30||0|3173|5|
0|0|0|||1||A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||21:54:34|03/25/2014|So all day today I%27ve had a %5Bi%5Dbunch%5B%2Fi%5D of ideas banging around in my head.  Scenes for S5DS04%2C scenes for the second episode of TLOK6%2C the last piece of %5Bi%5DDesolation Angel%3A The Blue Flame Chronicle%5B%2Fi%5D%2C the main action set-piece of %5Bi%5DTechnical Difficulties%5B%2Fi%5D%2C even a couple bits of the %5Bi%5DDay of Infamy%5B%2Fi%5D retool.%0D%0A%0D%0AIf you%27re curious about why I didn%27t %5Bi%5Dwrite%5B%2Fi%5D any of those things today%2C it%27s because school is in session and I was busy working on %5Bi%5Dthis%5B%2Fi%5D crap instead.%0D%0A%0D%0AYay.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bhr%5D%0D%0A%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%0D%0AHTY 492 %E2%80%93 Spring 2014%0D%0AMarch 23%2C 2014%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bcenter%5DThoughts on Ellis%27s %5Bi%5DThe Social History of the Machine Gun%5B%2Fi%5D%5B%2Fcenter%5D%0D%0A%0D%0AAlthough it is a significant work on an important topic%2C not only in the context of twentieth-century warfare but also of the way in which armed conflict is managed today%2C John Ellis%27s %5Bi%5DThe Social History of the Machine Gun%5B%2Fi%5D is flawed in ways that may tend to damage one%27s confidence in its authority.  Some of its flaws could be indicative of simple editorial carelessness%2C but a few stand out as so peculiar and evidently deliberate as to call the whole matter into question.%0D%0A%0D%0AThe first and most prominent of these is the bewildering misidentification of one of the most prominent firearms designers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries%2C John Moses Browning.  At his first mention on page 16%2C Browning is identified as %5Bi%5DWilliam%5B%2Fi%5D Browning.  Further%2C on page 41%2C in the caption of a photograph plainly depicting John M. Browning with his M1917 heavy machine gun%2C he is identified as William %5Bi%5DJ.%5B%2Fi%5D Browning %E2%80%93 an arrestingly specific misnomer.%0D%0A%0D%0AThis is not simply a case of attaching the wrong name to a person shown in an old photograph.  John Browning was the designer of virtually every American firearm of consequence between 1885 and 1935 %28despite the fact that he died in 1926%29.  It may be argued that Browning is a minor figure in Ellis%E2%80%99s narrative%2C which focuses mainly on the Gatling and Maxim guns at that stage in machine gun history%2C and therefore this is not a significant error.  I contend%2C however%2C that he was such a seminal figure in early-twentieth-century firearms history that blatantly misidentifying him thus%2C even in a context where he is being given only peripheral importance%2C is an egregious %E2%80%93 even jarring %E2%80%93 failure of scholarship.%5Bsup%5D%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D1%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fsup%5D  It is akin to reading a history of the General Motors Corporation and discovering a reference to GM%E2%80%99s competitors%2C Ernest Ford and Gerald E. Chrysler.%0D%0A%0D%0ABeyond this simple but startling error%2C Ellis indulges in other%2C more elaborate%2C curious lapses.  On page 28 he trots out the tired allegation that Richard J. Gatling was a Confederate sympathizer who sited his factory in Cincinnati%2C Ohio%2C near the Kentucky border%2C in the hopes that it would be captured by the rebels.  He has the grace to couch this accusation in weasel words like %5Bi%5Dit seems%5B%2Fi%5D and %5Bi%5Dit is even alleged%5B%2Fi%5D%2C but offers no evidence%3B in fact he has none to offer%2C as these allegations%2C made against Gatling during his lifetime%2C do not hold up to historical scrutiny.%5Bsup%5D%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D2%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fsup%5D   Furthermore%2C they are irrelevant to the topic being discussed%2C which is Gatling%27s struggle to get his invention noticed by the United States Army %E2%80%93 a problem that was hardly unique to Richard J. Gatling or his eponymous gun.  The problem of gaining military acceptance for machine guns in various guises will continue to preoccupy Ellis%27s narrative right through World War I%2C long after he has finished offhandedly impugning Gatling%27s character.%5Bsup%5D%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D3%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fsup%5D%0D%0A%0D%0AStrange lapses and questionable digressions aside%2C there is historical value in this book.  The central theme of the gulf between the machine gun%27s capabilities and military thought%2C and its horrific cost in the First World War%2C occupies the bulk of the work%2C and it%E2%80%99s a theme that deserves investigating.  The narrative becomes a trifle repetitive here%2C true%2C but that is because the historical events themselves were repetitive%2C as the supposed best military minds of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries%2C particularly in Europe%2C resolutely failed to learn the obvious lessons of the American Civil War.  Or the Boer War.  Or the Russo-Japanese War.  Or%2C indeed%2C any armed conflict in which rapid-fire weapons were employed%2C up to and including most of the Great War itself.  Ellis pulls no punches here%2C using example after example to illustrate not just the incompetence%2C but in many places the willful incompetence%2C of those responsible for the frightful slaughter the Western Front became in 1914 and remained for four long%2C soggy%2C bloody%2C miserable%2C utterly futile years %E2%80%93 from generals refusing to adopt the machine gun in the first place to commanders at all levels failing to implement it properly or take it seriously once it reached the field.%0D%0A%0D%0APowerful though this section is%2C it strikes me that Ellis missed an opportunity to contextualize the folly of the war more broadly.  By focusing exclusively on the adoption %28or%2C in most cases%2C non-adoption%29 of the machine gun itself%2C he shortchanges the myriad other ways in which Western military thinking had failed to advance in the century since Napoleon%27s defeat.  