It seems that Mr. Elis a/k/a Hagbard, believes that my comments darken the
mind. Could it be that he is referring to the alternative definition and
is simply bewildered?
The use of the word OBFUSCATORY as Mr. Elis proffers it seems, in some
sense, a bit sophomoric. Is it possible that despite the breadth of his
reading he lacks the depth of perception necessary to understand my humble
and eglectic philosophies.
I can understand as well that there are some who choose to reject concepts
outside their limited experience and the constraints imposed by their
culture. There are those as well who attempt to transcend the external
restraints or constraints of their culture and who wish to develop greater
understanding.
Despite such bland rejection as Mr. Elis wishes to present, let us all
(hopefully including Mr. Elis) search our minds and remove such clouds as
may prevent us from seing far greater realities than we have previously
considered.
Can we all say "Cogito ergo sum" and speed onward into unexplored
thoughts?
AMG
----------
From: Keith Elis ('Hagbard Celine') <hagbard@ix.netcom.com>
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: POLITICS: costs of researching votes, etc.
Date: Sunday, September 14, 1997 6:28 AM
Hara Ra wrote:
>
> Hagbard Celine wrote:
>
> > Sorry to waste everyone's time,
>
> It has been noted by persons such as myself your concise commentary
> which elucidates precisely why the reading of Abraham Moses Genen's
> postings are considered of an obfuscatory and incomprenhsible style.
> Thanks are my response to you...
"Obfuscatory!"
I spilled a good plate of pasta on my keyboard thanks to you!
Can't stop laughing,
Hagbard