huey, I don't know you or Mr Krisko, nor anything about either of you, except your output that I read here. It's also worth noting that according Mr Krisko, he also bothers to read and opine about, and share his opinions, things about which he "[doesn't] even give a fuck." I just want to understand his system for categorizing which peopl…
huey, I don't know you or Mr Krisko, nor anything about either of you, except your output that I read here. It's also worth noting that according Mr Krisko, he also bothers to read and opine about, and share his opinions, things about which he "[doesn't] even give a fuck." I just want to understand his system for categorizing which people are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals, and which people are not. Is it what they say? Is it their style of writing? I have to admit that on the surface, I would have said he got it the wrong way around. But he hasn't explained how he decides who is, to put it a certain way, hopelessly full of shit. I do hope he'll help us understand his system. I want to be able to identify why you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and he's a well-intended and genuine intellectual.
This is not about being an intellectual. It's about reading good writing, if you want to, reacting by forming opinions, if you want to, and participating in a conversation, if you want to. There's plenty of room for disagreement, if and when it occurs, without insult.
If I were you, I would ignore what he says. As he pointed out, he doesn't even care about this issue. He just likes to hear himself talk, or read his own writing.
huey, I don't know you or Mr Krisko, nor anything about either of you, except your output that I read here. It's also worth noting that according Mr Krisko, he also bothers to read and opine about, and share his opinions, things about which he "[doesn't] even give a fuck." I just want to understand his system for categorizing which people are pretentious pseudo-intellectuals, and which people are not. Is it what they say? Is it their style of writing? I have to admit that on the surface, I would have said he got it the wrong way around. But he hasn't explained how he decides who is, to put it a certain way, hopelessly full of shit. I do hope he'll help us understand his system. I want to be able to identify why you're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual, and he's a well-intended and genuine intellectual.
I never even thought of myself as an intellectual.
He complements me with the title although it was
meant sarcastically. Who is perfect ? I'm like that
amond joy commercial"some days I feel like a nut".
No offense, but you mean compliments and almond.
This is not about being an intellectual. It's about reading good writing, if you want to, reacting by forming opinions, if you want to, and participating in a conversation, if you want to. There's plenty of room for disagreement, if and when it occurs, without insult.
If I were you, I would ignore what he says. As he pointed out, he doesn't even care about this issue. He just likes to hear himself talk, or read his own writing.
Thank you..