Experience of wine is always theory-laden
DharmaTroll
truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
wine. And I'm not talking about those who think that the wine has
transformed into the Blood of the Christ or any of that crap. I mean
actual bonafide wine connoisseurs.
Robert Parker of the blog "The Frontal Cortex" has a beautiful piece
that can be related to our experiences, especially our mystical
experiences, by looking at how we experience the direct taste of wine.
Highlights: Wine experts can be tricked by red food coloring into
confusing red and white wines - but the moral is simple: our
sensations require interpretation. When we take a sip of wine, we
don't taste the wine first, and the cheapness or redness second. We
taste everything all at once, in a single gulp of this-wine-is-red, or
this-wine-is-expensive. Our expectations of what the wine will taste
like can be much more powerful in determining how you taste a wine
than the actual physical qualities of the wine itself. As a result,
the wine "experts" sincerely believed that the white wine was red, or
that Lafite was actually Troplong-Mondot. Such mistakes are
inevitable: Our brain has been designed to believe itself, wired so
that our prejudices feel like facts, our opinions indistinguishable
from the actual sensation. If we think a wine is cheap, it will taste
cheap. And if we think we are tasting a grand cru, then we will taste
a grand cru. If something as tangible as the taste wine is so theory-
laden, even moreso for strange or 'mystical' experiences.
--DharmaTroll
P.S. Here's the whole blog post:
http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2009/10/robert_parker.php
Via Felix Salmon comes this amusing anecdote about Robert Parker's
blind tasting of 2005 Bordeaux, which he has declared the best vintage
since 1982. Parker has previously rated all of these wines, and even
given them exact point scores, so his public blind taste test was an
interesting natural experiment: would Parker's new scores correlate
with his 2007 scores? How many of these wines would he be able to
identify?
The answers were humbling. (In Parker's defense, these wines are still
very young and very tannic.) Parker confused merlot-based Bordeaux
with cabernet-heavy blends; his favorite wine of the tasting turned
out to be the lowest rated rate in his 2007 tasting of Bordeaux.
Here's Dr. Vino:
"A final issue is about points and the nature of blind tasting, a
capricious undertaking if there ever were one. Although Parker did not
rate the wines yesterday, his top wine of the evening (Le Gay) was the
lowest rated in the lineup from his most recent published reviews...
For all the precision that a point score implies, it is not dynamic,
changing with the wines as they change in the bottle nor does it
capture performance from one tasting to the next."
I certainly don't mean to diminish the impressive talent (and
astonishing vinicultural knowledge) of Robert Parker. But I think his
inability to reliably and consistently rate bottles of Bordeaux
illustrates a larger problem with wine tastings, which is rooted in
the sensory limitations of the human brain. I've blogged before about
the mischievous experiments of Frederick Brochet - he's shown that
wine experts can be tricked by red food coloring into confusing red
and white wines - but the moral is simple: our sensations require
interpretation.
When we take a sip of wine, we don't taste the wine first, and the
cheapness or redness second. We taste everything all at once, in a
single gulp of thiswineisred, or thiswineisexpensive. As a result, the
wine "experts" sincerely believed that the white wine was red, or that
Lafite was actually Troplong-Mondot. Such mistakes are inevitable: Our
brain has been designed to believe itself, wired so that our
prejudices feel like facts, our opinions indistinguishable from the
actual sensation. If we think a wine is cheap, it will taste cheap.
And if we think we are tasting a grand cru, then we will taste a grand
cru. And if we're tasting 15 young and tannic wines, then we shouldn't
expert our poor olfactory cortex to be able to reliably assign an
exact point score to the spoiled grape juice in our mouth. Our senses
are vague in their instructions, and we parse their suggestions based
upon whatever other knowledge we can summon to the surface. As Brochet
himself notes, our expectations of what the wine will taste like "can
be much more powerful in determining how you taste a wine than the
actual physical qualities of the wine itself."
The underlying assumption behind such point scores is that the taste
of a wine is merely the sum of our inputs. But that's wrong: we can't
quantify a wine by trying to listen to our tongue. This is because
what we experience is not what we sense. Rather, experience is what
happens when our senses are interpreted by our subjective brain, which
brings to the moment its entire library of personal memories and
idiosyncratic desires. As the philosopher Donald Davidson argued, it
is ultimately impossible to distinguish between a subjective
contribution to knowledge that comes from our selves (what he calls
our "scheme") and an objective contribution that comes from the
outside world ("the content"). Instead, in Davidson's influential
epistemology, the "organizing system and something waiting to be
organized" are hopelessly interdependent. Without our subjectivity we
could never decipher our sensations, and without our sensations we
would have nothing to be subjective about. Before you can taste the
wine you have to judge it.
Keynes
wrote:
>Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
>truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
>just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
>wine. And I'm not talking about those who think that the wine has
>transformed into the Blood of the Christ or any of that crap. I mean
>actual bonafide wine connoisseurs.
>
>Robert Parker of the blog "The Frontal Cortex" has a beautiful piece
>that can be related to our experiences, especially our mystical
>experiences, by looking at how we experience the direct taste of wine.
>Highlights: Wine experts can be tricked by red food coloring into
>confusing red and white wines - but the moral is simple: our
>sensations require interpretation. When we take a sip of wine, we
>don't taste the wine first, and the cheapness or redness second. We
>taste everything all at once, in a single gulp of this-wine-is-red, or
>this-wine-is-expensive. Our expectations of what the wine will taste
>like can be much more powerful in determining how you taste a wine
>than the actual physical qualities of the wine itself. As a result,
>the wine "experts" sincerely believed that the white wine was red, or
>that Lafite was actually Troplong-Mondot. Such mistakes are
>inevitable: Our brain has been designed to believe itself, wired so
>that our prejudices feel like facts, our opinions indistinguishable
>from the actual sensation. If we think a wine is cheap, it will taste
>cheap. And if we think we are tasting a grand cru, then we will taste
>a grand cru.
Sounds like 'the Emperor's New Clothes',
where only a child could see the truth.
>If something as tangible as the taste wine is so theory-
>laden, even moreso for strange or 'mystical' experiences.
