OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

[WWHP]

Generally speaking, since it's their board they can pretty much do what they want to. But on most popular boards, they generally stick by their Code of Conduct. When they banned any further discussion of OS 012, did they mention which rule that you had broken?

Perhaps, this one?:
3. No Spam. Spam will be removed without notice. Anything that looks like spam will be removed without notice. Any thread attempting to proselytize will be removed without notice. If the same new topic is posted to two different forums, both copies will be removed without notice.

dear sir. I was discussing a dialectic on a philosophy forum for almost a year. I dont see how you can define discussing a dialectic on a philosophy forum for over a year as spam. I am not selling anything, nor am I apart of any organization.

In case you dont know, dialectic is a tool often used by philosophers in debate, so it is natural that i would discuss dialectic on such a forum.

also, the moderator and owner of the forum posted his own thread about OS 012 challenging it. I met his challenge and resolved Zeno's paradox per his request, as well as argued his other assumptions to the place where there simply was no rational rebuttal.

lol, so if I am guilty of spam, sir, so is he.

Or, maybe, this one?
# If a member is repeatedly annoying, they may be asked to stop or have their allowed posts limited (but not banned), even if the particular way in which they are annoying is not covered in these rules.

I was never asked to stop anything ever. I engaged in polite discussion in a novel and funny way. My thread was the most popular thread there, being at the top for 11 months straight.

sorry, try again.

EDITED: their search function seems slightly broken. I can't even find the word 'dialectic' in their forums.

EDITED FURTHER: AH, Ok, you're Tumbleman. Now I can see your posts. Ah. Ok. Yeesh.

yes. I posted as tumbleman and I discussed this dialectic in relationship to western philosophy on a philosophy forum, so?

troll appears to be a meaningless term that anyone can throw at someone in a deceptive manner to identify them as not having anything valuable or worthwhile to say. Since I contributed and began the most popular thread at that forum, and have many friends made there, your post here sir is what is commonly called 'false and misleading'.

If you wish to see the effectivness of the dialectic, or challenge it's princaples, go the the forum on the site, challenge it's princaples using the soundest of reason and critical thinking. If you cant or you wont, then I can assume then that your unable to back your words with any relevancy.

Usually people who do that are refrenced as trolls, oddly enough.



__________________

 

[bignickel]

BubbleTumble, what happened to this page:?
www.highintelligence.com/discussion.htm

Could you put it back up please?

Then, when Bubblefish would try to instigate them into FURTHER discussion about OS 012, they would just say how much they loved his antics and asked him to stick around. Bubblefish even accused some of them of being ‘hip-hop’ Muslims. I think they got a kick out of that. I tried to push as many buttons as I could!

I'm curious: how's this NOT trollish behaviour? Or has OS 012 allowed you to redefine words so they no longer apply to you?

 

[WWHP]

Repeated trolling. Well, we've had our share of those before. "Do what thou wilt, buster." [/B]

Like I said, anyone can call anyone a troll. Discussing philosophy on a philosophy forum on my thread that i started that included discussion with the majority of the members many of who protested my banning is not trolling.
If you can come up with a good working definition of what troll is, then try to see how it applies to what i do. you wont.

Next, I imagine I will be accused of being a 'flip-flopper' and 'unpatriotic' or any other bizarre political spin to disqualify the ideas being discussed by assosciating the person discussing them with a charged word.

tsk tsk tsk. I would expect more from a forum member on a board that includes critical thinking as an ideal.

start using it.

 

[WWHP]

I'm curious: how's this NOT trollish behaviour? Or has OS 012 allowed you to redefine words so they no longer apply to you? [/B]

first off, that was a copy and paste from something I WROTE on MY website on ANOTHER forum a year previously. So let's say that was 'trolling', are you telling me that TPG banned me because I trolled another forum a year previously? that's absurd. In addition to that, the moderator there didnt bother to paste the rest of what was on my site, which was written to me by the moderator at that muslim forum: "'asalaamu'alaikum, Bubblefish, What a pleasure to read your posts . I have seldom witnessed such a dismantling via logic in many years of observing and sometimes practicing "the debating trade". I hope you stick around here for awhile. We could sorely use a dose of rationality. "

I doesnt look like they defined it as trolling now, does it?

Secondly, if you were paying attention, a point was being made. Even when I 'pressed buttons', which is precisely what you are doing to me right now, that particular forum, a Muslim BBS, was the most calm and rational in regards to discussing the dialectic, which was me pointing out an IRONY, considering that most americans assume that Muslims are irrational, and from my experience, discussion with them involved more rational thinking than most americans I discussed with.



