stork_daddy_vs_dafremen ????????????? Enjoy! 021019 ... the winner should be: stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy stork daddy 021019 ... sick of this shit daf: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah no? stork: no. fuck no. it's blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah daf: i see. well, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah stork: no, not even. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah daf: oh really? blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah stork: not a chance, you forgot about blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah daf: i didn't forget at all, didn't you notice when i blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah stork: yeah right, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah 021020 ... shit of this sick. Bravo, bravo. 021020 ... stork daddy well, i suppose you could not read it. no one ever complained about any of my other blathes. perhaps you don't understand the compulsion i have to write. 021020 ... stork daddy although i suppose it hasn't been the most productive. it's good that you don't use your name, that way i can't point out the next time you do something unproductive. not that i would. anyways...i'm antagonized. great. well...rock on rockstars. 021020 ... Dafremen Idiocy breeds its own brand of redundant single cell humor as our mystery host demonstrates. Like yeast fermenting, subsequent divisions of this humor prove to be only slightly altered copies of the original. Main difference being, the copies are even greater wastes of skin than the original in this case. This mystery vermin(aka KSS) thinks satire is something you put air in at the gas station. He's so lame his wheelchair has crutches. If he were the energizer bunny, he'd be HOSSENFEFFER by now. If he were a bottle of ketchup, folks would be hitting him on the ass and shaking him violently at this point, perhaps they should anyway just as a matter of principle. He hasn't got enough mental gas left to pull out of the garage, let alone out of the driveway, and if he's planning on going anywhere with this, it had better be on foot. (Heh, what am I thinking? He'd have to anyway. A cretin like this couldn't possibly have been given a license...in this country anyhow.) Speaking of which...HOLY SH*T stork, I thought CLAPTRAP was long. WHAT exactly were you snorting when you wrote that latest installment of SQUINT_MEETS_DAFREMEN? Ouch. The sheer size of it made me flinch. : ) Looking forward to continuing do0d. It's a blast...some folks just don't understand I guess. (Took 5 minutes for my PC to display the damned thing once it was loaded. Maybe they DO understand better than I do. Heheh..ok so for sheer verbiage you're shooting for top honors. Planning on takin' em too huh?) 021020 ... stork daddy look. one more reply where your reasoning is so vacous and your insults so obtuse and it's going to lose value to me. Like when you're playing tennis against someone, and you realize hitting the ball against a wall would be more productive? anyways...good luck or whatever, but we really should wrap this up, i've got things i'd rather be writing. 021020 ... stork daddy no seriously...everyone on this website is a bunch of jerkfaces...i mean really. you criticize everyone...even poor gez who's going to have his heart broken anyways. shoot...even i criticize people..it just makes me so sad. 021020 ... methinx ... just like the real world. 021020 ... ????????????? Yeah, Daffyman, you obstinate fruit, continuing to post on a page that takes five minutes to load is VERY intelligent. 021020 ... Dafremen Wow. I had no idea I had taken in so many folks with that piece. At least that's the way it seems. If that's the case, I'm flattered and yet strangely repulsed at the same time. Are we really such a society of shallow, appearance-minded, take things as they seem people as that? Are we REALLY as impressed by the sound bites and glimpses as I had always hoped that we weren't? If someone as intelligent as stork daddy and KSS over there could be taken in by a piece of art, how well does that bode for the REST of humanity which ISN'T as intellectually endowed? How well does that bode for our children who view violent artistic expression every day and listen to sexually explicit music EVERY day? Not well. Seriously, I'm a bit disappointed that you guys couldn't seem to put reality aside for expression's sake. No VERY. I thought perhaps intellect could save us as Einstein had always hoped. Perhaps he and I were both deluded. Perhaps there are certain human tendencies that even INTELLECT cannot overcome. Perhaps the saying "PERCEPTION IS REALITY" is true to more people than I had imagined. Maybe Hollywood's arguments that expression should be free are as empty as my argument that this is just expression. Perhaps the reality that the audience creates IS more important than the expression that the writer creates. Perhaps THIS is part of why children walk into schools with guns and have unwanted children daily. Perhaps there is a responsibility where there logically and theoretically should be none. If you guys were REALLY taken in by all of this, I apologize...wow. I'm not calling you naive, but I'm MOST DEFINITELY calling you mistaken. Perhaps, I overestimated the ability of people to detach themselves as I do from the written word. Again, for this, I find it hard to apologize, I put that of on the reader, not the writer, but still, there it is, two human beings who will go through lives with an untruth in their heads about ME, about the way that I am, because of something I wrote. Sigh, for that, being so fond of the truth as I am, I am sorry. There's something to think about I guess. 