These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Belligerent Undesirables Narrative Analysis
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2013-04-24 04:20:47 UTC
I received a contract to do a narrative analysis on Belligerent Undesirables. This post and the link constitute fulfillment of my part of the contract and are in accord with the advance I received. A pleasure doing business with you.

The analysis does not involve data analysis or statistical conclusions, but is ideographic in nature. Basic details of the methodology and framework are introduced and described. It is meant to be reflective rather than prescriptive in nature. (I hope I get the link thing right.)

The text of the work is published here:
http://eve-files.com/dl/262023

Private sig. Do not read.
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2013-04-24 05:26:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Nice read...

You do however realize that what you have posted will fly over the head of just about everybody here right?

On that note.. I am enjoying my part in BU.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Dave Stark
#3 - 2013-04-24 05:32:13 UTC
that's a lot of words for 6:30 am. i'll read it later.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#4 - 2013-04-24 06:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Nice read...

You do however realize that what you have posted will fly over the head of just about everybody here right?

On that note.. I am enjoying my part in BU.

I understood the basic concepts it delves into, although I found some of the phrasing resembled "purple prose" and detracted from the content. A somewhat less flowery and more to the point TL;DR version would probably be an easier read, and thus more easily understood by more people.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#5 - 2013-04-24 06:48:40 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Nice read...

You do however realize that what you have posted will fly over the head of just about everybody here right?

On that note.. I am enjoying my part in BU.

I understood the basic concepts it delves into, although I found some of the phrasing resembled "purple prose" and detracted from the content. A somewhat less flowery and more to the point TL;DR version would probably be an easier read, and thus more easily understood by more people.

I think that's the joke, actually. I like it.
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#6 - 2013-04-24 07:27:51 UTC
Thank you for your kind replies and suggestions. My sole interest was in satisfying the terms and tone of my contract as I understood it. I feel I have done that and even exceeded those terms. It was not stipulated in the terms whether the piece would be of any use or amusement to anyone else other than my client, only that I look at the narrative and publish my findings. I have yet to hear from my client, but feel confident they will be satisfied with the work since it is exactly in line with their request and my contract. I have already received my advance in any case. If it provides any amusement, utility or satisfaction to anyone else I am gratified, but it is not a requirement. Similarly revulsion, disgust or rabid offense in the matter.

I will say that for the author the document is both something and not something.

Thank you again.

Private sig. Do not read.
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
#7 - 2013-04-24 08:07:01 UTC
It's a bit concerned with how many pages it fills, and I'll quibble on some minor points of it, but it's super ******* interesting.

Also, someone wrote an essay about me. I'm flattered and flabbergasted. I will treasure it forever.

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Josef Djugashvilis
#8 - 2013-04-24 08:27:20 UTC
Did james aged 13 and a bit dictate this to you?

Utter tosh, well written, is still utter tosh.

This is not a signature.
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
#9 - 2013-04-24 08:54:10 UTC
I havn't yet picked it apart myself, so I'm reserving in-depth judgement but, as your calling an academic-style analysis tosh I think it's fair to ask specifically how you think it's tosh.

(I also might have to get you to tell me what tosh is.)

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Shao Huang
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-04-24 14:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Shao Huang
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Did james aged 13 and a bit dictate this to you?

Utter tosh, well written, is still utter tosh.


I believe 'tosh' is a colloquial expression for rubbish or garbage among the people on some English speaking islands. Might indicate the author is a Londoner, probably not a Scott. Hard to say much from one word. I am glad you have said so though, since we now have both ends of the spectrum covered in which on the one hand the piece is nonsense and well written and on the other it is interesting in some way, but poorly written. I would be honored if either were felt to be true. We also have the unsaid case of nonsense/badly written and interesting/well written.

I am more interested in the reference to James 315 in conjunction with a narrative analysis about Beligerent Undesireables and would like to understand more about what you see about those two different narratives that has you make that reference. I feel comparisons can be made and indeed made one or two about both similarities and differences. You are implying comparisons, but have not said what they are. Perhaps you would be willing to do so? I have also made comparisons to Goon or Goon-like narratives, but you did not mention that. So your comment interests me.

Private sig. Do not read.
Inxentas Ultramar
Ultramar Independent Contracting
#11 - 2013-04-24 14:41:09 UTC
A nice insight in the mind of the more emergent player, but the writing style is very complex. I think you could convey the same information using a little less big words. I literally had to pick it apart sentence by sentence to understand it in full. No offense intended, but I had an easier time interpreting Scientology... however, should anyone require a better understanding of the concept of tosh, I suggest they read something from Hubbard. Cool
Corey Fumimasa
CFM Salvage
#12 - 2013-04-24 15:06:56 UTC
Shao Huang wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Did james aged 13 and a bit dictate this to you?

Utter tosh, well written, is still utter tosh.


