gez_vs_kx21 promoter free_lunch hyperobscure rofl steel m_cage spelleng angst-logic match 020911 ... promoter OMG_String DARK into the g-string light... Theory_LMAO? 020911 ... promoter dude i masturbated today! Is That A memory_of_the_LOL... Is THAT fiction babes stars Truth WHOA! 020911 ... promotor Specifically, Do Absolute Sluts really exist in the Cosmos, given the Quantum_effect(s) / Butterfly_effect(s)? check MSN... m_screenname? 020911 ... promoter (revised version) is dezeaze lite? WHY does God give bitches dezeazes? Thus I have heard that Fisics/M_Theory is like the Inaction of the Cosmos- Which is more Important? Truth or Pussy? m_pussy? meaning i'm gettin' all fucked UP 2-nite! IN THE COSMOS! 020911 ... promoter which is lighter- AOL or proton? i feel freaky 020911 ... kx21 M_eureka:- Gez = Apple & Orange = kx21... Apple - Orange = Orange - Apple? 020911 ... x fill in with numbers to determine the answer... does 5-4=4-5? no. m_thank for kx21 bullshits... 020911 ... ~gez~ hmm "how does it feel to be compared to such a random blatherer?" "i've been told that his blathers are riddles, and are very meaningfull, though i have't seen it yet. maybe i'm too dense for this guy" "but what do you feel about this post?" "well, i am overjoyed the promoter, though he mentioned our names hardley at all, thinks i can compare to this dude. i quite admire the effort he puts in, though what he says may be bullshit, i refer to 'v's posts that reply to kx21" "thankyou gez" "thankyou god" 020912 ... kx21 4 or Apple is an Universe & Orange or 5 is another Universe... Mathematics is a set of Universes likewise blather.newdream.net... 020913 ... kx21 A genuine fact in Mathematics:- 0 * (5-4) = (4-5) * 0 Is that a fairy_tale in Reality? 020913 ... v you can't substitute abstract ideas for numbers or variables in an equation. actually, that's not true--you can do it all you want--it just won't mean anything. it's called reification, and it's one of the most annoying fallacies of kx21's vaunted "work." a good example of reification is the use of someone's IQ as a measure of their intelligence. intelligence is a very complex and nebulous concept, one that can't be represented very accurately with a single number. yet many people still think of a person's IQ as their absolute level of "intelligence." reification helps to simplify things, and may even seem to predict certain outcomes, but it is far from perfect and certainly not the way to gain any mystical absolute knowledge about the universe. in short, language is not mathematics. i mean, think about what the above equation is saying: the product of the quantity of an apple minus an orange and zero is equal to the product of the quanity of an orange minus an apple and zero. what the fuck does that even mean? if someone were to interpret it, they'd have to write it in normal english anyway, so why bother with all that cryptic shit in the first place? my guess is that it makes some people FEEL enlightened. but if an idea is truly insightful, shouldn't it be able to be expressed CLEARLY and still seem profound? 020913 ... just a question numbers are abstract concepts. the only problem with reification and other mathematical difficulties is that within an equation there must be consistency in the system being appealed to. exact numbers must be used for an equation. also, mathematics is a language, and everything said in mathematics could be expressed verbally or in written words, equations are just more concise. the problem with words, and often mathematics, is that within the system there is a logic unconnected to the real world. words and numbers can contradict themselves, and still have no bearing on the world we live in. and we know any given system is not perfect, because it cannot prove itself without leaving its own boundries. godel blah blah blah. therefore a process like reification is an unfortunate pragmatic reality. i agree though that intelligence cannot be measured in a single number, and even a range is fishy when we're talking about a interval and not a ratio scale since there's obviously no true zero, and all that's being measured against is another person and types of questions which admit more factors than just intelligence, whatever that may be. intelligence also probably can't be summed up in a single blath. if this person's temporary constellations of meaning annoy you, stop reading them. it may be a useful way to sum up perfectly reasonable theories and ideas to kx21. if he's misusing mathematics in order to accomplish this, i'm sure we can forgive...i mean it's not like we're trying to fly a plane based on anything said. perhaps also kx21 was never appealing to those equations original meanings, that is not using them but substituting abstractions, but rather contrasting what they're supposed to mean with their general concepts. that is the concept of addition and subtraction, the concept of zero, not the actual rigorous completion or consistency needed when writing actual equations. this is after all not a bulletin board dedicated solely to the practice of mathematical equations, no matter how elegant an idea that would be. also, i've noticed all of your work has been critical rather than productive. if there are so many wholes in the syntax and logic of kx21s communications, these sufficiencies will speak for themselves in how few people understand. perhaps kx21s goal was to make us question our very idea of communication and open a dialogue like we have. i personally find it...and by it i mean kx21...very obtuse. however, i don't see the satisfaction of proving one form of communication over another, when that form most likely has its own fallacies that are not escapable, but inborn limits of the system. so maybe live and let live. it's your right to vent frustration, but is what you're saying really useful? or is it not just on par with some of the other less verbose blatherers feelings, the difference being you rationalized it. and while it was nicely rationalized, it's more of a chess opening than the one true answer. that is, there are always other possibilities, and these particular words you say are just responses to what kx21 has said, rather than an informed and complete complex of your own. 020913 ... ~gez~ even though this blather is kind of sort of about me, i do not understand it. and will not pretend to, so i bid you farewell and all a goodnight 020913 ... v not a complete complex? are you sure? think about it for a second--kx21 seeks absolute truth, and i reject his ideas. why do i do this? maybe i don't believe in absolute truth, i think his search is futile, and my criticism is an expression of that belief. (and at least i expressed myself clearly, rather than creating new terms to muddy shallow waters in an attempt to make them seem deep). maybe i was just subjecting kx21's work to the rigorous criticism necessary to prove any broad philosophical concepts. and yes, mathematics is a language, but i meant human language, human communication. human communication can be described as logical, like mathematics, but it's much more accurately described as rhetorical, wherein truth is determined by the creativity of the rhetor and ultimately the judgment of the audience. logic only matters sporadically in convincing an audience, including the audience of the self. of course i'm not trying to find the "one true answer." ya know why? cause there is no "one true answer," at least not to me. i agree completely with you when you say, "there are always other possibilities." i believe in possible truths, not absolute ones. am i just rationalizing my feelings? you fucking bet. but so are YOU, and so is EVERYONE ELSE. in EVERYTHING. personally, i believe that the difference between rationality and rationalization is completely subjective. in other words, one person's rationalization is another's rationality. and by the way, not all my criticisms were so "verbose." all the others were pithy and rude. is what i'm saying useful? no. not to everyone. but then again, no rhetoric is, including kx21's, yours, and everyone else's. it might, however, be comforting to those who agree with me. that is, my rhetoric is useful to those who look at kx21's writing and think, "that's fucking stupid. why do some people seem to think he's a genius? why the fuck does he talk like a robot mr. miyagi?" so if kx21's writing annoys me, i should stop reading it? thanks for the mild condescension, but no, i don't think i will. how about this: if my CRITICISM of kx21's writing annoys YOU, YOU stop reading IT. makes sense to me. (in reality, neither of those possibilities is a better choice than the other). what are you trying so say? do all responses to kx21's writing have to be positive? should all reviews of books and movies be positive? look, you can say that i'm "not creating anything" through my criticism, but i disagree. (personally, i think your assessment is a rationalization). a critical response requires creativity and thoughtfulness as well as any other creative effort. admittedly, the galvinizing force of my "creative" criticism was the writing of someone else... but so what? after all, every idea has to come from something. something, for example, had to inspire kx21's writing (and my writing, after all, inspired yours). just because we think we can identify the creative source of an idea doesn't mean it's not the product of "creativity" (whatever that is). criticism is a valid form of expression. so is your criticism of my criticism. if kx21 is trying to find "truth," can't i reject his ideas in a search for my own truth? of course i fucking can. you can think he's obtuse, i can think he's a pretentious bullshitter with an irritating style, and we can both express how we feel. you can tell me that my criticism is not "productive," and i can reject that assertion as patently fucking absurd. when you express the idea that kx21's manipulation and gimmicky circumlocution will be "self evident" is where you lose me completely. so i should shut up because what i'm saying is obvious? come on. some people clearly buy into what he writes, and that bothers me. maybe they'll reconsider when they read my criticism (i'm not going to pretend that convincing others isn't at least partially my intention. after all, ALL rhetoric is about persuading others to accept your view). but also, if what i'm writing is obvious, then how is your criticism of my criticism NOT obvious? you say, "perhaps kx21's goal was to make us question our very idea of communication and open a dialogue like we have." maybe. maybe kx21 is a moron who came up with a confusing gimmick to make himself feel smart. maybe maybe maybe. there are an infinite number of ways to justify/explain/criticize/praise kx21's "work." like you said, "there are always other possibilities." but nevertheless, we CHOOSE which possibilities we want to illuminate, for whatever reason. this is why human language is inherently rhetorical. i choose to express the possibility that kx21 is stupid because his writing annoys me. why do you choose to express the possibility that he might be brilliant? does his writing inspire you? i doubt it. maybe you think i'm being unfair, and want to balance things out. that seems reasonable. personally, i don't care what kx21's intentions are, because he won't EXPRESS his intentions. and i don't care if his unwillingness to break