Egotism or humbleness?

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

I hear there is plenty of talk against egotism, and seemingly there is everything to support humbleness as being the right course of action. However, was it not through egotism that pharaoh Ramses 2 was capable of building the great monuments in Egypt and later glorified as God? Is it not through the ego that man has successfully prevailed himself from the reasoning of animals?

On the other side, there is humbleness. The humble person puts others infront of himself, but what does he have left for him? A society full of humble people wouldn't progress and would have nothing. So what is it? Is it a little bit of both? An overly egotistical person would be seen as arrogant and in the long run succumb to extinction as he is the only one to propagate himself, a feat much better accomplished in numbers. An overly humble person would be seen as simply boring, with no character.

I appologize if this may seem like a redundant topic or one with no central point, but the ego fascinates me.

[pianistimo]

a good case study would be little richard's interview about james brown.  he starts out saying how he got james into the business (and even tells how he was a good cotton picker before that - though he did mention he was the true father of the blues, of rap, of soul).  i mean, he didn't have to go into that much detail of his life before fame.  but, what are friends for? 

ok.  as i see it - you have to be reliant on God for your ego.  otherwise you'll have the wrong one.  as i see it - God makes everyone equal - so from that standpoint - there's really nobody better than you either.  but, of course, we don't all go up to the president and have a showdown.

i think worth is sort of handed to you, too, from the way you are treated by parents and even spouse.  if you treat people nice - you'll likely be treated well yourself.  thus, having an intact ego - instead of one in tatters.  but, then -there's the issue of the children being spoiled and thinking too much of themselves,too.

but, in all this - God always has a hand.  i mean he says 'pride goes before a fall'  - and it usually happens that way.  i mean as soon as the cartoon character puts his/her nose in the air and walks off - they fall into the uncovered septic hole.

 

[jakev2.0]

I hope this thread is a joke.

[debussy symbolism]

I hope this thread is a joke.

Care to explore that a bit?

[jakev2.0]

I and other posters perceive your writing as pretentious.  A common reaction to such claims would be to address these criticisms by removing your head from the confines of your rectum, or to merely take the claims with a grain of sand and move on.  Your penchant for self-satire is beyond belief.

[prometheus]

Maybe so. But what about some self-reflection first?

[jakev2.0]

There's honest self-reflection, then there's wasting bandwidth.

[debussy symbolism]

I and other posters perceive your writing as pretentious.  A common reaction to such claims would be to address these criticisms by removing your head from the confines of your rectum, or to merely take the claims with a grain of sand and move on.  Your penchant for self-satire is beyond belief.

Can you point out to me just what exactly about my post here you find pretentious? A penchant for self-satire? Not exactly, as I merely express something by providing personal opinion and merely asking the opinion of others. If indeed I should propagate my character as pretentious, beleive me, I have better things to do than that.

[maul]

The busy schedule of dictionary diving must be a real chore.

[thalbergmad]

I and other posters perceive your writing as pretentious.  A common reaction to such claims would be to address these criticisms by removing your head from the confines of your rectum, or to merely take the claims with a grain of sand and move on.  Your penchant for self-satire is beyond belief.

Late entry for excellent put down of the year.

[debussy symbolism]

The busy schedule of dictionary diving must be a real chore.

I dictionary dive only when I encounter foreign words. My time isn't spent on dictionaries. My free time is spent on books. Concerning dictionaries, I often look up words that I know for a more precise definition.

[prometheus]

Just admit that you use a dictionary all the time. That way everyone can have a good night of sleep before the last day of the year.

Just get it over with. I have to use a dictionary all the time. But I cheat; I copy&paste a words into google.

[jakev2.0]

Well, when debussy symbolism brings in the Gods and the Pharaohs to justify his inconsequential views, people don't think he's being deep or insightful - they think he sounds like a confused Alexander Pope who is a few English classes short of coherency. 

...Don't try and think you're above this prometheus. You often write paragraphs and paragraphs of drivel in political debates that have no discernable connection to your position.

PEOPLE SHOULD BE AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS THEY CAN.

[prometheus]

Just dig up one of my posts and point out what you think is wrong with it. Then I will be able to explain it to you. Maybe then you will understand.


I am probably not the only one who thinks that your unfounded and not all too well polished opinions are annoying.

[jakev2.0]

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,19615.msg214870.html#msg214870
https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,19563.0.html

[prometheus]

Maybe you are confusing a refutation of your views with 'paragraphs and paragraphs of drivel' 'that have no discernable connection to your position.'


Maybe this explains why you never got any of my points.


I never tried to say that I never made long posts on politics. The reason that my posts on politics are longer is because politics is a lot and a lot more complex and less objective than science.


It is true that for some reason two people failed to make sense out of my posts. But others wondered why this was possible.

[jakev2.0]

I doubt Marian Rejewski would have taken the time to decipher your arguments.

[prometheus]

I have no idea why he or she is. But the fact is that most people in that topic seem to be able to follow them. And some, including Bernard, where suprised that you and Gilad somehow didn't manage, using the words 'drivel' over and over and refusing to address any of the points.

[jakev2.0]

I categorically refuted what I discerned to be the main points of your argument. You didn't respond to anything I wrote. See for yourself!

[prometheus]

No, you just showed that you are part of the conflict. You think in black and white. You are on the side of the 'western world' and the muslim world are the bad guys.


That's just stupid.


Open up a very old history book. Inside will be described many wars. Why don't you try then to figure out which side are 'the good guys' and which one are 'the bad guys.

You can't. The only reason you think the western world are the 'good guys' is because you identify with them.


Any attempt of me to explain the actual reality you discarded as 'drivel'.



You don't want to understand what happens. You are just cheering for your 'team'.



And your whole 'defense mechanism' is based on 'if their are the bad guys and we are their enemy then we are the good guys'.


You asked me to refute your critisism of islamic fundamentalism to prove that the western world aren't justified in everything they do opposing the middle east as a whole.


Face it, the middle east doesn't even exist. It is just as fragmented as Europe.

Anyway, there is now an Al Jazeera in the English language. Al Jazeera are western style objective media. So maybe check them out and try to understand that part of the world a little bit before making all kinds of black and white claims.

[jakev2.0]

No. My position is simply: although the West is far from altruistic, it is inherently better than those who seek to destroy it.

Your position is a confused set of rationalizations, justifications, and apologies. That's clear to any poor soul who tries to decipher it (regardless of their political leanings)

[prometheus]

Yes. But there is a big difference between the people of the middle east and 'those that want to destroy us'.


I do think the western world is largely better than the middle east. But your views are basically the same as those views you critisize. So the western world is better than the Islamic world because most western people have a more nuanced view of things than you have.

I mean, you defend the death penalty. It is one of the virtues of western civilisation that this penalty was abolished.

No, the US isn't totally up to western standards yet. And that is not so suprising.

But the US is a lot closer than the middle east, of course. I hope that in my lifetime the US will be up to the standards of western civilisation. Then after that happens then countries like Japan and S-Korea can be next. Then eastern Europe. And then S-America and the middle east.

[johnny-boy]

The busy schedule of dictionary diving must be a real chore.

Yeah, people on these threads probably sound much less educated in person. Google, spell-check, grammar check, and time to gather one's thoughts make for more sophisticated talk - maybe not as honest though???

John

[prometheus]

English is my third language. I am just trying my best. I don't understand your point.

[johnny-boy]

English is my third language. I am just trying my best. I don't understand your point.

No problem Promey. I'm sure others will understand my point.

Did you ever have a day when you just feel like being defiant? I’m having one today. Maybe I shouldn’t post replies on these days…

Best, John

[prometheus]

I could say that I am defiant most of the time.

[johnny-boy]

I could say that I am defiant most of the time.

I'll go along with that Promey. I guess that's a good thing - at least it makes for interesting threads.

 

[debussy symbolism]

Of course I use dictionary all the time. More so I use spellcheck for grammar. In any case I never try to sound pretentious, although I can see why my certain posts may seem arrogant. I never mean arrogance and always post for the benefit of myself and others on the forum.

[soliloquy]

Tisk tisk tisk.  Must I intervene?


Debussy Symbolism does not use a dictionary, because if he did then maybe he would use those archaic, big words correctly more often.  He uses an online thesaurus obviously, which is why his posts, assuming your vocabulary can decipher them, make no sense.  Now, obviously it would be ridiculous for me to say I don't have a big ego, but I'm usually right; does anyone here want to impugn my knowledge of music just for the sake of argument?  Debussy Symbolism, you are usually wrong.  And always boring.  And rarely coherent.  Most of your posts are also extremely off-topic, or only just barely graze some usually-inconsequential tangent of the subject.  With your mindless blather, you have probably instigated more BS on this forum than I have, and probably have more people who despise you, both of which are rather incredible feats.


Now, you claim to have started this thread for philosophical pursuit, so please, allow me to do a little philosophical pursuit of my own.  I will survey this from a standard, text-book psychological vantage-point; please, feel free to impugn my knowledge on psychology also.  Using what I know about you, and what you know about this forum, here is what I see, and here are the questions I ask myself:


A- "Why did he start this thread?"

I will now take into mind the following facts:

1- you know that your own egotism will be savagely bashed.
2- you know that you will quickly become the main topic of conversation as per 1.

Conclusion: obviously, this post is seeking attention for its master, namely you.


B- "Why would he want attention?  What attention does he want?  Why would he want negative attention, which he knows he will get?"

Conclusion: This question is faulty, and here's why.  You do want attention.  You want attention because you are incapable of contributing without being the central character.  You don't want negative attention; you thought this thread would cause people to think you were smart.  That is futility based on vanity.  That is only one thing: Narcissism.  Because given the responses you get with these sort of threads, you should know the outcome would be negative.  They are consistently negative.


So, you are a Narcissist.  And I use the word in the meaning you would find in a psychology textbook; I don't just mean someone with a lot of ego, I mean someone who is so self-obsessed they are mentally ill.  Narcissism is a form of psychosis; you perceive things in a way other than reality, therefore technically you are psychotic.  You are literally a psychopath.




Enjoy.



PS- why are you still on this board when you know there isn't a single person who likes you, or who cares about you, or who gives your opinion any baring, or, worst of all to you, thinks you are smart?  Futility in the name of vanity? 

[pianistimo]

dear soliloquy,  you are either the alter ego - or the lack of ego and plain stupidity.  he could have posted this question for many reasons.  it is people like you that don't know how to answer a question that answer a question with a question.  you don't have an answer, do you?  people like you are the reason there is war in the world.  they don't question.  they just act.  they may use the dictionary perfectly - but they don't think thesauruses are any good.  you and thal need a good pounding with a bible.

[soliloquy]

dear soliloquy,  you are either the alter ego - or the lack of ego and plain stupidity.  he could have posted this question for many reasons.  it is people like you that don't know how to answer a question that answer a question with a question.  you don't have an answer, do you?  people like you are the reason there is war in the world.  they don't question.  they just act.  they may use the dictionary perfectly - but they don't think thesauruses are any good.  you and thal need a good pounding with a bible.

Pianistimo, please remember that you no longer hold the weight of your previous popularity to protect any stupidity that comes out of your mouth.  With that in mind, you may wish to reconsider attempting debate with people who are infinitely more knowledgable, logical, articulate and aggressive than you (and I do not refer only to myself; you would be so lucky) about a topic which has absolutely nothing to do with you in any way, shape or form.  I advise you back out; the only reason I am not tearing this post apart from every angle piece by piece is because it would pull the thread once again away from the topic it is currently on; please do not make me have to, as it wouldn't be hardly as fun to do with someone who I have no inherent problem with and could not verbally defend herself.

[debussy symbolism]

Tisk tisk tisk.  Must I intervene?

Well, I think that you indeed must intervene, if indeed "intervene" mens letting others know of your egotism. I will talk of this later.

Debussy Symbolism does not use a dictionary, because if he did then maybe he would use those archaic, big words correctly more often. He uses an online thesaurus obviously, which is why his posts, assuming your vocabulary can decipher them, make no sense. Now, obviously it would be ridiculous for me to say I don't have a big ego, but I'm usually right; does anyone here want to impugn my knowledge of music just for the sake of argument? Debussy Symbolism, you are usually wrong. And always boring. And rarely coherent. Most of your posts are also extremely off-topic, or only just barely graze some usually-inconsequential tangent of the subject. With your mindless blather, you have probably instigated more BS on this forum than I have, and probably have more people who despise you, both of which are rather incredible feats.


Now, you claim to have started this thread for philosophical pursuit, so please, allow me to do a little philosophical pursuit of my own. I will survey this from a standard, text-book psychological vantage-point; please, feel free to impugn my knowledge on psychology also. Using what I know about you, and what you know about this forum, here is what I see, and here are the questions I ask myself:

Here is where your assumptions start to fail. First of all, I do use a dictionary often and not only on this forum. I check on many words, even those that I know or think I know. Now, there were threads where I used "archaic" words, and some threads were for comical purpose (you may have seen a couple where I substituted every word for an "archaic" word _. Other than that, I use esoteric words for the purpose of giving the text variety, a quality that I am sure is quite boring to you.

Useless blather? Did you know that the useless blather right now is coming from the likes of you as you are definately not on topic. I suppose that my post here can be claimed as blather, but is only because of my responce to your post. First of all, it is not "BS," but "DS" , and please feel free to point out any post I made that was a waste. People despising me? That is absurd, as right now, a little member known as "Soliloquy" and perhaps a few other memberhsip names despise me. Ooops, I meant "Debussy Symbolism."

A- "Why did he start this thread?"

I will now take into mind the following facts:

1- you know that your own egotism will be savagely bashed.
2- you know that you will quickly become the main topic of conversation as per 1.

Conclusion: obviously, this post is seeking attention for its master, namely you.


B- "Why would he want attention? What attention does he want? Why would he want negative attention, which he knows he will get?"

Conclusion: This question is faulty, and here's why. You do want attention. You want attention because you are incapable of contributing without being the central character. You don't want negative attention; you thought this thread would cause people to think you were smart. That is futility based on vanity. That is only one thing: Narcissism. Because given the responses you get with these sort of threads, you should know the outcome would be negative. They are consistently negative.


So, you are a Narcissist. And I use the word in the meaning you would find in a psychology textbook; I don't just mean someone with a lot of ego, I mean someone who is so self-obsessed they are mentally ill. Narcissism is a form of psychosis; you perceive things in a way other than reality, therefore technically you are psychotic. You are literally a psychopath.




