You may write that you write, but you still cannot write,
and are absolutely illiterate. Not all the education in the
world will save you from illiteracy.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Max Herman & Writing comment
-
Type: discussion
Comments
Who wants to be saved? Doesn't this imply an operation to help people vis-a-
vis teaching, which is an ego-based operation? Thus inherently idiotic?
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Wed, 11 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> Who wants to be saved?
Dear–if you want to be illiterate stick to your guns.
Don't try to pass judgement on literate comments.
> Doesn't this imply an operation to help people vis-a-vis teaching,
No, it doesn't. Not automatically.
> which is an ego-based operation?
Not automatically.
> Thus inherently idiotic?
Nothing is 'inherently idiotic'.
For an illiterate one, logic sure seems to have
a cracking whip over your brain 'Fido'.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> Dear–if you want to be illiterate stick to your guns.
> Don't try to pass judgement on literate comments.
Mommy, I don't care, but Daddy said I could judge literate comments because he
passed me strong literate genes.
>
> > Doesn't this imply an operation to help people vis-a-vis teaching,
>
> No, it doesn't. Not automatically.
Well, I say it is so, so it is so.
>
> > Thus inherently idiotic?
>
> Nothing is 'inherently idiotic'.
Can I quote you on that?
> For an illiterate one, logic sure seems to have
> a cracking whip over your brain 'Fido'.
Logic is a tool to play with once and a while. It has its useful moments.
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> Mommy, I don't care, but Daddy said I could judge literate comments because he
> passed me strong literate genes.
Meaningless idiocy.
> Well, I say it is so, so it is so.
As above.
> > Nothing is 'inherently idiotic'.
>
> Can I quote you on that?
No, because you don't understand it.
> Logic is a tool to play with once and a while. It has its useful moments.
Not really.
Quoting "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>:
>
> Meaningless idiocy.
>
I think you mean "meaningless to idiots"
> > Well, I say it is so, so it is so.
>
> As above.
ditto
> >
> > Can I quote you on that?
>
> No, because you don't understand it.
>
Well, I will anyway. Bet you don't understand that.
> > Logic is a tool to play with once and a while. It has its useful moments.
>
> Not really.
Is "not really" the opposite of "really"?
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist] wrote:
> I think you mean "meaningless to idiots"
No, I mean what I mean. Not what you THINK I mean.
Avoid dictating to me what I mean. Brain-ape.
> Well, I will anyway. Bet you don't understand that.
Knee-jerk lexicla shuffling is not subject to 'understanding'.
What's with the 'understanding' obsession? Oh yes,
the agreement with your internal noise.
> Is "not really" the opposite of "really"?
No. There is no relation.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42