MI5.Victim@privacy.net wrote in message
news:a3l3a4ti25udq88arakfthg29j5uc22q6e@4ax.com: 

> currently 19:17 12/08/2008
> 
> The MI5 faggots have carried on abusing me for the last 15
> minutes. It does look as if the complaints to usenet will not
> have any effect today. They are
> mind reading and repeating my thoughts, and sexually abusing me.
> It sounds very much like the Pig doing it again, but they assure
> me it is not the Pig.
> The accent sounds remarkably similar to that of the Obscene
> English Pig however, as does the perverted content.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:45:57 +0100, Carlton Miniott 
wrote:

>> It's got the word 'magic' in it, ergo bollockii est.
>
>Yeh, but that's not the point.

The point is, it's nonsense.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:31:57 +0100, JAF
 wrote:

>>> It's got the word 'magic' in it, ergo bollockii est.
>>
>>Yeh, but that's not the point.
>
>The point is, it's nonsense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic

"One of the most frequently cited tenets of Chaos magic is that
"Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted," a quote attributed to
Hassan-i Sabbah and used by Friedrich Nietzsche in his work Thus Spoke
Zarathustra. Like Crowley's "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of
the law," this phrase is often mistakenly interpreted in its most
literal sense to mean that there is no such thing as objective truth,
so people are free to do whatever they choose. However, "Nothing is
True and Everything is Permitted" is more widely interpreted to mean
"there is no such thing as an objective truth outside of our
perception; therefore, all things are true and possible." "

Old Bloke's doing a little paradigm shifting of his own, I suspect.

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Oxford comma said:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:31:57 +0100, JAF
>  wrote:
> 
> >>> It's got the word 'magic' in it, ergo bollockii est.
> >>
> >>Yeh, but that's not the point.
> >
> >The point is, it's nonsense.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic
> 
> "One of the most frequently cited tenets of Chaos magic is that
> "Nothing is True and Everything is Permitted," a quote attributed to
> Hassan-i Sabbah and used by Friedrich Nietzsche in his work Thus Spoke
> Zarathustra. Like Crowley's "'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of
> the law," this phrase is often mistakenly interpreted in its most
> literal sense to mean that there is no such thing as objective truth,
> so people are free to do whatever they choose. However, "Nothing is
> True and Everything is Permitted" is more widely interpreted to mean
> "there is no such thing as an objective truth outside of our
> perception; therefore, all things are true and possible." "
> 
> Old Bloke's doing a little paradigm shifting of his own, I suspect.
> 
No, I wasn't addressing the background philosophy, because I think it's 
bollox too. But the particular technique mentioned by HBD isn't much 
different to NLP, and can be effective within certain limited domains.
It's like, instead of getting Derren Brown to mess you about, you do it 
yourself.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:21:12 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:

<snip>

> It's like, instead of getting Derren Brown to mess you about, you do it 
> yourself.

Partially. Whether you believe in it or not, it is worth looking at because
the underlying ideas can provide fodder for further ideas. Knowledge is
power.

What's better - being able to read and understand many different
philosophies and religions, whether you believe in them or not, and take
the parts that have a grain of truth that can be built upon, or just to say
"it's all bollocks".

Oh, and it's magick, not magic. There is a difference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick


-- 
Outside every thin woman, there is a fat man 
desperately trying to get in.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:04:31 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:21:12 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> It's like, instead of getting Derren Brown to mess you about, you do it 
>> yourself.
>
>Partially. Whether you believe in it or not, it is worth looking at because
>the underlying ideas can provide fodder for further ideas. Knowledge is
>power.
>
>What's better - being able to read and understand many different
>philosophies and religions, whether you believe in them or not, and take
>the parts that have a grain of truth that can be built upon, or just to say
>"it's all bollocks".
>
Philosophy is fine, but not when 'philosophy is used as another word for
'mumbo-jumbo'.

>Oh, and it's magick, not magic. There is a difference:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick

yeah, it's another kind of bollocks.

