Weirdos and nice guys/girls: what makes them?
- Thread starter lexico
- Start date
ObscureAngel
後輩
- 29 Dec 2004
- 410
- 2
well that's very blunt Thor...........
um.... let's see...... i become that way only when someone really really bothers me... let's say like an x bf lol not that that has actually happened...... yet..... >< * knocks on wood*
um.... let's see...... i become that way only when someone really really bothers me... let's say like an x bf lol not that that has actually happened...... yet..... >< * knocks on wood*
lexico
後輩
- 22 Dec 2004
- 2,584
- 155
- Thread starter
- #28
Eureka: Den4-Sensei Unmasked, Zen Proselyte!
Exhibit A: Self-Incriminating Evidence
Exhibit B: Grammatical Evidence
1. Yes, the sensei is clearly & foxily aware of the two notions of 'nothing' and 'everything' as pointed out by Void.
2. No, it is not true that 'anything' should be, in the interrogative clause or the negative clause, the substitute for 'everything', but customarily understood as 'nothing'.
3. But yes, it is true that 'Knowing nothing' is logically equivalent to '(Not knowing) everything'. Hence, you are right on a deeper level of grammar, which also happens to lead us to the exposure of the true identity of the sensei in question.
4. den4-sensei knows the *Roman alphabet and *English to write it in and knows how to play a little trick of grammatical * sleight of hand by distorting the common usage of invisible brackets that we cannot see.
Normally 'Not (knowing anything)'; here, anything = nothing. This, in turn, becomes, according to the distributive rule, '(Not knowing) (not nothing)' => '(Not knows) everything' = 'Knows nothing.'
Sensei juggles the brackets and says '(Not knowing) anything', which miraculously turns into '(Not knowing) (not everything)' = 'Not (knowing everything)', which is only a partial negation of the knowledge of the whole. Actually, he might know quite a lot, just not everything, as the brilliant Void intuitively pointed out.
Exhibit C: Zen Proselyte
Sneakily referring to Mr Frank D. White's serenity, advertises his (affiliation pending further investigation) Master Frank's *Zen Garden to suck in members' brain energy for food. Besides, there is reason to believe he killed the innocent *fish, too. For sashimi? Knowledge of the mouth-watering taste of sashimi doesn't count as knowledge?
Charge: As shown in exhibits A, B, & C, den4-sensei is quite knowledgeable of many things, at least 15 discrete pieces of knowledge, and, according to his sworn statement, quite a bit of everything that is not the whole. I personally think sensei has too much knowledge, as I have always claimed as true, and out of shame or guilt for the crime, feigned ignorance to evade charges of arrogance, a crime punishable by banishment into the bucket hole until further notice. I conclude that sensei is a Zen proselyte who escaped the bucket hole posing as the wise one who does not know anything at all. The prosecution rests.
Thank you, den4-sensei, for trying to bribe me into silence, knowing that I am vain. (Aha, *knowledge exposed !) And I think I know why you like my avatar because it has two den's in it. (Yes, he too is vain, *knowledge of original sin! Snails are denden-mushi). Hey-hey, and that's not all. The prosecution would like to present the following evidence and arguments before the court.den4 said:I like your avatar, lexico....
Exhibit A: Self-Incriminating Evidence
Here he states that his not knowing is not a natural, blank slate of ignorance, but a clearly *recognized state of the mind that is to be claimed as *truth. He has worked for it, perhaps following the Krishnas playing the gong in orange tunic for years, singing out loud the Vedic hymns "Hare Kr*****." Whatever that may have been, this clearly proves that there was a *curriculum of attaining to his feigned ignorance, and a genuine effort to defend his public *image as a person of not-knowing-anything. Already found four asterisks for each piece of knowledge that he claims do not exist.den4 said:
He also recognizes me, time, the action of urging, and the action of knowing. Adding up to 8 asterisks.den4 said:
But hopes to nullify everything by tagging a disclaimer! Nice try, sensei!den4 said:but I don't know if that is true or not.....
Exhibit B: Grammatical Evidence
Well, to rephrase Void's excellent take on exposing den4-sensei's annoying claim to ignorance,Void said:
1. Yes, the sensei is clearly & foxily aware of the two notions of 'nothing' and 'everything' as pointed out by Void.
2. No, it is not true that 'anything' should be, in the interrogative clause or the negative clause, the substitute for 'everything', but customarily understood as 'nothing'.
3. But yes, it is true that 'Knowing nothing' is logically equivalent to '(Not knowing) everything'. Hence, you are right on a deeper level of grammar, which also happens to lead us to the exposure of the true identity of the sensei in question.
4. den4-sensei knows the *Roman alphabet and *English to write it in and knows how to play a little trick of grammatical * sleight of hand by distorting the common usage of invisible brackets that we cannot see.
Normally 'Not (knowing anything)'; here, anything = nothing. This, in turn, becomes, according to the distributive rule, '(Not knowing) (not nothing)' => '(Not knows) everything' = 'Knows nothing.'
Sensei juggles the brackets and says '(Not knowing) anything', which miraculously turns into '(Not knowing) (not everything)' = 'Not (knowing everything)', which is only a partial negation of the knowledge of the whole. Actually, he might know quite a lot, just not everything, as the brilliant Void intuitively pointed out.
Exhibit C: Zen Proselyte
Sneakily referring to Mr Frank D. White's serenity, advertises his (affiliation pending further investigation) Master Frank's *Zen Garden to suck in members' brain energy for food. Besides, there is reason to believe he killed the innocent *fish, too. For sashimi? Knowledge of the mouth-watering taste of sashimi doesn't count as knowledge?
Charge: As shown in exhibits A, B, & C, den4-sensei is quite knowledgeable of many things, at least 15 discrete pieces of knowledge, and, according to his sworn statement, quite a bit of everything that is not the whole. I personally think sensei has too much knowledge, as I have always claimed as true, and out of shame or guilt for the crime, feigned ignorance to evade charges of arrogance, a crime punishable by banishment into the bucket hole until further notice. I conclude that sensei is a Zen proselyte who escaped the bucket hole posing as the wise one who does not know anything at all. The prosecution rests.
Last edited:
