the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

posts by Echoex Auditor | joined 16 Feb 2005 | 114


posted 16 Feb 2005, 14:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

Jack view post


posted 16 Feb 2005, 14:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionThe LOTR Films by Echoex, Auditor

In retrospect, my favourite character was Theoden. He was the only supporting character who remained true to his human abilities and instincts. Someone posts that his last charge sends shivers. I agree. Every word that man uttered inspired me to war. "Dark have been my dreams of late." Gandalf was great, too, for reasons too obvious to mention. I'm surprised no one mentioned Treebeard. Rhys Davies (Gimli) supplied his voice. If I was a walking tree, that's exactly how I would sound. Eowyn (Miranda Otto): SMOKIN' hot. Especially in TT during the march to Helm's Deep. Something about her set my loins on fire. Just call me Balrog balls. view post


posted 16 Feb 2005, 14:02 in Writing TipsUse of mythology when creating... by Echoex, Auditor

Absolutely. History -- in general -- is an excellent resource for inspiration. Bakker's works are proof of this. Would The Shriah have declared a holy war to reclaim Shimeh if the Muslims weren't in a Jihad to reclaim Jerusalem? Maybe, but not likely. Consider uber-god Tolkien and his comparison to religious figures. Jesus enters the desert where he battles with is own demons, eventually emerging as a cleaner, more divine son of God. Gandalf plummets into the pit of the Balrog in a battle against this more personified demon, eventually emerging as Gandalf the White. view post


posted 17 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

"King Ralph and his goons are trying to find a way to shift marriage licences wholly over to the realm of the Church to take away the effect of the federal government saying that marriage is constituted only by them — and they say gay marriage is legal." The state of matrimony is a purely religious institution. I'm not defending it -- I assure you. I'm a devote aetheist. It wasn't until the last couple of centuries that marriage became a government institution and it was done for three major reasons: 1) It was a great way to ensure that people weren't having little bastard children. 2) It was a great way for the government to register people once they reached the 'age of reason' (as though reason and marriage have any business hanging out together). 3) The Church refused to grant people divorces (divorce is a sin), and marriages can't be annulled once they've been consumated. The government recognized this as a threat to the the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so effectively began granting divorces (in the eyes of the law). In fact, if I recall correctly, one of the first few divorces granted in Canada was done as a favour when a high-ranking government official wanted to marry another man's wife. So it would be more correct to say that Ralph Klein is trying to force the statutories of marriage BACK onto the Church. As for my position on this issue: Let gays marry. Everyone should have to suffer the fates of the wedded. view post


posted 17 Feb 2005, 16:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

That's a careless sentiment. What if it was your child who overdosed? view post


posted 17 Feb 2005, 16:02 in Philosophy DiscussionIs Education the Magic Bullet? by Echoex, Auditor

"Culture and people are entwined. You cannot have culture without people and you cannot have culture without people. Culture does not make people, and people do not make culture, they are dependent on each other to exist. One cannot exist without the other." I disagree with your statement. People create culture, and culture is typically manufactured from the excesses of society. Consider points in history that 'defined' their epochs. The sexual revolution, for example, wouldn't have happened during WWI or WWII, but it was seething below the surface, waiting for an opportune moment to explode. Why? Maslow might argue that people had the bottom of their pyramids to concern themselves with (basic human survival) and had no time for idle thoughts such as the equality of the sexes. Ergo, excess that has become culture. view post


posted 17 Feb 2005, 16:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

Worse than offering no comfort, it provides a false security and arrogance to those who believe. Religion is a series of excuses and violent licences created by insecure, powerful men to control everything they fear. Afterlife is the manifestation of our own smug inability to accept the fact that we're not the raison d'etre for all things. God is the one easy, all-encompassing 'veto' that mankind uses to negate the hard and horrible truth of existence. view post


posted 17 Feb 2005, 17:02 in Philosophy DiscussionOrigin of Morality by Echoex, Auditor

Morality is a brand for survival. Infidelity spreads diseases. Murder...well...kills... Theft strips one of objects necessary to live (clothing, food, etc.) You name an immoral act and there is some survivalist instinct that it can be traced to. view post


posted 18 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionOrigin of Morality by Echoex, Auditor

[quote="RevCasy"]"However, evolution isn't geared toward [i:1z6wnoez]survival[/i:1z6wnoez], but toward [i:1z6wnoez]reproduction[/i:1z6wnoez]." Reproduction is designed to ensure the s_r_iv_l of the species. (Please remember to phrase your answer in the form of a question.) Before I thank you for strengthening my argument, think back to those mythological references where mankind is punished for mass copulation. Do we really believe that Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed by a rain of fire and brimestone? I certainly don't. But it is possible that the horny little denizens of these hedonistic locales had some other physical malaise inflicted about their persons. Now, thank you for strengthening my argument. Evolution. What was once the common cold that wiped out the village (colds being spread through mucus transfer, ergo proximity, ergo human interaction, ergo boinking) has evolved into the guerilla STDs et al that seem so rampant among the less discreet of our kind view post


posted 18 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

That hardly makes it more righteous. view post


posted 18 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

boll weevil view post


posted 21 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

Which begs the question "do you have children?" Ex. view post


posted 21 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionOrigin of Morality by Echoex, Auditor

That's the point where morality manifests as etiquette -- another side-reaction to survival. Ex. view post


posted 22 Feb 2005, 22:02 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

Trunk view post


posted 25 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

I come from a fairly religious background. My father is (was) a devout Catholic. My mother converted to Seventh Day Adventism when I was about 13. Both attend a Mormon church (because neither can stomach the other's religious subscription). My brother is Baptist because his wife told him to be Baptist. I'm an aethiest because I feel absolutely no desire to believe in a higher power. My wife is agnostic and I'm raising my son outside of any organized church. I will most likely be disappointed if he converts later in life, but it's his choice. My kin and contemporaries think less of me and are quite certain that I'm not a 'good' person. But, unlike them, I've never excused myself from an immoral act by exercising the "God will forgive me" clause. Rather, I strive to be a better human being and take responsibility for my downfalls and vices. The "God will forgive me" clause is "lazy morality". Why do I practice discretion and good will when I know it won't earn me any rewards in a hereafter? Because it makes our measly existence more enjoyable. This is the only life we have and we might as well enjoy it. view post