Or any experiences at all.
Why do you suppose you alone are
privileged with a pipeline to the 'real truth'?
(That's what they All say isn't it?)
It seems that you never even read what you write.
"Brains. Brains. Brains. Brains..."
-- the Zombies from (M)Academia
Appledog
Question is, why we would think it's a grand cru when it's not?
Well, if we've been lied to or deceived in a way, I suppose sure, then
we would believe it - after all, that is the purpose of a lie or a
deceit. But in normal situations I'd tend to trust the wine experts :)
-
Charles E Hardwidge
news:2d533d80-8883-42f5...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
> truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
> just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
> wine. And I'm not talking about those who think that the wine has
> transformed into the Blood of the Christ or any of that crap. I mean
> actual bonafide wine connoisseurs.
Another well written post and this time on something a bit more than
bullshit about the fucking brain.
The British wine experience started for most people in the 1980's and was a
cringing mix of naivety and snobbery. Things have moved on since then and
the average �5 bottle is as good or better than the �20 French stuff that
was peddled at the time. So called new world wines are very good.
Californian wines have lost their leading edge, and South Africa, Australia,
and Chile have caught up as growing and bottling technique has improved.
A few years ago speculators conspired to reduce supply and drive up prices.
This drove the average price of a standard shop bought bottle up by 20% and
the more savvy wine waiters joined customers in a rebellion. Recently, one
wine merchant described a good bottle of wine as costing �25 and anything
priced above that was pure markup. It's rare that a bottle of wine is
genuinely worth �100. At this point we're getting into diminishing returns
and market forces which has little to say on the quality itself.
Game developers fake experience all the time. Graphics programming and AI is
a speciality of mine and both of these take heavy duty short-cuts to present
a convincing representation of reality. No matter how good your machine it's
not a Pixar renderfarm or supercomputer powered neural net. This is just one
thin slice of reality and this is where I disagree with the original
conflicted premise at the top. It's pretty much a fact that experience
achieves better outcomes and judgements. The theory is a done deal and it's
testable. So cut the wiseguy bullshit, okay?
* A few years ago Carmack was hitting a slowdown with shadow generation and
mentioned it publicly. He was ahead on his knowledge of shaders and had
access to unannounced hardware which put him ahead of my effort at the time
but I solved the inverse shadow algorithm problem in 30 seconds. It turned
out that none of this was new to the movie rendering industry and prior art
existed on the inverse shadow algorithm. Today, everyone takes it for
granted and can be "clever" when they already know the answers.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:gt18e5dbac511fg7s...@4ax.com...
> Or any experiences at all.
> Why do you suppose you alone are
> privileged with a pipeline to the 'real truth'?
>
> (That's what they All say isn't it?)
>
> It seems that you never even read what you write.
This is the conclusion I reached on this topic.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
news:f2f5bd65-c6d8-4a2a...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Well, if we've been lied to or deceived in a way, I suppose sure, then
> we would believe it - after all, that is the purpose of a lie or a
> deceit. But in normal situations I'd tend to trust the wine experts :)
Experts can be "blind" or "fooled" but they're not just a one hit
wonder pulling a miracle out of their ass. Overall, the genuine expert has a
respectable degree of skill and a high hit rate.
Steve Davis was never a brilliant snooker player but he always had a
consistently high performance. Today's players perform at that level
routinely but they practice around the clock.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Ron Fuller
b483-009...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
and yet . . . you still claim your prejudices are facts
and those of others are delusion. your opinions are real
and those of anyone who disagrees with you is that of
"nutters". o Maven of Misinterpretation, most of what
you disagree with in others is just your interpretation
of what they said, not their actual words. your prejudice
created the rest.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rfu...@freeway.net rfu...@cainsquestion.org
if you and the universe are going in the same direction
you will find that the whole world conspires for your
benefit.
DharmaTroll
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:27:58 -0700 (PDT), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
Well, that's the question I always pose to you, nutter-dude. The
reason you're a nutter and I'm not is that I know that my view isn't
privileged, and that I know that I'm just another conditioned person
with views. That way, unlike you, I disregard my intuitions and
emotional feelings. So I don't try to protect my views with magic and
babble about "NonDual Undifferentiated Fairy Dust" or "God" or
whatever. And that frees me up to look outside myself. For evidence.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Well, sure, but the point is that the if the experts can be easily
deceived themselves, then we have to realize that if they think they
are drinking a fine expensive wine, they are going to say something
amazing about it. When the same $100 a bottle wine is poured into a
wine bottle of a $5 bottle and poured from it, the experts trash the
$100 wine and say it tastes 'flat' and 'lacking this and that' and so
forth.
The point is that when Kapleau is drinking a $100 a bottle wine, that
is, when he goes all the way to an authentic zendo and does the ritual
and gets hit with sticks when he's sleepy and is questioned by the
little dude with big-shot credentials, he's gonna have a $100 wine
experience. I'd still want to learn from his experience and so forth,
but like the experts, realize that it was partially shaped by the
context.
As for the wine experts, like you I would trust them, but only with
the following condition: I would only believe double-blind tests,
where they don't know what they are drinking, and the person serving
them doesn't know, and can't give it away with body language 'tells'.
Then I'd trust the experts and go with their advice on the wine.
Interestingly, that's exactly my policy with pseudo-science, that if
something repeatedly beats the placebo in double-blind experiments,
then I'll say "hey, there's something to it", no matter how much I may
think it's woo-woo. And if it repeatedly doesn't do better than
placebo in double-blind tests, then I'll say, "well, I guess there is
nothing to it, even though I was so sure there was. Oh well." Again,
knowing I'm deluded with my having views and prejudices leads me not
to trust even my own views and to simply default to the evidence and
the available data.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2d533d80-8883-42f5...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
> > truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
> > just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
> > wine. And I'm not talking about those who think that the wine has
> > transformed into the Blood of the Christ or any of that crap. I mean
> > actual bonafide wine connoisseurs.
>
> Another well written post and this time on something a bit more than
> bullshit about the fucking brain.
