tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post3507828592704900706..comments2023-06-15T09:13:45.467-04:00Comments on Liberty's Torch: Groupiness And The Imperative Of FormalityFrancis W. Porrettohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-73723617084244468072017-01-24T17:51:48.354-05:002017-01-24T17:51:48.354-05:00I tried to post this earlier, but, in my ineptitud...I tried to post this earlier, but, in my ineptitude and perhaps not grasping the subtleties, I wasn't successful. <br /><br />I just wanted to thank you. I've spent the last several years following and re-reading many postings, saving the bulk of yours, since they, for me at least, require time to digest.<br /><br />I am not discouraged, nor fatalistic, at this juncture. I believe I am closer to the position this essay begins to reveal and elucidate. <br /><br />Thank you for persevering, despite the frustration and criticism. I am the better for your works.Humphreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14938410652612027238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-63170333439455727252017-01-23T22:59:38.091-05:002017-01-23T22:59:38.091-05:00Good insights Fran. I hate being in crowds and lar...Good insights Fran. I hate being in crowds and large cities, preferring to make my own way, think my own thoughts independent (as much as possible) of orthodoxy. One on one I find almost all people interesting and measurably likable. But, once clumping begins and groups number larger than 3 individuals my likability scale starts eroding as I backpedal from following. Up close and personal, collective predilections unknown, many people are worthy of intelligent interaction. It's the clumping that gets me and destroys it all.Dannenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-37529648541210045552017-01-23T14:55:23.052-05:002017-01-23T14:55:23.052-05:00SiG: Actually, "I am I" is the syntactic...<b><i>SiG:</i></b> Actually, "I am I" is the syntactically correct construction. "Am" is an inactive verb, which identifies, directly or indirectly, the subject with the object. All verbs of the "to be" family, plus verbs such as "seem" and "appear," take objects in the nominative ("I") case rather than the objective ("Me") case.Francis W. Porrettohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862584203772592282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-91989909528075468822017-01-23T14:45:35.382-05:002017-01-23T14:45:35.382-05:00“Then who are you?”
“I am me. There is no such...“Then who are you?” <br /><br />“I am me. There is no such thing as a group. We are all born alone. We all die alone. In between, all of the best and all of the worst moments of our lives are lived alone, even if in the presence of another.” <br /><br />(In The Man of LaMancha, Don Quixote uses the phrase “I Am I”, which maybe be more poetic but seems to contradict the use of subject and object. Use it if you prefer.)<br /><br />SiGraybeardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280583031339062059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6557458849091969678.post-48248052016903843112017-01-23T09:58:02.542-05:002017-01-23T09:58:02.542-05:00And do keep in mind that the woman in question wou...And do keep in mind that the woman in question would be horrified if you did not belong to the 'right' groups. If you belong to NRA, the TEA party, repub party (not really a big difference from the democrat party but she likely wouldn't know that), or any group that pursues masculine occupations (shooting of any sort, hunter group, etc) then she likely would have been more horrified that she 'thought' she knew who you were.<br /><br />Maybe next time you tell her you've joined the He-man Woman Haters Club :p If you really want to rub it in say it was because of the last convo you had with her!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com