A&A Feedback

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You made specific claims against this section of this site. You have not backed them up. It's common practice to continue to request back up of a claim or withdrawal.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dades

Cabaal wrote: »

am more then happy to move on,
however, it still leaves the claim of bias in the A&A forum, there's been no evidence to support this provided so surely any such claims should be retracted?

It's an opinion, afaic. And also Feedback.

I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by demanding apologies and retractions. The posts and counter-claims are there for anyone to make up their own minds as to their veracity.

Mods, CMods and Admins get accused of this stuff all the time. The evidence or lack of is usually allowed to speak for itself.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As earlier, while you no doubt sincerely believe that you have nothing to retract, I'm afraid that here in A+A, you've made a claim you're unwilling to substantiate - even via the simple route of requesting it in the feedback forum which is open to you. In such a case, your claim has been retracted for you.

This topic is now closed in A+A.

Thanking youze and have a good weekend, all.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

We can, as can you, make that suggestion. However we cannot enforce it until we're convinced a poster is not contributing in a constructive way to the thread. Same goes for people who read whatever the subject matter is. Constructive contributions are all that matters. Mud slinging can happen for any number of reasons. We take a hands-off approach to enforcing anything. Let the discussion develop whatever way it does and unless it seems overly problematic we don't step in.

robindch

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If the books concerned were concise and to the point and were worth reading in the first place, I'm sure that everybody would be recommending to everybody to read them. As it is with Rand, she reminds me of nothing so much as the earnest Reverend Dr Nares who was mauled by Macaulay in a splendidly brutal review. And 150 pages -- hell, ten pages -- is quite enough to get a sense of how worthwhile the rest is. No more is needed.

Anyhow, the Ayn Rand thread is here if you care to ruminate any more on her, or her prodigious output.

Macaulay's takedown of Nares' Burleigh And His Times is here, and even just the first page or so is worth a few minutes of anybody's time:

Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote:

Memoirs of the Life and Administration of the Right Honourable William Cecil Lord Burghley, Secretary of State in the Reign of King Edward the Sixth, and Lord High Treasurer, of England in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth. Containing an historical View of the Times in which he lived, and of the many eminent and illustrious Persons with whom he was connected; with Extracts from his Private and Official Correspondence and other Papers, now first published from the Originals. By the Reverend EDWARD NARES, D.D., Regius Professor of Modern History in the University of Oxford. 3 vols. 4to. London: 1828, 1832.

THE work of Dr. Nares has filled us with astonishment similar to that which Captain Lemuel Gulliver felt when first he landed in Brobdingnag, and saw corn as high as the oaks in the New Forest, thimbles as large as buckets, and wrens of the bulk of turkeys. The whole book, and every component part of it, is on a gigantic scale. The title is as long as an ordinary preface: the prefatory matter would furnish out an ordinary book; and the book contains as much reading as an ordinary library. We cannot sum up the merits of the stupendous mass of paper which lies before us better than by saying that it consists of about two thousand closely printed quarto pages, that it occupies fifteen hundred inches cubic measure, and that it weighs sixty pounds avoirdupois. Such a book might, before the deluge, have been considered as light reading by Hilpa and Shallum. But unhappily the life of man is now three-score years and ten; and we cannot but think it somewhat unfair in Dr. Nares to demand from us so large a portion of so short an existence.

Compared with the labour of reading through these volumes, all other labour, the labour of thieves on the treadmill, of children in factories, of negroes in sugar plantations, is an agreeable recreation. There was, it is said, a criminal in Italy, who was suffered to make his choice between Guicciardini and the galleys. He chose the history. But the war of Pisa was too much for him. He changed his mind, and went to the oar. Guicciardini, though certainly not the most amusing of writers, is a Herodotus or a Froissart, when compared with Dr. Nares, It is not merely in bulk, but in specific gravity also, that these memoirs exceed all other human compositions. On every subject which the Professor discusses, he produces three times as many pages as another man; and one of his pages is as tedious as another man's three. His book is swelled to its vast dimensions by endless repetitions, by episodes which have nothing to do with the main action, by quotations from books which are in every circulating library, and by reflections which, when they happen to be just, are so obvious that they must necessarily occur to the mind of every reader. He employs more words in expounding and defending a truism than any other writer would employ in supporting a paradox. Of the rules of historical perspective, he has not the faintest notion. There is neither foreground nor background in his delineation. The wars of Charles the Fifth in Germany are detailed at almost as much length as in Robertson's life of that prince. The troubles of Scotland are related as fully as in M'Crie's Life of John Knox. It would be most unjust to deny that Dr. Nares is a man of great industry and research; but he is so utterly incompetent to, arrange the materials which he has collected that he might as well have left them in their original repositories.

Neither the facts which Dr. Nares has discovered, nor the arguments which he urges, will, we apprehend, materially alter the opinion generally entertained by judicious readers of history concerning his hero. Lord Burleigh can hardly be called a great man.

[...]

