Chaos Magic

[tsig]

So I shouldn't respect or trust any other humans, and assume that every person I meet is an arrogant fool who is totally full of crap? Is this your sage advice?

That's better than listening to the voices in your head.

Figuring out who's full of crap and who isn't is the beginning of wisdom.

 

[Resume]

Did you get a strawman construction set for Christmas?

It seems to be a popular gift.

 

[tsig]

Did you get a strawman construction set for Christmas?

The straw men are fun esp when he soaks them in the oil of ad hominim and sets them ablaze.

 

[Zanders]

I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.




Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Part of that is many original source materials. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison. Until then, STFU. Sir.

I actually understand where you are coming from. Because one does not exactly always have to read the source materiel if the interpretations made in many comparative books match up with what you have experienced for yourself. Although I myself don't beleive that the Quran was meant to have an inner mystical meaning based on all of the details I know about it's creation and the behavior of the writer. I believe that whatever it is interpreted to mean has much less value than what came from the creator's own mouth. It's sort of like when a novel is said to have subtext that the author never intended, like the Horton Hears a Who pro-life comparison I made earlier.

By the way, I don't think I have told you to "STFU". And if I did in the past, I was very rude and apologize.

 

[Nonpareil]

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.

Your ignorance is staggering.

….but we don’t accept anecdotes as evidence …

except, of course, in every single decision every single person makes every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year of their lives. So basically, anecdotal evidence is good enough to make a choice about a life partner, or whether to become president of the United States, or whether to bring another child into the world, or whether to order a big mac or a salad, but when it comes to a claim of an experience that skeptics just can’t stomach, it’s pure fraud.

…whaddya call that, confirmation bias or something?

No. I call it false.

We don't accept the anecdotes as evidence on their face. We accept them as evidence because the supporting evidence is readily available.

You may want to read through the thread so far before you say things like this. This topic has already been covered.

How’s this for a bare assertion:

If it exists, we should be able to detect it (simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many wonderful and elusive things that our scientific instruments can detect). Since we cannot detect it, we must conclude that it does not exist. Science at it’s most profound (personally, if I were a betting man, I’d say your odds of handling any kind of Nobel prize with this level of scientific reasoning has just plummeted to somewhere below absolute zero).

That's a rather obvious straw man. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to realize this, as you lack the ability to understand the argument being made.

Everything that exists has some effect on the universe. This effect can range from massive - Earth's gravity well, for example - to miniscule. The smallest of the small have effects so tiny that it's almost impossible to detect them - but they can be detected in theory. They exist. They have an effect. This means that the effect can, theoretically, be detected.

So the things which exist have an effect on the universe. That's not arguable. That's the definition of existence. Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.

This means that, theoretically, we can detect everything that exists in one way or another. We may not yet possess the instruments necessary to actually do it, but there is nothing actively preventing us from doing so.

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.

Not only is this a straw man of many JREFers' positions, it's simply irrelevant. There are thousands of people who think that homeopathy works. Is this evidence that it does? Of course not.

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy.

Does it matter? Chomsky may be incredibly intelligent. This does not mean that he is infallible.

You're not making an argument here, annnnoid. You're just committing the bare assertion fallacy by proxy.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being (specifically, the human being in question) to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.

He doesn't. You still don't understand the arguments being made.

We can detect emotions. We can register when someone is feeling roughly a certain way. We simply lack a total map of the brain which would allow us to determine in real time exactly which chemicals in which area trigger which emotion.

This in no way alters the fact that we know that emotions are neurological processes.

You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not

He did not. That you don't understand this is hardly surprising, but it is rather funny.

So why don’t we ask the question since you seem so concerned about the answer: How normal is it to be a creature that did not create itself, does not create itself, does not understand it’s own existence, yet at the very same time is fundamentally defined by a phenomenon known as ‘understanding', seems to function within a reality known as a universe that nobody really understands the true nature of, and for the most part has the ability to behave as if none of this is even relevant. I guess, dlorde, that some things are just not apparent to the naked eye.

Seems pretty normal to me, even if everything you listed is true. "Normal" is defined by consensus.

Really. Perhaps you could provide a coherent explanation as to why the debate rages unabated? Oh yeah, I forgot…the belligerents have simply failed to acknowledge your profound wisdom…as, apparently, have the Nobel committee. You’ve already got the whole thing figured out. End of discussion.

No one has claimed that they have complete, total, perfect knowledge of every mechanism in the brain. We do know, though, the general methods by which it works, and we do know that there is nothing paranormal about it. Or, if you want to be pedantic, we know enough to say that there is no need and no evidence of anything paranormal about it.

I await your presentation of the instrument that can definitively determine the condition of the subjective consciousness of any human being anywhere anytime…to any reasonable degree actually, let alone explicitly as that specific human being is experiencing it them-self.

That was your claim, prove it.

No, it wasn't.

Your claim, specifically, was that we have scientific instruments capable of detecting anything

No, it wasn't.

Try to read for comprehension rather than spouting straw men and nonsense.

 

[annnnoid]

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.

Of course there’s no need to actually support massive generalizations with anything as inconvenient as evidence. You’re a skeptic….only woo woo’s actually have to provide evidence to support their claims. Skeptics are omnipotent and thus exempt from their own rules.

So basically Argent, you are quite specifically stating that if an individual claiming to be experiencing a subjective state that they would describe using the words “I scintillate” (which is one of the words I presented….or any one of the billions of possible variations unique to every single human being) were given an MRI or a CT scan or some other variety of neurological test (care to name one) the MRI or CT scan or whatever would, after completing the test, produce the result…”this specific individual is experiencing the specific condition described by these words: “I scintillate”.

….because if that is what you are claiming, then the services of the half million or so psychologists in the US will no longer be needed. Because all we will have to do to get an accurate picture of the subjective condition of a particular patient is plug them into this magical device that Pixy (or you) has yet to produce.

202-336-5500….that’s the number for the American Psychological Association. Doubtless they’ll want to hear about this breakthrough.

In fact, it should make our legal system a hell of a lot simpler as well. Plug in potential suspects and it should be easily possible to determine who is lying….or is that not one of the things we are currently capable of accurately detecting? Hang on…come to think of it, it isn’t. According to all available evidence, there does not even exist an accurate neurological test to adjudicate one of the most basic of human conditions: honesty …except under very rigorously controlled conditions (and why should your magical machine require rigorously controlled conditions…I don’t encounter most of the words on that list under rigorously controlled conditions and neither does anyone else [except maybe you and Pixy]), and even then there is a great deal of controversy about the results…which is why lie detector results are not admissible in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world (and even when they are they are only admissible under the aforementioned rigorously controlled conditions).

I mean, how much more fundamental can you get than that? We have all these supposedly magical neurological tests that can determine everything that can possibly be known about a human being (according to Pixy…and now you) and yet we cannot even determine that most basic of human conditions: when is someone lying. Y’know what Argent…

..you…are…full…of…**** (as usual)….check your facts before you post something.

Or how about I quote you:

Your ignorance is staggering.

No. I call it false.

We don't accept the anecdotes as evidence on their face. We accept them as evidence because the supporting evidence is readily available.

You may want to read through the thread so far before you say things like this. This topic has already been covered.

Did you read what I wrote? Obviously you don’t understand it (can your magical machine detect the condition known as ‘understanding’…maybe you ought to go plug yourself in and learn something).

That's a rather obvious straw man. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to realize this, as you lack the ability to understand the argument being made.

Everything that exists has some effect on the universe. This effect can range from massive - Earth's gravity well, for example - to miniscule. The smallest of the small have effects so tiny that it's almost impossible to detect them - but they can be detected in theory. They exist. They have an effect. This means that the effect can, theoretically, be detected.