This gives the illusory impression that the terror of World War I was more-or-less solely about the terrible killing power of the machine gun and the Allied generals%27 failure to grasp its significance%2C which is perhaps understandable in a book with such a specific focus%2C but overlooks much potentially useful context.  To take just two examples%3A%0D%0A %0D%0A - The machine gun was far from the only technology whose potential to shape the battlefield was underestimated or outright dismissed by the uniformed thinkers of the day.  For instance%2C as late as the 1930s%2C influential military authorities were still voicing open skepticism about the strategic usefulness of the aircraft%2C a tool which one would think had proven its value many times over in the same war which finally drove home the importance of automatic fire.  Ellis makes vague reference to other slowly-adopted military technologies in his conclusion%2C as part of a general view of twentieth-century war as an industrial undertaking%2C but he fails to draw the various threads of the topic together to give a really coherent broad context%3B%0D%0A%0D%0A - Similarly%2C no attention is given to the remarkable state of European political and social disarray that led to the Great War in the first place.  While not directly relevant to the question of the machine gun%2C this fact %E2%80%93 that Europe found itself involved in such a vast and destructive conflict in the first place because of applications of human folly%2C pigheadedness%2C and vanity so liberal as to make the British and French generals%27 heel-dragging about machine guns seem like a minor personality quirk %E2%80%93 would have gone far toward informing the overall narrative.  That such a disastrous moment in human history can be examined for one specific facet - a single aspect of military technology %E2%80%93 without accounting for the overall insanity of the age is an interestingly compartmentalized view%2C but not%2C I think%2C one with much weight behind it.%0D%0A%0D%0AIn the light of the above%2C Chapter VI might at first seem like another peculiar digression%2C veering as it does away from military matters entirely to discuss the civilian use of the Thompson submachine gun in the inter-war period %28and a brief interlude in film studies%29%2C but in a way%2C this section actually strikes closer to Ellis%27s central theme than much of the material about World War I.  This is%2C after all%2C a social history of the machine gun%2C and the non-military uses of such a weapon are surely relevant to that theme%2C as is its impact on the popular culture of its time.  In particular%2C the Auto-Ordnance advertisement reproduced on page 151 is telling.  %22The ideal weapon for the protection of large estates%2C%22 indeed.%0D%0A%0D%0AEllis%27s concluding chapter%2C in which he examines the postwar impact of automatic weapons on military strategy%2C then endeavors to summarize his conclusion%2C is curiously abrupt considering the exhaustive nature of the middle part of his narrative.  In the course of it%2C he brushes against matters that seem like they would have borne much closer scrutiny%2C such as the relevance of modern industrial production technologies to the genesis of modern weapons in the first place%2C in a manner too cursory%2C and too late in the work%2C to be really satisfactory.  It is not until the final page that he comes to what%2C in hindsight%2C appears to have been his real point all along%3A the comparison of the machine gun%2C and both the military and civil society%27s struggle to understand its significance%2C with the atomic bomb.%0D%0A%0D%0AIn the concluding paragraph%2C the entire work is revealed as a sort of historical shaggy dog story%2C 180 pages of scaffolding meant to support the grimly pessimistic conclusion that those who view technology in a positive light are na%C3%AFve.  It is a somewhat annoying bait-and-switch to be hurried past the omissions and context faults enumerated above only to be chided sarcastically that %22those optimists who foresee %26l%3Bhumanity%26r%3B being conveyed triumphantly into a neon sunset would do well to ponder the history of the machine gun.%22%0D%0A%0D%0AAs noted before%2C there is value here%3B the struggle to modernize the prevailing modes of thought about warfare is one which resonates today%2C in the era of armed drones and multi-million-dollar %22smart weapons%22 on whose precise advantages few military theorists can seem to agree.  In %5Bi%5DThe Social History of the Machine Gun%5B%2Fi%5D%2C however%2C this value is overshadowed %E2%80%93 sometimes to a maddening degree %E2%80%93 by quirky scholarship%2C sloppy editing%2C odd digressions%2C and a manipulative authorial bias which only reveals its true character at the very end.  It is a deeply flawed and irritating work which finds its own academic usefulness compromised by its author%E2%80%99s overarching need to make his pessimistic concluding point.%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bsup%5D%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D1%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fsup%5D %5Bfont size%3D%222%22%5DIt is doubly puzzling that such an error got past not one%2C but two editors%2C given that the edition we are reading is the book%27s second.  That such a basic mistake could be committed and then go unnoticed during the book%E2%80%99s publication and its preparation for paperback release is slightly shocking %E2%80%93 particularly in light of the fact that Browning is correctly named in another photograph caption on page 176%2C and in both the work%E2%80%99s bibliography and bibliographical essay.%5B%2Ffont%5D%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bsup%5D%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D2%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fsup%5D %5Bfont size%3D%222%22%5DJulia Keller%2C %5Bi%5DMr. Gatling%27s Terrible Marvel%5B%2Fi%5D %28New York%3A Penguin Books%2C 2008%29%2C 124-5.%5B%2Ffont%5D%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bsup%5D%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D3%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fsup%5D %5Bfont size%3D%222%22%5DAgain%2C one wonders where his editor was.%5B%2Ffont%5D%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bb%5DBibliography%5B%2Fb%5D%0D%0AEllis%2C John. %5Bi%5DThe Social History of the Machine Gun.%5B%2Fi%5D Baltimore%3A The Johns Hopkins University Press%2C 1975.%0D%0AKeller%2C Julia. %5Bi%5DMr. Gatling%27s Terrible Marvel%3A The Gun that Changed Everything and the Misunderstood Genuis Who Invented It.%5B%2Fi%5D New York%3A Penguin Books%2C 2008.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A