posted 25 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

Speaking as one who has children, I do everything I can to ensure the safety and well-being of my child. I partially agree with you: The rest of the world can go to hell for all it matters. But I will fight until the last rock is thrown to keep my son from harm. I'll cite an instance from the Paul Bernardo / Karla Homolka murders. If you're not familiar with this example, Bernardo and his wife Homolka were convicted of the sexual molestation and murder of young girls in Southern Ontario (this was in the early 1990's). One such girl -- Leslie Mahaffey -- broke curfew one night and her parents locked her out of the house to teach her a lesson. They never saw their daughter alive again. Mahaffy was a troubled teen and her parents were likely very frustrated with her lack of respect for their authority. But had they made a different choice -- had they exercised a little bit of parental discretion -- their daughter might be alive today. Parents need to balance discipline and forgiveness with great caution. You contend that if you didn't have a choice with your child, you would "send them out on their ass, and when they died in a gutter, think the world a better place". Well, I contend that you shouldn't make such wonton statements until you're qualified to do so. view post


posted 28 Feb 2005, 12:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

Age has nothing to do with it. You're expressing such a limited worldview. You're basing your argument on 'if's. "If I had a child..." "If that child knew the risks...". I'm not suggesting that you're wrong. I just think that you're putting the cart before the horse. I'm suggesting to you that you reconsider those statements until you have children (if you choose to). It's very easy to be so right-wing on this issue. It's the obvious moral high-ground. I, for one, could not consider the world a better place if something happened to my son. He would have to do something REALLY bad for me to ever turn my back on him. And over-dosing on drugs is not one such instance. Ex. view post


posted 28 Feb 2005, 13:02 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

Firstly, I would be a hypocrit if I raised my son with any religious leanings. Secondly, the exact opposite could be said about your friend's theory. One could say that one raised in religion would rebel against morality and discretion just to spite that religion. Progeny will rebel regardless of the environment. It's how you deal with that rebelion that will define your character as a parent and a leader. Ex. view post


posted 02 Mar 2005, 13:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

"Natural selection"? Do you even know what that means? Drugs are not [i:2n1uwnqy]deus ex machina[/i:2n1uwnqy]. One does not walk through the jungle and get attacked by a poppy. It takes a conscious decision to pack that pipe and inhale. That's not natural selection; nature has nothing to do with it (other than human nature, I suppose). So your next argument will be: "These people are born stupid and so they deserve to die, and this is natural selection." Except you'll have spelling mistakes and grammar errors. The inherent flaw in your theory is that you don't have to be stupid to do drugs. You simply have to exist, and that's an entirely more sinister ball of wax. I've never known a drug-dealer to issue IQ tests as a prerequisite for doing business. If you don't mind a bit of homework, go online and google "famous and brilliant people who were/are drug-addicts". view post


posted 02 Mar 2005, 13:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

"I believe that there is something greater than us and that we are part of some purpose but I don't think that anyone can know exactly what that purpose is or can fully comprehend a being that is so much more than us." Can I ask why you believe that we're part of some purpose? Can we not be random and anomalous? I think the human ego is too fragile and soft to accept that our existence is really meaningless. view post


posted 07 Mar 2005, 12:03 in Philosophy DiscussionDrug Legalization by Echoex, Auditor

Certainly, everyone is somebody's kid. But until I'm given the authority to discipline at my discretion every child on this planet, I won't hold myself accountable or responsible for the choices of those children. On the other hand, I have -- in my care -- a child whose choices and well-being are my responsibilities. view post


posted 07 Mar 2005, 12:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

I'm not disagreeing with you, but let me play the devil's advocate. What if the love is between a 40 year old man and a 14 year old boy? Should they be able to marry? They know they're in 'love'. By your definition of marriage, any two sentient beings who are in 'love' should be able to get married. Marriage laws are in place to protect more than just gender. Opponents argue that -- once the current definition of marriage is changed -- it leaves room for the entire definition of marriage to erode to nothingness. view post


posted 14 Mar 2005, 17:03 in Philosophy DiscussionOrigin of Morality by Echoex, Auditor

That's a fairly astute hypothesis, and not far-off from my own thinking. Let's change the context and see if we come up with the same result: Do other animals seek to unravel the physical tapestry of existence? Does your family dog plot the course of the stars or debate Relativity with other dogs in the short time that you let it out to pee? Do zoologists catch leopards making snow angels in the Himalayas? I'm speaking in a purely scientific sense -- science being anathema from spirituality or religion. Although these points of view travel in two separate directions, they both require the same level of sentientism -- that ability to ask the question "Why". Art, Science, Religion all sprout from the seed of higher consciousness. view post


The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (first series) posted 22 Mar 2005, 14:03 in Literature DiscussionThe Chronicles of Thomas Covenant (first series) by Echoex, Auditor

I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, but has anyone read the Thomas Covenant series by Stephen Donaldson? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Ex. view post


posted 29 Mar 2005, 13:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

Theory view post


posted 29 Mar 2005, 13:03 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

The government dictates who can marry because the church is too irresponsible to make that decision. I'll go back to an earlier analogy (and modify it slightly for my purpose): What if a 60 year old man wanted to marry an 8 year old girl and he found a church that condoned that behaviour? Now, assume that the girl's parents belonged to that same church and 'allowed' that man to marry their daughter. Organized religions pass laws based on mythological precedence. This is imperfect for a couple of reasons: 1) Mythos doesn't change or evolve. What was considered acceptable 2000 years ago might not be considered acceptable today. 2) Mythos is created in the mind. In the mind, anything can be considered 'true' or 'correct'. But that doesn't mean that these things translate correctly in the real world. Government (when at its most perfect state) passes laws based on facts, protection, free-will, and morality. If given the choice, I'd rather sleep with a beast I know than a beast I only think I know. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 13:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

Oh, I agree with you (to a point). I certainly don't believe that allowing same-sex marriage will cause any significant snags in our moral fabric. I'm a 'worst-case scenerio' kind of guy and approach each situation as such. You're from the United States. I'm amused that you're not a little more gun-shy on this topic, considering the United States' history of abuse of its own Bill of Rights. Perhaps if someone had played the devil's advocate on that fateful September 25th, 1789, there would have been a 13th Amendment that would have went something like: "No man or woman, having spilled a hot beverage on him or herself by his or her own stupidity, shall place blame for that stupidity on the establishment where which that beverage was purchased..." Or perhaps: "No persons who have knowingly eaten too much fast food and grown obese as a result, may charge another human being for his or her own lack of restraint. Instead, that person must 'suck it up' and take responsibility for his or her inability to function in a logical society." The moral of this story is that the most extreme and seemingly unbelievable results come from the slightest of decisions. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 19:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

