Ever notice how some people borrow other people's experiences as
their own to illustrate a point? There's at least one person here who seems to
do that regardless of subject. Makes me wonder how many people that person
knows.
Vicarious opinion & knowledge is poor substitute for first
hand.
You'll have to be more specific. I have no clue what you're talking
about. I'm pretty sure I don't do that, though, all my experiences are my own,
even the ones I probably shouldn't admit to ('course I like those the best).
I wondered if he meant me. I have a tendency to annoy some online
for reasons I've given up understanding. I've tried several times to change my
style, avoid doing some things, & so forth. I think I have learned how to
communicate online better through that. Offline in the real world I haven't had
problems with people since High School so these lessons are mostly useless to
real life. Still they have made my time at places like this better. Maybe there
is room for improvement still, but I think I'm reaching a point where I am not
certain I can go much further.
Mainly I thought s/he meant me because I
do reference others life experience at times. So if this is referring to me,
well I'm sorry but this is unlikely to change much. I can work on reducing it
some, but the people I've known & what I've learned from their lives matter
to me. I do talk about things that just relate to my life alone, probably too
much as well. However I don't exist in a vacuum. So if this was referring to me,
I'm sorry you feel that way but you can avoid reading posts by me. If it isn't
disregard.
Oh my mistake. S/he is referring to someone claiming the life
experiences of others as his/her own. I'd never do that. If I'm talking about
something that happened to a friend or relative I say it happened to a friend or
relative. So disregard. (I wonder though how you can know online if someone is
passing off other lives as their own?)
I've never seen you do that, Thomas. You've always come across as
sincere. He must be talking about someone else. (I'm pretty behind on the posts,
but so far, I'm clueless)
Has the Foo shat? Sorry to be mysterious but being more specific
might be misconstrued as a personal affront instead of honest criticism. It's
unfortunate that offenders can't be pulled to one side for private comment. I'm
not interested in the occasional voyeur. At least one person I have in mind does
this habitually. Asking for confirmation or reassurance is pointless. I refuse
to name names. Who said I meant only one person? Just keep in mind what I said.
The title of this thread is a clue. If you find it describing you -- stop it.
Or were you asking for clarification? I'm talking about second-hand
testimony. It's not normally allowed in court for good reason. Why should it be
allowed here?
I just added Merriam-Webster to my browser tool bar. Now I
can misspell with authority.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that people shouldn't quote
science books or history books or any other reference works because they didn't
personally experience what's in the book? Do you mean that if person X did
something nasty to someone I know, then I can't say anything about X because I
didn't experience anything personally? Or do you mean that I should never listen
to writing advice from other people because I need to draw my own conclusions
about writing?
I'm not sure what you're saying. It would be helpful if
you could clarify it. Examples would be nice.
Konowbody, I wasn't really ask for clarification. I was just
mystified. I read all the recent posts and if someone (or more than one) is
doing that, I don't see it. Even if they are, and they relay stories such as "so
and so told me about this time..." as opposed to relating the story as their
own: "one time, at band camp..." then I don't see anything wrong with that.
I guess I just missed your point. It was too ambiguous to be
useful....and I suspect many people will feel vaguely guilty as a result.
Whatever your intent, that type of statement is a criticism.
I agree that I haven't seen this here. Since no one except you,
Knowbody, can recall such a post, it suggests it could be a misunderstanding of
what someone wrote. I'm guessing you don't want to name a name because you don't
want to start a flame war. But why not, politely, quote an example of the kind
of post you mean so people will know what you're talking about -- and so the
poster can have a chance to respond.
You're right Marian: a flame war would be inevitable. And Sherry is
right too: it's a criticism. Criticisms are allowed, yes?
The title of
this thread is almost an exact quote of what I'm talking about: "...the ones I
know that _____". I think if fill in the blank with an actual quote, it would be
nearly the same as an actual confrontation. A flame could erupt but
additionally, I could be misidentified; leading to misdirected bad feelings.
Inserting a sample usually leads to arguing the truth of the sample instead of
its intent. Besides, I am the most unimaginative person imaginable (ahem).
Making up a sample is just too much trouble for me.
The problem with
this and its many forms (one given by Sherry) is that whatever is placed in the
blank cannot be independently checked because the referred
authority/person/friend/relative is anonymous and/or unavailable. It's one thing
to use it to describe a situational setting but another to use it in support of
a stance. Other examples: "I have a cousin who said that _____"; "many people
have said that _____"; "I know many (unnamed) scientists who _____"; "I've read
(uncited) reports that _____". You can fill in the blanks with a host of things:
"wasn't true", "they're a bunch of cokeheads", "forbles do not nest in the
spring", etc.
