-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: Faustine wrote:
> If, when I came here, I had made the deliberate choice to make an > effort at "getting along" by emphasizing our similarities instead of > differences, I dare say the motivation to dissect-and-destroy every last > comment I ever make would be nonexistent. >>You haven't contributed anything interesting that I can recall. Oh of course not, heaven forfend. >> Even if you discount my comments, surely you must have noticed that rarely >> do your posts generate significant follow-up. (Which is a small blessing.) Who said generating a lot of follow-up was on my "to-do" list? Believe it or not, I'm perfectly fine with contributing here and there when I can and learning from everyone else when I can't. If I were as wrapped up in the pecking order dynamic as you seem to be, I'd really be putting a lot more effort into it. But as it is--given how incredibly busy I am--if my peculiar little set of toys is all I feel like bringing to share at sandbox right now, what concern is it of yours or anyone else's? Why not run along now and kick some sand on one of your boring asskisser friends, shake things up a little... >>Sometimes you natter about about (what) you think the RAND Corporation, your >>apparent ideal, would do things, Well is that a fact Grampy. Nattering about what interests me, alert the media. > and sometimes you praise Herman Kahn Damn straight I do! Anyone interested in libertarian futurism really ought to check him out if they haven't already--and I'm assuming this description applies to quite a few people here...good starting links: http://www.alteich.com/links/kahn.htm I seem to remember your having a few kind words for a work or two of his yourself--so I do hope you won't go running down a great man just for the sake of getting at me. >and other O.R. types. Hooey. > But you have nothing significant to contribute about anything closely related > to list themes. There you go again, defining what's acceptable for people what to talk about. Anyway, as always, it's not what you say or don't say on a list, its what you do. In the abstract, it would be kind of useful to talk to you about it, but in practice that's not really an option. A shame, really. >You should think about some of the real issues and come up with some >kind of incisive analysis or creative proposal As should we all. Fair enough, but I've written plenty I haven't felt like posting here for a number of reasons. Maybe I will, maybe not, who cares. Even if I left it to others to post "significant" ideas it hardly matters. >even Choate is more on-topic than you've been. You know, I like arguing with Choate: too bad you pissed him off to the point he feels the need to post newslinks all the time. Did you catch how he didn't start up again until you said you "quieted him down" or whatever it was? Thanks a lot. >The lectures from you about how we're a bunch of untrained amateurs are >getting old. Oh come on, that's all in your head. Like you're one to talk about being condescending about what people know and dont know! Pot, kettle, look in the mirror. Looking forward to your next significant post, ~~Faustine. *** "If you don't like 'em, ignore them or filter them. That's the Cypherpunk way of doing things." Tim May, on the Cypherpunks list, 1995 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBPLUJAfg5Tuca7bfvEQLdegCg+S2sDHGzsGOTBVPNMf9x8Bn3NWQAoOpF KG4JNBT8BOO+tK0+wjp6qVwn =tFxE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