1|1|0|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Verbena||23:40:12|03/25/2014|In other words%2C it%27s political propaganda poorly disguised as a scholarly work. Decidedly not the first time -that%27s- happened. %3D%29%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A--------%0D%0A%0D%0Athis world created by the %0D%0Ahands of the gods%0D%0Aeverything is false%0D%0Aeverything is a LIE%0D%0Athe final days have come%0D%0Anow%0D%0Alet everything be destroyed%0D%0A%0D%0A--mu
2|2|1|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||23:46:53|03/25/2014|%3EIn other words%2C it%27s political propaganda poorly disguised as a %0D%0A%3Escholarly work. Decidedly not the first time -that%27s- happened. %3D%29 %0D%0A%0D%0AMm%2C%3Dno%2C I don%27t think the agenda in play here is political%2C as such.  The closing is too nihilistic for that.  Ellis isn%27t pushing for a political outcome so much as voicing a weirdly academic parallel to your freaky-ass sigblock%2C oddly enough.  %28WTF is with that%2C anyway%3F%29  I can%27t quote it right now for logistical reasons but will try to remember to do so tomorrow.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
3|3|2|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Verbena||00:10:23|03/26/2014|[updated:LAST EDITED ON Mar-26-14 AT 00:16 AM (EDT)]Oh%21 The sig is from Blazblue%3A Continuum Shift. It%27s one of Mu-12%27s quotes during her big instant-kill super move. That said%2C it%27s a bit out of date--the sequel was just released and Mu%27s no longer so nihilistic. %28Or%2C well%2C mind-controlled by a villain.%29%0D%0A%0D%0AAs for Ellis%27 book...well%2C perhaps I%27m paranoid%2C but any time someone presents a gun as -inherently- evil rather than simply a tool whose user is what%27s good or evil%2C I immediately think of the gun control lobby. I%27ll skip the diatribe here%2C I%27m sure it%27s all been heard before.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0AEdit%3A If you happen to care%2C the sig is taken from this move%3A http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DQOGGb9MK3Co%0D%0A%0D%0A--------%0D%0A%0D%0Athis world created by the %0D%0Ahands of the gods%0D%0Aeverything is false%0D%0Aeverything is a LIE%0D%0Athe final days have come%0D%0Anow%0D%0Alet everything be destroyed%0D%0A%0D%0A--mu
7|4|3|||||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Zemyla||22:51:30|03/28/2014|%3EAs for Ellis%27 book...well%2C perhaps I%27m paranoid%2C but any time someone %0D%0A%3Epresents a gun as -inherently- evil rather than simply a tool whose %0D%0A%3Euser is what%27s good or evil%2C I immediately think of the gun control %0D%0A%3Elobby. I%27ll skip the diatribe here%2C I%27m sure it%27s all been heard %0D%0A%3Ebefore. %0D%0AWhen you put it like that%2C it reminds me of Discworld. %28Which is a good thing%3B you can never be reminded of Discworld too often.%29
8|4|3|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||23:09:27|03/28/2014|[updated:LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-14 AT 11:13 PM (EDT)]%3EAs for Ellis%27 book...well%2C perhaps I%27m paranoid%2C but any time someone %0D%0A%3Epresents a gun as -inherently- evil rather than simply a tool whose %0D%0A%3Euser is what%27s good or evil%2C I immediately think of the gun control %0D%0A%3Elobby.%0D%0A%0D%0AMachine guns are an awkward case%2C even for firearms hobbyists like me.  They%27re technically interesting artifacts %28the inner workings of a Gatling gun%2C for instance%2C are quite fascinating%29 and%2C well%2C fully automatic fire is %5Bi%5Dfun%5B%2Fi%5D... but any realistic assessment has to concede that they have no practical use apart from killing a lot of people really quickly.  Which is... er... a hard sell on the basis of non-inherently-evilness.%0D%0A%0D%0A%28Mind you%2C Richard Gatling specifically thought his invention would %5Bi%5Dsave%5B%2Fi%5D lives%2C because he had the charmingly na%C3%AFve idea that a weapon as terrifyingly effective as an automated gun would prompt the nations of the world to avoid warfare altogether - or at least that their vastly increased effectiveness would reduce the size of armies.  It doesn%27t seem to have occurred to him that a general%2C handed a weapon that would make one man as effective in combat as 100 previously had been%2C would never think%2C %22Hey%2C that means I can let the other 99 guys go home%21%22%29%0D%0A%0D%0AAnyway%2C at that point you run up against a lot of really thorny ethical questions%2C such as whether it%27s OK to enjoy%2Fadmire%2Fcollect them when you%27re not OK with what they%27re actually for.%0D%0A%0D%0AThat%27s not a debate I want to have here%3F  I%27m just pointing out that it %5Bi%5Dis%5B%2Fi%5D a meaningful factor to consider.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
26|5|8|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Pasha||14:12:20|04/01/2014|[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-14 AT 02:12 PM (EDT)]%3EMachine guns are an awkward case%2C even for firearms hobbyists like me. %0D%0A%3E They%27re technically interesting artifacts %28the inner workings of a %0D%0A%3EGatling gun%2C for instance%2C are quite fascinating%29 and%2C well%2C fully %0D%0A%3Eautomatic fire is %5Bi%5Dfun%5B%2Fi%5D... but any realistic assessment has to %0D%0A%3Econcede that they have no practical use apart from killing a lot of %0D%0A%3Epeople really quickly.  Which is... er... a hard sell on the basis of %0D%0A%3Enon-inherently-evilness. %0D%0A%0D%0AInterestingly%2C the Gatling gun isn%27t technically an automatic weapon according to the rules laid down by the BATFE. You have to keep pushing the crank%2C which means that you%27re not firing more than one round per activation of the firing mechanism.   I keep being tempted to commission one in .22lr or something%2C mostly as an artifact.%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0A-- %0D%0A-Pasha%0D%0A%22Don%27t change the subject%22%0D%0A%22Too slow%2C already did.%22
27|6|26|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||14:23:33|04/01/2014|[updated:LAST EDITED ON Apr-01-14 AT 02:55 PM (EDT)]%3E%3EMachine guns are an awkward case%2C even for firearms hobbyists like me. %0D%0A%3E%3E They%27re technically interesting artifacts %28the inner workings of a %0D%0A%3E%3EGatling gun%2C for instance%2C are quite fascinating%29 and%2C well%2C fully %0D%0A%3E%3Eautomatic fire is %5Bi%5Dfun%5B%2Fi%5D... but any realistic assessment has to %0D%0A%3E%3Econcede that they have no practical use apart from killing a lot of %0D%0A%3E%3Epeople really quickly.  Which is... er... a hard sell on the basis of %0D%0A%3E%3Enon-inherently-evilness. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EInterestingly%2C the Gatling gun isn%27t technically an automatic weapon %0D%0A%3Eaccording to the rules laid down by the BATFE.%0D%0A%0D%0AYes%2C I knew someone was going to point that out.  It%27s true%2C a Gatling gun isn%27t a machine gun by the official definition of the term.  It is%2C however%2C a %5Bi%5Dmachine%5B%2Fi%5D gun.  If you follow.%0D%0A%0D%0AI actually have a complete set of diagrams for a .22-caliber rimfire six-barrel Gatling.  I doubt I%27ll ever get around to building one - the only machine shop I have access to Isn%27t Really For That%2C and there%27s the question of acquiring the materials and whatnot - but there%27s always the possibility.  I know my boss is intrigued by the notion.%0D%0A%0D%0ASimilarly%2C I%27d rather like to own an AK-47%2C even though if one could %5Bi%5Dever%5B%2Fi%5D make a case for a machine being evil %5Bi%5Dit would have to be that one%5B%2Fi%5D - partly because I%27m a student of the era that produced it%2C partly because of its fascinating and extemely checkered history %28it%27s the only firearm I can think of that appears on a national flag%29%2C and partly because it%27s such a perfect piece of design for the imperfect manufacturing environment where it was produced.  Its crudity %5Bi%5Dis%5B%2Fi%5D its sophistication.  That%27s a hell of a good engineering trick.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D%22This is not a democracy%21  I have a gun%2C so I%27m in charge%21  Many governments around the world function on this principle%21  And some of them last for months%21%22 - Gordon Freeman%5B%2Ffont%5D%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
29|7|27|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Pasha||18:58:10|04/01/2014|%0D%0A%3E%3EInterestingly%2C the Gatling gun isn%27t technically an automatic weapon %0D%0A%3E%3Eaccording to the rules laid down by the BATFE.%0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EYes%2C I knew someone was going to point that out.  It%27s true%2C a Gatling %0D%0A%3Egun isn%27t a machine gun by the official definition of the term.  It %0D%0A%3Eis%2C however%2C a %5Bi%5Dmachine%5B%2Fi%5D gun.  If you follow. %0D%0A%0D%0AI do actually follow%2C it was just a reasonable segue into the %22which means I can make one%21%22 topic.%0D%0A%0D%0A%3EI actually have a complete set of diagrams for a .22-caliber rimfire %0D%0A%3Esix-barrel Gatling.  I doubt I%27ll ever get around to building one - %0D%0A%3Ethe only machine shop I have access to Isn%27t Really For That%2C and %0D%0A%3Ethere%27s the question of acquiring the materials and whatnot - but %0D%0A%3Ethere%27s always the possibility.  I know my boss is intrigued by the %0D%0A%3Enotion. %0D%0A%0D%0AI wonder if I actually first heard about this from you%2C then.  I recall having a discussion with SOMEONE about this on...livejournal%3F several years ago%2C and tracking down plans for one chambered in 5.56 %28which are sitting on a hard drive somewhere%29.  But that just seems excessive for %22I wanna go down to a range and turn this crank so everyone can smile%22.  Do you remember where you got those .22 plans%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%3ESimilarly%2C I%27d rather like to own an AK-47%2C even though if one could %0D%0A%3E%5Bi%5Dever%5B%2Fi%5D make a case for a machine being evil %5Bi%5Dit would have to %0D%0A%3Ebe that one%5B%2Fi%5D - partly because I%27m a student of the era that %0D%0A%3Eproduced it%2C partly because of its fascinating and extemely checkered %0D%0A%3Ehistory %28it%27s the only firearm I can think of that appears on a %0D%0A%3Enational flag%29%2C and partly because it%27s such a perfect piece of design %0D%0A%0D%0AGuatamala has a rifle of some sort on it.  %28There is%2C of course%2C a relevant wiki page%3A http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGallery_of_flags_with_weapons%23Cannon_or_Gun%29%0D%0A%0D%0A%3Efor the imperfect manufacturing environment where it was produced.  %0D%0A%3EIts crudity %5Bi%5Dis%5B%2Fi%5D its sophistication.  That%27s a hell of a good %0D%0A%3Eengineering trick. %0D%0A%0D%0A%22AK-47%3A You might have trouble hitting the side of a barn from inside%2C but by God when you pull the trigger it goes bang.%22  Also%2C I%27m pretty sure that you could build one in a cave with a box of scraps%2C even without being tony stark.%0D%0A%0D%0A-- %0D%0A-Pasha%0D%0A%22Don%27t change the subject%22%0D%0A%22Too slow%2C already did.%22
30|8|29|||||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|jonathanlennox||12:04:04|04/03/2014|%3E%22AK-47%3A You might have trouble hitting the side of a barn from inside%2C %0D%0A%3Ebut by God when you pull the trigger it goes bang.%22  Also%2C I%27m pretty %0D%0A%3Esure that you could build one in a cave with a box of scraps%2C even %0D%0A%3Ewithout being tony stark. %0D%0A%0D%0AIndeed%2C there are gunsmiths in the highlands of Pakistan who regularly do just that%3A http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FKhyber_Pass_Copy.%0D%0A%0D%0A%28Well%2C probably not in a cave per se%2C unless they%27re hiding from drone strikes.%29
4|1|0|||||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|drakensis||03:09:38|03/26/2014|Just coincidentally%2C there was a history programme on the BBC2 on Monday titled %22The Machine Gun and Skye%27s Band of Brothers%22 which discusses the development of the machine gun%2C its military adoption and social impact resulting from entire companies%2C often recruited from the same community%2C being gutted by machine gun fire - in this case the Portree Company of the Cameron Highlanders. %28The latter part isn%27t quite %27What was Saving Private Ryan complaining about%2C WWI was much worse%29.%0D%0A%0D%0AIf any one%27s interested in the topic and can watch BBC online%2C it%27s available for rewatching for the rest of the week.
