»Cookies and Candies ?«

Tozy wrote:

Have you ever considered the possibility that some people might be here not because of what you do here, but even though...?

Quote:

Thread started by Gina Rink (538 replies, 13598 views) Last reply on 15.Feb.2007 16:37

Really.

Tozy wrote:

Sigh,... I happen to know that MxO was quite alive (and had more than just a handful of active members, as it is now) prior to your appearance.

Alive because it has active members? How many new threads are about fresh ideas about the movies or the storyline. Speaking from experience most of the threads are about the game, how to improve it, and SOE. If it wasn't for MxO, there would be no message board activity. Again, why do you think this is so?

Tozy wrote:

...Max's thread.

I thought Max was the one doing that. At least that was the general consensus.

tozy wrote:

Sigh,... I happen to know that MxO was quite alive (and had more than just a handful of active members, as it is now) prior to your appearance.

MxO died when SOE took over.

Quote:

Why did you chose to post 7/7 here of all places?

I knew some people here really wanted to know.

Quote:

Have you ever considered the possibility that some people might be here not because of what you do here, but even though...?

Yes, have you?

Quote:

You know what? How about you stick to 7/7 with your "intelligent discussion" to not be interrupted. And in return you don't impose your ways on others, as you did over at Max's thread.

There's 30+ pages of max's BS. And, you think I imposed on max? And, I proved it was BS in several different ways. Sure, if you stick to your threads and not impose your ideas on me. It's not like you post everyday and when you do, it's not like you do more than question what everyone else is saying. Why is it a big deal to you? Because you thought you knew everything prior to me coming here? Well, grow the fuck up.

The movies are dead. The game is dead. The writers and everyone else have moved on. They frickin' gave you the answers and for some crazy reason have yet to look into them. So don't get pissed at me because you want to sit on a board talking about BS. Fine, do it. But, don't get upset if someone calls you out. You've done it to me. And, guess what, I know you'll have more directed at you. Get over it.

Hell, be happy I haven't focused on you and your ilk, mein furor.

intell wrote:

Really.

There's no question mark, but I'll answer for me, it's definitely an "even though." This board used to be alive with conversations and viewpoints. Now there is one unavoidable viewpoint, Gina's. And her viewpoint doesn't exist, so therefore arguing with it is impossible.

This board has definitely devolved into "Gina Explained." What does Gina have to do with cookies and candy anyway? Cult leaders get lots of views and responses as well, doesn't make them worth devoting all of religious discussion too (or worth devoting much of any discussion to).

intell wrote:

Alive because it has active members? How many new threads are about fresh ideas about the movies or the storyline. Speaking from experience most of the threads are about the game, how to improve it, and SOE. If it wasn't for MxO, there would be no message board activity. Again, why do you think this is so?

Sorry, it is, of course, not MxO, but Mex...
I'll edit it.

intell wrote:

I thought Max was the one doing that. At least that was the general consensus.

Max had created a thread to discuss a certain level of interest to him, but you wouldn't let him. He asked you several times to leave his thread so that he could continue his discussion in peace. But you wouldn't.

Capt wrote:

There's no question mark, but I'll answer for me, it's definitely an "even though." This board used to be alive with conversations and viewpoints. Now there is one unavoidable viewpoint, Gina's.

Exactly! And differing viewpoints are met with intolerance, arrogance and humiliation...

Cookie?

PS. Max314 alternated between acknowledging the validity of other explanations and trying to challenge and ridicule them. What happened was bound to happen in my opinion. Once again, I don't have a problem with any of that because, honestly we all have done it and do it from time to time. Just be correct, when you're doing it, otherwise have the self-respect to STFU.

CaptPostMod wrote:

There's no question mark, but I'll answer for me, it's definitely an "even though." This board used to be alive with conversations and viewpoints. Now there is one unavoidable viewpoint, Gina's. And her viewpoint doesn't exist, so therefore arguing with it is impossible.

Actually, Evol has an unavoidable viewpoint. Mind you, with all your literary genius on-board; he's the only one with the wherewithal to pick apart the movies. Keep that in mind.

Also, I love how you tried to rewrite 7/7 in your words, but had to stop because I didn't add anymore information. But, of course, I don't have any points. Don't forget that either.

Gina Rink wrote:

mein furor.

Do you think this is appropiate?
For the others: Hitler used to be called "Mein Führer".

Gina Rink wrote:

Actually, Evol has an unavoidable viewpoint.

No, Evol has a worthwhile viewpoint. There's a massive difference between a beautiful statue that's hard to take your eyes off of and a brick wall that keeps jumping in your path.

Gina Rink wrote:

Actually, it is impossible to listen while you're still thinking. The human brain is not capable of holding two (conflicting) thoughts at once.

How do you constantly pull these assertions out of your ass and claim there's truth in them that seems self evident?

Gina Rink wrote:

I do understand the author's true intent. yes, it was hidden from me. The subsequent nonsense is an effect not a cause. Again, the intent you speak of would be an effect not a cause.

Only because you see it as not their intent. Them hiding it from you, for you is a challenge to find their version of ultimate truth as opposed to what I said was the truth, "you finding as many version of the truth as possible." Swithcing to my thinking would reverse the cause and effect relationship.

Gina Rink wrote:

Assuming you're referring to me, because it is a form of media, which connotes/denotes communication...communication connotes/denotes message. Messages connotes/denotes transmitter, channel, interference/noise, encoding/decoding and receiver. Just because the noise/interference is of a high level or some of the receivers are unable to decode the message, does not mean there isn't a message, transmitter, channel, and receiver.

I didn't say there wasn't a message. I said you could have mistook what the message really is.

Gina Rink wrote:

It was nice and neat.

Really. So why is there any message for you to "decode" then? Why is there any ambiguity at all?

Because I'm a confused idiot right?

Gina Rink wrote:

Actually, they did. You haven't put it together yet. And, I'm going to take that "bright one" comment as a compliment for more reasons than you know.

I'm sorry, lemme clarify... how come they didn't spell it out for you?

Wait, I know... they did, I'm just a confused idiot right?

Double entendre on the "bright one" thing. You got it.

Gina Rink wrote:

If you believe that, then it will always be true for you...right?

Well, kinda I guess. Truth is both objective and subjective. The existance of one does not preclude the other. Granted that leads to paradox but I don't know that I have a problem with that. I see pardoxes all the time.

Objective truth is not a myth simply because it is unproveable ultimately. But then again, that's my point isn't it. How can one person ever claim to be the absolute holder of objective truth?

Cause I'm a confused idiot right?

Aether wrote:

According to your and intell's "only fits the facts" theories, this choice is a false dichotomoy. In your version of the movies, Neo eats the cookie AND evolves on his own. Piss off.

Come again? Did we forget our meds today?[/quote]

No, it means that (in metaphoric terms) that according to you, brain candy or comfort food does not preclude being able to bend the world to your own will based on personal truth. If I am to take your matrix lessons literally, then we all bend the world to our own will and us arguing has no truth whatsoever.

You're missing the central allegory and it's relation to real life. You're missing the necessary conclusions of your own choices as they apply to the real world.

You're missing the double entendre I intended. I made it ambiguous but riddled it with an obvious message. You mistranlated it and/or didn't have a response. See how that whole thing works?

(watch out, I just meta'd you again... )

Gina Rank wrote:

Aether wrote: Hey, bright one relevance has nothing to do with the validity of the connections made. You can say Thomas is "gibba-gabba-hey" but the next logical step is asking the question, "well what do you mean by gibba-gabba-hey?" Not making the statement, "you're an idiot and I know all." I've been down the road already once, Max wannabe. And, so you're not confused, you called yourself an idiot.

I don't have any idea who Max is so congrats on the completely irrelevant comparison. I agree I'm an idiot. And so are you.

Gina Rank wrote:

And, no dude, you're highly confused if almost 4 years later, you still haven't figured out what the cookies and candies are about. I think that's the VERY definition of confused. But, we already know you're not that good with definitions.

Awwwww... what's the matter? Your poor brain needs just one explanation that the author's have never confirmed or denied to make it simple? Cause you think the script spoke to you in voice of God and gave you all the answers that were intentionally left unclear?

I know what they're about. It's a symbol for the necessity of choice. It's a message about the evolving state of free will in a person. It is an allegory for the difference between what sustains us and what makes for a pleasureable existence. It is a symbolic showing of a mother's love for her offspring. It is a play on terms for comfort food and brain candy. It is a demonstration about the reality of determinism. It is an alteration to Neo's code. It is a demonstration of Neo's ability to accept or reject the system of controls placed in front of him. It is about children learning to make the right decisions for themselves in their eating habits. It is an illusion because he becomes more powerful, even without more candy. It is an insight into the fact that there possibly was no choice to begin with as the Matrix goes. It is a symbolic peace offering from machine to man. It is a metaphor for the fall of communism.

That's everything I could think of off the top of my head and I'm sure there's plenty more. All of those are the truth (whether they be derivatives of the W's intent or not). I bet your lit teachers hated your guts.

Now, tell me how I'm not good at definitions and why?

CaptPostMod wrote:

There's a massive difference between a beautiful statue that's hard to take your eyes off of and a brick wall that keeps jumping in your path.

tozy wrote:

Exactly! And differing viewpoints are met with intolerance, arrogance and humiliation...

Tozy and people like you are the EXACT reason why these things stay secret. You want the world to be civilized only to suit your purposes.

And, why people believe in fantasies of men feeding 2 fishes to thousands of people.

Then, you have the nerve to call someone else arrogant.

