PDA

View Full Version : Trebaxian Vir


Leif
02-06-2006, 08:13 AM
A collection of his writings.


I have accomplished hope for mankind in the form of the state developed to the stage at which it embodies the Logical Notion, which is alone completely rational, consciously realised by myself by flawless deductions; moreover, I havea accomplished hope for mankind by the hope of the moment of individuality of the State, i.e. the Monarch (born leader), i.e. myself, thereby fusing three factors of the Logical Notion (of which two are manifest in its individuality), making it a totality.

In other words, I have completed executing the Perfect Idea of the state's individuality by means of my leadership of the state, which is the process of fusing the third factor of the Logical Notion.

These are the factors of the Logical Notion: firstly, there is the aristo-communistic abstract idea of the state, which I realised; secondly, the idea has been made manifest by acquiring a certain degree of objective reality within existing states (hundreds of them, if my studies are correct); thirdly, my leadership, which is the individuality of the State, which is necessary. Combine these three factors, and the State becomes a perfect entity -- the three factors of the Logical Notion are fused.

Supernius hath given us eyes wherewith to see -- he is the architect of the State.
Monday Mar 03, 2003





Anything noticable, abnormal and disadvantegeous -- whether genetically caused (especially, since the genetically flawed can spread their defective genes), or caused by any prenatal or perinatal irregularities. I doubt that [gene therapy] would ever happen. But if it will, however dubious such a prospect may be, in the mean time they ought to be mandatorily terminated preferably in utero, but even postnatally if necessary. And as regards the rest of them -- defects of all other ages -- something similar, in my perspective, is in order. You ought to be looking at what we can do at the moment, and what is probable in the near future, rather than this optimistic nonsense. We can terminate retards, but we cannot significantly alter their condition. As far as we know, the only way to correct them is to terminate them. It can and has been done before. That is my point. We do not know if genes can be corrected in such a way as described by you above. It may or may not be possible in the future.
Wednesday March 05, 2003




Many a time have I tried to teach women and girls logic, and it simply transcends their comprehension; they moreover tend to "tune out" when I attempt to teach them any mildly mathematical, scientific or metaphysical conceptions. I sympathise for Wittgenstein (one of the greatest logicians) when he intentionally collided his fist with someone's cranium, causing serious damage, after trying to teach her simple logic. I do not support woman-beating or anything of that nature, but I do feel frustration of a like sort at times, resulting in fervid agression, controlled only by my compulsory need to apply logic to every situation I realise; consequently, I do not advocate such activity; I consider it illogical in all situations; viz., the act of teaching an intellectually feminine woman logic, which, in my perspective, -- if I may so speak -- is an attempt to do the impossible.
October 20, 2002





On 'rock' music

Music expressing struggle and strife yet not imbuing him who listens with primitive impulses, even just in form, is that for which I am looking.

The only 'rock' song-writers I like so far are Bob Dylan and John Lennon. Their music is not uncivilised music, unlike most 'rock' music, and these song-writeres bear a propensity, in especial the latter, but both song-writers to an extent, to articulate & express struggle. I like Bob Dylan more because of the sophisticated lyrical content & song structure in his works, and their ability to fill me with rich mental images. He is a true poet. I like John Lennon because he articulates many of my ideals, and expresses struggle, though not in an ideal way at times, and because of his sympathy for the workers. He was a communist, a humanistic communitarian, an internationalist, an advocate of atheism. Many of his songs, however, I should think uncivilised; but not those ones of which I am particularly fond, such as "A working class hero". I would say the same of a good deal of Mr. Dylan's songs - uncivilised. But many are not.
Tuesday, July 20, 2004





On death

Death is not a bad thing - that is an impossibility. For the idea of badness presupposes existence. A bad thing must exist. Therefore, since death is the negation of existence (of a type of existence at least, viz. life), death cannot possibly be a bad thing. "When we are, death is not; when death is, we are not," says Epicurus. And who can say existence is preferable to non-existence? Non-existence also has its positive aspects. In a world with so few joys to offer, in a world with so much suffering, "the moment of dying may be similar to that of waking from a heavy nightmare" (quoting Schopenhauer). Finally, we did not exist for an eternity before we were born; why should we be any more disturbed by the eternity of non-existence which follows death?

There is no ground for fearing death, for the fear of death precedes knowledge. It is an irrational fear. As Schopenhauer explained:

"The fear of death is, in fact, independent of all knowledge, for the animal has it, although it does not know death. Everything that is born already brings this fear into the world."

". . . in any case life must end soon, so that the few years which possibly we have still to exist vanish entirely before the endless time when we shall be no more. Accordingly, to reflection it appears even ludicrous for us to be so very anxious about this span of time, to tremble so much when our own life or another's is endangered. . . . this powerful attachment to life is irrational and blind."

". . . we ought to be just as little disturbed by the fact that we shall not exist as by the fact that we did not exist."

"Violent death also cannot be painful, for, as a rule, even severe wounds are not felt at all till some time afterwords, and are often noticed only from their external symptoms. If they are rapidly fatal, consciousness will vanish before this discovery; if they result in death later, it is the same as with other illnesses. All who have lost consciousness in water, through charcoal fumes, or through hanging, also state, as is well known, that it happened without pain."

"So far, the result for us is that death cannot really be an evil, however much it is feared, but that it often appears as a good thing, as something desired, as a friend. All who have encountered insuperable obstacles to their existence or to their efforts . . . have the return into the womb of nature as the last resource that is often open to them as a matter of course."
Tuesday, July 20, 2004







1. I define progression as expanding and improving the means of
production, augmenting the chances of survival of Mankind, improving
scientific and philosophical knowledge, and making Mankind freer.

2. I believe that each of these definitions, in the end, comes to the same
thing. For, on the one hand, the expansion of the means of production has
progressively made Man freer: it has taken Man from slave society, made
Him freer in the form of feudalism, freer still in the form of capitalism, and
soon freer yet in the form of Socialism. And each of these types of
progression is conducive to every other type of progression. For instance,
improving scientific knowledge can improve the means of production,
which can augment the chances of survival of mankind and make Man's
life easier, i.e. freer, which in turn improves scientific knowledge by
giving Man more opportunity to think and reason.

3. Progression is therefore only a means - a means to an end, the
End.

The goal of progression - maximum scientific & philosophical knowledge,
maximum freedom, survival, etc - I call the End. The End is the end of
progression, perhaps even of History, when all possible desirables are
achieved: when every datum of possible knowledge is taken in to Man's
collective consciousness, when Man is free as possible, when technology is
as splendid as possible, when the means of production are maximally
efficient to such a superb degree as to be superfluous: this I call the End.
It is not just an end, but the End. It is that towards which
written written History has been progressively moving.

5. I submit that the End, not anything else, is the Good and nothing else is
the Good. Progression is a means - the only means - by which to realise
the End.

6. Therefore:

In proportion as an act or idea has a tendency to abate the probability of
achieving the End, in that proportion it is to be deemed immoral.

On the other hand, in proportion as an act or idea has a tendency to
augment the probability of achieving the End, in that proportion it is to be
deemed moral.

Stated in more concrete, but less precise, phraseology, everything
progressive is good, and everything reactionary is bad. Socialism is good,
capitalism is bad. Science and philosophy are good, religion and
superstition are bad. Thus anti-scientce is immoral. Opposing the rise of
civilisation is immoral. Maintaining the status quo is an act immoral.
Counter-revolution is an act immoral. Fighting against Socialism and
Communism is immoral. Destroying democracy is immoral. Wage-slavery
is immoral. And so forth. In a word, anything contrary to the types of
progression mentioned hereinabove (see 1) is immoral.

7. Many other interesting things follow if we regard the End - progression -
as the only Good. For instance, many actions which we would normally
consider as immoral would now become trivial and non-moral. For if an
action does not interfere with progression, we do not oppose it; nor
do we approve of it. For instance, how does eating dogs interfere with
progression? It does not, and therefore we do not think it immoral (or
moral); we have nothing to say of it. Or how does cannibalism interfere
with progression? It does not, and therefore we have nothing to say of it;
it is neither good nor bad.

8. On the other hand, many things will suddenly become moral and
praiseworthy. For instance, to the extent that human breeding augments
the chances of survival of mankind, to that same extent it would be
regarded as moral (if it does the contrary, it were immoral). Improving the
gene pool by exterminating the mentally deficient thus becomes moral
because the mentally deficient are inferior insofar as they do not have a
tendency to progress mankind. In proportion as exterminating "people"
with genetic diseases increases the chances of survival of mankind, in that
proportion we regard it is moral (in proportion as it does the
contrary, it were immoral).

This all follows, logically and irrefutably, if this single claim is regarded as
true: progression is good, and is the only good.

I regard that as a true statement, even axiomatical.
November 16, 2003





I wouldn't think Socialism is the freest form of government. The freest form of government would be none at all.

Did I say that Socialism is the freest form of government? No.

And the freest form of government cannot be "none at all", for
that is not a government.
November 18, 2003




Progression is an end in itself. As such it is the Good. But the
End is the culmination of all progression, of everything good.
Therefore it the highest possible good.
November 18, 2003




Given the premise that "everything progressive is good", you then assert without any basis that it follows that "Socialism is good and Capitalism is bad".

The premiss was missing, but unnecessary, since it is so obvious
that Socialism is progression.

How does that follow? Even given the premise, that conclusion is entirely subjective and requires a leap of faith to embrace.

The definition of progression given works with Socialism.

Production of what?

Products.

By whom?

The lower classes.

For whom?

The upper classes.

It could be argued that the pacificist, non-technological lifestile of the Tibetan Buddhist society most augments the survival of mankind.

Then that must be done.

How does one know when one has *improved* philosophical knowledge?

When philosophic knowledge is increased.

How does one define or measure "freer"? What does it mean to be freer? Freer than what?

Freedom is the ability to do what one wants.

Citizens of the third world (i.e., the majority of Earth's population) will likely not agree with this at all.

No, the third world is not the majority of the world's population.

Even so, they are historically backwards.

The expansion of the means of production may have helped Western society move away from a slave society, but some believe it has enslaved the societies of impoverished nations in the process.

That is true, and I agree with you. But by "slavery" I do not mean
the type of slavery of which you speak, which is a type of wage-
slavery. By slavery I meant the type of slavery which constituted
ancient civilisations such as Rome.

Those societies remain locked in an economic downspiral, saddled with massive international debt which pretty much destroys their ability to sustain a viable economy while their natural resources are consumed by Western society. Western society then returns the favor by exporting its toxic waste into their countries for disposal.
November 19, 2003






Those exterminated, enslaved, or otherwise forced into exploitive labor conditions as part of the push for expansion are simply human sacrifices.

The exercise of exploitation and forced labour is contrary to progression, for it has a tendency to diminish freedom.
November 19, 2003




I know from experience that it is possible to stop masturbating. As a teenager I discovered to my shock and horror that masturbation defaces and permanently damages the penis, because the hand is not designed like the vagina, but has an uneven shape by which the penis is enclosed during autoeroticism. Moreover, I found out that the temptation to masturbate abates when one has a wife, or is altogether extinguished upon marriage, since the penis is calculated to fit into the vagina, and the constant availability of a vagina obviates any desire to stimulate oneself.

Another thing is this odd--and discomforting--mental imagery (and tactile associations) I experience upon ejaculating semen. I don't know how common this is--it may be quite common, or it may be quite rare; I don't know--I never asked or said anything about it to anyone except a couple of people on MSN. It is this: whenever I ejaculate semen, I feel bloody. I feel like my penis is bleeding, like blood is squirting out of my penis; and my whole body feels bloody. I have absolutely no idea why this is, how this association came about. But I don't like it!
-undated journal entry, post-June 2004

The use of subtlety should be reserved for those who have a shrewd grasp of its proper use and so can use it effectively--i.e., not you. It also belongs more in narration than in anything else.
-undated, post-June 2004





The Ideal Religion is one in which Truth has all those devine properties ascribed to God, motivating man to seek Truth. No God, no gods: merely a worshiping of Truth, and this worship would be motivated by the devine properties which Truth, in this religion, would be claimed to possess.

The result of this Ideal Religion would thus be a refutation of itself. That is, if Truth is claimed to have such and such devine properties, the seeking of Truth (the God of this religion) would be a refutation of His own devineness.

This religion would be theological atheism, or atheological theism refuting itself.

Or, it can also be put this way, if Truth is worshiped, Truth is thought devine. At this moment it refutes itself. The act of knowing Truth, of knowing God, would be a refutation of His own being.

Why bother? Because if men worship truth as a God, they will be fanatically motivated to seek it. I do not care of my doctrine is true or not. Observing how religion can create fanatics of Christ (or whatever), and observing that we need more critical thinkers - men who are concerned with truth - why not therefore create a religion whose Deity is truth, motivating men to become scientists, to become fanatics of reason?
October 8, 2003





Punitive control is undesirable insofar as it is likely to change the
relationship between the punisher (parent, teacher, government) and
the punished (child, schoolboy, citizen) in an unfavourable way. This
is particularly true of children.

One alternative to punishing a child is, instead of spanking him, or
telling him that he is "bad", which, in spite of its tendency to abate
the probability that the child will behave in such a way again, tends
to change the relationship between child and guardian in a most
unfavourable way. The alternative practice is to give him reasons why
he should not behave thus, i.e., by informing him about the possible
aversive consequences of such behaviour. This only works if the child
has the mental capacity satisfactorily to understand the relationship
between present behaviour and future consequences. If the child has
not attained the age of reason, his environment must be arranged in
such a way that he cannot or is at least less likely to behave
objectionably. Because this chiefly applies to very young children,
this is not an impractical alternative to punitive control as regards
children who have not attained the age of reason. But when the child
has attained the age of reason, is there any reason to suppose that
informing him about the foreseeable aversive consequences of
misbehaving will be less effective in abating the likelihood that he
will behave in such a way again than resorting to punitive control? Or
is punishing him the most effective method? I contend that informing
him about the possible aversive consequences of behaving
objectionably is far more effective, because after all he has attained
the age of reason. What is more, if he chooses to behave
objectionably in spite of that, natural punitive control is likely to
be exerted upon him. The advantage of natural punishment is that it
does not unfavourably change the relationship between the child and
his guardian who after all informed him about the possibility
beforehand. The child who burns his hand by placing his hand over
fire, warned beforehand about the consequences of doing so, is not
inclined to blame anyone but himself. The relationship between the
child and his guardian does not change as a result.

"But," it will be objected, "natural punishment is far more dangerous,
often deadly, than 'unnatural' punitive control."

This is true. But if the child is adequately informed about the
possibility of natural punishment when he "misbehaves", or (better
yet) before he mishaves, and if he has indeed attained the age of
reason, it is highly unlikely that he will misbehave in that way
anyway. It is more likely that he will misbehave if he is punished by
his guardian, instead of informed, for behaving objectionably,
because, ignorant of the aversive consequences of such behaviour, he
will not be disinclined to engage in it when his guardian is not
around.

So much for behaviour likely to conclude in natural punishment. But
what about socially unacceptable behaviour? The punitive control is
different, but the effect is the same. Socially unacceptable
behaviour concludes in (intended or unintended) punishment. If the
child hits someone, he is likely to be hit back. If he says terrible
things, if previously conditioned, he is likely to feel shame. If he
exposes his naked body in public, he is likely to be frowned upon.
This sort of "punishment" is unavoidable. But when the parent frowns
upon his child, hits him, or makes him feel ashamed, for doing the
same things, the relationship between parent and child is at risk. In
my opinion, it is best to let the child have such experiences only
when it is unavoidable, only when it does not pose a threat to the
relationship between him and his guardian on whom he depends more
than anyone else, that is, only when the punitive control is exerted
upon him by the disapproval of other people.

It is possible to exert punitive control upon him for behaving
objectionably and inform him about the consequences of such
behaviour. However, this cannot be done without unfavourably changing
the relationship between the child and his guardian. I believe for
that reason that the best option is to inform him about the
consequences of his behaviour and to arrange the environment to make
it as harmless as possible
March 6, 2004




Why do the religious in general believe that science and religion are two separate dimensions of knowledge, that they are both the truth, and that science cannot say anything about religion, because it is a separate dimension of knowledge? Yet religion often -- nay almost always -- makes claims about the physical world. Does not science deal with the physical world? Is it not therefore open to scientific criticism, and hence not a separate, special sphere of knowledge, about which science cannot say anything?

This may be obvious to all here, but even among atheists, or more precisely the irreligious who do not hold negative opinions of religion, I see this.

Also, they tend to fancy scientists as these helpless men in spectacles who cannot comprehend the universe; that perceived ignorance on the part of scientists is somehow regarded as a confirmation of God's existence -- or at least that ignorance is thought to give credit to religion, to make it respectable, since it is true in its own way, and science must remain forever silent thereabout.
April 20, 2003




I do not debate with theists, and so I do not care if I have their credibility or not. Imagine studying genetics your entire life, and then to be told by some idiot that genes are illusory. No man, worthy of that title, would care much for that person's credibility. All debates with theists, likewise, are utterly pointless: for reason is one of their many underdeveloped faculties, and a debate worthy of my time on that subject would require an intelligent theist: a contradiction in terms. In my opinion, that is.
April 20, 2003

Nyx
02-06-2006, 08:24 AM
Ancient troll posts, a couple of them were serious.

Jonathan
02-06-2006, 08:26 AM
I confess, I didn't read all of it, but...

I like John Lennon because he articulates many of my ideals, and expresses struggle, though not in an ideal way at times, and because of his sympathy for the workers. He was a communist, a humanistic communitarian, an internationalist, an advocate of atheism.
From the lyrics of "Imagine" I'd say he was an Anarchist.

Death is not a bad thing - that is an impossibility. For the idea of badness presupposes existence.
Tru dat, tru dat.

Leif
02-06-2006, 10:09 AM
In an efficient eugenics programme, the able will produce more children of higher ability than will the average. But some of the mediocre, even some of the sub-mediocre, will produce some very able children through the chance combinations of Mendelian genes. This means that the elite of every generation will be recruited from many different groups within the whole population, but, of course, in very different ratios from the different groups. Thus it follows that, unless the opportunity for an individual to develop into a member of the elite is widely distributed throughout the whole population, the elite will suffer. This introduces the necessity of the "democratic" element into evolution through selective breeding.

What is also required in an efficient eugenics programme is total equality, identity, and standardisation in every aspect of everyone's daily life; otherwise the able who rise might not be the genetically able and the dimwits that sink may not be the genetically sub-mediocre. Without a high measure of equality they are likely to be products more of their unique personal histories than genetic endowment. Only by treating everyone more or less the same, can innate differences rise to a position of prominence.
-undated, post-June 2004

Jonathan
02-06-2006, 10:31 AM
Once and for all - what is "higher ability" specifically?

Leif
02-06-2006, 10:40 AM
Ancient troll posts, a couple of them were serious.

You are too modest.

Jimbo Gomez
02-06-2006, 11:09 AM
Ix is a gentleman and a scholar. Why try to make him appear bad?

Leif
02-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Ix is a gentleman and a scholar. Why try to make him appear bad?

How is distributing his own writing making him appear bad?

Ambrosio Spinola
02-06-2006, 11:56 AM
Ix is NOT happy about this, why not respect his stance since you now seem to follow him?

