LibraryThing Author:
Brendan Tripp

Brendan Tripp is a LibraryThing Author, an author who lists their personal library on LibraryThing.

See Brendan Tripp's author page.

Search BTRIPP's books

Members with BTRIPP's books

RSS feeds

Recently-added books

BTRIPP's reviews

Reviews of BTRIPP's books, not including BTRIPP's

Helper badges

Cover UploadingAuthor CombinationHelperTalk Spam-FightingWork Combination

Site design selection

Use the new design

Use the old design

The old design is no longer fully supported nor does it get full attention when we roll out new features. We strongly recommend using the new design.

 

Member: BTRIPP

CollectionsYour library (2,154)

Reviews619 reviews

Tagsfinished 2003 (6), finished 2007-07-07 (2), filed c10-s3-b15 (1), filed c10-s3-b16 (1), filed c10-s3-b17 (1), filed c10-s3-b18 (1), finished 2007-09-10 (1), finished 2007-09-08 (1), finished 2007-08-23 (1), finished 2007-09-07 (1) — see all tags

Cloudstag cloud, author cloud, tag mirror

About my libraryMy library count would be much higher, but I've been a stickler of only cataloging books that I both OWN and have READ, so my many boxes and shelves of "to-be-read" books await my finding time to plow through them before they show up in my LibraryThing.

Anyway ... this results in my main tagging scheme, which reflects where the books actually reside on my shelves ... and my "sort" is on those tags, so you can basically page through my reading history by taking a walk back through the "cover view" of my catalog!

In fact, I recently bought a domain to make this access to my Library much easier ... if you click on http://btripp-books.com it will take you straight to the catalog page with the appropriate sort!

I just hope there's not too much confusion with my LiveJounal review blog (linked below), which has the same "btripp-books" name.



OOOOH ... shiny!
It's a map that tells me where folks who've looked at this page are from ...

Create your own visitor map!

OOOOH ... shinier!
Flags and a count of the folks who've looked at this page ...

... since 6/23/2009.



One last thought:

Just think of how stupid the average person is,
and then realize half of them are even stupider!
-- George Carlin


GroupsA Pearl of Wisdom and Enlightenment, Altered States, Archaeology, Astronomy & Astrophysics, Atheism and humanism, Board for Extreme Thing Advances, Book reviewers, Bookshelf of the Damned, Brights, Buddhismshow all groups

Homepagehttp://www.livejournal.com/users/btripp_books/

Also onFacebook, Flickr, Google, LinkedIn, LiveJournal, Pandora, Pinterest, Second Life ("Eschatos Graves"), Twitter

Membership LibraryThing Early Reviewers/Member Giveaway

LocationChicago

Favorite authorsNot set

Account typepublic, lifetime

URLs /profile/BTRIPP (profile)
/catalog/BTRIPP (library)

Member sinceNov 11, 2005

Leave a comment

Comments

Hello BTRIPP. I am copying and pasting on your comment board the following, because it was a question that was put by you on PhaedraB's profile and I have already shared my same answer there with her:

It seems to me that when the What is the record number of LT members on line at any one time? group started out, I was imagining that that could be a method of prompting the technical designers of Library Thing to put a continuous graph of the number of users that would replace the 82,016,883 books! | 196 members online now section that everybody posts onto the thread. What got me thinking along those lines is that whenever I open the task manager on windows computers, there are some graphs that show how much capacity is being used in the CPU. And I thought, hey, why don't they just do the same thing with LibraryThing users, and make the time axis of the graph show 1 week or 1 year or whatever. This could replace the necessity of continuously having the work done manually by all of the LT users. I have not posted very frequently to any of the 44 pages of this thread. But I think it does have a value of being able to compare patterns in the numbers and being able to chat about it for general interest. Do you know if anyone else has thought of this idea?
It started when someone wanted to know exactly what the thread title stated. There was some discussion about it, then folks (myself included) started posting the stat from the bottom of the page at the same time we made our comments. And then we started just posting the stat. IMNHSO it is possibly the most pointless but addicting thread on the site. For myself, I kept saying that I would post until the number of people online equaled the number of posts in the thread (a coincidence that I--coincidentally--finally hit today) or some other odd number coincidence occurred. And so I have done. If I go to check the list, it seems silly not to post, so I always do. Yes, pointless. But I can't stop myself!

Actually, someone mentioned that they were charting the numbers in a graph or spreadsheet, but I haven't seen that person say that they've posted the info anywhere.

