ForumGarden

I spent the best part of the morning In a council meeting re: Traffic regulations..... extremely tedious stuff but my meetings are often blighted by the presence of one particular man In his late twenties who basically tries to sway us to his way of thinking Including Councillors In their senior years who know a heck of a lot more than him.

During coffee, a Councillor whispered to me ' Ignore the ' pseudo Intellect , he's just mouthing off'...

I heard of Intellect used as a description for people before but this was a first for me...

So... what defines Intellect and what makes a pseudo Intellect?

I've often come across people with so called intellect. Its a sort of arrogant, " I know more than you do and know longer words, maybe even a few you've never heard of " kind of intellect, more self-believed than actual. The only ability they have is to get on your tits. They have little of the common sense that would get them a bit more respect and attention.

Snowfire;1406626 wrote: I've often come across people with so called intellect. Its a sort of arrogant, " I know more than you do and know longer words, maybe even a few you've never heard of " kind of intellect, more self-believed than actual. The only ability they have is to get on your tits. They have little of the common sense that would get them a bit more respect and attention.


That's exactly what this guy was like... Waffle waffle waffle all morning but what he actually said was nothing. All he did was alienate himself from the group and made himself thoroughly unliked In the process.... seeing as we voted against all his proposals and voted In the proposal from the Councillor of very few words.

Oh and by the way... If you live In a certain Cul-De-Sac In Bristol... we just voted to double yellow all the way down.

oscar;1406629 wrote: That's exactly what this guy was like... Waffle waffle waffle all morning but what he actually said was nothing. All he did was alienate himself from the group and made himself thoroughly unliked In the process.... seeing as we voted against all his proposals and voted In the proposal from the Councillor of very few words.

Oh and by the way... If you live In a certain Cul-De-Sac In Bristol... we just voted to double yellow all the way down.


Do they have their own driveways ?

Snowfire;1406632 wrote: Do they have their own driveways ? Only one side.... but I already got a grasscrete area Installed on the other side for the residents with no drives... that took me a year to get approved and the work carried out.

The problem was, people were parking broadside across the grasscrete area meaning that If a resident needed to leave their home, they couldn't get their car off the grasscrete.

oscar;1406613 wrote: I spent the best part of the morning In a council meeting re: Traffic regulations..... extremely tedious stuff but my meetings are often blighted by the presence of one particular man In his late twenties who basically tries to sway us to his way of thinking Including Councillors In their senior years who know a heck of a lot more than him.

During coffee, a Councillor whispered to me ' Ignore the ' pseudo Intellect , he's just mouthing off'...

I heard of Intellect used as a description for people before but this was a first for me...

So... what defines Intellect and what makes a pseudo Intellect?


Pedantic, obsessed with irrelevant minutiae and convinced of their own perspicacity and wisdom and the stupidity of those around them

Maybe we could get him to join here, he'd fit right in.

gmc;1406649 wrote: Pedantic, obsessed with irrelevant minutiae and convinced of their own perspicacity and wisdom and the stupidity of those around them


Yep, that fits the person I encounter.... but what makes someone an Intellect and someone a pseudo Intellect..?

See... when I meet anyone who shows Intelligence , I bow to their greater knowledge and I listen but with people like the one today, there was no doubt he was Intelligent but It was the way he talked that his Intelligence was far greater than anyone else's even seasoned elected Councillors, and we were all numb nuts In comparison. It was his desire of superiority that alienated us from him.... ending with everyone switching off and dismissing him....but he couldn't see It.

I assume he was a pseudo intellectual of the left?

SnoozeAgain;1406651 wrote: Maybe we could get him to join here, he'd fit right in.


We have several already.........................don't we ?

gmc;1406661 wrote: I assume he was a pseudo intellectual of the left?


Actually he was a young Tory.

What I'm trying to determine Is what makes someone a pseudo Intellect and someone an Intellect.

Is a pseudo Intellect In short someone who just thinks they have superior Intelligence or Intellect compared to everyone else or Is their Intellect fake In some way?

Is It a frame of mind, and arrogance so to speak rather than actual Intellect?

One of the most Interesting people I have ever met for eg was Arthur Kemp.... International author. We had a long chat about the DNA of ancient egyptians...well, he talked, I listened.... No-body Is In any doubt of his Intellect but he's modest with It and thus, remains an extremely likable chap.

Bruv;1406662 wrote: We have several already.........................don't we ?


Thats me isnt it. You think I'm a pseudo.

"What makes someone a pseudo Intellect and someone an intellect."

The person who describes them thus has felt insulted

Snowfire;1406664 wrote: Thats me isnt it. You think I'm a pseudo.


It wasn't you I had in mind, and my lips are sealed

Bruv;1406665 wrote: "What makes someone a pseudo Intellect and someone an intellect."

The person who describes them thus has felt insulted
But describing someone as an intellect Is a compliment. gmc's an Intellect.... why ? Because sometimes I re-think things based on what he says... not because he tells me he's more knowledgeable than me.

Steven Fry is an intellect I can listen to all day

Bruv;1406666 wrote: It wasn't you I had in mind, and my lips are sealed


Didn't 'Fun Boy Three' do that one?

Snowfire;1406668 wrote: Steven Fry is an intellect I can listen to all day


Agreed.... Love QI.... see, he's a perfect example In my eyes of an Intellect.

My definition of a pseudo intellectual is someone that had a brief read on a subject and then pontificates on that subject as though they're the resident expert. They can be quite intelligent but often their knowledge is very superficial.

And I've seen the word "pseudo" written here so many times that it now looks like gobbledegook. :wah:

oscar;1406663 wrote: Actually he was a young Tory.

What I'm trying to determine Is what makes someone a pseudo Intellect and someone an Intellect.

Is a pseudo Intellect In short someone who just thinks they have superior Intelligence or Intellect compared to everyone else or Is their Intellect fake In some way?

Is It a frame of mind, and arrogance so to speak rather than actual Intellect?

One of the most Interesting people I have ever met for eg was Arthur Kemp.... International author. We had a long chat about the DNA of ancient egyptians...well, he talked, I listened.... No-body Is In any doubt of his Intellect but he's modest with It and thus, remains an extremely likable chap.


Methinks you mean intellectual rather than an intellect.

noun

6.

a person of superior intellect.

7.

a person who places a high value on or pursues things of interest to the intellect or the more complex forms and fields of knowledge, as aesthetic or philosophical matters, especially on an abstract and general level.

8.

an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.

9.

a person professionally engaged in mental labor, as a writer or teacher.

10.

intellectuals, Archaic.

a.

the mental faculties.

b.

things pertaining to the intellect.






If you think about it most of the posters on this forum would be classed as intellectuals - as in placing a high value on things that challenge their intellect or knowledge. Otherwise they wouldn't be posting since the main purpose of a discussion forum is to challenge and test your intellect - your ability to learn and reason and your capacity for knowledge and understanding and to learn how to express yourself and your opinions in an audience of strangers. I too have been made to think and reconsider my word view and opinions by many of the posters here. The pseudo intellectuals are the ones that come along to rant and give us the benefit of their wisdom without the need on their part to consider or give credence to those who don't agree with them cos they're too stupid to really understand. .

gmc;1406674 wrote: Methinks you mean intellectual rather than an intellect.



If you think about it most of the posters on this forum would be classed as intellectuals - as in placing a high value on things that challenge their intellect or knowledge. Otherwise they wouldn't be posting since the main purpose of a discussion forum is to challenge and test your intellect - your ability to learn and reason and your capacity for knowledge and understanding and to learn how to express yourself and your opinions in an audience of strangers. I too have been made to think and reconsider my word view and opinions by many of the posters here. The pseudo intellectuals are the ones that come along to rant and give us the benefit of their wisdom without the need on their part to consider or give credence to those who don't agree with them cos they're too stupid to really understand. . I understand what you mean now...

So If a pseudo Intellect doesn't give credence to those who don't agree with them because they think those people are too stupid to understand, then they are not really the Intellect? It's more a frame of mind, an arrogance that they know better or their wisdom Is greater when It may not be greater In the first place?

