You MIGHT want to read this
#21
(09-03-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:42 AM)Juniper Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 08:01 AM)Juniper Wrote: Speaking strictly for myself here, and managing to stay on topic, I might have been more intrigued to look at this book and see if I wanted to read it, except for the summation/review of it that was cut and pasted in.  THAT was the killer.  I think I'd rather see your own words on this other than the one sentence about 'satisfying vigor'. Maybe one or two lines from the review.    I mean you are trying to recommend a read here, but to me, it reads like selling humidifiers at the Harvey hurricane catastrophe.  Now, that's just my own opinion.  I  may pick it up at some point.  I'm really a terribly slow reader and have two to finish now. It sounds quite interesting. My point is, I had to slog through that OP three times to decide if I even was.... interested.

Sorry you are  a slow reader. But, you seem to keep at it until it's finished. I posted the review because having said that I thought it was an interesting read, I thought maybe a legitimate review would be of value to some. Surely (Don't call me Shirley!) it didn't take you all that long to read that review: Not like something from the New York Review of Books! 

The other reason I posted the Topic is that because this is a Forum I kind of thought exchanging titles of books we read might be a reasonable and typical thing to do. I often find what other folks read interesting and then read suggested titles I might otherwise not be aware of. 

It was not, after all REQUIRED. (As my little dig to TVguy noted. I was sure he would see the humor intended: Not so, and he again got all up in my face about it. I didn't hurt, so no harm, no foul.  Smiling )

Of course you posted it because  you thought it was something interesting to read. The review was not interesting to read!  Laughing Laughing 

The main reason I'm a slow reader is that over the years I've developed some ADD and can't sit for long and read. I might spend the whole day 'reading' but it consists of reading for a bit and then doing a few chores or checking the internet, or cooking something, or watering the lawn.  That's why it's good for  me to have "car books".  Perfect for the ADD reader!
"The review was not interesting to read!  Laughing Laughing "

That was your opinion and you are entitled to it.
You are not entitled to make a blanket statement suggesting that others might disagree.
Maybe you could have said, "I did not find the review interesting". 

And,  Laughing Laughing .  ?

I'm entitled to write it the way I wrote it.   Why would I not be?  You're still doing it, you know.  This is not the kinder, gentler Wonky. You still are jabbing here and there, everywhere you can and denying you are doing it.  Admit it.
Reply
#22
(09-03-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:42 AM)Juniper Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 08:01 AM)Juniper Wrote: Speaking strictly for myself here, and managing to stay on topic, I might have been more intrigued to look at this book and see if I wanted to read it, except for the summation/review of it that was cut and pasted in.  THAT was the killer.  I think I'd rather see your own words on this other than the one sentence about 'satisfying vigor'. Maybe one or two lines from the review.    I mean you are trying to recommend a read here, but to me, it reads like selling humidifiers at the Harvey hurricane catastrophe.  Now, that's just my own opinion.  I  may pick it up at some point.  I'm really a terribly slow reader and have two to finish now. It sounds quite interesting. My point is, I had to slog through that OP three times to decide if I even was.... interested.

Sorry you are  a slow reader. But, you seem to keep at it until it's finished. I posted the review because having said that I thought it was an interesting read, I thought maybe a legitimate review would be of value to some. Surely (Don't call me Shirley!) it didn't take you all that long to read that review: Not like something from the New York Review of Books! 

The other reason I posted the Topic is that because this is a Forum I kind of thought exchanging titles of books we read might be a reasonable and typical thing to do. I often find what other folks read interesting and then read suggested titles I might otherwise not be aware of. 

It was not, after all REQUIRED. (As my little dig to TVguy noted. I was sure he would see the humor intended: Not so, and he again got all up in my face about it. I didn't hurt, so no harm, no foul.  Smiling )

Of course you posted it because  you thought it was something interesting to read. The review was not interesting to read!  Laughing Laughing 

The main reason I'm a slow reader is that over the years I've developed some ADD and can't sit for long and read. I might spend the whole day 'reading' but it consists of reading for a bit and then doing a few chores or checking the internet, or cooking something, or watering the lawn.  That's why it's good for  me to have "car books".  Perfect for the ADD reader!
"The review was not interesting to read!  Laughing Laughing "

That was your opinion and you are entitled to it.
You are not entitled to make a blanket statement suggesting that others might disagree.
Maybe you could have said, "I did not find the review interesting". 

