Your opinion of Stalin?

[grumbler]

I haven't posted in this thread yet nor have I read most of it's post.

Everyone's opinion so far is wrong.

When I first read this, I understood it immediately.

That made me wonder who hijacked GF's account, because his English usually needs a bit of deciphering.

The I saw "it's" and "post" and relaxed.  It is the real GF.

[Grey Fox]

I'm still unsure how I should have written "it's"? Its? Be easier if I could just use "his".

[syk]

The I saw

followed the I came.

[grumbler]

I'm still unsure how I should have written "it's"? Its? Be easier if I could just use "his".

In  the possessive, "it" does not have an apostrophe any more than "he" does: "its" and "his."

"It's" is an abbreviation for "it is" just as "he's" is one for "he is."

[grumbler]

The I saw

followed the I came.

for the thanks you help.

[Grey Fox]

I'm still unsure how I should have written "it's"? Its? Be easier if I could just use "his".

In  the possessive, "it" does not have an apostrophe any more than "he" does: "its" and "his."

"It's" is an abbreviation for "it is" just as "he's" is one for "he is."

Usually, my mistakes arent on the words I wrote, it's that I had no idea how to write the proper word or the alternative so I just go with whats fits phonetically.

[Ed Anger]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

[jimmy olsen]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

Awesome find MB.

[ulmont]

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe

http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

[The Minsky Moment]

The Montefiore book does not remotely suggest that Stalin was an intellectual.  All it indicates is that:
+ he liked reading.
+ he read a lot - primarily novels and poetry but some history as well - particularly ancient and classical.
+ he was capable of distinguishing good literature from bad
+ he was respectful to some professorial types.

The point is not that Stalin was an intellectual - of the major Bolshevik figures, he is virtually alone in never having written a tract of any importance or relevance in the Marxist-Leninist canon (which is not really setting that high a bar to begin with).  The point is that as a person who understood the underpinning of power, he saw the usefulness of recruiting and controlling writers, poets and other artistis for political purposes.  There is also the pyschological dimension of a person who recognized himself to be at best a crude auto-didact with a certain sense of intellectual inferiority to his main competitors (Bucharin, Trotsky) and tries to compensate by hob-nobbing with intellectual types specially selected for their tractibility.

[dps]

This thread reminds me of a family episode a while back.  We used to have a relative that was a vulgar piece of shit.  He had no redeeming qualities about himself. 

Up to this point in your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about Stalin or grumbler. 

[Eddie Teach]

Stalin wasn't Jewish.

[DGuller]

This thread reminds me of a family episode a while back.  We used to have a relative that was a vulgar piece of shit.  He had no redeeming qualities about himself.

Up to this point in your post, I wasn't sure if you were talking about Stalin or grumbler. 

Neither, actually.  I don't think grumbler is vulgar, and I do think that Stalin had redeeming qualities.

[The Brain]

The Montefiore book does not remotely suggest that Stalin was an intellectual.  All it indicates is that:
+ he liked reading.
+ he read a lot - primarily novels and poetry but some history as well - particularly ancient and classical.
+ he was capable of distinguishing good literature from bad
+ he was respectful to some professorial types.

The point is not that Stalin was an intellectual - of the major Bolshevik figures, he is virtually alone in never having written a tract of any importance or relevance in the Marxist-Leninist canon (which is not really setting that high a bar to begin with).  The point is that as a person who understood the underpinning of power, he saw the usefulness of recruiting and controlling writers, poets and other artistis for political purposes.  There is also the pyschological dimension of a person who recognized himself to be at best a crude auto-didact with a certain sense of intellectual inferiority to his main competitors (Bucharin, Trotsky) and tries to compensate by hob-nobbing with intellectual types specially selected for their tractibility.

Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?

[grumbler]

The Montefiore book does not remotely suggest that Stalin was an intellectual.  All it indicates is that:
+ he liked reading.
+ he read a lot - primarily novels and poetry but some history as well - particularly ancient and classical.
+ he was capable of distinguishing good literature from bad
+ he was respectful to some professorial types.

The point is not that Stalin was an intellectual - of the major Bolshevik figures, he is virtually alone in never having written a tract of any importance or relevance in the Marxist-Leninist canon (which is not really setting that high a bar to begin with).  The point is that as a person who understood the underpinning of power, he saw the usefulness of recruiting and controlling writers, poets and other artistis for political purposes.  There is also the pyschological dimension of a person who recognized himself to be at best a crude auto-didact with a certain sense of intellectual inferiority to his main competitors (Bucharin, Trotsky) and tries to compensate by hob-nobbing with intellectual types specially selected for their tractibility.

Do you agree with grumbler that Stalin was a profoundly unintellectual man?

And then, MM, you can say whether you agree with the Syt that "grumbler will now cite an obscure academic paper of 639 pages. It will mention Stalin's unintellectuality in a half sentence in a footnote on page 562. Of course grumbler will refuse to tell you where to find it exactly," "instead of citing obscure sources he refutes them because they don't address the precise point he argues. As usual, he declares victory unless his opponent jumps through all the nitpicky loops he holds up for them" and "he'd probably say that the way his debates are always like this on here because of the lack of intellectual challenge the posters pose?"

And then you can address The Brain's argument that grumbler's  "reading comprehension is poor," his "intellect is weak," that he is a troll" and that "grumbler isn't a serious poster."

You have to deal with those contentions, because they are what the thread has turned out to be about!    No one except you, me, Raz, Valmy, Ulmont, and Wayland appear to  be the slightest bit interested in Stalin!