Woods v Bassett

[ionel]

28 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

I can only imagine how some of the Twitter fan boys would be if he landed there…

Twitter is that still a thing?  If only @Wrestleknownothing were still around or maybe @mr.nonothingatall knows?  

[Simpleman424]

2 hours ago, LJB said:

would it be any different than this place???

We have people speak out of place here but in the twitter sphere (the ones I’m thinking) I will say are more credentialed at least. Difference would be I wouldn’t say I necessarily dislike anyone over here but I KNOW I wouldn’t like some of those dudes…

[Truzzcat]

54 minutes ago, Simpleman424 said:

We have people speak out of place here but in the twitter sphere (the ones I’m thinking) I will say are more credentialed at least. Difference would be I wouldn’t say I necessarily dislike anyone over here but I KNOW I wouldn’t like some of those dudes…

is this in regards to GWO? he has actually made me hate watch some guys simply because of how he hyper fixates over them.

[maligned]

5 hours ago, nhs67 said:

Welker is clearly the more skilled wrestler, but Guilford just makes every match a fist fight and her toughness outclassed Welker's skill.

I hate it because Welker's ceiling is higher and Guilford's floor is lower, but it is why we wrestle the matches.

More than anything, I thought she got impatient, especially in the third match, and mistakes doomed her. She was controlling the center well and needed to be willing to wait things out a little more--rather than going for something like an ill-advised throw and putting herself behind the proverbial 8 ball.

[LJB]

i had X on my phone for about 24hrs and deleted it...

i also do not read youtube or insta comments...

if i want to subject myself to that level of mediocrity by choice i can just look at thread titles in the NWT...

 

[Hammerlock3]

49 minutes ago, LJB said:

i had X on my phone for about 24hrs and deleted it...

i also do not read youtube or insta comments...

if i want to subject myself to that level of mediocrity by choice i can just look at thread titles in the NWT...

 

your schtick is so lame. Post all day, do nothing but try to insult people, crowbar in lame anecdotes about athletes parents, vapid analysis. Its not that you're too good for X, you're not good enough.

[LJB]

4 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

your schtick is so lame. Post all day, do nothing but try to insult people, crowbar in lame anecdotes about athletes parents, vapid analysis. Its not that you're too good for X, you're not good enough.

 

[mr.nonothingatall]

5 hours ago, ionel said:

Twitter is that still a thing?  If only @Wrestleknownothing were still around or maybe @mr.nonothingatall knows?  

I haven't ever had a twitter so not sure

[dragit]

1 hour ago, Hammerlock3 said:

your schtick is so lame. Post all day, do nothing but try to insult people, crowbar in lame anecdotes about athletes parents, vapid analysis. Its not that you're too good for X, you're not good enough.

AtlasBJ shrugged ...

This is a recording ...

...

[Hammerlock3]

Just now, dragit said:

AtlasBJ shrugged ...

This is a recording ...

...

speaking of Atlas Shrugged, has anyone else ever read 800 pages of a book before figuring it was terrible.

[dragit]

2 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

speaking of Atlas Shrugged, has anyone else ever read 800 pages of a book before figuring it was terrible.

never actually read it.

[dragit]

5 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

speaking of Atlas Shrugged, has anyone else ever read 800 pages of a book before figuring it was terrible.

https://youtu.be/EKX8C6qKuac?si=D25BWlx51wp-kOxW

[Simpleman424]

2 hours ago, Truzzcat said:

is this in regards to GWO? he has actually made me hate watch some guys simply because of how he hyper fixates over them.

There’s a group of about 3-4 that I immediately scroll past because of the personalities…

[Hammerlock3]

6 minutes ago, dragit said:

https://youtu.be/EKX8C6qKuac?si=D25BWlx51wp-kOxW

I would not trust anyone else's interpretation because its bastardized from right and left. I agree increasingly with the book in theme as time goes on, but it can't be read because its hyper hyper hyper repetitive, has really flat characters (especially john galt), and its antagonists are ridiculous strawmen. 

[Simpleman424]

 

[LJB]

Just what this thread was missing…

literary discussion by dullards…

[dragit]

11 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

I would not trust anyone else's interpretation because its bastardized from right and left. I agree increasingly with the book in theme as time goes on, but it can't be read because its hyper hyper hyper repetitive, has really flat characters (especially john galt), and its antagonists are ridiculous strawmen. 

There are definitely important books that are hard to read.  Some (not all) of David Halberstam could be too repetitive and lengthy but his themes were always valuable. 

I'll take your word on this one, I don't know much here outside of references to the book in other art, such as the clip I posted.

But I can see how it must be excruciating and patience-trying for our fellow poster for him to have to share the earth, let alone this pathetic forum, with worthless people, such as those on our miserable lower plane.

[Hammerlock3]

2 minutes ago, dragit said:

There are definitely important books that are hard to read.  Some (not all) of David Halberstam could be too repetitive and lengthy but his themes were always valuable. 

I'll take your word on this one, I don't know much here outside of references to the book in other art, such as the clip I posted.

But I can see how it must be excruciating and patience-trying for our fellow poster for him to have to share the earth, let alone this pathetic forum, with worthless people, such as those on our miserable lower plane.

at the risk of seeming pretentious, any dostoyevsky or solzenhitsyn, is very long and worth the runtime. Rand (based on two books, one of which i didn't finish) is not in the same league. The difference is that she only has one idea, and the others i mentioned are trying to explain the complexity of life.

[2001Hokie]

17 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

at the risk of seeming pretentious, any dostoyevsky or solzenhitsyn, is very long and worth the runtime. Rand (based on two books, one of which i didn't finish) is not in the same league. The difference is that she only has one idea, and the others i mentioned are trying to explain the complexity of life.

Saying she had one idea when she created an entire philosophical ideology is a pretty bad take.  She has an entire library of fiction and non-fiction.  If you want a shorter fiction novel that appropriately conveys her thoughts on individuality and personal achievement, try "Anthem."  

[Hammerlock3]

6 minutes ago, 2001Hokie said:

Saying she had one idea when she created an entire philosophical ideology is a pretty bad take.  She has an entire library of fiction and non-fiction.  If you want a shorter fiction novel that appropriately conveys her thoughts on individuality and personal achievement, try "Anthem."  

if anthem is the one where the protagonist discovers the word "I" I've read it. If I'm correct please take my word that i didn't google it or something because its the other work I alluded to, the one i didn't finish was atlas shurgged.

Edited September 27 by Hammerlock3

[dragit]

Boys. Boys. Boys. Please stop it with the thoughtful and respectful banter.  If I wanted that I'd sign up for adult ed somewhere. I come here for ad hominem attacks, meaningless gifs, and florid displays of narcissism.  

[2001Hokie]

6 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

if anthem is the one where the protagonist discovers the word "I" I've read it. If I'm correct please take my word that i didn't google it or something because its the other work I alluded to, the one i didn't finish was atlas shurgged.

It is.  To me it's the tip of the spear to understanding Objectivism's true goal, which is personal pursuit.  And against most people's typical attacks on her typical works, having read probably >75% of the catalog, you'll never find passages that promote gain at someone's expense.  It's generally the exact opposite and pushes striving for personal success and overall excellence.  While it's very obviously anti-collectivism, the themes in her fiction work show people working together with a common desire for high effort and appropriate rewards.  

Atlas Shrugged is tough for many to actually read if they aren't into philosophy as it has a lot of bridging between fiction and lecture, which frankly bores most.  Totally understandable, but if it's your jam, it's really well done.  I don't fault those that don't like it though...just don't pigeonhole the base of the text without at least digging into more of the background.

[2001Hokie]

13 minutes ago, dragit said:

Boys. Boys. Boys. Please stop it with the thoughtful and respectful banter.  If I wanted that I'd sign up for adult ed somewhere. I come here for ad hominem attacks, meaningless gifs, and florid displays of narcissism.  

Whatever nerd!

 

[Hammerlock3]

31 minutes ago, 2001Hokie said:

It is.  To me it's the tip of the spear to understanding Objectivism's true goal, which is personal pursuit.  And against most people's typical attacks on her typical works, having read probably >75% of the catalog, you'll never find passages that promote gain at someone's expense.  It's generally the exact opposite and pushes striving for personal success and overall excellence.  While it's very obviously anti-collectivism, the themes in her fiction work show people working together with a common desire for high effort and appropriate rewards.  

Atlas Shrugged is tough for many to actually read if they aren't into philosophy as it has a lot of bridging between fiction and lecture, which frankly bores most.  Totally understandable, but if it's your jam, it's really well done.  I don't fault those that don't like it though...just don't pigeonhole the base of the text without at least digging into more of the background.

I summarize my contrition by saying that despite my contact with her work I can't give a nuanced summary of objectivism, so i probably shouldn't risk coming off as dismissive. 

I will say I never confused it with some sort of endorsement of immoral individualism, exploitative capitalism, elitism...etc. 

And yes i don't consider myself a fan of intermingling fiction and lecture, not while we've had the benefit of aforementioned genius' who seem to be able to do both at once. 

[2001Hokie]

31 minutes ago, Hammerlock3 said:

I summarize my contrition by saying that despite my contact with her work I can't give a nuanced summary of objectivism, so i probably shouldn't risk coming off as dismissive. 

I will say I never confused it with some sort of endorsement of immoral individualism, exploitative capitalism, elitism...etc. 

And yes i don't consider myself a fan of intermingling fiction and lecture, not while we've had the benefit of aforementioned genius' who seem to be able to do both at once. 

Well we both know we're all nerds living in the glow of the gif genius here!

Anyway, love the off-road detour.  I don't get the chance to think on philosophy much anymore.