We all do this occasionally. The person foremost in my
mind does this so often, and in so many contexts, that the veracity of the
person's statements is becoming suspect and they appear to be disguised
assertions. The general response to clarification requests is "I'm too busy" or
"I don't feel like it". This not only furthers suspicion but it's irritating to
boot.
I could post links to samples but that would be counterproductive
and inflammatory. I don't see how someone can really justify offering low
quality support, so response is unnecessary. I would just prefer the practice
stopped.
I apologize for creating vague guilt feelings but we can all
profit from avoidance. A little guilt might not hurt.
well, I have no idea what you're talking about here, but if I were
hypothetically the person you referred to, I think I'd much prefer you get to
the point instead of all this cloak and dagger whatnot.
If I were the person
(though I can't imagine its me, but in case it is) I would apologize for
offending you, if I could only figure out why you're offended.
On more
general terms: I think its difficult to ask anyone to change the way they
discuss things, as usually that is the way they think or speak or write and is
an integral to their personality as their name or their hair color or if they
have any hair left or whatever.... As much as I can decipher your complaint (and
I am not confident I have), the seriousness of it seems to be elevated in your
perception perhaps more than others.
Now, enough of THAT, lets talk
about ME!
so far, the closest example I can find to what you seem to be
saying is when Matt Jarpe said: "I can do without spiritual nature, but I know
some scientists who felt it was essential as well"
I hope that's not it,
because if it is, your mainspring is wound too tight, Knowbody.
My second pet peeve are people that need to change the subject or
try to stop discussion that they don't like or (as you say) don't understand.
But that's a different topic.
well, since you won't come right out with what your topic is,
changing it seems of no consequence, though I don't think I'm doing that.
You're a rather peeved person, it seems.
I think what I said is pretty clear. I'm trying to prevent a flame
and you insist on fanning it. You don't understand. OK. You said it how many
times now? Do you think making a pest of yourself will fix that? Just what is it
you're looking for? Your point?
no, if you wanted to avoid a flame you'd have not brought it up at
all. Since you did, you just want to flame without taking responsibility for
your actions. That's why I responded -- sanctimonious passive aggressive
behaviour is MY pet peeve.
further, if you wanted me to not fan it, you
wouldn't keep asking me pointed questions.
good day to you, sir.
Yes, I see. I don't expect answers to rhetorical questions. Bye.
LOL! well, I have no idea if I'm the person who tied a knot in your
shorts, but whoever it was, I want to buy them a drink!
oh, and lighten up. Its
just a message board.
Rhetorical question, perhaps - what on Earth was that all about
(not your contributions, Lerk)?
BTW, I know quite a few people
who like to answer rhetorical questions.
Oh for goodness sakes, it could be anyone on this forum.
So
what? Maybe it is me. I cite my personal experiences all the time.
I
have noticed, not here so much (thankfully) but in college that often people
took serious offense at the citation of personal experiences (especially if you
were an unrepentant veteran of the Armed Forces such as myself).
That
said, regardless of who, what, where, when or how, last I checked, this is a
FORUM designed for the free flow of thoughts, ideas and whatnot. If someone's
method of discourse taxes your patience, I have a simple and very effective
suggestion.
Ignore them.
It is probably what I should have done
when I saw this thread. But even conservative leaning Americans such as myself
make efforts to be open minded.
Now, if everyone will excuse me, I have
some red meat to warm up. It is left over from the "Gardner was Gone at Clarion
Party." Good stuff.
Murph
P.S. "Every bean must be seen as well
as heard." All Quiet on the Western Front.
I'm just plain bewildered. If you're talking about me, well, ha!
And ha again! You've done a fine job of bewildering. We want your stuff for Bewildering Stories. Don't have to
be fiction. Send us your bewildering viewpoints, put together neatly (or not)
into some kind of article or something. We want it!
--The Invincible
Spud
Co-Editor
Bewildering Stories
David said "Rhetorical question, perhaps - what on Earth was that
all about" I think it's obvious now that by answering, we were interrupting a
private conversation.
