What celebrity, famous person or historical figure, who you believe had ADD or ADHD, would you have liked to meet or learn more about?

You can also list some of your fave AD/HDers with some relevant anecdote.

I think the apostle Peter had ADHD. He was known for being very impulsive (jumped out of the boat and swam to Jesus; asked Jesus if he could walk on water with Him; cut off a man's ear; denied he knew Jesus 3 times hours after swearing he was willing to die with him; etc). On the positive side, he was so dynamic that he got up an preached an impromptu sermon and 3000 people were baptized; when Jesus said to come to him on the water he stepped out of the boat; when Jesus called him to follow him he left his nets and boat and followed Jesus. I'd love to meet Peter -- he's a great example of both the positives and negatives of that kind of impulsivity and energy.

Britney Spears! LOL. Just kidding. I'm not sure WHAT her problem actually is. Poor girl. Paris Hilton?

Ok, seriously for me. I've been reading Goldie Hawn's autobiography and I'm thinking she might have it. When she was a kid, people asked her what she wanted to be when she grew up. Her answer was simply, "Happy!" She used to dance all the time and if I remember right, she kept getting in trouble in school for dancing. I think there was other things that made me wonder but I forgot. LOL. Good book though! Only halfway through.

I'm not sure WHAT her problem actually is
I know .. it's making godawful records that claim to be music but that are actually meant to scare bats away with.

My problem is that I have not been able to totally avoid having my mood spoilt by her or others of her sort (i.e. Mariah Carey and the others of the "oh listen to how I can make those built-in little croons while I so-called sing" - crowd)

:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

And then again ... FAMOUS PEOPLE SUCK!
They stand for the pinnacle of group dynamics .. being famous. The word alone makes me want to stay home. lock the doors and shutters and never come out again.
The worst thing of standing in line at the cash register is to have to see all those ($*&)#($*@#&$)@#($*& magazins with those P-BRAIN celebrities on the cover.
ALL of them. Bweck. Yuck. Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah!!!!!!!!!!

So, there you have it in a handbasket.

the whole idea of being famous is the direct antithesis of everything that's good and honest and sweet and lovely and worth living for.

See, Luthien, that's why I put the "historical figure" option in there for you! Some elf, troll, hobbit, faerie, witch etc. also would do! :cool:

Einstein. I'd like to meet Einstein. Some speculate that he was ADD, but I kind of doubt it. My money would be on something more like Aspergers. He had extraordinarily poor social skills. He was utterly emotionally unavailable to his family. Yet when you read his social and political writings, he was brilliant. A great writer and a great thinker. It's hard to put that together with a man who really didn't know how to love.

But I'd like to talk to him about physics, his thought experiments. I'd particularly like it if he was here in today's world, so that I could ask him what he thinks about the speed of light not being constant, and maybe about superstring theories.

Famous ADD'ers I'd love to meet

Craig Venter - Human Genome Project Fame

Charlize Theron - she's hot!:D

I've always wanted to meet Ty Pennington. Yeah, there's the fact that he is incredibly hot, but he's also adhhhhhhhhhd. I was impressed with how he channeled it, but the whole DUI thing kind of soured me on him. I'd still love to watch him build me some shelves! :-)

And then again ... FAMOUS PEOPLE SUCK!
They stand for the pinnacle of group dynamics .. being famous. The word alone makes me want to stay home. lock the doors and shutters and never come out again.
The worst thing of standing in line at the cash register is to have to see all those ($*&)#($*@#&$)@#($*& magazins with those P-BRAIN celebrities on the cover.
ALL of them. Bweck. Yuck. Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah Bah bah bah!!!!!!!!!!

So, there you have it in a handbasket.

the whole idea of being famous is the direct antithesis of everything that's good and honest and sweet and lovely and worth living for.


once famous and loving it - any creative spark is lost as one craves for more of the same.
I'd be really interested to know how many musicians managed to better their riotous first smash-hit album.

Once heard it said that the Godfather series featured the only example of sequels being 'as good' as the original -
- I have no view on these films -
- find the whole idea of being a 'baddie' - just a bit silly -

which is why I like the Ali G perspective -

'today was a good day in the ghetto
I didn't have to 'smoke' any one'

good grief

'take thee to a salmonry'

Famous ADD'ers I'd love to meet

Craig Venter - Human Genome Project Fame

Charlize Theron - she's hot!:D

are you John Sulston?

:-)

Jim Carry and Brittney both have Bipolar, Christopher Judge and Jim Cavaziel have
ADD. I think alot more celebrities do but they keep it to themselves.

re: 6

Stick Stephen Hawking under that umbrella too. He sounds pretty 'emotionally not present'. (At least according to his ex-wife and illness-o-grapher Dr. Gabor Mate.)

