Tkn, yr qtd n ths mttr s pprctd. lv y Br. Hh. Nt qt.

Tkn sms fr mr t s syng "gd by" (???) thn ddrssng sngl ss rsd n my rqst fr dlg. Prhps 'm smply th wrng "spcs" t rs hs hmnty.

lts jst sy, s y ltr.

wt fr th nswr. thr's n dbt Tkn s cmng t nstrct s ll.

MDH @ 163

Y r ndd spkng wsdm whch ndd shld fllw, bt th ntn f ths gfbll ccsng m f hs wn prn nd mgntns hs gt m htd.

~mngp

Tk,

Jst t rcp yr rgmnt:

"Rvwng yr trck rcrd mks t clr jst sy; th rls wll b fllwd, bvs trllng wn't b tlrtd, xcssv d hmnm wll cst vwls nd t's t bd cn't dsmss yr pmpsty s dlbrt jk bcs fr y mn t. Tn t dwn.'

Y'r kddng, Rght?

- Wht xctly cnsttts my trll?
- Wht s my d hmnm ttck?
- m MY pmpsty??

'm ll rs Tkn.

Y stll snd 17 t m.

Dear BoingBoing,

I dare not complain too loudly. But is Takuan a force of your own choosing and approval? Or is he simply a loose cannon free to insult anyone suggesting a comment contrary to the jist of his own perspective?

H s thr g 17 r whlly nfmlr wth cdmc dscrs. Whn skd smpl qstn (NT drctd t hm) rgrdng dtrl ctvts h dmntly lctrd m s t hs wn pstn n cnsrshp. Whn sd thr mght b nnc t th rgmnt, h ffrs nly ffnsv nd vtrlc sttmnts lblng m dvrs "spcs" f "htfl hmnty".

Prhps m nt th vrg smplstc fn f yr st. r prhps m. n ny vnt, f ndd Tkn rprsnts ny lvl f yr st's mdrtn sklls, hs smplstc, ffnsv nd bnhdd pnns smply ndrmn yr ffrts.

wld lv t hr tht Tkn hs n ffcl thrty, bt thn mst sk why h flt s cmplld t prch t my ntl (qt hrmlss nqry.

~mngp

Takuan, @134

Your ability at judging inner intent is apparently only surpassed by your skills in taxonomy (ie, my "species"?) and phsyio-phrenology ("tightness in jaw"?)

The capitalization used was to highlight that what is being ascribed are monolothic and over-simplified. Kinda like that last post of yours.

I'll leave it at that. I think you summed up your position on editorial objectivity quite clearly.

Sincerely,
One of "All who post here"

Takuan, @129

The premise of the article leading this post explicitly equates the RNC speakers and attendees with proponents and enthusiasts of Hatred and Hate Speech. Are you of the opinion that perspective is any less "political party" based than comment @2 which stated it was "run of the mill left-wing propaganda"? The former is elevated as admirable, the latter is censored/disemvowelled. I'm just saying. Ellipsis.

Speaking of forbidding people to read, is the moderators' censorship of the conservative posts in here really necessary? Perhaps their conservative perspective is similarly equated with that of the RNC as "hate" speech? Seems too simplistic to me.

Mark, What's with the sudden emphasis on cringe/pwned videos? First the Grape electrocution and now mob kicks to the head. Is it just a slow day for more substantive posts? Or perhaps BoingBoing is merging with Break.com?

Is it my depraved imagination or am I simply unable to avoid the thought of a:

DOUBLE LATTE

or how about the article's reference to a:

"punch-you-in-the-face" Placement

OMG help me...

Or:

"they’re still looking every bit as frosty and tantalizing"...

my sincere apologies to Boing Boing. heh, eh

:P

move over Bubba! Here comes George W!

apparently an unrelated visage hunts a traumatized mind. sorry for your pain Marty Z. File that under another reason to boycott familial Thanksgiving!

The fact the AAR is discussing the role of FSM in contemporary dialogue is actually quite intriguing to me and as someone with a bit of exposure to philosophical theology and philosophy or religion it actually makes quite a bit of sense.

Although intentionally non-sensical, FSM is presented as an alternative to the traditional idea of God and thus represents the ultimate resolution of what is currently unknowable, unknown or plausibly debatable. FSM seems to be most enjoyed by those who are explicitly atheist and as such disavow anything "Transcendent" or (classically) metaphysical. In these intances, FSM is employed to ridicule (by absurdity) any reference to a Transcendent with the implication that all unknowns will eventually be resolved through purely scientific inquiry. Thus at one level, FSM is a derisive atheistic construct which serves as a scientifically optimistic placeholder in discussions involving the limit of their own or others' current knowledge.

No one doubts that the limit of human knowledge exists. What FSM boils down to is whether or not a portion of that unknown is inherently transcendent. Atheistic use of FSM would say 'no' while a great many others (who may or may not believe in "God") would say 'yes'. Thus FSM represents the age-old issue as to whether scientific inquiry will eventually answer all questions.

I doubt AAR is interested in FSM solely for its atheism, since atheism has been previously dealt with by theologians/philosophers near ad naseum in the past through engagement with much more sophisticated arguments. I suspect the interest lies in its use as a placeholder for the transcendent, a theme which is alive and well in contemporary religious and philosophical discussion along "post-metaphysical" lines thanks to major players like Heidegger, Derrida and Jean Luc Marion. These thinkers (all within the school of Phenomenology) agree that traditional views of God/Transcendence, in which the Transcendent speaks or interacts in highly anthropological terms, need to undergo a rethinking or 'deconstruction'. But none posits that a Transcendent does not exist. The degree to which one can know anything about the Transcendent is at question in their discussions.

And I think it is here that FSM has traction with AAR interests. If the new interweb meme of FSM stands as a contruct for the Transcendent (whether mockingly or otherwise), at the very least it demonstrates that such a placeholder exists (vigorously) in the most contemporary vocabulary of bright scientifically-minded intertube front-runners such as yourselves (and I do consider you all as such). The existence of FSM suggests that the conceptual universes of atheists and transcendentalists are not so diverse and that it proves useful in both instances to create a placeholder for the unknown. The difference seems to boil down to whether one fills that placeholder with either an optimistic scientism which holds that all unknowns are inevitably resolvable through enough scientific inquiry or a form of transcendentalism which posits that certain unknowables find their resolution only in what cannot possibly be experientially or phenomenologically ascertained.

Or maybe i am completely mistaken and the AAR discussions of FSM will revolve around the possible dimensions of the cosmic meatballs which make up its/her/his eyeballs...

There was a much more detailed, objective and intriguing investigative report on this plane on Chicago Public Radio monday. You can check it out here: http://www.chicagopublicradio.org/content.aspx?audioID=14304