(monty python voice)_The Show So Far....
for those of you
just joining us, here is a recap:
Knowbody doesn't like someone very much
(whom we'll call Boron), or their way of debating...Knowbody wants to launch a
stealth smear campaign against them. So he starts a thread that vaguely refers
to the person in question. Then, he not only expresses his distaste, he wants to
actively infer this person lacks integrity...a more civil way of calling them a
liar, or basically flaming them. Remember, this is a thread begun for the sole
purpose of ad hominem attacks against a particular person, with the secondary
purpose of trying to convince the rest of us to consider this person's posts to
be dishonest. Oh, he tries to act as if he's taking the high road by claiming to
not want to identify the person (while dropping clue after clue). And he doesn't
even have the honor to use his regular moniker, but hides like a coward behind
an assumed moniker, presumably to protect the identity of Boron....hm.
to wit:
>>>>"We all do this occasionally. The person
foremost in my mind does this so often, and in so many contexts, that the
veracity of the person's statements is becoming suspect and they appear to be
disguised assertions. The general response to clarification requests is "I'm too
busy" or "I don't feel like it". This not only furthers suspicion but it's
irritating to boot.
I could post links to samples but that would be
counterproductive and inflammatory. I don't see how someone can really justify
offering low quality support, so response is unnecessary. I would just prefer
the practice stopped. "<<<
What Knowbody wanted, was for us
to join in the jihad and pick up pitchforks and torches and storm Boron's castle
along with him.
Unfortunately, the rest of us didn't play along like he
liked.
Also, I tried calling his bluff and pointing out I could detect his
intentions.
So the flaming target became me, either in effigy or because I
was the original target.
Knowbody wanted us to ask his question: Who is
Boron?. But I suggest the better question is "who is Knowbody and why is he
saying all these terrible things about Boron?"
Did Knowbody lose an argument
fair and square and in his spite decided to do this lower than whale dung
approach? Hm. not sure.
bottom line is no one should start threads whose
entire purpose is to still the voice of another member, no matter how
transparently they pretend to take the high road doing so.
I have no
idea if I'm the original target, I sort of hope I am, that would be funny, but
the reason I responded as I did is I really get tired of these flamebaiters and
trolls who do not even have the temerity to use their monikers and take
responsibility for their heinous crimes. In fact, I challenge Knowbody to come
clean as to their identity...ironically, he hides behind a false name and tries
to get us to believe someone else is lying.
thank you, and we now return
you to your regularly scheduled program, now in progess.
L)
Seriously, this strange and perplexing thread
Is the most
bewildering thing I've ever read
And to prevent it from becoming forever
dead
We, Bewildering
Stories, would like it reprint-ed.
So...with the permission of
everyone who posted on this thread, we'd like to copy it and put it up at our
website. Very bewildering indeed.
Of course, I don't think Knowbody's
going to consent to that. Too bad. Oh, well, we've got lots of other
bewildering stuff in inventory...
So reprint it under a Non-Consent label. Or, better yet,
Without Knowbody's Consent. And, in case the aforementioned turns up with
a shoulder under her/his chip (why make it easy?), you can add a pretty graphic
with the disclaimer Warning! This is definitely not based on fact!
No way you can lose.
Interesting.
You've got my permission, Spud. Frankly
don't know why you'd want it but
--- Wait! There's More! ---
I
don't know how many writers are here but now I have a good idea how many readers
there are. I'm puzzled by the insistence to name names. Lerk was the most vocal.
He kept saying "I don't understand" but the only things I left unsaid were the
specifics of who and the exact words. So what's not understand? Well, obviously
nothing. He was simply interested in baiting me. Note how he says goodbye then
keeps coming back. I suppose to uncover who I had in mind or the boss finally
gave him a well deserved evaluation. Who knows? I also note that Lerk asked me
if it was a third person. I can only wonder why.
It wasn't until after
posts by DavidN and SFM that his "incitement theory" emerged. I guess it took
him several hours to figure out what he was doing.
Jerk, ever
hear the Carly Simon song "You're So Vain" which has "You prob'ly think this
song is about you, donch'you"? It's obvious how your mind works so let me put it
at ease -- keep wondering. BTW: if you're right, it should be easy to figure out
who I am. All you need to do is find the posts where I lost though how one loses
to nonevidence is beyond me.
Marian, DavidN was referring to an
earlier post by me.
DavidN, I meant rhetorical questions in
general. I really didn't expect any that I posted to be answered (and they
weren't as I recall). Yes, some people are compelled to perpetually clarify.
The assumptions made were truly amazing. I fail to see why anyone would
need to feel guilty. If I had said your spelling needed improvement, you'd feel
guilty? The thing I'm talking about is an error in logic. We all do it (yes,
even me). It doesn't make me feel guilty so why the hell would you?
