While you find it amusing, Neil, I find it confrontational and disrespectful so usually ignore it. She does have a way of staying on the border, under the bridge, and not coming out guns blazing. One good sting and off she goes smiling. I am surprised to see it openly discussed, but am glad to see it is noticed by the moderators.
On Mar 27, 1:50 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I understand the bot bit, though my dreams of robotised women take a > rather different form! There are supposedly some very advanced text > engines - indeed a friend of mine has turned into one and is making a > partial living writing art criticism whilst unable to distinguish > between an Old Master and a lump of Edam. 'Deep Maiden' makes me > laugh, which is better than having women sniggering about me! I guess > we won't get to the truth until she utters '42' and asks for a > substantial rebuild in order to find out the question. Around the > Iron Man camp-fire, you and I are well into a crate of Steinlager and > Craig is crushing burned corn whilst clocking up some client fees on > his mobile (he's representing a Muslim woman for unfair dismissal over > insisting her husband and a Taliban sect accompany her to work in the > Pentagon) and we have a note about domestic duties from Ian. A couple > of really fat guys who came in a Chieftan tank have caught a hippy > somewhere in the distance and have just borrowed a rope. Seeing this > we have concealed our large, self-manufactured cigarette in Craig's > wallet for later ... > > On 27 Mar, 04:17, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Actually, strangely, the opposite is true, Neil old boy. I had the > > instinct to be stung, and yet I couldn't place my finger on the why. > > The motivation was missing. At times, it almost seems like Gabs is > > some advanced form of AI cycling off responses according to a sense of > > programming I haven't quite figured out. So instead, I decided to > > address the source and see if could understand what the line of > > questioning was. If it's simple Puckery, then I'll wink and > > laugh...well played indeed. It was prostitute that did it...a word so > > disconnected from the depth of connectedness in my post that I had to > > assume it was some sort of trolling. Gab's lack of an overt malicious > > nature makes it difficult to actually take offense, although the > > undeserved sense of persecution at times is a bit worrisome. > > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 12:00 AM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Socrates claimed to act like a gadfly Chris. One lingers briefly on > > > the hope that Gabbers might be easier on the eye than the greek- > > > sandalled hemlock quaffer before realising sexism is crass and lookism > > > a major fetish of history. There are times to rise to the bait and > > > others in which solace can only be gleaned by flying on a beetle to > > > the moon, in tense consideration of the porpoise of the universe. I > > > suspect you have been stung mate, though as more than a three-time > > > loser on the gently-vicious sex front, I fear I cannot give expert > > > evidence. Ointments and unctions may give relief to those Chris- > > > crossed on the crucifix of censorship or spiked on the kebab. Let's > > > dream up an Iron Man hippy-cull and test the ultimate out of body > > > ethical question of our age - whether it should be legal to take the > > > stash off a dead hippy (Cartman for the defence) whilst doing a Flying > > > Harrington stoned on that non-coffee corn burnings the Mormons use in > > > conversion rights. I'm telling you man, this is good stuff! > > > > On 26 Mar, 15:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> That I would do what again, ban you? I wasn't the one who banned you the > > >> first time, Donna, nor do I know the history behind it, although I might > > >> guess it had something to do with abstract posts of an inflammatory > > >> nature. In your history here, you've been known to inject emails which > > >> seemengly had nothing to do with the topic at hand, including one > > >> notable thread where you accused the Mind's Eye Icon of being racist > > >> because the eye was blue. > > > >> As opposed to simply dismissing you out of sorts, since you don't seem > > >> to actually display any sort of maliciousness, I'm simply trying to > > >> understand what it is you are trying to say. Is there a point to your > > >> posts, or are you the Robin Goodfellow of the Eye, determined to inject > > >> mischief where you see fit? I have seen thoughtful participation from > > >> you, articulate conversation on complex topics. I know that this isn't a > > >> language barrier issue. I don't really think you are trying to martyr > > >> yourself on the cross of "Chris is a horrid censor", which is a load of > > >> bollocks anyways. So, fess up, Gabs. Does it crack you up endlessly to > > >> constantly have us on so? > > > >> [ Attached Message ]From:gabbydott <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds > > >> Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Thu, 26 Mar 2009 03:37:16 -0700 > > >> (PDT)Local:Thurs 26 Mar 2009 10:37Subject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Speaking of > > >> Out of Body Experiences... > > > >> Tense mistake. The question always goes : what is the porpoise. > > >> Now I would say that I found out that you would do it again. > > > >> On 26 Mrz., 00:03, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > I would rather you explain the purpose behind making a baseless and > > >> > inflammatory post. Nothing in your statement carries a true > > >> > correlation to what I actually wrote...it bore only the most surface > > >> > resemblance to the topic, and as noted, used loaded language of an > > >> > insulting nature. If you're not trolling, what was the purpose? > > > >> > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:gabbydott <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds > > >> > Eye\"" <[email protected]>Datum:Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:25:54 > > >> > -0700 (PDT)Lokal:Mi 25 Mrz. 2009 23:25Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: > > >> > Speaking of Out of Body Experiences... > > > >> > No, I'm not. Do you want to ban me nevertheless - again? > > > >> > On 25 Mrz., 15:14, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > Gabby, that's a nice turn of phrase, but completely discounts > > >> > > everything I posted, and uses loaded language which seems intended > > >> > > to insult. Being the fan of Wittgenstein that you are, I've wondered > > >> > > if your recent bouts of cantankerousness (with Orn and Slip) were > > >> > > intended to spark ire, while your twinkling eyes watched with a > > >> > > giggle. > > > >> > > Are you trolling, Gabs? > > > >> > > [ Angehängte Nachricht ]Von:gabbydott > > >> > > <[email protected]>In:"\"Minds Eye\"" > > >> > > <[email protected]>Datum:Wed, 25 Mar 2009 04:30:11 -0700 > > >> > > (PDT)Lokal:Mi 25 Mrz. 2009 12:30Betreff:[Mind's Eye] Re: Speaking of > > >> > > Out of Body Experiences... > > > >> > > Speak about your own pains that make you a prostitute for delusional > > >> > > substances instead of ideas, Chris. Kierke set his understanding > > >> > > parameters to overstand, which is fair enough. > > > >> > > On 24 Mrz., 20:20, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > Ah, so you do enjoy a bit of novacaine when having molars extracted > > >> > > > then...and admit that you're only being pedantic and pedagogical > > >> > > > when > > >> > > > making such broad condemnations across a vast portion of the > > >> > > > population. > > > >> > > > In your defense, the "Mormons' Struggle" is part of your ideology. > > >> > > > Combined with the "Salt of the Earth" hard working farmers' > > >> > > > lifestyle, > > >> > > > I would expect a hard edged outlook. However, even farmers like a > > >> > > > good > > >> > > > pint of beer and a couple of Advil after plowing the north 40. It's > > >> > > > all about gradients. > > > >> > > > Winston Churchill turned to the attractive woman next to him and > > >> > > > asked, "Madam, would you be convinced to sleep with me for a > > >> > > > million > > >> > > > pounds?" > > > >> > > > "A million pounds? Why, of course!" she replied. > > > >> > > > "Well then, how about ten pounds?" he asked. > > > >> > > > "Mr. Churchill! What kind of woman do you think I am?" she > > >> > > > responded angrily. > > > >> > > > "We've already established that," he replied. "Now we're > > >> > > > negotiating the price." > > > >> > > > When there are exceptions to the rule, then we have validated the > > >> > > > fact > > >> > > > that the rule is not absolute, and what constitutes an exception > > >> > > > varies according to the perception of the person granting the > > >> > > > exception. You may find it weak that my best friend, who has an > > >> > > > advanced degenerative case of MS needs both Merinol and smoked > > >> > > > Marijuana to ease the muscle spasticity and other symptoms to be > > >> > > > able > > >> > > > to function as a normal human, but I assure you, his struggles to > > >> > > > continue functioning as a tax paying citizen and good father to > > >> > > > three > > >> > > > children are as challenging some mornings as an Olympian > > >> > > > struggling to > > >> > > > shave another 3/100ths of a second off their track time. You mean > > >> > > > no > > >> > > > disrespect to him, you don't know him, and yet you flippantly > > >> > > > dismiss > > >> > > > his pain and suffering as weakness, without ever having witnessed > > >> > > > or > > >> > > > considered his life. > > > >> > > > You think that the pain is good for his soul; yet, what good comes > > >> > > > of > > >> > > > his complete inability to walk or pick up his child? This is what > > >> > > > his > > >> > > > life is like without marijuana. Is that good for his soul, to be > > >> > > > locked in a claw fisted position on the couch? > > > >> > > > You, like many others, make judgements about a movement that you > > >> > > > know > > >> > > > little about. You discount the medical marijuana movement because > > >> > > > you > > >> > > > assume that medical marijuana patients are malingerers looking for > > >> > > > an > > >> > > > excuse to get high. Until you can get past your narrow perspective > > >> > > > which automatically associates marijuana with burnout stoner > > >> > > > hippie, > > >> > > > you'll never be able to judge the issue fairly on its merits, or > > >> > > > see > > >> > > > medical marijuana patients with a truly sympathetic eye. That > > >> > > > doesn't > > >> > > > bode well for your defense attorney work... ;) > > > >> > > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Kierkecraig > > >> > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > What I say and what I do are almost always two different things. > > >> > > > > :) > > >> > > > > But just because I don't practice what I preach doesn't mean > > >> > > > > that what > > >> > > > > I preach is wrong. So I wouldn't call myself a stoic, but a > > >> > > > > defender > > >> > > > > of stoicism. > > > >> > > > > On > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" 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/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
