Prometheus and Mega Lists, April 1999 (Part Ten)
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 22:07:18 EDT
Subject: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside?
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Oliver Heaviside was a nineteenth century British postal clerk whose
avocation was the new developing field of electromagnetism. He retired on a
miserable pension to devote his days full-time to it. He developed an
intricate system of thought relating to it, involving mathematics more
abstruse than anything the world had seen devoted to a discipline of
engineering. He published a series of articles in England's leading
scientific journal. Or rather, he tried to. After a couple of articles the
Editor published a note that if any reader at all would certify that he
understood the articles and wanted them to continue the Editor would continue
to publish them. No one at all came forward. No more of his articles were
published.
Sound familiar? So far he resembles a civilized Chris Langan. But the story
goes on. An attempt was made to send telegraph signals via undersea cable.
It failed. Heaviside said that his theory said that if "loading coils" were
inserted every so often along the length of the cable, then it would work.
It did!
Heaviside became a towering figure in the development of electricity. But he
died abjectly poor and alone anyway.
Chris, you've got to figure out the equivalent of loading coils to make your
peers appreciate you. Good luck!
Bob Dick
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 19:33:22 EDT
Subject: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside: Part II
To: megalist@brokersys.com
In a message dated 4/10/99 1:08:14 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
> By the way, a person who is interested
> only in Kevin's side of the story is called a "Langdonoid". Are *you* a
> Langdonoid? I'm asking because a Langdonoid is a complete waste of my
> time...and everyone else's too. No Langdonoid has ever contributed
> anything worthwhile to this group.]
Chris, I am getting sick and tired of your vanity and insults. I hereby
challenge you to name one legitimate (i.e. not Maxim) Megarian other than
yourself who appreciates the CTMU and the over 100 pages of Mega journal
derived from it as worthwhile contributions.
You have admitted that NO one has EVER paid you any money for an intellectual
contribution. Has ANYone of consequence EVER commented favorably on an
intellectual contribution of yours? Who? When?
I repeat my claim that Chris Langan is a crackpot in the sense that he has an
exalted sense of his own intellectual importance coupled with a near-total
failure to arouse that sense in any intellectual peer.
Bob Dick, PhD
Published Author
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:15:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Is Langan a Heaviside: Part II
Below is Bob Dick's latest attempt to get my goat. I started to compose a
detailed reply mentioning recent correspondence with Noam Chomsky, Tom
Wolfe, and so on...people far more successful, and perhaps more
intelligent, than almost anyone in this group. But I caught myself and
pressed "cancel". Why? Because nothing one says to a yapping lapdog like
Bob Dick will ever make him shut up. All Kevin Langdon has to do is stick
a biscuit under his snout, and Bob will raise the roof to earn his treat.
However, I would like to say something about intellectual progress. The
greatest inroads are often made by people out of the mainstream. Why?
Precisely because they have nothing to lose by being conspicuously less
mediocre than their more successful colleagues, who ignore them and pat
each other on the back for repeating each other's mistakes. What the world
needs now is not another crop of academic parrots, but at least one real
supergenius. For this, future generations of humanity - the ones who stand
to benefit from the most advanced work done today - would, if the choice
were theirs, gladly trade a million second-rate, oxygen-wasting Dicklike
hacks and call it a bargain.
The Mega Society does not exist for $500 intellectual whores like Bob
Dick (not, mind you, that Bob shouldn't be proud that he finally sold an
article; it's just that the paltry, stinking $500 he was paid is obviously
what he considers the most important part of his achievement). Rather, the
Mega Society exists to nurture real geniuses...the ones who can expect no
appreciation from academia, because they can too easily make academia look
bad. That's the Mega Society I belong to. What "Mega Society" Bob Dick or
any other Langdonoid belongs to, on the other hand, is not a fruitful
concern for anyone but Kevin Langdon.
I hope this helps clarify my position on Bob Dick. [This makes twice that
I've come home from work as the sun rises on Sunday morning, only to find
a "love note" from Bob in my mailbox. Find yourself a woman, Bob - nobody
should have to spend Saturday night composing hate mail.]
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999 GR2rojad@aol.com wrote:
[See above.]
From: GR2rojad@aol.com
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 05:59:05 EDT
Subject: [MegaList] Langan is not a Heaviside
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Chris Langan has said or implied:
1) He wants his work reviewed by his intellectual peers, the members of the
Mega Society.
2) NObody has approved of his work, not even among his intellectual peers,
except a few famous people in casual exchanges of letters.
3) Nevertheless he, Chris, is a supergenius.
Thus, sorted out from all the chaff and crap we see that Chris agrees with me
that he is a crackpot. I will attempt in the future to decline battles of
wits with this unarmed man.