Thanks! Though I do like bullshit about the fucking brain, because
somehow brains are, um, conscious, which is one of the most amazing
things in the universe. So I'm always curious about how this happens,
and we've only scratched the surface.
> The British wine experience started for most people in the 1980's and was a
> cringing mix of naivety and snobbery. Things have moved on since then and
> the average £5 bottle is as good or better than the £20 French stuff that
> was peddled at the time. So called new world wines are very good.
> Californian wines have lost their leading edge, and South Africa, Australia,
> and Chile have caught up as growing and bottling technique has improved.
That's interesting to know -- I had no idea about what was going on in
terms of wines and techniques. As I'm a beer drinker, and only drink
wine when others are, I've never really acquired a taste for it or
learned anything about the industry.
> A few years ago speculators conspired to reduce supply and drive up prices.
> This drove the average price of a standard shop bought bottle up by 20% and
> the more savvy wine waiters joined customers in a rebellion. Recently, one
> wine merchant described a good bottle of wine as costing £25 and anything
> priced above that was pure markup. It's rare that a bottle of wine is
> genuinely worth £100. At this point we're getting into diminishing returns
> and market forces which has little to say on the quality itself.
I didn't know that. I'm really only a beer drinker myself. My friends
complained when I served them Two-Buck Chuck Merlot (Charles Shaw
winery, which Trader Joe's bought in bulk and sells for $2 a bottle,
or $3.30 here on the East Coast). So next time they came over, I got a
fancy $15 bottle (and that was on sale) of Merlot and I poured it into
a third container, washed the bottle, and filled it with Two-Buck-
Chuck, and then washed that bottle and filled it with the good Merlot.
Then when my friends came over again, I said, "Ok, guys, now let's
really see if Two-Buck-Chuck is so bad: we'll have a wine-tasting
test!" And I served them a small glass of each, with them thinking, of
course that they were each the opposite one.
I bet you can guess what happened. Every single one of my friends
(there were three) put down and insulted what they thought was the Two-
Buck-Chuck, and praised what they thought was the expensive one. I had
no end to making fun of them endlessly about that. Of course, my
friends might be as clueless as I am to real wine appreciation. Or
Trader Joe's got a hell of a deal by buying the entire lot from
Charles Shaw and are selling good wine at a super discount. But in any
case, when I say this blog post, I know that there's a lot to it,
because of the way I duped my own friends.
> Game developers fake experience all the time. Graphics programming and AI is
> a specialty of mine and both of these take heavy duty short-cuts to present
> a convincing representation of reality. No matter how good your machine it's
> not a Pixar renderfarm or supercomputer powered neural net. This is just one
> thin slice of reality and this is where I disagree with the original
> conflicted premise at the top. It's pretty much a fact that experience
> achieves better outcomes and judgements. The theory is a done deal and it's
> testable. So cut the wiseguy bullshit, okay?
Well, I like the wiseguy bullshit -- it makes posting around here
tolerable and fun. And I always try to make some interesting point
which might lead to an interesting serious discussion or may prompt
someone who knows something about the subject to tell me something
interesting -- which you just did.
> * A few years ago Carmack was hitting a slowdown with shadow generation and
> mentioned it publicly. He was ahead on his knowledge of shaders and had
> access to unannounced hardware which put him ahead of my effort at the time
> but I solved the inverse shadow algorithm problem in 30 seconds. It turned
> out that none of this was new to the movie rendering industry and prior art
> existed on the inverse shadow algorithm. Today, everyone takes it for
> granted and can be "clever" when they already know the answers.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
--DharmaTroll
"You should never trust experts. If you believe the doctors, nothing
is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if
you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require to have
their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common
sense."
-Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil
bonfils
news:aeb47c3b-1295-496e...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com:
> As for the wine experts, like you I would trust them, but only with
> the following condition: I would only believe double-blind tests,
> where they don't know what they are drinking, and the person serving
> them doesn't know, and can't give it away with body language 'tells'.
> Then I'd trust the experts and go with their advice on the wine.
Big awards for wine are decided by wine tasters in at least blind, if not
double-blind, tests. Which leads to some surprising results:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_of_Paris_%28wine%29
And I believe enough double-blind testing has been done to insure that the
idea of great vs. awful wines is not just snobbery. Anything in between,
however, is of course a grey area.
And sure enough, any wine buff writing a review usually knows the price of
the bottle, which may tend to affect his judgment. Though it could also be
the other way around, as in: "I expected more from a wine this expensive."
> Interestingly, that's exactly my policy with pseudo-science, that if
> something repeatedly beats the placebo in double-blind experiments,
> then I'll say "hey, there's something to it", no matter how much I may
> think it's woo-woo. And if it repeatedly doesn't do better than
> placebo in double-blind tests, then I'll say, "well, I guess there is
> nothing to it, even though I was so sure there was. Oh well." Again,
> knowing I'm deluded with my having views and prejudices leads me not
> to trust even my own views and to simply default to the evidence and
> the available data.
Agreed.
--
bonfils
http://kim.bonfils.com
To send me a massage, please remove your.underwear
zenworm
ego seeks evidence
how much will be enough?
ZN
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Oct 25, 5:03 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:2d533d80-8883-42f5...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
>> > truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
>> > just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
>> > wine. And I'm not talking about those who think that the wine has
>> > transformed into the Blood of the Christ or any of that crap. I mean
>> > actual bonafide wine connoisseurs.
>>
>> Another well written post and this time on something a bit more than
>> bullshit about the fucking brain.
>
> Thanks! Though I do like bullshit about the fucking brain, because
> somehow brains are, um, conscious, which is one of the most amazing
> things in the universe. So I'm always curious about how this happens,
> and we've only scratched the surface.
>
>> The British wine experience started for most people in the 1980's and was
>> a cringing mix of naivety and snobbery. Things have moved on since then
>> that was peddled at the time. So called new world wines are very good.
>> Californian wines have lost their leading edge, and South Africa,
>> Australia, and Chile have caught up as growing and bottling technique has
>> improved.
>
> That's interesting to know -- I had no idea about what was going on in
> terms of wines and techniques. As I'm a beer drinker, and only drink
> wine when others are, I've never really acquired a taste for it or
> learned anything about the industry.
