Dawn!

quote[quote] Hail Satan! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [/quote]

I think you meant to say Hail Santa! Aleck, because your cyber behaviour is indicative of someone who acts as if they’re (their, there [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] ) Xmas’ have all come at once. The *truth* is that you positively *need* other people’s opinions to dis/agree with in order to insert and inscribe yourself. At least that way, you can regularly flex your muscles in public, treating others as a mirror in which to reflect back your own mental and moral ‘superiority’. We can always rely on smart Aleck to correct, revise and/or supplement our thoughts with his broad knowledge, refined intellect and easy going temperament (lol to the latter).

Witness your petulant and imperious parting cheap shot to Squish – thank God there (they’re, their [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] ) are people like him to invariably make you look good. You must have positively felt like this [img]images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] when reminding us that you are the superior grammarian and logician. And where would YOU be if DT (and others) didn’t give you an opportunity to publicly chastise, amend and/or humiliate someone – no doubt, preying on some other misguided *fool* in order to affirm and esteem yourself. The *Truth* is Aleck: if DT, Squish, I and any other instances of the *conditioned* masses didn’t exist, your ego would have had to ‘invent’ them (condition them as such). Which, of course, is one of the MANY themes of solipsism, whose mantra can be summed up as : Man is the measure of all things. And when the measure (and measurer) is Aleck, all things must come back and down to you.

You are actually not unlike Brizon in Lexx – a *parasitic* life form who needs to plug himself into another host’s lifeforce in order to feed and animate his own. I would even go so far as to suggest that you’re a predatory parasite, and that your behaviour online too often resembles cyber stalking – you’ll pick a subject, person, etc and *go in for the kill* just to make yourself feel vindicated and alive. The fact that some people enjoy – not to mention, allow – your antics is an added bonus for you – more lifeforces to feed off and re/animate yourself.

quote[quote] Bonnee doesn’t launch into some pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-philosophical dissection of anyone’s particular personal philosophies unless they disagree with his. Bonnee says that I “contradict (my)self at every turn by presuming to contradict anyone else.” That’s ridiculous. As far as Bonnee’s concerned, because of some pathological need to focus on *my* personal philosophies for whatever insipid reason, I am not allowed to hold *any* opinion that differs from anyone else’s, particularly his. Bonnee would, I guess, enjoy his life more if I simply took whatever opinion was offered to me as my own. [/quote]

God, I just *love* revisionist history. It was you, not so smart Aleck, who introduced pseudo intellectual questions into the equation when I dared to whinge about Lexx. You invoked concepts of *proof*, *truth*, *subjectivity*, *reality tunnels*, etc in order to insipidly preclude the possibilty of any disagreement (interesting how your tune changes when you don’t have an indirect involvement and obvious commercial interest with the show. If Acorn Media were releasing the DVDs of the new Star Wars films, would you have been such a contrary and arbritary jack ass? [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] ). As far as YOU were concerned, there was nothing to be profitably gained or lost in dis/agreeing about the perveived merits of the fourth season of Lexx – unless , of course, YOU wanted to whinge about Attack of the Clones and encourage re/conditioned mortals to agree with you. Suddenly it was a forum for discussion again – as long as the audience could be held captive by your own observations which somehow could NOW be subject/ed to rational standards and evaluation (however irrational our outbursts).

Unlike Jason (who I thought was you at Lexx.com ), you were unprepared to discuss the questions YOU RAISED and then ABANDONED (not to mention, VIOLATED when it suited you). Unfortunately for you, the person you tried to pull rank on happened to be a professional philosopher with his own television column in a film quarterly. It was his lifeblood to actively engage with such questions – when you couldn’t feed off his lifeforce, he was designated a troll. But that is the pot calling the kettle black, Potty. Your subsequent behaviour indicated that you didn’t really believe that there were certain contraints placed upon one another’s subjectivity, especially if and when we could all be subjected to your own. So basically Aleck, it has been your pretence and posturing that has been underlined and exposed. I have always indicated that the possibilty of rational dis/agreement is built into the very notion of conversation, and so, reality is not a *tunnel* (now, there’s a rigorous intellectual concept) but the *light* at the end of it. It is by moving towards this figarative light that we can (hopefully) bring certain questions and standards to the light of day, and evaluate them accordingly. As far as I am concerned, your dis/parate behaviour is much more telling than Lee’s ‘mistake’ regarding the sexual imagery in the Garden episode, and I intend to chastise you similarly. You typically liked to remind him of the (apparent) error in judgement in order to put him (back) in his place – consider my mocking of you as a variant of being similarly held to account.

At least DT can claim to believe his own truth here – and YOU should have been amongst the first to defend such a claim. Instead, you’ve been (and remained) intellectually dishonest when it should have really counted, revealing you to be intellectually fraudelent if and when someone reveals themselves to be Aleck deviant and/or deficient. Its easier to ridicule someone than to defend them of course – especially when you can (somehow) cite *norms* and *normality* (read: other people’s experience, especially via your own) as the mediator and ‘measure of all things’. And the certitude/insistence of your vehement attack on Attack of The Clones is symptomatic of such contradictory, brazen self – fraudulence (not to mention, noisy flatuence and self flagellation)

quote[quote]I know it must take a real social dynamo to name themselves after a puppet. [/quote]

Well, I suppose it takes a real social dynamo to collect them as substitute for real companions [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Perhaps you should go and get the one filled with bulldust and ask *it* to explain the meaning and implications of solipsism to you. A ventrilloquist double act would give you some indication of how you inscribe your own meaning and value. Maybe puppet Aleck can point out to you that ‘Man as the measure of all things’ can be taken in the singular and the plural, unless that man (of course) happens to be named Aleck. Witness the example of presuming to make your own obviously limited experience of the concept as a way of delimiting its possible or actual application regarding anyone else.

Once you’ve got the basics of the [i]problem[/i] right (and like any philosophical concept, the emphasis should be placed upon the problematic status of the concept itself ), then you can presume to gauge and measure my own in/capacity to understand its implications and consequences. Don’t forget to use yourself as the best possible indicator though. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

Hail the Easter Bunny! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[ 26-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]