character and communicate normally is some sort of an andy-kaufman-esque stab at brilliance, because i find it annoying. so in conclusion, i think i'll continue my criticism as long as i feel inspired to do so. "temporary constellations of meaning..." i like that. did you make it up? 020913 ... kx21 M_Species of Greater Truth and probably Absolute_Truth:- Extracted from *** * M_Theory on Ground Zero... *** Everybody & Everything are equal in / under the Ground Zero... Proof:- Just before the formation of Gound Zero at the premises of then World_Trade_Center, ( Apple - Orange ) is quite different from ( Orange - Apple )... In / under the Ground zero, (5 - 4) = (4 -5), where 5, Genuine Muslims & 4, Believrs of other religion(s), other Sentient or non-sentient beings... i.e. Everybody, Everything, sentient or non-sentient beings, are equal in / under the Ground Zero... This completes the proof... Copyright 2002 kx21.com 020913 ... kx21 Q_As or Good_point? 020913 ... kx21 A M_species of Man_talk or woman_nag: What is the appropriate relationship between Apples & oranges, given that Apples = Muslim & Oranges = Other sentient oe non-sentient being? 020913 ... just a proof if your arguments were consistent, you are right that the line between rationality and rationalization would be slim...where they depart is where you conclude implicitly that your way of communication is more valid than kx21s or that what it was searching to prove is what you've disproven. you make claims not completely supported by what you've argued. this shows rational concepts being used irrationally. and these leaps, while human mainstays, while often very useful, are what the word rationalization means. now i agree with you that in complicated arguments, and in daily life, and pretty much all but the most concise statements the seperation of rationality and rationalization is rare, however if we agree on this, you should admit your attack is what it is, rather than mounting a quasi rational attack on kx21s work which of course is what you lambaste his work for being...quasi rational. because some of your claims however show clearly that not all of what you are saying follows rational concepts, and instead the rational concepts applied all have in common a general annoyance with kx21s writing, rather than consistency with each other. also, criticism perhaps is an individual act of truth searching, whether it is anymore worthwhile projecting than jibberish is another question. there are those who hold it is a form of art. i would agree in its technical aspects it is. where it is destructive is when criticism appeals to validly stated points earlier in the criticism in order to validify lambasting some poor sucker with totally offbase jokes or comments elsewhere. one does not follow from the other, whether in logic or temporary logic. its a leap not allowed. obviously it is, but in these particular cases your logic is no less fuzzy than kx21s. being somewhat interested in philosophy i'm sure you know these are fallacies on your part. now they may be fun fallacies and i may have gotten a laugh. but really the reasons i like them more than i like kx21s aren't philisophically defendable, unless we are talking about some sort of classification of subjective states and the patterns behind it, and this seems more psychology to me. i just don't think you should try to sound quite so objective. this isn't to say you should say ....disclaimer...these are just my opinions...since after all, who needs to state the obvious. i agree that in most cases there's nothing worse than criticism of criticism since it changes so little...especially if they cancel out, however it does not follow that the obvious ridiculous qualities of kx21s writing make my criticism of your criticism obvious. the reason your criticism may have been superflous is that the qualities you lambaste are inherant in kx21s writing. it seems those you should criticize are those who enjoy kx21. since my point is that your criticism took the obvious and obscured it with motives you managed to pull out of thin air, my criticism was necessary to unobscure the obvious and state that your criticisms strongest points are obvious, and the rest are jumped to conclusions. since we are being detailed and not general, one obviousness does not imply total obviousness. and my problems with your criticisms are that the things true in them are obvious, and the things you conclude do not follow from the obvious points you made. what i am saying is that not all of your criticism is obvious, or else indeed, why would i need to criticize it? well, the answer could of course be that its obviously not obvious to you since you're doing the criticizing. however, the same cannot be said about kx21 since there are no claims on its part as to why it is doing this. that is, there is no evidence that kx21 needed these facts drawn to its attention. it could be aware of what you are saying, and disagree. neither of you wants to meet each other on the others terms. now that'd be funny. i think you should do a blathe just like kx21. what irks me is that formal criticism and informal criticism really shouldn't mix if either is to be taken seriously. robot mr. miyagi yes. reification? hmmm when right next to robot mr. miyagi, it makes it hard for me to take what you're saying as seriously as i'm sure you'd really like. i was considering just taking my own advice and ignoring your criticism, but i think there is a qualitative difference between criticizing someone for positions they never claimed (constructing straw men over what is of course, purposefully i hope, as vague and frustrating as modern art) someone who has never talked to you directly in anyway, and criticizing someone who contradicts themself implicitly as you did with your mixture of impersonal and personal odds and ends. once again, your comment about the rational and rationalization being closer together than people like to admit it true. sounds like something i would've said myself if, for my own impure reasons, i hadn't decided to take up the cause of this robot miyagi i don't particularly care for. the part of the mind which creates rationality, and the part of the mind which give us our emotions and our values and reactions are of course as connected to each other as they are to the outside world. we observe our own selves with each. rationalizing our emotions and reacting emotionally to our rationalizations. however, the slight distinction between the two is that for something to be rational, it has to be in and of itself rational. of course, if we admit (as the real world makes us) that this consistent statement is part of a larger structure, then of course rationalization can be taking place. and when dealing with human motivations, the rational mind can be notoriously off on the true reasons. after all, rational is an abstract word we use to describe a process, and too often we assume it can describe the result. however, it is rational, if reasons aside, it is consistent and logical. this means something can still be rational while rationalized of course. which brings in the question is it really rational. what i'm saying, is that your reasons clearly show and aren't even particularly well hidden, at the cost of the rationality of your argument. to disprove someone, you have to understand their argument. if your problem is that you can't understand, that's one criticism, and i believe in this case it is valid. but seeing as most of kx21s writings are in the form of questions...i highly doubt that it's seeking to prove anything. or if it is seeking a proof, it is one you haven't comprehended enough to belittle. all you can do is belittle the lack of clarity. and i'd agree with you. however, the possibility remains that it is a proof we do not understand the components of. in mathematics and language, uncertainty is a reality. all of the enlightenment era appeal of rationality is gone, and with it the ability to say unequivocally this is right and this is wrong. even statements like the moon is made of cheese can be arguable if they are taken out of context, if the arbitrariness of words is allowed to interact with itself, rather than be linked directly to the world language purports to describe. that is, if a word does not mean the same thing in two different sentences, anything in the second sentence can only approximately mean anything to the meaning of the word in the first. of course, that is what you are saying when you say there is no one truth. however, this defeats much of your own argument. i think of course it is useful to say when things are right, and that consistency is how we measure this. whatever the hell gx21s system is, it's at least consistent (or so i'm guessing) however...this cannot be said for either yours or mine right now. what isn't consistent about gx21s system is that it appropriates words without taking into consideration the context those words depend on for meaning. it appeals to a larger system without obeying the agreed on rules of said system. in this sense i criticize...but...i don't call it a miyagi robot. i save that for another blathe. do i make myself clear you fucking sicophant? oh and temporary constellations of meaning. i guess it's mine whatever that means. although you know that we notoriously appropriate meaning from other sources, being the learners we are. and the words temporary, constellation, and meaning of course did exist before me. you fucking salugubrious uterine contraction. 020913 ... promoter (sicophant - uterine contraction) = muslim oranges... m_marmalade? MSN rules! what is puberty? the universe is in puberty...Q_Cosmos (Big Ass Apple + Big Ass Apple Grinder = Big Ass Bowl of Applesauce) clear as fuck but what where Big Ass Bowl from star meteor armageddon... contradiction? Big Ass Apple - Orange County = America - other areas. WHOA! 020914 ... v this is gonna take a while... okay. i "conclude implicitly that [my] way of communication is more valid." no, you fucking dick, i concluded that ALL communication is more or less of equal validity. that "implicitly" thing makes me think that you're the one setting up the fucking straw men. (either that or you just missed my entire fucking point). kx21's not trying to prove anything? gee, i guess you also missed every time he wrote "this completes the proof." fucking PROOF, dude. still think he's not trying to prove anything? so you think i want you to take me seriously, and you have a problem with that given that i mentioned mr. miyagi. now THERE'S a misinterpretaion. jesus christ... the reason i put that in there was because i'm NOT taking myself too seriously. i think you might be the one taking himself too seriously. (notice i write "MIGHT," because i'm not so damn sure as you seem to be. and since your writing isn't all largely indecipherable crap like kx21's, i'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt). but anyway, if i think this is ALL bullshit, why would i take my own bullshit seriously? i LIKE my bullshit better. there's a big fucking difference, for fuck's sake. i find your rhetorical bullshit--save for the occasional somewhat-pleasing-to-the-ear string of invectives--dull. your bullshit could use some references to 80s karate movies, in my opinion. or maybe ninja turtles. at least references to mr. miyagi are funny. i like humorous bullshit better. that's why i like paste's writing so much: it's funny, has an aesthetically-pleasing sound, and has no pretension of being anything great. and that's why it is pretty great. for those reasons, i think paste's writing much more ingenious and profound than kx21's annoying shit (or yours, or mine). but that's besides the point... also, with all my fucking swearing and colloquialisms, this is anything but a formal goddamned proof. in my other anti-kx21 writing, i basically just called him retarded. nothing more, really. still think i'm taking myself too seriously? maybe you still do. "save it for another blathe." no, i don't think i will, fuckbrain. i'd tell you to save your rhetorical aggression for someone who is too stupid to see through it, but that could be construed as hypocritical. and yeah, my criticism is subjective, but that's WHAT I FUCKING SAID. in fact, that's damn near close to my whole fucking point. subjective truth is ALL THERE IS. i'm very consistent on this. i mentioned that my argument was RHETORICAL, and that absolute truth has nothing to do with rhetoric. i guess you missed that too. scroll up, though, it's there. well, wait, let me just say it again: i DISLIKE kx21's writing, so when i call him a bullshitter and say he doesn't make sense, that's true TO ME given my quasi-rational emotional reaction to his "work." and this leads into another of my meaningless philosophies: emotion precedes rationality. that is, one has an emotional reaction, then creates a "rational" argument to support it. i don't understand kx21's writing enough to belittle it? hmmmm... how about this: some crazy fuck writes what he claims to be the finest philosophical treatise ever written--in unknown heirogylphics, and in his own feces (bear with me). if i called this fecal philosopher a fucking psycho, and called his work shit, would you disagree? would you honestly have me sift through thousands of pages of fingerpainted crap-on-parchment in order to "justify" my critique? ya know, you just might. why? i dunno. maybe just in the interest of objectivity, maybe because you reacted EMOTIONALLY to my criticism. but regardless, if i don't understand kx21 enough to belittle him, YOU don't understand him enough to DEFEND him. that's a reasonable assertion, isn't it? i'm sure you can come up with some equally reasonable rhetorical retort to reject my previous asserion, but it would really only be a rationalized emotional reaction. and WHOA. fuck, you say kx21's system is "consistent" (you guess). you GUESS? holy fucking shit. what the fuck is wrong with you? you're going to assume that his writing is consistent? how the motherfucking hell does that make sense? it really doesn't, you inconsistent hypocrit. and it would take a pretty fucking amazing feat of rhetoric to convince me otherwise. but do you know what really pisses me off? at the end of the day, YOU'RE the fucking one who is admittedly defending shit you DON'T REALLY READ, and DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT. to me, that's just plain fucking stupid, but i'm sure you disagree. and that, in my opinion, makes you a misguided, sanctimonious retard (especially if i'm a "sycophant"). now just let me (try to) explain this once more: it's all bullshit on some level, including everything i just wrote. don't get me wrong--i believe it myself--but i don't believe that ANY of it is absolutley true. you don't have to believe it either. it's rhetoric. RHETORIC. it has a purpose, but it's largely a selfish one. the only difference between your rhetoric and mine is that you haven't admitted that yours is bullshit. maybe you don't think it is, which is your prerogative, but i'll likely never believe otherwise. (notice i write "likely," consistent with my belief in uncertainty). now that i cleared that up, i await your misinterpretation, you dick-swilling name-shifting bucket of mermaid piss. still like the constellation line, though... you motherfucking disingenuous douchebag 020914 ... daxle where's granma squillo when you need her? sniff... 020914 ... just a bout livid first of all. my whole point was for you to admit that your point was bullshit too and that your reason for disliking kx21 was just that...a convenient reason for a dislike that most likely has other causes were we to delineate them. but hey...yay for rhetoric right? secondly salugubrious uterine contraction is much more offensive than dick swilling mermaid piss. thirdly yes i take myself too seriously. so does everyone on this sight or else they wouldn't be there. as a matter of fact, hey they might as well just go kill themselves if they don't take themselves at least a little seriously. or perhaps killing themselves is taking themselves too seriously. oh well. how's this...know how no one liked donatello because he was always pretending he had a good reason for kicking people's butts, but michaelangelo and raphael admitted openly to enjoying it. you need to stop being donatello and give in to your michelangelo nature. oh and nice subtle way of saying i mispelled sycophant without sounding too much like an ass. throw a dog a bone and i guess they'll bite. oh and of course emotion comes before reason. in the human mind, emotions are our most basic thoughts, our most basic value judgements. they represent hypothesis without the rigors, and they're often right. but if you look at reason as the patterns we can discern from the world, then they existed long before our emotions, and were of course what caused them, or what pattern they demonstrate. so perhaps when we say reason we shouldn't mix up word usage or else hey...we're no better than kx21. and you're right. i don't read it and i don't care, but that