[TteFAboB]

Define discussion jumpy.

Is discussion for each of us to share our knowledge and opinions, and who knows maybe even see if it leads to anything? Or is discussion the sharing of worthless fantasies (opinions that are far away from the reality of the thing being discussed), imputing psychological causes/effects on posters, qualitites and insults.

Now that Gizzmoe already brought Von_capo to the fray I'll say then that I have never seen Von_capo "discuss" religion. He campaigned like a brainless* militant, gluing manifestos, spreading "shocking" (or sensationalist) propaganda. Now, I understand Von_capo's English is even worse than mine but images and little films can only help in a discussion as auxiliaries and they're still always dispensable except when these images are necessary as an element of proof for the affrimations. If you go back you won't see this, you'll see movies where the discussion and conclusions are presuposed and satirical cartoons that prove only how infantile we can be when we want to prove something without studying it. When this is done the result is the liquifying of the brain. Thinking by images is for Cats and Orang-Utans. An image stimulates fantasy and produces a reflex of sympathy or antipathy without passing through conscious reflection.

So it is one thing for us to have a serious discussion. Another thing for us to have an informal conversation. And a third thing to have fun at the expense of others.

The problem starts when you cross the fun at the expense of others (humour) with the serious discussion as if that was part of the latter. When you use the satirical as if it were a serious argument.

If Gizzmoe is reading this and if he received my private-message and if he hasn't yet deleted it I would like to ask you, Mr. Gizzmoe, to forward the last PM I sent you to Jumpy. Anybody else who wants to imply some sort of "touchy-feely" motivation behind my posts may also please ask Gizzmoe for my PM. Or just post it here, what the heck.

If you're up for a conversation or a discussion about religion count me in. If you want to present self-contradictory enunciates, that is, attempting to pass what is fantasious as real and as a serious argument, count me out of the merry-go-round.

EDIT: This asterisk *: when I've said brainless by all means I did not meant that Von_capo did not have a brain or was uncapable of using it. That is illogical. Had that been the case, he wouldn't know how to use the internet. I do not substitute that word now through this edit, unless the moderators consider its use even in exaggerated form innapropriate, because the intention is the same. I can, for example, substitute it for "parroting" or "collage" and maintain the same meaning for all intents and purposes. What I mean is the Anarchist kid who spray-paints the anarchist symbol at the school bathroom or the party militant who walks around town gluing the party's manifesto on trees, walls and telephone poles: it is the almost effortless act of copying (or more appropriately "linking") to somebody else's work without adding a grain of your own thoughts. This is militancy and nothing else and the "Dark ages are coming back" thread is swarming with evidence of this behavior.