--------------------------------------
sorry -
THIS POST MAY BE DIFFICULT TO READ
--------------------------------------

Einstein. I'd like to meet Einstein. Some speculate that he was ADD, but I kind of doubt it. My money would be on something more like Aspergers. He had extraordinarily poor social skills. He was utterly emotionally unavailable to his family. Yet when you read his social and political writings, he was brilliant. A great writer and a great thinker. It's hard to put that together with a man who really didn't know how to love.

But I'd like to talk to him about physics, his thought experiments. I'd particularly like it if he was here in today's world, so that I could ask him what he thinks about the speed of light not being constant, and maybe about superstring theories.

PART I
- he couldn't love

because he wasn't balanced
- can be seen in his views against Bohr
and his statement that
'god doesn't play dice'

if god doesn't play dice -
- then god can't exist -
because god is defined as 'unknowable'.

you need faith to be balanced -
- faith in the wrong science
leads to imbalance

'god doesn't play dice'
->
this is a statement of desire to nail god down -
dual meaning intentional.

PART II
- speed of light
(taking in superstrings)

we're formed when two things just like this Youtube 'boink' together
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJRc37D2ZZY&feature=related

()> + <() -> () rotating one way or the other.

()>
and
<()

are duals in the duality
() rotating one way or the other.

and that's
() rotating one way or the other.

our Universe -
a spinning thingy

eg if we represent it as spinning clockwise

()>

and we're

(x)>

inside it

- the ( ) are the bounds of our Universe -
- and as it spins -

it drives smaller versions of the 'youtube' above inside -
smaller evolutionary events of duals evolving by duality to unary and then unary (in turn) - evolving further by becoming dual in a duality -
and so it continues

where
mother
father
->
child

is the trinity of
first mother - father duality forming
and the
parent - child duality forming

Results 1 - 10 of about 211 from www.addforums.com (http://www.addforums.com) for UK duality
So -

electro magnetism

the duality of

()> ()<

two duals - waves forming -

these represent
'visibility' -> see
and
'touch' -> touch

kinda' electromagnetism

- where speed of light - is the speed of EM
and
EM is the result of duality of two opposing waves coming together

all that's important is that the duality evolves to mass -
that one can superimpose 'touch' and 'feel'
- a couple of super strings -

- generating mass -

something which one can see and touch.

When duality occurs - we have evolution of the energy in the two waves - by multiplicative and not additive mechanism

so

E c (speed) and M c (speed) -> EM of c^2 and not 2c

mass is the world of EM duality

E = mc^2
and not
E = m2c

So - the process requires duality -
absolute speed is unimportant

so why is c the value we associate with c

- as in why is c the fast moving value we have easured it to be

So -

()> + <() -> () rotating one way or the other

represents two structures which are rotating
- it's their speed of rotation which defines c

- the number of layers of evolution which have yielded those two structures -
- which is all important -
whereby

---eg 3---
((( )))> + <((( ))) -> ((())) eg >

---eg 5---
((((( )))))> + <((((( ))))) -> ((((( ))))) eg >

product of
---eg 5---
has more energy than product of
---eg 3---

(more evolutionary layers)

and so it's the number of layers - which determine the speed of rotation of the outer surface (a kinda' converyor belt) -
which defines the speed of circulation of the child product

so
E ??? 5 layers ((((()))))>
................................+ -> ((((())))) eg >
M ??? 5 layers ((((()))))<

versus

E ??? 3 layers ((()))>
................................+ -> ((())) eg >
M ??? 3 layers ((()))<

whereby the more layers the slower the conveyor belt

the pulsar cycles slowly
we can see it pulsating

whereas the speed of spin within the atom is faster

- so c is really quite unimportant
unlike the process
:-)
- so c is really quite unimportant
it's all weally weally welative wenelope

PART III -
Thought experiment
duality also
emergence
telepathy
hebbian -> wire together fire together

Expose your thought process
Communicate telepathically with others since in effect both minds hit an identical
transmit
receive
frequency

it's not a big deal - tune transmitter and receiver to the same frequency
communicate wirelessly -
like our computer wireless networks
require mind to be strong (strong capacitor - carry a strong current (==abstract thought)) -
- to allow EEGs to leave the cortex (theta 8 Hz) and enter into the great outside world -

- where -
within the cavity of the planet
- between two electrical flows -
planet and magnetosphere

