Poof !
in [Physics]
|
Prev: ARCTIC OCEAN WARMING, ICEBERGS GROWING SCARCE, WASHINGTON POSTREPORTS [33 scary quotes since 1870]
Next: From Where the WTC Idiocy Starts - Hank the Fired Janitor
From: Absorbed on 7 Apr 2010 13:23 Bassos wrote: > "Tom" <dantomel(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:22770d46-f6cd-4bb2-a5a4-8ad54b4c446a(a)10g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > On Apr 7, 12:04 am, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: >> "Tom" <danto...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:ad5f23c9-f5e3-4abe-89b8-01ae57f99805(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 6, 12:21 pm, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: > >>> If you would have gone for art, you might have compared what astrology >>> is >>> like, to tarot. >>> Somehow you do not seem to mind the tarot, but you do mind astrology. >> ** >> My comment about astrology applies equally to tarot. >> ** >> >> Yeah, but only after i suggested it. > > ** > We were talking about astrology. Unlike you, I don't go haring off on > random tangents in my posts. > ** > > You compare astrology to a rorschach inkblot. > That is entirely your random tangeant. Bassos: "People go to museums to look at art, so why not look at other art like astrology aswell ?" Tom: "Astrology is art in the same way Rorschach inkblots are art." He responded to your claim that astrology is art. Most people can understand how that isn't a random tangent. You, apparently, cannot even understand this. You still don't seem to understand that Tom thinks you're a loon, even though he's told you repeatedly. You genuinely seem to think that he has some sort of respect for your ramblings. It just goes to show how lost you are in your bizarre fantasy land. He's a hint: Tom didn't "foolishly attempted to get [you] to post something for [him] to pick apart". If he's guilty of anything it's leading you on, of not correcting you often enough when you disappear into fantasy. I wouldn't be surprised if you believe the exact reverse of this, that Tom is actually not correcting *me* when I start calling you a loon and whatnot. And so you continue to believe that he doesn't believe you're a loon. No one can tell you otherwise, not even Tom. In fact, I think if Tom were to say (as he already has) that you're a loon, you wouldn't believe him. Instead you would believe that he's being mightily wise or something. You really are an oddball.
From: "Bassos" Root on 8 Apr 2010 11:15 "Absorbed" <purestdeformity(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hpif3f$jah$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Bassos wrote: >> "Tom" <dantomel(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:22770d46-f6cd-4bb2-a5a4-8ad54b4c446a(a)10g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... >> On Apr 7, 12:04 am, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: >>> "Tom" <danto...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> >>> news:ad5f23c9-f5e3-4abe-89b8-01ae57f99805(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... >>> On Apr 6, 12:21 pm, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: >> >>>> If you would have gone for art, you might have compared what astrology >>>> is >>>> like, to tarot. >>>> Somehow you do not seem to mind the tarot, but you do mind astrology. >>> ** >>> My comment about astrology applies equally to tarot. >>> ** >>> >>> Yeah, but only after i suggested it. >> >> ** >> We were talking about astrology. Unlike you, I don't go haring off on >> random tangents in my posts. >> ** >> >> You compare astrology to a rorschach inkblot. >> That is entirely your random tangeant. > > Bassos: "People go to museums to look at art, so why not look at other art > like astrology aswell ?" > Tom: "Astrology is art in the same way Rorschach inkblots are art." > > He responded to your claim that astrology is art. Most people can > understand how that isn't a random tangent. You, apparently, cannot even > understand this. Art is what moves you. A rorschach blot does not move me, an astrology chart does. This is far too easy. > You still don't seem to understand that Tom thinks you're a loon, even > though he's told you repeatedly. You could not find a claim of Tom that i would be a loon last time you claimed that. What makes you think it would be different this time ? (i will let the whole why would you belief what tom claims if he openly claims he lies slide) > You genuinely seem to think that he has some sort of respect for your > ramblings. Well, he should; so that is important enough to treat him as if he does. > It just goes to show how lost you are in your bizarre fantasy land. Enjoying myself in my fantasy land you might get away with. People that think acknowledging that we live in fantasyland is somehow wrong are themselves far more lost. > He's a hint: Tom didn't "foolishly attempted to get [you] to post > something for [him] to pick apart". Yes he did. The entire notion of calling the way astrology moves it's students in a same ballpark as the way a rorschach inkblot changes someone looking at it is fucktarded. So that means it was not a sincere/honest/interesting question. It was tommie trying to bait me. (He did get you, so apparantly he cast a wide enough net) > If he's guilty of anything it's leading you on, of not correcting you > often enough when you disappear into fantasy. We are already always living in fantasy. He is guilty of preconception in regarding my words. 'A wizard should know better'. (yup, Treebeard again) > I wouldn't be surprised if you believe the exact reverse of this, that Tom > is actually not correcting *me* when I start calling you a loon and > whatnot. Perhaps he is just embarrased by what his posts made you do. (not me; hope springs eternal) > And so you continue to believe that he doesn't believe you're a loon. If his Pyrrho impression has any merit he would not believe anything. That includes not believing i am a loon, and also not believing astrology is bullshit. > No one can tell you otherwise, not even Tom. In fact, I think if Tom were > to say (as he already has) that you're a loon, Quote him. > you wouldn't believe him. Ofcourse not. Why believe what some random strange dude on usenet writes ? > Instead you would believe that he's being mightily wise or something. Nah, he tries, but is far too knowledgable about his own weaknesses to openly explore them. > You really are an oddball. I took the road not before travelled by, making the road by going.
