Re: Philosophy: It doesn't suck so bad we can't ignore it (and Harvey)

From: J. R. Molloy (
Date: Fri Jan 05 2001 - 13:12:46 MST

From: "Harvey Newstrom" <>
> 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!

--J. R.
3M TA3

Useless hypotheses: consciousness, phlogiston, philosophy, vitalism, mind,
free will

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT