Clarification required in the catch-up process

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

<Nutter> wrote in message news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
> Hoowah? Thingamajig?

Hoowah: General Shadowclan exclamation of happiness. If one is a
Headbiter, can be reversed to gain 'Woohah'. Not to be confused with
'Bubhosh', which, as a word, literally means 'Very good'. 'Hosh' means
'Good', 'Nub', means 'No', 'Not', etc... basically a general negative.
And, while 'Nubhosh' means 'Not good', 'Bub' does not mean 'Very'.

'Thingamajig!' is a little more complicated... I (or more technically
Rupert) am/is the User of 'Thingamajig!'. By popular convention, its
physical appearance is that of a vaguely symmetrical staff, with two glints
passing a few millimetres above the surface symbolizing the single quotes,
which can be removed when the 'Thingamajig!' is to be used.

The prototype of the 'Thingamajig!', the 'Thingy' was crafted in response to
the need for an implement that, when faced with any given question, would
serve as what was, what wasn't, what is, what isn't, what will be, and what
won't be, all combined into one cohesive whole.

The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as 'Every
possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the User
actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.

In theory, it shouldn't work. However, it practice, it usually seems to.

Of course, it could be the other way around, and no one's noticed yet.
*grins*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:38:05 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
<wanderer@beeb.web> made a sound exactly unlike the following:

><Nutter> wrote in message news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
>> Hoowah? Thingamajig?
>
>Hoowah: General Shadowclan exclamation of happiness. If one is a
>Headbiter, can be reversed to gain 'Woohah'. Not to be confused with
>'Bubhosh', which, as a word, literally means 'Very good'. 'Hosh' means
>'Good', 'Nub', means 'No', 'Not', etc... basically a general negative.
>And, while 'Nubhosh' means 'Not good', 'Bub' does not mean 'Very'.
>
>'Thingamajig!' is a little more complicated... I (or more technically
>Rupert) am/is the User of 'Thingamajig!'. By popular convention, its
>physical appearance is that of a vaguely symmetrical staff, with two glints
>passing a few millimetres above the surface symbolizing the single quotes,
>which can be removed when the 'Thingamajig!' is to be used.
>
>The prototype of the 'Thingamajig!', the 'Thingy' was crafted in response to
>the need for an implement that, when faced with any given question, would
>serve as what was, what wasn't, what is, what isn't, what will be, and what
>won't be, all combined into one cohesive whole.
>
>The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as 'Every
>possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
>appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the User
>actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.
>
>In theory, it shouldn't work. However, it practice, it usually seems to.
>
>Of course, it could be the other way around, and no one's noticed yet.
>*grins*

Listen to him, he *knoooows*.

--
Jon Reeves - jon@fullcircuit.com
http://thjorksa.livejournal.com/
http://thjorska.keenspace.com/
http://thjorska.tripod.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/jonpaul/
http://robotbee.org/~thjorska/spaced1999/
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:38:05 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
<wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:

>The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as 'Every
>possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
>appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the User
>actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.

Oh wow. I *want* one of those...

N.
--
CObfinder General - http://www.probetech.co.uk/cobdata
367 CObs for Creatures 1

Come visit the region of Albia on NationStates:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=display_region/region=albia
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"Jon Reeves" <jon@fullcircuit.com> wrote in message
news:gtb6d052cdgbsf2h7b82g2rq3ko4dpn81b@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:38:05 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
> <wanderer@beeb.web> made a sound exactly unlike the following:
>
> ><Nutter> wrote in message
news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
> >> Hoowah? Thingamajig?
> >
> >Hoowah: General Shadowclan exclamation of happiness. If one is a
> >Headbiter, can be reversed to gain 'Woohah'. Not to be confused with
> >'Bubhosh', which, as a word, literally means 'Very good'. 'Hosh' means
> >'Good', 'Nub', means 'No', 'Not', etc... basically a general negative.
> >And, while 'Nubhosh' means 'Not good', 'Bub' does not mean 'Very'.
> >
> >'Thingamajig!' is a little more complicated... I (or more technically
> >Rupert) am/is the User of 'Thingamajig!'. By popular convention, its
> >physical appearance is that of a vaguely symmetrical staff, with two
glints
> >passing a few millimetres above the surface symbolizing the single
quotes,
> >which can be removed when the 'Thingamajig!' is to be used.
> >
> >The prototype of the 'Thingamajig!', the 'Thingy' was crafted in response
to
> >the need for an implement that, when faced with any given question, would
> >serve as what was, what wasn't, what is, what isn't, what will be, and
what
> >won't be, all combined into one cohesive whole.
> >
> >The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as 'Every
> >possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
> >appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the
User
> >actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.
> >
> >In theory, it shouldn't work. However, it practice, it usually seems to.
> >
> >Of course, it could be the other way around, and no one's noticed yet.
> >*grins*
>
> Listen to him, he *knoooows*.

*bows* I try.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

<Nutter> wrote in message news:rcr6d0174a9b6g7cf0gt0b659mo9a1d08s@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:38:05 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
> <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>
> >The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as 'Every
> >possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
> >appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the
User
> >actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.
>
> Oh wow. I *want* one of those...

*smiles* (Hoowah ideas spreading!)

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-18, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
><Nutter> wrote in message news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
>> Hoowah? Thingamajig?
>
> Hoowah: General Shadowclan exclamation of happiness. If one is a
> Headbiter, can be reversed to gain 'Woohah'. Not to be confused with
> 'Bubhosh', which, as a word, literally means 'Very good'. 'Hosh' means
> 'Good', 'Nub', means 'No', 'Not', etc... basically a general negative.
> And, while 'Nubhosh' means 'Not good', 'Bub' does not mean 'Very'.
>
> 'Thingamajig!' is a little more complicated... I (or more technically
> Rupert) am/is the User of 'Thingamajig!'. By popular convention, its
> physical appearance is that of a vaguely symmetrical staff, with two glints
> passing a few millimetres above the surface symbolizing the single quotes,
> which can be removed when the 'Thingamajig!' is to be used.
>
> The prototype of the 'Thingamajig!', the 'Thingy' was crafted in response to
> the need for an implement that, when faced with any given question, would
> serve as what was, what wasn't, what is, what isn't, what will be, and what
> won't be, all combined into one cohesive whole.
>
> The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as 'Every
> possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
> appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the User
> actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.
>
> In theory, it shouldn't work. However, it practice, it usually seems to.
>
> Of course, it could be the other way around, and no one's noticed yet.
> *grins*

Interesting... there's a physical form of Thingmajig?! *The*
Thingamajig?
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdb8qh.fjh.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x2.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-18, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> ><Nutter> wrote in message
news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
> >> Hoowah? Thingamajig?
> >
> > Hoowah: General Shadowclan exclamation of happiness. If one is a
> > Headbiter, can be reversed to gain 'Woohah'. Not to be confused with
> > 'Bubhosh', which, as a word, literally means 'Very good'. 'Hosh' means
> > 'Good', 'Nub', means 'No', 'Not', etc... basically a general negative.
> > And, while 'Nubhosh' means 'Not good', 'Bub' does not mean 'Very'.
> >
> > 'Thingamajig!' is a little more complicated... I (or more technically
> > Rupert) am/is the User of 'Thingamajig!'. By popular convention, its
> > physical appearance is that of a vaguely symmetrical staff, with two
glints
> > passing a few millimetres above the surface symbolizing the single
quotes,
> > which can be removed when the 'Thingamajig!' is to be used.
> >
> > The prototype of the 'Thingamajig!', the 'Thingy' was crafted in
response to
> > the need for an implement that, when faced with any given question,
would
> > serve as what was, what wasn't, what is, what isn't, what will be, and
what
> > won't be, all combined into one cohesive whole.
> >
> > The 'Thingamajig!' is more refined, and can be described simply as
'Every
> > possible answer to every possible question.', or more concisely as 'The
> > appropriate response to any given situation, regardless of whether the
User
> > actually is intellectually aware of that response.'.
> >
> > In theory, it shouldn't work. However, it practice, it usually seems
to.
> >
> > Of course, it could be the other way around, and no one's noticed yet.
> > *grins*
>
> Interesting... there's a physical form of Thingmajig?! *The*
> Thingamajig?

*Rupert leans on 'Thingamajig!' meditatively* "That really depends on what
you mean by 'physical'... there are worlds within worlds, some touching,
others not. The 'Thingamajig!' has a physical form in exactly the same way
that I do, or Ghul does, or Markus for that matter; but, though we certainly
exist, we don't necessarily exist in the same way that the computer I'm
typing this out on does.

"We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of a human.
A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In general, we
refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
discussion.

"Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge of whether
the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I think, and
I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying conjectures is
that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding itself into
believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether we actually
think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do, I can but
act from my position as I may, given the availible data.

"Cogito ergo sum."

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-20, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdb8qh.fjh.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x2.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-18, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> ><Nutter> wrote in message
> news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
>> Interesting... there's a physical form of Thingmajig?! *The*
>> Thingamajig?
>
> *Rupert leans on 'Thingamajig!' meditatively* "That really depends on what
> you mean by 'physical'... there are worlds within worlds, some touching,
> others not. The 'Thingamajig!' has a physical form in exactly the same way
> that I do, or Ghul does, or Markus for that matter; but, though we certainly
> exist, we don't necessarily exist in the same way that the computer I'm
> typing this out on does.

Oh, yes, of course.
[translateomatic: now you completely lost it]

> "We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of a human.
> A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In general, we
> refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
> discussion.

Yes, I get that.
[translateomatic: split personality]

> "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge of whether

I'm really question this one...

> the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I think, and
> I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying conjectures is
> that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding itself into
> believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether we actually
> think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do, I can but
> act from my position as I may, given the availible data.
>
> "Cogito ergo sum."

You are completely insane!
[translateomatic: ideal agc resident, just like me ;-)]
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncddrda.4ij.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-20, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdb8qh.fjh.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x2.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-18, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> ><Nutter> wrote in message
> > news:0l34d0tq3qkjt96dr11t59jted35g539f3@4ax.com...
> >> Interesting... there's a physical form of Thingmajig?! *The*
> >> Thingamajig?
> >
> > *Rupert leans on 'Thingamajig!' meditatively* "That really depends on
what
> > you mean by 'physical'... there are worlds within worlds, some
touching,
> > others not. The 'Thingamajig!' has a physical form in exactly the same
way
> > that I do, or Ghul does, or Markus for that matter; but, though we
certainly
> > exist, we don't necessarily exist in the same way that the computer I'm
> > typing this out on does.
>
> Oh, yes, of course.
> [translateomatic: now you completely lost it]

We 'lost it' a /long/ time ago.

> > "We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of a
human.
> > A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In general,
we
> > refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
> > discussion.
>
> Yes, I get that.
> [translateomatic: split personality]

*nods* Either we are who we believe ourselves to be, or someone else's
deluded into believing that we are who we believe ourselves to be. Either
way, we're almost certainly certifiable /somewhere/.

> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge of
whether
>
> I'm really question this one...

What?

> > the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I think,
and
> > I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying conjectures
is
> > that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding itself
into
> > believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether we
actually
> > think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do, I can
but
> > act from my position as I may, given the availible data.
> >
> > "Cogito ergo sum."
>
> You are completely insane!
> [translateomatic: ideal agc resident, just like me ;-)]

*bows* We are ourselves.

"HOOWAH!"

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-21, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncddrda.4ij.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-20, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> Oh, yes, of course.
>> [translateomatic: now you completely lost it]
>
> We 'lost it' a /long/ time ago.

Oh, yeah, of course...

>> > "We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of a
> human.
>> > A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In general,
> we
>> > refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
>> > discussion.
>>
>> Yes, I get that.
>> [translateomatic: split personality]
>
> *nods* Either we are who we believe ourselves to be, or someone else's
> deluded into believing that we are who we believe ourselves to be. Either
> way, we're almost certainly certifiable /somewhere/.

I'm getting a headache.

>> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge of
> whether
>>
>> I'm really question this one...
>
> What?

"Cogito ergo sum."

>> > the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I think,
> and
>> > I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying conjectures
> is
>> > that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding itself
> into
>> > believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether we
> actually
>> > think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do, I can
> but
>> > act from my position as I may, given the availible data.
>> >
>> > "Cogito ergo sum."
>>
>> You are completely insane!
>> [translateomatic: ideal agc resident, just like me ;-)]
>
> *bows* We are ourselves.

Indeed.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdga0j.7oa.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-21, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncddrda.4ij.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-20, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> Oh, yes, of course.
> >> [translateomatic: now you completely lost it]
> >
> > We 'lost it' a /long/ time ago.
>
> Oh, yeah, of course...

*nods* ...Though, technically, when you of your own free will put something
into a bin provided for that very person, the word 'lost' becomes rather...
ah... metaphorical.