A difference that makes no difference is no difference.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:04:31 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>Oh, and it's magick, not magic. There is a difference:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick

I choose to believe that this is a load of self important bollocks. Or
bollycks, if you will, up there with pronouncing 'vampire' as
'vam-pye-er with the stress on the pye.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:20:05 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:04:31 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:21:12 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> It's like, instead of getting Derren Brown to mess you about, you do it 
>>> yourself.
>>
>>Partially. Whether you believe in it or not, it is worth looking at because
>>the underlying ideas can provide fodder for further ideas. Knowledge is
>>power.
>>
>>What's better - being able to read and understand many different
>>philosophies and religions, whether you believe in them or not, and take
>>the parts that have a grain of truth that can be built upon, or just to say
>>"it's all bollocks".
>>
> Philosophy is fine, but not when 'philosophy is used as another word for
> 'mumbo-jumbo'.

I think that this is where we differ. I'm interested in why people believe
stuff. There is something that catches their imagination. Like a hook in a
song. So I read stuff. There seems to be some underlying structure behind
it all. A reason why people will believe what is largely utter crap. 

>>Oh, and it's magick, not magic. There is a difference:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick
> 
> yeah, it's another kind of bollocks.

OK, let's hear your critique on Chaos Magick. after all, if you haven't
looked into it, you can't dismiss it.

> A difference that makes no difference is no difference.

Dismissal based on prejudice is not the same as logical argument based on
study.

Show your workings.


-- 
So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people
who don't even know that fire is hot.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:38:36 +0100, Oxford comma wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:04:31 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>Oh, and it's magick, not magic. There is a difference:
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick
> 
> I choose to believe that this is a load of self important bollocks. Or
> bollycks, if you will, up there with pronouncing 'vampire' as
> 'vam-pye-er with the stress on the pye.

Fine, as long as you have actually looked into the detail. Words exist for
a reason...


-- 
He looked like Peter Fonda
and smelled like Jack Daniels

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Hot Badger Deluxe 
said:

> it all. A reason why people will believe what is largely utter crap. 

"Persuasions of the witches' craft" T M Luhrmann
(or is it "witch's" ?)
[and maybe only 1 n in Luhrman]
Excellent piece of anthropology.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:38:36 +0100, Oxford comma wrote:

> up there with pronouncing 'vampire' as
> 'vam-pye-er with the stress on the pye.

Which has reminded me of this gem - Bomb The Bass with Sinead O'Conner,
Benjamin Zephaniah, and Tackhead - Empire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb8vi-FcFc4


-- 
He sat on the bed, both feet on the floor
and tried to rule out preference

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:

> Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Hot Badger Deluxe 
> said:
> 
>> it all. A reason why people will believe what is largely utter crap. 
> 
> "Persuasions of the witches' craft" T M Luhrmann
> (or is it "witch's" ?)
> [and maybe only 1 n in Luhrman]
> Excellent piece of anthropology.

Exactly. Why do people believe these things. I doubt that aliens actally
abduct people, so what are people who claim to have been abducted actually
experienced? If it's just a dream, then why do so many Americans share the
same type of dream? Is it temporal lobe epilepsy? As William Burroughs said
"there's none so blind as those that won't look".


-- 
Only when the last tree has died, 
the last river has been poisoned 
and the last animal has been killed,
will we realise that we can not eat money.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>Dismissal based on prejudice is not the same as logical argument based on
>study.

In your paradigm.  Or are you suggesting that there may be an absolute
truth?

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:42:50 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>> I choose to believe that this is a load of self important bollocks. Or
>> bollycks, if you will, up there with pronouncing 'vampire' as
>> 'vam-pye-er with the stress on the pye.
>
>Fine, as long as you have actually looked into the detail. Words exist for
>a reason...

Yes, I have.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:50:20 +0100, Oxford comma wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>Dismissal based on prejudice is not the same as logical argument based on
>>study.
> 
> In your paradigm.  Or are you suggesting that there may be an absolute
> truth?