doesn't stop me from thinking my form of criticism (ignorance not this) is both more effective and less damaging than yours. and let's face it....if something was written in shit i agree you shouldn't read it. you should eat it. just you. just and merciful. and i cannot possibly see how you can enjoy paste but not kx21 since both are essentially making the same use of words. one just has "implicit" connections and uses more loaded words than wombat and or ransack juice and or riddlin father sterned and or crepe conjugations. okay and perhaps kx21 isn't trying to prove anything. just because it uses the word proof? do any of the other words in its writing fit their traditional uses? i'm saying once again, perhaps it is drawing a contrast between their accepted meaning and some new meaning. perhaps by using proof it is showing the subjective incomplete nature of any proof. it's all coming together now. i'm seeing it so clearly. v doesn't stand for victory it stands for vanquished bitch. well that'd be vb. so of course i agree with a lot of what you're saying, however, you act as if initially you didn't put forth your reason as if it was purely in the sake of discrediting kx21 on a logical level, when what you really wanted to say was that all of the heady words mixed up indechiperably annoy you. fine. they annoy me too. just say it. your reasons why suck. don't tell me reification is one of your pet peeves. like...when i get up in the morning i say...hmmm what can i do to combat reification in the world. you probably say ahhh...what a pleasant night's rest...time to put the stick up my ass and start the day eh? what annoys you is probably know it alls. right? right? oh and you don't want to be taken seriously...well then why didn't you take a note from paste and instead of lambasting reification fought of kx21s pollution with crust eared bubble wrap? or perhaps eleven in pepper concrete? yeah...don't want to be taken seriously. alright "v" well don't worry. if you didn't want to be taken seriously you succeeded. and yes. my rhetoric is better than yours. and there aren't enough fucks in the world to change that. and perhaps you'll say that's just my emotional appraisal. and i'd say you're damn right. but who's got a tougher reason to defend it? oh you huh? well you're wrong and you're a temporary constellation of poop. so why don't you just give up the ghost and let kx21 and his random word generator and his dictionary of metaphysics amaze and befuddle us all. i'll be somewhere else writing lousy love poems. and don't worry, i won't use the word proof. now you're dismissed you swarthy invalid elephant ass support. go sit back down and twiddle whatever you have where most people have thumbs. and get mad at me with whatever you have where most people have minds. and oh nevermind. this blathe is getting too large for the both of us. i am kx21. so no more shape shifting. just me telling you that you're about as pertinent or needed as an innertube on a porcupine. oh and don't respond or else i'm taking off the kiddy gloves. 020914 ... kx21 Dear all Blatherers:- M_thank for all the protest / complaint / compliment / encouragement... Each of your blather is like graces from the Sun, which added new photons / neutrinos & colors / scents into the blather Universe. Keey it up your good blather, Man_talk, woman-nag, Chicken_flavor, duck-tale, specifically, cow_mu... Happy exploring the M_string of kx21 & have a fantastic, fun & fresh time... 020914 ... just not even about you anymore oh put a fresh fantastic fun pipe in it. 020914 ... kx21 *** * Mathematics & Language *** Given Apple = The Box & Space of Mathematics Orange = The Box & space of Lanugage Which of the following is true:- Apple = Orange, Apple is smaller than Orange, Apple is bigger than Orange, or Else (please specify)? Copyright 2002 kx21.com 020914 ... kx21 *** * Mathematics & Language *** Given Apple = The Box & Space of Mathematics Orange = The Box & Space of Language Which of the following is true:- Apple = Orange, Apple is smaller than Orange, Apple is bigger than Orange, or else (please specify)? Copyright 2002 kx21.com 020914 ... v one guy: i'm pretty indifferent to that last thing you wrote, so just one thing: you obviously don't even like kx21 or his bullshit writing, so shut the fuck up, stupid. defend something that means something to you. or don't. i really don't care. kx21: you're still retarded, and your vain search for answers is bullshit. you are, of course, as free to enjoy your delusions as anyone else. but that doesn't mean i won't call you retarded 020914 ... just a brief summation ahh...sweet redemption. and suddenly i have to care to write about things. obviously i cared a little to waste hours i could've spent tending to my garden or filling my corpus callosum with blood on this diatribe right here. but you keep on with all the wonder you are. 020914 ... ~gez~ what- the- hell- too much for my brain 020914 ... kx21 Indifference: A leading indicator of retardation? Given that Zero = infinity... 020914 ... v no, indifference does not indicate retardation. clearly, given the vast number of things to care about in the world, no one can care about everything, or even a good portion of those things that one might potentially care about. in other words, people are inevitably indifferent toward most things. do you know what DOES indicate retardation? obstinately pretending to be an enlightened robo-philosopher 020915 ... hungryghost If we rest here, there are only two possible attitudes towards the world. Either we must remain as mere inactive witnesses of the world-play or act in it mechanically without any participation of the concious self and by mere play of the organs of sense and motor-action. 