Bob Dick
Running dog of the capitalist imperialists (and the archfiend Langdon).
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:37:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Langan is not a Heaviside
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999 GR2rojad@aol.com (that's Bob Dick) wrote:
> Chris Langan has said or implied:
>
> 1) He wants his work reviewed by his intellectual peers, the members of the
> Mega Society.
> 2) NObody has approved of his work, not even among his intellectual peers,
> except a few famous people in casual exchanges of letters.
> 3) Nevertheless he, Chris, is a supergenius.
Actually, I have not directly called myself a "supergenius". I don't have
to. The Mega Society selects all of its applicants to be "supergeniuses",
at least in potential. That's the meaning of our qualification standard.
Of course, woe betide the one who states this in front of Bob Dick. No
one is more fearless than Mr. Dick when it comes to defending the high
standards of mediocrity that he and Mr. Langdon have set for this group.
> Thus, sorted out from all the chaff and crap we see that Chris agrees with me
> that he is a crackpot. I will attempt in the future to decline battles of
> wits with this unarmed man.
Does Dick have a bug up his rear? Aside from his mentor Kevin, that's the
only possible reason I can think of for the "we". And I would be quite
happy if Mr. Dick, in view of my putative dearth of wit, were never again
to open his yappy little mouth in my direction. For one thing, I could
remove the ear plugs.
As far as Heaviside - the postal pensioner with a genius for physics and
savior of the Trans-Atlantic Cable - was concerned, let's all breathe a
sigh of relief for him. For if, when he was being shunned by academia, he
had lit upon the Mega Society as an alternative venue for his genius, Mr.
Dick would have taken the opportunity to say something like this:
"Can you name one single person in the physics community who will come
forward and say that he has benefited from your supposedly great work? A
single peer who will say that you are anything but a crank? Is there a
single thing you can say to those not impressed by your mathematical
chicken-scratchings that would lead anyone to believe that you are a real
supergenius? Aside from a journal article or two that nobody understood
and for which you received no money, has anyone ever rewarded you in any
way? Of course not! So all you are is a miserable old crank on a miserable
pension. Nya, nya, nya-nyaaa-nya!"
And poor old Heaviside would have shot himself before the Trans-Atlantic
Cable ever hit the water.
Chris Langan
From: "Paul" <paul@jitterbug.prestel.co.uk>
To: "MEGA LIST" <MegaList@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Langan versus Langdon
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:04:55 +0100
KL has repeatedly requested comments from other members on the "KL v. CL" exchange.
The result.....? <Silence>
So here's my ten pence worth. However, I'm only going to say why I've remained silent. Personally, I have very little knowledge/interest in this particular area, so I'm simply unable to make a useful contribution. (For instance, I have absolutely no idea how to define isomorphism. I've never needed to use the word.)
In point of fact, my general attitude to philosophy is not all that favourable - but to be fair I don't know enough about it to have a valid opinion. As far as I'm concerned, there's not enough time to study as it is and I tend to prefer hard science. I do think about things that might be called "philosophical" but I don't read about it or use any tighly-defined "-isms". It's just an interesting distraction like filling in crosswords or solving puzzles.
Anyway, I feel the "debate" is quite an entertaining read now, aside from acerbic personal attacks. At least there's a bit of activity in the "Mega Society" folder now.
The best messages come from Don O'Brien, in my opinion.
That's all!
Paul Johns.
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 19:18:23 -0700
To: MegaList@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Langan is,is not,is,is not,is a Heaviside
Hi Chris,
I'm beginning to wonder if I really belong in the Mega Society.
Perhaps I got really lucky when I took the test that qualified
me. Maybe it was scored incorrectly and I don't really qualify.
Perhaps I should not be allowed to speak in this forum.
[Kevin: I realize it's unlikely you've kept all the tests
you've scored over the years, but whatever records you might
have on me should probably be given another look, just in case
we need to ask Steve to kick me off this list]
[Steve: please be ready to immediately remove me from
this list should Kevin discover an error. I don't
want to waste the time of supergeniuses with my blithering
drivel should it turn out that I'm actually an idiot and
don't belong here. I don't feel like an idiot, but perhaps
that's normal for an idiot. I'm not sure idiots would be
smart enough to know they were idiots. Yes, that makes
sense, because by definition idiots aren't very smart.
Sorry, I do go on....does anyone know...is going on
like this a characteristic of idiocy?]
Sorry for the distraction Chris, anyway, my problem is that
I'm trying very hard to understand one of your recent emails,
and I don't seem to be smart enough to find any meaningful
content or useful purpose.
[everyone else: I'm sure it's obvious to you all and I
apologize for taking your time with my lack of comprehension]
I'm worried that it's over my head, and I'm really
not smart enough to appreciate your intelligent and
insightful comments, which I'm sure many others in this
group are savoring and perhaps printing out to read over
and over, reveling in your genius and wisdom. I'm feeling
very lonely and left out.
Could you spend just a few minutes helping me understand
at least one or two of the points I am missing?
I realize it would mean the risk of debasing yourself in
front of the others to come down to my level and use simple
words and reasoning to explain things to my dimwitted mind
but I would really appreciate it.
In one place you said:
LANGAN> ...Actually, I have not directly called myself
LANGAN> a "supergenius".
While that may be true you immediately followed the statement
with three sentences where you indirectly (but correctly,
if I may add!) implied you were a supergenius:
--1--
LANGAN> I don't have to.
--2--
LANGAN> The Mega Society selects all of its applicants
LANGAN> to be "supergeniuses",at least in potential.
--3--
LANGAN> That's the meaning of our qualification standard.
I just can't find any useful content here, no matter how hard
I think about it. My brain hurts. The difference between
"directly" and "indirectly" is only a simple matter of a
choice of words. So all I see happening here is you using
a lot of verbiage to _indirectly_ call yourself a "supergenius",
while denying that you have _directly_ called yourself a
"supergenius". So what? Either you are or you aren't.
What's the big deal? Whether you say it or don't say it
or say it directly or say it indirectly doesn't change
anything. What subtle point am I missing?
I am also curious why you feel the need to repeat it so many
times! Without a logical reason, (I'm sure there is one, but
I am obviously missing it) one might guess it has to do with
a self-esteem problem, meaning you have your own private doubts,
but why would you want to let everybody know about that?
Please! We ;-) have an obligation to look smart here.
Anyway, another thing I don't get:
LANGAN> ....I would be quite happy if Mr. Dick, in view of my
LANGAN> putative dearth of wit, were never again to open his
LANGAN> yappy little mouth in my direction.
I'm afraid that again I fail to see whatever deep meaning you
intended by this comment. At least one person on this list
has privately suggested to me the possibility that we are
both missing witty and subtle points artfully disguised as
invective, but so far after putting our head together we
have been unable to substantiate this possibility.
(No, the singular use of "head" above is not an error,
actually I was referring to myself since I am also on the
list)
My understanding is that you can use email filters to
automatically delete messages from anyone you choose without
having to read them. Please help, is there something about
email I should know? Or have I missed your intent completely
and the above criticism of Mr. Dick is actually a metaphor
I am unable to grasp?
And another:
LANGAN> For one thing, I could remove the ear plugs.
Again, total confusion on my part! How do ear plugs protect
you from reading email text when you could filter it?
Now I'm really beginning to feel stupid!
This is way over my head.
As far as the remaining text I have not quoted, any pertinent
facts or useful insight is so far beyond me that I'm not even
sure how to formulate questions about it. Unless you care to
explain further, I will have to resign myself to completely
missing all those potentially significant points.
Thanks in advance, I am eagerly looking forward to your
profound wisdom in reply,
Don O'Brien
P.S. If it turns out I really do belong in the Mega Society,
would you mind if I consider myself a "Langanoid?" Clearly
there is much I have to learn, but I want to learn from and
be associated with the best. Clearly you are the best, since
much of what you say I can't (yet) comprehend. I probably
shouldn't expose my stupidity like this, but most of what
you say sounds like total gibberish. I am eager learn,
and one day I hope to go back and read your words, and
with newfound knowledge, be enlightened by them.
P.P.S. Hey Chris, sorry to go on, but something is disturbing
me. If there really is a crackpot (or two!) in our midst,
we need to expose them before any future publicity of
the Mega Society. Any crackpots in the group could make
us ;-) look very bad simply by association. I'm not sure
who the crackpots are, but I think you would agree with me
if I were to say that Kevin and Bob are the prime suspects.
The problem is, how can the normal not-so-intelligent public
distinguish between an intelligent person and a crackpot when
they both use really big words nobody else understands?
We need to find a way to trick them with simple language
anyone can understand, and EXPOSE THE CRACKPOT(S)! I realize
I may be the crackpot, (and not realize it!) but truth is
more important than any individual, so I am willing to accept
the consequences if it turns out to be me.
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 03:52:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: MegaList@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Langan is,is not,is,is not,is a Heaviside
Well, it was bound to happen. As soon as Paul Johns testified to the
effect that Don O'Brien's messages were the creme de la creme of this
list, my fate was sealed. I knew that this was all the encouragement Don
would need in order to assume that the subscription roster consists of 20
or so Paul Johnses, every one of them holding his breath in anticipation
of more priceless O'Brien wit.
