wurlitzer wrote:
QUOTE:
for zoinks: original writing does not imply writing that is made up of unknown data, but writing that makes something interesting or entertaining out of already known premises. linking to any kind of an article written by somebody other than yourself is not substitute for making a statement of your own concoction.
obviously, you dont understand this, or you would have seen the humor in my playful play upon jung's theory of the anima and the rollicking assumptions regarding the play of the expanding universe on the terrestial measurement of time.
Every bit of "original writing" (notice the stealthy transition from "original thought" ) you and Not Henry have put forth in this thread is either meaningless, built on ideas that no one has taken seriously in ages, or a complete misrepresentation of actual science...in other words, "bongside chat". But, of course, once I have the nerve to point this out, it all becomes "playful" and "rollicking" riffing (rather than earnest commentary on the topics in question). Of course.
QUOTE:
you also failed to read the title of the post, the last word of which was "Fun." while the rest of us are having fun, you are taking our playful repartee as seriously as an old grouch professor, insistent upon correcting every improbable detail.
If I were correcting "every improbable detail" I would've blown another 5,000 words on this thread by now.
QUOTE:
did the dish run away with your spoon, or what?
Like, man. Snap, snap. [bong hit] Bobby Dylan, man!
Message Board 
