Every year, 6 weeks after your birthday, the Know's fairy comes to make you wiser.
It's not clockwork, because, hell, that's a lot of people, but it's a more or less homogeneous situation.
QUALM: I have experienced instances of wisdom that have occurred more than twice in a year. ALLAYMENT: How was that wisdom determined? If you cannot be sure of how to recognize wisdom, is your relative sensitivity worth anything?
Too much wisdom, and one becomes delirious, too little and one becomes a fool. There is a delightful middle towards which the Know's fairy brings you in discreet increments.
OBJECTION: It is not evident in any way that too much wisdom leads to delirium and at the same time, wisdom does not need to be replenished like a thirst. If no further wisdom is realized, one does not become a fool but remains as they are. ALLAYMENT: Surely not. What is thought of an old man with the wisdom of a child? OBJECTION: This is a game of words, for while a person might grow ever wiser, and this is good, it is not to say there is a limit to what one should understand.
Wise herself to the delirium of wisdom, the Know's fairy gifts each person every year. Once, never twice. Woe be to the delirious who know not where they stand, woe be to the fools who know not where they stand.
OBJECTION: This is idiotic. There is no such fairy, and wisdom is not a yearly event. Not on my birthday, not on yours. It doesn't come in an instant, it doesn't flourish continuously. QUALM: Not continuous and not in an instant? How then? ASSERTION: Wisdom is seized from an opportunity. A situation is captured in one's mind and one turns that over, compares it, makes connections and eventually attains a realization. OBSERVATION: How violent.
It is a continuous task. The Know's fairy goes from person to person and each are endowed with wisdom. She does not have all wisdom herself, it comes through her. Even she must wait her turn.
QUALM: Not every person of the same age has the same kind of wisdom. QUERY: What is meant by wisdom?
More people
With every year that passes, more and more people appear. The Know's fairy barely keeps up, but always keeps up. There is no other choice.
QUALM: If the Know's fairy always keeps up, why are there old fools? QUERY: What is an old fool? ASSERTION: An old fool is a person who has had many opportunities to become wiser and has missed them. Missed the lessons of life. People who, in the end, are confused, make mistakes, think that good things are bad and the reverse. QUERY: And what is an opportunity? ASSERTION: An opportunity is a moment where one can realize something true. When one recognizes that such and such an action causes suffering. The moment when that can happen is an opportunity.
The Know's fairy is neither delayed, nor early. Many birthdays fall on the same day, but in the proper order of things, everyone is endowed.
OBJECTION: ********. There are countless fools, countless arrogant individuals, countless assholes, just as those who are meek are also countless. If wisdom is to understand what is going on in respect to one's position in life, surely there are those who have not become wiser and some who have become more foolish.
One day, on her turn, the Know's fairy stopped.
QUALM: No. Stop.
QUALM: No. Stop. This is was not a story, it was an explanation which made less sense as it went on. Now it has become ridiculous to a different degree. People have not stopped getting wiser, others have not stopped getting more foolish. And neither is the work of a fairy. QUERY: Which are you? ASSERTION: I am sure that, although I take steps back, I progress towards wisdom. QUERY: Because you seize opportunities? ASSERTION: Yes. QUERY: What occasions an opportunity? ASSERTION: Not a fairy. Conditions come together. It is an opportunity because it is not expected until it is recognized. QUERY: Wisdom requires one to recognize the opportunity? ASSERTION: No, the situation need not be recognized, but it can be. Only the wisdom needs to be recognized. QUERY: Is each opportunity available to all who are subject to experience it? ASSERTION: No. Each person has their own opportunity. QUALM: Surely, there are opportunities in which everyone learns, and similarly there are opportunities that pass by without notice. Those cannot be opportunities, if they are are beyond one's scope of perception.