I'm probably wrong, but don't Existentialists believe that they are the center of their own existences and, essentially, are their own gods? view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 19:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

head view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 19:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionBad, bad book. BAAAD. by Echoex, Auditor

If I wanted to become a professional whale-hunter, I'd read [i:1hst5fv0]Moby Dick[/i:1hst5fv0]. Since I have no interest in becoming a whale hunter, I had no business reading it. I'm sure it's an American classic for a reason... ...I just haven't discovered it yet. [i:1hst5fv0]A Jest of God[/i:1hst5fv0] by Margaret Laurence. It's a novella about a middle-aged woman who lives with her mother and loses her virginity. There's some really awful imagery of her using some medieval birth-control device that I just couldn't get out of my mind...and not in a good way. Ex. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 19:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionGood Book? by Echoex, Auditor

Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality series can be read out of order. They're also an amazing read, if anyone has the inclination. Ex. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 19:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionAnybody seen Constantine? by Echoex, Auditor

I've seen it. I watched it at the theatre shortly after it came out. There are a lot of bad reviews of this film and I'm going to go against the popular opinion. It had a lot of great moments and -- dare I say it -- Reeves was actually bearable in his role as John Constantine. It carries much of the stigma that Blade II carried (again, a great movie that nobody seemed to like but couldn't give a reasonable explanation why). For what it will cost you to watch it, I say take a chance and -- at the least -- spend the entire 2 hours trying to figure out who you would cast in Reeve's place. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 20:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Echoex, Auditor

Miles Davis' "Blue in Green" from his Kind of Blue album. view post


posted 04 Apr 2005, 20:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Echoex, Auditor

I'm in the middle of Ursula Le Guin's [i:2ywji4zl]Wizard of Earthsea[/i:2ywji4zl]. I'm enjoying it, though it's a little cold and impersonal. I just finished L[i:2ywji4zl]ife of Pi [/i:2ywji4zl]by Yann Martel. Absolutely brilliant...seriously. Before Life of Pi, I read [i:2ywji4zl]Confederacy of Dunces[/i:2ywji4zl] by John Kennedy Toole. I laughed my desk-job-fattened ass off... view post


posted 05 Apr 2005, 16:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

Sorry. I was a little vague. I'm surprised that you were so blatant in dressing me down for my earlier comments. I would think that -- coming from a nation where the worst-case scenario is the norm -- you would have supported someone who examines all possible outcomes. view post


Re: Do you believe a God exists? posted 21 Apr 2005, 11:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

"such as atheist belief in no god which is still belief and therefore thier religion." I read somewhere that the true definition of an aethiest is someone who does not feel compelled to believe in a higher power. If this is correct, then your syllogism is incorrect. You've used a simple twisting of words to formulate a hypothesis. Try it the other way: Aethiests don't believe in God. And since they don't believe in god, they don't have a religion. Ex. view post


posted 21 Apr 2005, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

differential view post


posted 21 Apr 2005, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

No offence taken, I assure you. I appreciate healthy debate. I'll find another context, and perhaps you can offer me your position on the subject. The Miss America Pageant is designated for women between a certain age-range. We're talking women who were born women. Assume, now, that a pre-op transgender male (who is absolutely certain he/she is supposed to be a woman) wants to enter the contest. Let's also assume that this transgender male has fulfilled all the prior requirements to entering the contest. Is it a violation of his/her rights if they deny him/her that opportunity? view post


posted 21 Apr 2005, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionBad, bad book. BAAAD. by Echoex, Auditor

[i:2tmbco3g]Soulsmith[/i:2tmbco3g] by Tom Dietz. It's some tripe about this family who controls the flow of luck. I'm not finished it yet, but unless the author decides to abandon every literary cliche in the last few chapters, it's going to be a pretty crappy ending. view post


posted 25 Apr 2005, 12:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

And it might be sufficed to note that -- when the Old Testament was written -- the authors had an INCREDIBLY limited worldview. For someone in a small village that had 2 dogs, a 4 cats, and a family of catepilliars, that very well could have been all the animals this author knew of. I'm going to disagree with the assertion that 99% of Science only describes what is already happening. It's more correct to say that Science uses precedence to predict what WILL HAPPEN. Scientists formulate hypotheses on the basis of what is already known. We [i:kykwgi0r]believe[/i:kykwgi0r] the universe is expanding. We t[i:kykwgi0r]hink [/i:kykwgi0r]the universe is expanding at a certain rate, and we [i:kykwgi0r]predict [/i:kykwgi0r]the area of expansion and the direction of galaxies and heavenly bodies based on that prediction. Infinity is a very difficult concept for us mere humans to comprehend or accept because everything in our lives is limited. One of the 5 postulates of the particle theorum tells us that matter can not be created from nothing or destroyed to nothing; it can only be altered. But this is a postulate, and our rules may not apply for the rest of the universe. view post


posted 27 Apr 2005, 11:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

I watch it for the hot chicks. I wouldn't want to be the lucky fellow who unwraps that Lil' Debbie Snack Cake only to discover a wiener in my twinkie. Assume that this transgender somehow slipped past all the pre-pageant qualifications some how. view post


posted 27 Apr 2005, 11:04 in The Darkness That Comes Beforekellhus == good guy?? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:2qn6t8n9]But he is more than just evil. Cnaiur is evil, probably more so then Kellhus, since the Sklyvendi destroys, kills and maims for pleasure, whilst Kellhus destroys to achieve a goal he percieves as necessary.[/quote:2qn6t8n9] This very topic was dealt with in TDTCB, wasn't it? Didn't Cnaiur explain that the Scylvendi kill out of some twisted respect for life? I don't remember the exact phrasing, but it had something to do with being a part of the course of existence -- of taking life because life was there to be taken. Cnaiur and Khellus are so similar in character that Bakker needs to win a Booker prize for this slight of word genius. Both are victims of their environment. Cnaiur is conditioned to be violent by the harsh laws of his race. Khellus is conditioned to be single-minded and egocentric by the teachings of the Dunyain. Both characters really have no idea how to live otherwise. Does that make them evil? view post


posted 02 May 2005, 16:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

Really? Okay. Let's change the context (yet again). A straight male picks up a post-op transgender at a bar under the assumption that this transgender is, and always has been, a female. Is that transgender under any obligation to reveal his/her dark little secret? view post


posted 05 May 2005, 11:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

So if you found out somehow, would you stay with that person? And answer honestly. It's easy to take the moral high-road and say "love is love", but the desire for humans to codepend on like-sexually oriented humans is too strong. view post


posted 11 May 2005, 11:05 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:3oiwm6dm]I was preparing to write a huge reply, but then it dawned on me that it would really just be silly. [/quote:3oiwm6dm] Uhh....so what is your definition of a 'huge reply'? view post


posted 12 May 2005, 11:05 in Off-Topic DiscussionGay marriage: for or against its legalization in the US? by Echoex, Auditor

