Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

crebain

Expand Messages
  • John D Rateliff
    Crebain are the evil crows that spy upon the Fellowship as they make their way through Eregion. Cf. The Ring Goes South (LotR Bk II Chapter III).
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "Crebain" are the evil crows that spy upon the Fellowship as they
      make their way through Eregion. Cf. "The Ring Goes South" (LotR Bk II
      Chapter III).


      On Jun 29, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Walter Padgett wrote:

      > What's Crebain?
    • David Bratman
      ... I suggest you look in the mirror when you say that. Such a claim is only in your imagination. I am offering not castigations, but guidance for the future.
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        At 10:35 AM 6/29/2006 -0400, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

        >You've elevated a silent, unconscious, and completely reasonable
        >instinct to the level of a conscious and deliberate determination,

        I suggest you look in the mirror when you say that. Such a claim is only
        in your imagination.

        I am offering not castigations, but guidance for the future. If people
        didn't know before now that what appears on the home page of USA Today is
        not automatically known to the entire world the same morning, well then,
        they know it now. Perhaps they will take this into consideration. Or,
        perhaps, they will prefer to write indignant posts full of words in
        all-caps. Their choice.

        My wife informs me that the news appeared in the gossip column of our local
        paper. Which I skim over if I read it at all, as I have no interest in the
        doings of overhyped movie stars like Brad and Janet (or whatever their
        names are) who are the normal fare of gossip columns.

        It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's gossip
        columns were expected of members of a society founded to honor two men
        whose unworldliness was such that one of them had never heard of Ava
        Gardner even when personally introduced to her, and the other thought Tito
        was the King of Greece.

        Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth replying to.

        DB
      • David Bratman
        ... No, don t _tell_ him! Um, Crebain are the evil biscuits from the Lonely Mountain that the Fellowship ate on their journey, and that caused Boromir to go
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          At 03:29 PM 6/29/2006 -0700, John D Rateliff wrote:

          >"Crebain" are the evil crows that spy upon the Fellowship as they
          >make their way through Eregion. Cf. "The Ring Goes South" (LotR Bk II
          >Chapter III).

          No, don't _tell_ him!

          Um, "Crebain" are the evil biscuits from the Lonely Mountain that the
          Fellowship ate on their journey, and that caused Boromir to go all wormy
          and Ring-lusty.

          DB
        • Walkermonk@aol.com
          Wow. The same man who wrote, Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth replying to. also wrote, Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the
          Message 4 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Wow.

            The same man who wrote, "Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth
            replying to." also wrote, "Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the
            future, or perhaps they
            will sit secure in the confidence that what they see, everybody sees. The
            Fellowship would never have snuck the Ring past Sauron if they thought he
            grasped everything that they did."

            Somehow posting a note about a well-publicized interview on a book not yet
            finished is become worth comparing to the struggles of the Fellowship of the
            Ring. Ouucchhh. My brain just will not go into that shape!


            I haven't giggled this much while reading email in, well, weeks. Thanks for
            the fun!

            Grace Walker Monk






            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • David Bratman
            ... If the implication is that I expected that the absurdity of the arguments should be self-evident, that is mistaken. The statement was only to say that I
            Message 5 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              At 11:30 PM 6/29/2006 -0400, Walkermonk@... wrote:

              >The same man who wrote, "Your other arguments are too absurd to be worth
              >replying to." also wrote, "Perhaps people will note this inadequacy in the
              >future, or perhaps they
              >will sit secure in the confidence that what they see, everybody sees. The
              >Fellowship would never have snuck the Ring past Sauron if they thought he
              >grasped everything that they did."

              If the implication is that I expected that the absurdity of the arguments
              should be self-evident, that is mistaken. The statement was only to say
              that I acknowledged reading the arguments, but found them not worth
              replying to.


              >Somehow posting a note about a well-publicized interview on a book not yet
              >finished is become worth comparing to the struggles of the Fellowship of the
              >Ring. Ouucchhh. My brain just will not go into that shape!

              In the Mythopoeic Society that I belong to, people make comparisons to
              events in The Lord of the Rings all the time. Ask Mike Foster, for
              instance, who wrote a quite sober scholarly paper comparing the Hobbits to
              the Beatles.


              >I haven't giggled this much while reading email in, well, weeks. Thanks for
              >the fun!

              You are more easily amused than I thought.

              DB
            • Carl F. Hostetter
              ... I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you look up the definition of straw man . NO ONE has suggested anything like this about
              Message 6 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                > If people didn't know before now that what appears on the home page
                > of USA Today is not automatically known to the entire world the
                > same morning, well then, they know it now.
                I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you
                look up the definition of "straw man". NO ONE has suggested anything
                like this about "USA Today" or any other single news outlet. You
                might find things less _absurdam_ if you didn't employ such straw-man
                _reductio_.

                I expect that USA Today carried news of the Sept. 11 attacks: does
                that mean that no one can be expected to have learned of it? Yet,
                alas, this is precisely the force of your "argument" here. The fact
                is, Pat referred to the story being mentioned in a WIDE VARIETY of
                major news sources, as shown by a simple Google search, (only) ONE of
                which happened to be USA Today. YOU now prefer to act as though that
                is the only one Pat mentioned.
                > It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's
                > gossip columns were expected of members
                Again, you cut quite a figure of straw. No one has suggested any such
                absurd notion; nor was the news of Rowling's statements confined
                either to the gossip columns or to USA Today, as you would have it.

