Justhink: Please do.

Shield your eyes upon clicking these links, gentle patron.

I just saw this. I have been scarred.

Now, I have seen him before… normally I would not do a poster the dishonor of aiming a pit thread directly at him or her–but I can take it no longer. Out of what can only be described as either a masochistic urge or deep need to find the root of this abomination, I searched for more of his posts and found another… uh… gem

What is he saying in this ridiculously obfuscated mess? That “intelligent” people speak like he does so as find others who are as “intelligent”.

Allow me to clue you in, sir. Speaking in barely understandable circles does not make you appear intelligent or witty. The ability to run your sentences and paragraphs on for the length of a interstellar expedition does not improve their content or demonstrate your competence. Presenting arguments that prance about painfully like headless chickens is not a display of your shimmering brilliance. A respectable vocabulary does absolutely nothing to improve the presentation of your ideas if you are unable to compose rational, coherent thoughts.

For the love of Cecil (and the rest of the Dopers), learn to write a post that does not look like it came from the first draft of William F. Buckley’s new book entitled, How to Be a Raving Loonie and Pompous Windbag.

Thank you.

That boy uses more syllables than an Italian take-out menu.

If you order now, you too can get a incoherent Pseudo-Intellectual, not for $50, not for $30, heck not even for $20, but for 85 easy monthly payments of just a nickel. Sign up now.

I’ll just not worry my pretty little head about it. I’ll justhink about that tomorrow.

Why, I oughtta wring your neck!

Kind of amusing how someone who is so much into “transparency” is at the same time so much into impenetrable prose.

I think he’s saying that, for people capable of holding long-ass sentences in their head, a smaller vocabulary is better because it’s more precise (because complex concepts are built out of simple pieces assembled in understandable ways, like Lego). On the other hand, for us simpletons who limit their sentences to 30 words, a larger vocabulary is more useful because you can express more concepts succinctly (at a cost of using a more complex language).

Believe it or not, he’s got philosophical support–see the opening remarks of Quine’s essay “Two Dogmas Of Empiricism”.

“Two Dogmas of Impiricism”?

Sounds like a Shakespeare working title.

Two Dogmas of Impiricism?
Two Dogs of Italy.
Two and half Dudes of A Town Just Outside of Rome?
Damn it, it’ll come to me…

DUDE, where’s my car??

Where do the Teletubbies fit into all this?

I honestly can not figure out what in the fuck he is saying. Period.

I suggested to him in another thread that if what he is trying to say can’t be said in less than 5,000 words or so then there is a high probability that it is incapable of being articulated and he should then just give up. ( or something like that)

I also asked if he would mind changing his name so as not to be confused with our beloved thinksnow. He ignored me. Sigh.

What a waste of bandwidth.

Intelligence is being able to explain complex things in simple terms, not obscuring in a way so that only you, in your masturbatory quest, can understand.

Hit him with the bartender rule: if he can’t get a bartender to understand it in less two drinks, then he doesn’t understand it himself.

Y’know, it’s not that I have a problem understanding what he’s saying. I know all the words, and I can follow the sentences. It’s just that what he’s saying isn’t worth the weight of the words he’s using to say it.

Me no like big words :D.

And here’s Quine:

I don’t know… I didn’t have time to read through the whole paper in detail, but that opening doesn’t seem to support his argument very well. Perhaps you were thinking of Carnap?

In any event, I may have jumped to a conclusion on that interpretation–he may not have been arguing so much intelligence as different frames of reference. Even so, I think most of us would agree it is quite difficult to sift through his writing and find meaning in the first place. He neglects one of the primary rules of writing:

Know your audience and write accordingly.

I really don’t wish to be harsh; in a way I feel a little sorry about the OP because I don’t actually want to hurt the guy’s feelings. I just would hope he’d try to communicate succinctly on a common level rather than force us to muddle through a morass of poorly crafted sentences.

(Yea, I’m probably being too gentle for the Pit, but this is still the proper forum last time I checked…)

Jennifer Garner

My mistake: it’s not near the beginning, and it’s a tangential note about a third of the way through. From this copy of “Two Dogmas Of Empiricism”:

Who cares about the other one, that’s all the dogma I need! Yowza, Hume.

but mrblue, you missed one of my favorites! It’s the CIA man. They’re, like, targeting all the intelli-types by linking marijuana with the blood-drenched worship of great lord satan. :smiley:

bella–who thinks having a few kooks around livens the place up a bit

Okay, somehow that gave me TOTALLY the wrong link. Try this one.