>>>While I agree with the basic tennents of Objective
>>>Translational dynamics, I have a feeling the personification
>>>nesseccry to to be truly dynamic is a theoretical possibility
>>>only. But not after a round of Guinness!!! :-)
James said (in reply?)...
>>That is udder nonsense. A Reasonable enough request. Lying is not a
>>socially popular behavior to claim in any circumstances that I can quickly
>> recall, so no one would. I hope that can show that I do not lie to
>>get the satisfaction the satisfaction of anyone who asks me for a date!
well, if you asks me (no one has...) If you are looking for more closure
than that,
you aren't going to find it in a discussion group. Especially this one!
I quote...
>>>>From the words of Randi and Porkoff. They both state quite clearly
>>>>that the indicative is the proper method of finger pointing, and
>>>>that one can achieve "contextual reality" when one's observations
>>>>reach the north pole where they become a the property of Santa Klaus'
>>>>identity. Neither Randi nor Piekoff has everything to say about what that
point is
>>>>except that if it does not fit into their scientific viewpoint they
casually
>>>>change the subject.
I don't know who said this, but I have it on good athourity that it WAS
SAID!!! (do you
believe this?)...>>This is very interesting. Of which group would you
consider yourself a
>member? Which would you assign other people on this to?
definately #23!
so... in closing, I must agree with Drakir who stated so eloquently,
> >I always find that pissed people talk much better philosophy, whilst
> >stoned people talk much better surrealism.
however I am neither, ad Hoc, Post Mortis (and that os the ier Truth
bzut)
Jim (digital signature available upon request)