Well, kudos to everyone for successfully painting over their real feelings. I'll be the lone dog who bites the baby. If I found out that my girlfriend / wife / lover (whatever) used to be another gender, I would run. I would rinse my mouth out with cyanide and Javex, and I would scrub my flesh to pristine bloody shreds with sulphuric acid and an SOS pad. When I was young and I learned that Muffy from "Today's Special" was actually a little boy mouse, I was upset because it fractured my own inherent understanding of gender-identification. view post


posted 14 Jun 2005, 11:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionTop 10 (or so) Ways You Kow You're an R. Scott Bakker Fan by Echoex, Auditor

- You replace your sister's barbie doll arms with kitchen knives and then spend most of the morning rhyming off names with the hopes that one will animate her...(your office barbeque is coming soon and you need a date). "Julie...Lurleen...Qwaneesha..." - Your wife has -- at some point -- uttered the words "well, you can call me Esmenet if that's what does it for you..." - When you see a guy wearing a chain with a gold steer's horn pendant, you wink at him knowingly and whisper "ahh...a Man of the Tusk". - You've named your 1987 Ford Tempo "Daybreak". - You've used the word 'heathen' more than 5 times in one of your employee's performance reviews. - You've used the word 'anathema' to describe a hang-over. I'm tapped... view post


posted 14 Jun 2005, 11:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Echoex, Auditor

[i:1r2k55nq]The World According to Garp[/i:1r2k55nq], John Irving. view post


posted 15 Jun 2005, 11:06 in Off-Topic DiscussionAnd now for something totally idiotic - BK v McDonalds by Echoex, Auditor

Maybe not. Maybe he really loves fast food. On the discussion of Poutine....Here are instructions for those members who are unfamiliar with this stroke-in-a-box ambrosia: 1) Consume beleaguering amounts of alchohol. Canadian beer is a nice choice. I recommend Moosehead. 2) Have a close, sober friend take you through the drive-thru at Burger King (or [i:c0bn5u2s]King du Burger[/i:c0bn5u2s], for my Quebecois friends). 3) Order a Poutine. You can pronounce it poo-TEEN, pu-TSIN, or -- my favourite -- POE-tyne. 4) Wait about 5 to 10 minutes for your Poutine to congeal slightly. If you do it right, you can insert your complimentary plastic fork into the container and pull out the entire mass of product -- allowing you to eat it like a popsicle. 5) Consume your Poutine. Proudly wear any drippings like war-wounds. 6) Wallow in your crapulance as you feel your blood vessels constrict and chunks of cheese curd set a course from your stomach cavity to your heart. 7) Repeat Steps 1 through 7. view post


Inri Sejenus VS. Jesus Christ posted 27 Jun 2005, 11:06 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeInri Sejenus VS. Jesus Christ by Echoex, Auditor

I don't know if this is the proper place to post this, nor do I know if this has been brought up before. Perhaps this is a question for Bakker himself. I've been looking closer at the name Inri Sejenus. INRI is the inscription on the crusifix. It means "Iesus Nazerenus Rex Iedum (my spelling is probably WAY off)...it translates to Jesus of Nazereth, King of the Jews. Then...THEN, if you rearrange the letters in Sejenus, you can spell JESUS (with SEN left over). Any comments? Ex. view post


posted 28 Jun 2005, 11:06 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeInri Sejenus VS. Jesus Christ by Echoex, Auditor

You're right...EN is left over...typo. view post


Parallels between Inri Sejenus and Jesus Christ posted 04 Jul 2005, 11:07 in Author Q & AParallels between Inri Sejenus and Jesus Christ by Echoex, Auditor

I've asked this question in another string, but thought I'd pose it to the one person who could answer it. I appreciate your indulgence. There are a couple of irrevocable parallels between Inri Sejenus and Jesus Christ: 1) INRI is the traditional inscription on the top of the crucifix. The acronym translates to "Jesus of Nazereth, King of the Jews". 2) Sejenus can be rearranged to read "Jesus" (with the letters EN remaining). 3) Both are prophets. 4) Both spawned their own religions (or had religions spawned on their behalf, depending on your viewpoint). There are myriad other examples I could probably find if I wasn't sitting in my office cube 'working'... Am I grasping here? view post


posted 06 Jul 2005, 11:07 in Author Q & AParallels between Inri Sejenus and Jesus Christ by Echoex, Auditor

I suppose -- to be more exact -- I should pose the question as "were these similarities intentional?" ...which is a foolhardy question upon further examination, as no writer worth the paper he writes on would be so generous as to confirm or deny such a question. view post


posted 06 Jul 2005, 11:07 in The Thousandfold ThoughtIs Kellhus (a) God/Aspect? by Echoex, Auditor

I'd like to see another option on the poll: "Damned good con artist" Now, I have a lot of respect for Kellhus. Any man who would sacrifice an entire holy war just so he can visit his daddy is okey-dokey in my books. But, in fairness to an unbiased and democratic poll, the mundane should be represented. view post


posted 25 Jul 2005, 11:07 in Literature DiscussionWhat science-fiction and/or fantasy series do you prefer? by Echoex, Auditor

How can we forget Piers Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality Series?? I'm not a big fan of Xanth, but Anthony's Incarnations of Immortality show a brilliance and imagination rivaled by few others (our own Bakker included). The worlds of occidental and oriental collide in language that is easy enough to read and plots that are challenging to decipher. The idea that Mother Nature falls in love with Satan!!?? If that doesn't put a smile on your face, you've been reading too much Mercedes Lackey. view post


posted 25 Jul 2005, 12:07 in Philosophy DiscussionEasy = wrong? by Echoex, Auditor

Well said, saintjon. I'm a huge proponent of the shortest distance between two points. Always hire someone who is smarter and lazier than you. He/she will usually find the simplest way to solve a problem. Ex. view post


posted 25 Jul 2005, 12:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionStarring "Insert Actor Here" as Kelhuss! by Echoex, Auditor

Kellhus: James Spade comes to mind, but I could also see Ewen McGregor or Jim Caviezel in this role (remember his performance in The Count of Monte Cristo?) Drusas Achamian: William Peterson (of CSI fame) or Oliver Platt Esmenet: Donna Murphy Serwe: Mila Jovovich Cnaiur: Tina Turner...okay, seriously, Dolph Lundgren would be a great choice. Skauras: Condoleezza Rice. view post


posted 28 Jul 2005, 11:07 in Literature DiscussionColdfire Trilogy by Echoex, Auditor

I read Black Sun Rising and When True Night Falls. I thought the books were [i:2kbeyi5f]okay[/i:2kbeyi5f], but the plots seemed too contrived...too put-together to serve the needs of the character's actions (rather than the other way around). I wish I could cite specific references, but it's been a while since I read them. Overall, the inclusion of the 'fae' does two things: - creates a reason for magic, which few books in the fantasy literature genre do. - makes solutions too...too solvable. So I'm torn on this topic. The series has a lot of great imagery, though, and Tarrant is definitely a character that rivals Kellhus in his intricacies. I'm not disappointed that I spent the time reading these books. I might even read Crown of Shadows should I get the chance. But I'm not rushing out to tell my friends about this one, either. view post


posted 28 Jul 2005, 11:07 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

Perhaps the 'peach' euphamism has more aesthetic similarities than we're recognizing. Vagina vs. Peach (I never thought I'd be writing THAT sentence again). Consider a soft, delicate fold of flesh that covers and nurtures a seed. Cut a wedge from a peach and take a look. It's not 'jeezus christ, look how much this resembles a cooch!' similar, but there's definitely something vaginal about it. I honestly quite like the term. It's unique to this writer, and it makes me want to go out and shove my face into a big barrel of peaches... .Ex. view post


posted 28 Jul 2005, 16:07 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

Okay. I WON'T tell you that the term 'cooch' is a euphemism for the word vagina. From my limited knowledge, it comes from the term "hoochie-coochie", which was a carnival strip-tease back in the day. It was also referred to as "dancing the cooch". So it likely evolved to mean the bits and pieces one might see when watching someone strip. view post


posted 28 Jul 2005, 16:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionAges by Echoex, Auditor

28 and enjoying the cusp. And it's not how young you feel that counts... ...it's how young the person you're feeling that could get you into trouble. view post


posted 29 Jul 2005, 11:07 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

Of course, you'd never hear 'cooch' used in any quasi-romantic context. Could you imagine?! "She tugged anxiously on his ear with her mouth, all the while feeling the gentle heat building in her cooch." This is fun. I'm going to start a new thread on "Our own, totally unique, original euphemisms for naughty bits"...keep your eye out for it... .Ex. view post


Our own unique, original euphemisms for naughty bits... posted 29 Jul 2005, 12:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionOur own unique, original euphemisms for naughty bits... by Echoex, Auditor

Here are the rules: - Come up with your own euphemisms for reproductive organs. Either gender, knockers and booties included... - The terms have to be totally original. Use your imagination. - You get extra points for using it in a sentence. I'll start: Beef Lolly: "While she didn't mind the taste of it, she was somewhat put-off by the smell of his beef lolly." view post


posted 29 Jul 2005, 12:07 in Literature DiscussionColdfire Trilogy by Echoex, Auditor

I agree. Vryce was too namby-pamby. He needed more of an edge to compete with Tarrant. I also thought the books got a little preachy at points; When True Night Falls more than the other (I only read the first and second books). Oddly, I say this as I flip through my copy of Irving's [i:2coilams]A Prayer for Owen Meany[/i:2coilams]. view post


posted 29 Jul 2005, 12:07 in The Darkness That Comes Beforekellhus == good guy?? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:2s6qllk8]We do know Cnaiur is violent and nasty even by Sklyvendi standards; that's how he held onto his position despite being hated by all his tribesmen as a tradition breaker and father killer. Maybe Cnaiur is evil even for a Sklyvendi. [/quote:2s6qllk8] Perhaps he is. Or perhaps he's just the best at who he is. Remember, we're talking about a character who's title is 'violent-of-all-men'. If you're going to do it right, do it right. .Ex. view post


posted 29 Jul 2005, 12:07 in Off-Topic DiscussionFirst Word that Comes to Mind by Echoex, Auditor

Getting some (nightly) view post


posted 01 Aug 2005, 12:08 in Off-Topic DiscussionOur own unique, original euphemisms for naughty bits... by Echoex, Auditor

You guys rock at this...here's another one. Weiner-cleaner: "After a night of rough-housing his man root (thanks, H), she felt a little sore in her weiner-cleaner." view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 12:08 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is Philosophy? by Echoex, Auditor

That's an astute assumption. It's the ponderance of existence. And if "I think, therefore I am" holds true, than philosophy is thoughts on thoughts... .Ex. view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 12:08 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

I'm an aethiest... I would shout "D'OHHHHHHH!!!" view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 11:08 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

A 24 foot Johnsonville Brat hydrolic bbq. view post


posted 11 Aug 2005, 11:08 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:6ventlw7]i see no one's thought of anything even REMOTELY equal to or (heaven forbid) BETTER than peach.[/quote:6ventlw7] At least he didn't call it a kumquat. .Ex. view post


posted 16 Aug 2005, 11:08 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat is your favorite sport? by Echoex, Auditor

Women's beach volleyball. view post


posted 19 Aug 2005, 11:08 in Author Q & AeXXXtremely Important questions which require answers. by Echoex, Auditor

emboss. view post


posted 23 Aug 2005, 11:08 in Off-Topic DiscussionWords You Like or Don't Like by Echoex, Auditor

I like 'defenestration'... How often was this practiced that they'd have to find a term for it? view post


posted 26 Aug 2005, 11:08 in Literature DiscussionFavorite books/series by Echoex, Auditor

I would get Christopher Walken to keel-haul "A Jest of God" by Margaret Laurence. Or maybe you meant 'publish'... If you're looking for a great book, try "The River God" by Wilbur Smith. If I recall, it's the first in his Taita series. You see, Taita is a eunich slave who rises through the ranks of aristocracy in ancient Egypt and...well...you'll have to read it. Ex. view post


posted 30 Aug 2005, 11:08 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe by Echoex, Auditor

There was some explanation about Serwe being the only means by which Cnaiur could defeat Kellhus (and to some extent, Moenghus). To beat and rape Serwe was to beat and rape Kellhus. To love Serwe was to love someone other than Moenghus. Aside from that, does there need to be a 'reason'? The heart wants what it wants. He fell in love with her. Have none of you felt that reckless, inexplicable need for one certain person? I have. Many years later, I still feel it. Ex. view post


posted 30 Aug 2005, 11:08 in The Warrior Prophetquestion about achamian? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:3lajo2ji]there is something vaguely "Haruchi" (if I can make that metaphor) about Kelhus, what I mean, I guess, is that he seems sociopathically set in his course [/quote:3lajo2ji] Perhaps, at the beginning. But Kellhus slowly starts to experience human emotion...especially in the second half of WP. He even mourns the death of Serwe as they both hang from the tree in Caraskand. There's a good portion of a chapter dedicated to him mentally 'yelling' at her to wake up. Perhaps the Thousand-fold Thought is a combination of the Logos and emotion -- something the Pragma neglected to teach its monks. Parallel this to Cnaiur, who slowly begins to feel respect for the Inrithi (specifically Proyas). These characters are truly evolving and I tip my hat to Bakker for the subtleties. view post


Xinemus of the Cishaurim posted 30 Aug 2005, 12:08 in The Thousandfold ThoughtXinemus of the Cishaurim by Echoex, Auditor

I want to make a prediction that Xinemus will foresake Proyas and the Inrithi and become Cishaurim. When he and Akka are making their way past the Kianene on the plains outside Caraskand, Akkamian uses the Gnosis to obscure them both in shadows. Xinemus informs Akka that he could 'see' the eyes of the Cishaurim on him. Xinemus may turn just for the chance that he can once again see. view post


posted 01 Sep 2005, 15:09 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe by Echoex, Auditor

Everyone you fall in love with is a means to an end... view post


posted 02 Sep 2005, 12:09 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe by Echoex, Auditor

C'mon, Mith. Let's be pragmatic here....(I just realized that 'pragmatic' begins with 'pragma'...hmm...that's another discussion string)... We fall in love because? Because we need to procreate and carry on our bloodlines. So it's a matter of propogating our species. Because the rampant proliferation of disease has created instinctual monogomy. So it's a matter of helping our species survive. Means to an end... .Ex. view post


posted 02 Sep 2005, 12:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionStarring "Insert Actor Here" as Kelhuss! by Echoex, Auditor

Okay. Kevin Spacey as Achamian... view post


posted 02 Sep 2005, 13:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionWords You Like or Don't Like by Echoex, Auditor

Sate Obtuse (when describing a person, not an angle) Typify Archetypal Labia Majora view post


"Pragma"-tist? posted 02 Sep 2005, 13:09 in Author Q & A"Pragma"-tist? by Echoex, Auditor

Just a quick question and I'm not sure if this has already been covered. The Dunyain are conditioned to set aside superficiality and see beyond the artificial sub-contexts us puny mortals exude when interacting -- find the shortest distance and monopolize it. By definition, a pragmatist is someone who judges actions and beliefs on their practical results. Does "Pragma" stem from the word "pragmatism", or is this just some strange coincidence? view post


posted 06 Sep 2005, 12:09 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat happens when your soul leaves your body? by Echoex, Auditor

Fortey just started another branch of Theological Philosophy. To have the bits and pieces of your self portioned out through the give and take of nature. Kind of like a "Buddha's Atheism", if you will. I hope I'm planted in a cotton field where my remains end up distributed throughout a shipment of women's underwear. Long live Echoex, threads of a thong!! view post


posted 09 Sep 2005, 11:09 in Author Q & AThe Mystery of the Winged Elephant by Echoex, Auditor

Sometimes it's best not to ask the question to an answer you don't want to hear, eh? view post


posted 12 Sep 2005, 19:09 in Author Q & AThe Nonmen by Echoex, Auditor

Perhaps it's the intention of tha author to leave those descriptions up to the perceptions of the individual reader? view post


posted 13 Sep 2005, 12:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat kind of flame warrior are you? by Echoex, Auditor

If my memory serves me, the true definition of an atheist is someone who does not feel compelled to believe in a higher power, and not necessarily someone who believes that a higher power does not exist. Do you see the distinction? Zealous atheists -- therefore -- can not be atheists by definition. By feeling compelled to spread their doctrines, these zealots defy the first commandment of atheism: Ecclesiastical apathy. .Ex. view post


posted 14 Sep 2005, 12:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionWhat kind of flame warrior are you? by Echoex, Auditor

Semantics indeed. One's point of view will be characterized by the definition one chooses (or feels compelled) to subscribe to. .Ex. view post


posted 19 Sep 2005, 16:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionWoT by Echoex, Auditor

Uhh...what if you've already done three of the choices mentioned on that list?... .Ex. view post


posted 27 Sep 2005, 17:09 in Off-Topic Discussion*pokes the board with a stick* by Echoex, Auditor

I was recruited by the Star League to defend the frontier against Xur and the Kodan Armada. Bloody Xur never gives a guy five minutes to spend time on his favourite PoN website... Bastard... .Ex. view post


posted 28 Sep 2005, 11:09 in Off-Topic DiscussionMovies...? by Echoex, Auditor

Ahhh....Sideways. Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church. Two middle-aged men -- both wash-ups in their own ways -- venture to the California wine valley for one last hurrah before Jack (Church) gets married. Miles (Giamatti) is a recently-divorced Grade 8 teacher with a preternatural instinct for wine and a manuscript that just can't get published. Jack is an ex-soap opera star and current commercial voice-over guy who 'wants to get his nut' while on this trip, in spite of his premarital commitments. The cinematography is kept rather simple in this dialogue- / situation-driven masterpiece. But this work of art is more like Munch's "The Scream" than it is like DaVinci's "Last Supper". That is, it's the movie's simplicity and what it's lacking that makes it so distressing and beautiful to look at. Consider the sparce soundtrack, Miles' Saub...these things all lend to a sense of desperation. And you'll see that this dankness is cut on occassion by the warmth of Virginia Madsen's character, Maya. The only disappointment comes from a rather jolted and unnatural performance by Sandra Oh (Stephanie). I can only chalk it up to her inexperience, and this is especially evident by her being cast against the juggernauts of Giamatti, Church, and Madsen. In spite of Oh, I can't recall witnessing a movie where the characters seemed so natural and 'belonged'. And by the way, don't try watching this movie without a good bottle of Pinot. You won't be able to resist the need... .Ex. view post


posted 13 Oct 2005, 16:10 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat happens when your soul leaves your body? by Echoex, Auditor

