Thanks to those I visited in the US and Canada

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

All of you guys are under a misapprehension here. When I decided to add the word "QRS" to the banned word list, I had assumed that it would only apply from that moment onwards. I didn't realize that it would apply retrospectively as well.

Really?

Unfortunately, it means that every post in the past containing the anacronym will be affected. I guess that some of you will be unhappy with this, which is understandable. I'll wait to get some reactions before deciding what to do.

link to where David said this

and I responded to this post of yours before you actually changed "QRS" to "wisdom."

I just lost the last bit of respect I had for you David.

[Kevin Solway]

I didn't realize that it would apply retrospectively as well.

I see. But still, experimenting with the idea of banning a particular word - especially a non-curse word - is bound to create a significant backlash.

[Tomas]

When I decided to add the word "QRS" to the banned word list, I had assumed that it would only apply from that moment onwards.

But that's exactly the criticism that was stated by "us guys": that you tried to censor any language at all and it doesn't matter much that the censor worked retrospectively or not. And of course you not being aware of raising the impression of having turned into a power-hungry emotional control freak :)

You're right that it has become a bit of a non-issue. This was just for over-completeness since it seemed you didn't get the exact meaning of what was thrown at you earlier.

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

and I responded to this post of yours before you actually changed "QRS" to "wisdom."

I was changing it back and forth, experimenting with different ideas, trying to work out how to use the software, etc, during that period.

I just lost the last bit of respect I had for you David.

I really don't care.

-

[David Quinn]

I didn't realize that it would apply retrospectively as well.

I see. But still, experimenting with the idea of banning a particular word - especially a non-curse word - is bound to create a significant backlash.

What does it matter?

I challenged a lazy habit and challenged some perceptions, even though the project ostensibly "failed". Standard philosophic work, as I see it.

-

[Tomas]

.


one more time :-)



-tough love-
Trevor Salyzyn -- Okay, how hard is it to type "the moderators" instead of "QueeRS"?

-tomas-
Nope, ain't buyin' into that pile o' you know what...



-tough love-
That little bit of extra effort makes a huge difference in acknowledging that these three people have something in common while still showing respect for their individual opinions.

-tomas-
Those "two" people (Dan, David) have a strong dislike for Amerikaners... now, Kevin has had a taste of American _food_ and will be Coming To America any day now. Let's pass the $$$ hat so he can be smuggled across the Rio Grande right quick. His white hair will blind any border guards and his sage talk will get him onto Willie Nelson's Fun Bus up Interstate-10 way...

Unless, you know of a better route through your cannabis buds (bros) up Alberta way...




Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971


.

[Carl G]

I now see the group some call Wisdom, which I had come to know as representing a unified school of thought, is not so unified in their thinking. Or, perhaps Wisdom is unified in core values while differing quite markedly in individual manifestations. Perhaps it is not wise to call them Wisdom, after all, though still I think it serves a purpose, especially so long as they co-moderate this forum. For one, I like the sound of it, it has a ring; Wisdom has become a sort of brand name representing certain issues -- the role of feminine and masculine in the world, the purity of thought that can help one come to various certainties, substantial or insubstantial, and a sort of Internet Rock of Gibraltar lighthouse for the flotsam of seekers voyaging after rationality and logic -- although mockingly Wisdom does not seem to sometimes live up these ideals itself. Well, c'est la vie, welcome to the real world, even Wisdom is human. Ain't we all.

[Tomas]

.


some humor, some serious



-the weasel-
David Quinn -- When I decided to add the word "QueeRS" to the banned word list, I had assumed that it would only apply from that moment onwards.


-leo-
But that's exactly the criticism that was stated by "us guys": that you tried to censor any language at all and it doesn't matter much that the censor worked retrospectively or not.

-tomas-
Good thing it was Aussie sand and not the good ol' Amerikaner variety!



-leo goes on-
And of course you not being aware of raising the impression of having turned into a power-hungry emotional control freak :)

-tomas-
Kick him off! (pop goes the weasel!)



-leo intones-
You're right that it has become a bit of a non-issue.

-tomas-
Yeah, make him squirm a little...



-leo browbeats a tad longer-
This was just for over-completeness since it seemed you didn't get the exact meaning of what was thrown at you earlier.

-tomas chimes in-
I like the way you tossed the wrench into the gears... for good measure, no less :-)



Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971







.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Elizabeth wrote:

and I responded to this post of yours before you actually changed "QRS" to "wisdom."

I was changing it back and forth, experimenting with different ideas, trying to work out how to use the software, etc, duing that period.

I didn't realize that it would apply retrospectively as well.

Unfortunately, it means that every post in the past containing the anacronym will be affected.

You're Clintonating, David. That's quite a tight squeeze to try to make it look like you were being technically truthful. Would a sage try to get off on a technicality to prove that he was being truthful, even though misleading, and for no reason other than protecting his ego?

The putting words in our mouths made me uncomfortable, but I respected that you were big enough to admit when you were wrong and fix it. I thought the issue was over with, but then in this thread I see you were growing the delusion that not only were you not wrong, but that it was a good idea:

Even Nat is now considering dropping the QRS label. So to my mind, it's all going rather well.

