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: RoadHog55 on 22 Apr 2010 15:23 On Apr 20, 2:04 pm, Absorbed <purestdeform...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Bassos wrote: > > "Absorbed" <purestdeform...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >news:hqkmh1$o2n$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > >> Bassos wrote: > >>> "Absorbed" <purestdeform...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> Perhaps you were afraid of asking a serious question. > >>>>> Fine, in what area would you be able to answer a serious question ? > >>>> I'd say one area about which I can answer a serious question is magick. > >>> I find your answer to be somewhat 'brief' :) > >> It's highly likely that any answers I give won't be to your satisfaction. > > >>> Magick to be somewhat of a generalization... > >> I'm aware that your usage of the word differs to mine. Not surprising, > >> given your idiosyncratic usage of words. > > >>> Oh wait, did you not see that question of mine, as 'my question' ? > >>> (i know i did not mean it that way, but it is in the category of 'can i > >>> ask you something? What ? besides that question you mean ?') > >> Evasion noted. Perhaps you really are scared of asking me a question that > >> might clear up your confusion. > > > It was intended as a gift, cos i deleted my description of differing > > viewpoints between which to ask a question :) > > Pretty useless gift. > > > If you would prefer i do grill you about your claim that you can write an > > interesting in depth explanation of some aspect of how magick works, that is > > ok too. > > You wouldn't be giving me a grilling so much as you would be refusing to > accept any definition of the word "magick" accept for the one you use. > But anyway, I'll decline -- I've had enough for now. :) Me thinks "Roberts Rules Of Order for Flame Wars" revised tenth edition is now in stock at Amazon. I can get you all some gray poupon mustard seed coupons to lightly dash over your banned wieners and sneer beer Lovies. 250 posts and climbin babey!!!! Love that shite. Some kind of fractal quantum cloud of consciousness intertwining its braided pupiced pupils all over that street smart school of modern dialectic known as Sister Mary Didactic gets Exorcisms 19 & 20 from the ghost of Brian Jones down at the local weather station on channel usenet. The truth is out there. I mean its reallly really really Reallllllly! OUT there... Mind and thought... Far Out Man... Whoa 250 posts Ahahaha. Crazy little thing called love and a feedback loop from tenth circle of nowhere.
From: JPS on 22 May 2010 12:42 slider wrote: > Bassos wrote... > >>What makes you think that you can even begin to fathom what the universe >>wants from this infinitesimal speck of dust ? And even if we could, how significant can any individual or even species be in an infinite and eternal universe? > > > ### - we can't, and likely never will to any real/useful extent... and so then we > shouldn't all go around pretending that we 'do' know what we're doing when > in-reality we don't... And if the "universe" is some sort of "illusion"? that the very existence of the "universe" is merely a dream of a slumbering entity. > > ### - the aborigines lived in a way that ancient man must have also lived, e.g. > they never lost their connection to the past Or tooth ache, opportunistic infection, survival of the fittest, etc. > > >>>### - beauty (real beauty i mean) doesn't die because of the ugly, which >>>are again >>>only the same two sides of the same single coin anyway... for without ugly >>>who >>>could ever tell the beautiful? >> >>WIthout people to look, there would be neither yeah. If there was no one to perceive it would the universe exist? Oh well, even for the illusion of a saturday i have the phantom existence to tend to ..... so time/interest permitting ill get back to this latter....
From: Dr Who Duh on 24 May 2010 15:19 On Mon, 24 May 2010 12:51:09 +0200, "Bassos" <Root(a)wan (ask me)> wrote: > >"slider" <slider(a)anashram.com> wrote in message >news:ht8vke$1lt2$1(a)adenine.netfront.net... >> Bassos wrote... >> >> >>> Wow, i made it to the end of this monster of a post. >>> >>> Only took 3 hours... >>> >>> We really should start snipping more :) >>> >>> Almost 100k in a single post, i'm betting that nobody is following this >>> discussion anymore :) >>> >>> And into the chaos we go. >> >> ### - only 3 hours?? this thing took me nearly 3 days! lol :) > >I am just counting the actual typing a response :) >(and sure, in that instance it was three consecutive hours, but that does >not take into account the first reading, nor the following time untill >actual response) > hang in there buddy!
From: slider on 28 May 2010 02:15 JPS wrote... > slider wrote: >> Bassos wrote... >> >>>What makes you think that you can even begin to fathom what the universe >>>wants from this infinitesimal speck of dust ? > > And even if we could, how significant can any individual or even species be in > an infinite and eternal universe? > >> >> >> ### - we can't, and likely never will to any real/useful extent... and so then >> we >> shouldn't all go around pretending that we 'do' know what we're doing when >> in-reality we don't... > > And if the "universe" is some sort of "illusion"? that the very existence of the > "universe" is merely a dream of a slumbering entity. ### - even if that were true there's nothing anyone could possibly do about it, so that still leaves us to deal with things the best we can in and on our own terms, perhaps bearing something like that in-mind so one doesn't get too carried-away/involved, even in the things we're having to deal with in and on our own terms... this being just about the best anyone (who's awake;) can do under the circumstances :) >> ### - the aborigines lived in a way that ancient man must have also lived, e.g. >> they never lost their connection to the past > > Or tooth ache, opportunistic infection, survival of the fittest, etc. ### - being more directly subject to 'the survival of the fittest' ancient man was likely generally more robust than the mewling complaining bunch of fussy milk-sops we've all almost turned into today by comparison... infections and toothache being something we humans have always had to deal with... this being offset (in nature) in olden times by younger, fitter, hardier and more robust people living on more natural diets... plus where it wasn't so harsh (and/or where food was plentiful and of good quality) people did in fact live much longer generally speaking... plus i don't know what the average life-span of an aborigine was say 10,000 years ago, but when the white man first turned up in austrailia elderly aborigines were fairly commonplace enough (iow 'elders' have always existed in every tribe throughout the world) so these things you mention didn't appear to be stopping humanity at all, they perhaps only slowed it down to a more sane walking pace that was likely more in tune with/attuned-to the pace of nature itself... and now... everyone's almost insane ha ha ;-) --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Don Stockbauer on 1 Jun 2010 08:36
On Jun 1, 5:02 am, "slider" <sli...(a)anashram.com> wrote: > ### - heya bassos, got fed up with us standin' on our heads, so have turned it all > back up the right way again heh (right way/wrong way, who knows huh ;) > > anyway so ************************************************************************ "Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup. They slither while they pass, they make their way across the Universe." - Seth Shostak |