Leif
02-06-2006, 12:00 PM
Ix is NOT happy about this, why not respect his stance since you now seem to follow him?

I find that hard to believe. I talked with him four hours ago and he never mentioned his displeasure.

Ambrosio Spinola
02-06-2006, 12:01 PM
I find that hard to believe. I talked with him four hours ago and he never mentioned his displeasure.

<Sigh> Please take our word for it or just contact him again and ask.

Leif
02-06-2006, 03:48 PM
Ixabert's ideological development, theological thought, and assorted quotes.

I started out as a social-democrat

Somehow this devolved into Trotskyism (age 11/12)

Then dogmatic atheism, after coming across an anthology of works of atheist and agnostic writers at a local library, and being almost instantly converted (i had until then been a doubting Christian).

Thence followed a brief stint of Nietzscheism, which I have wholly grown out of. Nietzsche, I believe, is one of those philosophers of which a person eventually grows out as he learns more philosophy. Nietzsche's system of thought is too disjointed to be taken seriously, and he doesn't even attempt to prove most of his theses; whereas in real philosophy, every proposition must be proved beyond peradventure of a doubt before any definite conclusions can be made. Nietzsche decidedly does not meet this requirement. In his philosophy there are no proofs, no hard data, no sophisticated philosophical analysis. Instead he employs (philosophically) meaningless metaphorical expressions and aphorisms in an attempt to reinforce his flimsy, undeduced conclusions.

A psychological text book I perloined from a friend of mine promted me to examine the works of various philosophers from Plato to Kant; now I am thoroughly acquainted with the chief works of all the great philosophers up to and including those of the 19th century. The Republic was the first major philosophical work I read, and it was The Republic which to a great extent imbued me with an interest in philosophy which has not since diminished. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding by David Hume was the second major philosophical work I read, and it hardened some of my basic beliefs (or lack of them). Then there was Ludwig Feuerbach's conception of species-being and species-life, which was influential to me for a period of time. I have modified it -- now I would call it ethno-being, ethno-consciousness, and ethno-life.

Then I became interested in Wittgenstein, Bertrand Russell, logical positivism, behaviourism, and everything else associated.

Next was Hegelianism; I still haven't fully grown out of this "phase", if such it be at all.

Marxism-Leninism/Juche - I now disagree with some important theses of Marxism, but am still, overall, a Marxist, and have extensive respect for Marx's economic writings. I still believe that Karl Marx is the rightful successor of and immortal contributor to German philosophy, French socialism, and English political economy. Not only mature Marx, but young Marx, has influenced my thinking immensely. Jucheism, an off-shoot of Leninism, furnished me with a firm belief in nationalism.

A friend of mine (Ymir from PoFo - an oldbie) excited in me an interest in the politics and logic of the Khmer Rouge, and I have adopted many of their core beliefs.

Now I would call myself a Socialist Democratic Nationalist with Hegelian, nationalist, ruralist, environmentalist, Skinnerian, and Marxist leanings.
I have read Heidegger as well, but this hasn't had much of an effect on my philosophical outlook.
-Tue Dec 28, 2004






There is nothing I detest more than anti-democratic thinking.
-August 16, 2005

Men have moulded women to fit their own sexual ideal of femininity. It is sexual. It has this one aspect to it. But it is also reinforced by certain innate tendencies--not necessarily towards "ditziness", but to certain behavioural patterns which are likely to contribute to the emergence of "ditziness". Mostly a product of man's attempts to mould woman to his sexual ideal (submissive, unintelligent, unthreatening, etc.), but also reinforced by a natural proclivity to submission on woman's part.
-Feb 6 2005






Based on these definitions:

--
Pantheism:
a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe

God:
A) a being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe

B)the force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
--

'God' fits perfectly with the laws of the universe. Can you deny the laws of the universe?
-June 15, 2002





(A) defines God as a "being". The "laws of the universe" are not a being.

Wrong. "Being" can be defined as:--
1 a : the quality or state of having existence

Definition (B) defines God as the effects of this being. There is no reason to believe that the "laws of the universe" are the effects of such a being.

Please elaborate on this.

God:
1 : the creator, ruler and supreme being of the universe.

I would also like to add "omnipresent" to that.

All of those fits perfectly with the laws of the universe.
You cannot deny the following, which is attributable to God:--

The universe had to be created by laws. These laws exist everywhere. These laws are supreme. These laws are our ruler. The govern everything, including our thought.
-June 15, 2002




Of course, but you did not use "being" in that sense. Your statements explicitly indicated being, "a" being a qualifier indicating a thing apart from "being" itself.

In other words, by stipulating "a" being, you are stipulating both "being" and something else as well.

By doing so, you are not describing pantheism, but panentheism, the belief that the "god" contains the universe, but the universe does not contain "god."


I edited the post. Reread it.

"Supreme being" of the universe. To be supreme, it must be omnipresent.
-June 15 2002



If you equate God with the forces and laws of the universe, is it still possible to believe he could be omnipotent? From what I've seen, pantheists seem to believe that the "miracles" of the bible were explainable scientifically though incredibally coincidental (Moses parting the sea some sort of tidal phenomenon, the plagues of Eqypt caused by an erupting volcano, etc.) To me a truely miraculous event would be the sea parting as portrayed in The Ten Commandments, defying natural laws. If God must work within these laws, is he really omnipotent? Could he have caused the sea to grow legs and chase away the soldiers coming for Moses with equal ease?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't believe in any of that. I don't believe in miracles.
-June 16, 2002

God...is the laws that govern everything.
-June 16 2002

jcs
02-06-2006, 08:00 PM
Nietzsche's system of thought
...???...

"Have I been understood?"
No, sorry. It seems you'll never be.
:( :( :(

jcs
02-06-2006, 08:01 PM
By the way, why are you chronicling Ix's development?

Leif
02-06-2006, 08:29 PM
By the way, why are you chronicling Ix's development?

Why aren't you...?

jcs
02-06-2006, 09:25 PM
Why aren't you...?
An object at rest...

Leif
02-06-2006, 09:40 PM
An object at rest...

...will inevitably be set in motion.

Great is Supernius!

Billy Score
02-07-2006, 02:21 AM
I think everything ixabert has said, even those things said in jest are fascinating and worth preserving simply because of his ability to articulate, his vision, etc. We have already lost so many of his old Trebaxian Vir posts, it would be a shame to lose more. Those are my thoughts.

Petyr Baelish
02-07-2006, 02:26 AM
Great is Supernius!

For he hath given us a rectum, wherewith to fuck.

LOL, where is Johnson?

Jake Featherston
03-17-2012, 12:59 AM
Ix is a gentleman and a scholar. Why try to make him appear bad?

Indeed. Why assail his magnificent poasting career?

Ambrosio Spinola
03-17-2012, 01:20 AM
2006....Seriously?

Macrobius
03-17-2012, 01:29 AM
Yes - Ix, Jake, and I were just discussing the matter in re Trebaxian Vir, in the SB, so the topic is current, Ebusitanus.

Let's settle this matter. Apollonian has since claimed to be the *second* Ixabert, and not the 'immoral' Rivna Ixabert, first of that name. I assume he wishes to disavow that person's writings, in some fashion, in consequence of his statements (which disavowal I have seen on multiple occasions, and can witness).

To which of these two distinct individuals (and I make no claims about whether they inhabit the same cranium or not -- or did -- since that is the one thing you never can tell about distinct personalities posting on the internet) ... are the posts in the OP to be attributed?

Apollonian... did 'you' (and I address your current personality) write the posts in the OP, under colour of troll or otherwise, or not?

It is a simple question, and yes or no will suffice. If the answer is 'some but not others' please identify which.

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/this-man-has-his-priorities-in-order.jpg

http://weknowmemes.com/2012/02/this-man-has-his-priorities-in-order/