021021 ... stork daddy haha you sucker! how do you know my responses weren't art!? my whole argument was what you just "realized." That communication depends on things outside of language alone, and that human tendencies will not dissolve themselves from our blood soaked sweat soaked words. however, if intellect was what you were hoping for, i'd work on sharpening yours before being disappointed in humanity's. 021021 ... stork daddy because guess what mon ami....intellect...is a human tendency 021021 ... stork daddy and another thing...if you are so fond of the truth, how can you use words detachd from it? don't you see how this disvalidates the truth? when one lies, using a forum which depends almost solely on an agreement as to what is meant, one removes the truth from the words. Luckily i love lying. Enjoy it down to my heart's red core. I see how much it accomplishes, how a statement can be a lie and a truth at the same time depending on what context it is looked at from. 021021 ... Dafremen What I find extremely funny stork daddy, is that you didn't notice the phrase "at least that's the way it seems" and "if that's the case." Instead, you disregarded them and decided to spring your trap (which I saw coming from about a mile away, you aren't the FIRST to try that, you know. Why do you think I PUT those phrases in there in the first place?) despite them, not realizing that I was simply trying to, as you put it, make these tail chasing sessions that I enjoy so much "MEAN SOMETHING" or have "PURPOSE" by making a statement on the state of our society in general. TRUTH is not subjective, TRUTH is objective which is why it RARELY takes a strong stance in subjective matters of opinion or human nature. Humans are fickle and complex and their opinions change. TRUTH would rather not touch them with a ten-foot pole, but when it has to, truth reserves the right to be a bit fickle itself. (Take all of the various "TRUTHS" about the nature of our solar system. Teacup shaped dome? Hollow sphere around earth? Sun around Earth? Earth around Sun?) I really have enjoyed these little jousts,do0d and YES I think it would be a shame if all that came out of them was another Scorpion with a craving for revenge against a silly old writer with eccentric tastes in art. In any event, it has been fun. I wrote another entry to good_brother...just for you. REALLY, TRULY and SINCERELY..all of these pieces that I've been writing lately were inspired in one way or another by the role playing in the "Daffy-Donny is back" piece and I appreciate the part you played in that. Like it or not, believe it or not, it WAS just expression. That wasn't an excuse, it's the reality. Oh, and one final note, I'm not Andy..but then again, neither was he. Let's go have fun doing something else. Say at outblatherme? (Now, now..a snub would be too easy and easily beneath you.) 021021 ... stork daddy well...i don't agree with your comment about truth being objective, especially where words are concerned. or what this truth is that is avoiding us. all i know is that the truth changes depending on an observer, and all this universe is made of is matter subjectively experiencing itself...so there's observation everywhere. I think truth is only an agreement made between two observers that they share a bit of relativity. With words though, there is the vague, there is the fact that the macrostate of a word could represent any number of microstates of meaning, in the way that 2+2= 4 but so does 1+3 and 8-4. So where there is the vague, there is the opportunity for misunderstanding and half truths. When folks thought the earth was flat, it might as well've been since that was the way we treated it. I think the idea that the sun revolves around the earth is poetic, it really sums up what i'm saying here. If there is an objective truth, we have no way of knowing it being subjective, so one can't really proove its existence. Also, miss cleo, stop simplifying my actions with astrology! I mean if i'm a poopoo head just tell me, but don't blame it on a perfectly good month like november. The moon may effect the tides, but to act as if just because it effects a mass of particles that large it effects me as well, i mean come on. How does it continue to effect me? It's not like a full moon pulls me out of bed (well not literally anyways.) The effects are negligible. Of course, with something where even the slightest interaction can show huge conceptual results like the neural patterns of our brains, negligible results could be enough, but i've yet to see why it would be in the way astrology predicts. There are more accurate judgements of personality out there. Birth order, number of siblings, parents temperment etc. etc. Anyways all of that said, yeah this helped me get some stuff off my chest, even if i felt like i was arguing against myself, or putting your position together for you. No no, i'm just kidding, we both have better things to do. And i don't know what i'm supposed to do at this other blathe but i guess i'll try. I think i'll most likely go back to writing unnoticed poems under other names whose associations i hope i haven't tainted with this stork daddy nonsense. Best of luck with whatever you're working on. Say hi to the turtle dove and the hilarious children for me. 021021 ... stork daddy oh and i totally agree with your statement about andy. just goes to show you how hard sticking to the truth of lies is. 021021 ... ????????????? Yeah, I was thinking the same thing as Stork Daddy--how is it that you can think ANYONE else is taking any of this seriously? A lot of people throw around the word "hypocritcal" but in this case it seems unavoidable. "It seems" as though you're blatently violating your often-repeated motives/intent dictum. Furthermore, how can WE be sure that YOU are sincere in anything you say (specifically, with regards to your motives/intent)? How can we be certain that you WEREN'T taking yourself seriously? As you say yourself, we can never know your true motivation or intent, no matter what you say. Is this part of "the show"? Even if it wasn't, you could say it was, later, when it was convenient for you. That's why I find your rhetoric hard to believe. By the way, I'm still not KSS. 021021 ... stork daddy yes...i find so much logic has been wasted that it's easier to just make broad indefensible statements than to attempt to use words to coherently describe something. after all, the vague and indefensible has to have its own implied arguments drawn out by the other person to even be attacked. If a person goes on and on about the space monkeys attacking, i have to draw out all the implicit arguments that carries about the limits of our perceptions and the difference between plausible and possible statistically, and this fallacy and that, and it's just lost its value. But yes, it is a bit ironic when one makes an argument which attempts to detach words from signifying something real (even in varying degrees of accuracy) and then goes and uses the type of words which depend on this attachment for both their validity and their significance. Of course, one could always claim these are works of art, (useful?) fictions, but the problem is when you say enough true things in conjuction with patently false things and hope that the true will validate the false, as an argument that is inconsistent. A fiction is different than a historical fiction. Of course all fictions are historical fictions, since all fictions are informed at some point by the world around them. However the fallacy is to think that an expression about empirical reality can be valid without being confirmed by that empirical reality. To talk about abstract words alone has its own hidden perils, but to talk about words whose sole purpose is to describe usefully a real object in the real world, or a real person, or a personality while denying the need for a more rigorous standard than free expression is to devalue those words. Ah, and this whole argument was sadly started because someone took to judging personalities and motivations based on the writing entombed in this website. To say one is playing a character both devalues the useage of words like that (which on a website perhaps is justified) and can be misinterpreted by another person doing the same thing as a cheap self-protective device, a last minute escape to turn to if things go wrong. Yes, as ???? said, it was all part of the show folks. I'm saying a person should have to hone up to their words. There are many motivations behind words, so many behind each one that the very unity of personality is drawn into question. Personality itself maybe a pattern we average out of a person's words and nothing more real than that. Words may be passing impulses, not the beacons of well thought out permanent representation they are supposed to be. However, even when a person says something they don't mean, it has meaning still. And the words themselves at their best, if they are to not bring the personal larger context world into it, should mean what they say (as is based on their most common understanding). However, with words describing the personal, it is not possible for them to not need a larger context, it brings the personal into, and reattaches them to something, diminishing their status as freestanding expressions. Clever insults misused. To even say motivations can never be known is both true and misleading. They can be known approximately. Words are pragmatic. I just want to see them restored to where they belong. When discussing motivations if one uses words which do not accurately represent their motivations, it is possible that they are accurately describing some other implicit motivation, but the expression about the original motivation isn't valid. And it brings into question what a word represents, it is defying the common useage, and destroying the faith one can have in the words meaning. It is grammatically correct, but as an expression, it fails to do what it purports to do and language demands that it at least attempt to do. The role of the lie in language is a complex one, it shows how language is often a system that relates to its own delineations and degradations that it does the world which spawned each new delineation. Words have meaning only in relation to other words. This word is not this one, this word is more this one than this one. But at its root are definitions based on other sensations, both concrete and abstract. How the brain is at birth equipped to do this when the proper stimulus is applied is still fascinating. For instance, the word add is based around both the concrete vision of items we've perceived as seperate becoming an item we perceive as unified and the abstract concept of addition. understanding the word addition within the web of words and beyond the concrete seems to represent the addition (teehee) of new possibilities as to what may be abstracted. Once that word is understood, so many new concepts and words are open for understanding, because of the concise way it brings previously disparate concepts together into a useful reference. That is, each word, is a web of other words and images. (which is why i picked add). So much interesting did come out of this, but it could've come just as easily in a way that didn't require an example of what i'm arguing against, and you could've made those expressions about truth and its situational limitations and necessity in words without false statements about the personal which were begged off as free expression where free expression cannot exist except in the most immediate sense that you are capable of saying such things. In which case, there are plenty of invalid things which could be said which are at least inflammatory enough to not inspire long drawn out debates. Anyways, i really do want to do other things so i was trying to be nice, but when ????? added a post, i had to agree and justify why. No hard feelings, i still liked that good brother post, i just think as a character, this person i've been arguing against is inconsistent. I hope that's what the author intended. 021022 ... stork daddy oh great....now i'm the bad guy though. oh and ????? why not use your real fake name? were you making a comment on the limits of personality in a world of free expression? would these sentiments be mistakingly attributed to the name we use to represent all we've seen and read of you? 021022 ... Aimee kay, both are long winded, but yet, sometimes both make valid points... I don't think I can give my support to any one side quite yet. 021022 ... stork daddy well i know i wait in baited breath for your support 021022 ... ????????????? Well, I COULD say that the ????????????? thing is an expression of my intent to make insightful commentary on personality and free expression, but that would make me a liar. Or... since no one knows my motivation/intent... and this is all a game/show... lemme figure this out... carry the 4............. Okay: I guess it would SEEM to express the tendency of the CHARACTER that I APPEAR to be playing to bend the truth to his rhetorical advantage. Think you understand me (i.e., the guy in front of the computer) yet? Well not so fast--my apparent rejection of the motivation/intent/game/show doctrine just might be another calculated, disingenuous ploy by the character I'm portraying to confuse those who seek to divine my character through analysis of my writing. So make asserions about me (or my character) at the risk of being wrong about me (or my character). And remember: always doubt my ostensible sincerity, especially in situations where taking me at my word will result in your disagreement with or anger toward me. Actually, the question mark thing was just to connect all the Daffyman criticism to a single voice. ...Or was it? And I don't have another name. Or do I????????????? ;) 021022 ... ????????????? And also, Stork Daddy wins. I guess I'm biased, but still... He's insightful, in my character's opinion. The character I'm portraying has read every one of the Stork's LONGEST posts. Furthermore, my character wonders where the Stork Daddy character gets his source material. If it comes straight from the Stork character's head, then my character is impressed. 021022 ... stork daddy well of course this argument touched upon topics i have thought about in varying degrees of depth at other times in my life. Much of what i have said was revealed to me from other sources, which if they did not directly address the issue, exemplified it in one way or another however "indirectly." 021023 ... stork daddy "in other words," my thoughts were my own, but i'd be arrogant to say that i've said anything that would qualify as useful or interesting on the topics to the degree that the works of so many philosophers and artists aspire to and often attain. 021023 ... stork daddy "in other words," my thoughts were my own, but i'd be arrogant to say that i've said anything that would qualify as useful or interesting on the topics to the degree that the works of so many philosophers and artists aspire to and often attain. also, ownership of a thought is its own philisophical bramble. every thought is thought uniquely due to the unique configurations of thoughts surrounding it in any given mind. the type of understanding cannot help but be exact and unlike anyone elses, but at the same time, a unique combination of words or numbers or concepts embodied in either of those two forms of communication can be attributed to an original source along with all products similar in practical ways. however, the components of our thoughts we owe almost entirely to the world around us. It is only in our minds curious workshop that unique combinations can be made. This whole idea was put through the motions in can we ever be original. 021023 what's it to you? who go blather from