Cowardice or Modesty? The difference lies in Pride. On the subject of betrayal the most general of responses occur; is there ever really anything "original" to say on such a common topic?

You patronizing, ego-ridden fool. Who do you think "The Man" is? Some snowy bearded giant who sits behind a desk, pressing buttons to ensure ill fate for the downtrodden? I thought we were through with fairy tales. In fact, it goes by many names; the night of the mind, the fool's reason, the coward's lament. How long will it be before you mirror what vexes you so, when all that was considered your life will be dubbed "inconsequential," not because you've changed sides, but because you have actually grown as a person for once; no different than outgrowing your clothes or losing teeth. Things have only begun to get difficult; I can only hope this doesn't mean a further ascendancy into trolldome.

Today we read an article that was something of a rebuttal to the overwhelming amount of harsh criticisms aimed towards the narrator (the lawyer) of the short story. In the article, the author identifies with the lawyer, and trusts his motives and reasoning, as I did, however uncommon and scarce this viewpoint may come.

So he doesn't help Bartleby out of compassion, but out of curiosity. The narrtor is a lawyer; objectivity is a part of his nature. He is greatly successful, which takes much patience, hard work, and discipline to obtain and maintain. I would think that emotions rarely ever dominate a man of the sort.

Is that a crime? Just because Bartleby seems to be in a place that many people find themselves all the time, is the lawyer obligated to make emotional contact? No. He hired him to copy, and he refused to do so.

How ridiculous to say to someone, "I appreciate you bending over backwards to help me, but it just wasnt emotional enough, and by it being blatantly a product of your haughty nature, it is void." Is it wrong that the lawyer wasn't as emotional as some others might be? Think about his occupation, the objectivity it requires, and the ability to be weary of cross examination.

Yes, he is very analytical, and thinks much about whether to react or show emotion, but it doesnt necessarily display a "pompous, haughty" nature, moreso a careful, particular nature (This can be applied to the final line, whic is said to do so). Bartleby irritated me in the same way he did the lawyer at first, and as the lawyer rationalized, I did too in the same way. There was only so much he could do for Bartleby within reason and upon Bartleby's cooperation, and a lack of a show of emotion doesn't mean a lack of compassion. If he didn't care for Bartleby at all, he wouldn't have done as much as he did, considering his status and assets.

You know, harnessing sexual energy isnt as difficult as it sounds. But im not sure if everyone can channel it into some form of creativity, though; there's a difference between dealing with it and channeling it.

I am famously overly analytical, but there's nothing better than a bout with reason. Train of thought is all I have in order to deal with things.

We're so wrapped up in our so-called misanthropy that we overlook our own power; human energy is dangerous.

Well, being judgmental, as I say, is human nature. Everyone does it, we just have another name for it: common sense. Yet nobody wants to fess up to it.

You can only expect ignorance on the internet. When such a wide spectrum of people are brought together in one place and given the opportunity to be themselves, it is no different than territorial disputes. People who hate each other forced to live together/people who find confidence in anonimity refusing to tolerate each other.

As far as politics, we could go on forever, but I definately will not flare up at everyone's rigt to have an opinion. Disrespect, to me, displays a doubt of self veracity, and lack of arguement skills.