>
>> A few years ago speculators conspired to reduce supply and drive up
>> prices. This drove the average price of a standard shop bought bottle up
>> by 20% and the more savvy wine waiters joined customers in a rebellion.
>> Recently, one wine merchant described a good bottle of wine as costing
>> bottle of wine is genuinely worth �ｿｽ100. At this point we're getting into
I did the wine theory thing a couple of decades ago and have forgotten more
than most people ever know but even that was scratching the surface. I got
more into wine as a regular drink a few years ago and it helped knock off
some of the bullshit. It can take a few months to get a benchmark on quality
and variety but you do pick it up.
Own brands can be limited runs of good stuff the buyer picked up at a knock
down price from the winery. They don't always shout about this for obvious
reasons but if you find a deal like this you can pick up a �ｿｽ20 bottle for
�ｿｽ5. It's not just bullshit. The tannin and bouquet can be noticeably better
from a single winery than the blended stuff in the cheaper bottles.
Personally, I avoid white. It's just sugar water and the quality for a given
price is on average lower, and the risk of getting a dud is higher. Red is
more of a warm experience and has more too it like comparing, say, some one
hit pop singer with one of those old black women singing in a jazz bar. It's
also funny that white is more of a women's (and pseuds?) drink.
Another thing is that I prefer red with a lower tannin. Most of the bigshot
wine reviewers and armchair experts gun for high tannin. I think, that's
bullshit as the drink isn't as pleasant. It's just tradition and wannabes
talking. One of the more savvy wine reviewers pressed the case that lower
tannin was better and if you look at most shipped bottles that's where the
market seems to be at.
The wiseguy bullshit gets you a hit for two reasons: it gives you an ego
boost and some freedom of movement, and generates attention because people
can feel powerful by 'solving' problems and use it to 'identify' with the
herd. The downside is you look less credible and detached. So, you get a
short-term hit for a longer term loss.
Okay, that was a bit of a braindump to meet your snapshot but it usefully
touched base on both wine and social interaction.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
DharmaTroll
No, silly worm, ego seeks security; non-ego seeks evidence.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0871e753-a5db-44ba...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 25, 5:03 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:2d533d80-8883-42f5...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
> >> > truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
> >> > just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
> >> > wine. And I'm not talking about those who think that the wine has
> >> > transformed into the Blood of the Christ or any of that crap. I mean
> >> > actual bonafide wine connoisseurs.
>
> >> Another well written post and this time on something a bit more than
> >> bullshit about the fucking brain.
>
> > Thanks! Though I do like bullshit about the fucking brain, because
> > somehow brains are, um, conscious, which is one of the most amazing
> > things in the universe. So I'm always curious about how this happens,
> > and we've only scratched the surface.
>
> >> The British wine experience started for most people in the 1980's and was
> >> a cringing mix of naivety and snobbery. Things have moved on since then
> >> that was peddled at the time. So called new world wines are very good.
> >> Californian wines have lost their leading edge, and South Africa,
> >> Australia, and Chile have caught up as growing and bottling technique has
> >> improved.
>
> > That's interesting to know -- I had no idea about what was going on in
> > terms of wines and techniques. As I'm a beer drinker, and only drink
> > wine when others are, I've never really acquired a taste for it or
> > learned anything about the industry.
>
> >> A few years ago speculators conspired to reduce supply and drive up
> >> prices. This drove the average price of a standard shop bought bottle up
> >> by 20% and the more savvy wine waiters joined customers in a rebellion.
> >> Recently, one wine merchant described a good bottle of wine as costing
> >> bottle of wine is genuinely worth £100. At this point we're getting into
> £5. It's not just bullshit. The tannin and bouquet can be noticeably better
> from a single winery than the blended stuff in the cheaper bottles.
>
> Personally, I avoid white. It's just sugar water and the quality for a given
> price is on average lower, and the risk of getting a dud is higher. Red is
> more of a warm experience and has more too it like comparing, say, some one
> hit pop singer with one of those old black women singing in a jazz bar. It's
> also funny that white is more of a women's (and pseuds?) drink.
>
> Another thing is that I prefer red with a lower tannin. Most of the bigshot
> wine reviewers and armchair experts gun for high tannin. I think, that's
> bullshit as the drink isn't as pleasant. It's just tradition and wannabes
> talking. One of the more savvy wine reviewers pressed the case that lower
> tannin was better and if you look at most shipped bottles that's where the
> market seems to be at.
Both my dad and big sis are big wine fans and they also usually focus
on the reds, though I have no idea what their view is on tannin. But
they certainly seem to know what they like, and when trying a new
wine, usually have strong reaction as to whether they don't like it or
think it's a great new find.
> The wiseguy bullshit gets you a hit for two reasons: it gives you an ego
> boost and some freedom of movement, and generates attention because people
> can feel powerful by 'solving' problems and use it to 'identify' with the
> herd. The downside is you look less credible and detached. So, you get a
> short-term hit for a longer term loss.
Well, doesn't matter how I look, I figure if I manage to say something
insightful, that will come out and stimulate the conversation
eventually. Here, folks (including yourself and myself) are overly
rude and crude and harsh; whereas in real life, too many Buddhist
gatherings are full of people who smile too much and are worried about
stepping on toes, and it can feel phony at that extreme. So when I'm
here I take the opportunity to say all the things I wouldn't get into
with the smiley folks. One time I saw, I think it was Thich Nhat
Hanh's niece or something, who sang at some Buddhist gathering.
Everyone smiled and said how wonderful she was. Only on the way home,
car-pooling with 3 other folks, I blurted out, "God, she really sucked
-- that was painful." And they all relaxed and agreed with me, but
nobody else wanted to come out and say it first. Here the norm is to
say "that sucks". And here, there's no accountability, and you aren't
going to be stuck at gatherings and parties with people you've said
crude things to, so you can just free-associate here and if people
don't like it, well, too bad for them. Neither situation is 'real',
but that's life.
> Okay, that was a bit of a braindump to meet your snapshot but it usefully
> touched base on both wine and social interaction.
