From: Gordon Mohr (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu Aug 17 2000 - 17:02:45 PDT
I think we will only be able to continue discussion if we establish a new
word into which we can pour our essential and eternal disagreement.
Let us make that word "zecious".
When I say "zecious", I shall mean: "ridiculous; absurd on its face;
empty of value except to a rhetorical gamer whose positions bend in
the wind, from minute to minute".
When you read "zecious", you should see: "clever, fun intellectual
contortionism, which we all enjoy because nothing's really provable
anyway :-) ;-) :-)".
Jeff Bone writes:
> > Ask Ross Perot how much the U.S. presidency costs.
> He didn't have enough cash. ;-) I imagine the presidency could easily be had by simply paying the
> general populace somewhere in the 5 to 7 figure range each for their support. (Waitasec, is that
> legal? Surely not? Should it be? Interesting discussion. :-)
> > Or better yet,
> > the constitutionally disqualified Rupert Murdoch.
> > Approach a billionaire and ask him if all his money can bring back
> > a beloved dead parent. (Be ready to be punched.)
> Well, okay, let's get wacky for a second. Enough time and dollars can hypothetically lead to
> technology capable of simulating reality to a level of detail indistinguishable from "real" reality.
> Life is experience, and if experience can be credibly synthesized at some cost, anything is possible
> if it can be afforded; this includes living four years in the White House as well as talking to dead
> Uncle Dick, Pops, or whoever.
With these two examples, of what you suggest money could buy, I am
outdone. No further words from me could make your position appear
any more zecious than it already is.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 17 2000 - 17:07:28 PDT