(bounce waves around inside)
-
basis of WWII communication

a frequency is set up relating to the speed of light travelling around the planet
- the dopaminergic circuit 8 Hz intracranial oscillator

- 8Hz and principle mode of Schumann

Since the planet is mass
Since EM duality -> mass
Since the principal mode is defined by c travelling around the surface of the planet
Since we're defining mass as the duality of two duals in emergent structure
(opposing entities)
()> <()
each with a speed of rotation around their external surface of c
- so will the energy contained within the emergent structure of planet Earth
represent c^2 -
however with the speed of the conveyor belt circulating around the planet -
being c

()> speed of conveyor belt c CW
<() speed of conveyor belt c CCW

()> speed of conveyor belt c though Energy of combined duals - within the novel emergent structure - of c^2
why?
- the connector between the two duals

-> the basis to infinity == Hilbert's metalevel ==
The solution to the Riemann hypothesis 823
infinity defined as trinity
->- a bounded infinity of the connection between two 3 dimensional orthogonal spaces

--------------------------------------
sorry -
THIS POST MAY BE DIFFICULT TO READ
--------------------------------------

just to demonstrate the point I was making earlier
I found it difficult to focus on this post - solely because you have stated that you're an expert in superstrings
I'm actually feeling sick right now -
worried that you're going to start abusing me with terms I've never heard of

it's the kind of 'bullying' feeling which people feel when they're kept in place by 'their superiors' by threat

even though you've done absolutely nothing to make me feel as though you're about to start abusing me for writing the post above -
it really doesn't matter

simply knowing that you know more than me
stops me from being able to concentrate

this is the mental tyranny -
- which perhaps we've learnt through having to subscribe to pointless hierarchy in this stupid world

once again - this is not in any way any form of insult to you -
I'm just trying to explain why it's important that credentials aren't set -

I'm talkin' real pit of the stomach sick -
actually similarly to the feeling of fear through physical threat
and actually worse than any interview I can remember -

perhaps because I've put it all down in writing -
so it's easy for you to destroy me -
by using arguments which I won't understand.

I don't know anything about physics by the way
(no formal education in that area).

To describe a little more -
the feeling in the stomach is accompanied by disorientation -
I can't remember the last time that I couldn't concentrate through fear -
- nor the last time that I felt nervous reading a post afterwards - worried that I might have given you ammunition to destroy my argument.

I've never felt this way before thanks to anonymity of 'day job' -
I'm not trying to be rude -
just trying to describe the effects that 'professional credentials' can have on those without.

Actually disorientated -
and confused -
I don't think that the post made sense even
:-)

as if any of them do.

maybe not all fame is bad - these guys are notable for their own absence ...
... ... ... underlying depth of meaning which should put us all to shame

... ... it appears that in the absence of appropriate behaviour in all those that would assume the position of 'leader'

from

royalty through priest through government through teacher through scientist

that all have failed - all have failed due to their own weakness -
their own incapacity to lose them selves

the best musicians lose themselves and their audience in music

from

royalty through priest through politician through teacher through scientist

all who have failed and forced into being -
- the new spirituality

a lesson in what's important by 'resonant transfer across dielectric'

'and then there was ... ... ... '

... ... ...ohhhm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum)mmmmmmmm y
god
that's beautiful

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWiJWLiSKro

---if slow---

http://www.downloadyoutubevideos.com
(3 mins to download)
(rename xyz.flv)
+
http://www.martijndevisser.com/blog/article/flv-player-updated
(3 minutes to download)

file - navigate and open the .flv file

maybe not all fame is bad -

I think you're right ... when I was writing that post above I was a bit emotional. I've felt bad in groups so often and so intense that all that celebrities stuff sometimes gets to me .. I find it so sad what being famous does to people.

So sorry if I was being a bit overly negative. http://www.emoticons.free.fr/smileys/Emotion-Blush/blush2.gif

There are a couple of ppl that I actually would like to meet/give a hug/shake hands with .. like John Baez (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/) .. Vincent Icke (http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/%7Eicke/) (not related to that quack David Icke) .. or Ned Hallowell (I actually got an email from him .. that was really sweet of him!) .. or .. well, a lot of ppl actually. But those are more like well known ppl because they do something really well .. not some artificially produced tv fodder.


oh .. and Olivier Messiaen .. his music is pure heaven ..
Messiaen - Turangalîla Symphonie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67YkOWJNA)

swirls of chaos, in which eddies form that crystallise into planes .. I dont know, it feels like that. And these planes rise higher and higher, sky gets ever darker until all the stars blaze with light.

