Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (7245)	2/12/1998 9:16:00 AM
From: username	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Nope. See, that's the point. Young Slime With High Heels wants me to see his "icon" (if you want to call it that) and agree with him that it has no meaning. A while back, I had the realization that a "word" is nothing more than a noise (or a set of squiggly lines) that has an agreed upon significance. We can change the squiggly lines into a pictograph, and as long as we recognize the significance, we are OK. If we agree upon the significance, we can communicate. I can get the concept of a light if I see a little drawing of a light bulb with little lines coming off it because I watched cartoons when I was a kid. So I can make that jump mentally, I can deduce that the dude that invented that thing on my dashboard wanted me to get his communication, and the communication he wanted me to get was, "lights". This is different. Tafkap wants me to: a) agree that the squiggly lines that he used to use to identify himself are no longer valid, (that's OK, I can live with that), b) agree with him that he has a new squiggly line that he dreamed up that has no precedent and is fraught with deep personal significance, (I'll pass, this is silly, but I defend his right to do it), c) agree with him that the new squiggly line he has invented has no significance verbally, (now I'm thinking he may be a nut case), d) agree that since I have agreed that the new squiggly line has no verbal significance, I may now use the old verbal significance when referring to him as long as I understand and make reference to the "fact" that the old significance is in fact no longer valid.(he's gone into the ozone). Simply put, Tafkap is in his own movie and he wants me to not only agree that he is, (which is fine, he's nuts, I'll agree to that), but to be a character. Art is simply the quality of communication. If it does not communicate, it is not Art. Claus Oldenburg was once interviewed by a high school newspaper reporter. She asked, "What is Art?" Claus replied, "Art to me is like ornithology to birds." What he was saying was, I believe, 'look at the Art. If I have to explain what you are looking at, it is not Art, it's horse manure.' Tafkap has taken the concept one step beyond. He says, "See my Complex Mystical Symbol? It is very complex an mystical. But, it has no significance. It is so non-significant that when referring to the entity it is a symbol for, you must use another symbol, all the while keeping in mind that the symbol you are using instead of the new one is unacceptable to me." This is not Art. It is complex mystical psychotic horse puckey. He is a certified nut case. This is Anti-Art, and that means it is evil. Rambi, pop in a clip and put the poor dude out of his misery. Please, before my 2 year old son gets wind of him.

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (7245)	2/12/1998 9:39:00 AM
From: username	Respond to of 71178

P.S. I think Alex put it best, as he usually does, when he said, "the music formerly known as crap." LOL