On language: on controlling and being controlled

That my dear, is a matter of perspective.

There's no single answer.

An angle is only an abstract so its existence depends on your mind to put it there.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wes:

So then its mental subjectivity that allows for a pysicist to plot out a projectile's trajectory, yes? Land a probe on the moon?An illusion of placement maybe?

You're not seeing what I'm getting at ........there *is* an answer. A single answer. That third angle does not exist.
Simply an illusive byproduct of seeing two things together.

Like "Ego". See or no see?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Allright, ditch the Greek speak and riddle me this:

If I have 2 angles, 60 degrees respectively, put together I have a third angle and a triangle.

Does this third angle exist?

:: playing Jeapordy music:::
This is stupid. You are using mathematical principles to discuss the metaphysical. Why do you have a triangle? You have an angle of 120 degrees. So many damn flaws. Or you have two angles and there is no third. Where do the angles exist? On a plane? On a sphere? This is even more greek than any crap wesmorris can spit

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

/So then its mental subjectivity that allows for a pysicist to plot out a projectile's trajectory, yes?

Actually no, it's the employment of a body of knowledge, established subjectively and fed back into the subjective experience through languages (like math and english). A physicist uses stuff from this subjective interpretation of the collective body of knowledge which he has at some point likely validated to himself as a very accurate approximation to plot out a projectile's trajectory.

/Land a probe on the moon?

Same.

/An illusion of placement maybe?

Nope, a very high correlation between the established collective body of knowledge as interpreted subjectively (or by a computer) to place the object at very close to it's desired location. Calculus is good, without it - no approximations even remotely worthy.

/You're not seeing what I'm getting at ........there *is* an answer.

Oh I think I do as you've brought it up before. I think you're prodding for a regurgitation of your interpretation which while insightfull, falls just short of truth IMO.

/A single answer. That third angle does not exist.

I know that's what you think but you're wrong. It DOES exist if I want it to, don't you think? How do you even know the first two exist? What differentiates them from the third? Why a triangle? Does a parrallelogram also exist? NO? Why? What you see in it is a resultant of the desired usage in YOUR HEAD.

Technically Gendy, NONE of the angles exist (anywhere but subjectively or "in stasis" (locked away in a book as potential)), as I stated before.

/Simply an illusive byproduct of seeing two things together.

I know what you're getting at but I don't agree based on your example.

/Like "Ego". See or no see?

I do think you're onto something there and your example helps to illustrate your point, but on it's own it does not stand for the annoying reasons I've mentioned.

Those same annoying reasons cause me to hesitate before embracing your idea fully. As I said I think you're onto something, but I'm still mulling it over.

 

Fountainboy:

Odd silence.

If you’re going to be drawing blanks you could at least turn the sound off.

For the mathematically anemic: 2 angles put together make a third. Take your fingers and with your index and thumbs make a triangle. Pull them apart. In reality there is only the concrete absolute of the 2 fingers on both of your hands and the angles between them. But together is the phenomena of a third angle that does not exist anywhere but in that triangle.
A nanosecond….that’s how long it will take for all this to fly over your head fountainboy.

Pure math is in its way a poetry of logical ideas, said Einstein. And always remember his hobby, willow one: gedankens.

Cheap shot. Have a fucking seat.

Wes:

Sweet. “…. it's the employment of a body of knowledge, established subjectively and fed back into the subjective experience through languages (like math and english”. I like. Only problem here though is your abuse of “subjective”.
In psychology, sociology or any of the other liberal –ologies involving humanism there are times when 2 and 2 is 5 on account of subjective bias, my lord.

However, where physics and hardcore math are concerned 2 and 2 is always 4. No matter who subjectively interpreted what as valid to whom anywhere.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not chalking up ‘ego’ to a puny little angle or cheap math, and if I was I’d be cheating myself and selling you a lemon. Math has a way of magically fleshing the illusive, bringing the fucking gods down from their mountains and putting them in their place you know? Making the complex simple and not vise versa.