That guy was like that this morning.... shouted everyone down...

oscar;1406675 wrote: I understand what you mean now...

So If a pseudo Intellect doesn't give credence to those who don't agree with them because they think those people are too stupid to understand, then they are not really the Intellect? It's more a frame of mind, an arrogance that they know better or their wisdom Is greater when It may not be greater In the first place?

That guy was like that this morning.... shouted everyone down...


Excuse me being pedantic for a moment

in·tel·lect/ˈintlËŒekt/

Noun:

The faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, esp. with regard to abstract or academic matters.

The understanding or mental powers of a particular person: "her education, intellect and talent".




Put simply imo a pseudo intellectual is someone that is attracted to the notion of being an intellectual, is convinced they are one and doesn't understand why no one else agrees with them - except they must all be stupid. Intelligent people are always questioning and ant to know about things no matter what walk of life they find themselves on, mind you life can grind down the best of us. Pseudos think they have all the answers

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered.

Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

gmc;1406649 wrote: Pedantic, obsessed with irrelevant minutiae and convinced of their own perspicacity and wisdom and the stupidity of those around them


I haven't encountered this definition before, though I agree with the sentiment of your choices, I think those behaviours can be seen in more than the "pseudo intellectual" personality.

Pedantic behaviour can readily be found amongst actual intellectuals with no "pseudo" involved. Being pedantic is generally annoying because the person is right, though the point of their obsession may have little to do with the validity of what they criticized. For example, if a person said "the people is running," pointing out that "is" is grammatically incorrect does not change that people are running... and while the pedant stops to debate this, s/he gets eaten by the escaped tiger the people are running from. (just having fun with the example)

Being obsessed with irrelevant minutiae can also be the trait of an obsessive compulsive. It can also occur when a person of any nature doesn't have a good response or comeback so they pick out a detail they can criticize and it is not always of an intellectual quality. An example (I'm thinking of these "on the fly") might be if a person says something happened in a pub and another person starts harping on that the location is a nightclub not a pub and insisting that the person apologize for misleading the public... meanwhile the event still happened as described and the type of venue had little to do with the story.

Though accusing other people of being stupid is common with pseudo-intellectuals it is also readily found in many other types of people. Most of us have met an anti-social person who thinks most of the world is stupid. Sometimes, though rarely, the complainer is, in fact, surrounded by low IQ individuals. Rappers will quite often imply all people who try to beat them in a rap battle are stupid. Romney is most likely an actual intellectual and he clearly thinks that at least 47% of the voting public is stupid. Being an ******* doesn't mean a person is a pseudo-intellectual.

When you combine those traits, there is a good chance you're dealing with a "pseudo" but I like the definition from wiktionary:

"Someone who pretends to be more intelligent than they are."

...

"a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine intellectual."

with the usage note

"pseudointellectual may be used as a general term of abuse for intellectuals one dislikes or disagrees with."

pseudointellectual - Wiktionary

It was moved from wikipedia to wiktionary because it's really just a judgement based on opinion. There is no use for "pseudo intellectual" outside of pejorative. It's always an insult. To use it with any legitimacy you have to a) know the person's IQ b) have evidence that they misused language in an attempt to appear smarter than they are. Part b is often attempted by claiming that a lot of people don't know the words used and "therefore" the accused must have been trying to trick everyone into thinking they are smart.

There is only one person I've ever met who I call a pseudo intellectual. I'm pretty confident in my assessment because he a)told me he was the only person in his family who didn't test as a genius and felt he has to prove his intelligence to his mother and the world b) often did things like recommending a book to everyone in the room, after which he'd admit to me that he hadn't actually read the book.

I'm interested in whether or not you agree with the wiktionary definition. I think they captured it pretty well.

gmc;1406721 wrote: Excuse me being pedantic for a moment



Put simply imo a pseudo intellectual is someone that is attracted to the notion of being an intellectual, is convinced they are one and doesn't understand why no one else agrees with them - except they must all be stupid. Intelligent people are always questioning and ant to know about things no matter what walk of life they find themselves on, mind you life can grind down the best of us. Pseudos think they have all the answers


Since my encounter with the council bore, I went looking for definitions and I must say that the Urban one sums him up perfectly.



