Gurdjieff died in 1949
Oh thank you, thank you, thank you! A thousand thank yous!
FTR, this is not a rehash of the rehash, dolt!
Your level of comprehension in that regard makes you appear incapable of understanding even the most obvious guidelines, much less a sophisticated discipline.
But he had those big saucery eyes and that cute pokery nose! How could we resist?
If you’re not interested in engaging people in discussion, don’t post to a message board. Or this message board, anyway.
That’s what Usenet is for.
Yeah, I have been not replying to Usenet for years, now.
In Soviet Russia, Usenet does not reply to you!
That’s what Skynet is for.
To be fair, Viking, under their Penguin imprint, did create two 1991 editions of Gurdjieff’s work: Meetings with Remarkable Men, and Views from the Real World.
Of course, we’re still being trolled.
Am I demonstrating some ignorance here? If a new edition of “Gone with the Wind” comes out this year, is it correct to say it was published in 2008? Wouldn’t you still say it was published in 1936?
“Meetings…” was published in 1963. (Interesting movie BTW)
“Views…” is a compilation of early lectures and was originally published in 1973
It seems to me that it would be more accurate and less nauseatingly evasive to refer to those dates, but I honestly didn’t think it was correct to use a latest publishing date on a text in that way.
Not really ignorance, no. In normal circumstances I’d agree with you. But the troll was talking about a specific edition of the book, with specific pagination. For that, we would have to look at that specific edition, and generally to do that, we’d need to know when it was reprinted.
Of course, it’s still factual that: the troll didn’t mention Gurdjieff until others told him about it, accused people who were actually discussing Gurdieff of posing as ‘global experts’ yet didn’t refute a single fact/interpretation they made, didn’t provide a scrap of proof for his own views, didn’t explain what his own views are, didn’t give the name of the book he’s allegedly gotten these views from, and didn’t quote the part of the book he allegedly got those views from.
Well, that’s because you’re a normal human being, and not a scum of the Earth trolling jackass.
A normal person would not only give the title of the work they were discussing, they’d actually quote the secret-mystery-paragraph. As such, specific details about the edition and original/subsequent publication dates would be irrelevant unless someone else with a copy wanted to verify the information and had a different edition than you did.
You’re making me blush.
Damning with faint praise, eh? 
Meanwhile, I wonder what this troll has to do to be removed from our presence. My guess is, once he follows DrMark’s path and finishes his posting career by pitting Mr Rogers for not talking about mastubation… or the pineal gland.
If it was a reprint, you wouldn’t say it was published in 2008. If it was a new edition (which idea applies more to non-fiction titles, really), then it would be a new edition, published in 2008.
Well, if you were using a citing format like APA, you’d note the date of the book you were using.
There is an example in this thread of posters initiating or perpetuating lies to mislead or confuse others.
Post 89, paragraph two, in this thread lies about who said what about Gurjieff in the “Grail” thread: “…didn’t mention Gurdjieff until others told him about it…”.
Post 351 by ‘maatorc’ in the “Grail” thread recommends the book “People Of The Secret” which says much about Gurdjieff and his system.
Post 388 by ‘Crazy Chap’ in the “Grail” thread later refers to Gurdjieff: “…Gurdjieff is my prototypical example…”.
checks to make sure that thread hasn’t been moved to GD when he wasn’t looking
Excuse me, is this the maatorc Pit thread? Or should I have made a left turn at Albuquerque?
No, just of you being a shit-stupid liar. In order to troll people.
Good lord troll, how fucking stupid are you?
You just provided proof, in your own words, that you didn’t discuss Gurdjieff in the other thread until other people mentioned him. In point of fact, you didn’t even say that the book you refused to quote from, mentioned him. In what fucked up troll-logic is not mentioning someone, and only providing the title and ISBN of a book, somehow discussing that book’s contents?
You shit-stupid motherfucker, anybody can search that thread and see, plainly, that the first person to mention Gurdjieff wasn’t you, and that you never actually discussed him, at all. In fact, you refused to discuss him. Posters can read your post 351 and see that you not only didn’t mention Gurdjieff, you didn’t even allude to your claims that the book discusses him. They can read your post where you not only refuse to participate in the discussion other posters were having on Gurdjieff, after intention mentioned him for the first time, but attempted to stifle debate with your normal spew. They can even see how you trolled people who’d actually read Gurjieff and were trying to talk about him… while (now), pimping a circus reporter as evidently “a world authority”.
Silly troll, thinking is for higher primates.
What a maroon!
This thread is a discussion of the hip deep shiite you amassed in the grail thread and continue pile up around yourself.
FWIW I do not think you are purposefully initiating or perpetuating anything whatsoever, and your primary intent is not to mislead or confuse anyone — that would require some relation of ideas; you are doing everything you can to keep people hanging on the line talking about the beautiful, wondrous maatorc.
If you have accusations to make, just spit them out, toad. Of course, I doubt you could say shit if you had a mouthful of it.
Say something straight forward you fucking poltroon or go back under your bridge.
Well, to be fair, he just did say something straight forward.
Namely, that I lied when I claimed that someone else mentioned Gurdjieff first in the other thread.
As proof of his claim, he offers the fact that he didn’t mention Gurdjieff first in the other thread, and someone else did.
This is one of those rare times when, upon reflection, I’m actually beginning to wonder if he’s not too stupid to be actively trolling. His really seems to think that if he simply mentions the title of a book, that that means he’s discussed its contents. Like, I could say “Encyclopedia Britannica, ever heard of it?” and then, all of a sudden, I can claim that virtually every concept known to man has been discussed by me, in depth, and the other people in the thread have ignored my valuable contribution.
I’m beginning to wonder if perhaps he’s not mildly mentally retarded and doing his best to relate the content of an acid trip to us, or perhaps he’s got some sort of chemical imbalance in his brain that’s causing some form of insanity that I’m certainly not qualified to diagnose, let alone over the 'net. And I know how that sounds, but it’s really not meant to be an insult. I’m honestly wondering, after I had a chance to sleep on it, if there might not really be something wrong with this guy.
Of course, I might be giving him too much credit, and he may just be a dumb troll who isn’t even very good at trolling.
He got onto the ninth page with the original thread, and he’s about to get three here, so he’s obviously better than average.
Well, I suppose if you look at it that way, then yeah, he’d qualify as above average for trolling. Although, to be honest, I’d rather place quality over quantity. Getting a lot of responses just means that people are paying attention to the troll, which is baseline troll-success.
A really good troll will have people punching holes in their walls out of rage and frustration. And I don’t know about any other posters here or in the other thread, but kicking his idiocy around has actually been a bit of fun, especially once it was moved to the Pit.