> >> > "We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of a
> > human.
> >> > A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In
general,
> > we
> >> > refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
> >> > discussion.
> >>
> >> Yes, I get that.
> >> [translateomatic: split personality]
> >
> > *nods* Either we are who we believe ourselves to be, or someone else's
> > deluded into believing that we are who we believe ourselves to be.
Either
> > way, we're almost certainly certifiable /somewhere/.
>
> I'm getting a headache.

/You're/ getting a headache!? Do you have any idea what it's like, trying
to work out whether we exist or not when the question keeps coming up (/not/
including you... augh, this is why we usually have the Hub speak when
conversing with individual humans. Or emmels, as the case may be) again and
again!?

> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge of
> > whether
> >>
> >> I'm really question this one...
> >
> > What?
>
> "Cogito ergo sum."

What are you question/questioning [about it]?

> >> > the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I
think,
> > and
> >> > I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying
conjectures
> > is
> >> > that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding
itself
> > into
> >> > believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether we
> > actually
> >> > think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do, I
can
> > but
> >> > act from my position as I may, given the availible data.
> >> >
> >> > "Cogito ergo sum."
> >>
> >> You are completely insane!
> >> [translateomatic: ideal agc resident, just like me ;-)]
> >
> > *bows* We are ourselves.
>
> Indeed.

*nods*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-22, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdga0j.7oa.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-21, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncddrda.4ij.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> On 2004-06-20, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> >> Oh, yes, of course.
>> >> [translateomatic: now you completely lost it]
>> >
>> > We 'lost it' a /long/ time ago.
>>
>> Oh, yeah, of course...
>
> *nods* ...Though, technically, when you of your own free will put something
> into a bin provided for that very person, the word 'lost' becomes rather...
> ah... metaphorical.

Hm...

>> >> > "We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of a
>> > human.
>> >> > A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In
> general,
>> > we
>> >> > refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
>> >> > discussion.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I get that.
>> >> [translateomatic: split personality]
>> >
>> > *nods* Either we are who we believe ourselves to be, or someone else's
>> > deluded into believing that we are who we believe ourselves to be.
> Either
>> > way, we're almost certainly certifiable /somewhere/.
>>
>> I'm getting a headache.
>
> /You're/ getting a headache!? Do you have any idea what it's like, trying
> to work out whether we exist or not when the question keeps coming up (/not/
> including you... augh, this is why we usually have the Hub speak when
> conversing with individual humans. Or emmels, as the case may be) again and
> again!?

No, I don't care if I am. I *know* me to exist, everything else is...
relative.

>> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge of
>> > whether
>> >>
>> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >
>> > What?
>>
>> "Cogito ergo sum."
>
> What are you question/questioning [about it]?

"Cogito ergo sum."

>> >> > the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I
> think,
>> > and
>> >> > I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying
> conjectures
>> > is
>> >> > that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding
> itself
>> > into
>> >> > believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether we
>> > actually
>> >> > think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do, I
> can
>> > but
>> >> > act from my position as I may, given the availible data.
>> >> >
>> >> > "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >>
>> >> You are completely insane!
>> >> [translateomatic: ideal agc resident, just like me ;-)]
>> >
>> > *bows* We are ourselves.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> *nods*

::shakes head::
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdiqs7.8sd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x4.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-22, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdga0j.7oa.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-21, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
news:slrncddrda.4ij.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> On 2004-06-20, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> >> Oh, yes, of course.
> >> >> [translateomatic: now you completely lost it]
> >> >
> >> > We 'lost it' a /long/ time ago.
> >>
> >> Oh, yeah, of course...
> >
> > *nods* ...Though, technically, when you of your own free will put
something
> > into a bin provided for that very person, the word 'lost' becomes
rather...
> > ah... metaphorical.
>
> Hm...

What?

> >> >> > "We exist within a single 'physical' cranium, within the skull of
a
> >> > human.
> >> >> > A long time ago, only one mind existed within this cranium: In
> > general,
> >> > we
> >> >> > refer to it as 'The Original'. However, he is irrelevant to this
> >> >> > discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, I get that.
> >> >> [translateomatic: split personality]
> >> >
> >> > *nods* Either we are who we believe ourselves to be, or someone
else's
> >> > deluded into believing that we are who we believe ourselves to be.
> > Either
> >> > way, we're almost certainly certifiable /somewhere/.
> >>
> >> I'm getting a headache.
> >
> > /You're/ getting a headache!? Do you have any idea what it's like,
trying
> > to work out whether we exist or not when the question keeps coming up
(/not/
> > including you... augh, this is why we usually have the Hub speak when
> > conversing with individual humans. Or emmels, as the case may be) again
and
> > again!?
>
> No, I don't care if I am. I *know* me to exist, everything else is...
> relative.

