No, Mr. Busby, there is a Santa Claus.

[jim bell]

 On Saturday, November 2, 2019, 07:32:44 PM PDT, Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:
 
 
 On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 at 10:31:09PM +0000, jim bell wrote:
> No, Mr. Busby, there is a Santa Claus.
> Dear Mr. Busby,
> On the Cypherpunks Archive web page,  https://cryptoanarchy.wiki/blog/2018/07/05/the-cypherpunks-mailing-list-archives-must-be-preserved.html   , you said:

> Are you getting excited now, Mr. Busby?  It's only going to get more "real" from here on in.  "Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy night."                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vEEh0GF_C8   
>                        Jim Bell


>Jim, and I say this with care and concern - you're off the reservation.

But, I notice you don't explain how.  

><It appears to some that you are not seeing things, which is human
nature - we humans (!) tend to be NOT able to see everything.
That's a highly vague comment, as well as a truism.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truism   
   First, you merely use the pronoun "things".  Couldn't you have been more specific?  And "everything"?  A truism:  Does anybody claim humans can see "everything"?  Not that I'm aware of.  So, it sure sounds like you are engaging in a 'strawman'.  So what did you actually mean?  You used words, which fortunately are available in great quantity with today's word-processors, but your constructions don't mean anything identifiable.

>Sometimes others see things that we don't see.
Yet another truism!

>There are known reasons that we fail to see things.
Yet another truism!   (I'm waiting for you to actually say something useful.  Maybe you'll eventually get there?)

>We fail to see things usually about ourselves, but also in the world,
or generally."
Yet another truism.

>There are specific and well studied reasons why we humans sometimes
don't see things.
Yet another truism.

>These reasons why we don't see things are closely related to the
classical human "psychological" failings (passions of the mind, seven
deadly sins etc):
A bit more involved, but still a truism.  Notice that if the above sentence were split from the whole, and handed to a person of ordinary intelligence, he wouldn't be able to figure out where in this (or any!) discussion it came from.  There is no context, and nothing links it to a coherent thought.  It could have been written 10 years ago, for a different conversation with somebody else, or no conversation at all, and today sprinked into his commentary the way people sprinkle salt into food,


  >anger
  impatience
  pride
  lust
  greed
  slothfulness/ laziness
  envy/ jealousy
  vanity
  etc
Yes?!?


>I have been "pulled up" in my thinking and words many times -
including by folks on this here mailing list - thus my notable short
supply of brown paper bags to hand out.
It's obvious your words are all from the English language, and they fit together in sentences, but there is still something missing.

>Anger is a great driver for some people, especially when great wrongs
have been done to them, either in childhood, and/ or as an adult.
How does that apply to anything?

>Anger can feel empowering, and it can empower us to commit evil
against others, to engage in atrocities in the (possibly unseen) hope
to release the angry feelz inside us that we feel.
How does that apply to anything?

>Anger is also one of the foundation causes for us to "not see the
obvious", even when others may very clearly name for us (what to them
is) the obvious point we're missing.
How does that apply to anything?


>Jim - it's time for you to listen up!

You could insert that sentence virtually anywhere, in a comment directed to anybody who happened to be named "Jim".  Why is it HERE?


>This is really important.

That's another very short sentence that could go anywhere and mean equally little.  HOW is WHAT "important"???

>Even though some of the following you may not agree with!
Yet another sentence that could go anywhere.  Maybe you have a machine, like a BINGO machine, with little balls that you've written sentences on.  Pop the machine, get a random ball, copy down what its sentence said.  Repeat ad nauseum.  Maybe in the end you will create a seeminly-credible conversation.  
Remember that "infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typewriters" writing Hamlet"?

>Folks around here have been trying REALLY hard to stay pleasant, and
respectful, and constructive, towards you specifically.

Actually, there seem to be very few people around here.  Where has everybody gone?

>This includes everyone you rail against - me, Rayzer, Busby etc.
Where do you get the idea that I "rail against" this Busby?  He hasn't even appeared, and as far as I know, he hasn't done anything wrong.  It seems to me that he appears to have been given "lemons" (a database missing a lot) and made "lemonade" (an archive that, likewise, contains many omissions.)   But, so far we don't have any indication that Busby has done anything less than a good job.  He actually stated, on his website, that he suspected some messages were missing.  True, in spades.  What more do you expect him to do?  And why are you saying I'm "railing against" him?   I'm using a bit of old-fashioned humor to invite him into the conversation, but Busby isn't the target of it.  I'm sorta laughing at the fact we have a mystery here, one that Busby will presumably help us deal with.   Again, where do you get that "rail against" thingy?

>Not seeing when people are going OUT OF THEIR WAY to help you, is a
big warning sign to us, that you are unblanced (to say the least).

Who is "going out of their way" to help me.  Some people are participating in a conversation, not nearly enough of them, unfortunately.  Razor is being a troll.  You too.   Who do you believe, specifically, has gone "out of his way" to help?  Explain what these people have done which amounts to "going out of his way"?    (Okay, at least one has, with some good research.)


 > More anger, will not solve your problems!

What "anger' are you talking about?  Generally, I think the whole situation could be labelled as humorous, if it wasn't potentially so serious,.


>You might try to identify within yourself and give up, as quickly as
you are capable, a little bit of that pride and certainty you have!

Another vague comment, what are you saying?  Your words are English language, but you are not constructing a thought in any identifiable context.  Put that sentence back into your 'BINGO Magic Sentence machine":  You might need it later.  

>Then also give up some anger (all of it ideally).

Maybe you ought to spend more time making up thoughts which are actually connected to external realities?  Just about everything you are saying in this comment (the sentencnes, I mean)  is in the form of a random snippet that, if separated from the whole, could not later be re-placed based on the its content and other sentences still located on the page.   That is an indication that it isn't a product of intelligent thought.  


>Folks round here want to make the world a better place 

That sounds like another truism.  

>- you may not see that,
Yes, another truism.
 >and we often (vehemently) disagree amongst ourselves on
plenty of shit!

So what else is new?  Somebody on CP could have written that in 1995, or long before.  


>But we share one thing in common - we want to see a better world, we
want to figure out how to make a better world, how to fix some of the
problems we see, we know, we suffer.

Yet another truism.   How does that seemingly-random thought apply to anything we've said here recently?


>Good luck,

Other than the fact that this string kinda-sorta looks like it should be placed at the end of a comment, you could probably put it anywhere and nobody would notice the mis-placement.   That observation is a clue that your commentary could be a seemingly random series of what I will call "sentence-lets".  
Can't you do better than that?  Joseph Weizenbaum's "Doctor", "Eliza", and "Parry" had more independent thought in their output than you have so far.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Weizenbaum  
Note for the young:  Weizenbaum was a computer science professor at MIT (I had one class with him, in ordinary programming, I think maybe PL/1, not any sort of AI) who was perhaps most famous for writing a series of relatively simple programs to seemingly participate in human conversations.  While it was actually merely  simple manipulation of words, ordinary people who were not 'in the know' often misinterpreted these comments as if they were somehow containing and reflecting artificially intelligent thought. (hence, he was associated with early AI). 
As I recall, Weizenbaum was distressed that people over-interpreted the meaning of the output of these programs.  People got the false idea that it must be easy to simulate human thought.From the Wikipedia article:
   "Weizenbaum was shocked that his program was taken seriously by many users, who would open their hearts to it. Famously, when observing his secretary using the software - who was aware that it was a simulation - she asked Weizenbaum: "would you mind leaving the room please?".[4]




  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/html
Size: 16917 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks/attachments/20191103/953c136f/attachment.txt>