Talk:Ontological distinction(24): Difference between revisions
(more implications) |
MattisManzel (talk | contribs) (You'll be surprised, I promise ;)) |
||
| 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) | |||
Revision as of 06:44, 5 July 2004
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, some body treated as no body, banished for resisting GodKingly usurpers and the priestly hierarchy they form.
The operational distinctions the sysops make when blocking us in their hate and fear and based on their echo chamber beliefs, are interpreted (via groupthink) as ontological distinctions 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 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 lawsuits 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 -- MattisManzel 09:44, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)