I’m seeing that with you angles don’t exist outside of books. Period. That’s where you and me part. I believe there to be something marvelous mathy at the root of everything, a latent geometry that drives the whole world from the amoebae to the blue whale. When I take my fingers and pull them apart, the triangle disappears and so does that third angle at the top...…but all four of those fingers used in the making are real. And so:

Totally disagreed.



I brought this up not to regurgitate so…uhmm….fuck you ……..I only wondered if you even read what I had posted. With this:

.....I see that you have. If there’s anything worse than the nasty feel of spookz fucking eating your insides out like a tapeworm, its the mangled reading habits of a threadflirter. Thank you.

 

/Sweet. “…. it's the employment of a body of knowledge, established subjectively and fed back into the subjective experience through languages (like math and english”. I like.

Why thank you milady.

/Only problem here though is your abuse of “subjective”.
In psychology, sociology or any of the other liberal –ologies involving humanism there are times when 2 and 2 is 5 on account of subjective bias, my lord.

But that's exactly how I mean it. Have you forgotten that some people are really really bad a physics, yet get the degree? In comparison to most engineering types, I'm a suckass mathematician. I still managed an engineering degree. My profs didn't buy it when I told then it was 5 until they saw why I thought it - then partial credit saves the day!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/However, where physics and hardcore math are concerned 2 and 2 is always 4. No matter who subjectively interpreted what as valid to whom anywhere.

You're absolutely correct but again, some don't get it, that's what I mean. People will spout their limited knowledge of physics or any topic all the time as if they know what they're talking about while people in the know merely have to scoff. Fortunately, those people usually don't get employed to calculate trajectories of anything important. Note that sometimes they DO.

/Don’t get me wrong. I’m not chalking up ‘ego’ to a puny little angle or cheap math, and if I was I’d be cheating myself and selling you a lemon. Math has a way of magically fleshing the illusive, bringing the fucking gods down from their mountains and putting them in their place you know? Making the complex simple and not vise versa.

I told you I saw your point. I still see it and would restate that I think it insightful yet somewhat short of truth. I cannot tell you in exactly what way or even that you're wrong. I just have to spin it in a way that I can integrate it into what I think I know... you know.. subjective geometry? You're doing the same thing.

/I’m seeing that with you angles don’t exist outside of books. Period. That’s where you and me part. I believe there to be something marvelous mathy at the root of everything, a latent geometry that drives the whole world from the amoebae to the blue whale.

That's a whole other conversation. You should start a thread and throw me a link. Sounds interesting. Maybe get some fresh input. Seems like only the three of us are paying attention in here anymore. Even Meph abandoned us a LONG time ago and it's his freaking thread.

/When I take my fingers and pull them apart, the triangle disappears and so does that third angle at the top...…but all four of those fingers used in the making are real. And so:

My point wasn't that the angles only exist in books. It was that they only exist in your mind. Note that without consciousness in the universe, everything functions perfectly no thought of it at all. In such a case there are no labels, simply a functioning system performing its function. Introduce consciousness and voila, you get perspective and the need to understand one's surrounding to survive within them. Thus "angles". Mathematics is just a language made up by humans that describes stuff. It isn't the actual stuff.

I DO however know what you mean. I'm fucking astounded at the genius of mathematics and the stunning applicability to the physical world. Try practicing it in terms of the real world though and some of the luster kind of polishes off. Go to work for a manufacturer if you want proof.

/I brought this up not to regurgitate so…uhmm….fuck you ……..I only wondered if you even read what I had posted. With this:

So quick to fuck me eh? Horny bitch. Well, you'll have to ask my wife.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You must have forgotten that I said pretty much the same shit to you the first time you asked. You can see how it seemed a little proddy? No big thang.

/If there’s anything worse than the nasty feel of spookz fucking eating your insides out like a tapeworm, its the mangled reading habits of a threadflirter.

So spookz is going down on you? What? What does he have to do with it?