Aether wrote:

How do you constantly pull these assertions out of your ass and claim there's truth in them that seems self evident?

Uh...because they are true...lol.

Quote:

Only because you see it as not their intent. Them hiding it from you, for you is a challenge to find their version of ultimate truth as opposed to what I said was the truth, "you finding as many version of the truth as possible." Swithcing to my thinking would reverse the cause and effect relationship.

Actually, there's the truth then derivatives of the truth. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Quote:

I didn't say there wasn't a message. I said you could have mistook what the message really is.

No, I understand the message.

Quote:

Really. So why is there any message for you to "decode" then? Why is there any ambiguity at all? Because I'm a confused idiot right?

All messages are decoded. It's the simple communication model...duh. Again, you said it not me.

Quote:

I'm sorry, lemme clarify... how come they didn't spell it out for you? Wait, I know... they did, I'm just a confused idiot right?

You're asking me twice when I already agreed with you. Yes, I agree you're a confused idiot.

Quote:

Double entendre on the "bright one" thing. You got it.

Duh, I said I got it, but I'm going to take it as a compliment. What's the step down from idiot?

Gina Rink wrote:

Tozy and people like you are the EXACT reason why these things stay secret. You want the world to be civilized only to suit your purposes. And, why people believe in fantasies of men feeding 2 fishes to thousands of people. Then, you have the nerve to call someone else arrogant.

LOL

And you want the world to be uncivilized for what reason? For the benefit of all mankind? Are you a closet anarchist....

"I'm only concerned with one thing Neo and that's the future. And believe me, I know, the only way to get there is together."

Are you blaming tolerance of opinion on interpretations of a movie for too many people believing in Christianity?

LOL

Awwwww, what's the matter, does it make you grumpy that not everyone is an anarchist or does it just make you mad that people believe in fairie tales?

Man, the world would be a better place if we got rid of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause wouldn't it! Let's start a revolt!

(yes I know this sounds rediculous but you're cute when you're angry... )

Gina Rink wrote:

Tozy and people like you are the EXACT reason why these things stay secret. You want the world to be civilized only to suit your purposes.

Gina Rink wrote:

Actually, there's the truth then derivatives of the truth. I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

You don't know what I'm talking about. That much is obvious.

Here we go, lemme spell it out for you.

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia wrote:

Derivation (linguistics) In linguistics, derivation is the process of creating new lexemes from other lexemes, for example, by adding a derivational affix. It is a kind of word formation. Derivational suffix usually apply to words of one syntactic category and change them into words of another syntactic category. For example, the English derivational suffix -ly changes adjectives into adverbs (slow → slowly). Some examples of English derivational suffixes: adjective-to-noun: -ness (slow → slowness) adjective-to-verb: -ise (modern → modernise) noun-to-adjective: -al (recreation → recreational) noun-to-verb: -fy (glory → glorify) verb-to-adjective: -able (drink → drinkable) verb-to-noun: -ance (deliver → deliverance) Whilst derivational affixes do not necessarily modify the syntactic category, they modify the meaning of the base. In many cases, derivational affixes change both the syntactic category and the meaning: modern → modernize ("to make modern"). The modification of meaning is sometimes predictable: Adjective + ness → the state of being (Adjective); (stupid→ stupidness). A prefix (write → re-write; lord → over-lord) will never change the syntactic category in English. The derivational prefix un- applies to adjectives (healthy → unhealthy), some verbs (do → undo), but rarely nouns. Note that derivational affixes are bound morphemes. In that, derivation differs from compounding, by which free morphemes are combined (lawsuit, Latin professor). It also differs from inflection in that inflection does not change a word's syntactic category and creates not new lexemes but new word forms (table → tables; open → opened). Derivation may occur without any change of form, for example telephone (noun) and to telephone. This is known as conversion. Some linguists consider that when a word's syntactic category is changed without any change of form, a null morpheme is being affixed.

And I don't even need to pull out the calculus definition of the word where a derivative is actually an aggregate description of the movement of a variable system that can be abstracted on an infinite scale.

The joke is that you used the word as if it had one definition and it has many. All the definitions of the word "derivative" are meant to show that many derivates can be affected on a thing without changing it's meaning and, more over, can actually enhance one's understanding of that thing by describing the metacomputational or metaphorical aspect of its trending. Even after which, it can still be understood as both its original meaning and the modified one.

Or more precisely - you continue to use the word like you knew what it meant and you were wrong.

In fact, the irony is that the only reason the word even has a meaning in the first place is because we (the world) standardized on one and not because the word "derivative" has any objective truth to it at all.

Congrats. That's the ender for me.

You said that 2 pages ago. But since there is not enough chaos here, why leave?