Since I use creative writing mixed with critical thinking to explain how the dialectic works, that confuses many people, and I certainly use their confusion to further explain the dialectic and then address those concerns using the dialectic.

Some people would rather ban or censor that just simply admit they were mistaken.

Anyone can go to the site and read the formal presentation of the dialectic to see that much critical work and development has been done through this process, and to me, anyone unable to critique the work and only address their own erratic image in thier head of what I am doing is certainly not in a clear mind enough to be calling me a 'troll' and have it stick.

 

[WWHP]

BubbleTumble, what happened to this page:?
www.highintelligence.com/discussion.htm

Could you put it back up please?

It's already up on the site. look under 'essays' and there you will find it.

You dont need to go looking under rocks, my friend, just look what is in front of your very eyes.

 

[Zep]

Bubblefish idea silly.

lol. sometime, irrational people try to ad hominem debate, wish to use charge words to imply logical falsity when they no can argue using logic or reason.

No ad hom at all. It was just a small exercise to see if you could work out the grammar I used. Was I referring to the idea alone being silly, or Bubblefish alone being silly, or is the proper noun a qualifier to the concept that is being labelled silly. Is the word "silly" actually used in a perjorative sense? Consider the context - in Australia, the word "silly" can mean "acting like a clown", as well as "idiotic". It can also mean "unhinged lunacy". Can you decide which is the applicable sense? Is there enough information? How should I have phrased it such that the grammar is unambiguous?

But no, you took only one interpretation, which shows you have a long way to go if only three simple words, one of which was your own handle, can confound you. Clearly you cannot be the great Dr Lo - he would not have made such a hash out of it as you have.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Trollfeeding is fun, yes?

Hans

 

[WWHP]

No ad hom at all. It was just a small exercise to see if you could work out the grammar I used. Was I referring to the idea alone being silly, or Bubblefish alone being silly, or is the proper noun a qualifier to the concept that is being labeled silly.

by default it meant both. Bubblefish Idea Silly is a 'string'.

If that is not what you meant, then you can clarify.

Watch, let's look at my sentence above, and rearrange the grammar.

Clarify you can if not what you meant.

See?

Now, what do you think I mean?

Is the word "silly" actually used in a perjorative sense? Consider the context - in Australia, the word "silly" can mean "acting like a clown", as well as "idiotic". It can also mean "unhinged lunacy". Can you decide which is the applicable sense? Is there enough information? How should I have phrased it such that the grammar is unambiguous?

it is irrelevant, since the necessary truth associated with your phrase is that the idea is 'false' and not worth merit. You can all it silly or lunacy, the same logic still applies. You can spell 'silly' like sillly or reverse the grammar all you want.

Your intention reads the same regardless.

But no, you took only one interpretation, which shows you have a long way to go if only three simple words, one of which was your own handle, can confound you.

Lol, try again. And then while you are at it, meditate and use critical thinking to see how necessary truths can logically show inference without the author's intention.

And then meditate or use critical thinking to understand the simple, common, and basic process of dialectical clarification can remove all misunderstandings via communication through simple question and answer, assuming of course both parties are rational.

Clearly you cannot be the great Dr Lo - he would not have made such a hash out of it as you have. [/B]

Ah, I see you can at least understand, crudely, the role of necessary truths, however, your defining an uncertainty, or a logical mystery, as a truth based on a conceptual image you have in your head. So even though your conclusion is true, your method is faulty and only produces more error than logical conclusion.

 

[WWHP]

Trollfeeding is fun, yes?

Yes, Hans, it most certainly is! I can feed these guys all day and spin them around my finger like no tommorow.

 

[Zep]

Yes, Hans, it most certainly is! I can feed these guys all day and spin them around my finger like no tommorow.

 

[Zep]

by default it meant both. Bubblefish Idea Silly is a 'string'.

If that is not what you meant, then you can clarify.

Watch, let's look at my sentence above, and rearrange the grammar.

Clarify you can if not what you meant.

See?

Now, what do you think I mean?

it is irrelevant, since the necessary truth associated with your phrase is that the idea is 'false' and not worth merit. You can all it silly or lunacy, the same logic still applies. You can spell 'silly' like sillly or reverse the grammar all you want.

Your intention reads the same regardless.

Lol, try again. And then while you are at it, meditate and use critical thinking to see how necessary truths can logically show inference without the author's intention.

And then meditate or use critical thinking to understand the simple, common, and basic process of dialectical clarification can remove all misunderstandings via communication through simple question and answer, assuming of course both parties are rational.

Ah, I see you can at least understand, crudely, the role of necessary truths, however, your defining an uncertainty, or a logical mystery, as a truth based on a conceptual image you have in your head. So even though your conclusion is true, your method is faulty and only produces more error than logical conclusion.

What complete and utter bullsh1t! Have you been eating dictionaries? Have you ever thought of writing for comics? What are you ON, feller? I'd get your medication changed, if I were you.

Incidentally, I was designing grammars before you were born, and I've probably forgotten more about the subject than you'll ever know. And there are others here who can leave me in the dust on the subject, so you're just not even in the hunt. And if you think this pile of steaming dung is in any way convincing of how intellectually superior you are, then forget it. It makes you look remarkably foolish. Turn your head sideways before going through doorways, OK?

Pillock.

 

[WWHP]

What complete and utter bullsh1t! Have you been eating dictionaries? Have you ever thought of writing for comics? What are you ON, feller? I'd get your medication changed, if I were you.

Incidentally, I was designing grammars before you were born, and I've probably forgotten more about the subject than you'll ever know. And there are others here who can leave me in the dust on the subject, so you're just not even in the hunt. And if you think this pile of steaming dung is in any way convincing of how intellectually superior you are, then forget it. It makes you look remarkably foolish. Turn your head sideways before going through doorways, OK?

Pillock.

thus, Zep ended his discussion with ol Bubblefish devoid of any rational rebuttal and lacking any critical thinking, merely splattering the page with verbal ad hominem and a funny picture of a turkey.

 

[Zep]

thus, Zep ended his discussion with ol Bubblefish devoid of any rational rebuttal and lacking any critical thinking, merely splattering the page with verbal ad hominem and a funny picture of a turkey.

So easy, so predictable...

<center>The Institute of Noetic Sciences ~ Los Angeles
I O N S ~ L.A.
presents
Dr. Shui-Yin Lo
IN
the second of a series of workshops on
The Quantum Theory of Life
or "What The Bleep Do We Know?!"

What is the Classical World? What is the Quantum World?

How does the Quantum world address crisis' such as the threat of nuclear war, bio-terror, global warming?

How does the Quantum world solve the spiritual crisis?

Come join us in exploring the quantum world view ~

the result of the last hundred years of the most intense scientific effort!

How can we integrate science and spirituality?

What do we need to know to survive, to thrive, and to be meaningful?

Saturday, February 5TH, 10 AM TO 3 PM $20</center>

Your "mentor" sells scientific-sounding quackery at $20 per head to crackpot loonies at pot-luck lunches, cashing in on his cachet as a physicist. And he is claiming to be able to solve some looming spiritual crisis using quantum ... something. Mechanics? Energy? Water?

Shall I go on to the more looney claims he makes regarding acupuncture and such? Makes your feeble attempts at mangling grammar look positively academic in comparison.

 

[WWHP]

So easy, so predictable...
Your "mentor" sells scientific-sounding quackery at $20 per head to crackpot loonies at pot-luck lunches, cashing in on his cachet as a physicist. And he is claiming to be able to solve some looming spiritual crisis using quantum ... something. Mechanics? Energy? Water?

Shall I go on to the more looney claims he makes regarding acupuncture and such? Makes your feeble attempts at mangling grammar look positively academic in comparison.

Next, ladies and gentleman, Zep wishes to confuse others by now attacking an assosciate and friend of Bubblefish with ad hominem in the mystical hope that somehow, someway, this will refute rationally or logicaly Bubblefish's posts.

this theory of Zep's states that there must be some sort of mystical transference between his perception regarding a respected professional academic, a former sitting professor with tenure in physics at Melbourne university, which he mystically is conjuring up as a quack now to support his argument, and the actual logical inference of Bubblefish's posts.

I don’t know, I am skeptical about such claim, Zep, but I am curious about hearing more of this theory. Your suggesting that a physics professor who gives a seminar regarding his life work sponsored by an organization founded by a former NASA astronaut, which is providing a de-mystified and rational explanation for the foundation of Taoist practices using science and synthesizing it into a philosophical framework, is actually a formal proof of the logical inconstancies of what I write?

My lord man, this is radical stuff! I wouldn’t release too much of this theory on this forum at first if I were you, I don’t think this is a welcoming crowd that believes in mysticism or magick, but perhaps you have a rational proof for such things, and I certainly wish to give you the space to explain it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Yes, Hans, it most certainly is! I can feed these guys all day and spin them around my finger like no tommorow.

You can? That's gonna be cool, I'm sure. Give me a PM whenever you start. I wouldn't wanna miss that.

Hans

 

[WWHP]

You can?

yes indeed, Hans, I am quite notorious for it.

That's gonna be cool, I'm sure.

Is cool, was cool, and is going to continue to be, yes.

Give me a PM whenever you start. I wouldn't wanna miss that.

Well, I already started with you, and you certainly cant miss what you experience directly now, eh?

So consider this then your heads up. I would send you a PM, but I would rather conserve server space.

 

[MRC_Hans]

yes indeed, Hans, I am quite notorious for it.

Oh? Where?

Is cool, was cool, and is going to continue to be, yes.

Ehr, I was not referring to the weather .

Well, I already started with you, and you certainly cant miss what you experience directly now, eh?

You mean the intense boredom? Sure, that is quite evident.

So consider this then your heads up. I would send you a PM, but I would rather conserve server space.

If this is the best you can do, I have an even better suggestion for saving server space.

You know, we have seen this type of trolls before. They will verbally masturbate, then say "See how I f*cked you!".

Hans

 

[WWHP]

You know, we have seen this type of trolls before.

yes, me too. it's so funny, right? look at poor troll Zep as an example. I have encountered about a million of them.

They will verbally masturbate, then say "See how I f*cked you!". :

yes, but I usually, actually, always get them to stop, since they usually have only one rebuttal, name calling, and they usually are not even funny at that.

Gee Hans, how long does it take these trolls who come on threads and dont address the topics rationally to get the message?

If you dont respond to me, I wont respond to you.

I can assure you that you will tire of this far quicker than myself.

But, yep, you can be sure that no troll here will understand that simple premise, so until then, I just have fun with them and let them defeat their own arguements.

 

[Zep]

Next, ladies and gentleman, Zep wishes to confuse others by now attacking an assosciate and friend of Bubblefish with ad hominem in the mystical hope that somehow, someway, this will refute rationally or logicaly Bubblefish's posts.

What's to refute? There's nothing in them, so content-free posts need no refutation.

this theory of Zep's states that there must be some sort of mystical transference between his perception regarding a respected professional academic, a former sitting professor with tenure in physics at Melbourne university, which he mystically is conjuring up as a quack now to support his argument, and the actual logical inference of Bubblefish's posts.

What theory? I've given you facts. How you (fail to) address them is up to you, bozo.

I don’t know, I am skeptical about such claim, Zep, but I am curious about hearing more of this theory. Your suggesting that a physics professor who gives a seminar regarding his life work sponsored by an organization founded by a former NASA astronaut, which is providing a de-mystified and rational explanation for the foundation of Taoist practices using science and synthesizing it into a philosophical framework, is actually a formal proof of the logical inconstancies of what I write?

De-mystifying? Taoist practices? Formal proofs? Boy, you HAVE got it bad, haven't you! You do know that the Noetic Institute is (in)famous for its (lack of) scientific reputation versus its (outlandish) claims? It's a home for wannabe-famous-agains who have lost their marbles, but mainly a means of bilking the public out of money. How much have YOU paid them recently, hmmm?

The list of "famous names" who have abandoned their former rationality in favour of laughable and clearly unscientific woo-wooism is far longer than you know. Next you will be trotting out the one about Isaac Newton being a Creationist Christian. Or Darwin recanting on his deathbed. But does this make your point any more valid?

My lord man, this is radical stuff! I wouldn’t release too much of this theory on this forum at first if I were you, I don’t think this is a welcoming crowd that believes in mysticism or magick, but perhaps you have a rational proof for such things, and I certainly wish to give you the space to explain it.

Oh no! The stage is all yours to keep right on going demonstrating your inadequacies and delusions. You have already exposed enough of your own agenda here to have us tag you as a looney of the first water.

Y'know, bubblebrain, if you were in any way rational you would have produced proper references to Dr Lo's reputable scientific work in a flash...we got nothing. If you were serious about the JREF challenge (and Dr Lo should be - $1,000,000 sure beats $20 per head lecturing at a looney convention) you would have had an application in already...again, nothing we know of, and plenty of paltry excuses why not. As Hans has rightly pointed out, you are a verbally masturbating troll.

 

[Zep]

yes, me too. it's so funny, right? look at poor troll Zep as an example. I have encountered about a million of them.

...who tagged you as a troll also.

yes, but I usually, actually, always get them to stop, since they usually have only one rebuttal, name calling, and they usually are not even funny at that.

Gee Hans, how long does it take these trolls who come on threads and dont address the topics rationally to get the message?

If you dont respond to me, I wont respond to you.

I can assure you that you will tire of this far quicker than myself.

But, yep, you can be sure that no troll here will understand that simple premise, so until then, I just have fun with them and let them defeat their own arguements.

Have you actually MADE a proposal we can even begin to discuss? Something worth discussing?