OK a simply (i)D(i)ot's question.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

OK a simply (i)D(i)ot's question...

When I posted this in the "Stupid Quention" thread, it was responded to by asking if it was really a question, so help me pleeeeease...

(cause I certainly thought it was in the form of a question!)

...Can you tell that it is a question.

Originally asked by Moi!

When Mr, Robin Parsons, representing the (Wild ) bear, called himself the (i)D(i)ot typissst, was it apparent to you that his use of the two ( ) around his iconographic i was actually to indicate the reflective qualities of mirrors, to the effect that the D could be seen as 'duplicable', ERGO creating the actual title of (i)D (i)Dot, which is a representation of the actuality of a human, with respect to creation, (My ID is simply I'DOT), and that the furthering of this analogy is found in the generation of this iconographic illustration of humanity to include the "Corporeally Ensconced Mind" (that is a Human being) represented by the i, (which is the mind, above the body that it is ensconced within) which is a product of a mirroring effect itself, (hence the two mirrors ( )) ensconcing/generating the i) is further "Universally Humanized in Commonality" by the (i)D (i)Dot's Title in it's signification of the very self reflective quality of being human, such that if you couldn't distinguish between the self generation of i's, then you probably really are (the one and only, as the people in this forum do NOT qualify for such a title, BUT, there is that Universal LAW that states; “There is an exception to EVERY RULE!) a true, and actual, the one and only, in the entire Universe, idiot?

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Just so weeee's all clear, on the con'cepts

Mentat wrote on 06-16-2003 02:06 PM:
I didn't take offense at all, but I thank you for your concern. That's an admirable quality (and few PF members have shown this kind of curtosy, in my experience).

You may post it if you wish, btw.

Mr. Robin Parsons wrote on 06-16-2003 12:29 PM:
forgive me the intrusion, just that I was wondering, as I sometimes do the reaction to what I have recently done.

In asking if anyone else saw that writing as being a question. I mean no offence to you for that, none at all, it is not your fault, so to speak, that you might not have seen it as such.

If you would forgive me it isn't really my fault either, as that particular piece of writing is based upon lots of personal experiential knowledge, unprovable, yet in a humans lifetime, distinctly percievable.

It is, well, to me it is funny, as it requires that you be able to laugh at yourself just a little bit, your own "ego" in a way, as to be able to percieve it's humor, and from that it becomes, well I thought quite funny actually.

But I didn't mean to offend you, nor to continue it, and I would appreciate if you would let me post this note so everyone realizes that I didn't do this personally towards you, if just worked out that way a little, (hopefully not) I suppose, (did it? I don't like to 'assume to know')

Anyways thanks for the time, I won't post this unless you respond in agreement to it, otherwise this stays as private as PM'ing is.
(Sorry for the intrusion)

EDIT my SP!

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Sooooo, anyone else see this as a question? or is it just me??