So the things which exist have an effect on the universe. That's not arguable. That's the definition of existence. Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.

This is just too hilarious. “Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.” You’re kidding right! I mean, who woulda thunk it!

This means that, theoretically, we can detect everything that exists in one way or another. We may not yet possess the instruments necessary to actually do it, but there is nothing actively preventing us from doing so.

So let me get this straight (because this is getting really complicated). What you’re saying is that if something exists, we should be able to theoretically detect it (when?...tomorrow, in five hundred years?)? Really Sherlock….and how many decades of college did it take them to teach you that pearl of insight? …and things might exist that we don’t have the instruments to detect but just because we don’t have the instruments to detect them does not mean that they don’t exist. Dude…truly profound!!! Should I point out that this flatly contradicts Pixy’s position. But that would be to quibble I’m sure.

Not only is this a straw man of many JREFers' positions, it's simply irrelevant. There are thousands of people who think that homeopathy works. Is this evidence that it does? Of course not.

So what you’re saying with your unique Argent-analogy type thing is that just because there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums, that does not actually mean there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums. Is this what you’re saying…or are you saying that it’s somehow irrelevant to point out that there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness (at JREF or anywhere else)…when it is quite specifically consciousness that we are discussing? Ok then. I hope you don’t work in any kind of management position Argent.

Does it matter? Chomsky may be incredibly intelligent. This does not mean that he is infallible.

Hang on, did I suggest Chomsky is infallible? …let me have a look. Nope. And usually when someone is described as ‘incredibly intelligent’ it implies that what they have to say carries substantial weight (like when they say there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness for example)….more so than people who have not earned that distinction.

You're not making an argument here, annnnoid. You're just committing the bare assertion fallacy by proxy.

Of course. Chomsky has a lifetime of experience as a highly respected cognitive scientist yet somehow his conclusion is nothing more than ‘bare assertion’. Personally, I would be more likely to apply that description to your statement than his. IOW, I’d take Chomsky’s bare assertions over your voluble nonsense any day.

He doesn't. You still don't understand the arguments being made.

We can detect emotions. We can register when someone is feeling roughly a certain way. We simply lack a total map of the brain which would allow us to determine in real time exactly which chemicals in which area trigger which emotion.

…oh it’s ‘roughly’ now is it? You quite explicitly stated at the beginning “Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.”…but now there are qualifications and conditions are there Argent? Care to actually clearly state what your position is, or do you even know?

This in no way alters the fact that we know that emotions are neurological processes.

We ‘KNOW’ this do we? This is simply a vast generalization of all but no value.

He did not. That you don't understand this is hardly surprising, but it is rather funny.

Pixy did not say anything about ‘theoretically’ (did you read it?). That you don’t understand this is, I suppose, hardly surprising….and you’re not even worth laughing at.

This is exactly what Pixy said:

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

…and then he went on to explicitly and implicitly describe the apparently limitless range of phenomenon that we are able to detect.

…and then Pixy said the following:

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

So Pixy is quite clearly implying that we have the ability to measure just about everything (in that all-but-limitless range of things that are detectable) and since we don’t measure anything when we try to measure for psi it must mean that there is nothing to measure for (I’m sure if I trolled though the thousands of Pixy’s posts I could find numerous examples of him either saying exactly that or something pretty close to it).

When you want to rage and sputter and accuse someone of introducing strawmen at least get your facts straight Argent.

Seems pretty normal to me, even if everything you listed is true. "Normal" is defined by consensus.

You know what you should do Argent, you should go and find that link I made to Scott Atrans talk about the atheist disease of rationality and read it from beginning to end. You just might learn something about how absurd your response is.

No one has claimed that they have complete, total, perfect knowledge of every mechanism in the brain. We do know, though, the general methods by which it works, and we do know that there is nothing paranormal about it. Or, if you want to be pedantic, we know enough to say that there is no need and no evidence of anything paranormal about it.