4 signs of the pseudo-intellectual

1. Quoting

2. Going against common thought without evidence

3. Bringing up intellectualism in non-requistite situations

4. Un-neccersary use of verbs and adjectives with 4 syllables or more

Dude #1: hey wanna go to the movies tomorrow night?

Dude #2: Nah, the cinema is so low-brow. I don't understand how so many people find aesthetic values in it. I'm going home to read. As Descartes said "cogito, ergo sum".

Dude #1: Yeah....OK.

buy pseudo-intellectual mugs & shirts

by Simon Bee Jun 9, 2005 share this add a video

2. pseudo-intellectual 1184 up, 193 down

1. One who attempts to flex intellect that does not exist within his or her own mind.

2. Can probably be found with a thesaurus in hand, while in a chat room, looking up new insults that are synonymous with "stupid" in order to boost his or her own undeserved ego.

3. Typical cases of pseudo-intellectualism involve pre-pubescent 15 year olds that think they have everything figured out, including, but not limited to: life, religion, politics, education, and sex. Ironically, they have never quite experienced either of the aforementioned.

4. Pretends he or she has an opinion.

5. Posseses a severe tendency to blindly and wholeheartedly believe any bullshit they hear, only to subsequently regurgitate the misinformation to anyone they see in an asinine attempt to appear more intelligent than a used, broken condom.

6. Should the victim of the verbal onslaught happen to have a differing opinion, the pseudo-intellectual will revert to his or her thesaurus and insult the opposition with words he or she never knew existed, and probably cannot even pronounce.

7. Annoyingly and constantly refers to the word antidisestablishmentarianism, as if knowledge of said word defined his or her illegitimately high intelligence quotient.

8. Typically a hypocrite; creates many, many contradictions. Most online grammar/spelling Nazis can relate.

9. Always ends a bullshit "argument" with, "I win, so stfu." Win what, dipshits? Your opinions weren't fact in the first place.

Urban Dictionary: pseudo-intellectual

The part that gets me, Is why do they do It? They end up thoroughly disliked, thoroughly unwanted and anything that comes out of their mouth Is Instantly dismissed.

Subversive Thinking: Distinctions Between Intellectuals And Pseudo-Intellectuals.

*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.

*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.

tl;dr was created for pseudos' posts.

SnoozeAgain;1406734 wrote: tl;dr was created for pseudos' posts.
Interesting pic to explain why tl;dr can be to the detriment of the person posting it. How do you feel about the Constitution?

Attached files

Here's a suggestion... just for consideration. Why don't we switch it up and instead of figuring out how to insult someone actually try to figure out how to determine the nature of what they are saying? If you want to say someone is "pseudo intellectual" you need to show that they are not speaking with intellectual honesty. So let's consider what that is:

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of what is currently in this thread is really fine tuning how to figure out if you can insult someone properly without misusing the word. You can usually find a crowd willing to support a deduction of "self righteousness" or "arrogance" but the term "pseudo intellectual" has opened new doors. Kudos for trying to find out what it means before using it, lest you be seen as a self defined pseudo intellectual. Being able to use this powerful new word will lend more intellectual quality to other forms of similar insults... all the better to fight these cretins with. Catch them in their own game. If you have intellectual honesty about your reasons for learning this new word then it seems best to approach it from the point of view of assessing honesty in your target first.

Another thing to keep in mind when considering intellectual honesty is the degree of expectations placed on a human being.

In relation to intellectual honesty

Intellectual rigour is an important part, though not the whole, of intellectual honesty — which means keeping one's convictions in proportion to one's valid evidence.[2] For the latter, one should be questioning one's own assumptions, not merely applying them relentlessly if precisely. It is possible to doubt whether complete intellectual honesty exists — on the grounds that no one can entirely master his or her own presuppositions — without doubting that certain kinds of intellectual rigour are potentially available. The distinction certainly matters greatly in debate, if one wishes to say that an argument is flawed in its premises.

Rigour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I realize I'm complicating whether or not the phrase "pseudo intellectual" applies but it's kind of required if you want to make an intellectual judgement.

Thanks Koan but I read the links from which you posted this morning.

No-body wishes to Insult the guy. I don't know where you gleaned that or thought we needed a solution to how to Insult him.

The solution was already there and dealt with.

My Intrigue was at hearing a Councilor refer to another In this manner.

koan;1406743 wrote: Here's a suggestion... just for consideration. Why don't we switch it up and instead of figuring out how to insult someone actually try to figure out how to determine the nature of what they are saying? If you want to say someone is "pseudo intellectual" you need to show that they are not speaking with intellectual honesty. So let's consider what that is:

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most of what is currently in this thread is really fine tuning how to figure out if you can insult someone properly without misusing the word. You can usually find a crowd willing to support a deduction of "self righteousness" or "arrogance" but the term "pseudo intellectual" has opened new doors. Kudos for trying to find out what it means before using it, lest you be seen as a self defined pseudo intellectual. Being able to use this powerful new word will lend more intellectual quality to other forms of similar insults... all the better to fight these cretins with. Catch them in their own game. If you have intellectual honesty about your reasons for learning this new word then it seems best to approach it from the point of view of assessing honesty in your target first.


This is irony, right? I'm American, I'm not always sure.

koan;1406735 wrote: Interesting pic to explain why tl;dr can be to the detriment of the person posting it. How do you feel about the Constitution?


Too long; didn't read on Dubya's forehead while referring to the Constitution is a bit different than an encounter with a wordy and pretentious online pseudo.

Posted by koan

When you combine those traits, there is a good chance you're dealing with a "pseudo" but I like the definition from wiktionary:

"Someone who pretends to be more intelligent than they are."

...

"a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine intellectual."

with the usage note

"pseudointellectual may be used as a general term of abuse for intellectuals one dislikes or disagrees with."

pseudointellectual - Wiktionary


If you'd quoted the rest of the wiktionary article I'd agree with you.

a pseudointellectual is someone dishonestly or insincerely using the language, style, or topics of an intellectual, but who lacks the goals, morals, or ability of a “genuine intellectual. It is someone who acts pretentiously and wishes to win an argument or impress, rather than modestly trying to find the truth – a focus on surface and rhetoric over content. These often involve a superficial understanding of a subject and condescension to the audience, as well as possible self-delusion (not being consciously dishonest, but rather genuinely thinking themself to be behaving as a genuine intellectual despite their incompetence).


posted by koan

Here's a suggestion... just for consideration. Why don't we switch it up and instead of figuring out how to insult someone actually try to figure out how to determine the nature of what they are saying? If you want to say someone is "pseudo intellectual" you need to show that they are not speaking with intellectual honesty. So let's consider what that is:

Intellectual honesty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It is an insult and was clearly intended as such. A more brutal equivalent insult might be pretentious wanker. Oscar was clearly in polite company.

gmc;1406768 wrote: Posted by koan



If you'd quoted the rest of the wiktionary article I'd agree with you.



posted by koan



It is an insult and was clearly intended as such. A more brutal equivalent insult might be pretentious wanker. Oscar was clearly in polite company.


Actually the article on how to deal with such pretentious wankers was something I used In a prior committee meeting...

The Head Teacher of the school announced that parking problems could be less of a burden should residents without Drives take out garage rental from the council In the next road.

I said... " So let's get this right... Mr ******* at No 20 who has chronic arthritis and has just had a hip replacement, aged 85 years old, struggles back from the next road with his weeks groceries In snow and Ice In mid winter, In order to make It easier for a parent collecting their child by parking outside his house? Is that what you are saying?

Silence.

gmc;1406768 wrote: Posted by koan



If you'd quoted the rest of the wiktionary article I'd agree with you.
That's why I posted the link. So, with the whole article to consider, we agree that it's a good definition. That's a relief.





posted by koan



It is an insult and was clearly intended as such. A more brutal equivalent insult might be pretentious wanker. Oscar was clearly in polite company.
It seems oscar disagrees with you. "No-body wishes to Insult the guy. I don't know where you gleaned that or thought we needed a solution to how to Insult him."