Now
there is one person who does it a lot. I do wish that person wouldn't. If I
wanted to embarrass that person, I could have done it long ago. Yes, that would
have started a flame war. Who likes to be corrected in public?
I was
just hoping for a little introspection and (hopefully) some behavior
modification. But, what the hell, go grab your pitchforks and tar. We need the
entertainment.
If'n y'all do that, y'all are a real sorry bunch. Y'all
know that, don'cha?
If I understand you, Knowbody, which I probably don't, you are
saying that someone makes assertions backed by "appeal to authority", but when
questioned as to a specific citation says, "I'm too busy" or somesuch because he
actually has no authority to cite, but is simply making up his assertion out of
whole cloth.
So, you have lost whatever respect you had for this one.
And you want us to think twice about citing authority where there is none, and
hook up the electrodes to our brains and try a little ECT.
Hmmm... Yes,
bewildering is correct. Go for it, Spud.
--Jerry
This isn't a game or even a roundtable discussion like on PBS or
CNN. Mostly people just come here to talk about how they feel & why. When I
first came online many years ago I came quoting facts, statistics, polls,
various thinkers, etc. It was a lot of work for no good reason. It just made me
look like a pompous fool. It also made going online like doing classwork. I'll
admit that was fun in a way because I like studying, but mostly it was just
unnecessarily exhausting. It makes the forum work instead of pleasure.
Still I'm sorry you feel you "Lost" somewhere no one can figure out for
reasons you don't understand. I'm sorry you choose to see discussions here as
games to be won or lost. I'm sorry you don't have the people skills to find a
way to tactfully tell someone you don't understand their point or logic.
I know you think we don't want to be corrected, but many of us are
willing to accept constructive criticisms. Even if we get briefly upset well
what do you think this has done? What do you think calling someone Jerk equates
to? If your reasons are truly politeness than it isn't quite working out. It
would have almost been better to be open & tell the person you didn't
understand what they were getting at or see the relevance. The person has a
right not to heed your advice, but it would have been less of a problem than
this.
> If I had said your spelling needed improvement, you'd feel
guilty?
--------------
Ever notice how some people can't get their
spelling straight? There's at least one person here who seems to do that
regardless of subject. Makes me wonder what school that person went to.
--------------
Well, perhaps "guilty" isn't the right word, but
certainly something like the above is likely to make people take offense. I tend
to agree with Lerk on the interpretation that Knowbody had lost an argument and
is sulking -- although I'd guess that Knowbody actually always thinks he's
right, and simply gets annoyed when people disagree with him.
Besides, I
don't see the error in logic here. When a person claims that other people have a
certain opinion, and that is a true fact, what's the problem with this?
Knowbody -- Who likes to be corrected in public?
Well, I do. I'm sure I can't be right one hundred percent of the time,
even if I try. And when I let a '1 + 1 = 3' slip by, I don't need any cheers, I
don't want anyone to hail my new interpretation of arithmetic, I want someone
who knows better or is not falling asleep at the keyboard like me to point it
out.
In public? This Forum isn't even mediated. Everyone can have
her/his say, everyone usually does. So what's the big deal? If I wasn't ready to
take some feedback, I wouldn't be posting here. As far as I've been able to
ascertain, there's scarcely a poster here who hasn't had to confront some sort
of opposition, be it over ideas, statements or style. There's all kinds of
people here, I expect I won't agree with some, and some won't agree with me. And
I like to think we live in a world where all of us have the right and the drive
to speak out. Too many tragedies the world has seen because people did not speak
out in time.
yep, that last Knowbody post proves my point. No revelation of HIS
identity, but plenty of flames at others.
Hey, I can be wrong or even stupid
in a debate, but I always back it up with my name (or accepted
pseudonym...hm...)
I must agree with others here that if your intention
was not to start a flame war, this was the opposite ploy to use to accomplish
that goal.
The absolute best thing would have been to call the person on it
directly, within the thread where said offense occurred. Then, at least, the
person has an option to defend their position openly. This way, there is no way
for anyone to be open or achieve any sort of understanding. The ONLY outcome is
flames, and in such a way that you THINK you can avoid retribution for doing so.
The level of your cowardice astounds.
Oh, and you misunderstood me a
while back. When I said "good day to you sir" you thought I meant "I" was
leaving. I was actually telling you not to let the door hit ya where the good
lord split ya on YOUR way out of here. Next time I'll be more clear...here ya
go: begone TROLL!
and the sad thing about passive aggressive behaviour
is that its so transparent. To accuse ME of baiting is very ridiculous. I"m
merely calling your baiting for what it is.
Oh...and
"Jerk...Lerk"...hooheehaahhahhhhoooo! what cleverness! what insight! what a
putz.
LOL, Lerk, what a way you have with words.
Knowbody wrote (again): Now there is one person who does it a lot.
I do wish that person wouldn't.
My position(s) on your problem is (are);
1- if you don't like what they say (or the way they say it) don't read their
posts (trust me it's easy to do). 2- your problem seems rather petty and
intolerant.
I come here for interesting (heady) discussion, to
appreciate others points of view (there's no one who can't learn from others)
and (hopefully) to be appreciated too (everyone needs a little 'extra'
affirmation now and then, even if it's a comment to a post).
'extra'-note I highlight 'extra' because it would indeed be sad if this
was the only place someone is (or not, even) receiving such.
That
said, I would hope people don't take this place to lightly. I've said this
before, the community of SF fans/writers is small so, to me, this is a cherished
place. My expectations, too, are that one day I'll have the chance to meet some
of you at a Con. Previously, I met several Critters at Chicon and it is a good
memory. I've also met others through this board (and others) whom I regard as
friends. So realize that creating 'bad blood' could have consequences. Staying
anonymous does, as well, like "Who are you?"
Even so, I'd still bet that
any 'bad blood' you create would probably be quickly forgiven by most of the
people that come here were they to meet you in person. I believe they are good,
tolerant people.
Let's see if I've got this. Someone whose name is being withheld
doesn't like the way someone else whose name they don't wish to reveal backs up
arguments that are left undescribed by quoting unspecified authorities.
I could tell you why all this started an argument, but for reasons best
left undisclosed, I'm going to keep the information under wraps.
This just gets bewilderinger and bewilderinger!
Well, due
to the many people posting on this thread, it's going to pretty hard to get
everyone's permission, even though the person I thought least likely to do so
has done so.
So, instead, since I don't think people will worry about
having their publicly-posted stuff copied and put up on another web site since
this has very little literary value and shouldn't really cause a problem, I'll
wait until the thread's been inactive for a few days or so and then copy the
whole thing (including this very message and everything above) and put it up at
the Bewildering Stories website. In the meantime, if anyone objects to
having their stuff copied and reprinted, just say so, and we'll omit your
post(s).
Thanks again, and, of course, we want this thread to bewilder
even more people by putting it up elsewhere.
you have my permission, spud. just post a link.
Go ahead, Spud. You may add a fictional happy ending, too, which
would make it truly bewildering. Incomprehensible. Mystifying. Whatever. Can't
get any weirder.
My friend Virt Lovecraft had a little story to add to this thread.
He thought it might clarify things. Or not.
------
Tombs and
death had always appealed to me. My story you may find interesting.
In
considering the charnel atmosphere, I could not help but crookedly rend. What
foul atrocities! My eyes, devilishly imagine, gazed for an eternal instant upon
the circumstance. Good God! I now proceeded to tear in two.
What foul
atrocities!
I now proceeded to cut. In considering the death-rattle, I
could not help but unnaturally imagine. Heaven save my soul! I now proceeded to
tear in two. I now proceeded to imagine. In considering the circumstance, I
could not help but unnaturally split asunder. Wellspring of marvels and horrors
unspeakable!
Unspeakable but so, that is my story.
I don't exactly see the point Spud, but what the heck go for it.
I'm cool too.
We're thinking about reprinting the entire thing (including all
this talk about reprinting, which is very...weird) on the web site, without any
alterations or additions. It'll go up as an unclassifiable item, I think, rather
than a work of fiction. Just one of those weird little things you read and
scratch your head at and think, and think, and think, and then dismiss as a
whole bunch of [you fill in the word], you know?
You have my permission, spud.
However, I would like to add
something. The board had gotten a bit dry...some of the more verbal
personalities (myself included) had drifted off. (me, because my kids have
ousted me from my computer--they've gone back to school now and I'm back) Now
that Knowbody has given us something to be pissed off about, we've come roaring
out of the woodwork.
So I say thanks for being obnoxious. Maybe we need
to be poked once in a while lest we lapse into a coma. And it's good to see
everybody again!
It's like my group of scientist friends always say:
Every reagent needs a catalyst.*
*Don't ask me for names or proof,
because I am too busy to provide any.**
**besides, I made it up.***
***and I have no scientist friends, although I do know a cosmetologist.
She does makeovers at the Clinique counter in the mall.