Wait are you calling you the thread flirter? Huh? You're not flirting are you? Oh stop. *blushes* LOL. Sorry, I'm such a cheesedick bitch.

/Thank you.

For what? Being so damn smooth right? No? :bugeye:

 

This is greekspeak.

Look at you, and you question my mathematical skills? A triangle is a conception of what can be physical. If you take your fingers to form a triangle, once you pull them apart you no longer have a triangle. If you use your fingers to form "angles", then you have a abstraction of an angle. Put two obtuse angles together and tell me you have a triangle you nitwit. Of course the "third" angle you are talking about does not exist when you pull your fingers apart-- it only existed within the context of the triangle! Remember my original post: "Why do you have a triangle? You have an angle of 120 degrees. So many damn flaws. Or you have two angles and there is no third. Where do the angles exist? On a plane? On a sphere? This is even more greek than any crap wesmorris can spit" You present silly notions as if it is something brilliant.

You want pure math then think within context and not supid crap like this. The third angle did not diappear because once your "triangle" is gone that abstraction no longer exists. If you take wood and make a traingle, if you break it apart your traingle is gone. You only gets 3 angles if you broke the triangle in such a way as to leave three angles. Yuck. Only and if you want to talk in the mathematical sense, what planes are those angles on? Don't present silly "mathematical" notions to me. Why don't you post your silliness under the math subforum and get bitch slapped even worse.

 

Fountainboy:

Irrelevant.

Motherfucking irrelevant.

Bloody fucking ...............i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t.

Look this up you little mook: Nugatory.

Stop fucking benchwarming and realize the math was only used for its simplicity in trying to finger what I'm getting at.
Thought and choice. Fused together. Illusory byproduct: ego.

Want to beat about Euclid geometry? Wax fucking macho maybe? Do it with something else and somehwere else where the more and more you write the more you prove you can't fucking bitch slap anything. Eat yourself up and shit yourself out into some other thread where some one's not in on your little games of trying to show what you're not, will ever be, or that you even have any godammed clue what it is you got yourself into.
You've got the earmark of a go-between, my dear. Fucking idler.

I wonder if you squeal like this when you're getting bitch slapped.

Carpe jugulum.

 

Amalgamate the inane, the ephemeral, the vapid, the illogical, equvocal, the nonsense, the denial, and you have a typical gendanke response. Bullshit typical Gendaken reply: Scream and scream, if that does not work, dodge all assertions, if that does not work, try some amazingly pathetic attempt at character assasination, if that fails, simply ignore and lie to the ego; oh and don't forget the classic "look this up:"(obfuscated bullshit that is unneeded or some pathetic 8+ letter word that Gendaken just discovered). This is you in all your essence: loud, obstinate even in the face of reason, and occupying a stupid high horse you don't belong on. Reality: your assertion is moronic. It is moronic because you are taking mathematical definitions and trying to make a philosophical discussion where one does not exist. I cannot stand for such nonsense. If you want to advocate and present silly notions that will seem smart but are really nonsense, speak to your ten year old sister. Otherwise, Shut the fuck and only speak when you have something intelligent to say.

An angle is defined mathematically as being caused by the intersection of two lines. This is the mathematical definition of an angle. A triangle is simply a three sided polygon. A triangle posseses 3 angles. Ignoring all the silliness and other inconsistences in your original statement, if you bring your fingers together to form a triangle you have 3 angles. This is simple definition of triangle. The angles are abstractions that exist only within the contest of the triangle. Once you move away your fingers or destroy the triangle, you no longer have a trangle and the "third" angle you speak of never existed, for you are out of the context of the triangle. Parralel universes may exist, but so what? Within the context of this one, they never/don't exist(ed). I know Wesmorris will kindly play with your ego and patiently goad you into accepting you are wrong, but I won't fucking bother. You are not saying shit. You are taking definitions established within a specific context and turning them upside down to fit your own nonsense. If you want to talk of subjectivity, stay the fuck away from mathematical definitions. Here is a word you should look up: twit. Just four letters, no need to brandish my fucking vocab.

This is stupid: A single answer. That third angle does not exist. Simply an illusive byproduct of seeing two things together.
Beacuse the product of "putting" those two things together is defined as a triangle and that angle you speak of does not exist outside the CONTEXT of that triangle!

I am tired of the "intellectualization" stupid crap. A geometry that exists underneath all, what fucking nonsense.

You are the kind that gets bitched slapped so many fucking times you think it is the norm. You have deluded yourself into thinking you have some intelligent stuff to say when you have none. You will not spew you nonsense.

"Irrelevant, Motherfucking irrelevant, Bloody fucking ...............i-r-r-e-l-e-v-a-n-t." Fucking how? You are using mathematical definitions, so stay withing a mathematical context. You claim my previous assertions were inconsequentil--irrelevant--nugatory. How? The assertion cannot be supplement with a logic argument for your assertion was nonsense.




Smack the bitch.



HED!:m:

 

Chill you fucking punks. You're both very fucking smart blah blah. Ah fuck it. May the strong survive. Good luck!

Gendy is wrong in asking the question directly. She should say "it's kind of like..." and this entire argument would be avoided. She's really just using a mathematical concept as an analogy. That's perfectly valid unless you try to say it's true and not just an analogy. At that point the other smarties in the room have no choice but to correct your mistaken assertion.

While fountain does border on "thread flirting", he has excellent and pertinent questions. I would prefer that as many intelligent fuckers with excellent and pertinent questions stay in this thread as possible. Considering that is just the three of us at this point, why do we have to attempt to muscle each other out of the thread? Let's just figure out some shit here aight?

Bastards.

 

fountain
feed both the fuckers into to the mincer

Scream and scream, if that does not work, dodge all assertions, if that does not work, try some amazingly pathetic attempt at character assasination, if that fails, simply ignore and lie to the ego; oh and don't forget the classic "look this up:"(obfuscated bullshit that is unneeded or some pathetic 8+ letter word that Gendaken just discovered). This is you in all your essence: loud, obstinate even in the face of reason, and occupying a stupid high horse you don't belong on.

brilliant. in my own pathetic way i have always asserted this.
the dank ass shits from her mouth!

 

/the dank ass shits from her mouth!

LOL did you see that southpark where martha stuart ate a whole turkey with her ass and shit it out her mouth? Beautiful! LOL.

We all SHIT from our mouths brother. All of us. I will concede that Gendy seems exceptionally skilled at doing so, but would you claim innocence? Hehe. I certainly can't.

 

HED!:m:

i bow to thee, my lord

 

And Webster you a thesaurus and you have, accept, acquire, admit, annex, bear, carry, chalk up, compass, corner, enjoy, gain, get, hog, hold, include, keep, land, lock up, obtain, occupy, own, pick up, possess, procure, receive, retain, secure
a typical fountainhead
response acknowledgment, antiphon, back talk, comeback, cooler, counter, double take, echo, feedback, hit, kickback, knee-jerk reaction, lip, reaction, rejoinder, reply, respond, retort, return, reverberation. That and that cute little habit he has of excusing himself from a serious reply by either fibbing or hinting that he's high *snort* or doing something important.

Let's examine where you began stuffing that foot in your mouth:

First you come out of nowhere and chalk up Meph's thread to nagging:
"It is incomprehensible to me when people constantly complain about the limitations of language and how it somehow constricts thought. Humans think through language. We cannot supersede the language of our thought.....-Fountainboy

....then you proceeded to non sequitor galore about word corruption where the original intent of this thread was the limiting way we *use* language leading one to herd mentality.

You waddle elsewhere, post shit up and troll you up some of the most highly thought provoking popularity contest threads I've ever seen, like, really..............and then peek back in to this thread days later to assert that you disagree about something you haven't even read:
gendanken-- i disagree, but I shall go back and re-read the thread and reply

Riiiiiight.................

You come back in yet again, clueless as fuck and throw out a link no one goes to. Scratch that, Meph actually did go(poor boy) and came back to let you know that link was tossed salad, language not being what limits whereas we do.

Another notch proving the little worm has no fucking clue what he's doing in that apple.

Meph calls you out, yadda ya bada bing, and lo and behold you come back againand play the old wildcard of "Hey.. I'm too busy to reply" and slap up some dictionary rubbish like all predictable little proles do when their plate is empty:

in Entry: language
Pronunciation: 'la[ng]-gwij, -wij
Function: noun......blah-blah...... -Fountainboy, 8-12 at 7:38 a.m.

Enter Occam's razor:

Mephura: " You have put yourself in a precarious position(fountainboy). If you are going to throw definitions at me, I would expect you to not only read them, but also to not suddenly jump the fence and use any connotative arguments"-08-12-03 at 08:54 AM

Last but not least, the ersatz of the clueless quixotic when he's tired and doesn't want to "play anymore"- some more bilge as a parting shot proving he still doesn't know whats going on:

"Minimalism: LMAO.
And in case you want to think: Think of the unknown and let's see if you do not think of the "unknown". Everything known is expressive in speech or mind.
The end. Out and done with this crap.."- Fountainboy, 08-17-03 at 05:31 AM

Mooooonths later you pull a fast one: you pop out of the blue and surprise the shit out of me by actually making some sense (my guess is alternative motives...hmmm.....) Wesmorris tried to iron out some confusions you were having over the use of the words "concept" and "abstract" , which I must add he did quite beautifully though it was a little loopy but all the same centered around the questions of computers (which are fascinating) then flatleaving it at that thinking it should be on another thread (moo), and you come back with the beat up old lemon of :

"LMOAO, lol. Hoi hoi hoi ..I'm at work, man, and high right now, I'll be back to reply .....something somethin. I'll make you pay if its bullshit !-!-!"

.......making you sound dumb with a runny nose.

You did make excellent points, and if you'd actually read this:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=25739&perpage=20&pagenumber=9

the 7th post I put up on 9-17-03 you'd realize we're pretty much thinking the same things.

You just so happened to miss the part where Mephura gave this thread over to me to indulge on a pet theory of mine. The only ones that have clenched it have been Wes and the Marquis. The problem here is just what Wes said.

"Gendy is wrong in asking the question directly. She should say "it's kind of like..." and this entire argument would be avoided..." -Wes

Read closely fountainboy: Its-an-analogy. The unraveling I felt when Einstein explained his theory with a closed box and no windows or two objects of equal velocities flying in space is the same unraveling I felt for what eluded me when I put my fingers together and saw that the third angle at the top was an illusion. Imagination. Fuck you for being drab. The same thing I told Sarge once is the same I'll say for you:

I won't assume malice for what highbrow stupidity can much easily explain, and other questionable reasons to boot. And I won't fucking do it for the noxious browsings of a flaming threadflirter either.

Duh 1

Duh 2

Duh 3

Now look this up baby doll: threw you for a loop.

 

/Thought and choice. Fused together. Illusory byproduct: ego.

In what context do you mean ego? You mean like in Freud's kind of way or in the more typified "sense of self importance".

This is difficult here because the definitions get squirelly. Choice is easy I think, but thought and ego are tougher.

That made me ponder reason as I was initially inclined to think of "thought" as "the act of reasoning" but of course the obvious came to mind quickly. A lot of people are incredibly unreasonable. However, they are really only unreasonable to me. To them, whatever behavior they engage in is reasonable in the sense that it is implementation of their mind in the way only their mind can do. So what is reasonable? What is reason? IMO, reason is the mother of logic, induction, etc... maybe just problem solving in general. However, that is just the way I see it. That doesn't mean that for an ignorant cracker it isn't perfectly reasonable to kill niggers and jews because that's what his pa and his best friend told him was right his whole life.

What is reason?

What is thought?

What is ego?

I think:

Reason is real-time implementation of awareness in a manner that attempts consistency with comprehension derived from previous reasoning. A cumulative process.

Thought is the shifting of awareness throughout the mind (in a multitude of different manners of becoming "aware" of the conceptual relationships or data accessable by the mind). It can be inclusive of reason.

Ego is a myth of sorts, but a useful concept to decribe some characteristics of the mind. Hmmm. It seems to me that one of the functions of ego is to ensure stability of the conceptual relationships which the mind has invested in so heavily. I think "the mind has a geometrical nature in a subjective sense" as a resultant of the relationships within my own mind. My ego allows me to reach this conclusion for several reasons. (which in some senses are particular to me and the relationships I've mentioned).

- It allows me to have the confidence to assert my mind to such an absract (as in way out) task.
- It rewards me by self-congratulations and interpreting feedback in a manner that re-enforces (my spelling of that word got all fucked in my head) confidence by re-enforcing the relationships as previously mentioned.

That's all I can think of for now.

 

Wes:

No shit. Let me see if I can do this piecemeal...you'll have to bare with me. .....

Thought I see as the incarnation of language. Not reason alone. You know? And language is wild, relatively speaking. Thought would be the the raw bits of imagery that reason manipulates in its function. You said something like that-
"the act of reasoning"
but to me it sounds backwards.
Reason sounds more like a monitor. The act of counseling or channeling, like a sieve or a bottleneck. Its as if thoughts skit around like little neutrinos or tachyons until there's some chlorine molecules there to stop and direct them. And in case some mindless, drab, nitpicking fuck wants to beat about molecular structure down to the hadrons- THIS IS AN ANOLOGY. ITS KIND OF LIKE THIS.

Choice would be hestitation. Instinct is autonomous monotony and with nothing to 'sweeten it' or awaken it, if you follow, instinct goes on click-clack-tacking in the illusion of will. Remember I wrote about the click-clack-tack of the instinct engine and the smooth hum of the intellect one? Choice is a stop in the madness, some kind of intellect awake enough to breed skepticism. ITS KIND OF LIKE THIS.

Ego is a slippery motherfucker. Give me a second. Hmmmm.....
Now we've got thought and we've got choice, right? What draws them together is the magnetism of 'self-awareness'. The more and more these come together....the more and more that we become conscious to knowing that we know, its as if you feel all the parts of your humanity or being enter each other and you feel all your 'personality' concentrate itself to a point. You feel an individuality. An ego.

Left hand, two fingers: choice
Right hand, two fingers: thought
Together, that illusory new angle on top: ego.

See? Please tell me you see.

I don't know how else to explain 'ego' but in terms of a mental voice. You have one yes? So do I. And its this voice that 'guides' me that has me feeling I have a soul(moo...whatever) . Its with this individuality that life and action seem free.

This voice is nothing without words to carry it in and I get to thinking.......what are words? Ephemara. Language is an abstract. That's what lead me to thinking that 'ego' was an illusion by means of a mental voice.

See?

But religion doesn't call it 'ego'. It calls it either a spirit, a soul, an archangel, a cherub or a Seraph or a guardian angel. That's what I'm trying to weasel after. Only science calls it an ego. And this ties into my trying to explain the gods away via language or ego.

Before I go, I'll comment some:

Ditto. Along the lines of how I tried to explain it.

Yes, and Freud can lick me. His idea of an ego was something like an angsty teen snot wacking off to a naked pic of his mother.
We're talking stability here. What has you and me thinking we're individuals and thinking we're both real people despite being "disembodied typists hundreds of miles away nowhere".

Yup.

Now you see where I'm at? Yes? No? Maybe so?

 

Unimaginative bullshit that I won't even bother responding to.

Now let me indulge your hogwash:

First of all I came to the damn thread and responded to Mephura's original post. Where you guys took the thread after my post is irrelevant.

Maybe you should pick up your beloved thesaurus and look up the work non sequitur. I responded to specific points that Mephura made in his post.

On language:
You already posted a piece.