                Condescend much?
              • David Bratman
                ... Actually, I think someone did. See below. ... No it is not. Here we see Carl F. Hostetter completely failing to grasp the difference between [see my
                Message 7 of 24 , Jun 29, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 12:38 AM 6/30/2006 -0400, Carl F. Hostetter wrote:

                  >On Jun 29, 2006, at 10:59 PM, David Bratman wrote:
                  >> If people didn't know before now that what appears on the home page
                  >> of USA Today is not automatically known to the entire world the
                  >> same morning, well then, they know it now.
                  >I suggest that while you are urging others to look in a mirror, you
                  >look up the definition of "straw man". NO ONE has suggested anything
                  >like this about "USA Today" or any other single news outlet.

                  Actually, I think someone did. See below.

                  >I expect that USA Today carried news of the Sept. 11 attacks: does
                  >that mean that no one can be expected to have learned of it? Yet,
                  >alas, this is precisely the force of your "argument" here.

                  No it is not. Here we see Carl F. Hostetter completely failing to grasp
                  the difference between [see my quote above] "not automatically known" and
                  "automatically not known," the latter of which being what I'd have to have
                  written for his argument to have any validity. But I didn't. Some linguist.

                  We also have, perhaps with better excuse, his failing to remember that in
                  an earlier post I drew the precise distinction he's insisting on here. I
                  wrote: "it wasn't in big flashing headlines, so it was easily missed. This
                  was not exactly a news story on the level of, say, September 11th." You
                  couldn't read a newspaper the next day and fail to notice that one. You
                  could read one and fail to notice J.K. Rowling. There's a difference.

                  Also: if I understand the timing correctly, Pat posted on the same day that
                  he read the Rowling news. I'm not sure how early on that day, but by
                  comparison there were actually people in the world, not out in a desert or
                  on top of a mountain, who didn't hear about the September 11th attacks
                  until much later in the day. They might even have first heard about the
                  attacks by reading someone's e-mail. I heard about them in a telephone
                  call, not from a media news source at all. Only after the call, and
                  because of it, did I turn on the radio.


                  >The fact
                  >is, Pat referred to the story being mentioned in a WIDE VARIETY of
                  >major news sources, as shown by a simple Google search, (only) ONE of
                  >which happened to be USA Today.

                  Having deleted the old posts, I may be misremembering. But I recall Pat
                  saying that the home page of USA Today is where _he_ read about the Rowling
                  thing.

                  If he conducted that Google search of his before sending his first post on
                  the subject to the list, then I apologize. But I got the impression, when
                  he wrote of his search, that he had conducted it _after_ the complaint was
                  made, and did so for the purpose of defending his claim that the news was
                  wide-spread.

                  If these suppositions are correct, then it was the appearance of the news
                  in USA Today, and not the results of the Google search, that led Pat to
                  assume the news would be no spoiler. That is why I referred to USA Today.

                  In any case, if you see a news item on USA Today, you don't need a Google
                  search to reasonably conclude that it will be widespread elsewhere. All
                  the Google search provided was concrete evidence of that conclusion. It is
                  not wrong to make that conclusion, Google search or no Google search. But
                  that still makes it no less incorrect to conclude that everybody in your
                  readership will therefore have heard the news in the same day. That is the
                  point, and the whole point.


                  >> It would certainly be ironic if being au courant with the morning's
                  >> gossip columns were expected of members
                  >Again, you cut quite a figure of straw. No one has suggested any such
                  >absurd notion; nor was the news of Rowling's statements confined
                  >either to the gossip columns or to USA Today, as you would have it.

                  Again, no. Because the gossip column of my local paper is the place where
                  _I_ would have read about it, if I'd read about it at all. And I am one of
                  those who is being told that I should not have missed this story. Which
                  requires me to have read the gossip column, since I didn't see the thing on
                  any web searching I did that day either.

                  Even if you disallow that, the general point is still relevant. The men
                  who did not know Ava Gardner or Tito were not the type to be checking daily
                  newspapers every morning for the hot feature news items. And this is a
                  feature story. It's not September 11th. You seem to have trouble grasping
                  the difference.

                  DB
                • Carl F. Hostetter
                  ... I stumbled across at least three stories about Rowling s spoilers yesterday on my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today homepage . THREE.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Jun 30, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Jun 30, 2006, at 2:44 AM, David Bratman wrote:

                    > Having deleted the old posts, I may be misremembering. But I recall
                    > Pat saying that the home page of USA Today is where _he_ read about
                    > the Rowling thing.

                    "I stumbled across at least three stories about Rowling's "spoilers"
                    yesterday on my personal Yahoo! page (AP and Reuters) and USA Today
                    homepage".

                    THREE. Including AP and Reuters.

                    > Again, no. Because the gossip column of my local paper is the place
                    > where _I_ would have read about it, if I'd read about it at all.
                    > And I am one of those who is being told that I should not have
                    > missed this story. Which requires me to have read the gossip
                    > column, since I didn't see the thing on any web searching I did
                    > that day either.

                    So is everyone now required to poll YOU before we decide to comment
                    upon a news item or any other piece of information?

                    I'd ask YOU to spend some time in front of the mirror today
                    reflecting on the fact that you've gone out of your way to publicly
                    insult at least three people on this list, at least two of whom count
                    you as a friend, all in order to establish that, despite it being
                    reported in all the major news outlets, YOU didn't read or hear a
                    news item concerning a wildly popular series of books, and that
                    therefore it was wrong for Pat to trust his instinct that most people
                    HAD already heard the news item, again despite it having appeared in
                    at least three major news outlets; all because Pat posted a
                    lighthearted comment concerning a POSSIBLE development in a series of
                    books that you've already stated you don't care about.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.