Re: virus: conscious/subconscious (form. level 0)

XYZ Customer Support (
Wed, 18 Dec 1996 20:29:01 -0700

> From: Schneider John <>

> I speculated further, and you offered no useful comments to my
> speculation. My speculation has not yet served me one way or
> the other.

When does speculation become fantasy?

> By the way, was Einstein an idiot for doing all those
> Gedankenexperimente? That's just speculation, right?

Just because Einstein did it, doesn't mean it is the right thing to
do. Einstein also committed adultery, is that alright now too? Too
bad Einstein didn't believe in God or that would be OK also.

> I said the gist of the summary was such-and-such. Are claiming
> that I did not read your summary? If I'm too stupid to under-
> stand the gist of the summary, perhaps you could summarize it
> yet further?

You want me to print the entire article here for you? You claim to have
such a wonderful reading list, how did you get that wonderful reading
list? What is there to stop you from finding out something new on your
own? What is there to stop you from verifying your own or my references?

> > Try reading that person's article instead of my summary.
> > Can you do that all by yourself or would you like someone
> > to hold your hand and read it for you?

> That would be very nice, actually. A tall, sexy brunette would
> do quite nicely. And the nearest library which has back issues
> of Scientific American is a good forty miles away.

How about a dumb blonde? Try getting off your lazy butt and do
some serious research for once instead of making conclusions
before you have all the evidence or facts. Quit making up
lame excuses!

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a direct quote from your
> summary included that humans, with the smaller cranial capacity,
> had to "develop a new brain mechanism". You can argue about my
> replacing 'develop' with 'evolve', but that's a small matter of
> semantics that does not touch on the real issue.

The program in question did not "develop" anything. That was just
the author's literary license coming into play.

> Do you have any opinion at all as to why the experimental neural
> networks behave in such a way, or is any speculation about it at
> all to be scoffed at?

Random "thoughts" are just random "thoughts". It is obviously hype
to make anything further out of it.

> Even so, you didn't answer the question.

Dreaming isn't random. I've answered it many times, but
you just aren't listening. Scoff! Scoff!