BF2S Forums EE Chat - December

Uzique wrote:

i have done many times.

luckily for me the average person with an intellectual-bullshittery of flaming maniac's scale is in a wheelchair and drools a lot. so i, as expected, still kick their ass.

But don't try to arm wrestle them.  Retard strength knows no bounds.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Uzique wrote:

i have done many times.

luckily for me the average person with an intellectual-bullshittery of flaming maniac's scale is in a wheelchair and drools a lot. so i, as expected, still kick their ass.

But don't try to arm wrestle them.  Retard strength knows no bounds.

says vegetable man to the 98 pound weakling

WAT

also work party 2moro. Hooah!

bennisboy wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Uzique wrote:

err... journalism? business? law? english literature isn't a pathway to being a professor, what a fucking dumb outlook. it's one of the most versatile degrees, provided you have the skillset and the experience, to turn towards anything you want. providing you have the self-determination.

I know a lit-student can get jobs other than a professor, sure, but (and this is just how I see it from the outside, I don't really know how a literature student goes about his work) it doesn't seem to have that direct connection to a line of work that other educations (eg. engineering) have.

I mean, it seems to me that a literature degree is great in combination with other degrees (example law, business), but it may not be that strong alone? I mean, you could do a lit degree and an MBA, but wouldn't you then be better off with some sort of economics degree and an MBA? And wouldn't one want to study law as well if you want to jump into the law-scene?


These are genuine questions btw, not rhetorical or "loaded" in any way.

I'm doing an Economics degree at the moment. Its not a vocational degree like engineering. Sure, you can become an economist, but I'd say less than one person a year uses it for that. Most use it to get in to fnance, which actually has fuck all to do with what you learn on an economics course

it's all initiative, jens. even vocational degrees arent fast-tracks to career success. a degree is as much a statement of status and competition as it is about actual practical applicability. like bennis said, you do a reputable degree to then hop into something else. most areas of work have their own specific training and skillsets, anyway, there's nothing 'rigid' about employment. especially when it comes to making money. you think every successful businessperson and every rich-cat has made their money because of a business degree and 40 years in a corporate office block? it's as much about initiative and personal-drive/ingenuity as it is about the piece of paper you get from university. personally, as ive said before, i find eng. lit. interesting as hell (which is more than i could say about staring at spreadsheets for 3 years) and in the process im basically getting a certificate to say 'im competent enough to get a well-reputed degree from an elitist institution'. degrees are status signifiers as much as they are job-trainee forms. plus, this may be a touch on the philosophical side, but 'education' to me is as much about personal enrichment and cultural/social/life awakening as it is about acquiring 'useful' knowledge. personally, i think im getting better value for my money out of my 3 years of education because, not only am i getting a degree that pertains towards general good-employment prospects, but im also getting a 'life' class that you wont get if you enter some technical institution to do a vocational or specific degree. again, the value of that is subjective and down to the person's preference and opinion, but i like absorbing the knowledge i acquire when reading widely and integrating it into my own view and thoughts on life. i just couldn't do that if i was doing a marketing/advertising degree, or anything else corporate-minded like that. come on man, want more from university than just a capitalistic stepping-stone!

i dont really know what you're talking about flaming with "academics relying on others", so i'll just discard it as your usual uninformed bullshittery. i dont know any academics or any academic practise that 'relies on others', in fact it's one of the biggest weaknesses of classical study at any formal level- undergrad or prof. also insinuating that anyone im lectured by is a 'dimwit' who simply cant achieve anything proper in the 'working world' is so fucking lulzworthy. at least 5-6 of my lecturers are making six-figures yearly because they are published authors (both in academia and in popular fiction), because they're invited to lecture academically all over the world and because they are recognized as intellectuals worth their teaching-fees. 'dimwits'. haha. i dunno what university you go to or what sort of faculty you have to endure, but i pity you.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-12-01 15:05:30)

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

No YOU are relying on them to make the argument for Dostoevsky not being a poor drunk with a gambling problem that wrote exceptionally well about little more than how shit life is by saying "well he must be good, look at all the time we have spent studying them". You didn't justify yourself, you left the burden of proof to precisely what you called the biggest weakness of classical study.

im not relying on them at all to substantiate my argument. repeating or representing anything they have said about 'x' author or 'y' book would be essay suicide. im also not doing an essay on dostoevsky because they told me... we havent been told to read a single book from the entire spectrum of russian literature in 2 years. its my research choice. so yet again... what the fuck are you talking about?

Walls of text are demeaning to the title EE chat

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uzique wrote:

im sure you've got it right and the literary critics of the 20th century have all been foiled by you, the 17 year old fucking genius. oscar wilde was a drug-head, byron was a sexual deviant, freud was a coke-addict... are all of their ideas worthless? jesus just go drown in your own self-ejaculate already.

that

still dont see the link. all i stated was that other people have found various means of appreciating his works as credible and celebrated literary achievements. people i respect more for intellectual opinion than you, who has the argument that he was an alcoholic, therefore he was shit. the beatles created some of their best works whilst off their face... what's your point? referring to other critics as being more intelligent than you and with a more worthy opinion doesnt have anything to do with what i am writing on him at all, nor am i relying upon their opinions or theories. im doing my own research- uninstructed, non-plagiarized, uninfluenced by other areas of esoteric and non-applicable theory. so... try yet again!

Last edited by Uzique (2009-12-01 15:11:05)

Surprise surprise, Uzique is on one of his superiority rants...

Uzique wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Uzique wrote:

im sure you've got it right and the literary critics of the 20th century have all been foiled by you, the 17 year old fucking genius. oscar wilde was a drug-head, byron was a sexual deviant, freud was a coke-addict... are all of their ideas worthless? jesus just go drown in your own self-ejaculate already.

that

still dont see the link. all i stated was that other people have found various means of appreciating his works as credible and celebrated literary achievements. people i respect more for intellectual opinion than you, who has the argument that he was an alcoholic, therefore he was shit. the beatles created some of their best works whilst off their face... what's your point? referring to other critics as being more intelligent than you and with a more worthy opinion doesnt have anything to do with what i am writing on him at all, nor am i relying upon their opinions or theories. im doing my own research- uninstructed, non-plagiarized, uninfluenced by other areas of esoteric and non-applicable theory. so... try yet again!

dude, do yourself a favor, get help.

CammRobb wrote:

Surprise surprise, Uzique is on one of his superiority rants...

have you actually read what we're talking about?

get a clue or fuck off

and i was only relying on people insofar as to say i'd rather go with their instructed, experienced opinion than yours. that's hardly a critique of academia. "the aston martin db9 is a shit car"... well actually no, my friend dave has driven one and says it handles so-and-so, accelerates like x, brakes like y. damn, that's basically all that car enthusiasm is about! relying on other fuckin' people! if you could substantiate why you think dostoevsky sucks (an opinion im personally ambivalent about, he's by no means a favourite of mine, either) other than to just say "he was an alcoholic, therefore everything he has written is worthless and sucks"- then maybe i'll equate your view as being credible alongside other reasoned and substantiated critics.

vastly unsuccessful dumb fucking moron is a vastly unsuccessful (at life) fucking moron

and err yeah, how exactly am i being narcissistic in asking for a bit of reasoning behind discrediting an author? sounds pretty rational to me.

the only reason i replied with attitude is because it's all-so-typical flaming. has an all-knowing opinion whilst not knowing what the doodle-do the fuck he's talking about.

Last edited by Uzique (2009-12-01 15:20:14)

burnzz wrote:

hey, weren't you two United in Defense of Europe Againt the United States last nite?

Yes, and?