>
> --
> Charles E Hardwidge
Yes, thanks for your reply.
--DharmaTroll
"I just walk around, observing the subject from various angles until
the picture elements arrange themselves into a composition that
pleases my eye."
-Andre Kertesz
Charles E Hardwidge
> On Oct 25, 11:10 am, "Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>> Another thing is that I prefer red with a lower tannin. Most of the
>> bigshot wine reviewers and armchair experts gun for high tannin. I think,
>> that's bullshit as the drink isn't as pleasant. It's just tradition and
>> wannabes talking. One of the more savvy wine reviewers pressed the case
>> that lower tannin was better and if you look at most shipped bottles
>> that's where the market seems to be at.
>
> Both my dad and big sis are big wine fans and they also usually focus
> on the reds, though I have no idea what their view is on tannin. But
> they certainly seem to know what they like, and when trying a new
> wine, usually have strong reaction as to whether they don't like it or
> think it's a great new find.
>
>> The wiseguy bullshit gets you a hit for two reasons: it gives you an ego
>> boost and some freedom of movement, and generates attention because
>> people can feel powerful by 'solving' problems and use it to 'identify'
>> with the herd. The downside is you look less credible and detached. So,
>> you get a short-term hit for a longer term loss.
>
> Well, doesn't matter how I look, I figure if I manage to say something
> insightful, that will come out and stimulate the conversation
> eventually. Here, folks (including yourself and myself) are overly
> rude and crude and harsh; whereas in real life, too many Buddhist
> gatherings are full of people who smile too much and are worried about
> stepping on toes, and it can feel phony at that extreme.
I can relate to both the wine and social thing you've mentioned.
I'm still decompressing from politics and the media but found that I made
more hit posts that seemed to go somewhere than most. Most of that was
probably down to having more hooks and talkability though punching hard and
posting frequently is a factor as well. Lately, I've been skewing more
towards taking a more practical and profitable approach. That means more of
an emphasis on finished product and scarcity. That's probably going to
impact on both my maturity and frequency of online posting. You can't be a
jerk forever, right? I'm still processing that and, I suppose, so is
politics and society in their own way. I'm not going to jump the gun but it
will be interesting to see what things look like down the road.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
zenworm
ah so
still not enough
how much do you think you need?
Keynes
wrote:
>On Oct 25, 11:04 am, zenworm <zensp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Non-ego needs nothing, and seeks nothing.
herbzet
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> Game developers fake experience all the time. Graphics programming and AI is
> a speciality of mine and both of these take heavy duty short-cuts to present
> a convincing representation of reality. No matter how good your machine it's
> not a Pixar renderfarm or supercomputer powered neural net. This is just one
> thin slice of reality and this is where I disagree with the original
> conflicted premise at the top. It's pretty much a fact that experience
> achieves better outcomes and judgements. The theory is a done deal and it's
> testable. So cut the wiseguy bullshit, okay?
That would leave DT with the problem of finding a reason to live.
> * A few years ago Carmack was hitting a slowdown with shadow generation and
> mentioned it publicly. He was ahead on his knowledge of shaders and had
> access to unannounced hardware which put him ahead of my effort at the time
> but I solved the inverse shadow algorithm problem in 30 seconds. It turned
> out that none of this was new to the movie rendering industry and prior art
> existed on the inverse shadow algorithm. Today, everyone takes it for
> granted and can be "clever" when they already know the answers.
Voice of experience. Refreshing.
--
hz
herbzet
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> You can't be a jerk forever, right?
True, but here in Murka it's been a long, long race to the bottom, in
politics, popular culture, and the general quality of civic life;
and there's a long way yet to go. There's still plenty
of money to be made in being edgy and violating norms.
Like many people, I'm still hoping but beginning to doubt
that SuperObama can turn it all around.
Ah, maybe I'm just getting old.
--
hz
Lee Rudolph
Please don't rub Charles's nose in the fact that (on his account)
he's going to stop getting older within a year or so.
It'll be a good opportunity for him to exercise his expertise with
shadows.
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> herbzet writes:
>
> >
> >Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> >
> >> You can't be a jerk forever, right?
> >
> >True, but here in Murka it's been a long, long race to the bottom, in
> >politics, popular culture, and the general quality of civic life;
> >and there's a long way yet to go. There's still plenty
> >of money to be made in being edgy and violating norms.
> >
> >Like many people, I'm still hoping but beginning to doubt
> >that SuperObama can turn it all around.
> >
> >Ah, maybe I'm just getting old.
>
> Please don't rub Charles's nose in the fact that (on his account)
> he's going to stop getting older within a year or so.
Ah shit, that was thoughtless of me. Sorry, Charles.
> It'll be a good opportunity for him to exercise his expertise with
> shadows.
Shadows? I fail to catch your drift.
--
hz
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4AE5D3BA...@gmail.com...
>
>
> Lee Rudolph wrote:
>> Please don't rub Charles's nose in the fact that (on his account)
>> he's going to stop getting older within a year or so.
>
> Ah shit, that was thoughtless of me. Sorry, Charles.
>
>> It'll be a good opportunity for him to exercise his expertise with
>> shadows.
>
> Shadows? I fail to catch your drift.
Self-confidence and sociability is important. Turns of phrase or
forgetfulness isn't an issue. Business as usual.
Anyway, the worse the news gets the more dazzling and awe inspiring the
miracle gets when it arrives.
Apart from that Lee needs to learn to STFU sometime.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Charles E Hardwidge
DT's issues is self confidence and relaxing, or a more mature perspective.
Heh. My maths is shit and other people did the heavy lifting. There was some
skill there but I got lucky with the inverse shadow algorithm.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
herbzet
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
>
> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4AE5D3BA...@gmail.com...
> >
> >
> > Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
> >> Please don't rub Charles's nose in the fact that (on his account)
> >> he's going to stop getting older within a year or so.
> >
> > Ah shit, that was thoughtless of me. Sorry, Charles.
> >
> >> It'll be a good opportunity for him to exercise his expertise with
> >> shadows.
> >
> > Shadows? I fail to catch your drift.
>
> Self-confidence and sociability is important. Turns of phrase or
> forgetfulness isn't an issue. Business as usual.
>
> Anyway, the worse the news gets the more dazzling and awe inspiring the
> miracle gets when it arrives.
I chop wood.
I carry water.
I slap your face.
Is that a miracle?
What is that, Charles?
Zen foolishness, yes.
--
hz
Charles E Hardwidge
>
> I chop wood.
> I carry water.
> I slap your face.
> Is that a miracle?
> What is that, Charles?
>
> Zen foolishness, yes.
I'm not into that shit so you can STFU as well.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
herbzet
Reading that shit is a hazard you run when posting to buddhist lists.
Didn't mean to offend, though in retrospect, it seems
I should have known better.
We were getting on so well for a minute there.
I apologize: I regret my remarks.
Good luck with your health.
--
hz
liaM
> Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
> truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
> just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
> wine.
Thus it is cats often congregate in silent intent
wherever there has been a recent death. Or
dogs get upset when they sniff a person with a
serious illness (as happened to me this morning
when I met a man with a life sapping pancreatic illness
on the road and my terrier went ballistic..)
Philosophers too get excited by the capturing of things
beyond their mind's blinkers.
"Objective Truth" is everywhere around and in us.
The mistake people make concerning "direct experience",
is to think that by such perception of "the objective
truth", that all of it seen at once and for all.
"The Sun's light when he unfolds it.
Depends on the Organ that beholds it." (Wm.Blake)
We see what we are gifted to see, from within,
and from the legacy of past and present great minds.
I wish I had considered this post when naming
my dog. I would have called her "Husserl".
His nose for the aroma of essences, for facts
real and unreal, was incomparable.
liaM
> Those religious nutters who try to assert a pipeline to objective
> truth with babble about 'direct experience' may just get a feel for
> just how impossible 'direct experience' is when it comes to tasting
> wine.
Thus it is cats often congregate in silent intent
wherever there has been a recent death. Or
dogs get upset when they sniff a person with a
serious illness (as happened to me this morning
when I met a man with a life sapping pancreatic illness
on the road and my terrier went ballistic..)
Philosophers too get excited by the capturing of things
beyond their mind's blinkers.
"Objective Truth" is everywhere around, and in, us.
The mistake people make concerning "direct experience",
is to think that by such perception of "the objective
truth", that ALL OF IT is seen in one mystical moment.
"The Sun's light when he unfolds it.
Depends on the Organ that beholds it." (Wm.Blake)
We see what we are gifted to see, from within,
and from the legacy of past and present great minds.
I wish I had considered this post when naming
my dog. I would have called her "Husserl".
His nose for the aroma of essences, for facts
real and unreal, was incomparable.
Or "Julia" for the writer of cookbooks, Julia Child.
It seems that she had her ep�phany upon landing
in France, was tasting a filet of sole for the
first time.
liaM
It seems that her ep�phany upon landing
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
On 25 Jul 2007, the Boston Globe had an article,
"Feline Intuition", by Colin Nickerson, about a cat
that could know which patient was about to give
up the ghost.
<<PROVIDENCE --Oscar the cat makes his
grand entrances just as life is about to leave.
A hop onto the bed, a fastidious lick of the
paws, then a snuggle beside a nursing home
patient with little time left. Oscar's purr, when
keeping close company with the dying, is so
intense it's almost a low rumble.
"He's a cat with an uncanny instinct for death,"
said Dr. David M. Dosa, assistant professor at
the Brown University School of Medicine and a
geriatric specialist. "He attends deaths. He's
pretty insistent on it."
In the two years since Oscar was adopted into
the third-floor dementia unit of the Steere
House Nursing and Rehabilitation Center in
Providence, he has maintained close vigil over
the deaths of more than 25 patients, according
to nursing staff, doctors who treat patients in the
home, and an article in tomorrow's New England
Journal of Medicine, written by Dosa.
When death is near, Oscar nearly always appears
at the last hour or so. Yet he shows no special
interest in patients who are simply in poor shape,
or even patients who may be dying but who still
have a few days. Animal behavior experts have
no explanation for Oscar's ability to sense
imminent death. They theorize that he might
detect some subtle change in metabolism -- felines
are as acutely sensitive to smells as dogs -- but
are stumped as to why he would show interest.
"It may just come down to empathy," said Dr.
Nicholas H. Dodman, a leading behaviorist and
professor at Tufts University's Cummings School
of Veterinary Medicine, when told about Oscar's
eerie knack.
In any event, when Oscar settles beside a patient
on the bed, caregivers take it as sign that family
members should be summoned immediately to
bid their loved one farewell.
"We've come to recognize him hopping on the bed
as one indicator the end is very near," said Mary
Miranda, charge nurse in the Safe Haven
Advanced Care Unit, the formal name of the
surprisingly cheery floor that is home to 41 patients
suffering in the final stages of Alzheimer's,
Parkinson's, stroke, and other mentally debilitating
diseases. "Oscar's been consistently right."
Said Dosa, who treats patients at Steere: "This is a
cat that knows death. His instincts that a patient is
about to die are often more acute than the instincts
of medical professionals."
Oscar's tale is emphatically not one about people
dying alone and neglected, with only an animal for
company. The Steere staff has a reputation among
geriatric professionals for dedication, compassion,
and top-notch care. The center is sunny, clean as,
well, a cat's whiskers, and filled with antique
furniture, flowers, and nature prints that impart the
feel of a cozy country home.
"Caregivers are always there trying to make the
patient comfortable until the very end," said Brenda
Toll, a registered nurse and unit manager. "But
Oscar's a component of dying... It's kind of weird,
but kind of lovely. He's become part of the death
ritual, along with lowered lights, aromatherapy, and
gentle music.''
Keeping pets has been a trend in nursing home
care for several years. The Steere Center, founded
in 1874, has 120 residents, plus six cats, a slew of
parakeets and a floppy-eared rabbit.