Enjoy.



PS- why are you still on this board when you know there isn't a single person who likes you, or who cares about you, or who gives your opinion any baring, or, worst of all to you, thinks you are smart? Futility in the name of vanity?

Incapable of contributing without being a central character? Hmm, I guess I can see where you are coming from, unfortunately for you, you are wrong. I started this post not out of search for self glory, but out of the search for opinions. I could care less about what members think of me here. However, I do care about the topics I post and I do care about public opinion. A person that all the time goes around claiming that other's posts are merely for self-glorification purposes and are arrogant, is obviously not secure with himself and for himself probably wants attention. I salute you, you got attention. Concerning that and about you being insecure, I have read quite a few of your posts and you have a big tendency of letting other people down with insults. I am sure you know. You call people "idiots," "stupid," "low IQ," etc. A secure person will not do that, therefore you are insecure.

This leads me to my conclusion. You are obviously a hormone enraged teenager who wants others to know how "big" he is and how small others are. You are simply a child. If you happen to not be a child, then you are obviously a grown up with too much time on his hands.

A psychopath? From what I know, and correct me if I am wrong, a psychopath is a person of a deranged undestanding of life and generally characterised by erratic and strange behavior. Tell me, what part of my writing here shows that I am deranged and indeed a psychopath? From reading your condescending and insulting posts you appear to be more deranged than most of the members combined.

Why am I still on this forum? Let me be frank. Because I want to and because I honestly do not care what others think of me (Debussy Symbolism). Especially opinions sprouting from the likes of you.

[debussy symbolism]

Pianistimo, please remember that you no longer hold the weight of your previous popularity to protect any stupidity that comes out of your mouth.  With that in mind, you may wish to reconsider attempting debate with people who are infinitely more knowledgable, logical, articulate and aggressive than you (and I do not refer only to myself; you would be so lucky) about a topic which has absolutely nothing to do with you in any way, shape or form. 

Need I repeat my self?

[pianistimo]

dear soliloquy,

i take back my previous statement about stupidity and also the cause of war being all your fault.  but, i do hold to my belief that this topic is for everyone and not a relative minority or majority.  i mean - if everyone was nice - just for a day (including myself) to everyone in everything they did ...it would mean that no matter if someone was high iq or low iq - it wouldn't matter.  it also would not matter if they were 'popular.'  i tend to dislike the word -as does debussysymbolism.  people seem to think popular = right.  it might just mean that we're all like a bunch of sheep sometimes.

as i see it - william penn had a pretty good image of himself - but he used it to gain legal rights for others.  by crafting this state - it was among a minority of states at the beginning to truly tolerate freedom of religion.  but, he went beyond the religion part - into what the bible actually says about 'ego.'  he refused to take his hat off in court.  now, this might seem a small matter - but back then it was a daring move.  he did not see why one man should 'lord it' over another man.  not by brains.  not by looks.  not by popularity.

[soliloquy]

To explain why this is in two posts:

"The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (15000 characters). "

At the very least, I now undeniably have written the longest post on PF.

Well, I think that you indeed must intervene, if indeed "intervene" mens letting others know of your egotism. I will talk of this later.

I think you might want to get one of those dictionaries that people keep talking about in this thread; if you had one, you would then know what the word "intervene" means.  Unsurprisingly, it does not mean anything like what you just said.  Or were you being sarcastic?  No no... not sarcastic.  Oh, you are trying to be funny.  Nice try.  And before I go on, if you intend to respond to this post, I advise you step it up sweetheart, because it only took your first two sentences for you to look foolish.  I refer more specifically to the latter part of the first; I will look over your misspelling of the word "mean", even though it is pretty funny coming from someone who obviously prides himself on a diverse and expressive vocabulary.  Maybe it is some sort of regional diction?  Now, back to the subject at hand.  The reason I have posted in this thread is not to promote my ego.  Why in the world would I wish to promote an ego, when it is a negative thing?  Do you take me for a sadomasochist?  Perhaps instead of using all of your verbal energy in long, unknown words, you should use it to choose your smaller, more effective (effective when you use them correctly; not the case this time) words more carefully.  Now what I assume the general and vague connotation of that remark is is that you are insinuating that the only reason I am posting here is because I wish to stroke my own ego by "making myself feel big and making you feel small" like you will go on to say.  I must regrettably inform you this is also incorrect; I am responding here because you amuse me, and when I say this I mean you are a minor and mildly annoying nuisance and it is amusing to me to linguistically smash you into the ground because I generally dislike you.  So back to what you said.  You purport that I want to "let people know of my egotism", which I do certainly have a bit of.  But, was Mozart a humble person?  With all ego aside, you stand in my shadow in all facets that concern this thread, therefore I have no reason to be humble to you because I know I can always "win".  Remember, you are an amusement, a game, a play toy for me (as most people who seem to incessantly get in my way become), and you seem to like to keep playing at the expense of any of your credibility, but I shall not stop you because this is oh-so-fun =)

Here is where your assumptions start to fail.

Why is it that people do not know the difference of the words: theory, assumption, inferrence, fact, statement, accusation, argument and postulate.  I'm telling you, get that dictionary.  But I'm listening.

First of all, I do use a dictionary often and not only on this forum. I check on many words, even those that I know or think I know.

I advise you use it more often, and find a way to use it more effectively.  If you do indeed often use a dictionary, this is an even better example and a good argument for your Narcissism.  If you are so insecure (a word which you will apply to me, the hypocracy) that you feel you need to use a dictionary to find new words just to impress random strangers on the internet who you do not know in real life or will ever know in real life, what exactly does that say about you?  Also, if you actually USE a dictionary and then so commonly misuse words, sometimes to a totally bizarre level, that reflects rather poorly on your intelligence also.

Now, there were threads where I used "archaic" words, and some threads were for comical purpose (you may have seen a couple where I substituted every word for an "archaic" word _. Other than that, I use esoteric words for the purpose of giving the text variety, a quality that I am sure is quite boring to you.

Firstly, you use archaicisms in most of your posts.  Your posts which were composed primarily of such words were rather pathetic attempts to vindicate your previous use of those words, and it did not fool anyone.  And by the way, it was far from comical.  Smacked much more of attention craving.  The use of "esoteric" words (you might want to look up esoteric in the dictionary, because you just misused it) to give the text "variety" is... well fundamentally stupid, but I personally find it funnier than you would call it variety when you use them so constantly.  It is stupid because it is unnecessary, makes it more difficult to understand what you are trying to say, and because you rarely use the words correctly.

Useless blather?

Yes.  Here are one-thousand, three-hundred and eighty-four examples.  Feel free to choose any of them.  https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?action=profile;u=9032;sa=showPosts

Did you know that the useless blather right now is coming from the likes of you as you are definately not on topic.

Actually, you are completely wrong sweetie.  I am 100% on topic, for two reasons:

1- the point of this thread was obviously to draw attention to yourself; most likely your supposed intelligence.
2- the main topic of the thread had switched gears about 29 posts ago to your ego, therefore I am on topic.

Now, I agree with you, this is useless, because you are, as I said before, a Narcissist, and you are unable to grasp the concept that you are wrong, most of us are smarter than you, that we are vindicated in disliking you etc.  But I will continue, simply for the sport of it.  I will NOT, however, be responding to anything you write in conflict to this post, because I do not intend to say anything that is anything but a fact, therefore there is nothing you can contradict that I could then support evidence to being correct that your staunch ego would simply once again refute, most likely through almost ver batim reposts of things you already said.

I suppose that my post here can be claimed as blather, but is only because of my responce to your post.

Do you possibly mean "response"?  Because that would make sense.  "Responce" does not.  Most would suppose all of your posts in this thread are blather.  I speak for myself  and jake obviously, and going simply by the percentages of people who are mocking you versus the people who aren't (looking back at other threads would probably give even more staggering numbers), you are indeed, in general, despised.  Hitler had his Nazis, you have... hmm.  Yourself.  Do you have any friends on here actually?  Point me to them if you do, because I'm afraid I will be inclined to not believe you if you say you do.  You seem to be less popular than Hitler; doesn't that clue you in to the fact that there's something you're doing that's not quite right?

First of all, it is not "BS," but "DS" ,

Synonyms.

and please feel free to any post I made that was a waste.

Ok.  Here is Thal saying you are ruining the forum, wherein you respond using the word "jejune" and go horribly off topic while criticizing him for doing the same:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22283.msg251070.html#msg251070


Here is where you sent that thread off-topic that insited thal into talking to you:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22283.msg251058.html#msg251058


Here you managed to use several hundred words and say nothing you hadn't said in the first sentence:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22524.msg251056.html#msg251056


Here you spend a huge amount of time writing a reply to what is PROBABLY the dumbest thread you haven't started:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22496.msg250987.html#msg250987


Here is a gigantic post about the deep exploration into the characters on the TV show Seinfeld:

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,22521.msg250983.html#msg250983

Need I go on, because these are VERY low on the totem pole of stupidity.

People despising me? That is absurd, as right now, a little member known as "Soliloquy" and perhaps a few other memberhsip names despise me. Ooops, I meant "Debussy Symbolism."

Yes.  Is it absurd?  It would only be absurd to someone who subconsciously convolutes reality to suit his own self-grandeur, AKA a Narcissist.  Scroll up a bit and look at those links I just posted, then read those threads.  Tally up how many people you see that seem to genuinely hate you, vs ones who like you.  No, wait.  I'll give you a fighting chance.  Hate you vs. borderline dislike, indifferent or like.  I'm serious.  Do it.  You will find that most go into column A- all would go into column A if you were honest with yourself, but let's face it, you're not perfect   In what way am I a "little member"?  Sweetheart, I've been around here longer than most (not on this screen name, on a couple other more legendary ones), and there are several subjects (and I mean broad subjects) where my word is the law.  You, on the other hand, just seem to generally bother and frustrate people, ergo you are not taken seriously, and nobody listens to you.  Maybe if you stopped, and listen to this because I'm giving you some real advice, TRYING TO ACT SO SMART IT LOOKS CONTRIVED, people would give you at least a bit more respect.  Look up contrived in your dictionary; it will give you a perfect idea of how most of us feel about you.

