[MD] DuMB

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

Dozy shit says:
What's a gobshite?
 
squonk: Liverpudlian slang for people like you.
 
Turd continues:
Anyway, I think that your hostility and confidence is 
wildly out of  proportion here. The challenge was to think of "any thing in 
the universe"  and it seems you think its cleaver to name the the whole 
static universe  itself.
 
squonk: Where do you think the WSR is? Santa's grotto?
By analogy:
If David 'i challenge anyone here' Buchanan is the extant universe then  
David 'i challenge anyone here' Buchanan is in himself.
He's not in someone else.
Imagine that: Waking up one morning to find you're David 'i challenge  anyone 
here' Buchanan?
Doctor: I'm sorry, it's bad news. You've got David 'i challenge anyone  here' 
Buchanan disease.
Patient: Oh no! Christ no! No no no! What's that then?
Doctor: It's terminal i'm afraid.
Patient (quivering): Oh no! Jesus no! What? What will it be like near the  
end Doctor?
Doctor: You will end up watching Ken Wilbur talk about having sex with  
animals on YouTube.
Patient (head slumped on desk): That. That bad?
Doctor: We can give you magic mushroom tea and play the Beatles for you,  bit 
you'll always be as thick as shit. Fancy shagging my dog?
 
Blithering git:
But its pretty clear to me that this is easy to 
defeat.
 
squonk: Don't tell me you're going to make a half assed attempt?
Don't do it Davey babe, don't do it for all the magic mushroom tea in  China, 
don't do it - For God's sake DON'T DO IT MAN!!
 
Arse licker:
If the WSR is being asserted literally, then I'd simply point out  
that there may be a series of big bangs and eventual collaspes or there may  
be parallel universes.
 
squonk: You did make a half assed attempt. Oh dear.
Look, dick head, the WSR is, by definition, that which nothing is greater  
than. You can't postulate a thing greater than the greatest thing. Muliverse?  
Bloody hell. No difference mate.
 
Poodle:
If the WSR is asserted as a philosophical model it 
can be seen as one  among many such models.
 
squonk: You're slow getting it. The WSR is precisely that which cannot be  
exceeded.
 
Piss poor:
Or we could simply think of the 
whole shebang in terms of what it was a  second or a minute or a century ago 
and thereby fix it as a single stage in  evolution.
 
squonk: Anything which exceeds the WSR is simply the WSR, so the argument  is 
tautological.

Prickanan continues:
Think of this notion in terms of the  doctrine of co-dependent origination, 
where no thing has an inherent,  essential existence but rather exists in a 
relationship with every other  thing.
 
squonk: No matter what you think it will be a static pattern. You are  simply 
trying to describe the WSR in terms less than the WSR.

Sqirmanan squirms:
And of course the point was only to object to the  idea that individuality is 
not a useful concept when it comes to making a  distinction between the 
social and intellectual levels. The point was simply  to demonstrate that 
individuals and collective systems exists at every level  and are completey 
ubiquitous. This would seem to fit your definition of the  WSR, which makes 
your hostility seem even more bizzare.
 
squonk: That doesn't work, nob. You have to abandon one or the other,  
because it can be shown that any individual is a collective and not an  individual. 
If you keep the concept of individuality you are introducing  SOM.
Note: The WSR is a boundary condition and as such the only true individual;  
the exception which proves the rule. Pity you didn't think of that isn't  it?
Shit philosopher man, exceedingly good gobshite.
 
Bell end gives up and deflects his inadequacy:
I guess you're still sore about the 
fact that Ant's not into  humiliating himself so - unless you'd like to offer 
a more serious relply,  I'm just gonna dismiss this as misplaced anger.

DuMB
 
squonk: Your challenge is successfully met at all stages. Simple  as.
As for those who humiliate themselves: Well, they do that themselves!  
Nothing to do with me.