Oscar's sole domain, however, is on the locked
dementia ward. He came to the unit as a kitten in
July 2005, brought by a staff member to replace
the floor's previous resident feline, Henry, who
had died some months earlier.>>
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
>Thus it is cats often congregate in silent intent
>wherever there has been a recent death. Or
>dogs get upset when they sniff a person with a
>serious illness (as happened to me this morning
>when I met a man with a life sapping pancreatic illness
>on the road and my terrier went ballistic..)
What, I wonder, did Baudelaire's lobster take in, when Baudelaire was taking
it for a walk around the streets of Paris? (Maine humor: "Joe, there's
bad news and good news. The bad news is, it seems your wife fell into
the ocean and drowned--the boys pulled her up this morning, and there
was half a dozen lobsters on'er. The good news is, they lowered her
back down.")
>Philosophers too get excited by the capturing of things
>beyond their mind's blinkers.
Years later, during a "nervous breakdown" (as they were called, then),
Albert Schweitzer's cousin J.-P. Sartre was convinced he was being
followed through the streets of Paris by lobsters; he fled with
Simone de Beauvoir on a bus. I spent a season in the bastide town
where he came to his senses and got off the bus (there's a commemorative
marker in the town square--the French have *style*, dammit).
>"Objective Truth" is everywhere around, and in, us.
>The mistake people make concerning "direct experience",
>is to think that by such perception of "the objective
>truth", that ALL OF IT is seen in one mystical moment.
>
> "The Sun's light when he unfolds it.
>Depends on the Organ that beholds it." (Wm.Blake)
>
>We see what we are gifted to see, from within,
>and from the legacy of past and present great minds.
>
>I wish I had considered this post when naming
>my dog. I would have called her "Husserl".
>His nose for the aroma of essences, for facts
>real and unreal, was incomparable.
>Or "Julia" for the writer of cookbooks, Julia Child.
>It seems that her ep�phany
Style is one thing. Hysterical circumflecture is quite
another.
>upon landing
>in France, was tasting a filet of sole for the
>first time.
"Nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent." (W. B. Yeats)
Lee Rudolph
P.S. Experience of theory is best, if not always, wine-laden.
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> P.S. Experience of theory is best, if not always, wine-laden.
The performance of Franz Konwitchny, who
conducted the famous Leipzig Gewandhaus
Orchestra, was proportionately enhanced as
the level of alcohol in his blood increased,
and this proclictivity led people to give him
the nickname Konwhisky.
Tang Huyen
Keynes
<tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote:
>
>
>liaM wrote:
>
>> DharmaTroll a écrit :
>> It seems that her epîphany upon landing
Is that the cat who bites off oxygen lines?
liaM
> liaM <cud...@mindless.com> writes:
>
>> Thus it is cats often congregate in silent intent
>> wherever there has been a recent death. Or
>> dogs get upset when they sniff a person with a
>> serious illness (as happened to me this morning
>> when I met a man with a life sapping pancreatic illness
>> on the road and my terrier went ballistic..)
>
> What, I wonder, did Baudelaire's lobster take in, when Baudelaire was taking
> it for a walk around the streets of Paris?
32 euros a kilo live (22 dollars /pound)
(Maine humor: "Joe, there's
> bad news and good news. The bad news is, it seems your wife fell into
> the ocean and drowned--the boys pulled her up this morning, and there
> was half a dozen lobsters on'er. The good news is, they lowered her
> back down.")
I don't get it. But wives with crabs are a concern, indeed.
>
>> Philosophers too get excited by the capturing of things
>> beyond their mind's blinkers.
>
> Years later, during a "nervous breakdown" (as they were called, then),
> Albert Schweitzer's cousin J.-P. Sartre was convinced he was being
> followed through the streets of Paris by lobsters; he fled with
> Simone de Beauvoir on a bus. I spent a season in the bastide town
> where he came to his senses and got off the bus (there's a commemorative
> marker in the town square--the French have *style*, dammit).
you were an impressionable youth :)
>> "Objective Truth" is everywhere around, and in, us.
>> The mistake people make concerning "direct experience",
>> is to think that by such perception of "the objective
>> truth", that ALL OF IT is seen in one mystical moment.
>>
>> "The Sun's light when he unfolds it.
>> Depends on the Organ that beholds it." (Wm.Blake)
>>
>> We see what we are gifted to see, from within,
>> and from the legacy of past and present great minds.
>>
>> I wish I had considered this post when naming
>> my dog. I would have called her "Husserl".
>> His nose for the aroma of essences, for facts
>> real and unreal, was incomparable.
>> Or "Julia" for the writer of cookbooks, Julia Child.
>> It seems that her ep�phany
>
> Style is one thing. Hysterical circumflecture is quite
> another.
is that like doctoral circumplatyfussing (note the
almagam of languages)
liaM
Were you already in Boston during Munch's tenure ?
liaM
I watch my cats very carefully :)
Charles E Hardwidge
>
> Reading that shit is a hazard you run when posting to buddhist lists.
>
> Didn't mean to offend, though in retrospect, it seems
> I should have known better.
>
> We were getting on so well for a minute there.
> I apologize: I regret my remarks.
>
> Good luck with your health.
I just find the parroted babble and sociopathy around here (along with the
bullshit and attitude you get online in general) is a drag. You also get
that shit in the real world and, yes, it does make me feel angry and pissed
off. Whether I live or die the game's the same. Nothing's changed.
I had some seriously bad shit happen over the past few years that I've never
discussed online even when people were mouthing off and giving me a hard
time. This recession is a cakewalk in comparison, and my experience is
nothing compared to other people's problems.
Society in general and, I think, these groups both got a little too clever
for themselves and greedy. There's too much bullshit and insensitivity
kicking around, and pulling back to the fundamentals can help us get a grip
and remind us of what's important. That's kinda where I'm at.
I'm having a really bad week with all that "Why me?", "Fuck, this is an
immovable wall", and a fair slice of emotional shit being kicked up. But
that was already there anyway. It's just bursting out because of the
pressure. Learning to live again can be a bitch.
Apart from that there's no issues, so we're good.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
> Oscar's sole domain, however, is on the locked
> dementia ward. He came to the unit as a kitten in
> July 2005, brought by a staff member to replace
> the floor's previous resident feline, Henry, who
> had died some months earlier.>>
Hmmm. A few months went by for a replacement? Seems to me they need
another cat to look after the cat.
