"In my experience, most guys named Kyler like to twist words around."
You're the only guy I know named Kyler.
That's discriminatory
In my experience, it's always best to assume that the other person knows absolutely nothing about the topic you are discussing. Regardless of whatever circumstantial evidence you have. If it turns out they're an expert, all the better.
MJ said "I knew he knew a lot about that attack."
First off, he never "knew" that I knew anything about the attack.
Secondly, he said that after I had told him at least twice that I didn't know anything about it.
If he had said "I suspected he might know a lot about the attack" we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Hasn't that point already been addressed?
Got anything fresh?
If you didn't know anything about it, how did you know less about other things?
Point for you. I had that coming.
It never once occurred to you that the counterpoint of your interest in guns and your interest in that movie would make it appear as if you, like many others who are interested in guns, were interested in war history.
I know you're a rock musician. You also analyzed not one, but two, count them two, time travel films about stoner rock musicians. (Bill and Ted.)
So, the counterpoint of this is that you, like many other rock musicians, are also a stoner.
Do you get now why that's so bloody offensive?
I mean, didn't you find it just a little too convenient that I just happened to analyze a movie the subject of which would be The Perfect World for me?
Judging from your posts, the perfect world for you, would be a 8x8 padded cell with a barred door, with a tiny window....
You're just pissed off because you weren't born the unopposed dictator of a small third world country.
(Doing Therapy)
Wait The Dictator wasn't a documentary? :P
I think Uday would be a good screen name for you, instead of Jacks-ass. Uday Hussein, Saddam's eldest son. Read up about him. I bet you'll find a kindred soul in him.
(Doing Therapy)
It's ok John, we know how hard it is, living off of Social Security "Disability", trying to decide if you should spend your meager discretionary income on pot, or food. Huddled in your abode, afraid of the outside world. It must be a scarey place for you.
Didn't your momma ever teach you any manners? Geeze, even my 3 year old nephew knows "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything."
And MJ, even if I did have an interest in "Military History" what made you think that my interest would be geared towards Pearl Harbor? As you pointed out, it IS the only time travel movie about a twentieth century war. It could have been that I did know the Korean War, but couldn't find a time travel movie about it, so I settled for one about Pearl Harbor. I do think that was rather foolish of you to assume I knew about it. Not just assume mind you, "Know". I'd bet money you did libel me at some point. You told prospective referees "He knows about the attack" didn't you?
What you did "Know" is that I was opposed to changing history. Does it matter what universe it's in?
"So, the counterpoint of this is that you, like many other rock musicians, are also a stoner."
He has pretty much always had asthma. If he never had? But he has, so the speculation isn't worth fighting over. Well, he did listen to the Beatles. Not worth the time we'd spend speculating.
MJ approached me about running you in Pearl Harbor; he said that his concern was that you have an interest in military weaponry and that that might extend to knowledge of wars. Mind you, not only of Pearl Harbor, but of wars to come afterwards that you might become involved in; he was already looking for an excuse to pass someone off since he was running so many people, and the excuse that he'd like to have a referee who knew the facts of the attack as well as they knew the war was a damn good excuse.
Anyway, I respectfully declined because of my lack of interest in the field, but at the time I agreed that someone who had recently seen a movie involving Pearl Harbor (I've never seen it myself) would know more than the average person about the attack.
Anyway, I respectfully declined because of my lack of interest in the field, but at the time I agreed that someone who had recently seen a movie involving Pearl Harbor (I've never seen it myself) would know more than the average person about the attack.
Then in your view, the average person knows absolutely nothing about the Pearl Harbor bombing. I don't think I even knew the date of the attack before I watched Final Countdown. I most certainly knew more about the attack after I watched the movie than I did before, but it was hardly at the level I was being accused.
Watch Final Countdown (Do you have the NetFlix instant watch? It's on there.) When you're finished watching that movie, you will know exactly as much about the Pearl Harbor attack as I did when I went into the world. Well, that and that it was the catalyst for US involvement in WW2, and as such, was a major historical event that shouldn't be touched.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I cannot believe you thought for a moment I knew the details of the attack. MJ, did you not graduate from law school with a degree to be a lawyer? Are lawyers not taught to seek "Just The Facts"? The facts were that I had seen Final Countdown and that I like guns. All that tells you is that I had seen Final Countdown and that I like guns. Nothing more. Next time, try sticking to the facts.
You would have made a pretty crappy lawyer if that's your fact-finding methodology.
