hazard
18th February 2004, 04:02
So I'm listening to this chump yap away like he "know's" something. What did he say? Oh yeah. Some shit about sharing moments between dumb sounding gasps and a stupid vocal tenure with mock sarcasm in reference to the event in question, some stupid quips about crying on the weekend, and a hesitant question concerning actuality. Plus a gender related insult, false attribution to intelligence on a basis of age, and an idiotic conclusion that can only spell one thing. Know nothing knowledge.
This is the tamplate that the imbecile follows. Take a couple of details and splice them into a pointless conversation that really serves no purpose except, and here is they kick, to provide some sort of INCLUSIVE evidence. Like ten year olds congregating at a tire yard, trading bubbel cards, these KNK types always saunter over and try to force their way in. They display what little they know as quickly as they can to try and make sure that everybody within earshot becomes aware that they know something. I will use an example.
There is a club and the password is "kingston". A KNK finds this out. Somehow. And so he goes to the club, and says the password. but since he is not a member, he cannot gain entry. And the KNK, being as idiotic as anybody who would behave like the person in the original paragraph, insists that he be let into the club. For he knew the password. It doesn't matter if there is MORE to this club than knowing the password, that the club has a capacity, that there are certain requirements, and so on. The KNK thinks that the password is enough, and either refuses to understand or is incapable of understanding. Let this basic example serve as a launch point for the remainder of this piece.
Inclusive and Exclusive language as it exists between people. Some call this "code work", as is the modern practice and how it pertains to the KNK majority within society. Typically, inclusive language is like the codeword in the example. All other words exist as exclusive language. However, without the meaning attached to the inclusive language, it too is exclusive. So, the KNK who approaches the oracle, or security, of the club with the correct INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE, can still be denied access. Why? BEcause INCLUSIVE can also be EXCLUSIVE. How? Simply put, if one does not know what makes the language inclusive, the language is just as exclusive as any other part of the exclusive langauge set.
The distinction lay in the source of inclusion. I've also heard of this practice as being described, in relation to ajoke, as an "inside joke". So, using the same example, "kingston". The KNK knows the word, but does not know WHY the word is the current password. All members of the club do know this. IT HAS MEANING. So whether or not the KNK wants to attach his own meaning to it so as to attempt acces to the club is pointess. The club uses kingston because that is where they just purchased their club TV set. The KNK does not know this, and thinks that he can say kingston is the pass because that is where he went to school. Thus, INCLUSIVE is EXCLUSIVE if you are not a component of the inclusve set.
The original paragraph is a fine example, from reality, of this practice. Pretty much all that was said had an INCLUSIVE as EXCLUSIVE value. Why, though, would the KNK want to use such language if not to gain access to an inclusive set? The only reasonable explanation is that this KNK, if NOT attempting to gain access, is part of some other set that particpates in the utilization of language so as only o replicate the inclusive language of others. So, its almost like speaking a foreign language without understanding anything that is being spoken. Even more idiotic and foolish than attempting to gain access in the first place. At least there is a goal other than disruption in attempting to replicate an inclusive language set for the purpose of access. When one does so for the only other alternate , as some form of "anti-inclusive" inclusive set who exists only to mimic the inclusive language of others, the crowning achievement of human achievement has been reached. The absolute pinacle of imbecility. For now, as being unable to speak inclusively let alone be considered a component of the inclusive set, the KNK descends to some sort of sensless echoing device with as much reason as a rock face or brick wall. They mimic the sounds, know not the meaning, and seem satisified in their pointles ability to disrupt. Word to the wise. Most inclusive sets work around such stupidity if not work entirely to expand their inclusive language set to accomadate such intrusions as seperate from the standard KNK access attempting types.
Conclusively, there are two KNK types. Those that utilize inclusive/exclusive language as an attempt to gain access and those who use it only as a disruptive method of communicating. This discussion is merely a comment on social trends regarding the practice of language and the attribution of meaning, as well as an attempt to understand the nature and source of interuption, interference and disruption as these exist as INTENTIONAL efforts to cause communication breakdowns. Based upon personal experience, the frequency of KNK of both types matters not in respect to the ONLY effect it can ever have. Which is a non permanent, non lasting and transitory effect upon the current set of an inclusive language set. And, as this set is either constantly expanding or being modified, the KNK's are stuck in a process of following this set for whatever purpose they may have. Unfortunately, there is little hope for a KNK. Their moral value is on a scale of low to none. For the entire purpose of mimicing an inclusive language set would only have a person lacking in an ethical understanding attempt interaction like that. Their creative reasoning or strict constructive creativity is non-existant. For mimicry is not creative, nor is the inability to understand that all that is being done is mimicing.
Never being a KNK, or really a fan of the inclusive component of language, I have no furthur insight I can add to this process. Perhaps if the KNK's saw this process in simplified forms they'd be less interested in attempting what they attempt. However, since I think such "people" are possibly cloned from vats and thus lacking in the proper relational elements that make even NORMAL language discussions possible, I have no way to realte this to them. My suggestion is to read this. Read it again. And if you have any questions, just ask. You know who you are. I see the vast majority of post nov/03 chelives members as this type. Either by my GUERRILLA POSTING campaign or otherwise. Lets see how much you don't know.
On a side note, despite the fact that Socrates claimed that all he knew was that he didn't know anything, this phrase was itself part of his own INCLUSIVE language set. Only he, and those within his set, knew what that meant inclusively. Please do not confuse the KNK (know nothing knowledge) people with holding the same meaning as Socrates when he said he knew nothing. What he really meant was that he knew THAT, which was something, anyway. These people literally know nothing, which is much much much less than knowing something, mostly because they are incapable of being aware that this, nothing, is all they know. Which is why they do what they do. Which is, ah, you should get it by how. Phew!
This is the tamplate that the imbecile follows. Take a couple of details and splice them into a pointless conversation that really serves no purpose except, and here is they kick, to provide some sort of INCLUSIVE evidence. Like ten year olds congregating at a tire yard, trading bubbel cards, these KNK types always saunter over and try to force their way in. They display what little they know as quickly as they can to try and make sure that everybody within earshot becomes aware that they know something. I will use an example.
There is a club and the password is "kingston". A KNK finds this out. Somehow. And so he goes to the club, and says the password. but since he is not a member, he cannot gain entry. And the KNK, being as idiotic as anybody who would behave like the person in the original paragraph, insists that he be let into the club. For he knew the password. It doesn't matter if there is MORE to this club than knowing the password, that the club has a capacity, that there are certain requirements, and so on. The KNK thinks that the password is enough, and either refuses to understand or is incapable of understanding. Let this basic example serve as a launch point for the remainder of this piece.
Inclusive and Exclusive language as it exists between people. Some call this "code work", as is the modern practice and how it pertains to the KNK majority within society. Typically, inclusive language is like the codeword in the example. All other words exist as exclusive language. However, without the meaning attached to the inclusive language, it too is exclusive. So, the KNK who approaches the oracle, or security, of the club with the correct INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE, can still be denied access. Why? BEcause INCLUSIVE can also be EXCLUSIVE. How? Simply put, if one does not know what makes the language inclusive, the language is just as exclusive as any other part of the exclusive langauge set.
The distinction lay in the source of inclusion. I've also heard of this practice as being described, in relation to ajoke, as an "inside joke". So, using the same example, "kingston". The KNK knows the word, but does not know WHY the word is the current password. All members of the club do know this. IT HAS MEANING. So whether or not the KNK wants to attach his own meaning to it so as to attempt acces to the club is pointess. The club uses kingston because that is where they just purchased their club TV set. The KNK does not know this, and thinks that he can say kingston is the pass because that is where he went to school. Thus, INCLUSIVE is EXCLUSIVE if you are not a component of the inclusve set.
The original paragraph is a fine example, from reality, of this practice. Pretty much all that was said had an INCLUSIVE as EXCLUSIVE value. Why, though, would the KNK want to use such language if not to gain access to an inclusive set? The only reasonable explanation is that this KNK, if NOT attempting to gain access, is part of some other set that particpates in the utilization of language so as only o replicate the inclusive language of others. So, its almost like speaking a foreign language without understanding anything that is being spoken. Even more idiotic and foolish than attempting to gain access in the first place. At least there is a goal other than disruption in attempting to replicate an inclusive language set for the purpose of access. When one does so for the only other alternate , as some form of "anti-inclusive" inclusive set who exists only to mimic the inclusive language of others, the crowning achievement of human achievement has been reached. The absolute pinacle of imbecility. For now, as being unable to speak inclusively let alone be considered a component of the inclusive set, the KNK descends to some sort of sensless echoing device with as much reason as a rock face or brick wall. They mimic the sounds, know not the meaning, and seem satisified in their pointles ability to disrupt. Word to the wise. Most inclusive sets work around such stupidity if not work entirely to expand their inclusive language set to accomadate such intrusions as seperate from the standard KNK access attempting types.
Conclusively, there are two KNK types. Those that utilize inclusive/exclusive language as an attempt to gain access and those who use it only as a disruptive method of communicating. This discussion is merely a comment on social trends regarding the practice of language and the attribution of meaning, as well as an attempt to understand the nature and source of interuption, interference and disruption as these exist as INTENTIONAL efforts to cause communication breakdowns. Based upon personal experience, the frequency of KNK of both types matters not in respect to the ONLY effect it can ever have. Which is a non permanent, non lasting and transitory effect upon the current set of an inclusive language set. And, as this set is either constantly expanding or being modified, the KNK's are stuck in a process of following this set for whatever purpose they may have. Unfortunately, there is little hope for a KNK. Their moral value is on a scale of low to none. For the entire purpose of mimicing an inclusive language set would only have a person lacking in an ethical understanding attempt interaction like that. Their creative reasoning or strict constructive creativity is non-existant. For mimicry is not creative, nor is the inability to understand that all that is being done is mimicing.
Never being a KNK, or really a fan of the inclusive component of language, I have no furthur insight I can add to this process. Perhaps if the KNK's saw this process in simplified forms they'd be less interested in attempting what they attempt. However, since I think such "people" are possibly cloned from vats and thus lacking in the proper relational elements that make even NORMAL language discussions possible, I have no way to realte this to them. My suggestion is to read this. Read it again. And if you have any questions, just ask. You know who you are. I see the vast majority of post nov/03 chelives members as this type. Either by my GUERRILLA POSTING campaign or otherwise. Lets see how much you don't know.
On a side note, despite the fact that Socrates claimed that all he knew was that he didn't know anything, this phrase was itself part of his own INCLUSIVE language set. Only he, and those within his set, knew what that meant inclusively. Please do not confuse the KNK (know nothing knowledge) people with holding the same meaning as Socrates when he said he knew nothing. What he really meant was that he knew THAT, which was something, anyway. These people literally know nothing, which is much much much less than knowing something, mostly because they are incapable of being aware that this, nothing, is all they know. Which is why they do what they do. Which is, ah, you should get it by how. Phew!