User talk:Nadsat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Thanks
Thanks for the Samuel Shem response. I've had no luck on Amazon yet... JFW | T@lk 01:10, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!
I'm new here too, but you are welcome to talk to me or view my site which I've been slowly building at
--Noisecontrol 23:18, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hello Again!
wow! Quick notes! My poetry comes from just about everything I've ever read, which is a lot, but I'd have to say my strongest influence is William Gibson and second strongest influence is Walt Whitman. In the past I've read Keruac, Dickenson, Frost, and William Carlos Williams.
I've taken Creative writing and American Lit Classes. And I have an Associates in computer science, so this is a good Medium for me. I've had a lot of fun working in it.
--Noisecontrol 23:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] And again!
I just realized that I missed a question of yours. Do I self publish all my works? Well, almost all of them. I've been a bit sidetracked of late with a message base called www.williamgibsonboard.com where my work has been collecting for a time. I've self published so much that there are bound to be copyright issues out there in places and I really don't care. As far as I'm concerned what I write is my own and no one elses. If I choose to post it somewhere, then in my opinion, the moderators are responsible for the ethical use of it.
I'll be honest, writing is a tough gig. I've written over 400 music reviews in my time and never been paid a dime. All I have is a little note on my Garage Band page that says 49 signature reviews which means that those are being used for Advertising purposes. (It would be nice to get paid sometime wouldn't it?) But then - things are getting smaller and less expensive.
Who knows. As the world turns, I think we'll find out who ends up alive in the hereafter.... :)
--Noisecontrol 00:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Response on Poetry
All in all I am satisfied with Frost, but I found him to be a little humourless. I really prefer Whitman although I can't point to a specific poem by him. His "Song of Myself" in Leaves of Grass is a good starting point though. I enjoyed that book so much that I read the entire thing twice.
I would also say that a good writer, should also necessarily be a good reader. I have several favorite american authors, including F. Scott Fitzgerald, William Gibson, Ernest Hemmingway, and Ralph Ellison. These are known well for their novels. I especially like The Great Gatsby and Pattern Recognition.
I am currently reading a book by Neal Stephenson called Cryptonomicon about the business of Encrypting and Decrypting files. It is historical fiction going over a snippet of what might have happened during WWII. I've read 300 pages in 3 days. I've been interrupting myself a lot.
Unfortunately, I'm on a bit of a schedule this week and I have to move quick, so I will take off for now, but keep reading. There are so many layers to any onion. :)
Talk to you soon,
Chris
[edit] you surprised me
I thought from your initial response to my first Dickens post that you were not an English speaker or at least had no exposure to academic literary criticism at all. I didn't mean to offend you with my response to your "spoonfeeding" remark, and I checked your site to apologize but this doesn't add up. If you like Dylan and can follow Burgess' nadsat wordplay why did my joke offend you? I thought you were being serious when you asked me to pedantically spell it out. If you are interested in writing I suspect you have no more use for the structuralist perspective on literature than I do. alteripse 19:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
The last thing I was trying to do was make you feel stupid or unintelligent. I checked your recent contributions and noticed you have been interested in literature and you asked for the interpretation of the Dylan song on the ref desk a couple of weeks ago. I share some of your tastes and realized I had made a big erroneous assumption. I was hoping that would occur to you also, but once again, I am reminded how differently a written message to someone unfamiliar may be intended and received. I should have quit several messages ago. alteripse 02:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, friends was the intention. How can I be of service? alteripse 02:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I tried, but I have to say I normally avoid the controversial topics because there is no satisfaction in having fools and pov pushers immediately destroy the work. Those articles are wikipedia's major weakness, in my opinion, and usually attract the least reasonable people. You will forgive me I hope if I don't persevere. alteripse 15:26, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edgar Allan Poe
Please go ahead and add some info on cryptography regarding Poe. It sounds like it could be a really interesting addition to this article. Harro5 08:07, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Bob Dylan - Nashville Skyline
Alissa,
I have answered your question on the Reference Desk Humanities page. Capitalistroadster 06:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alumnus/a revert
Hi there. I'm very sorry but you wrote in your revert that my change from alumnus to alumnus/a was NOT discussed on the talk page. THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. It isn't MY fault that you are not a thorough wikipedian, my friend. I put a full two paragraph discussion of my logic on the talk page. Go look there. I think your revert was counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical. Please see my comments on the alumnus talk page AND see in the actual article my CITED information that i added under usage proving that this IS a correct usage. Please respond on the alumnus talk page or on mine. I did my part by clearly explaining the reasoning for the revert on the talk page and responsibly making sure there were no double redirects etc. Please do yours. Thank you very much. Nadsat 19:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- The "discussion" was buried in a thread two and a half years ago, in a position where it was very difficult to spot. It certainly wasn't in any way prominent - and