Posted by ben aziz on January 21, 2001 at 02:43:48 PM EST:
In Reply to: And danger is not exactly your favorite sport, we know posted by Ahmed Dullah on January 21, 2001 at 12:25:23 PM EST:
: I thank you for your kindness regarding my "above-average" ability to understand your gibberish, albeit it is a very dubious compliment, coming from you: understanding gibberish is at best a waste of time, and is usually found in other gibberish producers. Which, I hope, I am not.
:
: I'm sorry but I can't reciprocate your kindness. You've proven again and again that your ability to understand and to respond to anything departing by more than a iota from your simple-minded "theories" is null. You've proven now that your knowledge of recent scientific research, which you imply subreptitiously in all your "serious" writing, comes from the Popular Science magazine, or from its French equivalent. Heisenberg, indeed! Have you ever read anything by him or (as I believe) you just heard of his very fashionable theories in some cafe table?
: How can you dare speak of "notre conception de la pensee" if by your own words you profess to know nothing of it? How dare you pretend to present a theory of thought when you do not recognize one when you see it? In fact, the meaning behind the text by Maturana et al. is very close to what you say yourself, but for two or three small details that make the difference between thinking and imitating thought. And they demonstrate, for all those who can read, that there is no "observing what there is" - as anyone with a minimum information on these matters knows.
: ----------------
: You've been had, once again. Now you're going to answer me with your usual flood of insults that never touch the issues at hand, and will be very satisfied when I remain silent. Go ahead.
: Idiots.
: ----------------
: I could go on showing how shallow is your understanding of your readings, but, as in the case of understanding gibberish, it would be a waste of time: for those who believe in your "seriousness" (do you laugh when you fuck?) after so many evidences of your foolishness, any such demonstration would be rejected on principle. For those who know you for what you are, it would be useless. And I have other priorities.
: Go learn to read, and to think, and come back later.
Selon les petits commissaires du peuple aux affaires téléologiques Hegel serait un Observateur Suprême, un vulgaire bureaucrate en fait.
C'est bien sûr une nouvelle idiotie des Adreba-
Mais cette nouvelle découverte ruine les accusations théistes que les téléologues lancent contre Hegel; un supposé observateur qui s'observe rend caduc l'existence d'un être suprême au-dessus de lui.