I am aware of this technological brekthrough but it's not really
practicable on a small list like this where discussions are usually
intertwined.
O.K.
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 6:26 AM, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"you can cease to pay attention to anyone"
Yes, but automating the process eliminates recurring irritation. Good,
perhaps, for health and sanity both.
John
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Before people decide to leave altogether, allow me to observe that mostmodern email programs make it possible to see only messages from people
with whom you wish to remain in contact. You can stay a member of the group
and quietly cease to pay attention to offensive individuals.>
Allow me to add that you can cease to pay attention to anyone - with or
without using a modern email program, you can do it for many other reasons
than that they are "offensive", and you can do it while deceiving yourself
it is merely because they are "offensive".
That said, it is clear to me that Adriano has, time and again, gone
beyond the bounds of acceptable comment (as well as the bounds of sense).
This is a price we pay for an uncensored list and of course raises the
question whether it is worth paying. It also raises the question whether
Adriano should continue to exact this price: I suggest he and everyone
would be better off if he gave his invective a break - say for a year or
two.*
Dnl
*This would at least give greater prominence to my own over the same
period.
On Tuesday, 28 April 2015, 2:49, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Before people decide to leave altogether, allow me to observe that most
modern email programs make it possible to see only messages from people
with whom you wish to remain in contact. You can stay a member of the group
and quietly cease to pay attention to offensive individuals.
Cheers,
John
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
We have had one member here who constantly wished to discuss Heidegger,
meaning mostly biographical information. (No substantial idea by Heidegger
was ever discussed in all those years.) Finally it was pointed out to him
in a somewhat blunt way that Heidegger's toilet life isn't all that
interesting, at which he left the list righteously offended. Perhaps more
of those farewell messages are coming.
O.K.
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:55 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I'd suggest that W.'s biography still lacks some crucial details. (Our
Geary might be surprized to learn that there are very similar requirements
for godheads in various religions):
- Virgin birth - this is absolutely a must. No godhead was ever begotten
by a mortal man, although the body of a mortal woman may be used as a
wessell of God's will. We can't have W. being born in an ordinary, prophane
way.
-Dangerous prophecy - when W. was born, some sage must informed the King
of the land of imminent danger. The King should then take steps to kill the
dangerous child. There are several different ways to keep the child alive -
raised by shepherds is the recommended version, but raised at Cambridge
might perhaps do.
-Tested by the Devil - in some way or other this must happen. Perhaps
this is why is W. is said to have given his money to relatives who were
already rich. Older versions had it that he chased the merchants out of the
temple.
-Crucifixion - this is highly recommended but if the godhead is not
willing to die in pain, perhaps he can sacrifice a plant instead.
-Resurrection - absolutely a must
There is more, but for now these are the necessary (but not sufficient)
conditions
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Omar wrote
*Well, the implication was somewhat different. No, W. wasn't Stalin or
Hitler - he didn't kill millions of people, he only talked a lot of
nonsense - but the personality cults might have remarkable similarities
nevertheless. Celebrating the birthday of a man who has long been dead
strikes me as being much in those lines.
Robert replied
You simply leap to the conclusion that those who study and have studied
Wittgenstein, belong to a cult (complete with secret handshakes, signs,
and words). Perhaps they meet by moonlight in basements and attics to...do
whatever they do, in your story. They're slyer than sly, more circular
than der Wiener Kreis, and have been known to kidnap Heideggerians and hold
them for ransom. A bad bunch—especially because their books, papers—and
even their speech—is completely unintelligible. And these behaviorists
in disguise, are this way intentionally. They do it on purpose! Do you
think G. E. Moore died a natural death? Well, think again. Nothing is as it
seems with these people—think of that Duck-Rabbit! Would bona fide
biotaxonomists create a rabbit that might be a DUCK? Perhaps this will be
clear to you; perhaps not. I'll only say this: if you encounter a lion in
your garden and when it speaks, you CAN understand it, well...you really
don't want to be there. Go inside, dial 999-AUGUSTINE, and wait.
Robert Paul
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
--
John McCreery
The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
Tel. +81-45-314-9324
jlm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.wordworks.jp/