I am more interested in the reference to James 315 in conjunction with a narrative analysis about Beligerent Undesireables and would like to understand more about what you see about those two different narratives that has you make that reference. I feel comparisons can be made and indeed made one or two about both similarities and differences. You are implying comparisons, but have not said what they are. Perhaps you would be willing to do so? I have also made comparisons to Goon or Goon-like narratives, but you did not mention that. So your comment interests me.


Josef probably believes that you are in fact one of the many alts of James315. As your writings, although very different in tone and style, are both very good.

I wouldn't bet my ratter on it, but I think you are different people. James tends to define his topics by illuminating the space around them while you look directly at the matter. Writing can be faked and mimicked, but the thought process behind it is a bit more difficult.
Josef Djugashvilis
#13 - 2013-04-24 15:43:47 UTC
In reply to the OP.

James aged 13 and a bit, would never call a 'spade a spade' when he could spend several pages calling it a 'sharp edged digging implement which works by the application of force and leverage'

Your article is written in a similar manner.

This is not a signature.
Maliceth Crimson
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2013-04-24 15:47:54 UTC
Look, it sounds like an experiment in mind control to me.

Your stating the case like its the only position that exists. Just because your perception of the material is one way doesnt make it the factual, truthfull, only reality.

Reality is: you are what you hate the most; in this case it seems you are writing about yourself in my humble opinion.
Anslo
Scope Works
#15 - 2013-04-24 15:50:23 UTC
Shao Huang wrote:
The analysis does not involve data analysis or statistical conclusions, but is ideographic in nature.


Stopped reading there.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Josef Djugashvilis
#16 - 2013-04-24 15:59:23 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I havn't yet picked it apart myself, so I'm reserving in-depth judgement but, as your calling an academic-style analysis tosh I think it's fair to ask specifically how you think it's tosh.

(I also might have to get you to tell me what tosh is.)


Utter tosh = complete rubbish.

The fact that you consider the article needs, "in-depth judgement...[and is]...an academic-style analysis" rather makes my point.Smile

This is not a signature.
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
#17 - 2013-04-24 16:12:08 UTC
So that I view it as academic-style proves it's tosh because... I don't know what an academic styled paper looks like? Or I live in some sort of upsideown world where anything I view to be true automatically isn't?

The alternative is that you've simply chosen that I am the enemy and therefore you must oppose everything I say, even if I were to tell you the sky is blue. That seems a bit counter to actual argument and discussion and if it's the case I think we can safely dismiss you entirely as a logical entity.

Thoughts on this?

Belligerent Undesirables Selling Griefer Immunity
Anslo
Scope Works
#18 - 2013-04-24 16:25:51 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
So that I view it as academic-style proves it's tosh because... I don't know what an academic styled paper looks like? Or I live in some sort of upsideown world where anything I view to be true automatically isn't?


Because any researcher or academic understands what is needed to call a paper 'academic' and for it to whole its own weight in credibility by being based on facts, not hearsay.

I am not denouncing his 'work' because of the topic, but because he is basing it all on ideograms and calling it a research paper. There are no numbers, no facts, no interviews, no sources, no data neither qualitative nor quantitative. It is nothing.

Does the OP even have the credentials for this? What is your background? Degree? Past works?

But to answer, PM, it's tosh because of the above grievances I mentioned. I believe the poster you refer to is saying that you liking the paper proving it's tosh is because he does not see you as credible. A biased opinion also not based on facts (for all we know you have a PhD in statistical analysis).

Quote:
The alternative is that you've simply chosen that I am the enemy and therefore you must oppose everything I say, even if I were to tell you the sky is blue. That seems a bit counter to actual argument and discussion and if it's the case I think we can safely dismiss you entirely as a logical entity.

Thoughts on this?


As I said, his opinion is biased, but I wouldn't say his dislike of you (if that is what it is) means he is not credible.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
#19 - 2013-04-24 16:26:34 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:
I havn't yet picked it apart myself, so I'm reserving in-depth judgement but, as your calling an academic-style analysis tosh I think it's fair to ask specifically how you think it's tosh.

(I also might have to get you to tell me what tosh is.)


Utter tosh = complete rubbish.

The fact that you consider the article needs, "in-depth judgement...[and is]...an academic-style analysis" rather makes my point.Smile


'tis true that the phrases "in-depth judgement" and "academic analysis" usually equate to "pure borrocks", pish, or tosh (i.e. the basics of academic discussion) but it's not a guarantee
Velicitia
XS Tech
#20 - 2013-04-24 16:48:15 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
So that I view it as academic-style proves it's tosh because... I don't know what an academic styled paper looks like? Or I live in some sort of upsideown world where anything I view to be true automatically isn't?

The alternative is that you've simply chosen that I am the enemy and therefore you must oppose everything I say, even if I were to tell you the sky is blue. That seems a bit counter to actual argument and discussion and if it's the case I think we can safely dismiss you entirely as a logical entity.

Thoughts on this?



Raining here today ... so I can't see the sky. Might be purple for all I know.Blink

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
123Next page