Neither. 


-- 
There is no nonsense so errant that it cannot be made the creed 
of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>
>Show your workings.

It has nothing to do with the real world = it's bollocks.

NB  This is facetious.

I have no interest in kooky belief systems.
I like my rational world.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:58:11 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

> If it's just a dream, then why do so many Americans share the
>same type of dream?

If baseball caps have the peak at the front, why do so many people wear them
with the peak at the back?  

Because it's a fad, trend, meme, that just catches on.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:42:50 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:38:36 +0100, Oxford comma wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:04:31 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>Oh, and it's magick, not magic. There is a difference:
>>>
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magick
>> 
>> I choose to believe that this is a load of self important bollocks. Or
>> bollycks, if you will, up there with pronouncing 'vampire' as
>> 'vam-pye-er with the stress on the pye.
>
>Fine, as long as you have actually looked into the detail. Words exist for
>a reason...

Often that reason is that someone made it up to look clever.

'Magick' (madjik, magik, madjicke, magicke) and a thousand other variant
spellings) have been around for centuries.  That doesn't confer them with
different meanings.  They're all antithetical to the rational world.

-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:42:50 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>Fine, as long as you have actually looked into the detail. 

Was there some intended implication in that statement?
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:30:06 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:58:11 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>> If it's just a dream, then why do so many Americans share the
>>same type of dream?
> 
> If baseball caps have the peak at the front, why do so many people wear them
> with the peak at the back?  
> 
> Because it's a fad, trend, meme, that just catches on.

It was started by skate-boarders, to stop the cap blowing off.

There seem to be certain patterns of experience, the explanation of which
changes through time. Fairies -> Aliens, for example. The question is
whether something is actually happening, or whether it's some sort of
common delusion. Sadly any research into what is actually happening tends
to be by people with a serious bias. I remain open-minded, because there is
insufficient information to form a theory.


-- 
You never did the Kenosha Kid.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:28:18 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>
>>Show your workings.
> 
> It has nothing to do with the real world = it's bollocks.
> 
> NB  This is facetious.
> 
> I have no interest in kooky belief systems.
> I like my rational world.

Yet you fail to explain.


-- 
There is a vegitarian option - you can fuck off.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:36:36 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:42:50 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>Fine, as long as you have actually looked into the detail. 
> 
> Was there some intended implication in that statement?

You gave no explanation for your views on Chaos Magick.


-- 
Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.

In article <fosggxxz1ftc$.13hpqraxbsuc1.dlg@40tude.net>, 
watercress@spamcop.org says...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:44:01 +0100, Carlton Miniott wrote:
> 
> > Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Hot Badger Deluxe 
> > said:
> > 
> >> it all. A reason why people will believe what is largely utter crap. 
> > 
> > "Persuasions of the witches' craft" T M Luhrmann
> > (or is it "witch's" ?)
> > [and maybe only 1 n in Luhrman]
> > Excellent piece of anthropology.
> 
> Exactly. Why do people believe these things. I doubt that aliens actally
> abduct people, so what are people who claim to have been abducted actually
> experienced? If it's just a dream, then why do so many Americans share the
> same type of dream? Is it temporal lobe epilepsy? As William Burroughs said
> "there's none so blind as those that won't look".
> 

Susan Blackmore has done some good stuff on that one IIRC.

<http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/>

Yes, I appear to recall correctly.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:57:27 +0100, Bing Trotsky wrote:

> In article <fosggxxz1ftc$.13hpqraxbsuc1.dlg@40tude.net>, 
> watercress@spamcop.org says...
<snip>

>> 
>> Exactly. Why do people believe these things. I doubt that aliens actally
>> abduct people, so what are people who claim to have been abducted actually
>> experienced? If it's just a dream, then why do so many Americans share the
>> same type of dream? Is it temporal lobe epilepsy? As William Burroughs said
>> "there's none so blind as those that won't look".
>> 
> 
> Susan Blackmore has done some good stuff on that one IIRC.
> 
> <http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/>
> 
> Yes, I appear to recall correctly.

Ta. Looks interesting. I'm perfectly happy to listen to arguments, it's
dismissals that annoy me.


-- 
A computer does not substitute for judgement any more than a pencil
substitutes for literacy. But writing without a pencil is no
particular advantage.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:54:09 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

> The question is
>whether something is actually happening, or whether it's some sort of
>common delusion.

I'm sure something is actually happening, but it's not aliens.  It may well
all be delusion, though not common.  It's highly likely that only the
deludees' explanation is common, not their experiences.


 Sadly any research into what is actually happening tends
>to be by people with a serious bias.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:28:18 +0100, JAF wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>>Show your workings.
>> 
>> It has nothing to do with the real world = it's bollocks.
>> 
>> NB  This is facetious.
>> 
>> I have no interest in kooky belief systems.
>> I like my rational world.
>
>Yet you fail to explain.

Explain what?
I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:57:59 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:36:36 +0100, JAF wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:42:50 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>>Fine, as long as you have actually looked into the detail. 
>> 
>> Was there some intended implication in that statement?
>
>You gave no explanation for your views on Chaos Magick.

Well, you may assume at all times that I know what you are referring to,
either from previous knowledge, experience, or by dint of having looked it
up, in any, each and every case.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:34:33 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:

<snip>

>>Yet you fail to explain.
> 
> Explain what?
> I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.

But why? Certainty in something that is not itself logical is impossible,
by definition. I don't believe in God, but I couldn't possibly state, as a
fact, that God doesn't exist.


-- 
That's like knitting a sweater for a dead squirrel.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:38:22 +0100, JAF wrote:

> Well, you may assume at all times that I know what you are referring to,
> either from previous knowledge, experience, or by dint of having looked it
> up, in any, each and every case.

That is quite possibly the most arrogant statement that I have ever read.


-- 
When the gods wish to punish us, they answer our prayers.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:47:35 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:34:33 +0100, JAF wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>  wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Yet you fail to explain.
>> 
>> Explain what?
>> I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.
>
>But why? Certainty in something that is not itself logical is impossible,
>by definition. I don't believe in God, but I couldn't possibly state, as a
>fact, that God doesn't exist.

I just don't do superstition.
Why?
Because I prefer not to.  I'm a big boy, I can (and very much do) face up to
reality without a security blanket.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:49:00 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
 wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:38:22 +0100, JAF wrote:
>
>> Well, you may assume at all times that I know what you are referring to,
>> either from previous knowledge, experience, or by dint of having looked it
>> up, in any, each and every case.
>
>That is quite possibly the most arrogant statement that I have ever read.

Really?

Admitting that if I don't know about something, I look it up, is arrogant?

Fair enough.

I'm arrogant.
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:01:29 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:47:35 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:34:33 +0100, JAF wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>>  wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>Yet you fail to explain.
>>> 
>>> Explain what?
>>> I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.
>>
>>But why? Certainty in something that is not itself logical is impossible,
>>by definition. I don't believe in God, but I couldn't possibly state, as a
>>fact, that God doesn't exist.
> 
> I just don't do superstition.
> Why?
> Because I prefer not to.  I'm a big boy, I can (and very much do) face up to
> reality without a security blanket.

That's not a logical argument. Why do you prefer not to? And, if God does
exist, then they're part of reality. It makes no sense.


-- 
Condemned to be a stranger
Subway dweller, dead-end danger

JAF  writes:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:28:18 +0100, JAF wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>
>>>>Show your workings.
>>> 
>>> It has nothing to do with the real world = it's bollocks.
>>> 
>>> NB  This is facetious.
>>> 
>>> I have no interest in kooky belief systems.
>>> I like my rational world.
>>
>>Yet you fail to explain.
>
> Explain what?
> I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.

Isn't that unlucky?

Chris
-- 
Chris Eilbeck

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:10:20 +0100, Chris Eilbeck wrote:

<snip>

> Isn't that unlucky?

Wasn't it Niels Bohr who had a HORSEshoe on the wall of his office? When
asked why, he said that he didn't believe in luck, but apparently the
horseshoe worked whether you believe in it or not.


-- 
I do some of my best work in moments of extreme terror.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:07:48 +0100, JAF wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:49:00 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>  wrote:
> 
>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:38:22 +0100, JAF wrote:
>>
>>> Well, you may assume at all times that I know what you are referring to,
>>> either from previous knowledge, experience, or by dint of having looked it
>>> up, in any, each and every case.
>>
>>That is quite possibly the most arrogant statement that I have ever read.
> 
> Really?
> 
> Admitting that if I don't know about something, I look it up, is arrogant?

Where did I say that? It was the phrase "you may assume at all times that I
know what you are referring to" that is arrogant. I built a menu system
using a CSA user hook, which allowed the generation of soft menus, and PID
level access, allowing single sign in, serious password control, and
hot-key switching between sessions. Do you know I handled the lack of
context in the calls to MADI-RAM?


-- 
Get ready for the festival
For the festival is only once a year

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:10:20 +0100, Chris Eilbeck 
wrote:

>JAF  writes:
>
>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>  wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:28:18 +0100, JAF wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>>>Show your workings.
>>>> 
>>>> It has nothing to do with the real world = it's bollocks.
>>>> 
>>>> NB  This is facetious.
>>>> 
>>>> I have no interest in kooky belief systems.
>>>> I like my rational world.
>>>
>>>Yet you fail to explain.
>>
>> Explain what?
>> I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.
>
>Isn't that unlucky?
>
Only if you say it three times, spin round, and spit.]

-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, Hot Badger Deluxe 
said:
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:30:06 +0100, JAF wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:58:11 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
> >  wrote:
> > 
> >> If it's just a dream, then why do so many Americans share the
> >>same type of dream?
> > 
> > If baseball caps have the peak at the front, why do so many people wear them
> > with the peak at the back?  
> > 
> > Because it's a fad, trend, meme, that just catches on.
> 
> It was started by skate-boarders, to stop the cap blowing off.

I think it started way before skateboards were invented.
It protects the neck from the sun, and increases the visual field when 
needed

-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, JAF said:
> I like my rational world.
> 
We had noticed.
Some of us have a few quibbles about how rational it is, and how much 
that's also rational you're shutting out of it, though.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:18:17 +0100, Carlton Miniott 
wrote:

>Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, JAF said:
>> I like my rational world.
>> 
>We had noticed.
>Some of us have a few quibbles about how rational it is,

Very.  And I'm very happy with my life.  

> and how much 
>that's also rational you're shutting out of it, though.

Such as?
-- 
JAF anarchatntlworldfullstopcom
     Sapere Aude

In article , 
anarchSPAMKILLER@ntlworld.com says...
> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:10:20 +0100, Chris Eilbeck 
> wrote:
> 
> >JAF  writes:
> >
> >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:56:12 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
> >>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:28:18 +0100, JAF wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:40:02 +0100, Hot Badger Deluxe
> >>>>  wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Show your workings.
> >>>> 
> >>>> It has nothing to do with the real world = it's bollocks.
> >>>> 
> >>>> NB  This is facetious.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I have no interest in kooky belief systems.
> >>>> I like my rational world.
> >>>
> >>>Yet you fail to explain.
> >>
> >> Explain what?
> >> I don't do superstition, of any shape, form, flavour or colour.
> >
> >Isn't that unlucky?
> >
> Only if you say it three times, spin round, and spit.]
> 

I tried that. I got dizzy, spat coffee all over the sofa, fell over, and 
bit my tongue. I'm prepared to accept that as evidence in favour. Though 
I tend to prefer the theory that spinning rapidly three times in a 
confined space whilst drinking coffee probably isn't a wise course of 
action.

-- 
eric
Live fast, die only if strictly necessary.