And,  Laughing Laughing .  ?

Still telling people what to say and how to say it.  Blink
Reply
#23
(09-03-2017, 10:02 AM)Scrapper Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:56 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:42 AM)Juniper Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 09:27 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 08:01 AM)Juniper Wrote: Speaking strictly for myself here, and managing to stay on topic, I might have been more intrigued to look at this book and see if I wanted to read it, except for the summation/review of it that was cut and pasted in.  THAT was the killer.  I think I'd rather see your own words on this other than the one sentence about 'satisfying vigor'. Maybe one or two lines from the review.    I mean you are trying to recommend a read here, but to me, it reads like selling humidifiers at the Harvey hurricane catastrophe.  Now, that's just my own opinion.  I  may pick it up at some point.  I'm really a terribly slow reader and have two to finish now. It sounds quite interesting. My point is, I had to slog through that OP three times to decide if I even was.... interested.

Sorry you are  a slow reader. But, you seem to keep at it until it's finished. I posted the review because having said that I thought it was an interesting read, I thought maybe a legitimate review would be of value to some. Surely (Don't call me Shirley!) it didn't take you all that long to read that review: Not like something from the New York Review of Books! 

The other reason I posted the Topic is that because this is a Forum I kind of thought exchanging titles of books we read might be a reasonable and typical thing to do. I often find what other folks read interesting and then read suggested titles I might otherwise not be aware of. 

It was not, after all REQUIRED. (As my little dig to TVguy noted. I was sure he would see the humor intended: Not so, and he again got all up in my face about it. I didn't hurt, so no harm, no foul.  Smiling )

Of course you posted it because  you thought it was something interesting to read. The review was not interesting to read!  Laughing Laughing 

The main reason I'm a slow reader is that over the years I've developed some ADD and can't sit for long and read. I might spend the whole day 'reading' but it consists of reading for a bit and then doing a few chores or checking the internet, or cooking something, or watering the lawn.  That's why it's good for  me to have "car books".  Perfect for the ADD reader!
"The review was not interesting to read!  Laughing Laughing "

That was your opinion and you are entitled to it.
You are not entitled to make a blanket statement suggesting that others might disagree.
Maybe you could have said, "I did not find the review interesting". 

And,  Laughing Laughing .  ?

Still telling people what to say and how to say it.  Blink

More than that.
Reply
#24
(09-02-2017, 08:49 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 04:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 04:00 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 03:21 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-02-2017, 02:59 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Isn't it great we all get make our own choices? 
I would guess it would be your loss to carve in the shape of a gun. I found it a fascinating read, as have thousands of others. I learned some things. (But, because I know so little I almost always learn from good writing).
Still, your comment proves your sense of humor is still in top form. 

PS: About you comment above, "I was not even one of those who originally called you a nanny or a hall monitor."
Maybe...I don't remember who started it. But you sure as hell piled on about it. Maybe with good cause, but it doesn't change the fact. 
Even now, I don't see the sin in the call I made about conduct here. It would have been SO EASY for those who didn't feel it necessary or appropriate to simply pass on by and ignore it. 

But that was then and this is now. 

Wonky 2.0 may, or may not, continue to express editorial comments about forum subject and conduct. If you see it, just "pass on by".

So what you are saying is you still just don't get how you come off sounding so superior and arrogant regardless of how often and how many people here tell you.


I'm over it.. YOU brought it up.

I only recommended a book I really enjoyed and thought perhaps others might enjoy. I included the remark about you perhaps thinking I was "telling others what to do" as a tongue-in-cheek comment because maybe "I had the gall to recommend something" 

From there it went downhill. 

Curious: If you bothered to read the review, do you think it might be interesting? That WAS the point, after all.
You say "I only" recommended a book I really enjoyed and thought perhaps others might enjoy.

and follow that with proof you didn't only recommended a book . Rolling Eyes

Whatever. Smiling Yes I did read the review and I was serious and trying to be funny about my non interest in reading that book.
But now that I double check I think some of  it just might be interesting.


I don't care about who ruled, what king what queen what revolutions or the dates etc. I'm more in to the stuff below......

"when humans “were insignificant animals with no more impact on their environment than gorillas, fireflies or jellyfish,” but he is a skeptic and rightfully relies on specific source material to support his arguments—though he is happy to offer conjectures. Harari launches fully into his story with the cognitive revolution, when our brains were rewired, now more intelligent and creative, with language, gossip and myths to fashion the stories that,"

Yes, I read that. Critics are a necessary part of the conversation and this guy does have critics. But this stuff can get real hairy. What do you know of THIS critic? What have been the general opinions of Harari's work? 

The difference between us is that I read it. I thought it was a remarkable read, written for the lay person, and full of information I was unaware of. (I'm not well educated so am unaware of lots of good information) 

If you don't think it's legitimate or that you might not want to read it, then don't. 

I posted it because I did read it, enjoyed it, learned a lot, and while the author may not be admired by ALL his peers, I suspect the success of this book indicates something positive. 

Must we argue about EVERYTHING? Just pass on by for crying out loud.
Nothing is good enough for you. I gave my honest opinion of what I thought about the review and I spoke of what part was interesting to me.
Reply
#25
(09-03-2017, 05:44 AM)bbqboy Wrote: This is like listening to an old married couple grouse.

Except that would imply both of the couples were guilty.

But look around. Wonky pisses off just about everyone with his constant desire to tell us all how to behave or how to post.

Now he's being nothing but a fucking troll.
Reply
#26
(09-03-2017, 04:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 05:44 AM)bbqboy Wrote: This is like listening to an old married couple grouse.

Except that would imply both of the couples were guilty.

But look around. Wonky pisses off just about everyone with his constant desire to tell us all how to behave or how to post.

Now he's being nothing but a fucking troll.
You might want to go back to the original post and follow each one until you get to your last post. 

A dead short can blow an entire circuit. Check your fuses.
Reply
#27
(09-03-2017, 06:49 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 04:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 05:44 AM)bbqboy Wrote: This is like listening to an old married couple grouse.

Except that would imply both of the couples were guilty.

But look around. Wonky pisses off just about everyone with his constant desire to tell us all how to behave or how to post.

Now he's being nothing but a fucking troll.
You might want to go back to the original post and follow each one until you get to your last post. 

A dead short can blow an entire circuit. Check your fuses.
I don't even need to go back to the first post. I remember it's when you had to make this stupid ass remark.... (No TVguy, I'm not "trying to tell others what to do")

In other words YOU can't just let it fucking go. You simply can not face the fact that you are an annoying control freak.
Reply
#28
(09-03-2017, 06:49 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 04:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 05:44 AM)bbqboy Wrote: This is like listening to an old married couple grouse.

Except that would imply both of the couples were guilty.

But look around. Wonky pisses off just about everyone with his constant desire to tell us all how to behave or how to post.

Now he's being nothing but a fucking troll.
You might want to go back to the original post and follow each one until you get to your last post. 

A dead short can blow an entire circuit. Check your fuses.

Talk about obtuse!   Laughing Laughing Laughing
Reply
#29
(09-03-2017, 07:48 PM)Cuzz Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 06:49 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 04:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 05:44 AM)bbqboy Wrote: This is like listening to an old married couple grouse.

Except that would imply both of the couples were guilty.

But look around. Wonky pisses off just about everyone with his constant desire to tell us all how to behave or how to post.

Now he's being nothing but a fucking troll.
You might want to go back to the original post and follow each one until you get to your last post. 

A dead short can blow an entire circuit. Check your fuses.

Talk about obtuse!   Laughing Laughing Laughing

He's lost his credibility.
Reply
#30
(09-03-2017, 07:01 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 06:49 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 04:36 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(09-03-2017, 05:44 AM)bbqboy Wrote: This is like listening to an old married couple grouse.

Except that would imply both of the couples were guilty.

But look around. Wonky pisses off just about everyone with his constant desire to tell us all how to behave or how to post.

Now he's being nothing but a fucking troll.
You might want to go back to the original post and follow each one until you get to your last post. 

A dead short can blow an entire circuit. Check your fuses.
I don't even need to go back to the first post. I remember it's when you had to make this stupid ass remark.... (No TVguy, I'm not "trying to tell others what to do")

In other words YOU can't just let it fucking go. You simply can not face the fact that you are an annoying control freak.

I think I got it:

[Image: F%27er_In_Charge.jpg?auto=format&fit=max&h=1000&w=1000]
Reply
#31
(09-03-2017, 07:59 PM)Juniper Wrote: I think I got it:

[Image: F%27er_In_Charge.jpg?auto=format&fit=max&h=1000&w=1000]

I may have to steal this.  Big Grin
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)