You want to be a man of Truth? Expect to have your delusions and falsities pointed out.

[Shardrol]

'Adding to the banned word list' made me wonder: are there other banned words?

[Dan Rowden]

Those "two" people (Dan, David) have a strong dislike for Amerikaners...

This is quite untrue for me, and I'm sure equally so for David. I have a strong dislike for many aspects of American national identity, culture and psychology. Funny, so do many Americans themselves. It is not the same as disliking "Americans". I like you, for example, Tomas, just fine, even if your post formatting style is entirely unlikeable.

[Dan Rowden]

'Adding to the banned word list' made me wonder: are there other banned words?

Yes, including but not limited to: autotonsorialist, bathykolpian, batrachophagous, floccinaucinihilipilification, gongoozler, hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian, misodoctakleidist, David Hassellhoff and witzelsucht.

[Kevin Solway]

I challenged a lazy habit and challenged some perceptions,

It's not necessarily a "lazy habit", since those who use the "QRS" label do so for their own reasons, which may be valid.

I think it's dangerous to dictate to other people when they are using language incorrectly, since language is a personal and evolving thing.

Also, when people try to ban a book or a movie, you often find that even more people want to read that book or watch that movie. So you may find that even more people now want to use the QRS label.

[Kevin Solway]

'Adding to the banned word list' made me wonder: are there other banned words?

There are no banned words.

[HUNTEDvsINVIS]

so the banned words are "banned words" ( this helps...)

Personally, if I have to read the two "P" words on this forum for much longer, I will become ( more ) affected ( than usual ).

[Dan Rowden]

There are actually 342 banned words, but they are all in the language of the people who create crop circles. Those degenerates don't pick the country for nothing.

[DHodges]

'Adding to the banned word list' made me wonder: are there other banned words?

Yes, including but not limited to: autotonsorialist, bathykolpian, batrachophagous, floccinaucinihilipilification, gongoozler, hippopotomonstrosesquipedalian, misodoctakleidist, David Hassellhoff and witzelsucht.

You know, this is exactly the reason I never told the story of my large-breasted sister, who hated playing the piano so much that the she ran away to live in the woods, where she lived on frogs, and a certain Baywatch star would watch her as she cut her own hair.

[Dan Rowden]

Dave, you're either a freak I want nothing to do with or you went here.

[Pye]

.

Trevor writes:

Okay, how hard is it to type "the moderators" instead of "QRS"?

Y'aren't getting it yet, are you.

"The moderators believe that . . . etc. etc."
"The moderators think that . . . etc. etc."
"According to the moderators . . . etc. etc."

Without any resistance to this, you will be stuck representing yourselves as group-think until the cows come home. And clearly, that you think as a group is not the truth.

Your visitors pick up on it and end up doing this, too:

"You people on this site are all inflated assholes."
"Genius Forum thinks that you can't be involved in sex and be enlightened at the same time." etc. etc.

Genius Forum thinks???

It doesn't matter whether Jamesh originally coined the term, or whether it was coined derogatorily or not; this little monster is of your own creation, borne no doubt out of a well-meaning project between 3 philosophical dudes who might have thought there is authority and surety in numbers and united front (Ultimate Truth), as many unthinking people think, too. Dan runs to answer for David; David tells us what Kevin really means; over and again, you have supported this dynamic by interpreting and defending and responding for each other in order to keep the appearance of this collective-think, this appearance of all having reached the same thing: Ultimate Truth. And in the process, you've been known to mitigate, prevaricate, explicate, rationalize, working like a group of feminists who make reaching agreement and being agreeable more important than the truth, for when one of you stands weakly in this association, you all do. This obnoxious thread might one of the first truly healthy movements toward the truth in this matter that you have yet made.

You guys need a divorce. Not to stop talking to each other, but to cease talking for each other. Truth is subjectivity. The truth is the born alone die alone and think alone fact, the conditions for every human experience.

I suspect it's gone on too long and it's too late to abort what you created. You cannot even decide amongst yourselves what or even whether something should be done about it. You made your bed, moderators . . . .


.

[Alex Jacob]

"And in the process, you've been known to mitigate, prevaricate, explicate, rationalize, working like a group of feminists who make reaching agreement and being agreeable more important than the truth, for when one of you stands weakly in this association, you all do. This obnoxious thread might one of the first truly healthy movements toward the truth in this matter that you have yet made."

Oh man, that would have hurt. 'Working like a group of feminists'...ouch!

We don't know how it happened, we don't know why, but through an unfathomable mystery some kind of bubbly, effervescent, healing energy is coming back, oh yes, it is rising up from the very cells themselves, oh yes nothing can stop it now, mysterious shakti starts to move and with that life begins.

[David Quinn]

Pye wrote:

It doesn't matter whether Jamesh originally coined the term, or whether it was coined derogatorily or not; this little monster is of your own creation, borne no doubt out of a well-meaning project between 3 philosophical dudes who might have thought there is authority and surety in numbers and united front (Ultimate Truth), as many unthinking people think, too. Dan runs to answer for David; David tells us what Kevin really means; over and again, you have supported this dynamic by interpreting and defending and responding for each other in order to keep the appearance of this collective-think, this appearance of all having reached the same thing: Ultimate Truth.

That sort of thing doesn't worry me. It is only natural that the three of us will agree on the fundamentals. Truth is truth. It is always the same and a truth-loving person will always affirm it, either alone or as part of a collection of other like-minded individuals. We can't wish away this reality simply because of an aversion to group-think.

When scientists work together they collectively affirm what the scientific method is, what the well-established theories are, and so on. It is a case of intelligent people understanding these things on a personal level and out of that reaching an agreement with other like-minded people.

The QRS label takes it a step further, however, and creates the misleading impression that the truths we affirm here are somehow different from the truths that Buddha, Lao Tzu, Hakuin, Kierkegaard, etc, affirmed. It also excludes anyone else here who might be inclined to affirm these truths. It creates a situation where if a person understands these truths and wants to affirm them, he is going to be accused of being a lackey or a brainwashed cult-member. That is the unhealthy aspect of it, and I have every right to challenge it.

-

[Jamesh]

My quick take on Kevins original post and tour.

It is the effects of testosterone that produces the drive to be an individual and to seek out wisdom. As males get older they tend to lose their ability to produce testosterone in the quantities of their younger years. As a result they become less single purpose-minded. To me Kevins actions infer that this is occurring. This is also a period where sexual desire for women (or even girls) far too young for oneself also often kicks in - that part of one's ego formed from the effects of primate emotions is resisting the loss of youthfulness and seeks to ramp up what younthfulness is left by unity for those younger. The tour was partly an outcome of this desire to be young again, and fear of not being able to be adventurous in the future.

While some people stimulate the production of testosterone by wallowing in anger or irritation, those who have learnt wisdom tend not to take this path. The anger comes from the ego's resistence to the loss of the power/will that comes from testosterone - the ego wishes one to be as strong as they once were.

Where a person has broken down the barriers of traditional non-truth and the ownership of "their self" (though this is only ever achieved to a degree), then the loss of this testosterone will result in a move back towards herdly behaviour, rather than anger. David and Dan are not as old as Kevin and are still producing enough testosterone to make them resistent to herdliness - their time will arrive fairly soon though. I get the impression they have just started the enhanced anger period that occurs when the loss of testosterone begins to have its affects on the body.

Kevin will now slowly begin to move into the far more cautious, conservative and simplified mindset of older folk.

The loss of testosterone and individuality is probably an evolutionary safety valve that came into being so as to make it easier for older primates to be helped by others, for them to survive and pass on wisdom to the young - up until recently they would not be helped if they reacted in a non-conservative, anti-herdly fashion.

[Dan Rowden]

Given that I'm only a few months younger than Kevin I am obligated to suggest your theory sucks :) I think these things can largely be attributed to boredom. Boredom is one of the dangers ever present in brilliant and active minds, of which Kevin is, of course, possessed.

[David Quinn]

Kevin,

DQ: I challenged a lazy habit and challenged some perceptions,

KS: It's not necessarily a "lazy habit", since those who use the "QRS" label do so for their own reasons, which may be valid.

While that's true, I still think it is worthwhile to give people reasons for not using it. It will enable them to make an informed decision based on a wider range of information.

I have no objection to people using the term consciously, after reflecting upon all the facts.

I think it's dangerous to dictate to other people when they are using language incorrectly, since language is a personal and evolving thing.

My attempt to change other people's use of language is itself a personal and evolving thing. It is as natural as anything else.

People don't evolve their language habits in a vacuum; they are continually responding to input from the external world. It is just as valid for me to take advantage of that avenue of input and try to affect changes there, as it is for people to evolve their language habits within themselves.

How language is habitually used has an affect on a person's mentality. Habits can create blinkers and mental blocks. They can lock a person inside a fixed conceptual framework. So there can be far-reaching benefits in forcing people to confront and reassess their language-habits.

Not so long ago, black Americans were constantly called "nigger", which reinforced the perception that black Americans were sub-human. It was only when society forced people to stop using the term and come up with something fresh that the perception of black Americans began to improve.

Also, when people try to ban a book or a movie, you often find that even more people want to read that book or watch that movie. So you may find that even more people now want to use the QRS label.

Well, children will be children. Not much we can do about that.

But to repeat again, censoring was never my main aim. I simply wanted to make a point, and was in a mood to do it more colorfully than normal.

To be honest, I thought the whole thing was quite hilarious. For example, one of the threads changed from, "Nietzsche For or Against QRS?", to, "Nietzsche For or Against Wisdom?". That really had me cracking up. I thought, what a far more pertinent question!

-

[Alex Jacob]

Anyway, you can get testosterone patches over the internet, can't you? ;-)

And if testosterone produced wisdom, only the testosterone-ridden would be wise. But that is rarly the case. The 'truly wise' are often old, aren't they?