On labellling:
He wrote:
Like I said before, we are all labeled. If we are a student, we are expected to accept that our 'teacher' knows more than we do about the subject. This instantly puts the idea in our heads that we should blindly eat up what ever is put in front of us and not question anything we are told. Math, history, science.....

I responded:
[COLOR = royalblue] As for labeling, I think you are you are not considering a subtle, yet more important factor: culture. A label/word like professor is a linguistic necessity. Instead of

"2 a : a faculty member of the highest academic rank at an institution of higher education b : a teacher at a university, college, or sometimes secondary school c : one that teaches or professes special knowledge of an art, sport, or occupation ",

we have the more compact label, 'professor' which at the most fundamental level, means a teacher, a more specialized teacher. What we attach to that: infallibility of the teacher, respect for the teacher, fallibility of the teacher, etc are social constructs independent of the label. It should be evident that how teachers/professors were viewed half a decade ago is drastically different than now. The change is cultural and not linguistic. Human change is reflected in language through associations, the basic fabric of that language is thus untouched.

As another example, consider the word gay. Half a century ago, it had a different definition. The current culture and how it defines and associates certain behaviours with homosexuals means then that the word/label acquires more meanings, each specific to the culture. As society changes, so does the word/label. The basic fabric of language is still untouched and yet gave a way society to communicate. I am tired…[/COLOR]

On history, he wrote:
Its a funny little paradox. History is filled with people that are respected and remembered because they challenged convention, thought outside the box, and went against the grain. They were prepared to face the consequences of their actions. Did the explorers of yesterday have any idea what they were really going to find in the wilds? If they didn't, then they were actively searching out the unknown...

I briefly responded:
[COLOR = royalblue] And just a comment on history: Individuals, select individuals (historians, artists, novelists, and nobles) choose and dictate to the masses, which characters in history to admire and respect. It is not like the regular Joe could go to a library and readily access the works of the sophists so he can pick the 'best'. The choice is already made for him. The choice is made very early. There is no paradox [/COLOR]

This is bullshit. You in all your bitchiness accused me thus:
Shutup. --Gendanken

LMAO. Now who the fuck are you again? Oh yea, another of the Xev-following pseudo- intelligent fuckers. I will simply say this and with contempt: unless I first replied to you, don't fucking respond to my posts.---- My reply

You: Look you, what your post did was take a chunk of what Mephura had already said, jiggled it up a bit and poured it back out. The consequence of cultural change was already addressed, fountainman, and then you ground his inquiries down to a petty "complaint". You fail to realize Mephura is true blue honest to god intrigued with language.
Don't fucking respond to your posts, say you? Well, dont fucking tell the gendy what to do sounds much wiser.

You accused me of using what Mephura had already said and then twisting the shit up to make my own. So what do I do? I provide a link to a post I made months before Meph's thread. The post clearly shows that my post is not a regurgitation of Meph's bullshit.
Thread: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20176&perpage=20&pagenumber=3[/URL]
Oh, and from number of views, more than one. Inane attacks from you, what else is new?

And what the fuck did my original post say, you nitwit?

If I was fucking busy, I was fucking busy. What the fuck is the need to dodge? What the fuck do you think I am doing now? You "call me out" I will fucking respond. If I am busy, I will tell you thus. I did not feel like having to explain simple definitions to one when one's obvious passion for their bullshit blinds them. The reason why I left the thread, was precisely because there was nothing of interest in the thread, I was busy and Mephura pissed me off by resorting to a personal attack. This from anyone, at that time wouldn't have pissed me off except for Meph. The reasons were precisely because of a set of emails between the two of us. Here I will show what I was trying to illustrate to Mephura:
His response to my post with definitions was this:

1 : to form or have in the mind

So you can not form images in your mind? Or have a song going through it?

5 : to call to mind : REMEMBER

So you do not remember how you felt, smells, sounds, images, ect? You only remember words?

8 a : to center one's thoughts on b : to form a mental picture of

1. This is nonsense. If the images you are forming in your mind make sense, reflect a concept, communicate a meaning to you, it through language.

