At 07:35 AM 9/27/98 -0700, Yak Wax wrote:
>>YAYA: While this essay clearly proves IAN GODDARD = 0,
>>in Egyptian mirror mathematics there is no zero, which
>>might explain why cats are psychic.
>Please do not provoke Ian, he's a bit unstable.
IAN: I'd call those who respond to nonpersonal dispassionate analytical input with naught but personal attacks and mud slinging "unstable," and a few others things too, but I think one cannot instill a respect for free inquiry in those dead-set on preventing it, even by holding a mirror up to their shameful acts of aggression.
Consider the above response. It purports that I should not be abused since it gets me upset (framing my opposition to abuse as a sign of mental instability), and yet the statement is inherently intended to do exactly that which it says should not be done, and is therefore expossed as a willful effort to inflict what the author predicts will cause personal hurt, any sign of which on my part will then be used to frame me as "unstable." All-in-all, it is a violate aggression against free inquiry.
I can't figure why a list of a group that I think stands for the highest ideals, for free and anti-dogmatic inquiry, consistently expresses the lowest varieties of anti-inquiry gangsterism. But the reason that such reactions are displayed by any subset of people is always the same: to prevent with noise the signal of inquiry that is perceived as a potential threat to existing memetic codes... hence the "logic of abuse."
No doubt, as in the past, my objections here to personal abuse will result in more of the same, all the while the initial nonpersonal, logical issues I raised are buried under a mountain of noise, which is obviously exactly the intention.
I get the message: Go away and stop threatening our memes with foreign-devil ideas and other things that frighten us. It's pathetic!