(Doing Therapy)
Discrimination is what allows us to tell the color blue from the color red, and it is a vital part of all of our lives along with its counterpart generalization. Together they allow us to respond to stimuli conceptually.
Conceptual behavior is seen when an organism makes the same response to a group of discriminably different objects. An organism is said to respond conceptually when it responds similarly to stimuli within the same class and when it responds differently to stimuli in different classes.
Thus, a child who responds "cat" to different examples of cats and who responds "dog" to different examples of dogs is exhibiting conceptual behavior.
Conceptual behavior involves both generalization and discrimination: generalization within classes and discrimination between classes.
And why exactly did you just repeat yourself word for word from an older post? Especially when it doesn't seem relevant to anything said?
And why did you drop me into the Pearl Harbor scenario to see what I would do, if you never had any intention of letting me do it? You wanted to see what I would do. What I would do is leave. Quickly. Why did you put me there to see what I would do if you never had any intention of letting me do it? Seems like you defeated your entire purpose with that.
And really, why am I the only one with enough brains to realize that if someone is talking to you when no one was talking to you before, you're clearly more involved than you were when no one was talking to you? The MP knows I'm there, I'm involved. What part of that do you not understand? What's the sticking point?
You're there, you're involved. What extent you become involved is up to you, and you became very much involved of your own volition. We've already covered this ground, too.
I don't think you were put there to see what you would do; I think you were put there because MJ thought you would enjoy it, and he made a mistake in that regard. Everyone makes mistakes. There was the aspect that it might allow him to see how far you would take your self-professed non-involvement, but that could have been accomplished more easily in any of a number of scenarios, and the first and foremost issue at hand was to send you to a world you might enjoy. You didn't enjoy it, and you haven't been to a historical war scenario since.
Finally, I repeated myself verbatim because the reason why he thought you would enjoy it was because he was exhibiting conceptual behavior in presuming that it was likely that you would enjoy a historical war scenario, and conceptual behavior is necessary in order for, well, indeed, survival on a basic level. Does that make sense?
What extent you become involved is up to you
No, I was forced to become more involved than I would have ever willingly gotten the moment the MP pulled up. That's what I've been trying to beat into your thick skulls all this time!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, we talked about this too, remember? You could have done any of a number of things differently, but you didn't, and every choice you made dug you in deeper into involvement until you actually told them about the imminent attack.
I guess there isn't any ground to cover on this subject that hasn't already been covered, huh?
Kyler, seriously. You seem like a smart guy. Why do you have such a hard time grasping the very basic concept that I was forced to get involved by the arrival of the MP?
The situation you were in did not allow you to take the path you wanted to take. Considering the situation, you did not take the path of least involvement.
I was sent there because MJ "knew" (didn't suspect mind you, knew) that I knew about the attack, in spite of the fact the I had never once mentioned an interest in any kind of military history other than guns.
He also thought that I would be tempted to stop it, in spite of us talking for eight years about why changing history was a bad idea, as well as a 5,000 word essay written by me about why stopping it would be a disaster.
He "knew" that I knew the attack, but somehow didn't "know" that I wouldn't want to stop it.
(Doing Therapy)
You wrote a five thousand word essay about why stopping it would be a disaster and you expect me to believe that you didn't know about the attack?
Ya know, the more I think about it, the more I cannot believe you thought for a moment I knew the details of the attack. MJ, did you not graduate from law school with a degree to be a lawyer? Are lawyers not taught to seek "Just The Facts"? The facts were that I had seen Final Countdown and that I like guns. All that tells you is that I had seen Final Countdown and that I like guns. Nothing more. Next time, try sticking to the facts.
Actually, no--even to get into law school you have to demonstrate an ability to extrapolate reasonable conclusions from the evidence.
And why exactly did you just repeat yourself word for word from an older post? Especially when it doesn't seem relevant to anything said?
I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll extrapolate from what I know and suggest that Kyler reposted that because he recognized that you kept repeating yourself and wondered if you'd notice if he did the same.
And really, why am I the only one with enough brains to realize that if someone is talking to you when no one was talking to you before, you're clearly more involved than you were when no one was talking to you? The MP knows I'm there, I'm involved. What part of that do you not understand? What's the sticking point?
The television talks to me all the time, but I am not more involved for the fact that it is talking to me than I am if it is off. I am only involved to the degree that I respond to what it says.
--M. J. Young
"I'm going out on a limb here, but I'll extrapolate from what I know and suggest that Kyler reposted that because he recognized that you kept repeating yourself and wondered if you'd notice if he did the same."
It hurts to laugh this hard.
Why do I find that so incredibly funny?