5|1|0|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Peter Eng||04:07:01|03/26/2014|%3E%0D%0A%3EIf you%27re curious about why I didn%27t %5Bi%5Dwrite%5B%2Fi%5D any of those things %0D%0A%3Etoday%2C it%27s because school is in session and I was busy working on %0D%0A%3E%5Bi%5Dthis%5B%2Fi%5D crap instead. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%0D%0AThe book you had to write about is crap.  What you wrote is in no way crap.%0D%0A%0D%0APersonally%2C I wouldn%27t assume that you weren%27t writing things for EPU on some level of your consciousness.  Professional writers do all sorts of things while the paying copy is being pulled together in the subconscious%2C and not all of them look like writing the book.%0D%0A%0D%0APeter Eng%0D%0A--%0D%0AInsert humorous comment here.
6|1|0|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Mercutio||03:35:54|03/27/2014| %0D%0A%3Eresolutely failed to learn the obvious lessons of the American Civil %0D%0A%3EWar.  Or the Boer War.  Or the Russo-Japanese War.  Or%2C indeed%2C any %0D%0A%3Earmed conflict in which rapid-fire weapons were employed%2C up to and %0D%0A%3Eincluding most of the Great War itself.  %0D%0A%0D%0AI once took a course on the the the military history of World War I that%2C on the first day of class%2C began with the Battle of Petersburg. My professor was absolutely adamant that we couldn%27t properly contextualize it without that.%0D%0A%0D%0AYour academical writing style reminds me a lot of my own. %28I intend that as a compliment%2C although you may not receive it as one.%29 It also reminds me a little of David Halberstam. %28Again%3A compliment.%29 You eschew a carefully neutral%2C high-minded professorial tone for a more conversational%2C engaged one%2C addressing the reader directly as if speaking to them in a lecture hall or%2C indeed%2C across a table in a comfortable pub. But at the same time%2C you avoid coming off as a raging polemicist. It%27s personal without being sloppy%2C which is a real hard balance to strike.%0D%0A%0D%0A%28I should note that I have no inherent problems with either a studiously neutral form of writing or raging polemics. Both have their place.%29%0D%0A%0D%0AFor a man who professes not to have a lot of patience with serious literary types%2C Ben%2C you sure do write like one when the need arises. %3A%29%0D%0A%0D%0A-Merc%0D%0AKeep Rat
9|2|6|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||23:15:05|03/28/2014|%3EFor a man who professes not to have a lot of patience with serious %0D%0A%3Eliterary types%2C Ben%2C you sure do write like one when the need arises. %0D%0A%0D%0AWell%2C perhaps.  There are lines that I try not to cross%2C though.  For example%2C I would punch myself in the face before using the word %5Bi%5Dhermeneutic%5B%2Fi%5D in an academic paper.  Or %5Bi%5Depiphenomenal%5B%2Fi%5D.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
10|3|9|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Lime2K||02:02:15|03/29/2014|I would punch myself in the face before using the word %0D%0A%3E%5Bi%5Dhermeneutic%5B%2Fi%5D in an academic paper.  Or %5Bi%5Depiphenomenal%5B%2Fi%5D. %0D%0A%0D%0AYou make me glad this is a feature in OSX%3A%0D%0A%0D%0A%5BIMG%5Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fi630.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu28%2FLime2K%2Flookup.png%5B%2FIMG%5D%0D%0A%0D%0AMind you%2C I still have no idea why you or I would ever %5Bi%5Dneed%5B%2Fi%5D to use those words. Is it so hard to use two words instead of one horribly constructed one%3F%0D%0A--------------%0D%0ALime2K%0D%0AThe One True Evil Overlord
12|4|10|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|laudre||11:31:44|03/29/2014|[updated:LAST EDITED ON Mar-29-14 AT 11:32 AM (EDT)]%3EMind you%2C I still have no idea why you or I would ever %5Bi%5Dneed%5B%2Fi%5D to %0D%0A%3Euse those words. Is it so hard to use two words instead of one %0D%0A%3Ehorribly constructed one%3F %0D%0A%0D%0AThat reminds me of an astonishingly pretentious book that%2C in its preface%2C used the author-invented word %22architechtonics%22 without the slightest bit of irony. %28It was%2C as I recall%2C a book on something along the lines of social theory intersecting with abstract theater -- and I mean abstract theater that%27s difficult to distinguish from the most self-involved of performance art.%29%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bhr %2F%5D%5Bsmall%5D%22Mathematics brought rigor to economics. Unfortunately%2C it also brought mortis.%22%0D%0A - Kenneth Boulding%5B%2Fsmall%5D%5Bhr %2F%5D
17|5|12|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||13:49:20|03/29/2014|%3EThat reminds me of an astonishingly pretentious book that%2C in its %0D%0A%3Epreface%2C used the author-invented word %22architechtonics%22 without the %0D%0A%3Eslightest bit of irony. %28It was%2C as I recall%2C a book on something %0D%0A%3Ealong the lines of social theory intersecting with abstract theater -- %0D%0A%3Eand I mean abstract theater that%27s difficult to distinguish from the %0D%0A%3Emost self-involved of performance art.%29 %0D%0A%0D%0AWhich is silly%2C because if you take the word apart it becomes obvious that it refers to designed terrestrial crust formations%2C presumably of a kind that would be written up in the %5Bi%5DMagrathean Journal of Planetary Engineers%5B%2Fi%5D.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
11|3|9|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Mercutio||11:29:39|03/29/2014|%0D%0A%3EWell%2C perhaps.  There are lines that I try not to cross%2C though.  For %0D%0A%3Eexample%2C I would punch myself in the face before using the word %0D%0A%3E%5Bi%5Dhermeneutic%5B%2Fi%5D in an academic paper.  Or %5Bi%5Depiphenomenal%5B%2Fi%5D. %0D%0A%0D%0ABut what are your feelings on %5Bi%5Dweltanschung%5B%2Fi%5D%3F %3A%29%0D%0A%0D%0A-Merc%0D%0AKeep Rat
13|4|11|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||11:50:29|03/29/2014|%3E%0D%0A%3E%3EWell%2C perhaps.  There are lines that I try not to cross%2C though.  For %0D%0A%3E%3Eexample%2C I would punch myself in the face before using the word %0D%0A%3E%3E%5Bi%5Dhermeneutic%5B%2Fi%5D in an academic paper.  Or %5Bi%5Depiphenomenal%5B%2Fi%5D. %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3EBut what are your feelings on %5Bi%5Dweltanschung%5B%2Fi%5D%3F %3A%29 %0D%0A%0D%0AWell%2C if I misspelled %5Bi%5DWeltanschauung%5B%2Fi%5D that egregiously%2C I%27d at least deserve to lose a few points. %3A%29%0D%0A%0D%0AAnyway%2C your snark is mildly misdirected.  I obviously don%27t mind - hell%2C I enjoy - a five-dollar word or three%2C especially when they convey a shade of meaning not readily available with simpler language or are used for humorous or sarcastic effect %28as with%2C e.g.%2C virtually every use of %5Bi%5Dsesquipedalian%5B%2Fi%5D in human history%29.  For instance%2C I often enjoy foreign loan words like %5Bi%5DWeltanschauung%5B%2Fi%5D%2C specifically because they often have a slightly different flavor that their English equivalents.  Sure%2C it means %22worldview%22%2C but it%27s differently shaded%2C probably because it hints at a closer connection to the original usage in Enlightenment-era German philosophy.  It%27s a much subtler was of connecting with all that than blathering pompously on about Hegelian dialecticalism.%0D%0A%0D%0AWhat I object to is gratuitous use of obnoxious jargon just for the sake of looking clever.  I must remember to provide an example from one of the readings for yesterday%27s HTY 407 class discussion sometime when I%27m not posting from my phone.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
14|5|13|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||13:09:56|03/29/2014|I promised you an example%2C and here is one.  This is the concluding paragraph of %22The Habermasian Public Sphere and %27Science in the Enlightenment%27%22 by Thomas Broman of the University of Wisconsin%2C Madison %28%5Bi%5DHist. Sci.%5B%2Fi%5D%2C xxxvi%2C 1998%29.%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bdiv style%3D%22color%3Ablack%3B border-color%3Ablack%3B border-style%3Asolid%3B border%3A5%3B padding%3A5%22%5DAs I have tried to show here%2C the public sphere is a category that can do this kind of work.  On the one hand%2C it has the great virtue of being a real historical phenomenon%2C marked by concrete events %28the spread of periodical literature%2C the formation of masonic lodges%29 that can be located in a particular era.  It was also marked by a certain self-consciousness among its participants%2C and to that extent%2C the public sphere is partially an actor%27s category.  But just as importantly%2C the public sphere can be seen as a system for the formation of concepts%2C as Foucault described such a system in %5Bi%5DThe archaeology of knowledge%5B%2Fi%5D.%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D%5Bsup%5D61%5B%2Fsup%5D%5B%2Ffont%5D  The patterns of knowledge that are created and their role in the exercise of power are not to be understood on the basis of the unity of subjective consciousness%2C Foucault argued%2C nor their logical necessity.  Seen this way%2C the development of the public sphere in the eighteenth century manifested a new discursive formation%2C what I have called the discourse of criticism%2C and this discourse fundamentally reconfigured the basis on which knowledge was considered authoritative.  Of course%2C none of this invalidates the reality of judgements of trustworthiness made by Shapin%27s more or less civil natural philosophers%2C nor would I suggest their judgements are merely epiphenomenal.  But it does suggest that there is still a larger integrative social history of truth waiting to be written%2C one that takes account of both science and civility and the larger discursive transformation represented the emergence of the public sphere.  In such a hypothetical history%2C I am convinced%2C there will be a clear role to be played by science in the Enlightenment.%0D%0A%0D%0A%5Bfont size%3D%221%22%5D%5Bsup%5D61%5B%2Fsup%5D%5B%2Ffont%5D%5Bfont size%3D%222%22%5D Michel Foucault%2C %5Bi%5DThe archaeology of knowledge%5B%2Fi%5D%2C transl. by A. M. Sheridan Smith %28New York%2C 1982%29%2C 31-76.%5B%2Ffont%5D%5B%2Fdiv%5D%0D%0A%0D%0AThere are 21%C2%BD more pages just like that before that paragraph.%0D%0A%0D%0AThat is the kind of academic I %5Bi%5Ddon%27t%5B%2Fi%5D want to be.  Compared to Broman%2C John Ellis was a wizard%2C even if he didn%27t know who John Browning was or quite what he himself was trying to say at some points.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
15|6|14|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Astynax||13:25:57|03/29/2014|It may be a lack of context or familiarity with the subject matter%2C but reading the paragraph quoted above causes me to have the following as a reaction%3A%0D%0A%0D%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D5hfYJsQAhl0
16|7|15|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||13:46:57|03/29/2014|%3EIt may be a lack of context or familiarity with the subject matter%2C %0D%0A%3Ebut reading the paragraph quoted above causes me to have the following %0D%0A%3Eas a reaction%3A %0D%0A%0D%0AIt%27s not quite as bad as that if you%27re coming to it in the middle of a study of the Enlightenment in general%2C and you have some context for the other stuff he%27s citing - there is some %5Bi%5Dthere%5B%2Fi%5D there if you know where to dig - but it%27s still pretty damn rough sledding%2C particularly as we have read neither Foucault nor Shapin and so can only glark from context what he%27s on about when he mentions them.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
18|7|15|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|MoonEyes||16:52:56|03/29/2014|%3EIt may be a lack of context or familiarity with the subject matter%2C %0D%0A%3Ebut reading the paragraph quoted above causes me to have the following %0D%0A%3Eas a reaction%3A %0D%0A%0D%0AThat particular piece always%2C in turn%2C remind me of Wolfgang Pauli and his%28supposed%29statement%2C %22Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig%2C es ist nicht einmal falsch%21%22%0D%0A%0D%0ANot only is that not correct%2C it%27s not even WRONG%21%0D%0A%0D%0A...%21%0D%0AGott%27s Leetle Feesh in Trousers%21