In keeping with Don's own desire for brevity, I've trimmed away some of
the unnecessary parts of his message (I'd have trimmed away all of the
unnecessary parts, but then there would be nothing left).
> In one place you said:
>
> LANGAN> ...Actually, I have not directly called myself
> LANGAN> a "supergenius".
>
> While that may be true you immediately followed the statement
> with three sentences where you indirectly (but correctly,
> if I may add!) implied you were a supergenius:
>
> --1--
> LANGAN> I don't have to.
> --2--
> LANGAN> The Mega Society selects all of its applicants
> LANGAN> to be "supergeniuses",at least in potential.
> --3--
> LANGAN> That's the meaning of our qualification standard.
>
> I just can't find any useful content here, no matter how hard
> I think about it. My brain hurts. The difference between
> "directly" and "indirectly" is only a simple matter of a
> choice of words. So all I see happening here is you using
> a lot of verbiage to _indirectly_ call yourself a "supergenius",
> while denying that you have _directly_ called yourself a
> "supergenius". So what? Either you are or you aren't.
> What's the big deal? Whether you say it or don't say it
> or say it directly or say it indirectly doesn't change
> anything. What subtle point am I missing?
OK, Don. I confess...I'm a supergenius. Does that make you happy? Are you
happy now, Don?
But there's something else to consider...something that one of your
penetrating insight can't possibly have missed. To wit, you are
subscribing and contributing to an email list to which only
supergeniuses have been invited (Steve already explained this to me,
so I know it for a fact). By accepting that invitation, you, Don O'Brien,
have personally accepted the mantle of "supergenius". It's like receiving
an invitation to join the House of Lords; if you're not a Lord, you
wouldn't have been invited. And once you accept the invitation, you're a
Lord for sure! So join the party. Pinch the hostess. Enjoy the punch.
>
> I am also curious why you feel the need to repeat it so many
> times! Without a logical reason, (I'm sure there is one, but
> I am obviously missing it) one might guess it has to do with
> a self-esteem problem, meaning you have your own private doubts,
> but why would you want to let everybody know about that?
> Please! We ;-) have an obligation to look smart here.
Well, actually, Don, I didn't say it at all - directly or indirectly -
until Robert Dick informed me, much to my chagrin, that I had already
unwittingly done so. So if you really want to locate the source of my
immodesty, I'm afraid you're destined to end up on Bob's new $500 doormat.
But I'm sure the two of you can find something of mutual interest to
discuss.
> > Anyway, another thing I don't
get: >
> LANGAN> ....I would be quite happy if Mr. Dick, in view of my
> LANGAN> putative dearth of wit, were never again to open his
> LANGAN> yappy little mouth in my direction.
>
> I'm afraid that again I fail to see whatever deep meaning you
> intended by this comment. At least one person on this list
> has privately suggested to me the possibility that we are
> both missing witty and subtle points artfully disguised as
> invective, but so far after putting our head together we
> have been unable to substantiate this possibility.
> (No, the singular use of "head" above is not an error,
> actually I was referring to myself since I am also on the
> list)
What's all this about "deep meaning"? Not everything I write has to pass
for one of the Dead Sea scrolls. After all, so far, you've used hundreds
of words to say precisely nothing. Can't I waste a few dozen of my own?
Can't a supergenius just kick back and enjoy life for a minute?
>
> My understanding is that you can use email filters to
> automatically delete messages from anyone you choose without
> having to read them. Please help, is there something about
> email I should know? Or have I missed your intent completely
> and the above criticism of Mr. Dick is actually a metaphor
> I am unable to grasp?
>
> And another:
>
> LANGAN> For one thing, I could remove the ear plugs.
>
> Again, total confusion on my part! How do ear plugs protect
> you from reading email text when you could filter it?
> Now I'm really beginning to feel stupid!
> This is way over my head.
Regarding ear plugs, it's a little-known fact that they're usually made
not to eliminate sound completely, but only to reduce it to tolerable
levels. And supergenius though I surely am, I know nothing about email
filters (I hate to seem like a Luddite, but I have an old-fashioned Pine
email account and read all my email directly off a public server). Anyway,
it seems to me that the purpose of an email filter would be to screen your
private correspondence, not to blind you to being slandered on a group
email list. Is any of this making sense to you, Don?
> As far as the remaining text I have not quoted, any pertinent
> facts or useful insight is so far beyond me that I'm not even
> sure how to formulate questions about it. Unless you care to
> explain further, I will have to resign myself to completely
> missing all those potentially significant points.
That'll do for now, I think.
>
> Thanks in advance, I am eagerly looking forward to your
> profound wisdom in reply,
>
> Don O'Brien
>
> P.S. If it turns out I really do belong in the Mega Society,
> would you mind if I consider myself a "Langanoid?" Clearly
> there is much I have to learn, but I want to learn from and
> be associated with the best. Clearly you are the best, since
> much of what you say I can't (yet) comprehend. I probably
> shouldn't expose my stupidity like this, but most of what
> you say sounds like total gibberish. I am eager learn,
> and one day I hope to go back and read your words, and
> with newfound knowledge, be enlightened by them.
"Langanoid"...yeah. I like that. Hey, why should Kevin Langdon be the
only supergenius with a personal "-oid" at his disposal?
> P.P.S. Hey Chris, sorry to go on, but something is disturbing
> me. If there really is a crackpot (or two!) in our midst,
> we need to expose them before any future publicity of
> the Mega Society. Any crackpots in the group could make
> us ;-) look very bad simply by association. I'm not sure
> who the crackpots are, but I think you would agree with me
> if I were to say that Kevin and Bob are the prime suspects.
> The problem is, how can the normal not-so-intelligent public
> distinguish between an intelligent person and a crackpot when
> they both use really big words nobody else understands?
> We need to find a way to trick them with simple language
> anyone can understand, and EXPOSE THE CRACKPOT(S)! I realize
> I may be the crackpot, (and not realize it!) but truth is
> more important than any individual, so I am willing to accept
> the consequences if it turns out to be me.
Admirable, Don. Positively selfless, in fact. I think we can start by
saying that if somebody calls himself a "philosopher", or for that matter,
counts himself qualified to pass a judgment of crankery on someone else
who's talking philosophy, then he'd at least better know what big words
like "objectivity", "model" and "isomorphism" mean (one of
them only has
two syllables, but in the words of the immortal Meat Loaf, 2 out of 3
ain't bad). Otherwise, he'd better get set to be the guest of honor at a
crackpot expose...especially with my number 1 self-declared Langanoid and
fellow supergenius Don O'Brien on the case!
Chris Langan
From: "Paul" <paul@jitterbug.prestel.co.uk>
To: <MegaList@brokersys.com>
Subject: [MegaList] Super-G
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 10:39:45 +0100
>Well, it was bound to happen. As soon as Paul Johns testified to the
>effect that Don O'Brien's messages were the creme de la creme of this
>list, my fate was sealed. I knew that this was all the encouragement Don
>would need in order to assume that the subscription roster consists of 20
>or so Paul Johnses, every one of them holding his breath in anticipation
>of more priceless O'Brien wit.
1.) Perhaps Chris Langan ("Super-G" to his friends: Eric Hart, Chris Michael
and Paul Maxim) is correct about the low quality of Don O'Brien's
contributions?
(My over-estimation of their worth could derive from the massive
contrast-effect between his messages and Super-G's.)
2.) Twenty-or-so Paul Johnses? Yuk!
(That even makes *me* feel sick.)
3.) Chutney.
(By way of a summary.)
Paul Johns, esquire
[Newly-recruited Langanoid and official Super-Mega-Ultra-Hyper-Genius x 10^6
+1]
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 06:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: MegaList@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] Super-G
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Paul Johns (evidently still smarting over our recent
discussion of Newcomb's Paradox) wrote:
> Paul Johns, esquire
> [Newly-recruited Langanoid and official Super-Mega-Ultra-Hyper-Genius x 10^6
> +1]
My army swells. Soon, not even the Langdonoids will be able to withstand
my might!
One little thing, though, Paul. As the newest self-appointed Langanoid,
you are hereby forbidden to compare my messages unfavorably to anyone
else's. Don't get me wrong; you can *like* their messages all you want to,
no matter how stupid they are or how inexplicable your reasons. But when
it comes down to who wins the email Pulitzer, consider me numero uno.
Don't just take it from me. Consider this a petition.
Signed,
Chris Langan
Christopher Michael
Eric Hart
Paul Maxim
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 09:57:13 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
> > So I hereby ask
> > everyone on this list: do you understand what has been said
> > so far?
>
> > I repeat: do you understand what's been said so far?
>
> I'd be interested in that, too.
No. I haven't had the time or interest to filter out
the invective to see if anything has actually been said.
But here and there I might scan through to find something
interesting and twist it around totally out of context just
for the sake of my own amusement, like the following:
> Yes, but not everyone who's seem[sic] black has fallen into the
> clutches of the mental health system.
Interesting choice of words and assumption.
That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said:
> Personally I have found that the ignorance and prejudice
> of others is more of a discouragement than the disease itself.
Perhaps I've decided by my own research that I require something
I can only get with a prescription. Perhaps I found a
psychiatrist who would write the prescriptions *I* want.
And perhaps I've found a way to save a few bucks with some
health insurance that will pay for it.
On the other hand, maybe you are right. Perhaps the psychiatrist
is so incredibly good at manipulation that he has me believing
the above.
