Saturday, January 26, 2008

Ah! What a relief, for that burden which is the SAT test has finally been lifted off my aching back and thrown into the gutter together with the rest of my muggeristic inclinations (the smallest amounts that existed). I should say that I was both surprised and amused when I made my daily visit to this blog. Surprised at the predictable and usually inevitable regression of this blog to “shida’s personal emo haven” being stifled (albeit not very satisfactorily and by a rather incompetent writer), and amused at the blasphemies written by a certain noob who did not even attempt to masquerade his confusion (and whose name everyone should only know too well for me to mention).

Well, what do we have here? Shida was kind for using the verb “oppose”, for it is plain how the cryptic (a rather inaccurate description, for the word implies the possibility of decryption, which is not very possible) jumble of letters is such a lousy excuse for even nonsense. It is only natural for one to say, “It is a common phenomenon to get contradicted,” when one contradicts even himself in his own blogposts. I shall not begin to comment on your poorly constructed analogies, (other than state the fact that they are, indeed, poorly constructed) for it is too condescending even for such a magnanimous figure as I.

To quote a relatively unknown and unremembered speaker who spoke at RI once: “You can always find some sense even in nonsense.” Hence, I shall generously give the previous blog post a cosmetic surgery such that the trace amounts of logic could be uncovered from the heap of gibberish.

Now firstly of all, where have I ever used the word “assumption” to describe the concept of a linear time? Perhaps your own convoluted (be thankful I had mercy and did not use the word “vestigial”) imagination had produced it out of thin air. How exceedingly ridiculous it is to be accused of claiming the existence of an assumption in your assumption, when the word “assumption” was never mentioned (by me of course) in reference to the matter!

Read carefully here, for I shall make a succinct distinction which most obtuse minds would only be too incapable to comprehend. When I said there was an assumption it was in reference to your naive thinking that time can be measured in fixed amounts. It was only through this assumption that you somehow arrived at the conclusion that the present is negligible, which of course is apparently fallacious.

Although I am slightly flattered by your claims that my concept of time is an overarching one, (ah, what can be better proof of my boundless mind than this divine concept incomprehensible by mortal men?) I must (not without some disappointment) point out that your understanding was erroneous. The concept of time I preached was based upon the very experience of mortal men and hence is actually not beyond the grasp of the able minded.

We see here how our friend with a rather feeble intellect attempts to spread his contagious and befuddling thoughts yet again. He tries to merge the two terms “experience” and “intuition” into one, using them interchangeably, when in reality “experience” would be the facts and basis upon which our understanding is built, while “intuition” would be the understandings of certain groups of people based on this experience.

In this particular scenario, the “intuition” put forth by our friend here is very questionable. That the measurement of “time” is possible, that the existence of certain experiences point to this possibility, and that the understanding of time can be accurately represented in this manner are but weak arguments that have not been substantiated. Apparently a closer examination of the experiences would yield conclusions most similar to those I have offered, that the separation of time into any quantified blocks is only a superficial guise used to fool the masses, and that the true meaning of time is only the aggregate of the present instances.

To conclude, I shall point out that by definition, anything that enters the mouth of the celestial being would be celestial comestible, and hence EVEN IF (take note of the gigantic EVEN IF in capital letters) I should somehow devour the noxious and putrid substance (which you frequently mistake for a sumptuous meal), it would be instantly redefined to divine food the nanosecond it enters my alimentary canals. And hence your arguments about vomiting are meaningless, for anything that can possibly induce puking must first be consumed, and once it is eaten its status has already been elevated to that of a celestial comestible. Of course, all this hypothetical situations I have put forth does not imply that I eat indiscriminately.

P.S. The previous author’s sluggishness at thinking and writing has since lost its startling qualities after he exposed his mental insufficiencies, and hence he need not offer lame explanations.