020915 ... just try me okay...i never said indifference equaled retardation. i merely said that action could not be equated with total indifference, since total indifference would be ignorance, or more clearly purposeful ignorance. and i did not choose either of those. hence i am not indifferent. what i said equalled retardation was...in addition to being a robot philosopher...making fun of it by misusing big words no less judiciously than said object of fun making...as well as making fun of said maker funner. indifference is a word we use to describe things we come in contact with and then leave behind. you came in contact and you're still talking. so i wouldn't say you're indifferent. retard on the other hand....nah...i wouldn't say that either. that lets a person off the hook too easy. and i miss you sometimes. that's when i reload. no...all i'm saying is come back to me, let's try this again. 020915 ... just a moment of compassion described by metaphor and don't hate on a bad hand of cards unless you're dealing some new ones. 020915 ... v "misusing big words"? "indifference describes things we leave behind"? are you kidding? try this: INDIFFERENT: a. marked by no special liking for or dislike of something b. marked by a lack of interest, enthusiasm, or concern for something : APATHETIC so i don't know what definition you're going with, but this was the one i was using, moron. and i was talking about the kx21 remark equating indifference to retardation, not anything you wrote... jackass 020915 ... kx21 A M proof:- That Indifference is a leading indicator of retardation... Proof:- What would happen if God = Satan? This completes the proof... Copyright 2002 All Rights Reserved kx21.com 020915 ... kx21 Scientific PCA:- george_w_bush = osama_bin_laden... 020915 ... kx21 + Saddam Hussein? 020915 ... daxle fighting without listening: sign of retardation you can't listen or learn very well when you're waiting to refute everything that is said proof: gez_vx_kx21 also learned by this blathe is that jokes can contain serious lessons such as: get over yourself 020915 ... kx21 M_Question:- *** * Which is Godlier:- *** Apple or Orange? Why? Given that Apple = george_w_bush and Orange = osama_bin_laden / Saddam Hussein... Note: Answer the Question with ' Care ' & at your own Risk... 020916 ... just laughing sadly but you showed enough unindifference to answer...thereby defeating any hopes of apathy as an escape. perhaps no particular like i'll grant you. but i hardly think indifferent was used in this context. oh and will the sanctimonious please leave the arguing to the pros? 020916 ... kx21 It's just a M_species of Cow_mu or M_theory... And is it possible to stop the cow's moo? *** * Context & Content *** What constituted the Context of a given content logically, physically, emotionally, spiritually; specifically mathematically & scientifically? For instance, Given gez_vs_kx21... Let Apple = Context of gez_vs_kx21 Orange = Content of gez_vs_kx21.. What is the appropriate relationship between apple & orange? Specifically, which came first:- Apple or Orange? Copyright 2002 kx21.com 020916 ... v yeah, i guess i wasn't totally indifferent, but it would be a stretch to say that i hadn't lost enthusiasm. after all, i did write "pretty" indifferent--not "totally" indifferent. so i'd say that's a pretty weak argument. about that "not learning" anything comment: i don't think this was ever about learning anything. argumentation is, at the very least, just another form of self-expression. also, to make a value judgment equating refutation and retardation is, itself, a blanket refutation. in other words, to devalue rhetoric as a form of self-expression is just another rhetorical strategy. you may not be refuting anyone point-by-point, but the aim is still to persuade the audience to accept your views by devaluing someone else's assertions (or in this case, to devaluing the process of making assertions altogether). oh, and kx21, i like the bit about apples and oranges representing context and content. asking which came first is not at all random, nor is it pointless. moo away, you hypocritical automaton 020916 ... tap dancing christ running around like a chicken with its amotos on fire... 020916 ... kx21 Any other good_Point(s)? 020917 ... kx21 *** * M_species of Learning:- *** Nature or Nurture? Given the Breaking news from Saddam_hussein, under intense world diplomatic pressure backed by the threat of U.S. military action... 020917 ... just a darn tootin minute i never refuted rhetoric. just your rhetoric. rhetoric, being the tool of any refutation is of course irrefutable. unless of course one uses a method outside of rhetoric. kx21 perhaps does this. this is what i was trying to point out. the limits of the system both you and i are trying our hands at. and when using a word like indifferent, a qualifier itself is a weak argument, considering the almost entirely absolute nature of the word indifferent. one can be somewhat tired, or somewhat angry, or losing interest, but indifferent shows no difference, no stand whatsoever. mainly either or. however, i'll grant you an undefinite definition, since this isn't rigorous philosophy and does not require exact definitions. this of course was the point i was trying to make all along. not to refute rhetoric all together, but to make an argument for pragmatism, and to make an argument for subjective validities averaging out to objective ones. it's not that i don't see something offsetting about kx21s writing, it's just i disagree with you about what it is. 020917 ... just getting started also i'd disagree that one can express themself without learning. expressing one's self is only possible if there is a larger context, a forum to express one's self in. to express one's self is to change said forum. and anytime the forum is changed, what it is possible or most plausible to express changes. this is a form of learning. and of course argumentation is about learning. even if viewed at as a complete chess game, where what matters most is the position of the pieces in relation to each other, and not some absolute value, still there are those positions being learned. i see you were commenting on what that sanctimonious person said, but i still disagree. this shouldn't surpise you if you've learned anything. 020917 ... kx21 M_Thank for the ' rhetorical ' blathers. *** * Limit of a ' rhetorical ' system *** What are the limits of a rhetorical system, e.g. blather . newdream . net? Specifically, What determined its limits? 020917 ... kx21 Given that there are uncountable holes of various shapes, colors, scents, sounds & tastes wrapped in any rhetorical system... 020917 ... daxle given that the two of you are determined not to agree on anything, and I have seen that you have missed each other's points entirely, and the arguement keeps getting larger and less cohesive, it is still my speculation that neither of you are learning anything... but go ahead and keep up this exercise in futility... 020917 ... v yeah, but i said that it wasn't ever about learning anything. and if you'd read between the lines, i think you'd see that we have come to a strange sort of consensus. honestly--and i think the other guy would agree with this--i think you've misread a significant portion of this crap. but it is still crap... including your contribution 020917 ... daxle thanks for the protest_complaint_flarko_dismemberment 020917 ... just about evening out yes...it seems fair to me. opened up too many possibilities...stalemate. and yeah. you missed the forest for the trees. because all we ever were concentrating on were the trees. 020917 ... kx21 *** * An Amazing Fairy_tale *** Breaking_News from Saddam_Hussein... 020918 ... kx21 M_Species:- Apple: UN's Security resolutions; and Orange: Saddam_Hussein's Fairy_tale... 020919 ... kx21 Given Apple = Context of gez_vs_kx21 & Orange = Content of gez_vs_kx21... 020919 ... ~gez~ i have to have the last word 021002 ... kx21 Apple = Man_talk & Orange = Woman_nag? 021002 ... Ahmad ok, all this stuff about the 2 variables that r apples and oranges, who cares? they can not be aplied to the real world .'. they r usless. proof: Q apple-orange=orange-apple A No. Y? 4-5=5-4 Y? #2 who cares if that is true or not? Y? #3 If it were fals. Nothing would change If it were true. then the laws of maths would hafto b diffrent meaning that everything in maths would be diffrent from the crucal things such as how we feel gravity to what a rite angle is, will this ever change?... Q Will 4-5=5-4 ever? A No, not in this universe. am i rite? or drasicly wrong, plz tell me. 021116 ... methinx Let us assume that gez and kx21 are equal and that thus the difference between Apples and Oranges don't matter. gez = n & kx21 = n Therefore, gez-kx21 = kx21-gez n-n = n-n = 0 gez and kx21 are nothing without each other. Or... gez = infinity & kx21 = infinity infinity-infinty = infinity-infinity = infinity gez and kx21 were both complete before the were joined be this blathe, thus they would be equaly complete if one of the two were withdrawn from the equation. Therefor, Apples-Oranges = Oranges-Apples = Apples OR Oranges Thus Apples and Oranges are irrelevant and shall hence forth be conjoined into the category Fruit. Therefor, gez-kx21 = kx21-gez = gez OR kx21 Thus gez and kx21 are irrelevant and shall hence forth be conjoined into the category Blatherskite. And we are content that, Blatherskite-Blatherskite = Blatherskite-Blatherskite 021116 ... kx21 The Truth:- Apple = Orange in the eye of Ten_Supreme_Hearts... 021117 ... p2 ack too many words couldn't pay attention to all of it up there... ok my 2 rupies: abs(apple - orange) = abs(orange - apple) therefore Absolut makes it all equal so let's get us several bottles of Absolut and drink as equals 021117 ... kx21 DNA (Apple) ~ DNA (Orange)... What if Apple = george_w_bush & Orange = osama_bin_laden or Saddam_Hussein? 021117 ... p2 get 'em all drunk and photograph 'em in ladies' underwear it's good to keep the leaders of the world in check with a little humility 021118 ... Ahmad mm... very intresting.. but... i still think that thers no refrence to anything.. and nothing means anything. godamit, uv got me thinkin like u now.. nothing = anything? or anything = nothing? 0*(anything - nothing) = (nothing - anything)*0 awwww fuck. i cant b arced. it still wont EVER mean anything cos its a closed loop. BYE 030620 ... god apples_and_oranges 030620 ... somebody a_Point_in_Time... 040826 ... ~gez~ gez-kx21 = 0 0-gez= -kx21 ___________ / \ / \ / gez \ \ / \ / \___________/ ___________ / \ / \ / \ gez \ / \ / \___________/ no more kx21 050201 ... ~gez~ gez-kx21 = 0 0-gez= -kx21 ....___________.... .../ \... ../ \.. ./ gez \. .\ /. ..\ /.. ...\___________/... ....___________.... .../ \... ../ \.. ./ \. gez .\ /. ..\ /.. ...\___________/... no more kx21 050201 ... ~gez~ gez-kx21 = 0 0-gez= -kx21 ....___________.... .../...........\... ../.............\.. ./....gez........\. .\.............../. ..\............./.. ...\___________/... ....___________.... .../...........\... ../.............\.. ./...............\. gez .\.............../. ..\............./.. ...\___________/... no more kx21 i wish i knew blather didn't post excessive spacing before i tried to do this.... 050201 ... ??? who_fucked_up_blather 050202 what's it to you? who go blather from