From: Absorbed on 8 Apr 2010 13:10 Bassos wrote: > "Absorbed" <purestdeformity(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> You still don't seem to understand that Tom thinks you're a loon, even >> though he's told you repeatedly. > > You could not find a claim of Tom that i would be a loon last time you > claimed that. http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/18c23374618689cc Tom wrote: > On Mar 23, 12:55 am, clown n <kosmicg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Bassos, I offer the proof to you instead. You have no investment in >> an outcome either way, you be the judge. Just make sure Tom gets his >> face in it if I'm right. > > That's hilarious. > > It's like a mental patient claiming he's Teddy Roosevelt and whose > proof is the testimony of the guy in the next padded room, who claims > he's Napoleon. Bassos goes on to say: > (i will let the whole why would you belief what tom claims if he openly > claims he lies slide) Of course you believe he must be lying, since that's the only thing that will fit into your fantasy land. You reinterpret everything that doesn't fit at first. >> It just goes to show how lost you are in your bizarre fantasy land. > > Enjoying myself in my fantasy land you might get away with. > > People that think acknowledging that we live in fantasyland is somehow wrong > are themselves far more lost. My point is that you *don't* acknowledge your own fantasy land. You strongly believe in it. If you acknowledged your fantasy land, you would dispel it. I'm not saying that's it's wrong for you to keep telling yourself stories, for you to be deluded in this way. But nevertheless, you are deluded. By definition, we don't live in a fantasy land. The fantasy land is produced by your imagination. It's an illusion. If you stopped imagining it for just a moment, it would disappear. >> He's a hint: Tom didn't "foolishly attempted to get [you] to post >> something for [him] to pick apart". > > Yes he did. > > The entire notion of calling the way astrology moves it's students in a same > ballpark as the way a rorschach inkblot changes someone looking at it is > fucktarded. It's understandable that you think so. If they are the same in this respect, then astrology loses some of the mystique that you believe it has. While you're always coy about exactly what you believe, I think it's plain that your belief of what astrology actually does is just as loony as if you believed you could influence the outside world by dancing around in your bedroom. Oh wait, you believe that as well, as shown when you asked others to perform "rituals" to help you in your cartoon crusade against a "corporate power". > So that means it was not a sincere/honest/interesting question. > > It was tommie trying to bait me. > (He did get you, so apparantly he cast a wide enough net) Tom doesn't try to bait people. His actions are very consistent; he just points out people's illusions and misunderstandings. >> If he's guilty of anything it's leading you on, of not correcting you >> often enough when you disappear into fantasy. > > We are already always living in fantasy. Not by any common understanding of the word "fantasy". As I said above, a fantasy, by definition, is something that is imagined and therefore, like a hallucination, it doesn't really exist. If there is a someone that lives somewhere, that someone is living in reality, not in fantasy. > 'A wizard should know better'. > (yup, Treebeard again) That's what spirituality is to you: it's Lord Of The Rings. You tell yourself wonderful stories, pretending that you're a masterful wizard. You really believe that you're a masterful wizard, but it's actually just a story you tell yourself. The story isn't real. >> I wouldn't be surprised if you believe the exact reverse of this, that Tom >> is actually not correcting *me* when I start calling you a loon and >> whatnot. > > Perhaps he is just embarrased by what his posts made you do. > (not me; hope springs eternal) Notice how I keep correctly predicting what you think. I don't always get it right, but there is a reason why I often get it right. >> You really are an oddball. > > I took the road not before travelled by, making the road by going. You're telling yourself a story about your magical adventures, and these "adventures" are one big, fat illusion. They don't exist anywhere except in your own head.
