Talk:Ontological distinction(24) - Revision history

Angela: refactor

2004-07-18T22:52:36Z

refactor

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 18 July 2004
Line 9:		Line 9:
	[[English Wikipedia User 24]] seemed to imply that corruption arises from mistaking operational for ontological distinctions, creating simple [[groupthink]]. That is probably optimistic though. There are other theories: it might be lack of [[due process]], or over-tolerance for [[systemic bias]]-approved POVs (like [[English Wikipedia User RK]]), or under-tolerance of [[New Troll point of view]] (like [[English Wikipedia User JRR_Trollkien]]). According to [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], it is plain and simple political hate, played out in [[politics as usual]]. Probably all these theories have some merits. Some imply conspiracy, and others, mere idiocy:		[[English Wikipedia User 24]] seemed to imply that corruption arises from mistaking operational for ontological distinctions, creating simple [[groupthink]]. That is probably optimistic though. There are other theories: it might be lack of [[due process]], or over-tolerance for [[systemic bias]]-approved POVs (like [[English Wikipedia User RK]]), or under-tolerance of [[New Troll point of view]] (like [[English Wikipedia User JRR_Trollkien]]). According to [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], it is plain and simple political hate, played out in [[politics as usual]]. Probably all these theories have some merits. Some imply conspiracy, and others, mere idiocy:

	It does not take more than a few encounters with a drooling ~~retard like [[Erik Moeller]] or an~~ autistic ~~robot like [[Angela Beesley]]~~ or a [[technological escalation\|nuclear weapon builder]] ~~like [[Tim Starling]]~~ or a gibbering control freak ~~like [[Daniel Mayer]]~~ to realize that they're the kind of people no one actually wants to know, who seek substitute social lives via power in a wiki. The problem is, how to flush them from the system? By [[lawsuit]]s that specifically cite their errors and crimes? By less formal complaints that make others realize systems are more effective without them, than with them? Or what?		It does not take more than a few encounters with a drooling retards, autistic robots, or a [[technological escalation\|nuclear weapon builder]], or a gibbering control freak to realize that they're the kind of people no one actually wants to know, who seek substitute social lives via power in a wiki. The problem is, how to flush them from the system? By [[lawsuit]]s that specifically cite their errors and crimes? By less formal complaints that make others realize systems are more effective without them, than with them? Or what?

	By grooving. By forgetting about those who pissed on your tie and by shaping something. By stopping to complain in whatever form about whatever that is but make something new from scratch and take resposibility for it, sysop-status included. By saying who you are instead of repeating what you think without listening. Noone can listen to what you think as you have no face. Without a face there is no mouth neither, and a mouth is essential for human communication. You are as ineffective as a bicycle in Venice. A pitty this is, a fucking waste. It's sad, much more sad for you than for me. But it's sad for me too. Do you realize that this sadness is the only thing we have in common after the days of communicate interaction between us? Do you know, do you remember that there are other feelings than your sadness? Try to please and then learn to use your face and your mouth. You'll be surprised, I promise ;) Ciao -- [[User:MattisManzel\|MattisManzel]] 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)		By grooving. By forgetting about those who pissed on your tie and by shaping something. By stopping to complain in whatever form about whatever that is but make something new from scratch and take resposibility for it, sysop-status included. By saying who you are instead of repeating what you think without listening. Noone can listen to what you think as you have no face. Without a face there is no mouth neither, and a mouth is essential for human communication. You are as ineffective as a bicycle in Venice. A pitty this is, a fucking waste. It's sad, much more sad for you than for me. But it's sad for me too. Do you realize that this sadness is the only thing we have in common after the days of communicate interaction between us? Do you know, do you remember that there are other feelings than your sadness? Try to please and then learn to use your face and your mouth. You'll be surprised, I promise ;) Ciao -- [[User:MattisManzel\|MattisManzel]] 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)

MattisManzel: Hugh.

2004-07-05T19:52:03Z

Hugh.

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 5 July 2004
Line 20:		Line 20:

	:Hail the [[Wikipedia Red Faction\|red faction]]! Victory to the [[Wikipedia Red Faction\|red faction]]! And great sadness to the [[sysop power structure]].		:Hail the [[Wikipedia Red Faction\|red faction]]! Victory to the [[Wikipedia Red Faction\|red faction]]! And great sadness to the [[sysop power structure]].

			Well thanks for the interesting communication. It was dryish, not funny at all, but very interesting nevertheless. We both explained out viewpoint with emphasis, that's good. We both gave a short time for trying to convince oneanother of the other viewpoint and we both recognized it by doing so, that's good. We agree that we are essential to each other, that's good. So let's just work on on the common thing called world-tree, may the result be a satisfying one. Hugh. [[User:MattisManzel\|MattisManzel]] 22:52, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)

142.177.97.76: bah; 24 was wrong, corruption is not a mistake, it is in the soul of the sysop itself; the sadness is that they exist at all

2004-07-05T18:50:18Z

bah; 24 was wrong, corruption is not a mistake, it is in the soul of the sysop itself; the sadness is that they exist at all

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:50, 5 July 2004
Line 12:		Line 12:

	By grooving. By forgetting about those who pissed on your tie and by shaping something. By stopping to complain in whatever form about whatever that is but make something new from scratch and take resposibility for it, sysop-status included. By saying who you are instead of repeating what you think without listening. Noone can listen to what you think as you have no face. Without a face there is no mouth neither, and a mouth is essential for human communication. You are as ineffective as a bicycle in Venice. A pitty this is, a fucking waste. It's sad, much more sad for you than for me. But it's sad for me too. Do you realize that this sadness is the only thing we have in common after the days of communicate interaction between us? Do you know, do you remember that there are other feelings than your sadness? Try to please and then learn to use your face and your mouth. You'll be surprised, I promise ;) Ciao -- [[User:MattisManzel\|MattisManzel]] 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)		By grooving. By forgetting about those who pissed on your tie and by shaping something. By stopping to complain in whatever form about whatever that is but make something new from scratch and take resposibility for it, sysop-status included. By saying who you are instead of repeating what you think without listening. Noone can listen to what you think as you have no face. Without a face there is no mouth neither, and a mouth is essential for human communication. You are as ineffective as a bicycle in Venice. A pitty this is, a fucking waste. It's sad, much more sad for you than for me. But it's sad for me too. Do you realize that this sadness is the only thing we have in common after the days of communicate interaction between us? Do you know, do you remember that there are other feelings than your sadness? Try to please and then learn to use your face and your mouth. You'll be surprised, I promise ;) Ciao -- [[User:MattisManzel\|MattisManzel]] 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)

			:It is correct that those who "have no face", i.e. are "[[no body]]", have no reputation or status. But this is as it should be. No mere sequence of text strings that is only claimed to be attached to a body requires such status. [[Trolls]] do not object to oppression on this grounds - trolls have done everything possible to bring this realization about. Trolls have been quite effective at sparking [[class struggle]] against the [[sysop power structure]], and will continue to be so. Why should those with [[infrastructure owners trust]] determine the "truth"? We are not answerable to them, but rather, to the [[world tree]] only. There is no sadness here, only the inevitability of [[Ragnarok]] and the triumph of the [[New Troll point of view]]. [[Trolls]] do not exist to please humans. Trolls exist for their own sake, and that of the planet that they protect.

			:If sadness is what we have in common, human, then, indeed, consider that this is a function of the [[Internet]] and its absurd abstraction of [[some body]] into [[no body]]. Putting text strings and JPG images and realistic-looking names does not make [[some body]] - it is commitment to one's body and planet and true community that does that. We do not protect the same things, Mattis Manzel, so we do not cooperate - by definition. We, [[trolls]], do not owe you any access to bodily identity so you can pursue corrupt avenues of inquiry and [[outing]] and [[libel]] with it. You are alone with your guesses: and every name you spout, is one more person we notify that you are libelling him or her.

			:We will crush [[Wikimedia corruption]], and its author [[Jimbo Wales]]. When it is clear that online services can in fact be taken over by their users using normal political means, and that even with all odds stacked against them, the [[trolletariat]] can win, then, you will see things happen. Things long predicted that have not been seen.

			:Hail the [[Wikipedia Red Faction\|red faction]]! Victory to the [[Wikipedia Red Faction\|red faction]]! And great sadness to the [[sysop power structure]].

MattisManzel: You'll be surprised, I promise ;)

2004-07-05T06:44:57Z

You'll be surprised, I promise ;)

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:44, 5 July 2004
Line 10:		Line 10:

	It does not take more than a few encounters with a drooling retard like [[Erik Moeller]] or an autistic robot like [[Angela Beesley]] or a [[technological escalation\|nuclear weapon builder]] like [[Tim Starling]] or a gibbering control freak like [[Daniel Mayer]] to realize that they're the kind of people no one actually wants to know, who seek substitute social lives via power in a wiki. The problem is, how to flush them from the system? By [[lawsuit]]s that specifically cite their errors and crimes? By less formal complaints that make others realize systems are more effective without them, than with them? Or what?		It does not take more than a few encounters with a drooling retard like [[Erik Moeller]] or an autistic robot like [[Angela Beesley]] or a [[technological escalation\|nuclear weapon builder]] like [[Tim Starling]] or a gibbering control freak like [[Daniel Mayer]] to realize that they're the kind of people no one actually wants to know, who seek substitute social lives via power in a wiki. The problem is, how to flush them from the system? By [[lawsuit]]s that specifically cite their errors and crimes? By less formal complaints that make others realize systems are more effective without them, than with them? Or what?

			By grooving. By forgetting about those who pissed on your tie and by shaping something. By stopping to complain in whatever form about whatever that is but make something new from scratch and take resposibility for it, sysop-status included. By saying who you are instead of repeating what you think without listening. Noone can listen to what you think as you have no face. Without a face there is no mouth neither, and a mouth is essential for human communication. You are as ineffective as a bicycle in Venice. A pitty this is, a fucking waste. It's sad, much more sad for you than for me. But it's sad for me too. Do you realize that this sadness is the only thing we have in common after the days of communicate interaction between us? Do you know, do you remember that there are other feelings than your sadness? Try to please and then learn to use your face and your mouth. You'll be surprised, I promise ;) Ciao -- [[User:MattisManzel\|MattisManzel]] 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)

142.177.103.67: more implications

2004-07-04T18:58:03Z

more implications

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:58, 4 July 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The "cogito ergo sum" example is interesting. If it is dualism, then, it is separating cognition from being, to say that cognition ''implies'' being. The cognition (mind) and the being (body) are separate so that one implies the other. Isn't this [[God's Eye View]]? God's cognition implies all beings?		The "cogito ergo sum" example is interesting. If it is dualism, then, it is separating cognition from being, to say that cognition ''implies'' being. The cognition (mind) and the being (body) are separate so that one implies the other. Isn't this [[God's Eye View]]? God's cognition implies all beings?

	By contrast the [[GodKing]]'s view, or [[community point of view]], implies only [[trolls]], hated and despised beings, ~~who resist GodKingly~~ [[~~usurper~~]]~~s. The~~ [[~~operational distinction~~]]~~s they make when blocking us in their hate and fear~~, ~~are interpreted (via~~ [[~~groupthink]]) as [[ontological distinction~~]]s ~~by other [[sysop power structure]] apologists,~~ and ~~accepted as precedents in their degraded~~ [[~~troll-formative injustice~~]] ~~system, leading to [[Wikimedia corruption]]. It clearly exists~~. ~~But what's the source of it?~~		By contrast the [[GodKing]]'s view, or [[community point of view]], implies only [[trolls]], hated and despised beings, [[some body]] treated as [[no body]], banished for resisting GodKingly [[usurper]]s and the [[priestly hierarchy]] they form.

	~~That~~ corruption arises from mistaking operational for ontological distinctions~~, in 24's view~~, creating simple [[groupthink]]. That is probably optimistic though. There are other theories: it is lack of [[due process]], or over-tolerance for [[systemic bias]] approved POVs, or under-tolerance of [[New Troll point of view]]. According to [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], it is plain and simple political hate. Probably all these theories have some merits.		The [[operational distinction]]s the [[sysop]]s make when blocking us in their hate and fear and based on their [[echo chamber]] beliefs, are interpreted (via [[groupthink]]) as [[ontological distinction]]s by other [[sysop power structure]] apologists, and accepted as "precedents" in their degraded [[troll-formative injustice]] system, leading to [[Wikimedia corruption]], among other foul effects: [[harassment]], [[libel]], and to [[require response to hearsay]].

			[[English Wikipedia User 24]] seemed to imply that corruption arises from mistaking operational for ontological distinctions, creating simple [[groupthink]]. That is probably optimistic though. There are other theories: it might be lack of [[due process]], or over-tolerance for [[systemic bias]]-approved POVs (like [[English Wikipedia User RK]]), or under-tolerance of [[New Troll point of view]] (like [[English Wikipedia User JRR_Trollkien]]). According to [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], it is plain and simple political hate, played out in [[politics as usual]]. Probably all these theories have some merits. Some imply conspiracy, and others, mere idiocy:

			It does not take more than a few encounters with a drooling retard like [[Erik Moeller]] or an autistic robot like [[Angela Beesley]] or a [[technological escalation\|nuclear weapon builder]] like [[Tim Starling]] or a gibbering control freak like [[Daniel Mayer]] to realize that they're the kind of people no one actually wants to know, who seek substitute social lives via power in a wiki. The problem is, how to flush them from the system? By [[lawsuit]]s that specifically cite their errors and crimes? By less formal complaints that make others realize systems are more effective without them, than with them? Or what?

142.177.103.67 at 18:43, 4 July 2004

2004-07-04T18:43:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 4 July 2004
Line 3:		Line 3:
	The "cogito ergo sum" example is interesting. If it is dualism, then, it is separating cognition from being, to say that cognition ''implies'' being. The cognition (mind) and the being (body) are separate so that one implies the other. Isn't this [[God's Eye View]]? God's cognition implies all beings?		The "cogito ergo sum" example is interesting. If it is dualism, then, it is separating cognition from being, to say that cognition ''implies'' being. The cognition (mind) and the being (body) are separate so that one implies the other. Isn't this [[God's Eye View]]? God's cognition implies all beings?

	By contrast the [[GodKing]]'s view, or [[community point of view]], implies only [[trolls]], hated and despised beings, who resist GodKingly [[usurper]]s.		By contrast the [[GodKing]]'s view, or [[community point of view]], implies only [[trolls]], hated and despised beings, who resist GodKingly [[usurper]]s. The [[operational distinction]]s they make when blocking us in their hate and fear, are interpreted (via [[groupthink]]) as [[ontological distinction]]s by other [[sysop power structure]] apologists, and accepted as precedents in their degraded [[troll-formative injustice]] system, leading to [[Wikimedia corruption]]. It clearly exists. But what's the source of it?

			That corruption arises from mistaking operational for ontological distinctions, in 24's view, creating simple [[groupthink]]. That is probably optimistic though. There are other theories: it is lack of [[due process]], or over-tolerance for [[systemic bias]] approved POVs, or under-tolerance of [[New Troll point of view]]. According to [[Wikipedia Red Faction]], it is plain and simple political hate. Probably all these theories have some merits.

142.177.103.67: implications for trolls

2004-07-04T18:38:43Z

implications for trolls

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 4 July 2004
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This seems like a long-winded and general way of saying what is already said at [[ontological distinction]] anyway. This long version belongs in [[Wikipedia]] or [[Wikinfo]] not here probably.		This seems like a long-winded and general way of saying what is already said at [[ontological distinction]] anyway. This long version belongs in [[Wikipedia]] or [[Wikinfo]] not here probably.

			The "cogito ergo sum" example is interesting. If it is dualism, then, it is separating cognition from being, to say that cognition ''implies'' being. The cognition (mind) and the being (body) are separate so that one implies the other. Isn't this [[God's Eye View]]? God's cognition implies all beings?

			By contrast the [[GodKing]]'s view, or [[community point of view]], implies only [[trolls]], hated and despised beings, who resist GodKingly [[usurper]]s.

142.177.103.67: doesn't this belong in an encyclopedia or something?

2004-07-04T18:34:42Z

doesn't this belong in an encyclopedia or something?

New page

This seems like a long-winded and general way of saying what is already said at [[ontological distinction]] anyway. This long version belongs in [[Wikipedia]] or [[Wikinfo]] not here probably.