Comments on: Nielsen Hayden Isms

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Sat, 01 May 2004 13:44:35 +0000

“There is, to judge from comments and a few emails, a teensy suspicion that I am pulling a Silver Surfer, herald of Galactus number, announcing philosophy on its way to eat defenseless literary studies (under cover of blogging).” There’s your Crooked Timber t-shirt.

By: nick

nick — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:40:11 +0000

“Just because you’re on their side, doesn’t mean they’re on your side.” Something that Christopher Hitchens really ought to bear in mind. Especially as he’s supposed to have read Homage to Catalonia.

By: john c. halasz

john c. halasz — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:23:42 +0000

OT, but the “paradox” of the Jesus citations is easily resolvable: the way is open to all, but straight and narrow is the way and few shall enter thereupon.

By: pepi

pepi — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:18:06 +0000

arthur: er actually they’re not equivalent at all. The first implicitely accounts for a group of people who are indifferent or unaware of who that “us” is. The second overtly excludes that, and labels even the indifferent as enemies. In other words: The first is socialist, the second is fascist :) The way I always heard it was the first instance, of course. And with “I” instead of “us”. I didn’t even know the second phrasing was in the gospels. I just thought it was Bush’s own version.

By: bryan

bryan — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:20:09 +0000

arthur, yeah, especially if we add in a variable for undecided. because in the first one the undecided are on jesus’ side and in the other one the undecided are against jesus. hmm, no maybe we don’t want to add in an undecided variable.

By: Arthur D. Hlavaty

Arthur D. Hlavaty — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:11:26 +0000

The logic of such statements is tricky. Two of the Gospels quote Jesus as saying “Those who are not against us are with us.” The other two have “Those who are not with us are against us.” The first sounds more reasonable, but the two are logically equivalent.

By: Kip Manley

Kip Manley — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:52:40 +0000

Nah. I got yer coffee mug, right here, buckos: “You say you have a counterexample to my argument, but you must be misunderstanding me, because I did not intend for my argument to have any counterexamples.”

By: Brian Weatherson

Brian Weatherson — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:38:11 +0000

Well it doesn’t look too hard to pull off in Photoshop, but the font may be a little thin to really get the right effect. If it’s not a proprietary secret, what is the font that we’re using? The main distinctive features are the long tail on the R and the slopes on the M, which should probably be enough to figure it out by reverse engineering.

By: eszter

eszter — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 17:12:52 +0000

Ted, just a logo?! Why stop there, put in orders for jewelry of the sort while we’re at it! Just the necklace missing from my collection!

By: Ted Barlow

Ted Barlow — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:43:00 +0000

I have always thought that we should make a version of the Crooked Timber logo in No Limits-style platinum and diamonds font, but I don’t know anything about Photoshop.

By: eszter

eszter — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:00:30 +0000

Bobbleheads! Great idea.;-) Perhaps at least the virtual version?:) This would be a good time to announce that if anyone sees a car with a Crooked Timber bumper sticker, for now that’s likely me driving it.

By: matt

matt — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:00:21 +0000

I’m in favor of seeing a line of crooked timber bobble-head dolls. Or maybe a lunch pail, for the kids.

By: Alan

Alan — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:36:41 +0000

How about “I’m very smart, but not at all precious about it. No, really.”

By: bryan

bryan — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:26:42 +0000

When I said you were attractive I meant attractive from the point of view of elegant social mechanisms.

By: bryan

bryan — Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:22:36 +0000

Deciding on your facts doesn’t mean the facts are on your side.