Talk:Ontological distinction(24)

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)

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 red faction! Victory to the 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. MattisManzel 22:52, 5 Jul 2004 (EEST)