A Blog of Very Little Brain

'What does Crustimoney Proseedcake mean?' said Pooh. 'For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words Bother me.'

What’s in a word?

with 6 comments

I happened upon the latest from the KDE project announcing the release of their first dev snapshot “Krash”. The release details say “This snapshot is not for end users, there is no guarantee that it will be stable, the interfaces are subject to changes at any time“, but I think calling it “Krash” probably pushes the point forwards.

Hans Bezemer, in his blog, asks “Who understands the OSS community?” Only he is much better on his community-spiel than on his literary one:
Jim Morrison once said “You can’t petition the Lord with prayer”. To paraphrase that it I’d like to say “You can’t address the OSS community”, because it is much too varied to be addressed“. To which I say: “Wrong analogy”. Morrison indeed said “you can’t petition the Lord with prayers”, meaning that over-praying does not makes the chances of a prayal work better. If I want to get something, succeed in something, or just need a favour, putting that in my prayer (according to some dogmas), should be enough. Thinking the squeeky wheel might get the grease this time is akin of considering God to be an overworked wish-clerk, rather than the almightly, omnipotent, creator. Petitioning the Lord with prayers, in this sense, can be seen as saying “I believe you exist, but I don’t believe you hear everyone, or that you’ll hear my request, so I’ll repeat it ad-nauseum until you’ll break and grant me my wish”. Not very devoted.
On the other hand, saying “you can’t address the OSS community” for it’s diversity, has nothing to do with one’s belief in the OSS community, or about the volume of attempts you make.

And finally, yet another website finds that you can either be unknown, or massively famous, and what it means: “500 Internal Server Error. Thanks digg.com :)


Written by Erez

Monday, August 21, 2006 at 6:51

6 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well, my dear Erez. Since when do you know so much about Jim Morrison. May I ask where you got this explanation of his quote (book, author, year) or must I conclude this is your own interpretation? May I ask how many books on Morrison you’ve written – on may be on how many you’ve actually READ..

    My guess is: none. I’d like to inform you that I’m not only the writer of this blog, but also well known in the Doors community (do me a favour: google me). I’ve collaborated very closely with the authors of at least two Doors-related books and numerous publications.

    What Morrison actually meant was a fairly agnostic view: God is there, he is almighty and he won’t have a mere bunch of humans change his plans, because he’s already drawn plans of his own. Even the mere idea that you can protest (= a petition) an almighty god is megalomanic in itself and does not show the respect this deity deserves. Anyway, it is futile.

    Because the OSS community is this diverse, amanding its actions are just as futile. Do a bit of research, before you publish nonsense like this, will you..?

    Hans Bezemer

    Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 11:14

  2. I should apologise for not being as accredited as you claim to be and *still* try to post my opinion on matters. But I’m not.
    First, two can play that game, I took your advice and googled for people who have actually talked to Jim Morrison and know first-hand what he was actually writing, and sadly, didn’t find your name among it.
    But seriously, music and poetry isn’t exact science, and your opinion/analysis of what the Doors lyrics are about isn’t better (or worse), or authorative, despite what you think your name-droppings serve you. Claiming otherwise is simple demagogy.

    Second, you seem to have replaced “quoting” with “thinking”. Otherwise, “where did you get this from” wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) be superiour to “this is your interpretation”. But, we live in the worldwide of web, where everything you can say has been said, everything you think has been thought, so probably if someone has done the stupid thing of actually thinking, analysing and trying to understand on his own instead of googling for it, that person is to be pointed out as the fool and cast out.

    And it would’ve been simply that if your interpretation was in essence any different than mine. Just to make sure, lets place the two together:

    Me: “Thinking the squeeky wheel might get the grease this time is akin of considering God to be an overworked wish-clerk, rather than the almightly, omnipotent, creator”

    You: “Even the mere idea that you can protest (= a petition) an almighty god is megalomanic in itself and does not show the respect this deity deserves.”

    After you spend so much time debunking my credibility, I’d expect you to pull something better than that.

    Ooh, ooh, and a “fairly agnostic view” means that one rejects the concept of belief altogether, meaning there is no God, or any sort of divine guidance. This: “fairly agnostic view: God is there” is a contradiction. But, then again, to bludgeon a reference, May I ask where you got this explanation of this term (book, author, year) or must I conclude this is your own definition? May I ask how many dictionaries on English you’ve written – on may be on how many you’ve actually READ… My guess is: none.


    Saturday, September 16, 2006 at 13:02

  3. Yawn. “Agnosticism is the philosophical view that value certain claims as truth—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—is unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and thus irrelevant to life.” As formulated by Wikipedia.

    Which, translated to layman’s terms means: God is there, but he doesn’t care. In other words, we believe, but it doesn’t make a difference.

    As I might have expected, you didn’t quote anyone, so you made it up yourself (which you seem to call “interpreting”). Otherwise: where are your links?? I got some (and quotes with bibliography) if you want to.

    And even if it were interpretation over interpretation, how much do you know about the person Jim Morrison to make an *accurate* interpretation. What was his real name? Where did he go to school? How old was he?

    What was his favorite book?
    What was his favorite music?
    Was he spiritual?
    What did he study?
    Who were his influences?

    If you have no idea who the man was, how can you interpret his words *at all*?

    Hans Bezemer

    Friday, September 22, 2006 at 15:44

  4. Erez, looking for Jim Morrison info on Google I came to this site. I am astonished on what I read. You are right!!! Mr. Bezemer his opinion is just his interpretation of Morrison poems. He has no right to claim his opion as the right one. Writing some books about someone, in this case Jim Morrison, is absolutely not relevant. Any interpretation is right, it can’t be wrong.

    His reaction though is very arrogant, he almost claims to be Morrison himself. “Just google me”. But the almighty Mr. Morrison has not even met Morrison in person I asume.

    Pity that people who claim to understand Morrison so well are almost drowning in their own dogma…..

    Dave Kundut

    Friday, September 22, 2006 at 20:32

  5. Dear Dave,

    If what you’re saying is true, that would most certainly destroy Erez original statement, which is in essence: “Hans Bezemers interpretation of Jim Morrisons words are wrong”. If every interpretation is valid, so is mine. If every interpretation is invalid, so is his.

    Hans Bezemer

    Friday, September 22, 2006 at 23:36

  6. But… But… But…
    Oh well, if you really are intent on reading one thing and saying another (such as your quoting the uncharacteristically quite-good WikiPedia definition, and immediately contradicting it in your explation), then I guess I have no choise but to re-iterate, and I quote: “To which I say: “Wrong analogy”.”
    To those joining us now, “wrong analogy” means the comparison is faulty, not that I disagree with either side of it (i.e. your interpretation of Morrison, or the OSS comunitee), but I don’t find your comparison of them both to be valid.

    And yes, your opinion is yours, and you’re entitled to it. I may not agree with it (or think what you base it on is valid), but it’s yours and your stuck with it, and I’m fine with it. And your idea of the OSS comunitee is good and valid. It’s the analogy of the OSS comunitee with your, or mine interpretation of Morisson’s line which I find invalid. Are we clear? Great, leave the cheque with the doorman.


    Friday, September 29, 2006 at 6:07

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: