virus: PCR

Brett Lane Robertson (
Mon, 29 Sep 1997 14:13:38 -0500

Just read the paper on PCR. This is my summation:

First make bold assertions (assuming that every assertion is *only*
definitional--and that every defined term is debatable). Then allow for the
process to be destroyed as well (by allowing the context to be questioned in
addition to the saying the very act of defining something will
be made obsolete by the mutual "picking apart" of the definition.) Then you
imply that the answer is only a joke (though "punch line" could imply
complex meaning--as if punch line meant "answer" like in the answer to a
riddle; but even this implies that the riddle is not a complex explanation,
but only a purposefully misconstrued idea *intended* to confuse so that the
punch-line/answer carries the intent of making a joke at the expense of the
person riddled. Further, you state your own meaning of the process/product
equation to be "fun" and define fun as "picking apart purposefully
misconstrued arbitrary statements with the ambivalent intent of NOT getting
the joke (paraphrased)".

I am also writing this to Tad (though it sums up my assessment of PCR quite
well and was originally directed to someone else) in response to his
suggestion that a person who can comment on their own work (without relying
on someone else to pick it apart as above) is "nesting". I am assuming that
"nesting" means to use one's own logic to see the merits/flaws of ones own
logic...and that "nesting" somehow ruins the fun--or purpose-- of "this
group thing that we do", namely making a joke of oneself.

Tad, please explain how the above process (allowing others to point out
ones flaws) is superior to refining one's own logic--that is, how allowing
others to comment on ones post is superior to commenting on one's own post.
Or, if there is some other explanation for aaking and squawking at the depth
of the post (ideas which refer to ideas which refer to ideas which resolve
into a thesis statement whose ideas cannot be questioned but which could be
supplanted by a better thesis statement and likewise backed up with better
or other ideas); then please tell me what this explanation is.

I think that your ego is on the line so you deconstruct and criticize
other's points without the ability or desire to counter-propose a point of
your own. Is this the ultimate DANGER of being a (pan)
destruction (critical) of self (rationalism).


Rabble Sonnet Retort
Real Programmers don't write in PL/I. PL/I is for
programmers who can't decide whether to write in COBOL or