<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for Count de Forez</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/136157ce1936028adf390783b2cd320a/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:40:00 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Writing Fiction</title><link>http://banane.disqus.com/writing_fiction/#comment-4733265</link><description>I suppose this should be the subjest of a blog-of-my-own but we'll make do as a mere comment for now.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;A lot of these defense of the indefensible I believe are the product of the complete inability for moral reasoning.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's easy to know one is himself lacking in scientific literacy [do i know if the electron is positively or negatively charged? do i know it &lt;br&gt;&lt;i&gt; is &lt;/i&gt; charged? It's easy to discover somebody is geographically ignorant [What country has beaches on the Atlantic and Indian Oceans?].&lt;br&gt;But it's not so simple to observe somebody lack the ability for moral reasoning, and it certainly isnt the kind of things people will cheerfully admit as they might with something like "I've never read any Shakespeare". &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Another recent example of this was this&lt;br&gt;"In Defense of Barry Bonds" column&lt;br&gt;by this dullard Ken Garcia (Examiner  &lt;br&gt;Sports columnist?). &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;He makes the point [sic] that Babe Ruth and Kobe Byrant were not great people but seems to miss the obvious point that thier conduct was not related to the rules of the game ...&lt;br&gt;boozing is not the same as "juicing".&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;To take a highbrow example [see Bernard Williams: Moral Luck, or &lt;br&gt;google(bernard williams paul gauguin)], the revelation Gauguin abandoned his wife and kids to go frolick in the South Seas perhaps does not need to be factored into an artistic assessment of PG, but if it turned out that he copied some obscure native artist even though painterly plagerism might be a lesser moral offense than condemning your kids to penury, it is more relevant in the art crit context.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;--psb</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Count de Forez</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 14 May 2006 17:00:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Impatience, Anger, and Frustration</title><link>http://banane.disqus.com/impatience_anger_and_frustration/#comment-4733286</link><description>in re: point #10:&lt;br&gt;What exactly is lame about that?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Re: the Zizou brainstorm: &lt;br&gt;There is a lot to say about that but&lt;br&gt;it's beyond the little blog comment&lt;br&gt;text box.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I am really delighted ZZ wins the&lt;br&gt;BALL OF GOLD award. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;--psb</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Count de Forez</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 10 Jul 2006 07:38:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Kiwi-Isms</title><link>http://banane.disqus.com/kiwi_isms/#comment-4733296</link><description>since you asked ...&lt;br&gt;&amp;gt;Feel free to add or correct.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;and since you're interested in&lt;br&gt;19th cent england ...&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;"Bob's your uncle" isnt from NZ.&lt;br&gt;It's supposedly a reference to &lt;br&gt;the nepotisic practices of &lt;br&gt;Robert Cecil, the Victorian PM.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;--psb the obscure</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Count de Forez</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:26:00 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: iMurder 7: Suspect: poobar</title><link>http://banane.disqus.com/imurder_7_suspect_poobar/#comment-4733293</link><description>you know there is more to "foobar"&lt;br&gt;than meets the blog. there is even &lt;br&gt;an RFC on foobar.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;ooh, will this be censored or will&lt;br&gt;it be approved?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Count de Forez</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 06 Aug 2006 10:40:00 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>