From: slider on 8 Apr 2010 15:20 Bassos wrote... >>>> which is another reason i kinda like jazz - ya can't get into trouble with it >>>> :) >>> >>> Ya can't get into trouble on usenet at all. >>> >>> Words on a screen, wooooo, scary! >> >> ### - have you never read something (a book maybe) that's affected you >> profoundly and forever? > > Ofcourse i have. > Take it and go. > (russel peters; > http://www.guavaleaf.com/video/2943/Russell-Peters--Red-White-and-Brown ) > > So even though the actual experience of reading a message can be life-altering, > after that experience it is simply the past. > (google faithfully keeps the archives, so you can reread stuff for a new > experience, the whole can't step in the same river twice prohibits having the > same experience as the initial one. That is part of the reason why i mentioned > that it can be interesting to truely feel insulted for a bit) ### - well here's something we can maybe chew-on then, because true that's it's immediately the past, but that doesn't detract from a life-changing/path-altering read, whether it be in a book, a newspaper or the usenet (e.g. i would consider albert camus's 'the outside' to be potentially life/path/perception-altering), a change from which there might easily be no return (once camus's 'stranger' is in your head ya can't get him back out) and thus one can only move-on from there... that in that sense the usenet is just about as-dangerous as anywhere else, perhaps even more so in that messages are being directed directly 'at you personally' as opposed to something generic written maybe 60/70 years ago... (iow it's still wholly possible to genuinely press people's buttons even via long-range emails and the usenet, especially in regards to the unwary who make no effort to protect themselves thus leaving themselves potentially wide-open to attacks from both emotional and mental assault in just about the same way as if that same attacker/mugger was standing face to face in front of you and cussing you out, and/or conversely by say calming someone down using combinations of words alone, iow by pressing 'other' buttons that do just the opposite) >> some of the existentialist material being deliberately >> written/composed to have exactly that studied effect, 'the outsider' by albert >> camus for example, which reads like nothing about nothing really, that is until >> some time later when it starts rattling around in ya head all by itself hehehe, >> brilliant stuff;) > > Perhaps i will pick up a copy in french and struggle through it. ### - then what an adventure awaits you! :) plus i'm reminded of the words from john fowles famous (infamous?:) novel 'the magus' which was subsequently made into a hollywood movie sort of based on/around it called 'the game', in which at one point someone experienced mysteriously remarks to the neophyte that they 'envy their forthcoming experience' (or words to that effect hehe ;) >> and/or this short story by sartre >> http://pagesperso-orange.fr/chabrieres/texts/sartre_thewall.html >> >> "Sartre's short story "The Wall" captures his central philosophical themes in >> a fictional setting. Only in the true-to-life moment of someone facing up to >> the immanence of his own death is the nature of human life revealed." > > I consider Sartre a hero for winning the Nobel prize for literature and then > refusing it. ### - excellent, sartre of course not only walking away from his nobel prize for basically being (one of) 'the' most rational/reasonable men to have ever lived, but rather astoundingly ultimately 'also' walked away from his great rational mind and intellect as well!!! documenting his subsequently utterly surreal experiences, and then in-collusion with albert camus (who incidentally 'accepted' his own nobel prize rather than refusing it heh;) formulated them into the philosophy of Exist-entialism for the benefit of any fellow intellectuals, both then and now... which is where i'm basically coming-from, and am not as some people seem to like to think; 'anti-science', 'anti-rational' and/or 'anti-intellectual' per se... only that there's more 'beyond' being rationally intellectual, vastly more... the rest of the universe in fact, something from which we humans apparently intellectually 'hide' (wink-wink to Akhet, i know you're in there tempy, i can 'hear' you hiding! hehehe :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: slider on 8 Apr 2010 22:14
Absorbed wrote... > My point is that you *don't* acknowledge your own fantasy land. You strongly > believe in it. If you acknowledged your fantasy land, you would dispel it. ### - smile, don't mean to interrupt your err, 'tirade' or anything heh, but by 'that' definition 'everyone' is deluded (plus i actually tend to agree with you that this generally 'is' in fact the case haha! :) > I'm not saying that's it's wrong for you to keep telling yourself stories, for > you to be deluded in this way. But nevertheless, you are deluded. ### - what business is it of yours (or of anyone's really i mean) what 'other' people do? plus having already clearly stated your 'opinion' at least once why then persist with it so adamantly, that is unless 'character-assassination' is your underlying/actual intention here? (surely not) > By definition, we don't live in a fantasy land. The fantasy land is produced by > your imagination. It's an illusion. If you stopped imagining it for just a > moment, it would disappear. ### - we 'do' all actually live in a fantasy land of our own imagining, as for example the one encouraged by the respective societies and cultures we all come from, that and the universal language of reason (all the different things one can possibly think about iow) in it's many varied forms and expressions, ranging from religion to science to philosophy, perforce which includes all the different and differing 'beliefs' people practice and/or hold to (and i mean 'all' of them), the only exception to this being the people who for whatever reasons dare to venture 'beyond' reason and intellect per se into the realms of the 'surreal' (the super-real) where nothing is quite 'pinned-down' and 'fixed' like things typically are in the worlds/realms of reason... ----------------- "Nothing is True. Everything is permitted." --last words of the wise old man on the mountain :) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |