too late for Halloween

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

Yesterday I figgered out how ghosts operate, and a plausible story is now possible. I fell over the answer in the 80s but it takes my brain years to respond.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I notice here and there a few 'news' reports about people becoming engaged to ghosts...

Would not really work for me, but... God only knows.

'How ghosts operate...?' We are going to have to wait to read your story, I suppose. Hurry up then, or else give us a clue.

 

[kurrginatorX]

I notice here and there a few 'news' reports about people becoming engaged to ghosts...

I wonder how this impacts reincarnation insurance.

 

[TxRad]

I wonder how this impacts reincarnation insurance.

Can pregnant ghosts get maternity insurance?

 

[KeithD]

Will death be taken as a preexisting condition?

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

Blow your dog whistle and see who shows up

 

[KeithD]

Doubt it will be you. Some folks are all talk.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

I notice here and there a few 'news' reports about people becoming engaged to ghosts...

Would not really work for me, but... God only knows.

'How ghosts operate...?' We are going to have to wait to read your story, I suppose. Hurry up then, or else give us a clue.

A nam named Gerald Edekman MD PhD got a Nobel Prize for correcrly discovering how the immune system works, then he discovered how the brain works, my perfessors went British from the news. I suggest reading NEURAL DARWINISM to learn more, but youll need PILOY and TEX to guide you. Its a difficult read, in short what we call memory and perception are nonsense.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Oh yes I see now - that is I DON'T really see because I don't actually have any perception although even if I did, I can't really remember what they were because I don't have the faculty of memory either, which is, as you say, a nonsensical thing to have.


But I do understand now why David Hockney makes money from painting.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

Oh yes I see now - that is I DON'T really see because I don't actually have any perception although even if I did, I can't really remember what they were because I don't have the faculty of memory either, which is, as you say, a nonsensical thing to have.


But I do understand now why David Hockney makes money from painting.

Think Helen Keller

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Having instantly reacted to what I read in Wiki about said Gerald Edekman MD, PhD, I'd have to add now - having at times attempted to tackle complicated material in order to construct some sort of entertainment value from it - this is a very difficult thing to do.

Absolute best wishes to you for 1. trying to do that in the first place (it's just such a trap to regale the poor reader with facts one is deeply interested in), and if you in fact succeed 2. that would be a significant thing.

Sometimes, the only way that these ideas become accessible to people is to have someone else look at them closely, and find some words that actually make more usual sense than the ones that scientists, especially those from the modern(-ish) era, use in their academic writing. ...Which generally tends to be utterly atrocious.

I used to be contracted by a local University research Department for a good few years, 'trying' to edit some of the papers for publication. And there was this particular one... in the end I gave up and let the guy shove four different idea points into his make-believe syntax in one pretty large paragraph. None of it made sense to me -, he even said he didn't know what he was trying to say in the first place but to just 'say it like he'd written it as best as possible.'

There wasn't an 'as best as possible.'

I mean, they WERE fantastic phrases that he was using, and it did seem such a shame to turn any of them into anything approaching something sensible... He was making a compound sentence that was more or less integrated, fit into another TWO sentences whose subjects and objects were not connected (but they involved science-speak) using a comma and a semi-colon and a conclusion that absolutely possessed no logic at all - something like: 'the microbiological environment has organic material which is dynamic and alive; this is a biome population with complex spectral data available, and all these things are scientifically true because of the work of Professor Friedrich Finkleheimer which is published in the University's library just like previous paragraphs show such inorganic population cultures are also widely dispersed in the relevant sample; all such petri-dish cultures are made using the work of established bacteriologist Julius Richard Petri, which is a German ethnic framework although this paper is also of ethnic French Mauritian origin.'

I told one of the professors - if you pass this paper I'll know for all time that what I had originally thought of all of you modern-day academics, is after all bound to be true.

They passed it.

 

[FEELINGLUCKYPUNK]

Having instantly reacted to what I read in Wiki about said Gerald Edekman MD, PhD, I'd have to add now - having at times attempted to tackle complicated material in order to construct some sort of entertainment value from it - this is a very difficult thing to do.

Absolute best wishes to you for 1. trying to do that in the first place (it's just such a trap to regale the poor reader with facts one is deeply interested in), and if you in fact succeed 2. that would be a significant thing.

Sometimes, the only way that these ideas become accessible to people is to have someone else look at them closely, and find some words that actually make more usual sense than the ones that scientists, especially those from the modern(-ish) era, use in their academic writing. ...Which generally tends to be utterly atrocious.

I used to be contracted by a local University research Department for a good few years, 'trying' to edit some of the papers for publication. And there was this particular one... in the end I gave up and let the guy shove four different idea points into his make-believe syntax in one pretty large paragraph. None of it made sense to me -, he even said he didn't know what he was trying to say in the first place but to just 'say it like he'd written it as best as possible.'

There wasn't an 'as best as possible.'

I mean, they WERE fantastic phrases that he was using, and it did seem such a shame to turn any of them into anything approaching something sensible... He was making a compound sentence that was more or less integrated, fit into another TWO sentences whose subjects and objects were not connected (but they involved science-speak) using a comma and a semi-colon and a conclusion that absolutely possessed no logic at all - something like: 'the microbiological environment has organic material which is dynamic and alive; this is a biome population with complex spectral data available, and all these things are scientifically true because of the work of Professor Friedrich Finkleheimer which is published in the University's library just like previous paragraphs show such inorganic population cultures are also widely dispersed in the relevant sample; all such petri-dish cultures are made using the work of established bacteriologist Julius Richard Petri, which is a German ethnic framework although this paper is also of ethnic French Mauritian origin.'

I told one of the professors - if you pass this paper I'll know for all time that what I had originally thought of all of you modern-day academics, is after all bound to be true.

They passed it.

Edelman had no talent for expressing complex ideas. His book TOPOBIOLOGY makes a case that identical twins cant be identical, because of time diversity, but he couldn't articulate the thesis.