Now there is disagreement in the thread, but not between you and I.

Another thing that might be considered here is meaning of "ad hominem"

Calling someone "pseudo intellectual" and not bothering to read or listen to what they said before responding "tl;dr" attacks the person instead of their ideas. This thread seems to give more weight to the usage note about abuse.

Then you're missing the point.

Sometimes such as gmc rightly pointed out, the pseudo Is In polite company ie a council meeting where there Is protocol.

The point all through this thread Is that In circumstances such as that, people do Indeed switch off when the pseudo gets his turn because of a personality trait ie arrogance.

The man of few words gets listened to and his proposals voted In.

oscar;1406786 wrote: Then you're missing the point.

Sometimes such as gmc rightly pointed out, the pseudo Is In polite company ie a council meeting where there Is protocol.

The point all through this thread Is that In circumstances such as that, people do Indeed switch off when the pseudo gets his turn because of a personality trait ie arrogance.

The man of few words gets listened to and his proposals voted In.
You're already calling this man a "pseudo"?

It doesn't sound like he's in polite company at all. It's scary to think a city council is using this criteria to make their decisions.

Aside from one person in one place who may be an arrogant (though possibly intelligent) jerk, we have the bigger issue of whether the use of the term "pseudo intellectual" is a meaningful label or just a smarter sounding way of insulting someone you don't like.

koan;1406791 wrote: You're already calling this man a "pseudo"?

It doesn't sound like he's in polite company at all. It's scary to think a city council is using this criteria to make their decisions.

Aside from one person in one place who may be an arrogant (though possibly intelligent) jerk, we have the bigger issue of whether the use of the term "pseudo intellectual" is a meaningful label or just a smarter sounding way of insulting someone you don't like.
If you are going to contribute to this thread, please read posts correctly as It will save much time.

The guy In question was labelled a pseudo long before I met him and by people far more qualified In council matters.

Who said It was city council ?

I didn't realize that the council had ascertained this poor man's IQ and had a session to decide upon the matter.

You started out by asking what a pseudo intellectual is and apparently that is not the real goal. You just wanted to get gmc to confirm that calling the guy that wouldn't be an embarrassing error. I don't see any evidence that you've learned anything about how to use the word at all except that you've thankfully stopped saying "Intellect" where you mean "intellectual"

As someone who regularly gets called most of the insults you've listed here I have a vested interest in clarifying what this particular word means. It's an ad hominem attack that is rarely used with any legitimacy.

I'm done with you. I won't be posting until Bryn returns.

Sorry but I am at a loss as to why you are trying to create an arguemnt here.

In response to this comment:

"I didn't realize that the council had ascertained this poor man's IQ and had a session to decide upon the matter"

Nowhere In this thread has It been said the council had ascertained his IQ... It was a personal opinion expressed In a coffee break by one of the Councilors who knew him much better than I did. And nowhere here does It state the council had, had a session to decide upon the matter... that Is completely erroneous.

" I just wanted gmc to confirm" ??? Now that's funny... gmc confirms nothing at my will or anyone else's. :wah:

I'm sorry this seems to have enraged you In some way Koan.

It was a comment made to another attendee at a meeting by someone presumably trying to cheer someone up in the course of an unnecessarily long meeting about someone that was the source of the problem. (late at night I am not going to rewrite that hopefully you get my drift) perhaps because he had been disparaging towards oscar and he was reassuring her his opinion was not shared by everyone. That was my take on it anyway. He might have been a misogynistic pseudo-intellectual. You read more in to it that there is. Calling him a pillock or telling him to go take a running ----- would probably not be a constructive approach. It's a form of bullying best dealt with by not getting annoyed.

koan;1406801 wrote: I didn't realize that the council had ascertained this poor man's IQ and had a session to decide upon the matter.




oscar;1406806 wrote:

Nowhere In this thread has It been said the council had ascertained his IQ... It was a personal opinion expressed In a coffee break by one of the Councilors who knew him much better than I did. And nowhere here does It state the council had, had a session to decide upon the matter... that Is completely erroneous.






yet....

oscar;1406794 wrote:

The guy In question was labelled a pseudo long before I met him and by people far more qualified In council matters.




What? It's like trying to untangle yourself from chewing gum reading around what you actually mean Oscar :wah:

Reading your own posts correctly and actually remembering what you said previously might help matters rather than dictating to others they should read posts correctly.

gmc;1406809 wrote: It was a comment made to another attendee at a meeting by someone presumably trying to cheer someone up in the course of an unnecessarily long meeting about someone that was the source of the problem. (late at night I am not going to rewrite that hopefully you get my drift) perhaps because he had been disparaging towards oscar and he was reassuring her his opinion was not shared by everyone. That was my take on it anyway. He might have been a misogynistic pseudo-intellectual. You read more in to it that there is. Calling him a pillock or telling him to go take a running ----- would probably not be a constructive approach. It's a form of bullying best dealt with by not getting annoyed.
Actually I think you're right there. I am pretty new to council matters and there's so much to take on board. I'm still very much learning and have a long way to go yet. The seasoned councilor who took me to one side over coffee was doing exactly as you say ( I think )... It was a kindly word to re-assure me.

Betty Boop;1406810 wrote: yet....



What? It's like trying to untangle yourself from chewing gum reading around what you actually mean Oscar :wah:

Reading your own posts correctly and actually remembering what you said previously might help matters rather than dictating to others they should read posts correctly.


You're probably right Betty.

What I said In the very first post though was that a councilor spoke to me during coffee and said ' Ignore the pseudo Intellect, he's just mouthing off'.... that was the basis of the thread.

Sorry, I kind of took the thread off tangent by talking about the internet.

And yeah, if someone's going to patronize me and speak down to me as if I'm less intelligent, then I think they deserve a little snark. They can continue to look down their nose at me and my juvenile behavior and I enjoyed a little snicker. Win/win.

We have a saying - some people could start an argument in an empty room.

gmc;1406887 wrote: We have a saying - some people could start an argument in an empty room.


I certainly didn't Intend to start and argument here.

I've found with Councilors that they are either genuinely caring about their community or they just love the sound of their own voice. Thankfully, the majority I encounter are the former.

I had to give a speech last year to a full council session... 300 of them. I never want to do that again, It was absolutely terrifying. The woman who gave a speech after me was worth staying for though... she was banging on about how a half way house for Immigrants had caused petty crime to rise. The funniest part was when she got to the part about some Polish chap who had exposed himself to an elderly widow whilst hanging out the washing. Peter and I were biting our lips as she went Into full ' Disgusted Daily Mail reader' mode.

koan;1406801 wrote: I didn't realize that the council had ascertained this poor man's IQ and had a session to decide upon the matter.

You started out by asking what a pseudo intellectual is and apparently that is not the real goal. You just wanted to get gmc to confirm that calling the guy that wouldn't be an embarrassing error. I don't see any evidence that you've learned anything about how to use the word at all except that you've thankfully stopped saying "Intellect" where you mean "intellectual"

As someone who regularly gets called most of the insults you've listed here I have a vested interest in clarifying what this particular word means. It's an ad hominem attack that is rarely used with any legitimacy.

I'm done with you. I won't be posting until Bryn returns.


Actually I find that a rather strange assumption on your part. Oscar had no way of knowing I would actually bother to respond to her post and I really really doubt she needs validation from me or anyone else as to what insults to use. Anyway it's not much of an an insult rather a description you would not use to somebody's face, not least because it would probably go right over their head. If it didn't go over their head the person would probably laugh because they've just been insulted by someone that doesn't understand the meaning of the word but wants to impress by using intelligent sounding insults.

The fun best way to insult someone (if that is what you want to do) is do it in such a way that they know they have been insulted but it's done in such a manner they are left with no response. What's this fascination with insults anyway, I think maybe it's a north american thing or insecurity that people feel the need to put people down in conversation or have the last word, not everybody will agree with your point of view, doesn't make them wrong necessarily. I corrected oscar's use of intellect because i found it jarring, took me a while to pluck up the nerve to do so - it's rude to correct someone's use of english. Just as well as we would be forever telling off americans for not spelling properly:sneaky: