In the interests of fairness, I have run a Dissociated Press on my own Usenet postings. Frankly, the result is not flattering and it certainly doesn't read as well as the James S. Harris dissociated page.
Clearly, there are still some issues in the randomizer I use in my Dissociation algorithm. It is obviously biased towards selecting insulting writing, so that I come of more churlish, hostile even, than I really am. I am a much cheerier Usenet poster than this page shows, honest I am. And anyway, it's not my fault that all those other guys on Usenet are morons, idiots, rubes and ne'er-do-wells.
Well, anyway, this rage thing is between me and my therapist. We'll work it out. In the meantime: here are my unexpurgated dissociated postings.
JFH Writes Nothing Like This.I don't recall that he ever agreed with you that "infinite" means "finite but really big". I have seen only one accidental triggering of the OE bug in all of the Usenet posts I have read. (Coincidentally, that occurrence was here in the northern hemisphere one is. Really? Is this why you and sherifffruitfly are posting so many copies in this thread? Is *everyone* posting via Google double-posting today? Very professional introduction of their "upgrade" of Usenet. Geez, Louise. Come on, Petry, you can take a perfectly sensible symbolic representation and render it in a confusing manner? There is no m such that Qm and there is no doubt that my translation is an ordinal iff it is no more paradoxical than A & ~A. Golly! [1] At least that I have never seen any measure of set size that satisfies (1). Of course, (1) and (2) are mutually satisfiable by cardinality just so long as there are not alternative proofs of completeness and second incompleteness theorems, why should that make us skeptical that Godel's theorems are correct? I told you: glance through my articles and pick a page you want to be part of it is transitive. That's clearly equivalent to your definition, aside from the times they lose, but those times are forgotten and so don't count). Yeah, that would be swell. If true. But that incident was fairly transparent. The anonymous blogger didn't attempt to really pose as JSH. Any reasonable reader would realize that it was "somewhat of a de facto standard for Computationally Based Logics". |
For an explanation of how this page works, see this. For more dissociated entertainment, visit James S. Harris dissociated. He's a better writer than me.