[net.origins] Road Apples

arndt@lymph.DEC (06/04/85)

As soon as I get a little time and the tears of laughter dry up I'll 
respond to the hilarious droppings of the mental road apples (Colin,
Keebler, et al) who are so upset with my point of view.

It is so interesting to see the intensity of feeling provoked when I
cross them.  They act as if they never heard of the arguments I'm making
or as if they only come from a 'religious' examination of science.  They
don't seem to know that they have 'one' point of view of what science is,
and an outdated one at that.  Perhaps because they never took that extra
liberal arts (ugh) course but pressed on "techie, techie" to the 'heights'
of science.

Histronics aside, I see very little in their postings beyond cant.  Reminds
me of the monkeys in The Jungle Book who chant, "We are a great people and
it must be so because we all say so."  

I hope they never meet anyone who is offended by their womanly responses
because naughty things could happen to their faces.  Never from me.  I'm
quite prepared to accept that they are road apples and leave it at that.

I suppose that in their view I have reached new heights, or depths, in
hate-filled 'religious' mud throwing by calling them road apples.  Sigh.
Of course I'm just a funny-mentalist Christian, right.  Jerks.

I really don't mean to make you guys wet your pants with my postings.
But I can't control your functions, eh.  

Look, the long and the short of it is that I have a different definition
of what science is - a view that is not unique to me - and I come at
'reality' from a different philosophical stance, epistomologically speaking
and you guys go into orbit!  Oh, and along the way I respond to your spray
by calling you road apples, etc.  What hothouse flowers!

But more later.   (oh dear oh dear)

Regards,

Ken Arndt

PS  My money says Colin and Hua are sons of Baptist ministers!  That would
    explain a lot.

ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (06/06/85)

There were only two net.origins postings on a dull day, so I
actually read one of Ken Arndt's typical postings.  Surprisingly,
I have a few comments:

he says,
> I really don't mean to make you guys wet your pants with my postings.
> But I can't control your functions, eh.  
> 

I say,
Seems to me that he can't control his own functions.  If he put
a bit more substance into postings he would be worth reading.
As it is almost all of Ken's posting belong in .philosophy or
.religion where long articles devoid of substance are common.

he says,
> Look, the long and the short of it is that I have a different definition
> of what science is - a view that is not unique to me - and I come at
> 'reality' from a different philosophical stance, epistomologically speaking
> and you guys go into orbit!

I say,
The problem is, Ken's definition of science is not shared by
many scientists and is unlike the ways of thought that have been
proven to work.  It is much more like the workings of religion
that have been historically able to reliably produce only one
thing: war.  Ken may sneer at techies and prefer the noble way
of pure thought, but technology is the implementation of things
that work, while Ken's style of pure thought tends to be even
less use than his road apples.

> PS  My money says Colin and Hua are sons of Baptist ministers!  That would
>     explain a lot.

My money says that ... Oh, never mind.

beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (06/10/85)

From: arndt@lymph.DEC, Message-ID: <2473@decwrl.UUCP>:
>I hope they never meet anyone who is offended by their womanly responses
                                                        -------
>because naughty things could happen to their faces.  Never from me.  I'm
>quite prepared to accept that they are road apples and leave it at that.
>
>I suppose that in their view I have reached new heights, or depths...
>
>Ken Arndt

"new depths":  you've got *THAT* right, slime-bucket.  Guard your face.

-- 

--JB                                          Life is just a bowl.