5. You are talking of referencing. This is not conscious thought. Animals can reference-- can remember--this is not thinking.

8. The definition if referring usage of thought as in "I thought of Brian' -- a mental image of brian. This is referencing.


This is what I wrote to aid the mentally incoherent:
And in case you want to think: Think of the unknown and let's see if you do not think of the "unknown". Everything known is expressive in speech or mind.
The end. Out and done with this crap.."- thefountainhed
Why don't you take that test? You were so impassioned with your bullshit that you cannot think.

Months later I came out and replied because you asked me through a fucking PM to do so. I told you I'd have to read the entire thread as I hadn't visited it since I vacated the bullshit. I picked on Wesmorris' points because he was visible; Fraggle was gone and responding to his would work in vain. I ignored your bullshit because it is precisely that, and had been dealt with b4!

This bullshit for this is what you wrote about that post: Eureka. That's what this thread is all about. It annoyingly seems this idea was lost on some. I cannot be held responsible for the fairy browsings of a thread flirter. Get something straight here: Abstractions are not rudimentary building blocks. They are concepts hyperbolized. Mind structure taken to higher, theoretical, and hopelessly intagible 'things' divorced from material reality. Language.
Going back and saying the very same bullshit I original posted and you freaking responded to. You accuse of confusion when you later come out and take responsibility for bullshit that is not yours. You are all ego with no fucking substance. As I told you when you PMed, if you post nonsense that is pseudo-intellectualized, I will murder you. I am sick of your bullshit nonsense dressed in verbosity to confuse the masses whilst you change and chnage your fucking viewpoints that never existsed in the first place. Ms. "Fantastico" as in fanstastically deluded! Groping walls of emptiness in search of gold covered plates of ego fertilizing dung.

This is nonsense for is it a quote from the HED. Silly bullshit shall be looked upon with contempt. This includes you.

 

Oh blah dee........oh blah dah.....blah and blah........ah! Here we are:

Fountainboy

Thats.....right. Color me stupid I'd forgotten that I had asked you to come here in a pm. Why? Because tit for tat I asked that you surprise me and you could never do so in one of those brilliant popularity contest threads of yours. Like, really. Its either those, some run of the mill shit about love you got going (btw- yeah right), or the hodgepodge common to Free Thoughts where the plebs like to hang.

This not only proves that my brilliant memory failed me just now but nails this idea I already had of you being small potatoes.

You came here long ago.
You contributed nothing.
And you engaged in the timeless profession of the generic scifer: post up either a link or a dictionary definition. Common among those who either can't play, don't fucking wanna or tire easily. And when its "don't fucking wanna" ....either go away or stop blabbing. .

Meph told you all this long ago, silly boy.

Idiot. Everything I've said that agrees with you is becuase I agreed with you. Don't misplace yourself.

Its Ceaser or nothing. And its always a Pee Wee that can't stand this.

BOO!

Lastly:

This from a muncher means nada. Murder is tasty and really I'd like the abuse but I told you in a pm once that I craved stimulation. You're a fucking creative dead zone. For all I know your problem could be encephalitis and your sitting there with a forehead as big as my ego.

I asked that you come back, sure. All women are stupid. Its a curse in life that I happen to be one.

Your work here is done. Tootle-doo.

 

Now.....let us imagine this whole page a blanket and fountaiboy's post up there a wet spot. Ignore it.


Seeing how Wes is the only one paying attention, I'm thinking he's either contemplating what I wrote on that post 3 places up, thinking about the nicest way he can tell me its all bullshit or avoiding it altogether. Discourse was proving productive.

Don't think I'm trying to force my opinions on you......as tasty as it sounds. I'm not a child. Or a churl.

 

I've been busy and halfassed forgot. Got to debating Ghassan in another thread or two and it was distracting.

I will definately get to it though, maybe later tonight or tomorrow.

EDIT:

With you bastards flaming up the thread it's kind of a task to figure out where the last post of relevance was. I'll figure it out though.

Bastards.