Re: Another application

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 3:14 -0600 29-04-2005, webmaster wrote:

> Please,
> comment within 5 days.
> Do we need some more information from him?
> It really makes little sense to have an aproval process if we do
> not
> have any information about the applicant anyway.
> So, take in anybody after all???????
> Mirek
> * This is a request from
>  menon(at)pd.infn.it
> * to become a WDDM member
> Hi,
> I'm  Giorgio Menon from Italy and i'd like to learn more about 
> Direct
> Democracy  from the WDDM community.
> Best regards
> Giorgio

Hi,

Unlike others, I do not think that Giorgio Menon's (tonguessy)

wish to learn is sincere. I've found him totally dogmatic-inflexible

about his deep convictions - but he uses a "questioning" approach

to enter any other's arguments, and changing proposals, trying to

debunk them in favour of  his theocratic conservative view of the

world.  He looks like an Internet activist of the Catholic religious

sect called "Opus Dei", as he seems to know everything in advance.

Let me quote, from another list:

QUOTE

At 7:21 +0000 28-04-2005, Giorgio Menon "tonguessy" wrote:

> > Justin:
> >   Without ideas having
> any real meaning, as you suggest,
> > that is being made up of words
> that are essentially
> > arbitrarily recognized by the
> understanding, and put together
> > differently by each individual
> we no not then what it is that
> > the communicator has intended
> therefore making communication
> > impossible, and ideas as
> projected from the mind to the mouth
> > so to speak, (no pun) also
> meaningless.
> >   I only ask this then, how is it possible for us to
> converse
> > at all, if we simply have our
> own little interpretations of
> > what things mean as they are
> meant to be used in language?
>
> Tonguessy:
> according the principle of duality ideas have both
> meaning
> and no meaning at all. It all depends
> on the context. In the
> thinker's mind they do have meaning.
> But no thinker can ever
> make such ideas plausible for others.
> In fact you still think
> that i'm raving. It's all perfectly
> normal. Maybe if you liked
> E.Jonesco "Bald Soprano".....
> >
> > Tonguessy:
> >  It all belongs to a personal interpretation (personal
> > background, preferences, needs etc...).
> >
> > Justin:
> >  Again this is an absolute
> statement describing an ultimate
> > relative notion.  Take for
> instance "We can know nothing." 
> > Well how then could we know that
> we can know nothing if we
> > can not know anything at all. 
> You see, I'm just a bit
> > confused by this Tonguessy, I'm
> not trying to pick on you,
> > just not quite understanding how
> it is possible for you to
> > say what you say here.  If
> what makes sense is a personal
> > interpretation, than there is no
> definable 'what' at all,
> > and every stroke of the keys is
> simply a waste of energy,
> > and even Darwin wouldn't allow
> that.  There is a certain
> > definable way to build a guitar,
> or other stringed instrument,
> > (I myself play a woodwind).
> Think about the notes, is there
> > not a certain at least degree of
> tolerance before a B becomes
> > a G, well at least on a
> saxophone?  What if I was to interpret
> > G as B?  I probably would
> have a hard time conparing this
> > to written music, more over I
> wouldn't be able to accurately
> > communicate the composer's idea very well
> either. 
>
>
> Tonguessy:
> Ok, Justin. I see a honest question,
> so i try to explain.
> Again "we can know nothing"
> is the first half. The second half
> is "we can know
> everything". Don't try to put an either-or
> here.
> You are very close to this truth when
> you say that "there is no
> definable 'what' at all, and every
> stroke of the keys is simply
> a waste of energy". Energy time
> and space are one thing. Human
> actions are a waste of energy, a waste of time and a
> waste
> of space. And its exact opposite.
> When you try to define "what"
> that same "what" becomes a
> different thing. That's why it cannot
> be communicated.
> As Lao Tse said: "the real Tao cannot be described: what
> can
> be described is not the real
> Tao". A couple of millennia later
> S.Beckett wrote his play
> "Waiting for Godot" and E.Jonesco
> wrote "Bald Soprano". There
> are general rules (symmetries) for
> building an instrument. Yet you must
> admit that there are cheap
> and expensive instruments. These
> latter have a higher quality.
> So, despite their appearence, they
> are DIFFERENT! To be more
> precise any instrument is unique.
> Again, another duality:
> classical guitars (for example) are all equal AND are all
> different. There are both similarities and differences, always.
> You wrote: "I wouldn't be able to accurately communicate the
> composer's idea". Would you be able to accurately
> communicate
> any other person's ideas?  How
> would you know it?
>
> Best regards
>
> Tonguessy

ENDQUOTE

Nevertheless, I think of Democracy it shall learn how to know,

and defend itself  from , such enemies disguised as DD friends.

Therefore I am in favour for Giorgio Menon Tonguessy being

taken in, as well as every other applicant. But let's have some

information about the latter anyway.

antonio