From: J. R. Molloy (jr@shasta.com)
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999 - 23:50:09 MST
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
>THIS IS NOT INTENDED AS AN INDEPENDENT STATEMENT. YOU CAN TELL BECAUSE
>IT MIRRORS THE FORM OF A PREVIOUS STATEMENT YOU MADE. THIS IS A CLUE TO
>WHAT WE CALL **SARCASM**.
Calm down, sarcasm works better when you don't shout.
>SINCE NOBODY WOULD ACTUALLY CARRY OUT THIS COMMAND, IT'S INTENDED TO
>POINT OUT A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE RATHER THAN AN IMPERATIVE. THE USE OF
>REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM IS ANOTHER CLUE TO WHAT WE CALL **SARCASM**.
No identifiable "logical consequence" has occured. Accordingly, genuine
sarcasm fails to emerge.
>> You can't destroy information, you can only change it into other forms of
>> information or disinformation. A "precaution" against destroying
information
>> seems simple indeed.
>
>Oh, good. Can I have the Library of Alexandria back?
No, because it got changed into other forms of information, some of which
confirms that the Library may have existed. The species that created the
Library contains more powerful information than the Library contains, and
that species can create other libraries.
>SINCE YOU CAN'T GIVE IT TO ME, THIS IS MEANT AS A COMMENTARY ON THE
>PREVIOUS STATEMENT, NOT AS A REQUEST. MAKING AN IMPOSSIBLE REQUEST MAY
>INDICATE THE PRESENCE OF WHAT WE CALL **SARCASM**.
It may seem like "**SARCASM**" to you, but to me it looks like a pathetic
tantrum.
--J. R.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:20 MST