It's just goofy. Sometimes I like goofy, I guess :-)
Oooh I love the visitor flag counter - I'm going to get one too!
Thanks!
Just stopping by to say nice review of Hidden Channels of the Mind. I enjoyed reading it.
Cheers-
vintage_books
Just read your review of Occult America after posting mine. I agree about the "vague feeling of disappointment", despite also enjoying the book.
It would be interesting to see how many bidders are return bidders. No single bid is irrational. Multiple bids can quickly become so. It's one of those stunningly complex simple things.
Just stopping by to say thanks for the recommendation of 'Because He Could' over in the Pol Con group. Just finished it and you are right, it's exactly the antidote I needed to Bill Clinton wittering on (which I am still plouging through as a matter of honour). Moving onto 'Rewriting History' next.
Claire
Eschaton Books -- ah, that was you! Once I get the rest of the library unpacked, I'm sure some of yours will surface.
Just an astonished note to say that you are the only person on whose weighted list of shared books I have ever seen my name appear. We share a diverse group of books.
Thanks BTRIPP!
BTRIPP, could you tell me how you managed to get a superscript on the Dawkins thread? I can't get the html SUP tag to work in LT.
Brendan:

Your reply to Oakes is great (I've saved a copy for future reference). I also like the selection I find among the books we share. I am currently working on reading many of these.

Thanks!

Fred
Nicely worded pronouncement for the spammer. I couldn't have said it better myself! :-D
Brendan, your "Pony!" picture never fails in making me crack up laughing. :)
Thank you for the HTML for the ER bird logo.

Marcia
I loved your review of Useful Idiots! I own it and just haven't gotten around to reading it yet (along with about a zillion other books). I know what you mean about getting riled up after reading something like this. Ignorance can be blissful. Unfortunately, too many people in this country are spending a lot of time being "blissful" which is what explains too many of our election results. I would call myself a conservative with libertarian instincts also. The bigger government gets, the more bloated and inefficient it gets. As Ronald Reagan famously said, "What are the ten most dangerous words in the English language? I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
If I may, let me give you my thoughts:

I think it’s probable that there is an entity or entities more powerful than we are, perhaps even such that he/she/it/they may be responsible for the fact of our existence or, in some way, the existence of the universe (or at least, one or a subset of them). I believe this based on certain observable facts about nature, such as the complexity of biological organisms—which I do not think can be accounted for strictly by naturalistic evolution. Though, I have a feeling you would disagree with me there.

It is, of course quite possible that he/she/it/they wouldn’t exactly be God or gods in the deepest metaphysical sense, but they perhaps would be gods in the “indistinguishable from”, Arthur C. Clarke-ish sort of sense. Your belief that such an entity a priori obviously wouldn’t care about us appears to me to have no rational grounding whatsoever, as would, by the way, the belief that it a priori would care for us. I have no idea how one would go about assessing the probability of whether they wouldn’t or would. Clearly, though, that would still leave us a long way from a Judeo-Christian God, which I believe must be justified on other grounds.

So, now that I think of it, perhaps Deism or Deism Plus is not so irrational. I was too hasty.

People are often motivated by group dynamics to do evil. But I would say they also are often motivated by group dynamics to do good. People are influenced by other people, and like to do things in groups. People are social and socially influenced. That’s clear. Why this should be particularly or exclusively applicable to religious belief, as opposed to, say, any other type of group belief, I don’t know. And I do not know why from a strictly logical point of view, a belief in absurdities, if that is really what they are, are any more likely to cause evil actions as they might be to cause good actions. I guess it sort of depends on what the particular absurdities are. (“Be really nice to people and you will go to Heaven,” would appear to be one of those (to you) absurdities that to me, at least, would appear to be pretty darn socially advantageous.) I think Christianity has on the whole been a very good thing, but even if you do not go that far, I think it’s pretty clear that human history is filled with great evil—much of it caused by mass movements and mass beliefs (some religious and some not)—and also great good--much of it caused by mass movements and mass beliefs (some religious and some not). So what?

I think the history of Christianity has largely been written by atheists or Protestants with an axe to grind. Thus, according to one of the most recent (and non-religious) studies by Henry Kamen, the Inquisition—that well worn example of Christianity gone bad—killed only about 3,000 people at its height in the first fifty years, fewer than were killed in a day under Stalin, or one might argue, fewer than have been killed by coercive euthanasia in the Netherlands in the last ten years, or fewer than the number of homosexuals killed by the Islamic government of Iran in the last twenty-five years, etc., etc. And the Inquisition was launched at a time when torture and execution were sort of the norm for the secular political powers.

But to leave out my favorite topics of Judeo-Christianity and Islam for a moment, I think that if you look at the history of other religions, they differ enormously in what history says as to how peaceful or violent they were, just as different political views have differed enormously. This is an empirical claim that has absolutely nothing to do, of course, with whether or not such religions were true. But to sort of lump them all together, even if you can cite some religions that have been pretty nasty, is simplistic, and I think contradicts what the actual historical evidence shows.

Oakes
Hi - thought I should let you know that I tossed your name into this discussion.

Hoo boy! With all of the heated discussion over your tags, what do you suppose users are going to say when they start finding these weird strings in their titles?
I see on the music in lit thread that you knew people in the early 80's Chicago scene. I grew up in the Minneapolis scene and got to know the Raygun guys and Albini a little bit. There was apparently a short Strike Under reunion recently at an after party to celebrate that new documentary on the Chicago scene that just came out. The Effigies, Raygun and Big Black were my favorites.
Help/FAQs | About | Privacy/Terms | Blog | Contact | APIs | WikiThing | Common Knowledge | Legacy Libraries | Early Reviewers | 91,612,462 books! | Top bar: Always visible