(Notice, I didn't say anything about the proverbial doorknob, like Max)

Let me guess. You're one of those people who go around proclaiming, "there is no absolute truth" as truth. I bid you peace on your journey. But please, brush up on your put downs and reading comprehension. They lack.

tozy wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: mein furor. Do you think this is appropiate? For the others: Hitler used to be called "Mein Führer".

Actually, it's very appropriate. You don't know that either, eh? I wasn't referring to Hitler initially, but it fits too.

Tozy wrote:

Sigh,... I happen to know that MeX was quite alive (and had more than just a handful of active members, as it is now) prior to your appearance. Why did you chose to post 7/7 here of all places? Have you ever considered the possibility that some people might be here not because of what you do here, but even though...?

I happen to know that at the time you speak of, even the mods had left, save 1. That's not alive. And I'm one of the people who asked for 7/7 to be posted here. What do you have against 7/7?

Further, basically you're saying Gina Rink is not welcomed here, while saying that I'm chasing people away. Well while you may not be interested, other people are. Furor indeed.

Aether wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: Tozy and people like you are the EXACT reason why these things stay secret. You want the world to be civilized only to suit your purposes. And, why people believe in fantasies of men feeding 2 fishes to thousands of people. Then, you have the nerve to call someone else arrogant. LOL And you want the world to be uncivilized for what reason? For the benefit of all mankind? Are you a closet anarchist.... "I'm only concerned with one thing Neo and that's the future. And believe me, I know, the only way to get there is together." Are you blaming tolerance of opinion on interpretations of a movie for too many people believing in Christianity? LOL Awwwww, what's the matter, does it make you grumpy that not everyone is an anarchist or does it just make you mad that people believe in fairie tales? Man, the world would be a better place if we got rid of the Easter Bunny and Santa Clause wouldn't it! Let's start a revolt! (yes I know this sounds rediculous but you're cute when you're angry... )

Wait, you're having problems spelling and are trying to cut me down at the same time. Hmm...

intell wrote:

I happen to know that at the time you speak of, even the mods had left, save 1. That's not alive. And I'm one of the people who asked for 7/7 to be posted here. What do you have against 7/7? Further, basically you're saying Gina Rink is not welcomed here, while saying that I'm chasing people away. Well while you may not be interested, other people are. Furor indeed.

Tozy's in her own little fantasy world. She thinks this board was "active" when I came here. LMAO!

Adding to your point, intell. I can only remember a few of the same people talking about the same ol' same ol'. And, she was the closest to talking about anything that was even relevant. However, she hasn't realized that her paper is at least 7 months old and she has not added anything to it since then. To her, this is active.

CaptPostMod wrote:

Gina Rink wrote: Actually, Evol has an unavoidable viewpoint. No, Evol has a worthwhile viewpoint. There's a massive difference between a beautiful statue that's hard to take your eyes off of and a brick wall that keeps jumping in your path.

So, where's yours? And, did wilber get it backwards?

Ooow man I sure can feel the love around here

It seems like smith has unleashed itself into the real world;
Ego's are growing... and growing... and growing....

(is it safe to come out again?)

pendaco wrote:

Ooow man I sure can feel the love around here It seems like smith has unleashed itself into the real world; Ego's are growing... and growing... and growing.... (is it safe to come out again?)

intell wrote:

You said that 2 pages ago. But since there is not enough chaos here, why leave?

You have the intelligence of a small goat. Did I say I was leaving the board?

intell wrote:

Let me guess. You're one of those people who go around proclaiming, "there is no absolute truth" as truth.

Let me guess, you're a moron who doesn't actually read what he's responding to. Asked and answered about forty times over. In fact, it's been spelled out twice and answered directly in the very post you replied to. I'm sorry you can't comprehend things.

intell wrote:

But please, brush up on your put downs and reading comprehension. They lack.

They do? Care to back that up? How would we measure such a thing in an objective way? Maybe a standardized test? Maybe success in life?

How about we compare ACT or SAT scores on the verbal and written portion? Maybe GRE, GMAT or LSAT scores? Or what else... should we compare college rank and GPA (undergrad and grad)? How about salaries and bank accounts? Maybe we have a pick up contest in a club to see who gets the most phone numbers? Maybe we both take a standarized intelligence test and compare IQs or g factor? Maybe we compare EQs?

I'd just love to know what makes you assume you've got mental overhead on me.

Would anything ever settle your inferiority debate for you? Probably not.

Gina Rink wrote:

Wait, you're having problems spelling and are trying to cut me down at the same time. Hmm...

Fantastic. A fitting end. Intell starts the crap storm by saying "spend less time on dictionary.com" and you work your way around to reducing your arguementation to a few spelling errors.

You win Gina. You're the smartest smart person of all smart people. If I had a medal, I'd pin it on your superior chest.

What will you do now that you know everything and everyone knows that you know everything?

"Don't be so tolerant that you tolerate intolerance."
-Bill Maher