23 replies to this topic

[Dirtydutch]

This should give you some extra incentive to start making better posts:[As found on The Dutch factor] The Dutch Factor AwesomatrixI've decided to resurrect The Dutch Factor Awesomatrix. For those of you who didn't read the original Dutch Factor on LJ, The Dutch Factor Awesomatrix was a tool I used to manipulate my fan base-- think Myspace top 8, but bitchin' and futuristic (only by merit of the word “matrix”). I've applied the name to other programs as well, but this application is nearest to my heart. What I'll do is assign arbitrary numbers of points to various things the I find amusing, awesome, etc. Sometimes I'll offer a specific (although also arbitrarily selected) number for answering trivia or understanding a pointlessly obscure reference. If you piss me off, I can remove points. All qualifying acts of badassity will score double if they involve Natalie Portman, Ayn Rand, or Kurt Vonnegut. If they involve two of the former, you'll receive six times the standard, and all three is called the Awesomatrix Trifecta, and will earn you a twelvetuple (this is so wrong I almost can't type it with a straight face. Still, it's a kick-*** new word) score. And don't try to pull some kind of semantics bullshit about what constitutes “involvement” with these subjects. That's my job. Anyway, your goal is to be in my top 10, although I'll show a top 15 or 20 upon occasion, just to motivate the up-and-comers. You don't have to be involved in any actual Internet contact with my blog or myself, but I'm going to try to keep it from becoming a list of my favorite authors and whatnot, as it so-often does. Here is the list, although only two people have even earned a point:Wang – 10,000 points (for recognition of an absurd Ted Demme reference)Anonymous (Wang?) - 1000 points (for going with the Kierkegaard reference instead of the more obvious Nietzsche reference-- or even the dreaded Dostoevsky argument I occasionally overhear at various ******* hangouts)I'll begin hunting FCP, and of course my blog comments, for point-worthy feats. Good luck.

[CardWarfare]

hows that? notice the kid on the bottom. best part.

[Golden]

CardWarfare, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 4:21 AM, said:

hows that? notice the kid on the bottom. best part.

C-Dubb wins.

[Dirtydutch]

What about it?

[CardWarfare]

Dirtydutch, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 4:32 AM, said:

What about it?

i was actually going to do a collage showinghow that same kid posteda comment on everyone of "lindseys" pictures, but i couldnt figure out how to dothat. so i didnt

[rsmbox]

quite possibly the worst idea ever...god i hope i get ranked somewhere in the bottom, if at all...

[NortonFan]

I'm still reading Slaughter House 5 and I don't really like it. Whats my rank?

[Golden]

Vonnegut rocked in Back to School

[Shimmering Wang]

I'll take my 11K pt. lead and sit on it, thank you very much. Anybody wants to come after me, you know where to find me. That's right: hanging out on the top of K-2 here in Awesomatrix land.Wang

[mrdannyg]

So what, misspelled Dostoyevsky references are 'played out,' but Ayn Rand isn't? All Rand does is make nerdy introspective teenagers think they 'get things' for a couple years before realizing everyone goes through that stage and they are neither a unique nor special flower.Dostoyevsky on the other hand is brilliant, though usually just read instead of appreciated.Then again, maybe the Dostoyevsky is the stage nerdy introspective young adults go through when they realize Rand is not groundbreaking .I should go find a chat transcript from the Absolute the other day. I basically just ripped off your Catch-22 Lindsey chat with someone pushing their webcam link at a 1/2 table.No love for Tolstoy?

[Mercury69]

You're lucky I'm not Jack Bauer. Nobody outranks Jack Bauer.

[Dirtydutch]

mrdannyg, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 8:59 AM, said:

So what, misspelled Dostoyevsky references are 'played out,' but Ayn Rand isn't? All Rand does is make nerdy introspective teenagers think they 'get things' for a couple years before realizing everyone goes through that stage and they are neither a unique nor special flower.Dostoyevsky on the other hand is brilliant, though usually just read instead of appreciated.Then again, maybe the Dostoyevsky is the stage nerdy introspective young adults go through when they realize Rand is not groundbreaking .I should go find a chat transcript from the Absolute the other day. I basically just ripped off your Catch-22 Lindsey chat with someone pushing their webcam link at a 1/2 table.No love for Tolstoy?

None.It's weird-- a lot of people hate the whole "not enslaving people" idea, but the only thing most people can come up with to aruge it is that most people don't believe it, so it must be wrong.