What happens when your soul leaves your body? It moves into a one bedroom apartment and sues your body for alimony. Then it meets some other richer, more handsome body and flaunts its new body-friend in the same places your body likes to hang out. Ex-souls suck. view post


posted 19 Oct 2005, 11:10 in Author Q & AThe Nonmen by Echoex, Auditor

Anne Rice is notorious for her blathering descriptions. It's almost as though she feels guilty if she doesn't discuss each and every drop of dew clinging to the bougainvillea. Blech. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 12:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

I work in marketing. Maybe I'm not so alarmed by this. After all, what is advertising but the study of consumer behaviour, its results, and its theories manifested in sensory stimuli that has the very goal of bypassing rational behaviour and appealing to some emotional need? Neuroeconomics just does a better job of this. Ultimately, there's an element of [i:3tqdz5l3]caveat emptor[/i:3tqdz5l3]. Your job as a consumer is to see beyond the emotional appeal and make a sound judgement. I look forward to the battle. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 12:10 in Author Q & AScott, I'd appreciate your take on this by Echoex, Auditor

I disagree with the assertion that none of your characters are 'likeable'. I think Achamian is one of the most likeable characters in Fantasy Literature. I liken him to Paul from Kay's [i:2xfrtapk]Fionavar Tapestry[/i:2xfrtapk]. Tragic, essentially good-natured, and seething with a power he can neither embrace nor completely understand. Of course, I can't predict how he'll turn out in TTT (unless you would care to burden me with the pleasure of an ARC). But I was deeply connected to Achamian. I empathized with his betrayal at the hands of Esmenet and I felt his urgency at the knowledge that Kellhus might be the harbinger. .Ex. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 12:10 in Off-Topic DiscussionWords You Like or Don't Like by Echoex, Auditor

Haver. I think it's Scottish. It means 'to talk gibberish'. "Quit yar bluudy haverin', ya stuupid bastaard!!" view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 12:10 in Author Q & ANew Favourite Review Quip by Echoex, Auditor

I have a great Bush joke: Rumsfeld and the other staffers are giving Bush his morning briefing. Rumsfeld concludes his brief with "...and, oh yeah, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed in a skirmish last night..." Bush becomes really distressed at this news and begins crying and wailing. "Oh ma god! That's horrible news. The humaninity"... Rumsfeld and the other staffers are shocked at Bush's outcry and distress. Bush puts his head on his desk for a moment. Finally, he lifts it and looks at Rumsfeld. "Remind me again, Don. How many is a Brazilian?" .Ex. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 12:10 in Member Written WorksHow did you start writing? by Echoex, Auditor

I read a few books by Ursula LeGuin and I thought "Jeezus. I can do better than this..." Actually, some people struggle at it. Others don't. Some of us are one or the other and you play your strength. .Ex. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 17:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:2nwxzegp]I think it's clear that once marketing starts intentionally circumventing rational decision-making that it has become a kind of institutionally sanctioned con game. [/quote:2nwxzegp] All marketing circumvents rational decision-making, Scott. That's why we buy Levi's instead of grow our own cotton. Someone tells us they can provide a service or a product in exchange for currency, and the value-laden benefit is that we get a warm, shit-smothered feeling for agreeing. Consider this thread, even. It's fear-mongering. Guerrilla marketing. You're appealing to our basic need for privacy. This incites fear. Fear is an emotion. We agree with you because you've scared us. You've essentially manipulated us into agreeing with you. Now, if this was true, true marketing, you would have provided us with a 'call to action'. Some 'rise up and fight' statement to rile us against The Man. But you're a writer and I'm a marketer and we are where we are because of who we are. Personally, I think neuroeconomics is a great idea. I look forward to the day when retailers know EXACTLY what I want to buy so I don't have to rummage through pounds and pounds of junk mail. I just hope my synapses remember to order the Victoria Secrets Catalogue like I asked them to. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 17:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:2vwlkaw7]VERY interesting perspective, echoex! you're so lucid and articulate that i'm forced to consider!!! [/quote:2vwlkaw7] Is this sarcasm? .Ex. view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 17:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:3kscy5sn]You become accustomed to having them say "you wanted something like this, here it is", and then when they say "you want this too" you just accept it.[/quote:3kscy5sn] No offence, Murrin, but bully. At this point your mommy and I would ask you if you'd jump off the cliff, too. If you take for granted everything that an advertiser tells you, then you deserve what you get. Sprinkle a little bit of discretion into every decision you make. That's my suggestion. At some point we have to start taking responsibility for our naiveties. .Ex. PS, Lucimay: [quote:3kscy5sn](do i have a reputation for being a smart*ss?)[/quote:3kscy5sn] Not at all. But I have a reputation for being an *sshole.... Thanks for the compliment! view post


posted 25 Oct 2005, 18:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:pxtlsn71](as an aside Echoex, have your read Wm Gibson's Pattern Recognition? it's sort of related to this conversation.)[/quote:pxtlsn71] No, I haven't read it, Luce. I (and watch carefully, everyone) saw the book on the shelf. All its pretty colours enticed me and made me happy (emotional response), but I realized that I only had enough money for some smokes and a six pack of Moosehead, so I decided (rational decision) to give the book a skip (rational decision circumvents emotional response). Now THAT'S sarcasm... .Ex. view post