Incapable of contributing without being a central character? Hmm, I guess I can see where you are coming from, unfortunately for you, you are wrong.

I am glad you can see where I am coming from, but here's the thing.  I don't believe I am wrong.  But I also don't think you purposefully go out of your way to seek attention (sometimes; it certainly seems part of it is inate).  I believe a lot of it is subconscious, and you might try to put it in check.  Look through those links I posted above and compare your replies to the others': all of your replies seem to be desperately seeking to be the "definitive response", and you often cause controversy where it is not necessary.

I started this post not out of search for self glory, but out of the search for opinions.

If that is true than I am indeed sorry for any assumption I made, but let's be honest.  We both know a large part of it was to get attention.  Can you honestly deny that?  Also, my characterization of the reason for the creation of this thread is certainly how almost everyone on this thread views it; that is something you should think about.

I could care less about what members think of me here.

The amount of "lol"'s required here would probably break the L and O keys on my keyboard respectively, so I will only hope that what I just wrote gives you a sufficient idea of how laughable that claim is to me and to everyone else, probably including yourself.  I could go on to cite Freud or Schopenhauer etc. but then I'd have to go get my books, and frankly, you're not worth it.  Instead, I will simply refer to the huge amount of mental effort it must have cost you to write this extremely long reply, and that that is not something someone who does not care about their status or image does.

However, I do care about the topics I post and I do care about public opinion.

The public opinion is unanymous: stop being a pedantic attention craving narcissist or leave the forum.  If you care about the public opinion, you will do one of the two.  If you honestly do not categorize yourself as a pedantic attention craving narcissist like we all do, then you should change whatever it is you're doing that would make us think that. 

[soliloquy]

A person that all the time goes around claiming that other's posts are merely for self-glorification purposes and are arrogant, is obviously not secure with himself and for himself probably wants attention.

A person who does that could fall into that category, but could just as easily fall into the category of someone who is bored late at night, likes debating and dislikes the person he's accusing of said grievances.  In this case, the latter is a very good bet   Once again I advise you choose your words more carefully in any response to this you intend to make; someone with a large ego does not have low self-esteem or insecurity, a Narcissist does, and if what I have been saying all along is correct, then all the more evidence to point to you being a Narcissist.  You can not intelligently accuse me of having a large ego and having problems with my own security; it is a semantic impossibility.

I salute you, you got attention.

No need, it was easy.  Heck, it wasn't even what I was trying to do.

Concerning that and about you being insecure, I have read quite a few of your posts and you have a big tendency of letting other people down with insults. I am sure you know. You call people "idiots," "stupid," "low IQ," etc.

Actually, that is an extremely misleading statement.  While I have in the past made rather general and slanderous remarks regarding a couple choice members' intelligence, you may also note that while those posts do seem to raise the most eyebrows, they are the most infrequent.  If you were to look at all of my posts you would probably find that they are few and far between; they just seem to speak louder and etch themselves clearer in peoples' memories.  Also, in all defense, the people who are usually on the receiving end of such comments are Comme or people who are making ridiculous statements, and then proceed to defend them with even more ridiculous ones.  And you my dear are hurling insults left and right in this very post I am responding to.

A secure person will not do that, therefore you are insecure.

I believe I have already responded to the fallacy in this statement, but it is a good chance to elaborate in regards to this specific situation.  The fact of the matter is that I can say with 100% certainty that I am not a generally insecure person, and there are very few things I am insecure about, and none of them pertain to this website in any way, shape or form.  My aggression or as you see them "attacks" do not stem from insecurity; they stem from disgust at some of the things that are said on this forum.  "Rachmaninov Concerto No. 3 is harder than Finnissy Solo Piano Concerto No. 4".  Whenever you see me lash out at someone, it is because they said something insanely moronic like that.  Or, very occasionally, I will simply get fed up with the accumulating frustration at one member.  You fall into the second category.  In all honesty, this has much less to do with this particular thread than it does to do with a general dislike for you and everything you say; expect one of these every couple of months if you're going to continue to be an ass

This leads me to my conclusion. You are obviously a hormone enraged teenager who wants others to know how "big" he is and how small others are. You are simply a child. If you happen to not be a child, then you are obviously a grown up with too much time on his hands.