That is, without the proper observer to look inside the Heisenheimerz
ward to see if the cat is alive or not, how would they know?
/l
Beerlet Dhiblang
wrote:
Arthur Fidler was a total lush. My bassoon teacher ran into him one
day before a concert, Fidler was playing on an imaginary piano with a
bottle of whisky next to him.
/l
herbzet
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
> "herbzet" <her...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reading that shit is a hazard you run when posting to buddhist lists.
> >
> > Didn't mean to offend, though in retrospect, it seems
> > I should have known better.
> >
> > We were getting on so well for a minute there.
> > I apologize: I regret my remarks.
> >
> > Good luck with your health.
>
> I just find the parroted babble and sociopathy around here (along with the
> bullshit and attitude you get online in general) is a drag.
Yes -- if only people were as well-adjusted and charming as I am!
> You also get
> that shit in the real world and, yes, it does make me feel angry and pissed
> off.
Ditto.
> Whether I live or die the game's the same. Nothing's changed.
>
> I had some seriously bad shit happen over the past few years that I've never
> discussed online even when people were mouthing off and giving me a hard
> time. This recession is a cakewalk in comparison, and my experience is
> nothing compared to other people's problems.
>
> Society in general and, I think, these groups both got a little too clever
> for themselves and greedy. There's too much bullshit and insensitivity
> kicking around, and pulling back to the fundamentals can help us get a grip
> and remind us of what's important. That's kinda where I'm at.
>
> I'm having a really bad week with all that "Why me?", "Fuck, this is an
> immovable wall", and a fair slice of emotional shit being kicked up. But
> that was already there anyway. It's just bursting out because of the
> pressure. Learning to live again can be a bitch.
Kind of had a taste of that myself last January. Had a bad pain in my chest;
the doctors found two pulmonary emboli and immediately hospitalized me.
Spent about a week or so waiting around for one to dislodge and take up
residence in my brain or in a heart valve.
The headman's axe was posed.
Got out ok, did about six months of medication and follow up visits.
Actually, no way of knowing if/when it's going to happen again. Eat right,
exercise, cut down smoking -- the usual dreary crud. Still waiting for
the headman to pay a visit.
> Apart from that there's no issues, so we're good.
Well, alright then!
Hang in there.
--
hz
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen wrote:
Today the New York Times has an article on dogs
that can detect cancer and seizures, "Good Dog,
Smart Dog", by Sarah Kershaw.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/weekinreview/
01kershaw.html?em
<<Life as a Labradoodle may sound free and easy,
if you�re Jet, who lives in New Jersey, there is a lot
of work to be done.
He is both a seizure alert dog and a psychiatric service
dog whose owner has epilepsy, severe anxiety,
depression, various phobias and hypoglycemia. Jet has
been trained to anticipate seizures, panic attacks and
plunging blood sugar and will alert his owner to these
things by staring intently at her until she does something
about the problem. He will drop a toy in her lap to snap
her out of a dissociative state. If she has a seizure, he
will position himself so that his body is under her head
to cushion a fall.
Jet seems like a genius, but is he really so smart? In fact,
is any of it in his brain, or is it mostly in his sniff?
The matter of what exactly goes on in the mind of a dog
is a tricky one, and until recently much of the research
on canine intelligence has been met with large doses of
skepticism. But over the last several years a growing body
of evidence, culled from small scientific studies of dogs�
abilities to do things like detect cancer or seizures, solve
complex problems (complex for a dog, anyway), and
learn language suggests that they may know more than
we thought they did.
Their apparent ability to tune in to the needs of psychiatric
patients, turning on lights for trauma victims afraid of the
dark, reminding their owners to take medication and
interrupting behaviors like suicide attempts and
self-mutilation, for example, has lately attracted the
attention of researchers.
In September, the Army announced that it would spend
$300,000 to study the impact of pairing psychiatric service
dogs like Jet with soldiers returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan with post-traumatic stress disorder. Both the
House and Senate have recently passed bills that would
finance the training and placement of these dogs with
veterans.
Hungarian researchers reported in a study last year that
a guide dog for a blind and epileptic person became
anxious before its master suffered a seizure and was
taught to bark and lick the owner�s face and upper arm
when it detected an onset, three to five minutes before
the seizure. It is still somewhat mysterious how exactly
dogs detect seizures, whether it�s by picking up on
behavioral changes or smelling something awry, but
several small studies have shown that a powerful sense
of smell can detect lung and other types of cancer, as
the dogs sniff out odors emitted by the disease.>>
Tang Huyen
possum
wrote:
i dream of having a beagle pup some day, in the future.
meanwhile, your god-cat little tang can sniff out chicken cooking from
wherever he is, and pound for pound, can eat more chicken even than
howlin' wolf.
possum
Déjà Flu
>
> Tang Huyen wrote:
>
>> On 25 Jul 2007, the Boston Globe had an article,
> Hungarian researchers
Whoooo! YES! YOU GO, HUNGARIAN RESEARCHERS!
What you need, dear, is a Hyacinth Macaw.
Does the work of three crows in half the time.
--
Ubi dubium ibi libertas
Charles E Hardwidge
And what the fuck has it to do with the topic?
Idiot.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Déjà Flu
> Write an abstract next time you lazy cunt.
>
> And what the fuck has it to do with the topic?
>
> Idiot.
Dead ends are not very productive.
Try to leave enough evidence so it seems like
an avoidable conversation or at least provides
enough continuity to elude the next roundabout.
Cheers.
^@%>---*=#**
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:UmOHm.1178$Ym4...@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Write an abstract next time you lazy cunt.
i paint abstracts. does that count?
> And what the fuck has it to do with the topic?
if you'd like to have people know
what you're babbling on about you
may wish to consider putting at least
a bit of the offending post in your reply.
just a thought.
> Idiot.
from you that means everything.
when you play out these security
addiction dis-satisfaction and
incompleteness issues remember
to stroke that prickly head of that
narcissistic core of the ego with
delicate finesse otherwise it will
take its ball and go home.