--M. J. Young
You wrote a five thousand word essay about why stopping it would be a disaster and you expect me to believe that you didn't know about the attack?
It was an analysis of the movie Final Countdown. All of the information about the essay came from that source.
The television talks to me all the time, but I am not more involved for the fact that it is talking to me than I am if it is off. I am only involved to the degree that I respond to what it says.
You still have to listen to it, and it still affects you to an extent, whether you recognize it or not. You most definitely are more involved in watching TV with it on than off, no matter how little attention you pay it. Besides that, the TV isn't going to physically restrain you if you try to walk away. HOW CAN YOU EVEN TRY TO SAY I WASN'T INVOLVED WHEN THE GODDAMN MP PULLED UP???????????????????
Why do I find that so incredibly funny?
I am going to go out on a limb and say that it's probably because you hit the nail right between the eyes.
(Doing Therapy)
Two
Actually, no--even to get into law school you have to demonstrate an ability to extrapolate reasonable conclusions from the evidence.
And you couldn't extrapolate the completely reasonable conclusion that someone who is opposed to changing history won't want to stop a known historical event, no matter what universe it's in?
(Doing Therapy)
Three
I mean seriously, it took me YEARS to convince you that I didn't know anything about the attack. And even after I told you everything I knew about it, (which did NOT include "The Arizona") you still spoke of "The Arizona" as if you expected me to know what it was. I don't think you really accepted that I didn't know it until you had to explain to me what "The Arizona" was. And on top of that, I ONLY had to ask you FOUR or FIVE times before you finally told me. It's in this thread. On the other hand, we had countless conversations about why changing history is a bad idea. So, you extrapolated what I still consider to be a completely unreasonable conclusion that I knew that attack, and COMPLETELY IGNORED the KNOWN FACT that I was opposed to changing history. So, I don't warn them. In addition to "knowing" that I know the attack, you now also "know" that I'm completely dedicated to non-involvement. I'm forced to wonder how many other players you've done this to and never found out about it.
Sometimes I think it screwing with my psychosis was the best thing that could have possibly happened. If not for that, you never would have found out that you were wrong.
For all those concerned parties, the MP survived the crash, got married to a nurse stationed in Pearl, and had three children. Those children grew up and had 10 grandchildren, one of those in the 2020's discovered scrif in that world, and learned not to use it in electronics quickly. That grandchild made the Foundation for Diminished Persons, whose purpose was to screen people carefully to not let anyone work with Scrif who was not mentally stable. They erected a statue of a wrecked jeep with the MP slumped against the wheel, and a handcuffed visage that almost exactly resembles John in their courtyard. World Peace broke out because of it.
MJ, I keep thinking. You put up the Temporal Anomalies site because you thought time travel would attract gamers. But then you completely forgot to take into account what kind of gamers it would attract. Time travel gamers won't do well in historical worlds, I don't think. You were talking about your ability to extrapolate conclusions, well that's one I think you should have extrapolated a long time ago. Before I ever came to game with you.
That's why I was so confused that you actually thought I would want to stop the bombing. "Changing history is bad, m'kay?"
Two
First of all, MJ fell victim to the philosophical principle of Occam's Razor, which basically states that the answer which is most likely to be the answer is presumed to be the answer.
Kyler said this a little while ago. I would think, under the principle of Occam's Razor as I understand it, the most simple answer would be that it was just a coincidence that Final Countdown was about Pearl Harbor. Forget the "Gun Enthusiast" angle for a minute. I'm speaking of people in general. How many millions of people have seen that movie? How many of them know the details of the actual attack? Thus, the most simple answer is that it was just a coincidence.
Q: "If it walks like a duck, smells like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is most likely?"
A: "Your blind date."
(Doing Therapy)
Three
You think I'm a fool because I did not consider the possibility that all the evidence pointing to an interest in military history on your part was just a remarkable coincidence, as if I dropped the Scrabble box and the letters spilled on the floor and told me my mother was going to call today.
And you're talking like it's completely unreasonable that someone who likes guns and has seen Final Countdown would NOT know the minutia of the Pearl Harbor attack. They don't make you pass a military history test when you buy a gun, and there were no history books that came with the movie!!!!! It's not a requirement to know military history to like guns and watch movies!!!!!!!
If you're going to keep insisting that you had sufficient reason to say I knew the attack, I'm going to start insisting that I know you're a heroin addict, just like many other rock stars with long hair. Have I made my point?????
"Forget the "Gun Enthusiast" angle for a minute."
Ok, but that changes things.