…not even wrong…and if you can’t recognize the gaping holes in this argument by now it would be an utter waste of time for me to once again list them all.

And I guess I'll leave you with a piece of your own advice:

Try to read for comprehension rather than spouting straw men and nonsense.

Edited to mask profanity. Do not evade the autocensor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Rat

 

[tsig]

Of course there’s no need to actually support massive generalizations with anything as inconvenient as evidence. You’re a skeptic….only woo woo’s actually have to provide evidence to support their claims. Skeptics are omnipotent and thus exempt from their own rules.

So basically Argent, you are quite specifically stating that if an individual claiming to be experiencing a subjective state that they would describe using the words “I scintillate” (which is one of the words I presented….or any one of the billions of possible variations unique to every single human being) were given an MRI or a CT scan or some other variety of neurological test (care to name one) the MRI or CT scan or whatever would, after completing the test, produce the result…”this specific individual is experiencing the specific condition described by these words: “I scintillate”.

….because if that is what you are claiming, then the services of the half million or so psychologists in the US will no longer be needed. Because all we will have to do to get an accurate picture of the subjective condition of a particular patient is plug them into this magical device that Pixy (or you) has yet to produce.

202-336-5500….that’s the number for the American Psychological Association. Doubtless they’ll want to hear about this breakthrough.

In fact, it should make our legal system a hell of a lot simpler as well. Plug in potential suspects and it should be easily possible to determine who is lying….or is that not one of the things we are currently capable of accurately detecting? Hang on…come to think of it, it isn’t. According to all available evidence, there does not even exist an accurate neurological test to adjudicate one of the most basic of human conditions: honesty …except under very rigorously controlled conditions (and why should your magical machine require rigorously controlled conditions…I don’t encounter most of the words on that list under rigorously controlled conditions and neither does anyone else [except maybe you and Pixy]), and even then there is a great deal of controversy about the results…which is why lie detector results are not admissible in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world (and even when they are they are only admissible under the aforementioned rigorously controlled conditions).

I mean, how much more fundamental can you get than that? We have all these supposedly magical neurological tests that can determine everything that can possibly be known about a human being (according to Pixy…and now you) and yet we cannot even determine that most basic of human conditions: when is someone lying. Y’know what Argent…

..you…are…full…of…**** (as usual)….check your facts before you post something.

Or how about I quote you:







Did you read what I wrote? Obviously you don’t understand it (can your magical machine detect the condition known as ‘understanding’…maybe you ought to go plug yourself in and learn something).



This is just too hilarious. “Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.” You’re kidding right! I mean, who woulda thunk it!



So let me get this straight (because this is getting really complicated). What you’re saying is that if something exists, we should be able to theoretically detect it (when?...tomorrow, in five hundred years?)? Really Sherlock….and how many decades of college did it take them to teach you that pearl of insight? …and things might exist that we don’t have the instruments to detect but just because we don’t have the instruments to detect them does not mean that they don’t exist. Dude…truly profound!!! Should I point out that this flatly contradicts Pixy’s position. But that would be to quibble I’m sure.



So what you’re saying with your unique Argent-analogy type thing is that just because there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums, that does not actually mean there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums. Is this what you’re saying…or are you saying that it’s somehow irrelevant to point out that there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness (at JREF or anywhere else)…when it is quite specifically consciousness that we are discussing? Ok then. I hope you don’t work in any kind of management position Argent.



Hang on, did I suggest Chomsky is infallible? …let me have a look. Nope. And usually when someone is described as ‘incredibly intelligent’ it implies that what they have to say carries substantial weight (like when they say there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness for example)….more so than people who have not earned that distinction.



Of course. Chomsky has a lifetime of experience as a highly respected cognitive scientist yet somehow his conclusion is nothing more than ‘bare assertion’. Personally, I would be more likely to apply that description to your statement than his. IOW, I’d take Chomsky’s bare assertions over your voluble nonsense any day.



…oh it’s ‘roughly’ now is it? You quite explicitly stated at the beginning “Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.”…but now there are qualifications and conditions are there Argent? Care to actually clearly state what your position is, or do you even know?



We ‘KNOW’ this do we? This is simply a vast generalization of all but no value.



Pixy did not say anything about ‘theoretically’ (did you read it?). That you don’t understand this is, I suppose, hardly surprising….and you’re not even worth laughing at.

This is exactly what Pixy said:

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

…and then he went on to explicitly and implicitly describe the apparently limitless range of phenomenon that we are able to detect.

…and then Pixy said the following:

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

So Pixy is quite clearly implying that we have the ability to measure just about everything (in that all-but-limitless range of things that are detectable) and since we don’t measure anything when we try to measure for psi it must mean that there is nothing to measure for (I’m sure if I trolled though the thousands of Pixy’s posts I could find numerous examples of him either saying exactly that or something pretty close to it).

When you want to rage and sputter and accuse someone of introducing strawmen at least get your facts straight Argent.



You know what you should do Argent, you should go and find that link I made to Scott Atrans talk about the atheist disease of rationality and read it from beginning to end. You just might learn something about how absurd your response is.



…not even wrong…and if you can’t recognize the gaping holes in this argument by now it would be an utter waste of time for me to once again list them all.
And I guess I'll leave you with a piece of your own advice:

Yet you did it.

 

[carlitos]

annnnoid, the ultimate end of your argument seems headed towards solipsism. Of course, we can't experience exactly what others are experiencing. But we can measure data, compare to other data, and learn things. A blood pressure machine doesn't experience my blood pressure from my perspective or whatever. It measures it.

 

[annnnoid]

Yet you did it.

Did someone say something? Y’know tsig, you’re not even worth the effort to put you on ‘ignore’.

 

[carlitos]

Yet you hit the quote button and typed a reply.

I'd call that number you posted earlier.

 

[annnnoid]

annnnoid, the ultimate end of your argument seems headed towards solipsism. Of course, we can't experience exactly what others are experiencing. But we can measure data, compare to other data, and learn things. A blood pressure machine doesn't experience my blood pressure from my perspective or whatever. It measures it.

No…the ultimate end of my argument is that we’re demonstrably a long way from the ultimate end of this argument and it is ignorant in the extreme to dismiss the mountains of evidence that implicate the area’s of understanding that are gradually being illuminated or have yet to be sufficiently so.

 

[Zanders]

You know, believers (or people that like to use "skeptic" as a buzzword) are the only people I have seen butthurt enough to actually put people on ignore. They seem to like to shut stuff out a lot.

I don't ever hear about people putting users like annnoid or Limbo on their ignore list. Heck, I don't even think I've seen them use it once. Tell me who seems more reasonable.

 

[annnnoid]

Yet you hit the quote button and typed a reply.

I'd call that number you posted earlier.

Maybe tsig will eventually understand that being a waste of time is not something to actually aspire to. It’s the least I can do.

 

[carlitos]

No…the ultimate end of my argument is that we’re demonstrably a long way from the ultimate end of this argument and it is ignorant in the extreme to dismiss the mountains of evidence that implicate the area’s of understanding that are gradually being illuminated or have yet to be sufficiently so.

OK, you speak of mountains of evidence. I could go to google scholar and post a kajillion studies that measure brain activity during things like love, arousal, anger, confusion, etc.

I am afraid that I really don't understand your point. What areas of understanding are gradually being illuminated? This website has a million dollar reward for evidence of the paranormal, and they haven't paid out yet.

Just as a reminder, the OP encouraged us to construct a sigil, and learn chaos magick for ourselves. Have you done this?

 

[annnnoid]

You know, believers (or people that like to use "skeptic" as a buzzword) are the only people I have seen butthurt enough to actually put people on ignore. They seem to like to shut stuff out a lot.

I don't ever hear about people putting users like annnoid or Limbo on their ignore list. Heck, I don't even think I've seen them use it once. Tell me who seems more reasonable.

Well gosh, I’d hate to jeopardize your esteemed opinion of me. How about a little insight Zanders. There are countless really irritating skeptics who actually contribute something (Pixy, for example). Tsig seems to have decided that it is his singular raison-d’etre to spend all his time at JREF spitting out one or two line posts that quite predictably say absolutely nothing. IOW… some people seem to want the attention that being put on ignore (or deserving to be) gives them. A bit paradoxical perhaps, but such is life.

 

[Zanders]

Well gosh, I’d hate to jeopardize your esteemed opinion of me. How about a little insight Zanders. There are countless really irritating skeptics who actually contribute something (Pixy, for example). Tsig seems to have decided that it is his singular raison-d’etre to spend all his time at JREF spitting out one or two line posts that quite predictably say absolutely nothing. IOW… some people seem to want the attention that being put on ignore (or deserving to be) gives them. A bit paradoxical perhaps, but such is life.

But I don't understand why it bothers you so much. There are users that I don't really enjoy reading the posts of, but I can just shrug them off and move on without having to throw them on my ignore list. You never know, some day you might want to see one of their posts. But I think threatening people with your ignore list or making a big deal about it is a little bit silly.

You also referred to skeptics as if they were all annoying, which is a very revealing. I don't think that all believers are annoying, but my opinion is slipping with every post like this I run in to.

 

[Resume]

No…the ultimate end of my argument is that we’re demonstrably a long way from the ultimate end of this argument and it is ignorant in the extreme to dismiss the mountains of evidence that implicate the area’s of understanding that are gradually being illuminated or have yet to be sufficiently so.

Clearly the professor didn't think much of your final paper last semester and it isn't faring much better here. I'll help you out a bit though. In your Philosophy of Science class, refrain from insisting one can prove a negative; in your Creative Writing prep workshop, don't end a short story with "and then I woke up."

There are people who actually know more about stuff than you, as hard as that is to accept.

 

[annnnoid]

But I don't understand why it bothers you so much. There are users that I don't really enjoy reading the posts of, but I can just shrug them off and move on without having to throw them on my ignore list. You never know, some day you might want to see one of their posts. But I think threatening people with your ignore list or making a big deal about it is a little bit silly.

You also referred to skeptics as if they were all annoying, which is a very revealing. I don't think that all believers are annoying, but my opinion is slipping with every post like this I run in to.

Zanders….I really shouldn’t have to point this out and I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to fatigue or something but when I say there are “countless skeptics I find annoying” it does not mean the same thing as “all skeptics are annoying”. Get it?

…as for ever expecting to encounter a post from tsig that would be worth reading…I would have to believe in miracles then wouldn’t I. And please don’t put words in my mouth, I’ve never said I am a believer of anything and whether I am or not (or what I do or do not believe in) is not something I will ever be discussing here.

 

[tsig]

Did someone say something? Y’know tsig, you’re not even worth the effort to put you on ‘ignore’.

Too lazy even for that.

 

[annnnoid]

Clearly the professor didn't think much of your final paper last semester and it isn't faring much better here. I'll help you out a bit though. In your Philosophy of Science class, refrain from insisting one can prove a negative; in your Creative Writing prep workshop, don't end a short story with "and then I woke up."

There are people who actually know more about stuff than you, as hard as that is to accept.

You’re becoming incomprehensible Resume…and are risking my generally favorable assessment of your abilities (obviously I won’t pretend that matters). If you really want me to understand your points, then make them understandable (does that matter?). For now I’ll take your light-hearted admonishment as a light-hearted admonishment. Further infractions will, though, be met with the full fury of a force five rebuttal, or, at the very least, egg on your face….or someone’s face (perhaps mine).