Re: Magic 109 special ed

[jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger)]

Angelos Kyrlidis, way out of his depth, flounders 
> Say all you want. Just don't try to *impose* your thoughts to others and
> flame them when they disagree, alright?

When have I ever tried to *impose* my thoughts?  What would this mean, 
anyway?  I've been trying to build a defense-of-ESP out of next-to-nothing, 
which I see as an *extremely honorable* enterprise, and I've been subjected 
to an insane barrage of abuse from people who imagine they're being 
"scientific" by trying to squelch me!

Why are you directing this to me, rather than to Drukman & company, who 
blatantly tried to impose their views on me, by flaming me for presenting 
*my* views?  You've got *zero* perspective, kid.

> >I assert my freedom and my  rights!
> 
> a-ha! Well you better read your own words then, and re-assert others' 
> freedom to disagree with you.

Angelos, why do I sense the same old ecto-warmroom prejudgments, still 
lingering a year later?  You were full of it then, and failed to read my 
positions with any degree of respect, and you're at it again now...

Briefly, then and now, I stand for kindness to those who intend kindness, and 
full-flamed self-defense against folks who don't.

(Uncross your eyes, Angelos, and read that again, please.  It does *not* 
defend flaming kind folks, or knuckling under to unkind flamers.)

> >what I want is to *win general agreement* that *what we feel in our
> >hearts* as kind and good and healthful and responsible is *real* and
> >*counts*, as a general rule.
> 
> So your freedom and rights involve winning general agreement?

No, you d*mb f*ck, my freedom and rights involve presenting an argument and 
being treated with respect.  You're engaging in a hallucinated-witch hunt, 
for some Jorn-Hitler that never remotely existed.  Getcho' head outcho' ass.

> >(Jeez, you sound like a lawyer!  But I appreciate that you're talking
> >content rather than spewing denial!)
> 
> Note hostility again.

Astute!  Not!

> >Quantum mechanics paints this depressing image of *The Real* in which
> >at the finest level, everything is *probabilities*.  IE, everything is
> >*fog*.  I don't buy that.  That's not in the formulas, that's just the
> >way they're most comfortable projecting their *egos* onto the
> >formulas.
> 
> Ah, so science is just an ego-boosting experience... Let me write this
> down.

Angelos, go back to gradeschool.  You're hallucinating.  It's insincere and 
embarrassing.  I'd respond further, if you'd said anything coherent.


jondr@sco.com (Asimov-Drukman-Trump minus Asimov-Trump) attempts:
> I mean, let's just take a closer look.  Assuming I've got a handle on
> this, you're saying that somehow this unknown field energy attaches
> itself to audio cassettes such that when you replay these tapes, they
> release this field energy and you can re-experience your (or another
> person's) subjective mental state.  

Woaaa!  A miracle!  The Drukman brain engages!  ("It's trying to think!")

[restatements of more-attentive others' earlier questions, already addressed, 
omitted]

> Bleak?  Why would the world necessarily be a better place?  I have
> enough shit going on in my own head that I don't *want* to feel anyone
> else's subjective perceptions, thank you very much.

Jonni, here's a clue: your shit gets so ugly because you're insensitive of 
others feelings.  Have at least a half a heart, things will *have* to get 
better.  (Ahhh, I feel the *70s* comin' on... ;^)

> Anyway, what I think Steve is saying is that there is no magic vibe
> energy that floats out of your brain and attaches itself to the
> cassette tape.  Rather, when you hear a tape, it forms a connection in
> the associative schema of the brain such that when you hear it again,
> you re-experience a lot more than just the sound energy.  Perfectly
> consistent with current theory of how the brain works.  I like it.

(Yikes!  *Slow* on the uptake!)  Uh, yeah, Jon.  Run with it!  (Send me a 
telegram if you find the starting line...)

> If you think there's something to be gained by *pretending* that
> agreed-upon-reality is invalid, then that's your own account. 

Huh?  "Let's agree to disagree with the agreed..."?  (No, nevermind...)

> I find
> it a lot healthier to look at what people are considering reality to
> be this week and take the bits that you need.

In your case that would imply the Donald-Trump boot-in-the-other-guy's-face 
strategy?

> >How 'bout *striving to communicate better*?  Ain't that *art*?
> 
> Not necessarily.  What about theatre of the absurd?  Surrealism?
> Dada?  These are my favorite art movements and you dismiss them out of
> hand.  Typical Jorn.

You misread me, drearily, m'deary.

> >MAKE THE WORLD SAFE FOR CATHY!
> 
> Death to Cathy.

heh heh!  Now *that's* art, everybody's gotta agree.  *Truly* witty, Jon.  
Proud to know ya.  Lots more of that, for me, please.  Never get enough, 
nope.  Shatter them icons, yeah!  Show em you love em, by *killing* em.  High 
concept!  Totally inspiring...