To whom it may concern:
I regret to inform you that
Knowbody has passed on to other fora. You will be happy to know that he has
accomplished his purpose in life. As he is eternally grateful to Lerk for aid
lended, he requests Spud to disburse his share of all royalties and incomes
resulting from publication of this thread to Lerk "in the hope that he will use
them to purchase the better life he so richly deserves". I presume you know who
or what Lerk is.
As per his final request, I am instructed to post:
"You are a bunch of hypocritical, slush pile dreamers or
appropriate simile"
Whatever that means.
Sincerely,
Strawman, Esq.
Executor of the Knowbody Estate
Boy, somebody sure isn't getting any...
IS - do what you like with my postings.
Quote:
Whatever that means.
Quite so.
Alas, there won't be any royalties, 'cause we're not making
any money off this, so ha! And again, ha!
Oh c'mon Spud... We aren't charging for this philosophical debate?
There is more philosophy in here (as well as strange sound effects) than you
would get in a semester of "Philosophy 102".
I'm saddened and
disappointed. But, frankly, Lerk doesn't need the money, because he's the only
one of us that we know actually has a job. (Writers not included...)
--Jerry
a dubious honor at best.
Aw geez, I feel just awful that we discouraged knowbody...don't you
all? I mean, all that insight jampacked into that tiny brain...what are the
odds?
Kev--dead balls on. He ain't gettin any.
oh, I wouldn't dream of speculating on his love life...er...I'd
prefer not, anyways.
I am flabbergasted that he accused us of
hypocrisy....which, in this context, would mean that we all have begun
bewildering incomprehensible threads like this one but pretend we haven't.
That couldn't be further from the truth. EVERY thread I begin is
bewildering and incomprehensible....the only difference may be that I'm TRYING
to do that.
On another note, can anyone enlighten me as to the phrase "Has the
Foo shat?"? I've not heard that one. What does it mean? anyone? anyone? Beuhler?
Beuhler?
I wondered that too. Doing some slang searches & guessing from
context it may mean something like "What the sh**" or "why is this going on?",
but honestly I'm not sure.
Which makes it all the more bewildering...
Lerk, unintentional bewilderment is what Bewildering Stories
wants! It's that unrefined, un-thought-out, unrestrained, uncensored, raw human
(I suppose) energy that pours out in places where people gather and
converse...and this is especially convenient since it's text-based and online
and easily accessible. That's the stuff we want for Bewildering
Stories...
Has the Foo shat?
See NutWorks,
scroll to the bottom of the page.
I don't know who originated that
shaggy dog story, but I first came across it in a Callahan's Bar story by Spider
Robinson. Almost surely in Analog.
Ah! even more bewildering...since its a corruption of "if the shoe
fits", apparently this whole thread was either a fishing expedition with really
poorly constructed lure, or Knownothing was implying the intended target was
either Thomas R or Sherry.
So, either an amorphous hissy fit waiting to
ensnare whoever responds like a trap spider, or a really petty person....though
the two are not mutually exclusive.
> TIS: Alas, there won't be any royalties
I believe that
may have been his point.
I have a friend who wrote a funny sendup of the foo story...more
detail than the sketchy one on Nutworks. I'll ask her if she'll submit it to
bewildering stories...there's a whole forum flamewar behind the story, and I
wrote a related essay about parallel behaviors of gorilla society...together, we
TRULY pissed off those who would rule.
Finally ingested the whole thread. Barf!
Lerk has amazing
incite. Mind reads like Knobody else? Who is the sower of doubt? Lerk doth
protest too much. Misdirection, little Mach.? Why DID it take so long to come to
the point? Why does your evidence(?) trickle? Fill the glass and be done. Are we
finally reaching the true reason?
Is Knowbody the anti-Lerk? Spud says
"I know" often enough. Maybe Spud is Knowbody. Maybe it's someone else.
Circles within circles.
Plans within plans.
Plot within plot.
Thread preservation is good. Excellent example of bad behavior. All
ways.
And here's a Dune fan! Frank Herbert would be proud! Or at least
bewildered... ;)
Incite vs. insight? Cute.
--Jerry
Thank you! I enjoy puns. More levels the better. Maybe that's why I
see more sides.
L&G: Applause, please. Don't want money. Got money.
Want fame.
Wow, you have money? Not a writer, then...
Alas not full time. Probably part time forever.