21|8|18|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||01:07:25|03/30/2014|%3EThat particular piece always%2C in turn%2C remind me of Wolfgang Pauli and %0D%0A%3Ehis%28supposed%29statement%2C %22Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig%2C es ist nicht %0D%0A%3Eeinmal falsch%21%22 %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3ENot only is that not correct%2C it%27s not even WRONG%21 %0D%0A%0D%0AThat%27s a good one.  The early nuclear physicists were a very quotable bunch - particularly Niels Bohr%2C who has many of my favorite science quotes%2C rightly or apocryphally%2C attributed to him%2C including%3A%0D%0A%0D%0A%22Young man%2C we are all agreed that your hypothesis is crazy.  What divides us is whether it is crazy enough to be right.%22%0D%0A%0D%0A%22If quantum mechanics does not offend you%2C that is an indication that you don%27t understand it.%22%0D%0A%0D%0Aand of course%2C the immortal%0D%0A%0D%0A%22Einstein%21  %5Bi%5DStop telling God what to do%21%5B%2Fi%5D%22%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
22|9|21|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|MoonEyes||08:09:27|03/30/2014|%3EThat%27s a good one.  The early nuclear physicists were a very quotable %0D%0A%3Ebunch - particularly Niels Bohr%2C who has many of my favorite science %0D%0A%3Equotes%2C rightly or apocryphally%2C attributed to him%2C including%3A %0D%0A%0D%0AIt is%2C isn%27t it%3F Harsh%2C too. Imagine getting that one on your paper%3F Ow.%0D%0A%0D%0A%3E%22Young man%2C we are all agreed that your hypothesis is crazy.  What %0D%0A%3Edivides us is whether it is crazy enough to be right.%22 %0D%0A%0D%0AQuite a fitting quote%2C considering it was Pauli he said it to. %3A%29%0D%0A%0D%0A%3E%22If quantum mechanics does not offend you%2C that is an indication that %0D%0A%3Eyou don%27t understand it.%22 %0D%0A%0D%0AI%27m not so much offended by it as my brain has been quite thoroughly twisted about by it. I also don%27t understand it.%0D%0A%0D%0A%3Eand of course%2C the immortal %0D%0A%3E%0D%0A%3E%22Einstein%21  %5Bi%5DStop telling God what to do%21%5B%2Fi%5D%22 %0D%0A%0D%0AWell%2C of course%21 If god wants to play dice%2C who is Albert to tell him he can%27t%3F%0D%0A%0D%0A%0D%0AVery nice quotes all of them. Quotes of this kind are fun%2C real or made up.%0D%0A%0D%0A...%21%0D%0AGott%27s Leetle Feesh in Trousers%21
23|9|21|||||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Proginoskes||14:06:43|03/30/2014|Enrico Fermi%3A If I could remember the names of all these particles%2C I%27d be a botanist.%0D%0A%0D%0AThen there are the jokes about mathematicians%2C which I suspect forms a set of magnitude aleph-null.
24|10|23|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||14:25:00|03/30/2014|%3EEnrico Fermi%3A If I could remember the names of all these particles%2C %0D%0A%3EI%27d be a botanist. %0D%0A%0D%0AMy favorite Fermi story is the one about him startling a number of his co-workers at Los Alamos by suddenly demanding%2C %22Where %5Bi%5Dis%5B%2Fi%5D everybody%3F%21%22 in the middle of lunch - apropos of a conversation they%27d had some time before about the probability of extraterrestrial intelligent life%2C and not of what everyone around him was actually talking about at that moment.%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
19|5|13|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Mercutio||00:14:16|03/30/2014|%0D%0A%3EWell%2C if I misspelled %5Bi%5DWeltanschauung%5B%2Fi%5D that egregiously%2C I%27d at %0D%0A%3Eleast deserve to lose a few points. %3A%29 %0D%0A%0D%0AI think it%27s already been largely established I will never%2C ever be right about either spelling or grammar when it comes to you%2C despite my having an actual english degree. %3A%29%0D%0A%0D%0A%3EAnyway%2C your snark is mildly misdirected. %0D%0A%0D%0AIt was actually not snark%2C so much as it was me trying to be Mister Clever Pants and not really succeeding.%0D%0A%0D%0AAlso%2C man%2C that passage you quoted%3F That is indeed some rough going. I%27m not sure its the most effective pedagogy in the world to be tossing that at people who aren%27t philosophy majors %28or very%2C very focused history majors%29 in their third or fourth year. %0D%0A%0D%0A%3EWhat I object to is gratuitous use of obnoxious jargon just for the sake of%0D%0A%3Elooking clever. %0D%0A%0D%0AWorth noting%3A while I%27m sure you disapprove of this use of it just as much%2C jargon is often deployed as a kind of street cred on the part of the writer or speaker%2C to prove they%27re a member of the fraternity%2C as it were. Talking about%2C say%2C hermeneutics %28or exegesis%2C if you%27re specifically a biblical scholar%29 is a way to prove %22yes%2C I%27ve actually done my research and paid my dues on this topic%2C which means you should at least take a look at my opinions%2C right%2C guys%3F C%27mon%21 I need this journal article to get published if I%27m ever going to get tenure%21%22%0D%0A%0D%0ASort of like demonstrating to the guy at the shooting range that you know a cartridge and a bullet are two different things%2C to hearken back to a previous discussion that touched on pretentious deployments of jargon. %3A%29%0D%0A%0D%0A-Merc%0D%0AKeep Rat
20|6|19|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||00:59:34|03/30/2014|%3EWorth noting%3A while I%27m sure you disapprove of this use of it just as %0D%0A%3Emuch%2C jargon is often deployed as a kind of street cred on the part of %0D%0A%3Ethe writer or speaker%2C to prove they%27re a member of the fraternity%2C as %0D%0A%3Eit were.%0D%0A%0D%0AJargon has its uses%2C and that is indeed one of them%3B I%27m annoyed by it%2C but not nearly as much as I am when someone busts it out solely to establish that he or she is cleverer than the reader.  %28Richard Dawkins does this a lot.  Dawkins is routinely so insufferable I%27m vaguely embarrassed to agree with him.%29%0D%0A%0D%0ATrue story%3A Once%2C when I worked at the %28now-defunct%29 local newspaper%2C I had to write a small item about production being resumed at the %28now-defunct%29 local paper mill.  It was just a minor update%2C as the mill was running normally at that time and had performed a routine shutdown for maintenance.  At one point I noted the precise time%2C according to the mill manager I%27d spoken with%2C when production was considered to have been fully resumed%3A paper was on the roll at 6%3A45 PM.%0D%0A%0D%0AMy six-year-old cutlet of an editor changed it to %22paper was loaded onto a roll at 6%3A45 PM%22%2C which doesn%27t mean the same thing at all%2C and made me look%2C to the people I%27d spoken with and everyone else in town who understood how papermaking works %28which was just about everybody in West Podunk in 2004%29%2C like I didn%27t know what the fuck I was talking about.  When I called him on it%2C he replied dismissively%2C %22We don%27t use jargon here.%22%0D%0A%0D%0AMy answer was to say something along the lines of%2C %22Do we %5Bi%5Dconsider our audience%5B%2Fi%5D here%2C or is that no longer considered important at J-school these days%3F%22 and clock off for the day%2C which got me the first of several emails from the publisher saying basically%2C %22Please try not to antagonize Aaron%3F  He emailed me that he wants to %27write you up for insubordination%27%2C which isn%27t even a thing.%22  I cannot prove%2C but strongly suspect%2C that he was eventually sacked because he played the %22it%27s that fucking guy or me%22 card and it didn%27t go the way he was expecting.  That was a strange%2C strange workplace.  The publishers routinely frustrated the shit out of me%2C and habitually downplayed my abilities as justification for not paying me more%2C but they valued my work more than they would ever have admitted out loud and were weirdly wary of pushing me too far.%0D%0A%0D%0A%28Something the guy they sold the paper to was not particularly concerned about%2C but that%27s another story.%29%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D
25|7|20|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Mercutio||02:18:52|03/31/2014|%0D%0A%3EJargon has its uses%2C and that is indeed one of them%3B I%27m annoyed by %0D%0A%3Eit%2C but not nearly as much as I am when someone busts it out solely to %0D%0A%3Eestablish that he or she is cleverer than the reader.  %28Richard %0D%0A%3EDawkins does this a lot.  Dawkins is routinely so insufferable I%27m %0D%0A%3Evaguely embarrassed to agree with him.%29 %0D%0A%0D%0AI have the same relationship with Dawkins that I have with the late Christopher Hitchens%3B I spent a number of years thinking he was pretty amazing%2C then a number of years realizing that just because I agree with the guy in the abstract it doesn%27t mean he%27s not a jerk%2C and then came to the conclusion that he is%2C in fact%2C a loathsome human being.%0D%0A%0D%0A%3ETrue story%3A%0D%0A%0D%0AI%27m curious%2C does your book have stories like this about your time at the newspaper%2C or is it just a collection of your columns%3F%0D%0A%0D%0AAlso%2C cripes%2C this Aaron guy sounds like a shitty editor. If you hadn%27t specifically mentioned he went to J-school%2C I would have assumed he was a newly-minted MBA. %22We don%27t use jargon%3F%22 Have you opened the business section of %5Bi%5Dany%5B%2Fi%5D newspaper in the country there%2C buddy%3F%0D%0A%0D%0AAlthough having said that%2C J-school... may have inadequately prepared him for his chosen career. I have a friend who graduated from KU%27s J-school. Very good program %28the %5Bi%5DUniversity Daily Kansan%5B%2Fi%5D is perhaps the finest student newspaper in the country%29%2C very good teachers. He did some fine editorial work there.%0D%0A%0D%0AOnly he graduated in 2002. I.E%2C his entire education was in what is today called %22traditional%22 media%2C taught by people whose experience and wisdom turned out to be %5Bi%5Dwholly irrelevant%5B%2Fi%5D to the journalism environment he was entering.%0D%0A%0D%0AHe was real bitter and angry about that for a long time%2C and sometimes acted out on it inappropriately.%0D%0A%0D%0A-Merc%0D%0AKeep Rat
28|1|0|||1||RE%3A A Boring Look Inside the Non-Process|Gryphon||14:52:26|04/01/2014|%3EIn particular%2C the Auto-Ordnance %0D%0A%3Eadvertisement reproduced on page 151 is telling.  %22The ideal weapon %0D%0A%3Efor the protection of large estates%2C%22 indeed. %0D%0A%0D%0AHey%2C I found %5Blink%3Awww.auto-ordnancecorporation.com%2FCOWBOY%2520AD.jpg%3Fx%7Cthat ad online%5D.  Check it out%2C it%27s simultaneously hilarious and disturbing.%0D%0A%0D%0AThe chapter on the Thompson gun is probably the best part of %5Bi%5DThe Social History of the Machine Gun%5B%2Fi%5D%2C in fairness%2C and I should probably have mentioned it more than just in passing%2C but I was working to a length limit.  It%27s also the part of the book that comes closest to %5Bi%5Dbeing%5B%2Fi%5D an actual social history%2C since - much more than the long section on WWI%2C which deals almost exclusively with military matters - it actually discusses how the Thompson gun affected society.  In particular%2C there%27s the section I alluded to in my review where Ellis goes off to do a short Film Studies paper that might be called %22The Tommy Gun in Gangster Cinema%22.%0D%0A%0D%0AOn the page with the Thompson ad%2C Ellis quotes William J. Helmer in %5Bi%5DThe Gun that Made the Twenties Roar%5B%2Fi%5D %28a book I shall have to track down%2C I think%29%3A%0D%0A%0D%0A%22A company that could fancy a cowboy mowing down bandits%2C or envision a householder pouring machine gun fire into his darkened dining-room in defence of the family silver%2C might well have misjudged its markets.%22%0D%0A%0D%0A%28This is by far the wittiest remark in the book%2C which is kind of a shame since it%27s a quotation from another one.%29%0D%0A%0D%0A--G.%0D%0A-%3E%3C-%0D%0ABenjamin D. Hutchins%2C Co-Founder%2C Editor-in-Chief%2C %26 Forum Mod%0D%0AEyrie Productions%2C Unlimited  http%3A%2F%2Fwww.eyrie-productions.com%2F%0D%0Azgryphon at that email service Google has%0D%0A%5Bi%5DCeterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.%5B%2Fi%5D