I can always take comfort in the fact that they are bitter because they can't win.

Moderators: Omphalos, Freakzilla, ᴶᵛᵀᴬ
They're coming from TheKJA ...Freakzilla wrote:Actually, I'm just curious as to how long it will take before the answers stop flowing from big daddy Keith (or wherever they are coming from, because it certainly isn't FH's books.)
And you don't think that FH would've worked to stay consistent with text he wrote previously. Nothing can excuse the liberties taken by kja and the other guy. Your method of posting seems purposefully inflammatory as we are not immediately aware of the identity of the person you are addressing. You prove yourself to be more and more a troll with each post.redbugpest wrote:
Why the bloody hell would Frank, who was not retarded, write about an evil AI killing off humanity as "machine-logic was overthrown". Was he including deliberately obtruse prose on a drunken bet?
Part of your problem with whole line of argument is that you surmise that Frank already knew what was going to be written in the future, and should have written his books more in line with that train of thought.
TheDukester wrote:They're coming from TheKJA ...Freakzilla wrote:Actually, I'm just curious as to how long it will take before the answers stop flowing from big daddy Keith (or wherever they are coming from, because it certainly isn't FH's books.)
... and, yes, the flow already seems to be diminishing.
So it is interpretation, not something specifically spelled out by FH in his notes?redbugpest wrote:I think the ambiguity left it open to the interpretation of KJA and BH.
Not if they contradict what FH wrote.redbugpest wrote:So let me get this right...
You are not open to alternative theories but want to discuss these concepts
That's just a theory, it may or may not be true.Any alternative theories I put forward are not my own, they are pass through comunications from KJA?
I haven't attacked you. In fact, I've responded to every one of your posts.In the face of a contraditory opinion, your well thought out response is to attack the person with the opposing opinion?
I exist only to serve.*shakes head sadly* and this is what passes for a discussion???
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You obvously attach way more importance to yourselves than is normal...
There's no telling, since he doesn't use quotes.SandChigger wrote:Was he responding to you, Freak?
But who do you serve? Truth or Chiggie?Freakzilla wrote:Not if they contradict what FH wrote.redbugpest wrote:So let me get this right...
You are not open to alternative theories but want to discuss these concepts
That is the crux of the discussion - what did Frank mean?
That's just a theory, it may or may not be true.Any alternative theories I put forward are not my own, they are pass through comunications from KJA?
You may want to point that out to the other folks on this board that have decided to accept it as truth without proof. I hope they are not an example of the thouroughness of research!
I haven't attacked you. In fact, I've responded to every one of your posts.In the face of a contraditory opinion, your well thought out response is to attack the person with the opposing opinion?
Absolutly correct, and I salute you for that - the remark was a general remark in response to the other posts.
I exist only to serve.*shakes head sadly* and this is what passes for a discussion???
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
You obvously attach way more importance to yourselves than is normal...
Wow: total desperation with that one. Pathetic.redbugpest wrote:But who do you serve? Truth or Chiggie?
TheDukester wrote:Wow: total desperation with that one. Pathetic.redbugpest wrote:But who do you serve? Truth or Chiggie?
This is like watching a punchy fighter in the seconds before the ref is going to stop the bout.
Do you really believe in "truth"?redbugpest wrote:But who do you serve? Truth or Chiggie?
I believe the search for understanding it the only worthwhile endeavor.Freakzilla wrote:Do you really believe in "truth"?redbugpest wrote:But who do you serve? Truth or Chiggie?
"Beware of the truth. Although much sought after, truth can be
dangerous to the seeker. Myths and reassuring lies are much easier to find and
believe. If you find a truth, even a temporary one, it can demand that you make
painful changes. Conceal your truths within words. Natural ambiguity will
protect you then. Words are much easier to absorb than are the sharp Delphic
stabs of wordless portent. With words, you can cry out in the chorus:
"Why didn't someone warn me?"
"But I did warn you. I warned you by example, not with words."
~Leto II
If you live in bad faith, lies will appear to you like the truth.
~Leto II
"An obscure truth is not the truth."
~RM Anteac
BTW, I find your reply insulting. I serve no man.
Um ...redbugpest wrote:... and let him show me the error of my ways...
Thank you for illistrating my point.TheDukester wrote:Um ...redbugpest wrote:... and let him show me the error of my ways...
Hey, genius? He has shown you. Like 75 times already. And he hasn't been the only one.
Seriously, is your reading comprehension that poor?
Apology accepted.redbugpest wrote:Thank you for illistrating my point.TheDukester wrote:Um ...redbugpest wrote:... and let him show me the error of my ways...
Hey, genius? He has shown you. Like 75 times already. And he hasn't been the only one.
Seriously, is your reading comprehension that poor?
But the ambiguity destroys the fucking point, doesn't it?redbugpest wrote:According to you, the machines did not "set guidelines". They enslaved people! They killed them! "I think it is wrong for the murderous machines to shoot at me whenever I walk out my door, maybe if we had a commitee meeting and cupcakes and..."
This is a situation in which someone is inciting the masses, a minister of sorts. He is espousing philosophy, he is talking about taken the reins ad setting guidelines. Not escaping bloody internment camps.
Can you imagine a jew i Krakow, nazis streaming through the initial gates before the great purge, holding a stolen mauser rifle and talking to his huttled band: "The inherent problem with the national socialist ideology is that..."?
No. If one is fighting for ones life, that is all the reason you need. You do not argue for the need to stop a huge bloody thing from ripping your throat out!
Do you seriously believe that when Frank wrote that, he was thinking about humanity fighting for its survival against an evil AI? I am humbly suggesting that he was imagining a scenario where humanity decided to get rid of (dump?) the machines and steer the course of humanity for itself (guidelines).
He saw thinking machines as something that would ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity. That threat could be either physical or psychological or both. I think the ambiguity left it open to the interpretation of KJA and BH.
You completely miss the point. And whether he knew he was going to die or not has no bearing on anything.redbugpest wrote:If Frank had intended there to be such an AI, he would have written "But that only permitted a machine to enslave them." He didn't.
Since Frank didn’t know he was going to die before writing the book himself, we cannot know what HE really intended. I’m saying that the above statement does not preclude such a turn of events.
Didn’t Frank allude to Paul (or Leto II?) being fascinated with the idea of a human / machine hybrid?