It could be worse than that...perhaps the only thing that exists
is my own solipsistic universe, and my mental imbalance is keeping
me from seeing the truth. You should be very concerned that I might
cure myself.
8^)
--Don O'Brien
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:06:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
Hi, folks, just a brief aside as we await Kevin's unconditional
surrender regarding the important philosophical issue under
discussion (I say that when we say "the sun is hot", we are identifying
the terms "sun" and "hot" with the real sun, 93 million miles away in
real
space, while Kevin says otherwise). Coincidentally, my current purpose is
again to avoid attributive confusion.
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Don O'Brien wrote:
> > > So I hereby ask
> > > everyone on this list: do you understand what has been said
> > > so far?
> >
> > > I repeat: do you understand what's been said so far?
[That's me, Chris Langan.]
> > I'd be interested in that, too.
[That's Kevin Langdon.]
>
> No. I haven't had the time or interest to filter out
> the invective to see if anything has actually been said.
[That's a real shame; it means that a lot of what this group is about is
lost on you (psychometrics as well as content). Since you receive only
Kevin Langdon's journal, you get only half the story; I figured you might
want to see the other half too. By the way, a person who is interested
only in Kevin's side of the story is called a "Langdonoid". Are *you* a
Langdonoid? I'm asking because a Langdonoid is a complete waste of my
time...and everyone else's too. No Langdonoid has ever contributed
anything worthwhile to this group.]
> But here and there I might scan through to find something
> interesting and twist it around totally out of context just
> for the sake of my own amusement, like the following:
>
> > Yes, but not everyone who's seem[sic] black has fallen into the
> > clutches of the mental health system.
[That's Kevin Langdon again.]
>
> Interesting choice of words and assumption.
> That's exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I said:
>
> > Personally I have found that the ignorance and prejudice
> > of others is more of a discouragement than the disease itself.
>
> Perhaps I've decided by my own research that I require something
> I can only get with a prescription. Perhaps I found a
> psychiatrist who would write the prescriptions *I* want.
> And perhaps I've found a way to save a few bucks with some
> health insurance that will pay for it.
>
> On the other hand, maybe you are right. Perhaps the psychiatrist
> is so incredibly good at manipulation that he has me believing
> the above.
>
> It could be worse than that...perhaps the only thing that exists
> is my own solipsistic universe, and my mental imbalance is keeping
> me from seeing the truth. You should be very concerned that I might
> cure myself.
[You *do* know that you're addressing Kevin here, don't you? (Book 'im,
dono!)]
At the risk of repeating myself, I regard those with mental problems as
fellow human beings with an illness...an illness that doesn't necessarily
make them "stupid or "inferior", but merely causes a chemical imbalance
in their brains. I'm sure that everyone in this group sympathizes with Don
and Bob, just as we'd want them to sympathize with us if the circumstances
were reversed.
Chris Langan
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:21:25 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: Re: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
LANGAN> ... my current purpose is again to avoid attributive confusion.
O'BRIEN> > > So I hereby ask
O'BRIEN> > > everyone on this list: do you understand what has been said
O'BRIEN> > > so far?
O'BRIEN> >
O'BRIEN> > > I repeat: do you understand what's been said so far?
LANGAN> [That's me, Chris Langan.]
O'BRIEN> > I'd be interested in that, too.
LANGAN> [That's Kevin Langdon.]
Thanks Chris, that's a really good point about attribution. I apologize
to all who may have been confused and hope the above excerpt makes
everything perfectly clear. Now I see my mistake. I made the ASSUMPTION
that there were only two classes of readers:
1) Those who had been closely following the arguments, who would
not need to be reminded who said what (and would appreciate
my brevity)
2) Those whose eyes would gloss over when they saw my email and
would mutter something to themselves like: Oh s**t, now
there's three of them cluttering up my email in-box. These
readers wouldn't know or care who said what. (I'm in this
class myself, that's what I said when my copy came back to me)
But you are correct, there could be another class of reader:
3) Those who hadn't been paying much attention, but became
interested when they saw the obvious wit and creative
intelligence with which I wrote my "Humor break". Clearly
it would be helpful to them to have the proper attributions.
Of course I hadn't thought of myself as being quite that
important or persuasive....
Thanks again Chris for pointing that out.
LANGAN> Since you receive only Kevin Langdon's journal,
LANGAN> you get only half the story....
Oops, another ASSUMPTION. Not to worry, we all make mistakes.
LANGAN> ....By the way, a person who is interested
LANGAN> only in Kevin's side of the story is called a "Langdonoid".
LANGAN> Are *you* a Langdonoid? I'm asking because a Langdonoid is
LANGAN> a complete waste of my time...and everyone else's too.