I am indeed a teenager; I am 18.  Your assumption is incorrect though; everyone here already knows exactly how big I am.  10 inches.    Sorry, couldn't help it.  Nah, I've been here long enough for everyone to know exactly how "big" I am, and I assume that means smart and/or knowledgable.  I do not need to prove that further.  I also do not have any desire to make anyone feel "small" except for the very few people that royally piss me off, you included.  Also, as a point of interest, betwixt all of the insults I have given there is a lot of very real and sincere advice which would be beneficial for you to consider.

A psychopath? From what I know, and correct me if I am wrong, a psychopath is a person of a deranged undestanding of life and generally characterised by erratic and strange behavior.

DSM4 will give you a much better definition of psychopath than wherever you got that from.  The DSM4 regards narcissism as a form of sociopathy, which is in turn a form of psychopathy.  You are not wrong, but nowhere did I describe psychopathy as anything but how you just described it.  I gave you a very clear-cut definition for narcissism while avoiding any ornate psychology vocabulary, and I believe I described it very similarly to the definition you just gave for psychopathy.  Do you not consider your behavior (particularly your linguistics) strange behavior?  I know I do.

Tell me, what part of my writing here shows that I am deranged and indeed a psychopath?

The correct question to ask would be "What part of my writing here shows that I am a Narcissist, which would in turn mean I am a psychopath?"  I have already gone over this, and not only do I not feel it is necessary to repeat myself, I do not feel my course of logic was in any way incorrect, and if one was to look at your entire body of work posted on here and not just at this single thread, the evidence would only become more compelling.

 

From reading your condescending and insulting posts you appear to be more deranged than most of the members combined.

Deranged?  No.  Generally aggressive, short-fused and uncomprimising?  Probably.  I do have my faults, but unlike you, I have no problem admitting it.

Why am I still on this forum?

The real question, when you think about it.

Let me be frank.

I was wondering when you would be.  [sarcasm]

Because I want to and because I honestly do not care what others think of me (Debussy Symbolism). Especially opinions sprouting from the likes of you.

This falls short.  Not dramatic enough.  Also, I believe you said something about caring about public perception, and here you say you do NOT care about it.  That is a bit of a conflict, no?  Well, it looks like we have something in common though.  We don't care about eachothers' opinions



To recap:

A- I would read this post a few times and actually think about the things I said, because a lot of them could be helpful to you if you applied them to the way you act on this forum.


B- Responding is going to be a waste of time, but go ahead if you simply MUST defend your honor.  Like I said before, I'm done with this thread.




In retrospect, it seems fitting someone with the screen name "Soliloquy" would have the biggest post lol.

[debussy symbolism]

Thank you for supplying this thread with your ranting which is obviously out of anger. I can't even believe that you spent all that time writing. That just shows how much you care to prove me wrong. I didn't read most of what you wrote, and do not plan to. I have no intention of arguing with you as that is pointless. If you want to you can further write, but don't expect me to actually look at your posts seriously from now on concerning this matter.

Anyways, this has been fun chatting with you. 18, I should have known. Yet you still act like an infant that hasn't got his share of the candy. A 10 inch? Really? Well why don't you shove it where it really belongs.

[maul]

He (D&^$^%#) actually said he was going to leave awhile back... but of course his reliability is closely intertwined with his intelligence. Go talk to him in the chatroom sometime. I guarantee a multitude of head shaking on the horizontal plane.

[thalbergmad]

I didn't read most of what you wrote, and do not plan to.

I think you should, it is very good.

Thal

[pianistimo]

good for someone who overuses steroids?

[thalbergmad]

How charming

[ahinton]

I have no wish to enter into any argument as to what may have motivated this thread, nor am I seeking to defend the possible motives or manner of the person who initiated it, but I cannot help but note that "Soliloquy", in his numerous and detailed responses to that person, has taken him roundly to task over his lack of effective use of a dictionary and his linguistics. Dictionaries can indeed be useful tools; indeed, a more effective use of one - together with perhaps a more effective use of modern English - might have resulted in the substitution of the word "humility" for the "humbleness" of the thread title.

That said, the following are to be noted in those responses by "Soliloquy":

"knowledgable" (twice)
"uncomprimising"
"inferrence"
"hypocracy" (since he seems not to have meant "a society of, and/or governed by, hypocrites")
"insited" (and one does not in any case "incite" anyone "into" anything but "to" something)
"inate"
"unanymous"

We'll perhaps be generous and overlook the superfluous space in
"ver batim "
and the missing one in
"eachothers'",
as the Soliloquastic thumb may just have been otherwise engaged at those moments of typing (though in precisely what I prefer not to speculate).

I am, however, less sure about the ending of a sentence with a preposition in
"You purport that I want to "let people know of my egotism", which I do certainly have a bit of",
or of the repetition
"is is"
in the grammatically challenged
"Now what I assume the general and vague connotation of that remark is is that you are insinuating..."
and still less the "boldly going" split infinitive in
"it is amusing to me to linguistically smash you into the ground".