We had intended to say something concerning the dexterous Walsingham, the impetuous Oxford, the graceful Sackville, the all-accomplished Sydney; concerning Essex, the ornament of the court and of the camp, the model of chivalry, the munificent patron of genius, whom great virtues, great courage, great talents, the favour of his sovereign, the love of his countrymen, all that seemed to ensure a happy and glorious life, led to an early and an ignominious death, concerning Raleigh, the soldier, the sailor, the scholar, the courtier, the orator, the poet, the historian, the philosopher, whom we picture to ourselves, sometimes reviewing the Queen's guard, sometimes giving chase to a Spanish galleon, then answering the chiefs of the country party in the House of Commons, then again murmuring one of his sweet love-songs too near the ears of her Highness's maids of honour, and soon after poring over the Talmud, or collating Polybius with Livy. We had intended also to say something concerning the literature of that splendid period, and especially concerning those two incomparable men, the Prince of Poets, and the Prince of Philosophers, who have made the Elizabethan age a more glorious and important era in the history of the human mind than the age of Pericles, of Augustus, or of Leo. But subjects so vast require a space far larger than we can at present afford. We therefore stop here, fearing that, if we proceed, our article may swell to a bulk exceeding that of all other reviews, as much as Dr. Nares's book exceeds the bulk of all other histories.

Turtwig

*Whispers*

Rob, this thread ain't about Rand's literary style.

Turtwig

Regarding that Rand thread, it's a mess. Me thinks it's be better to start a new one.

Boy! Isn't Ayn Rand a popular figure word count wise here of late?

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Macaulay's takedown of Nares' Burleigh And His Times is here, and even just the first page or so is worth a few minutes of anybody's time:

Excellent! All of us who have read his letters (in MS form not compulsory), studied his policies and have generally 'read the books' are going to discuss the historiography of William Cecil.

...anyone there?

Jeeze...there must be some one beside me...



hello?

I feel so lonely now.

Ummmm...anyone else seen Burleigh's tomb in Westminster Abbey??

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Excellent! All of us who have read his letters (in MS form not compulsory), studied his policies and have generally 'read the books' are going to discuss the historiography of William Cecil.

...anyone there?

Jeeze...there must be some one beside me...



hello?

I feel so lonely now.

Ummmm...anyone else seen Burleigh's tomb in Westminster Abbey??

Your loneliness has nothing do with your knowledge of William Cecil and everything to do with Cork. There I said it. At least, now you know. Go be alone!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Meh...Rand is in the half penny place compared to the number of times Jesus is mentioned so following that logic Christianity's take over is well under way.

Dunno which is worse tbh....


:pac:

Turtwig

Sorry but do you not see the rainbows? The Gay Agenda has clearly taken over.

Bannasidhe

Turtwig wrote: »

Your loneliness has nothing do with your knowledge of William Cecil and everything to do with Cork. There I said it. At least, now you know. Go be alone!

ANTI-CORK BIAS BOI!

:mad:

robindch

Turtwig wrote: »

Rob, this thread ain't about Rand's literary style.

It couldn't be.

She has none.

Turtwig

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I like to think it's the land of chocolate. You know, from the systems, I mean, Simpsons.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ANTI-CORK BIAS BOI!

:mad:

Too feckin roite!

robindch

Turtwig wrote: »

Regarding that Rand thread, it's a mess. Me thinks it's be better to start a new one.

A bit like biologists discovering a new "intermediate" species and certain individuals claiming that there are now *two* gaps in the fossil record, I can't help but wonder whether opening a new thread "devoted" to Rand will simply encourage certain elements to believe that there's twice as much prejudice as there used to be.

That's my $.02

Bannasidhe

Turtwig wrote: »

Sorry but do you not see the rainbows? The Gay Agenda has clearly taken over.

*Uses the Gay Gaze to view the site*

Have you seen the state of this place??? It's unfabulous. :eek:

Turtwig

Fecking dollars.

My €.02 is that if someone wishes to create a thread discussing Rand, or whatever, they can. We shouldn't create anything and that dustbowl of a mess of a thread should be left as deep underground as possible.

Speaking of Dustbowl, I must play TF2 again sometime.

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

*Uses the Gay Gaze to view the site*

Have you seen the state of this place??? It's unfabulous. :eek:

That's cos all the fabulous people are over here and you're clearly not among those fabulous people. Corkmonster.

Bannasidhe

Turtwig wrote: »

That's cos all the fabulous people are over here and you're clearly not among those fabulous people. Corkmonster.

You mean over there in that cloud of Lynx?

Oh Myyyy...is that shirt polyester?


*shudder*

Turtwig

100% Cotton.

Dades

I think I preferred this thread when all the mods were guilty of stuff.

PopePalpatine

Sorry for dragging this up:

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

When I see the term "social autism" describe someone, the writer probably thinks that person is lacking in empathy. I've only read brief synopses of Rand's work, but it seems that this belief that an unregulated market is best for humanity doesn't seem to be the case.

GreeBo

FYI thread created in general Feedback before I knew about this.
here

Hotblack Desiato

Really have had enough with J C's free reign to troll the s**t out of the forum. The last straw being '... and the people of faith working at the highest levels within science today, who have scientifically proven that God exists' what utter worthless bilge.

Post reported, but no action taken, or expected. This is trolling of the worst kind. Posting complete utter nonsense with the intention to provoke.