OK Kyler, then you're a virgin. Just like most other gamers. That child you have must not be yours.
Oh yeah, and if you're still going to insist that Adam "Did the right thing" you hereby lose all rights to complain about the fact that this is still going on.
Say whatever you want about how gun collectors like military history. The FACTS are you had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that I knew a DAMN THING about the Pearl Harbor attack, and EIGHT YEARS worth of Time Travel emails that should have been screaming "JOHN WON'T WANT TO STOP THE BOMBING!!!!!" Then you have the AUDACITY to get upset with me when it blows up in your face!!!!!!
Why don't you wake up and smell some of that bull you're trying to shovel me????
(Doing Therapy)
Actually, most of the gamers I know are married with children, except for some that are not married with children--yeah, no, that could mean anything, couldn't it?
The FACTS are you had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to think that I knew a DAMN THING about the Pearl Harbor attack
O.K., this is probably why we are still fighting. I think that your interest in guns and your interest in a movie about Pearl Harbor gave me some reason to think that you something about the attack. I'm not saying that it was a slam dunk certainty, just that it was reasonably likely. You've admitted already that you "knew" enough that you had decided, long before you met me, that it was very important for that battle to occur, and that you would never change it if you could. So you did know something.
You keep insisting that you knew nothing, and that I should have known you knew nothing because I had no reason to think you knew anything. You won't admit that it was reasonably plausible that you fit into the group of people who know more than average about that battle, despite the fact that you did--you knew that it was important to the history of the twentieth century because it brought the United States into World War II early enough to prevent Germany from winning in Europe and developing the hydrogen bomb and V2 rocket combination.
So maybe I was wrong about whether you would want to warn the U.S. fleet that the attack was coming, but I wasn't wrong that you knew more than the average person about the battle, and I certainly was not wrong that you knew something about it, so stop arguing that you never heard of Pearl Harbor and didn't even know the Japanese attacked the Pacific Fleet there.
--M. J. Young
O.K., this is probably why we are still fighting. I think that your interest in guns and your interest in a movie about Pearl Harbor gave me some reason to think that you something about the attack.
I'll tell you exactly what you had reason to think I knew. You had reason to think that I knew the facts presented in Final Countdown. That's it and that's all. The facts presented are that, in the present, there is a memorial to something called "The Arizona" at Pearl Harbor. The actual ship is buried underwater, so you can't see what "The Arizona" is. Just that, whatever it is, there's a memorial to it. Later on, "The Arizona" is mentioned verbally. You're never shown what "The Arizona" is in the movie. So I know there's a memorial to something called "The Arizona" at Pearl Harbor. Wow. That's A WHOLE LOT to go on, isn't it????? The date of the attack is said. I'm not even certain I knew that before I watched Final Countdown. This whole time, you've been going on like you knew for a fact that I was a WW2 historian who knew the attack backwards and forwards. All you had any reason to think I knew were the facts presented in Final Countdown. The facts. Not any supposition about what those facts might mean. I most certainly knew more about the attack after I watched that movie than I did before I watched it. Watch Final Countdown. When it's over, you will know exactly as much about the actual attack as I did when I went into that world. Hardly the level I was being accused. That's all you had reason to think I knew.
You won't admit that it was reasonably plausible that you fit into the group of people who know more than average about that battle....
I wasn't wrong that you knew more than the average person about the battle
If you want to say that the average person hasn't seen Final Countdown, and thus someone who has seen it knows more than the average person, I'll go along with that. But watching a movie does not a historian make. It's not a requirement to know military history to own a gun.
What you DID know for sure is that I was opposed to changing history. Does it matter what universe it's in? I can't believe you thought for a moment I would want to stop it. "Changing history is bad, m'kay?" You didn't even touch that part.
You want to know what the really sad thing is? I could have told you before you sent me there that Pearl Harbor would be a terrible world to send me to. Too bad you didn't ask.......
Two Posts
I think that your interest in guns and your interest in a movie about Pearl Harbor gave me some reason to think that you something about the attack. I'm not saying that it was a slam dunk certainty, just that it was reasonably likely.
I can and have pointed you to the post where you said "I KNEW he knew a lot about that attack." "I KNEW" Not "I suspected." Not "I thought perhaps." "I KNEW." So, there was a time when you most certainly did think it was a slam dunk certainty. And you said it AFTER I had told you at least twice that I DIDN'T know it.
Do you define "Knowing a lot" as "Knowing the facts presented in a movie which is loosely based on it"? Because if that's your definition of "Knowing a lot" then maybe you were right.
(Doing Therapy)