Should we once again attempt to be generous, however? - to use the writer's own words,
"Maybe it is some sort of regional diction?"
- or should we be more pragmatic and suggest that the writer might instead like to avail himself of a spellchecker (not that these are foolproof, of course) just as he himself urges the initiator of this thread to make better use of a dictionary?

Whatever anyone may make of these solecisms / solipsisms / Soliloquisms or whatever they may be called, the hormonally generated overbearing arrogance wherewith these responses are littered comes across as though a wearisome cantus fermus, providing as it does the false impression that insistently belligerent and self-aggrandising "protesteth-too-much" verbosity is the writer's only natural and/or desired manner of expression - and it is indeed a false impression, since when he gets on to topics about which he has some knowledge and experience, he can write things that are worth reading.

Best,

Alistair

[jakev2.0]

It looks like we have a textbook example of ogrus grammaticus on our hands.

[ramseytheii]

Greetings.

I hear there is plenty of talk against egotism, and seemingly there is everything to support humbleness as being the right course of action. However, was it not through egotism that pharaoh Ramses 2 was capable of building the great monuments in Egypt and later glorified as God?

Please -  you are too kind!

Walter Ramsey
*brushing hair*

[ahinton]

It looks like we have a textbook example of ogrus grammaticus on our hands.

I'm not sure which one that might be, but it seems not entirely unreasonable for an appropriate rejoinder to be made when someone has taken someone else severely and repeatedly to task for misuse of words and other areas of linguistics; what do you think?

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

who needs a dictionary when we have ahinton?  that is exactly why i married my husband.  if you don't know these things - marry someone who does.  you start picking up their bad habits.  i mean - he never buys just an ordinary hand-held dictionary.  he buys the thickest, heaviest one out there.  he never uses the same word twice.  i have to ask meanings of words all the time. 

he called the area around pepper music 'bucolic.'  i said, 'you mean sickly?'  he said - no no, bucolic means rural or countrified.  new one to me - and i'm 45.

well, nevermind. the egotistical will always remain that way - but they are usually right.  just suck it up and pet their ego a lot - and occasionally let them 'have it' when they least expect it.  that's what i do.  i wait for my husband to get tired.  (as he seems to have taught me that trick).  they agree to whatever you say at that point - and you can get some satisfaction for your own ego in little pieces occasionally.

ps truly, i appreciate the smart people amongst us - and i don't discount soliloquy in my mind.  it's funny - but you never learn from people who agree with you anyways.  and, you have to stay sharp when someone challenges you frequently.  for instance, my thought processes are usually one step.  it helps when we are in a hurry at the grocery store.  my husband will hem and haw about the simplest of decisions.  but, when we are making a major decision - he has saved us from disaster many times.  detailed compairson shopping.  reading magazines that describe the object or subject. 

i think what helps on that one, too, is a good memory for facts that are past six months.  for me, it's ancient history.  for him - it's yesterday.  i think he and also my dad keep diaries (which i used to do - but don't anymores).  anyways - it does help with financial stuff and remembering exactly what people said.  and, it seems to help him with business, too.  people appreciate someone who remember facts correctly.

back to ego.  i wonder if it's not totally a bad word.  i mean you have to be confident to make people trust you can do a job.  maybe confidence and trust are more the issue to me.  i don't care if someone seems a bit 'stuck up' as they call it - as long as they can back up their 'stuck-up-ness' with some sound logic.

[ahinton]

who needs a dictionary when we have ahinton?

Everyone, Susan dear! (though thanks for the compliment)...

that is exactly why i married my husband.

What? - to get a free dictionary?...

if you don't know these things - marry someone who does.

Buying a dictionary's considerably cheaper than getting married, you know - even if you buy the complete OED in hard covers...

well, nevermind. the egotistical will always remain that way - but they are usually right.  just suck it up and pet their ego a lot - and occasionally let them 'have it' when they least expect it.  that's what i do.

But one doesn't have to be egotistical to be right any more than one has to be right to be egotistical.

i don't discount soliloquy in my mind.

I don't, either - as long as he is writing about interesting things about which he seems to have some knowledge and experience.

Best,

Alistair

[pianistimo]

yes.  we have the oed in hard cover.  it is actually lighter than my husband.  but, not by much.  also, you cannot make love to a dictionary.  whereas - my husband isn't totally geeky all the time. 

about the right and egotistical part.  i agree.  i think as people age they become more reasonable.  and more able to assess really where we all stand.  of course, the person with the brains is usually the one that makes the most decisions.  or good ones, anyways.  there's heavy consequences for the 'bright one.'  more worries.  you see - i am sort of a dictionary/geek parasite.  i just think - 'if i'm around him long enough - it will rub off.' 

i would say - yes - he has improved my vocabulary 100%.  yes, he has geekified me.  i also take longer to make decisions because now i'm worried about making the wrong one.  whereas before - i was completely happy and oblivious.  well, i'm pretty happy now, too - but the thing is that i worry about things more.  all this comparative analysis.