Briareos H on 9/3/2011 at 10:47

---

That would make a great album cover OB.

@Kolya
I agree but scientific articles won't help bad habits or bad parenting much.

By the way, I recently found out that the android app which is supposed to help you peer into your sleep cycles by recording movement, sounds and waking you up smoothly made my nights worse. Why? Because every time I'd go to bed I would unconsciously be worried about disconnecting the charger in my sleep and having the battery empty itself before the alarm is supposed to wake me up for work.

Indeed, all sorts of activities, thoughts and feelings - even unconscious processes - that happen just before sleep are extremely important for the quality of the rest. I'm not an advocate of new age meditation techniques (I'd take a 8km run followed by a hot bath over those anytime), but insomniac people should probably try such methods rather than watching TV or going to TTLG. Whatever helps them empty their mind.

Pardoner on 9/3/2011 at 19:23

---

But you've missed the point: the cynical reduction of scientific work ('eggheads') ignores the fact that the labor involved is often nothing grander than the enunciation in formal empirical frameworks of things we already claim to know, and divaish posturing (uh..duh?) only obscures the years of sweat, wrinkles, and genuine (yes) interest that produce an article like the one you dismissed with a single adverb.

Also, hey.

Pardoner on 10/3/2011 at 06:07

---

There is an extra 'i' in your spelling of 'explanation'. Or perhaps you meant expiation (just a small joke). In that case there are still extra letters.

Hallmark cards can be addressed to:

Pardoner's Insinuated Disability
N Garrison Keillor Drive
Palatable Pap Lane

Candygrams should be addressed directly to my mouth, because that is where I will be eating them. Alternately they can be addressed to "Pardoner's Emotional Dysfunctions and the Coping Strategies Required to Manage Them," in which case they will also reach my mouth.

P.S. I have pardoned someone before, but it was as a colloquial jest. You can ask twisty if you don't believe me.

Pardoner on 10/3/2011 at 23:14

---

My assumption after reflecting on both your post and Tocky's is that both of are you trying to articulate a fundamental insufficiency in your assumptions of my assumptions in the hope of precipitating an assisted dissection of myself and my purposes in posting (the assumed necessity of which I find boring and somewhat nauseating on all levels). I will try to provide an account that will satisfy your request (assumed request), without any fear of appearing self-indulgent, in the hope that clarifying my perceived assumptions about your assumptions about my assumptions will form a more ideal basis for future misrecognitions (and assumptions).

First, the idea of your reading my posts and summarizing them as intending to 'build a career' is so sober and laughably pompous that the fact that you can attribute such a notion to me is depressing in itself. I've written 290 posts in four years. That's nothing. And it's curious to me that I've attracted scrutiny, when those posters plainly interested in becoming fora persona have attracted comparatively little, even when they've engaged in actual ad hominems and then disingenuously disclaim them when called on their viciousness.

Second, to attribute to me the predilection for 'derogatory one-liners' or 'insane ad-hominems' speaks to your profound capacity for misapprehension at best, and at worst is a cynically designed strawman meant to arrogate yourself to a perceived position of reasonableness in which your judgement can be more easily taken at face value. Typically I post in a kind of extended run-on sentence (less typical in the last three months), saturated with caveats and parenthetical asides (yo), laden with frivolous navel-gazing, largely meant to comprehensively summarize my observations and reactions in scattered rambling fashion often creating a hyperbolic cavalcade of assertions associated in some way with the assumed logic of whatever is being documented, which nevertheless fails to be comprehensible, but is always successful in becoming as tedious and dreary as this contrived demonstration has been. Prominent among these dull (and derided) efforts have been attempts to critically enunciate just those inane, pejorative ostracizing attitudes (which you've claimed to be able to characterize) underlying for instance, the jubilant derogation of a perceived age of another poster or the insinuation of perceived reliance on anti-depressants by another poster, or the convenient deployment of a bullying dethtollism "read:get out" (however ironically it can be justified as), and even the hurtful caricaturing of other's mothers through the use of the second person in one episode (that has been justly forgotten). Not all my posts are even this thrilling. Some are just deliveries of facts or links presented as blankly and inarguably as an encyclopedia. And whatever you may think of the nine-words-or-less-one-liner and those that deploy it (Koki emulating ZylonBane fervidly, Pardoner emulating ZylonBane recently, Briareos H emulating ZylonBane ironically) and its chalk-eating kid brother (the-lower-case-assertion-meant-as-sarcasm-by-virtue-of-being-lower-case-and-therefore-innocuous-enough-to-engage-with-one-liner-sometimes-two-for-legibility's-sake), at least its conspicuous concision relieves just the kind of exhaustion you certainly must feel after having skimmed what I've just written.

I'm not sure if this anatomy has at all succeeded, but at least it has been demonstrative and nauseating. I guess I'll finish by engaging with some of your more substantive claims in your last post, and then nitpick in the interest of absolute clarity. You write that your agreement with my "also hey" post is 'obvious' (admittedly it's also framed broadly enough that there's not a lot to disagree with), but your response to my "basically" post treated it as less specific than it was, which is what prompted clarification. That said, I'm in agreement with your critique of the promotion of a perceived self-actualization, and I found your discussion of the merits of Kolya's article in your two previous posts much more enlightening than your initial response was (sincerely, not as an effort at a symmetry of contrition). I will close by observing that, in the future (and I'm sure you won't be sorry to read this, after having to have read this), I just won't be able to investigate the details of my posts and habits to this level of comprehensiveness with you, and that it will probably be easiest to gesture at a general diligence in the application of 'the benefit of the doubt' (expiation callback goes here).

Tocky on 11/3/2011 at 03:10

---

Really? I must be out of the loop on this one then because I found it bizzare and on edge. I only meant he is harsh and snide (though intelligent) and I thought he was getting less hard edged and yes, more caring (which you have to point out in a manly lookit you kind of way or you sound puss). I have no idea where any of the rest of this came from. I thought he knew he takes a lot of pot shots. Wow. That was scarey convoluted with knives flashing and foamy spit. He took a shot at my poetry FS and I POINTED OUT IN THAT THREAD I'M DR. SEUSS AND SLINGBLADE POET so I had already shot at myself. Most petty, so surely there is something I'm not understanding here. Like I said, out of the loop, so I'll bow out unless he wants to claim I'm backing down for some other reason.