----------------: Perhaps. QUERY: And when one is distracted at one moment and later, in retrospect, learns and becomes wiser. At which point was the opportunity? ----------------: The opportunity was almost missed, but not quite. The opportunity was in that on which the person reflected. QUERY: And what of the cause of the reflection itself? ASSERTION: That is how the opportunity is defined, it was the cause of reflection. QUALM: I do not see how this can be. If a person must be receptive to an opportunity, is that not a guarantee that wisdom will then be attained? Surely an opportunity is something that can be missed, otherwise it comes as surely as the fairy. NEGATION: No. The story with the fairy does not explain well how one attains wisdom, nor does it explain how some are foolish and some are wise. QUERY: Opportunity, then is spread unevenly? ASSERTION: Most assuredly.
Opportunities can pass
QUALM: If opportunities can pass without one's notice, and at that point they are not opportunities, then it may be that they are spread evenly, but receptivity to those opportunities are not even, is this not so? ASSERTION: Yes. QUALM: Then it is impossible to determine if, for example there is not an opportunity occurring right now. And similarly, it is impossible to determine if there is an opportunity occurring at every moment?
-----------------: One can say this . . . QUERY: Then, the only thing between a person and wisdom is their receptivity to it? OBJECTION: Receptivity is limited. One needs to become wiser to become wiser still. What's more, not every lesson is available at every time. This is what is meant by opportunity. ALLAYMENT: I see.
Wise enough The Know's fairy stopped because everyone had become wise enough. What would more wisdom bring?
QUALM: Jesus ****ing christ, this doesn't even make sense any more. What about the children who are born and need to be at least as wise as everyone is in this magical world? ALLAYMENT: It is only a story, it does not matter if it makes sense, nor does it matter if it is understood. QUALM: But it's Not true! QUERY: Why does that matter? Is it not true enough? ASSERTION: If it's not true, makes no sense, and cannot be understood, then it is useless! ALLAYMENT: But what even the things you say are not the truest of true things, they are true enough. Like a chemist arguing with a biologist. The biologist speaks of cells, but the chemist says that the conception of cells is not "true enough." Atoms and molecules, you see, are the the real actors. Along comes the nuclear physicist and speaks of that which is somehow "more true." It's as if to correct another person who asks, "has the water evaporated?" "The molecules have accrued more energy." QUALM: Then why tell the story? QUERY: Why listen? ASSERTION: I hoped for insight. ASSERTION: No, it's just a story. QUALM: Why tell the story? QUERY: Is an explanation an opportunity? ASSERTION: Yes. ASSERTION: So to is not an explanation. So to is anything at all, we have agreed. Is the opportunity for you, or for me? QUALM: It seems that, since you told it to me, it was my opportunity. ASSERTION: While you are certainly free to it, why would I create an opportunity for you as I cannot ensure your receptivity to it? It's for myself. QUERY: To what ends? And why would you not do it for me?
DEATHLY FEAR don't you think?
----
Hehehehe, see now how there's quiet?
Enough quiet to bury this and leave it whispering just like this. I can go on, and on, and on, and it will just disappear to no one, but it'll still be enough. Cathartic enough. Isn't that all we keep doing around here? We have questions, we are curious about others, but only mildly so. Here, we purge. We ask not for answers but for the sake of the question, to be the asker.
It's a nice role. Indirect, we can dare to show ourselves like an illusion of perspective, only suggestive of our selves if seen from the wrong angle. We move to tease but not to show. Never that! Never ever. Hahaha, can you imagine? Being laid bare? Being seen for what we are, unobstructed by our tricks and postures, our gestures that declare, falsely, I'm this, I'm that.
I'm rich, I'm mannered, I'm happy, I'm powerful, I'm clever, I'm witty, I understand, I am good, I'm independent, I'm strong, I'm fine.
Maybe I am. Maybe I just want a fat dose of honesty and clear unabashed truth proclaimed, shamelessly, out of non-egotistical self-love. Just some pure expression of humanity.
Not old phrases, re-digested, ruminated, and diluted in their meaning. Not what people want to hear. Not what people think is humanity. Just something honest and yours.
Before it gets filtered.
They don't care about this, they'll think I'm an idiot, of course they already know, they'll think I'm strange, they'll think I'm dangerous, boring, foolish, stupid.
