From: "Harvey Newstrom" <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com>
> For the first time, I realize that this entire thread was meant to be a
> This was never a usable definition, it was always a humorous punch-line.
Hear! Hear! Look for the truth in humor, Harvey.
You don't need a usable definition of snakes to avoid a
Philosophy acts as a snake-in-the-grass for extropy, it's the humor of
circular serpents, biting their tails.
> And I realize that your answers are supposed to be humorous by being
> deliberately circular.
Well, we wouldn't want accidental circularity. The universe ("one turn")
is composed of circles within circles, strings within strings.
> You deliberately kept the conversation by being non-responsive.
Not really, I had some errands to do.
> Another joke. Perhaps you should investigate a concept known as
Since I don't smile while writing these things, it seems disingenuous to
append a phony emoticon. τΏτ
(I wear big spectacles and a big nose.)
> I am not an accomplished philosopher. I seriously was trying to
> figure out what your content-free postings were trying to say.
So, it's your philosophy that these postings are content-free. Who died
and made you the Big Kahuna of content evaluation?
> That's OK, you're an accomplished troll. You are now in my kill-file
> with other trolls.
If I'm a troll, you're a bigger one. Nyah, nyah, nyah (philosophically
BTW, just what the hell have you contributed that's so content rich?
Oops... forgot the emoticon: τΏτ
Stay hungry, extropians. Luv ya!
Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT