From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Dec 12 2004 - 03:07:45 GMT
Mark Steven Heyman said to DMB:
We don't often speak to one another directly, but I just wanted to
say I carefully read and appreciate every one of your posts. With
you on one shoulder and Sam Norton on the other, I'm moving forward
in spite of (because of) all the heated impish and contradictory
whispering.
dmb says:
Heated impish and contradictory whispering? It probably doesn't matter but I
have to ask, "what does that mean?" In any case, we really should get
directly engaged in a conversation about some thing or another. Maybe you
and Sam could "gang up" on me or something. It could be great fun. And I
read your posts with interest too, thank you very much.
MSH continued:
I particularly like the jargon-busting snippet pasted below... I was
ROFL (does anyone use that abbreviation any more?)...
dmb says:
I'm glad you brought that up. I deliberately inserted a paragraph of sheer
gibberish into a post last weekend strictly to see if anyone would notice.
You may recall that I had criticized Scott's assertions as gibberish and
somebody, i forget who, shot back a complaint that said, "we don't need
anyone to tell us what's gibberish and what isn't, we can see for ourselves,
you arrogant bastard" or something like that. So I tested his assertion. I
wrote some gibberish. And you recognized it as gibberish. Even thought it
was funny. That's why I like you and why we should talk. Anyway, for any
interested in exploring utter nonsense or investigating words in the shape
of cow pies, here's my humble attempt again...
dmb said previously:
This reminds of a similar thought I had the other day. It concerns my
cosmology, which is also derived from an intuitive concept, but is
far more sophisticated insofar as it posits a triple negation of
nothingness thereby producing a double-double postivity. The
incremental valuation of the total quality range expands even as it
reaches back around to form an enclosed circle. When this circle is
bisected and a square is centered on the dividing line, its vertical
sides touch that line to form three line segments, two of which are
identical. (Disregard one of the twins here.) The ratio between the
two remaining line segments can be found thoughout the forms, not
matter what quality level we wish to examine. See? The triple
negation and the double-double cancel or rather balance each other
out and the magic of the ratio is revealed. Seen this way, God is
mathematically provable, but such proof requires a human calculator.
This is the thought that occured to me the other day intuitively.
dmb continues:
See? Is that stupid or what? It makes no sense at all. Its not as easy as it
might seem. Such confusions do not come naturally, but must be earned. It
takes a deeply neurotic and cluttered mind to be so cryptic and vague about
absolutely nothing at all. I hate to brag, but when it comes to sheer
gibberish, I make less sense than anyone. Admit it. Recognize my vitory. Say
uncle! I'm the stupidest!
More substantial matter to be addressed tomorrow, but I can't promise to
repeat this magnificent performance. ;-)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 12 2004 - 03:14:13 GMT