What
a
goddamn
plague
Ten thousand inhibitions swim around my head waiting for an opportunity to bite so that I retreat. And it seems everyone is like this, with different inhibitions. Different flavors of want-can't. And understanding I can takes so loooooooooooooong. I see it in the distance, I know I can just do as I will, but holy **** is it a swamp to trudge through.
So, with a healthy mix of great care and reckless abandon, each in it's place, I'm gonna bust it wide open and let it out as far as it will go. I'm pretty sure it'll come with tiny flits of panic.
a matter of agreement . . . when you're with people that will understand average to mean similar to everyone else, than that is what it will mean. When those people have a limited view of the qualities of the person they deem average, so be it. Average is not without qualification because average does not mean identical, so there are variations among those qualities which are emphatically noticed. Though those variations may be slight in comparison to the other average people, they may also differ only slightly from those people who are not average. So a non-average person may have a lot of averageness, but their non-average qualities are notable.
So, as with most language, it's a matter of agreement, value, and perception. If you can't notice extraordinary qualities and only see the mundane, you only see average, if, similarly, you don't value those qualities, then again, average. If a slight variation is highly unusual or improbable, average? Just agree on something and use the word consistently, find a grey area, reach new agreement, continue using the word so long as it's useful.
Yawcam can take consecutive pictures on motion detection using any USB or mounted webcam.
I used it to catch my crazy old south african roommate that was snooping around in my room. I think she was eating my roasted peanuts and looking through my underwear, can't tell from the angle at which I set it up. But still, set up Yawcam and tell it to email you the pictures and/or upload them ftp to some server in addition to saving it to your computer.
My point with this is, if you're going to take the time to find the thread, read the replies, why not take the time to make a good reply? "I like this idea" is incredibly lazy response, and adds nothing for discussion to a presumably dead thread. If you actually care about the thread you are bringing back, why not at least try to make a good response?
I agree here too, but some people don't or can't think of what to say, and as a matter of idealism, bumping a thread for viewership is not wrong as far as I'm concerned, but, like I already said, is an unwieldy idea as a matter of policy.
"This is a good idea" is simply a bump, and my argument is that that's okay sometimes. Threads die off for lots of reason and sometimes it's simply because all of the people involved in it have said their piece and so let it die. Floods of duplicate threads dominate the front page often, and someone who posts a thread at the wrong time can see their thread die off without discussion, but if they bump it, people who were not present or simply missed it before may be present to see it and offer their bit to the discussion. Similarly, different members have their own unique input and perspective which may be valuable, and so, a thread that resurfaces at a later date has a different viewership.
Letting an old thread stay dead may invite threads of duplicate ideas which may or may not be conducive to discussion, since many people are unwilling to read through the discussions of old threads. At the same time, it's not surprising when members get frustrated and derisive against other members who bring up arguments that have been repeatedly and consistently refuted in previous, now inactive threads.
So the question to me becomes what is the difference between making a new thread and reviving an old one? The enthusiasm of the new posters who have a discussion that is new to them but old to the forum? Is that discussion valuable because it occurs, or is a discussion valuable because there are new ideas appearing and rebounding between people?
And what is the difference between sharing an original idea and sharing an old idea that belongs to someone else? Does that person not simply want the idea to be known to others? If they find such an idea that is well-written so that they can find no fault in it, cannot think of a way to enhance it, is it then not okay for them to bump that thread? Let others see it as it may be new to others, and then perhaps they may have something to add to it? Again, with such an intention, I do not see much difference between a new and an inactive thread.
That a thread is deemed old does not negate these things, but I recognize there is a correlation between inactive threads and threads that shouldn't be revived. But it is a correlation only.
On necroposting, I think that it is fine to resurrect with a mere "I think this is a good idea."
If a person wants to share an idea they had, has located a previous such thread, and has nothing to add to it, is it so wrong that they merely revive it so that others may see it? Is that not the original goal of creating such a thread in the first place? I don't think it necessarily needs critical discussion; sometimes support and viewership is significant and enough. "Here was a good idea, there has been discussion on it, points made, points refuted, points upheld, revisions made . . . Come see if you like it as well!"
Your point remains about how moderators react to necroed threads, and so, it would be prudent to, at the very least, feign discussion. Ideally, mods should properly discriminate such situations and accept that support that keeps a thread bumped is support that mitigates duplicate ideas in a duplicate thread. To determine a worthwhile bump is an excruciating task with the multitude of responsibilities, but, what're you gonna do. Mods have taken on a difficult job to do well.
The rules don't cut it, as they're unreasonable to reasonable people, and serve like many laws in the U.S.A: when a situation arises that needs mod intervention, they can cite the rules and derive righteousness from them for their decisions and actions, but if they were constantly enforced to the letter, the forum would be some kind of pathetic.
So, this gets heavy: Gonna go ahead and assume you've never seen the film strange days where there are machines that are basically just headsets that record entire experiences. The criminal would pair two such machines with a live feed and rape someone while making the victim experience it from the rapists perspective, and then he'd sell the experience on the black market where experience junkies would use it, looking cracked out in the corner.
. . . cheers
Do you have an example?
It seems almost as if inductive reasoning is specifically tailored to combat paradoxes.
Computers are said to be vulnerable to loops due to lack of lateral thinking.
One way to remedy paradoxes in computers is a line something like:
if x leads to x; quit
If you have an example, that'd be amazing. :3
no, you're right, which sheds some light on paradoxes as describing the limits of my own thoughts rather than the limits of the situation.
All the paradoxes I see, then, are either lies or created by opposing rules, which isn't really a paradox since rules are created arbitrarily. So the paradoxes are only linguistic to me. "You cannot move left, you must move left." Seems paradoxical, but there is no system around it to get messed up if the paradox is violated. The paradox must include the context which makes it up, otherwise it is inconsequential.
Inconsequential problems are linguistic problems, for I don't think anything can actually occur without consequence.
So, even the grandfather paradox where you kill your own grandfather or impregnate your own grandmother is not an actual paradox, just another hypothetical we know so little about, that any possibility seems as likely as any other.
I suppose closer to avoiding a lateral getaway is this one:
"can god make a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?"
But then I think the answer is quite simply no, he cannot. I just don't see why he'd fail to move infinite mass. I know the paradox is suppose to come up with the argument "but then he's not omnipotent. Bleh!"
"Guess not."
Poorly done it's a pain in the ass, but when I look at law vs chaos, I still see good vs evil embedded in it. So long as there's a conflict of interest there is good and evil. I like stories that address what causes suffering and what is beneficial head on, without being isolated in a bubb
I take all that back.
I don't think it's an either or question, but once you make it so, I like good vs. evil. I consider law and chaos too a personal characteristic.
0
Every year, 6 weeks after your birthday, the Know's fairy comes to make you wiser.
It's not clockwork, because, hell, that's a lot of people, but it's a more or less homogeneous situation.
QUALM: I have experienced instances of wisdom that have occurred more than twice in a year.
ALLAYMENT: How was that wisdom determined? If you cannot be sure of how to recognize wisdom, is your relative sensitivity worth anything?
Too much wisdom, and one becomes delirious, too little and one becomes a fool. There is a delightful middle towards which the Know's fairy brings you in discreet increments.
OBJECTION: It is not evident in any way that too much wisdom leads to delirium and at the same time, wisdom does not need to be replenished like a thirst. If no further wisdom is realized, one does not become a fool but remains as they are.
ALLAYMENT: Surely not. What is thought of an old man with the wisdom of a child?
OBJECTION: This is a game of words, for while a person might grow ever wiser, and this is good, it is not to say there is a limit to what one should understand.
Wise herself to the delirium of wisdom, the Know's fairy gifts each person every year. Once, never twice. Woe be to the delirious who know not where they stand, woe be to the fools who know not where they stand.
OBJECTION: This is idiotic. There is no such fairy, and wisdom is not a yearly event. Not on my birthday, not on yours. It doesn't come in an instant, it doesn't flourish continuously.
QUALM: Not continuous and not in an instant? How then?
ASSERTION: Wisdom is seized from an opportunity. A situation is captured in one's mind and one turns that over, compares it, makes connections and eventually attains a realization.
OBSERVATION: How violent.
It is a continuous task. The Know's fairy goes from person to person and each are endowed with wisdom. She does not have all wisdom herself, it comes through her. Even she must wait her turn.
QUALM: Not every person of the same age has the same kind of wisdom.
QUERY: What is meant by wisdom?
More people
With every year that passes, more and more people appear. The Know's fairy barely keeps up, but always keeps up. There is no other choice.
QUALM: If the Know's fairy always keeps up, why are there old fools?
QUERY: What is an old fool?
ASSERTION: An old fool is a person who has had many opportunities to become wiser and has missed them. Missed the lessons of life. People who, in the end, are confused, make mistakes, think that good things are bad and the reverse.
QUERY: And what is an opportunity?
ASSERTION: An opportunity is a moment where one can realize something true. When one recognizes that such and such an action causes suffering. The moment when that can happen is an opportunity.
The Know's fairy is neither delayed, nor early. Many birthdays fall on the same day, but in the proper order of things, everyone is endowed.
OBJECTION: ********. There are countless fools, countless arrogant individuals, countless assholes, just as those who are meek are also countless. If wisdom is to understand what is going on in respect to one's position in life, surely there are those who have not become wiser and some who have become more foolish.
One day, on her turn, the Know's fairy stopped.
QUALM: No. Stop.
QUALM: No. Stop. This is was not a story, it was an explanation which made less sense as it went on. Now it has become ridiculous to a different degree. People have not stopped getting wiser, others have not stopped getting more foolish. And neither is the work of a fairy.
QUERY: Which are you?
ASSERTION: I am sure that, although I take steps back, I progress towards wisdom.
QUERY: Because you seize opportunities?
ASSERTION: Yes.
QUERY: What occasions an opportunity?
ASSERTION: Not a fairy. Conditions come together. It is an opportunity because it is not expected until it is recognized.
QUERY: Wisdom requires one to recognize the opportunity?
ASSERTION: No, the situation need not be recognized, but it can be. Only the wisdom needs to be recognized.
QUERY: Is each opportunity available to all who are subject to experience it?
ASSERTION: No. Each person has their own opportunity.
QUALM: Surely, there are opportunities in which everyone learns, and similarly there are opportunities that pass by without notice. Those cannot be opportunities, if they are are beyond one's scope of perception.
----------------: Perhaps.
QUERY: And when one is distracted at one moment and later, in retrospect, learns and becomes wiser. At which point was the opportunity?
----------------: The opportunity was almost missed, but not quite. The opportunity was in that on which the person reflected.
QUERY: And what of the cause of the reflection itself?
ASSERTION: That is how the opportunity is defined, it was the cause of reflection.
QUALM: I do not see how this can be. If a person must be receptive to an opportunity, is that not a guarantee that wisdom will then be attained? Surely an opportunity is something that can be missed, otherwise it comes as surely as the fairy.
NEGATION: No. The story with the fairy does not explain well how one attains wisdom, nor does it explain how some are foolish and some are wise.
QUERY: Opportunity, then is spread unevenly?
ASSERTION: Most assuredly.
Opportunities can pass
QUALM: If opportunities can pass without one's notice, and at that point they are not opportunities, then it may be that they are spread evenly, but receptivity to those opportunities are not even, is this not so?
ASSERTION: Yes.
QUALM: Then it is impossible to determine if, for example there is not an opportunity occurring right now. And similarly, it is impossible to determine if there is an opportunity occurring at every moment?
-----------------: One can say this . . .
QUERY: Then, the only thing between a person and wisdom is their receptivity to it?
OBJECTION: Receptivity is limited. One needs to become wiser to become wiser still. What's more, not every lesson is available at every time. This is what is meant by opportunity.
ALLAYMENT: I see.
Wise enough
The Know's fairy stopped because everyone had become wise enough. What would more wisdom bring?
QUALM: Jesus ****ing christ, this doesn't even make sense any more. What about the children who are born and need to be at least as wise as everyone is in this magical world?
ALLAYMENT: It is only a story, it does not matter if it makes sense, nor does it matter if it is understood.
QUALM: But it's Not true!
QUERY: Why does that matter? Is it not true enough?
ASSERTION: If it's not true, makes no sense, and cannot be understood, then it is useless!
ALLAYMENT: But what even the things you say are not the truest of true things, they are true enough. Like a chemist arguing with a biologist. The biologist speaks of cells, but the chemist says that the conception of cells is not "true enough." Atoms and molecules, you see, are the the real actors. Along comes the nuclear physicist and speaks of that which is somehow "more true." It's as if to correct another person who asks, "has the water evaporated?" "The molecules have accrued more energy."
QUALM: Then why tell the story?
QUERY: Why listen?
ASSERTION: I hoped for insight.
ASSERTION: No, it's just a story.
QUALM: Why tell the story?
QUERY: Is an explanation an opportunity?
ASSERTION: Yes.
ASSERTION: So to is not an explanation. So to is anything at all, we have agreed. Is the opportunity for you, or for me?
QUALM: It seems that, since you told it to me, it was my opportunity.
ASSERTION: While you are certainly free to it, why would I create an opportunity for you as I cannot ensure your receptivity to it? It's for myself.
QUERY: To what ends? And why would you not do it for me?
DEATHLY FEAR
don't you think?
----
Hehehehe, see now how there's quiet?
Enough quiet to bury this and leave it whispering just like this. I can go on, and on, and on, and it will just disappear to no one, but it'll still be enough. Cathartic enough. Isn't that all we keep doing around here? We have questions, we are curious about others, but only mildly so. Here, we purge. We ask not for answers but for the sake of the question, to be the asker.
It's a nice role. Indirect, we can dare to show ourselves like an illusion of perspective, only suggestive of our selves if seen from the wrong angle. We move to tease but not to show. Never that! Never ever. Hahaha, can you imagine? Being laid bare? Being seen for what we are, unobstructed by our tricks and postures, our gestures that declare, falsely, I'm this, I'm that.
I'm rich, I'm mannered, I'm happy, I'm powerful, I'm clever, I'm witty, I understand, I am good, I'm independent, I'm strong, I'm fine.
Maybe I am. Maybe I just want a fat dose of honesty and clear unabashed truth proclaimed, shamelessly, out of non-egotistical self-love. Just some pure expression of humanity.
Not old phrases, re-digested, ruminated, and diluted in their meaning. Not what people want to hear. Not what people think is humanity. Just something honest and yours.
Before it gets filtered.
They don't care about this, they'll think I'm an idiot, of course they already know, they'll think I'm strange, they'll think I'm dangerous, boring, foolish, stupid.
What
a
goddamn
plague
Ten thousand inhibitions swim around my head waiting for an opportunity to bite so that I retreat. And it seems everyone is like this, with different inhibitions. Different flavors of want-can't. And understanding I can takes so loooooooooooooong. I see it in the distance, I know I can just do as I will, but holy **** is it a swamp to trudge through.
So, with a healthy mix of great care and reckless abandon, each in it's place, I'm gonna bust it wide open and let it out as far as it will go. I'm pretty sure it'll come with tiny flits of panic.
0
So, as with most language, it's a matter of agreement, value, and perception. If you can't notice extraordinary qualities and only see the mundane, you only see average, if, similarly, you don't value those qualities, then again, average. If a slight variation is highly unusual or improbable, average? Just agree on something and use the word consistently, find a grey area, reach new agreement, continue using the word so long as it's useful.
0
0
I used it to catch my crazy old south african roommate that was snooping around in my room. I think she was eating my roasted peanuts and looking through my underwear, can't tell from the angle at which I set it up. But still, set up Yawcam and tell it to email you the pictures and/or upload them ftp to some server in addition to saving it to your computer.
soo, that worked pretty well
https://picasaweb.go...feat=directlinkAnd, you know, share if you're a multiple-personality having, sleep-walking person, because I bet those pictures will be pretty good
0
I agree here too, but some people don't or can't think of what to say, and as a matter of idealism, bumping a thread for viewership is not wrong as far as I'm concerned, but, like I already said, is an unwieldy idea as a matter of policy.
0
"If you care enough about something to necro it, you should have the ability to add significant information." is simply not true
0
Letting an old thread stay dead may invite threads of duplicate ideas which may or may not be conducive to discussion, since many people are unwilling to read through the discussions of old threads. At the same time, it's not surprising when members get frustrated and derisive against other members who bring up arguments that have been repeatedly and consistently refuted in previous, now inactive threads.
So the question to me becomes what is the difference between making a new thread and reviving an old one? The enthusiasm of the new posters who have a discussion that is new to them but old to the forum? Is that discussion valuable because it occurs, or is a discussion valuable because there are new ideas appearing and rebounding between people?
And what is the difference between sharing an original idea and sharing an old idea that belongs to someone else? Does that person not simply want the idea to be known to others? If they find such an idea that is well-written so that they can find no fault in it, cannot think of a way to enhance it, is it then not okay for them to bump that thread? Let others see it as it may be new to others, and then perhaps they may have something to add to it? Again, with such an intention, I do not see much difference between a new and an inactive thread.
That a thread is deemed old does not negate these things, but I recognize there is a correlation between inactive threads and threads that shouldn't be revived. But it is a correlation only.
0
If a person wants to share an idea they had, has located a previous such thread, and has nothing to add to it, is it so wrong that they merely revive it so that others may see it? Is that not the original goal of creating such a thread in the first place? I don't think it necessarily needs critical discussion; sometimes support and viewership is significant and enough. "Here was a good idea, there has been discussion on it, points made, points refuted, points upheld, revisions made . . . Come see if you like it as well!"
Your point remains about how moderators react to necroed threads, and so, it would be prudent to, at the very least, feign discussion. Ideally, mods should properly discriminate such situations and accept that support that keeps a thread bumped is support that mitigates duplicate ideas in a duplicate thread. To determine a worthwhile bump is an excruciating task with the multitude of responsibilities, but, what're you gonna do. Mods have taken on a difficult job to do well.
The rules don't cut it, as they're unreasonable to reasonable people, and serve like many laws in the U.S.A: when a situation arises that needs mod intervention, they can cite the rules and derive righteousness from them for their decisions and actions, but if they were constantly enforced to the letter, the forum would be some kind of pathetic.
0
. . . cheers
0
fair enough. Black and White 2 done right?
1
no, you're right, which sheds some light on paradoxes as describing the limits of my own thoughts rather than the limits of the situation.
All the paradoxes I see, then, are either lies or created by opposing rules, which isn't really a paradox since rules are created arbitrarily. So the paradoxes are only linguistic to me. "You cannot move left, you must move left." Seems paradoxical, but there is no system around it to get messed up if the paradox is violated. The paradox must include the context which makes it up, otherwise it is inconsequential.
Inconsequential problems are linguistic problems, for I don't think anything can actually occur without consequence.
So, even the grandfather paradox where you kill your own grandfather or impregnate your own grandmother is not an actual paradox, just another hypothetical we know so little about, that any possibility seems as likely as any other.
I suppose closer to avoiding a lateral getaway is this one:
"can god make a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it?"
But then I think the answer is quite simply no, he cannot. I just don't see why he'd fail to move infinite mass. I know the paradox is suppose to come up with the argument "but then he's not omnipotent. Bleh!"
"Guess not."
0
Poorly done it's a pain in the ass
, but when I look at law vs chaos, I still see good vs evil embedded in it. So long as there's a conflict of interest there is good and evil. I like stories that address what causes suffering and what is beneficial head on, without being isolated in a bubbI take all that back.
I don't think it's an either or question, but once you make it so, I like good vs. evil. I consider law and chaos too a personal characteristic.
0
0
ahhha, your brain is like my brain
1