XPost: alt.philosophy.taoism, alt.buddha.short.fat.guy, alt.philosophy.zen
From: meanmrmustard@gmail.com
"noname" wrote in message news:nu2slc$chn$2@dont-email.me...
>
> dagnabit wrote:
> > "noname" wrote in message news:nu2b94$bcs$4@dont-email.me...
> >>
> >> Tang Huyen wrote:
> >>> On 10/16/2016 6:14 PM, {:-]))) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I'm happy to have read what Tang presented of your olden daze.
> >>>> And have had an enjoy able time reflecting and bouncing round
> >>>> down the halls of the tracks your thought trains left there.
> >>>>
> >>>> - pennies flattened
> >>>
> >>> Since Jen has stopped writing in her early style, it would
> >>> behoove those interested in her early 60s thought to peruse
> >>> some inimitable passages.
> >>
> >> "early 60s thought"? What does that mean? Does it mean "thoughts left
> >> over from early 60s culture" or does it mean "jen and his pecker's
> >> thought
> >> from when he was in his early 60s"? It seems clear that there was no
> >> internet in the early 60s, are you coming out of the closet as being
> >> Tang/djinn and reading your early 60s diary to us?
> >>
> >> --
> >> email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
> >
> > actually there was internet in the 60s.
> > from wikipedia;
> >
> > "The history of the Internet begins with the development of electronic
> > computers in the 1950s. Initial concepts of packet networking originated
> > in
> > several computer science laboratories in the United States, United
> > Kingdom,
> > and France.[1] The US Department of Defense awarded contracts as early
> > as
> > the 1960s for packet network systems, including the development of the
> > ARPANET. The first message was sent over the ARPANET from computer
> > science
> > Professor Leonard Kleinrock's laboratory at University of California,
> > Los
> > Angeles (UCLA) to the second network node at Stanford Research Institute
> > (SRI)."
> >
> >
>
> Very good, you can add one fact-point to the score you assiduously
> maintain.
>
> The earliest I had reason to know about it was in about 1973 what was
> called ARPANET. I chose not to become involved with it at that time.
> From
> a perspective of advantage, that was a poor decision, but it did allow me
> to avoid the hazard Snowden encountered.
>
> So are you now claiming that Tang's quotes are things you wrote in the
> 1960s over the network which was at that time only accessible to vetted
> secret-keepers?
>
> The desire to be more-right is a sneakey bastard, beware.
>
> I'm no great fan of facts these days, aside from the type one finds in the
> CRC Tables. Once truth is written and called fact, it has become
> something
> other than truth. I find the network of falsehoods much easier to
> navigate, following something contradictory tends to produce bad-karma,
> but
> being too stupid to find anything right that needs doing is allowed, even
> if it kills you, everywhere.
>
> In any case I didn't bother reading the rest of Tang's post, just as Kitty
> chose not to read the rest of my sentence. In every post someone writes,
> the individual expresses things in ways that are clear enough, mostly, to
> find either a grain of truth, or a grain of self-contradiction. No need
> to
> read your past expressions of something you have been learning about in
> the
> interim, not when we can simply talk here and now.
>
> --
> email: noname.1234567.abcdef@gmail.com
I think when tang said 60s thought he just meant sort
of the style of the thoughts presented here, kind of like
the flavor of the 60s what with all of the introspection
and stuff that took place then.
several reasons keep me from expounding ideas in that
manner nowadays. oftentimes people would read my
meanderings and ask for extensive explanations and
clarity and even then much of it was too confusing for
them to understand.
it's just mainly a depersonalized view and written in that
type of scope, but trying to make it fit in a world of identifying
and personalization doesn't always work too well.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
