Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
> My Conscience wrote:
>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>>>> My Conscience wrote:
>>>>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> But...are you posting in any other threads? I wouldn't know.
>>>>>> You see the dilemma here.
>>>>> Well, it's not a dilemma for me. Most of the posts in auk go
>>>>> straight into my bit bucket anyway.
>>>> So I take it all your answers refer to AUK when you say things like
>>>> "here," "this group," et al?
>>>
>>> Not exactly. I'm currently subscribed to nearly 50 groups (divided
>>> among 7 different servers).
>>
>> This is one of the things I'm talking about. You say things like
>> "here" when you're posting to multiple groups, yet expect someone to
>> know which "here" you mean. I don't see why you do that.
>>
>>>>>>> Of course, if
>>>>>>> you were right here in my living room, I might try to fit you
>>>>>>> for a ball gag. :)
>>>>>> Promises, promises. ;-)
>>>>> :)
>>>> What a Valentine's Day this might have been!
>>>
>>> lol
>>
>> !0!
>>
>>>>> I have no problem having the discussion. I just won't have the
>>>>> discussion in any of these groups or any groups like them.
>>>> Bearing in mind that, no matter where they happen, someone else is
>>>> likely to see them, I don't know as I think that gains you much in
>>>> the way of non-interruption, but OK.
>>>
>>> I don't know of anyone here who has the energy or motivation to stalk
>>> such a conversation.
>>
>> So why do you object to having that discussion "here," as you say?
>
> It's even worse than that. I also object to having the discussion about
> why I object to having the discussion.
>
>>>>>>> Unless of course you were trying to control me by wearing me down
>>>>>>> with repetition.
>>>>>> I trust you see now that that is not in fact my raison d'etre.
>>>>> I just threw that in for laughs.
>>>> It's always funny until someone loses an eye.
>>>
>>> This is usenet; nothing here is real.
>>>
>>> (I don't really believe that, btw.)
>>
>> Then outing shouldn't be a problem. ;-)
>
> It seems not to be except to the extent that the "rule" against it is
> paid lip-service.
>
>>>>> Never forget where you are. Nothing you read in these groups should
>>>>> be taken as truth or taken to heart.
>>>> Or taken as false, either. Every post, like every person, must be
>>>> judged on its own merits.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, that doesn't happen often "here."
>>
>> It is the sad part of life that many things which should happen don't,
>> and vice versa; but that does not free us from trying to do the right
>> thing anyway.
>
> Some of us, not all of us.
>
> Or were you speaking idealistically?
>
>>>>>>> Trust you?
>>>>>> "You can believe it or not, just as you choose."
>>>>>> --Doctor Judd, "The Seventh Victim"
>>>>> This is auk. Nothing here is believable.
>>>> I wouldn't say that. Rather, it has its own set of criteria for
>>>> judging verisimilitude, none of which necessarily intersect the
>>>> non-Usenet world.
>>>
>>> A lot of it intersects the "non-Usenet world," but the party line
>>> would have it that this is role-playing, nothing more.
>>
>> Which party would that be?
>
> The one that does not exist, of course.
>
>>>>>>> Of course, dear. I did not mean to imply that I think you're
>>>>>>> simple.
>>>>>> One wonders what a true census would produce. I might not be
>>>>>> reading the proper sample of threads, but it seems to me that most
>>>>>> AUK posters are complex, if abundantly varied in personal
>>>>>> magnetism. lol
>>>>>
>>>>> Further deponent sayeth not.
>>>>>
>>>> Complexity doth not always imply intelligence.
>>>
>>> It is often an indication of an intractable character disorder.
>>
>> What is--complexity or intelligence?
>
> Complexity. Although I must admit that the vast majority of the
> character disordered I've run into appeared to be quite bright.
>
>>>> I give you the
>>>> ramblings of nearly any VVF award-winner as an example.
>>>
>>> <veer> On the other hand, most VVF winners are pretty harmless, and I
>>> seen no reason why their delusional thinking should get a further
>>> boost by providing a wall against which they might throw themselves.
>>
>> Derision is hardly a boost, and the awards are not handed out for the
>> consideration of the awardee.
>
> Any kind of attention is good attention to a crazy person. No matter the
> reason for the awards, they're still a moment in the spotlight.
wow you are crazy to post this in a public forum just to gain attention.
>
>>> It is commonly understood that history is replete with genuises who
>>> were neither understood nor revered in their own time. How easy to
>>> tell oneself, then, that kook awards are just more evidence of this
>>> in one's own case?
>>
>> I would counter that for every unsung genius, there were cornucopias
>> of madmen who thought themselves unsung genii
>
> That was cute.
>
>> and would not be
>> dissuaded of that even when their kooky theories were torn apart with
>> unassailable logic.
>
> Ah, so we wish to make them recant?
>
>> Show me a single VVF award winner who has had their theory become
>> accepted in any scientific arena.
>
> Not until at least one hundred years after they die. That's how it works
> with kooky theories, remember?
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