posted 26 Oct 2005, 17:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:2d0buxgx]Just for clarity's sake, Echoex, how would you define the difference between conditioning others and rational engaging them? Which approach do you personally use with your family and friends, and why? [/quote:2d0buxgx] The difference is in the approach, I suppose. Rational engagement requires a presentation of all the facts and an open invitation for the individual to form his or her own opinion on the matter. Conditioning others requires much more propaganda and one-sidedness. There's no blanket answer to your second question. Different situations call for different approaches. I have a four year old son. I try to steer him away from certain evils. I don't tell him that -- if he chooses candy for dinner -- he'll enjoy the taste much more than broccoli, but if he chooses it, it will make him sick. I tell him to eat his bloody broccoli. [quote:2d0buxgx]You make it sound as though marketers circumvent our rational side for our own good. Is that what you're suggesting? [/quote:2d0buxgx] That's not what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting that we can't blame an advertiser for doing his or her job. We [i:2d0buxgx]choose[/i:2d0buxgx] to agree or disagree with what advertising tells us. I market pizza. You eat pizza once a week. I can provide you with a very suitable emotionally-driven argument why you should add one more meal occassion to your week (using various sensory stimuli) and you'll either agree or disagree with me. I won't be held responsible if you spend your last $20 on my pizza. [quote:2d0buxgx]To agree with me for fear's sake would be irrational. It's an inducement to believe (one mastered by many politicians, past and present), but it isn't a reason to believe. The question, Echoex, is whether the fear follows from the reasons (which it does in this case), or whether the fear does the work of reasons. This is not a fine distinction: it really marks the difference between engaging others in the attempt to reach rational consensus, or pushing buttons in the attempt to get people to do what you want them to do. The first, for example, is the supposed cornerstone of our democratic institutions. [/quote:2d0buxgx] You're absolutely right. There is a very definite distinction between the two. As mentioned earlier, one requires a clear and unbiased presentation of all the facts, followed by an invitation or opportunity for the individual to compose his or her own opinion. The 'pushing buttons' approach is much less forgiving. It invites emotion into the equation long before the facts are presented. The individual is responding emotionally (and has likely made up his or her mind) before he or she has a reason. For example, if R. Scott Bakker had intended the former, he might have titled this discussion "Neuroeconomics: Its benefits and disadvantages to both marketers and consumers." Instead, R. Scott Bakker titled this discussion "You Should Be Afraid...Very, Very Afraid." [quote:2d0buxgx]Your answer seems to be: If it makes life marginally easier, then hell, yes. Are you really arguing this?[/quote:2d0buxgx] No. I'm arguing that neuroeconomics does little to make me very, very afraid because I have the good sense to let ration interfer with my emotional responses, and in this instance I see no rational reason why marketers shouldn't know exactly what I want. view post


posted 27 Oct 2005, 00:10 in Author Q & AYou should be afraid... very, very, afraid. by Echoex, Auditor

I don't have much time at the moment, but I wanted to reply to a couple of your points. By the way, I'm really enjoying this, so no matter that I'm right, no hard feelings... [quote:1x7if2ny]Anyone who went back to the old 30's and 40's format of actually providing evidence and facts to sell products would go bankrupt in short order. [/quote:1x7if2ny] Now, I wasn't around in the 30's and 40's. And I was still in bagdad in the 50's, 60's, and most of the 70's, but there's more truth in advertising today than there was in the early-to-mid 20th Century. Cigarette companies, anyone? What was the term used to describe cigarette companies' approach to getting children accustomed to smoking (by introducing candy cigarettes)...early actuation for later realization? Something like that. [quote:1x7if2ny]My title is my conclusion. But you already know this, since it's the very thing you're disputing! Which makes this argument seem, well... opportunistic. [/quote:1x7if2ny] Your title induces a pre-conceived assumption on the part of the reader that he or she should fear, or respond emotionally, to the contents of your email. You've manipulated the reader's perception by setting him or her up with the notion that the contents of the post are scary. That is all for now. I am off to make Tikki Marsala Chicken. .Ex. view post


Echoex is unemployed and whoring his wares! posted 27 Oct 2005, 16:10 in Off-Topic DiscussionEchoex is unemployed and whoring his wares! by Echoex, Auditor

Anybody in need of a Public Relations Graduate with more than four years in back-end retail marketing and advertising experience, damn brilliant writing skills, and a nose for pretty ladies, please let me know and I will happily forward my [i:2abu67gc]curriculum vitae[/i:2abu67gc]. Best of luck to Echoex. May he scrounge together enough coppers to feed his poor starving family. .Ex. view post


posted 02 Nov 2005, 13:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by Echoex, Auditor

It also leads one to wonder if the Sranc evolved to protect themselves from the Dunyain. If I recall, they're described as having rather featureless faces. This would prohibit the Dunyain from having that advantage over them. .Ex. view post


posted 03 Nov 2005, 12:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtSerious TTT thoughts, predictions, ideas... by Echoex, Auditor

Unless he did it to draw out the Consult. It might have been the most efficient way to bring the Inrithi, Fanim, and Schools together to battle the greater of evils. Also, he might have had designs for Kellhus to rule this new hybrid army and he needed the tribulations of the Holy War to allow Kellhus to rise in power. view post


posted 10 Nov 2005, 13:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtThe Nail of Heaven - What is it? by Echoex, Auditor

It's the moon. view post


posted 10 Nov 2005, 13:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:1h3j4dxa]Considering how Kelhuss can still easily sort the consult skin spies from the 'normal people' suggests that either: 1) the skin spies are relatively new (which doesnt support shasheoka being a skin spy..) 2) if the skin-spies arent new, that the consult did not care (!!) to leave them open to recognition. [/quote:1h3j4dxa] The Dunyain are trained to read faces. Blushes, twitches, and the subtle changes in musculature. The skin-spies -- because of their unique physiology -- don't respond the same way that humans do. Kellhus would have picked up on that. [quote:1h3j4dxa]I dont think the Sranc are concerned with that, since they are only the grunts/foots-soldiers. Why would they need to hide the emotions on their face if the only one(s) they know is: bloodthirst/fear/anger, without regard for its effect on their prey. So much unlike humans. [/quote:1h3j4dxa] Maybe the Sranc aren't concerned with that. But maybe their makers are. .Ex. view post


posted 11 Nov 2005, 12:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by Echoex, Auditor

Shockwave: How much do we really know about the Sranc? If you were to design the perfect weapon, would you design it so your enemies could use it against you? view post


posted 18 Nov 2005, 17:11 in The Thousandfold ThoughtLike father like son? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:j1usfx79]As you say, i cant really know, but i suspect they are foot-soldiers without the emotions or passions someone would need to be possessed by a Dunyain for example. So in a way they are already protected.[/quote:j1usfx79] Okay, so if you were to create a more perfect weapon to defeat a people who use emotion and passion against you, you would make that weapon devoid of emotion and passion, correct? I think you helped prove my point. Ex. view post


posted 26 Apr 2006, 17:04 in Philosophy DiscussionDo you believe a God exists? by Echoex, Auditor

[quote:wf8ns3mb]I find exsistence a little too tidy for there not to be a creator. Mind if it was not so tidy we wouldn't be here to contemplate. [/quote:wf8ns3mb] But that's just it. Existence isn't tidy at all. Everything about the nature of the universe tells us we're not supposed to be here. Everything about the nature of our planet tells us that we're just another bead in the food rosarie. I think religion is too tidy for there to be a creator. .Ex. view post


posted 26 Apr 2006, 17:04 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow Reading... by Echoex, Auditor

I'm on "Son of a Witch" now... the follow up to the uber-beautiful "Wicked". view post


posted 27 Nov 2006, 16:11 in Off-Topic DiscussionNow listening to... by Echoex, Auditor

Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone... Marvin Gaye... view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.