Re: OT: Wildepad

On Feb 17, 2:41=A0am, Bryan Derksen <bryan.derk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Wildepad wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:28:49 -0800, John Schilling
> > <schil...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> >> We attack, for the sake of chasing off the guy who insists on giving
us=

> >> each an unending series of unwanted intellectual root canals.

> > Every decent newsreader has the ability to killfile both posters and
> > threads with the click of an icon. I suggest you find out how to use
> > it.

> You hand out lollipops with your root canals. The scenarios you present
> are often interesting to discuss and experiment with. Just not with you,
> once the thread's progressed to variations you hadn't initially
> considered. Presents something of a dilemma.

This may be one reason I don't find Wildepad as annoying as
some others do.  I can't recall even a single example of a
Wildepad scenario I found interesting.  So I really don't care.

Wildepad's way of thinking is to come up with something
magic that he doesn't comprehend and can't analyze, and
thinks, "Well isn't that neat?"  My way of thinking is the
opposite.  I come up with something technological that I
can comprehend and analyze and think, "Well isn't that neat?"
Totally different approaches.

To me, the constraints of physics and technology and
plausibility and practicality are the rules to the puzzle.
That's what makes trying to figure out ways to design
an interstellar propulsion system or a long range X-ray
laser interesting to me.  If someone points out a flaw in
the design, or a mistake in the calculations, well...that's
part of the puzzle.  If the numbers don't add up then
they don't add up.  I'll try to modify the numbers, or
modify the concept, or try something different, or give
up on the concept.

Wildepad scenarios don't work that way.  Real life
physics and technology and plausibility don't apply.
The whole point is that it's supposed to be something
mysterious that you guys can't possibly understand.
Only the paranoid genius can understand it, if anyone.
This sort of premise just doesn't get my juices going.

> BTW, the same solution you suggest could be used by you - you could just
> ignore the responses that question assumptions you don't want
> questioned. Why don't you?

Isaac Kuo