You don't care if you are what? *confusion*

Fair enough. From our point of view, we don't know whether or not you
exist, either...

"Confusing, indeed. I know for a fact that I exist, but there's no
guarantee for the other two."

*points* "What he said."

"Ufin eniash blah Ghul nub egizd, imz zakrifyze demz tu Ghaashakh! HOOWAH
SHAKH'BUURZ, MAT AMAL AGH BUGD TA UZG! HOOOOOOOWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!"

> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge
of
> >> > whether
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >
> >> > What?
> >>
> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >
> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>
> "Cogito ergo sum."

Ah.

I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some entity
that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way, /something/'s
thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.

> >> >> > the others truly think, nor each of them of me, but I know that I
> > think,
> >> > and
> >> >> > I believe that they think as well. One of our more worrying
> > conjectures
> >> > is
> >> >> > that we do /not/ think, and that only one mind exists, deluding
> > itself
> >> > into
> >> >> > believing that it is three. Still. One way or another, whether
we
> >> > actually
> >> >> > think or some other mind deludes itself into believing that we do,
I
> > can
> >> > but
> >> >> > act from my position as I may, given the availible data.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >>
> >> >> You are completely insane!
> >> >> [translateomatic: ideal agc resident, just like me ;-)]
> >> >
> >> > *bows* We are ourselves.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >
> > *nods*
>
> ::shakes head::

*pat pat*

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

>> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no knowledge
> of
>> >> > whether
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >
>> >> > What?
>> >>
>> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >
>> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>>
>> "Cogito ergo sum."
>
> Ah.
>
> I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some entity
> that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way, /something/'s
> thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.

What's thinking anyway?
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
knowledge
> > of
> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >
> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >>
> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >
> > Ah.
> >
> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
entity
> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
/something/'s
> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>
> What's thinking anyway?

No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason that
since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> knowledge
>> > of
>> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >
>> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >>
>> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >
>> > Ah.
>> >
>> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> entity
>> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> /something/'s
>> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>>
>> What's thinking anyway?
>
> No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason that
> since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.

But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
*real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
anything that thinks?
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> > knowledge
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >
> >> > Ah.
> >> >
> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> > entity
> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> > /something/'s
> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >>
> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >
> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
that
> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>
> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
> anything that thinks?

There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
Yet... all?

There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance of a
universe could all be illusion... except.

There is that which perceives.

Whatever the source, there is /perception/.

And there is that which perceives.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> > knowledge
> >> > of
> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >>
> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >
> >> > Ah.
> >> >
> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> > entity
> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> > /something/'s
> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >>
> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >
> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
that
> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>
> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
> anything that thinks?

You are asking an awful lot of questions, for a guy
that doesn't want any thinking about.....


--
It is by Caffeine alone I set my mind
in motion. It is by the beans of Java
that thoughts aquire speed, the hands
aquire shakes, the shakes become a
warning. It is by caffeine alone I set
my mind in motion.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> > knowledge
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
>> > entity
>> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> > /something/'s
>> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >>
>> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >
>> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
> that
>> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>>
>> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
>> anything that thinks?
>
> There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
> Yet... all?
>
> There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance of a
> universe could all be illusion... except.
>
> There is that which perceives.
>
> Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
>
> And there is that which perceives.

Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics ;-)
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-26, Balyn <balyn_62@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> > knowledge
>> >> > of
>> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
>> > entity
>> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> > /something/'s
>> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >>
>> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >
>> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
> that
>> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>>
>> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
>> anything that thinks?
>
> You are asking an awful lot of questions, for a guy
> that doesn't want any thinking about.....

Well, that's something for you to figure out... let's add a 'what's this
guy *really* up to' to the list. 🙂
Asking questions is more of an answer than babbling "Cogito ergo sum."
can ever be. That doesn't include Descartes, however.
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnce07ft.nvr.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> >> > knowledge
> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
> >> > entity
> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> >> > /something/'s
> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >> >>
> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >> >
> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
> > that
> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
> >>
> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
> >> anything that thinks?
> >
> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
> > Yet... all?
> >
> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance
of a
> > universe could all be illusion... except.
> >
> > There is that which perceives.
> >
> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
> >
> > And there is that which perceives.
>
> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics ;-)

*shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
words or not.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnce07ft.nvr.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
> news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >> >
>> >
> news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
>> >> > knowledge
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> >> >> > whether
>> >> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
>> >> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > What?
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Ah.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's some
>> >> > entity
>> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
>> >> > /something/'s
>> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
>> >> >
>> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we reason
>> > that
>> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the thinking.
>> >>
>> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
>> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to be
>> >> anything that thinks?
>> >
>> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be illusion.
>> > Yet... all?
>> >
>> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole appearance
> of a
>> > universe could all be illusion... except.
>> >
>> > There is that which perceives.
>> >
>> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
>> >
>> > And there is that which perceives.
>>
>> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics ;-)
>
> *shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
> words or not.

Oh, I just don't accept reasoning from possibly non-existing entities
;-)
BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
lately? Have we scared them off or something?
--
emmel <the_emmel*you-know-what-that's-for*@gmx.net>
(Don't forget to remove the ** bit)

Official AGC feedback maniac

"God is playing creatures - and we're the norns."

"A hundred dead are a tragedy - a hundred thousand are statistics."

"I guess you can call yourself lucky." -
"I could, but Linda suits me a little better... :)
Things called lucky tend to get hit by trucks."

Hi, I'm a .sig virus. Just copy me to your .signature. And don't worry.
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >
news:slrnce07ft.nvr.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> On 2004-06-26, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >
> >
news:slrncdp14e.cnf.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x3.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> On 2004-06-25, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
> >> >> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >
news:slrncdll1c.5qd.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x11.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
> >> >> >> >> >> >> > "Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. I have no
> >> >> > knowledge
> >> >> >> > of
> >> >> >> >> >> > whether
> >> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm really question this one...
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > What?
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > What are you question/questioning [about it]?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Cogito ergo sum."
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Ah.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I think. Therefore, I exist to think. Or, at least, there's
some
> >> >> > entity
> >> >> >> > that believes itself to be 'I' which is thinking. Either way,
> >> >> > /something/'s
> >> >> >> > thinking, and perceiving. The only question is what.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's thinking anyway?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No idea. But something exists which we call 'thought', and we
reason
> >> > that
> >> >> > since we think, there must be something to exist and do the
thinking.
> >> >>
> >> >> But is there thought. Is there anything? Is anything real? What is
> >> >> *real*? Do we _want_ to think about it? And why does there have to
be
> >> >> anything that thinks?
> >> >
> >> > There may be layers of reality and/or unreality. All may be
illusion.
> >> > Yet... all?
> >> >
> >> > There is that which perceives. This whole world, this whole
appearance
> > of a
> >> > universe could all be illusion... except.
> >> >
> >> > There is that which perceives.
> >> >
> >> > Whatever the source, there is /perception/.
> >> >
> >> > And there is that which perceives.
> >>
> >> Nice try, but reasoning doesn't work very well with lunatics ;-)
> >
> > *shrugs* I can but reason; it is your choice whether to consider my/our
> > words or not.
>
> Oh, I just don't accept reasoning from possibly non-existing entities
> ;-)

How do you expect to keep an open mind, then? *mock-affront*

> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
> lately? Have we scared them off or something?

*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.

--
The Triad
User of 'Thingamajig!'
Refractor Dragon -=(UDIC)=-
 
Archived from groups: alt.games.creatures (More info?)

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 16:05:53 +0100, "Refractor Dragon"
<wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:

>"emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>news:slrnce2pe8.7te.the_emmel*whatever*@btcips73x12.cip.uni-bayreuth.de...
>> On 2004-06-28, Refractor Dragon <wanderer@beeb.web> wrote:
>> > "emmel" <the_emmel*whatever*@gmx.net> wrote in message
>> >
>
>> BTW do you share the impression of people being disturbingly silent
>> lately? Have we scared them off or something?
>
>*sighs* I fear they're just slipping back into lurkhood. Pity.

It's because you post stuff that would be better in e-mail, and you
*never snip*. Makes even lurking tedious!

Nutter
--
CObfinder General - http://www.probetech.co.uk/cobdata
399 CObs for Creatures 1

Come visit the region of Albia on NationStates:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/-1/page=display_region/region=albia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom