Yes, never mind the thought police. they falsely imagine "we" want to win, when
it's them who
do and we don't want to lose, which is quite different eh!
adrian
Timothy Monicken wrote:
> WOW, I in NO way intended to "talk down" to anyone in this group... HELL
> NO! In fact I HATE that kind of "posturing." This model is just a wee
> bit "esoteric" BUTT ("...and it's a big BUTT, Simone!" - sorry you gotta
> be a fan of Pee-wee Herman to get this obscure attempt at levity/humor),
> BUTT, we are giving it "our best" to make it "exoteric." The language
> used, is often given to "example" /because/ of the broad spectrum of
> "familiarity" with this kind of model... but hell yea, *you're right!*
> >>* It ain't "rocket science"* and the /only/ reason it took /us/ 20
> years of research, is 'cause we're a tad bit slow on the "uptake." No,
> it is for this reason that we are absolutely convinced that we _cannot_
> be the only group out there with a completed model. We are just the only
> one fool-hearty enough to bring it out for public perusal. I hope this
> helps to ameliorate any misgivings about the approach we've adopted.
> It's just that I've felt it necessary to bring some members who've
> displayed "kneejerk reactionism" to task... so maybe it seems I've been
> a bit severe in my treatment of them. NO, I do NOT lump the membership.
> I'm assuming these are just the frustated "thought-police" trying to
> control what is "acceptable fodder" for their psuedo-intellectual
> exploits> one of your members called them "Hyjackers?" maybe it was you?
> - couldn't have said it better! Sorry Adrian, I will /try/ to explain
> any of your questions as time allows AND I hope that you can forgive any
> lapses in trying to cover the spread of familiarity... yes, much of this
> WILL BE "prima facie" for you, but you must remember that you're
> probably in the 90th percentile and my group's efforts are aimed at
> /whoever/ shows interest... not just the "gifted." Again. sorry if I
> unintentionally bruised any intellectual sensibilities of yours. LATER< TJM
>
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 6:28 PM, adrian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> Timothy, post us urls, urls, urls, SOME of us don't like getting
> things dished out in selective
> dribbles. I am quite able to handle intuitve stuff, understand
> systems theory quite well thank
> you but don't think its the be all and end all. Your octahedral
> model is a copy of a way to
> model earth magnetic field so that's no great shake. Just don't
> falsely generalise from SOME
> idiots that they are all idiots. Nor think of it as a great secret
> only fit for the elected.
> adrian
>
>
> ornamentalmind wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Epistemology" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