especially it wasn't anywhere near the section headed "The Recent Move" which was the last item on the talk page. Also it was hardly a discussion but a suggestion made late one night and then a move made in the small hours the next day without other contributions. Furthermore umpteen discussions have strongly deplored article names in a compound form that no-one uses. That is "counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical" (as is resorting to abuse as a substitute for argument). Can you point to another article that uses this style to create an artificial title? Timrollpickering 20:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Okay. I didn't realize I should make a new discussion about it, apologies for that. YET, if you were thorough, you would have seen on my explanation of my edit I wrote "m (moved Alumnus to Alumnus/a: removing sexist language - see my comment on the talk page about it)" - So I instructed you to look on the talk page for my comments. Also, I am not sure if the "compound form" is used on any other pages, I will research that but it may take me awhile to gather a list, but this is almost a moot point anyway (*explanation in following sentences for this conclusion). Also typically the masculine forms and feminine forms have their own pages. "Man" has a page that refers to people with male gonads and "woman" refers to people with female gonads. Etc. Also, just because the majority of wikipedia has uncited material and material with no sources doesn't mean we should follow that trend. I think there is a strong case to be made that the use of the term "alumnus" for a page that talks about alumna and alumnae is illogical and not a good idea, just like uncited information. I believe this analogy makes sense because it illustrates that just because one circumstance is more prevalent, does not mean this circumstance is the right circumstance, that it should occur, or that we should be assume culpability for making it reoccur. Also, please see the alumnus article and the ONLY REFERENCE on the page which I added when I added the information and follow the link for the dicussion on the usage of alumnae/i and alumnus/a. Feel free to visit these links I found within seconds of using Google. For uses of alumnus/a: [1], [2], [3], [4] AND for uses of alumni/ae: [5], [6], [7],[8]. These are just a few. Many of these links are from presitgious Ivy League colleges, instituations and nationally acclaimed boarding schools. Look, it's a compromise anyway - and a valid one at that. I could say use "alumna" as the title but that would be "counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical" as well. Even the a is just a "/a" here. Really, "alumnus/a" and "alumni/ae" are well established and respected. As I urged you before pick up a MLA Style Manual and check out what they deem "removing sexist language." I see no need to call it sexist (personally) or point fingers, language has faults, and they have been fixed. In the academic world and grammatical circles this usage is really preferred. Hope to hear from you soon. PS. (I don't want my tone to sound mean, I don't mean to be rude for the sake of being rude - just passionately logical, please read it as such). Nadsat 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, in case I didn't make it clear in my previous post - the above links should illustrate that the forms alumnus/a and alumni/ae (or alumna/us and alumnae/i) are not only used, but used widely and frequently. I mention this because I notice that in your explanation of your revert of my edit, you stated that the form I used (alumnus/a) is not used, which is obviously incorrect. Nadsat 01:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. I didn't realize I should make a new discussion about it, apologies for that. YET, if you were thorough, you would have seen on my explanation of my edit I wrote "m (moved Alumnus to Alumnus/a: removing sexist language - see my comment on the talk page about it)" - So I instructed you to look on the talk page for my comments. Also, I am not sure if the "compound form" is used on any other pages, I will research that but it may take me awhile to gather a list, but this is almost a moot point anyway (*explanation in following sentences for this conclusion). Also typically the masculine forms and feminine forms have their own pages. "Man" has a page that refers to people with male gonads and "woman" refers to people with female gonads. Etc. Also, just because the majority of wikipedia has uncited material and material with no sources doesn't mean we should follow that trend. I think there is a strong case to be made that the use of the term "alumnus" for a page that talks about alumna and alumnae is illogical and not a good idea, just like uncited information. I believe this analogy makes sense because it illustrates that just because one circumstance is more prevalent, does not mean this circumstance is the right circumstance, that it should occur, or that we should be assume culpability for making it reoccur. Also, please see the alumnus article and the ONLY REFERENCE on the page which I added when I added the information and follow the link for the dicussion on the usage of alumnae/i and alumnus/a. Feel free to visit these links I found within seconds of using Google. For uses of alumnus/a: [1], [2], [3], [4] AND for uses of alumni/ae: [5], [6], [7],[8]. These are just a few. Many of these links are from presitgious Ivy League colleges, instituations and nationally acclaimed boarding schools. Look, it's a compromise anyway - and a valid one at that. I could say use "alumna" as the title but that would be "counterproductive, counterintuitive, and illogical" as well. Even the a is just a "/a" here. Really, "alumnus/a" and "alumni/ae" are well established and respected. As I urged you before pick up a MLA Style Manual and check out what they deem "removing sexist language." I see no need to call it sexist (personally) or point fingers, language has faults, and they have been fixed. In the academic world and grammatical circles this usage is really preferred. Hope to hear from you soon. PS. (I don't want my tone to sound mean, I don't mean to be rude for the sake of being rude - just passionately logical, please read it as such). Nadsat 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