[mrdannyg]

Dirtydutch, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 12:52 PM, said:

None.It's weird-- a lot of people hate the whole "not enslaving people" idea, but the only thing most people can come up with to aruge it is that most people don't believe it, so it must be wrong.

I don't really know how to respond to that.I would simply think that someone who enjoys obtuse writing would be able to appreciate that obtuse writing is only enjoyable in that it is a departure from such perfect, structured writing, for instance Tolstoy or Dickens.Obtuse. What a great adjective.

[Dirtydutch]

mrdannyg, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 10:36 AM, said:

I don't really know how to respond to that.I would simply think that someone who enjoys obtuse writing would be able to appreciate that obtuse writing is only enjoyable in that it is a departure from such perfect, structured writing, for instance Tolstoy or Dickens.Obtuse. What a great adjective.

Yeah, I don't know why, but I just don't like him. I'm going to try to reread him at some point, but I just don't like him. It's been well cover in a couple threads, I guess I'm just weird. Obtuse is good because is you're applying it to someone they rarely know what it means.

[mrdannyg]

Dirtydutch, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 1:41 PM, said:

Obtuse is good because is you're applying it to someone they rarely know what it means.

Someone's smug detector must have gone off:4 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)3 Members: mrdannyg, mk, FOOSE1Seriously though, its a kind of triangle right?

[renaedawn]

I get points just for being me and my unwillingness to like you. You know I do.

[mk]

mrdannyg, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 11:59 AM, said:

So what, misspelled Dostoyevsky references are 'played out,' but Ayn Rand isn't? All Rand does is make nerdy introspective teenagers think they 'get things' for a couple years before realizing everyone goes through that stage and they are neither a unique nor special flower.Dostoyevsky on the other hand is brilliant, though usually just read instead of appreciated.

man, you've been studying the master of smugness, eh? p.s. i completely agree with you. rand and objectivism can be dismissed in one sentence: human beings have emotions. good-bye. i wish we were all like howard roark, but we aren't.

[Dirtydutch]

mk, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 10:56 AM, said:

man, you've been studying the master of smugness, eh? p.s. i completely agree with you. rand and objectivism can be dismissed in one sentence: human beings have emotions. good-bye. i wish we were all like howard roark, but we aren't.

What part of Objectivism is disproved by this fact? Because we "feel" we have to rob people?

[mrdannyg]

mk, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 1:56 PM, said:

man, you've been studying the master of smugness, eh? p.s. i completely agree with you. rand and objectivism can be dismissed in one sentence: human beings have emotions. good-bye. i wish we were all like howard roark, but we aren't.

you're my hero. I say that with only a tiny amount of sarcasm, which is pretty good.

Dirtydutch, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 2:03 PM, said:

What part of Objectivism is disproved by this fact? Because we "feel" we have to rob people?

I think the opposite, that objectivism is disproved because people feel too many emotions to do the 'bad' things that objectivism implies are alright.I refer everything to economics, and we refer to those things as "special relationships." Economics is inherently objectivist, so these special relationships are considered inefficiencies. But despite being inefficient, they still exist, and they still exist for people who know the negative causes of them.Dr House, from the show, strikes me as being objectivist. And I doubt anyone has watched that show without thinking at least once that the man needs to go to jail, or at least not be allowed to make important decisions.I've actually had the discussion :with myself face: that House is a condemnation of objectivism since his only redeeming feature is that he's "always right." and simple law of averages states that he will not always be right.

[Dirtydutch]

mrdannyg, on Friday, July 14th, 2006, 11:38 AM, said:

you're my hero. I say that with only a tiny amount of sarcasm, which is pretty good.I think the opposite, that objectivism is disproved because people feel too many emotions to do the 'bad' things that objectivism implies are alright.I refer everything to economics, and we refer to those things as "special relationships." Economics is inherently objectivist, so these special relationships are considered inefficiencies. But despite being inefficient, they still exist, and they still exist for people who know the negative causes of them.Dr House, from the show, strikes me as being objectivist. And I doubt anyone has watched that show without thinking at least once that the man needs to go to jail, or at least not be allowed to make important decisions.I've actually had the discussion :with myself face: that House is a condemnation of objectivism since his only redeeming feature is that he's "always right." and simple law of averages states that he will not always be right.

First, I should start out by saying that I don't enitrly believe in the philisophical side of of Objectivism. I'm an Objectivism, Politically. I often forget to mention this, and it causes a lot of confusion. Sorry. Second, House needs to go to jail because he injects people with things they told him not to, ect. He seems to feel that the end justifies the means. Doesn't seem too Randian to me.What "bad things" does Objectivism condone?