grade P.E.? Best of luck to you in your endeavors, but please try to be a little less abrasive towards those who mean you no ill will.

Nathan

22.

Look at all the time you are wasting here. You just posted twice after saying you were done posting. You could be spending this time evaluating www.buffalobeast.com instead of proving over and over again you are not a man of your word.

That's President of the Galaxy and don't forget the movie coming in oh, about a month from now. The game is to go along with the movie's release and hopefully won't be as terrible as the graphic version of Zork was. Time to get that little shit Marvin working on the improbabiliy drive. Toodles.

PS 21

I hope the movie is better than it looks. (Although what can you really tell from a trailer?) I'm afraid some of the humor might not transfer. (*cough..20...ahem*) Although I have to say, you're lookin pretty swell Mr. President.

Ah, good ol' text games. I actually have all the Zorks and Hitchhiker in running form on my Mac. I remember playing one called Forbidden Quest long about 1985 on my lil Mac 128k. Nerd, nerd, nerd, nerd....

There was eternity; no time. You're only new ephemerally.

Damn Mexican beer makes you count in the wrong direction. 18!

ZORK IN GRAPHIC FORM!?!?! WHAT!? WHEN!? please 'splain, meester! I only know of the video games.

17. I'll take this opportunity to point out that this is the third time I've gone against my word, and proven myself to be more interested in text adventures than I am in pursuing the original premise of this thread.

Anyhow, does anyone remember "Trinity" or "Nine Princes in Amber"? I'll shut up now.

Nathan

does anyone know where you can download zork?

christopher, is this what you're looking for?
http://www.infocom-if.org/downloads/downloads.html

what education of a recalcitrant pseudo-intellectual is complete without rpg gaming?

oh, and frank's degree is in history.

Thanks Kendra, that looks to be the place to get your Zork needs. I'm on some sort of regressive Junior High literature kick, reading all of the Dragonlance books I used to when I was a little nerd. Theyre still good as fuck! When life gets difficult I like to submerge myself into a little fantasy land where the men swing swords and the maidens have much bosom.

my guess is that this particular blogger in question honed his condescending rap while sitting butt-first in a trash can after being placed there by one or more of the (insert patronizing term for high school students who do not read sci-fi or have have pube moustaches) who tormented him throughout his (recent) adolescence.

zo-brah

The graphical zork game is probably about 10-12 years old now it was called "Beyond Zork" I believe. It was more or less one of those "you direct the movie" by picking a certain list of choices to direct what movie scene would be shown next. It was terrible. I'm sure you can google it and maybe even find a download.

12.

i downloaded it. it didn't prove to be the merry rump down nostologia lane i hoped it would be. i don't even know if i played it more than once or twice when i was a kid. there are other ways to rekindle the flames of your youth, though. tonight i think i'm dig out all of my old gi joe figures and eat them one by one.

11.

I preferred just putting Duke&Scarlett, Flint&Lady Jaye, Destro&Barronness into sexual positions, as opposed to eating them.

It's wholesome that you only put the couples who had a relationship in the cartoon into sexual positions with one another. imagine scarlett and destro doing a 69 with their little machine guns pointed in the air.... how taboo!

it sounds like a soap opera for little boys (usually).

my brother used to do things like that, but he was horrified if it was with a barbie and ken doll.

i'm still pissed at him for snapping off all the thumbs of his g.i. joes just to spite me. they couldn't hold their guns after that!

There was an episode of GI JOE in which Destro uses a secret mystical chant to get some sea monster to do his bidding. Apparently, there was a subliminal message in the chant and if you go to the link below you can hear it quite clearly. First play it normal, than in reverse.

http://www.yojoe.com/television/dmessage.shtml

That was funny, Chris. A Real Dweeb. Hahahahahaha.
5

Speaking of G.I. Joe...I knew a little girl who's first word was "Ho!" from watching Thundercats. Really.

4

(We should be all 'punk' and stop at 99.)

That's terrible, being a ho at such an early age. Anyway, I think "Punk" is more 101 than 99.
3

i doubt it's really "punk rawk" to count like this.
2

AND THE PRESSURE IS ON! WHOEVER TAKES 100 BETTER MAKE IT A DOOZY!

1

personally i'm not trying to be any kind of punk,i thought we were just celebrating mediocrity. 0!!!! Whee!!

And because I suck.... and claimed that Punk is 101...... naw really, Punk is so passe... I've moved on in my old age. MTX's music has progressed passed being labeled as "punk" too. Can we quit calling it Punk, now? How about being "REALLY COOL" and saying that we feel it is too good to be brought down and categorized by placing a label on it?

-1

Yeah, I was being saracastic about the whole punk thing, but hey, what's more punk than celebrating mediocrity? -2 What if we never let this particular thread die? hmmmmm...

On second thought let's drive a stake through its heart.