LANGAN> No Langdonoid has ever contributed anything worthwhile to
LANGAN> this group....
Hmmm a good question....there is something weird here...yes,
now I see it! A syllogism hidden in a word problem! Finally a
fun puzzle to work on. I think I'll try working on this later with
my eyes closed and one arm tied behind my back. I should be able
to solve this within a month or two and then I will know for
absolute certain if I am a "Lang(dono)id" using only pure logic!
LANGAN> Book 'im, dono!
--Don O'Brien
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 17:09:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
Thank you, Don, for your forthright response.
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Don O'Brien wrote:
>
> LANGAN> ... my current purpose is again to avoid attributive confusion.
> O'BRIEN> > > So I hereby ask
> O'BRIEN> > > everyone on this list: do you understand what has been said
> O'BRIEN> > > so far?
> O'BRIEN> >
> O'BRIEN> > > I repeat: do you understand what's been said so far?
> LANGAN> [That's me, Chris Langan.]
> O'BRIEN> > I'd be interested in that, too.
> LANGAN> [That's Kevin Langdon.]
>
> Thanks Chris, that's a really good point about attribution. I apologize
> to all who may have been confused and hope the above excerpt makes
> everything perfectly clear. Now I see my mistake. I made the ASSUMPTION
> that there were only two classes of reader.
I gather you think I'm making too many assumptions. So let's have a look.
> LANGAN> Since you receive only Kevin Langdon's journal,
> LANGAN> you get only half the story....
>
> Oops, another ASSUMPTION. Not to worry, we all make mistakes.
I publish the "other journal", Don. Since you're not on my list, I know
that you don't receive it (from me, anyway). So what you're calling an
"assumption" is really an empirically-confirmed fact (unless someone else
is copying the real journal and sending it to you).
> LANGAN> ....By the way, a person who is interested
> LANGAN> only in Kevin's side of the story is called a "Langdonoid".
> LANGAN> Are *you* a Langdonoid? I'm asking because a Langdonoid is
> LANGAN> a complete waste of my time...and everyone else's too.
> LANGAN> No Langdonoid has ever contributed anything worthwhile to
> LANGAN> this group....
>
> Hmmm a good question....there is something weird here...yes,
> now I see it! A syllogism hidden in a word problem! Finally a
> fun puzzle to work on. I think I'll try working on this later with
> my eyes closed and one arm tied behind my back. I should be able
> to solve this within a month or two and then I will know for
> absolute certain if I am a "Lang(dono)id" using only pure logic!
Actually, I have a hunch that we already possess the answer to this
question. But gosh darn me, there I go again with my "assumptions"! So
maybe you'd like to clear up the confusion. Choose one:
A) Yes, I am interested only in Great Generalist Kevin Langdon's
viewpoint and am therefore a Langdonoid (and damn proud of it!).
B) No, I am interested in both sides of the story, and am capable of
distinguishing valid argumentation from its opposite. How do I get that
other journal you mentioned?
Just A or B will do. If you choose B, then send me your physical address
by private mail and for Christ's sake, read those Mega Society emails
cluttering up your leather-upholstered VIP lounge of an email account.
Relax and Enjoy,
Chris L.
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:25:42 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: re*3: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
LANGAN> I gather you think I'm making too many assumptions. So let's have
a look.
LANGAN>
LANGAN> O'BRIEN> LANGAN> Since you receive only Kevin Langdon's journal,
LANGAN> O'BRIEN> LANGAN> you get only half the story....
LANGAN> O'BRIEN>
LANGAN> O'BRIEN> Oops, another ASSUMPTION. Not to worry, we all make
mistakes.
LANGAN>
LANGAN> I publish the "other journal", Don. Since you're not on my list, I
know
LANGAN> that you don't receive it (from me, anyway). So what you're
calling an
LANGAN> "assumption" is really an empirically-confirmed fact....
I'm impressed, your logic is incredible! Obviously I can conclude that I
have Kevin's Journals around here somewhere. I'm not sure where, but what
the heck, I'll go look through my books and papers. Clearly I've had another
one of those mental problems and lost all memory of ever receiving the
journals.
LANGAN> maybe you'd like to clear up the confusion. Choose one:
LANGAN>
LANGAN> A) Yes, I am interested only in Great Generalist Kevin Langdon's
LANGAN> viewpoint and am therefore a Langdonoid (and damn proud of it!).
LANGAN>
LANGAN> B) No, I am interested in both sides of the story, and am capable of
LANGAN> distinguishing valid argumentation from its opposite. How do I get
that
LANGAN> other journal you mentioned?
LANGAN>
LANGAN> Just A or B will do....
Yeah, right. Reminds me of the grade school question: Does your mother
know you wet your pants at school every day? A simple yes or no will do.
Why not choice (C) below which, just for the sake of argument and my own
personal enjoyment, I have contrived to be as far from both (A) and (B)
as I can manage, in an attempt to make (A) and (B) seem nearly identical,
and both totally unacceptable if (C) is the real answer.
C) I am not at all interested in the story, but I enjoy playing with
various different forms of logic and reasoning. The arguments I find
fascinating, even though I couldn't care less about the content.
I'm not interested in picking a side, that would mean associating one way
or another with facts which don't particularly interest me. After declaring
a viewpoint I would only be able to piss off and make fun of one side,
not both. Why limit my options?
As Joe Friday never said:
"Just the suppositions and rhetoric, ma'm,
we're not interested in the facts"
-- Don O'Brien
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:39:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Langan <clangan@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
To: megalist@brokersys.com
Subject: Re: re*3: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
Don O'Brien wrote:
"I'm impressed, your logic is incredible! Obviously I can conclude that I
have Kevin's Journals around here somewhere. I'm not sure where, but what
the heck, I'll go look through my books and papers. Clearly I've had
another one of those mental problems and lost all memory of ever receiving
the journals."
Sorry, Don. I was under the mistaken impression that you belonged to the
Mega Society...or more accurately, the WCF. I'm glad to see I was
mistaken, especially now that I know how you feel about the intellectual
content of dialogues like the one in progress!
By the way, did you know that Bob Dick is free on Saturday nights?
Regards,
Chris
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 12:14:35 -0700
To: megalist@brokersys.com
From: "Don O'Brien" <dono@scruznet.com>
Subject: re*5: [MegaList] 8^) Humor break 8^)
[Note to everyone: Please do not read this immediately after
eating a meal, or if you are not feeling well. It may contain
dangerously humorous material. Once in my life I vomited because
I laughed too hard at a joke immediately after eating. Vomiting
and laughing at the same time can be fatal. Remember: there was
once a joke so funny it was used to kill enemies in a war.
I know this is true because I remember seeing a Monty Python
documentary on TV about it. --- D.O.]
-------
Excellent reply Chris, thank you. Much more interesting than the
last time. This was much more fun and deserved more than a few
minutes of my thinking. Although I was disappointed with how very
short it was; there wasn't much to work with. (But I'll take that
as a challenge) Overall your logic and reasoning seems to be
improving as this time I have to get down to the microscopic level!
Congratulations!
LANGAN> Sorry, Don. I was under the mistaken impression that
LANGAN> you belonged to the Mega Society...
As invective, excellent, even impressive. The implication is
that I shouldn't be on this list, but you avoided actually
saying that. Unfortunately this is attacking the person,
and avoiding the argument. Your logic fails, since belonging
to the Mega Society and receiving Kevin's journal are not
necessarily identical sets.
LANGAN> ...or more accurately, the WCF.
Very good. Using the word "accurately" in reference to your
own actions. Throwing out a TLA (Three Letter Acronym) always
makes one sound more intelligent. But you assume I know what
WCF stands for, perhaps I don't. It is much better form to
explain your TLA on first use, as I have above.
LANGAN> I'm glad to see I was mistaken,...
Outstanding! This is a technique I often use myself. Admitting
to making a mistake in assuming something good about someone
else. This implies that the good thing is in fact not true
about the other person, disguised in words that seem to admit
a minor and forgivable fault.
LANGAN> especially now that I know how you feel about the
LANGAN> intellectual content of dialogues like the one in progress!
Better! You've avoided making the mistake of actually stating
what you believe to be my feelings about the content. But again,
bad logic, as I've never actually stated my true feelings about it,
so there is no way you could know that. Go back and take a look,
you'll see the following words and phrases:
O'BRIEN> ...Why not...for the sake of argument...contrived...
O'BRIEN> ...if (C) is the real answer.
LANGAN> By the way, did you know that Bob Dick is free on
LANGAN> Saturday nights?
Bad technique. This is so terrible I almost ignored it
out of pity. But I ASSUME you want to improve your debate
skills, so I will explain. You did cleverly manage to insult
two people with one construction, but bringing in a third person
(that you disagree with) when you were arguing with me doesn't
enhance your position at all. So you are left with a statement
which can only be an insult, allowing me to tally the point when
I quote it and reveal it to be such.
Thanks again Chris, I am very much enjoying this fact free and
content void discussion and I am looking forward with anticipation
to my next opportunity to rip your comments to tiny shreds in public.
I've purposely left a few holes in my arguments above to give
you opportunities for more practice. Can you find them all?
(of course if you miss any, *I* get to point them out, and for
those I get triple points!)
Enjoy everyone, and remember to practise safe-laughing!
Don O'Brien