On 11/1/19, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:

>There are MMORPGs, Second Life, many other sim platforms
AP could be introduced on. Both in form of the raw text, such
as added to the virtual world libraries, posted on virtual lightpoles,
etc. And as a functional implementation, whether in a virtual
market or embodied into a players character.

>Such platforms being centralized, the implementation
would likely be reported and instantly shutdown.

I would think that sociologists and philosophers would be interested to know, at least theoretically, how an AP-type system would function, in a harmless environment like a game simulation program.


"The raw text of AP might survive a bit longer.

I'd like to relate a story.  One time, maybe it was 1998 or 2000, I was released from prison, and I saw a copy of what purported to be my AP essay, somewhere on the Internet.  But it was VERY different!   By different, I mean very large numbers of spelling errors, punctuation errors, and other blatant defects.   Now, I've long prided myself on being very precise and good at checking my work:  There are VERY few errors in the (correct) archive of AP on John Young's Cryptome system.  They exist, I think most are actually my errors, but are very few.  (I didn't use a word-processor when I wrote AP, just a lot of care.)  Most are not spelling errors, or punctuation errors, but they are broken sentences that somehow slipped by.

One exception was the seemiing substitution of "evolutionary" for the obviously-correct "revolutionary" at the beginning of Part 2.  I couldn't possibly have MEANT "evolutionary"!   Particularly in that obvious context.   And I didn't.   Where that error came from, I have no idea.   I don't doubt that it's NOT John Young's fault, and I haven't ever asked him to change anything about that version of AP, either.  It obviously came to him in a state of error.  How did that initial error occur?    Its now a historic document, and editing it now would be...wrong.

But that doesn't mean that I haven't been intensely curious, for many years, where that "evolutionary" came from.   It would have appeared on the CP list, initially, presumably sometime in July 1995, which is another reason I want to see the initial appearance of Part 2.  I hope, I virtually pray,  that I DIDN'T screw it up and type "evolutionary" instead of "revolutionary".   It simply doesn't make sense to say it that way.  

I once sent a 5-page letter to journalist Andy Greenberg of Forbes,  https://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/11/18/meet-the-assassination-market-creator-whos-crowdfunding-murder-with-bitcoins/#51d2df2c3d9b     which I had typed on a prison typewriter (with a correcting ribbon, but no automatic spell-check at all).   Later, Greenberg wrote a book, as I recall, where he relates receiving my letter, describing it as being "virtually without errors".  As if that was supposed to be shocking.  I was disgusted.

Having said that, I wondered where that hugely-defective version purporting to be AP came from?  And more importantly, I thought, WHO generated it, and WHY?  I concluded that somebody was crudely trying to discredit me.  

The errors that were in the 'faked' AP did not appear to be those that would be generated by OCR'ing a paper-copy of AP, for instance.  (Such would have been obvious, to anyone familiar with using OCR programs on printed text.)   And even during that era, the vast majority of document-writing would have been done on word-processors with spelling checkers that would be automatically enabled, by default.  And most people would use them.  (I've always used spelling checkers, when I've used them, as a mere typo-detector.)  So even a bad-typist wouldn't have generate that faked document, unless he had been deliberately doing so.  

  

>The main issue with such proposal as AP,
as you noted, is getting exposure needed to
run it through the critique and development cycles.

At this point, I think the discovery of the fraud of tampering with the CP archive could be further, additional proof of the government's malicious intent,  I don't doubt that there could be some innocent data-loss, but based on what we now see, that virtually cannot be all of it.

>For that you have to keep reposting AP
everywhere... literally jamming it into peoples
streams randomly throughout social media,
news releases, journals, etc until a large
enough mass starts to pick it up and work
with it in their brains.

>Same as suggesting there is any truth out there
besides the fake two party duopolies, etc...
such as Libertarian Voluntary Anarchist models.
Regardless of how valid the latter may in fact be,
they are immediately dismissed because they
are so far outside the everyday exposure and
programmed computation modes of their brains.

>To counter that programming you have to
either get lucky with a starburst logic bomb,
or invest much traditional school time equivalent
in reprogramming them.

>For example... the public conferences and interviews
AP has done recently have had more public exposure
effects towards that than all posts here to date.