RE: VMs: Mad Kircher, was (lots)

[Nick Pelling <incoming@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Don,

At 14:12 10/09/2003 -0600, Don Latham wrote:
> I agree with Rene. If it was a hoax, where's the historical horselaugh?  If
> a copy for profit, where's the profit and the original(s)? Too organized for
> psychotic glossolalia, so an organized, encoded/encrypted belief system.

If a horse laughs in a stable but no-one hears it, was the joke funny or 
not? ("Blimey - a talking dog!") And if no one buys a fake, how do we 
assess its value? :-)

Also: glossolalia (what was the outcome of our discussion of 
"glossography"?) can encompass a multitude of spins. For sure, the VMs is 
definitely *tacitly structured*, but how can we move from that to 
*explicitly organised*?

Not to say that I don't completely agree with you (in principle), but I'm 
just not sure how we'd prove it...

Hmmm... types of proof we might (or might not) accept:-
(1) Smoking gun proof (proof by causality)
(2) Art history proof (proof by correlation, good for establishing earliest 
dates)
(3) Provenance proof (proof by association, good for establishing latest dates)
(4) Holistic proof (proof by elimination)
(5) Proof by external authority (channelled spirit data)... if it works, 
why not?

Oh well, that's enough spurious categoric systems for one day - time for 
bed! :-)

Cheers, .....Nick Pelling..... 


______________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxx with a body saying:
unsubscribe vms-list