SB,

Your posts are pure poetry. And no, I didn't find that difficult to read at all. Parts I didn't get, but hey, that's par for the course with your stuff, at least for me. :o

(And I'm very sorry about the sickness you describe, unless you're just teasing there. If it's for real then its completely unwarranted. Completely. Laughably. Really. You're brilliant. How could it possibly matter what degree you have, if any, or what you do for a living?...)

I'm interested in this part at the beginning. BTW, do you have Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, by chance? Great book that I suspect you would like (to the extent that I can "know" you; :rolleyes: Addaway will be all over me with teasing for the quotes.... SUCH a little boy he is...:)).

Also, if you've not seen it, Einstein's Relativity, the Special and the General Theory: A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand is further evidence of what a great writer/thinker he was. It's a better "textbook" than any other out there on the subject.

Ok, back to this part:

PART I
- he couldn't love

because he wasn't balanced
- can be seen in his views against Bohr
and his statement that
'god doesn't play dice'

if god doesn't play dice -
- then god can't exist -
because god is defined as 'unknowable'.

you need faith to be balanced -
- faith in the wrong science
leads to imbalance

'god doesn't play dice'
->
this is a statement of desire to nail god down -
dual meaning intentional.


Do you really think that he was "against Bohr" or meant to criticize him with that statement? I saw him as against the science that evolved from what Bohr (and Einstein really) started with the whole black box light thingy (forgot most of my physics; replaced it with useless legal concepts!). I just thought that he felt that quantum mechanics (while a useful tool) went too far in actually ACCEPTING, as a fundamental truth, that particles (wavicles, whatever) did not, in fact, have a particular position in time within the range of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I didn't think that he found the science objectionable (though it started from observation and worked back from there instead of the opposite approach that he used with Relativity (start from what one can know and work to expected observation)) except insofar as it purported to be reality, as opposed to just a tool.

Do you think that he had faith in the wrong science? I think he just died before he was able to pull it all together. Man! He was just 21 y.o. when he came up with General Relativity. He predicts that light will curve around massive objects. Everyone says he's nuts. Then lo and behold, two galaxies that are a known distance apart in the sky appear further apart when flanking the sun during a solar eclipse... If there's a more glorious example of brilliance, I'd love to hear it... and all from a mere thought experiment...

Love the youtube spiral galaxy thingy. Beautiful.

Ok, here's an Einstein quote for you. Hang on. Gotta grab Ideas and Opinions (why I think it will ever be of use to me in a legal brief is beyond me, but I just find the man's writing to be so clear, and thus beautiful):

From Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam, Querido Verlag, 1934

On Wealth

I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the great hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. The example of great and pure individuals is the only thing that can lead us to noble thoughts and deeds. Money only appeals to selfishness and irresistibly invites abuse.

Can anyone imagine Moses, Jesus, or Ghandi armed with the money-bags of Carnegie?


And here's my favorite quote, too... published in response to a protest by a women's organization against his visit to the U.S., because he was German (duh!) in 1934. It's arguably sexist, but I think that it was all tongue-in-cheek, particularly given the first line.

Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934.

Never have I experienced from the fair sex such energetic rejection of all advances; or if I have, never from so many at once.

But are they not quite right, these watchful citizenesses? Why should one open one's doors to a person who devours hard-boiled capitalists with as much appetite and gusto as the Cretan Minotaur in days gone by devoured luscious Greek maidens, and on top of that is low-down enough to reject every sort of war, except the unavoidable war with one's own wife? Therefore give heed to your clever and patriotic womenfolk and remember that the Capitol of mighty Rome was once saved by the cackling of its faithful geese.

Thanks for the post, SB. Really enjoyed it, and also am enjoying the discussion.

Oh, and how went the interview, BTW? :)

Actually disorientated -
and confused -
I don't think that the post made sense even
:-)

as if any of them do.
oh yes, they certainly do. I dont understand all of it, but the parts that I do understand make a lot of sense.

Yes, and not to mention that they're visually stunning and intellectually challenging. SB, you should publish these things somewhere, if you're not already...:cool:

oopsy!

the Youtube I posted abolve had the whole video though missed the quotes in the Intro - necessary for that post to have a meaning

the Youtube with the Intro -
cut off the song prematurely
1 minute from the end

grrr!



"Without music, life would be a mistake."
-Nietzsche

"Music was invented to confirm human loneliness."
-Lawrence Durrell

"Music is the shorthand of emotion."
-Leo Tolstoy

"Music expresses that which cannot be said on which it is impossible to be silent."
-Victor Hugo

"Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything."
-Plato

"A painter paints pictures on canvas. But musicians paint their pictures on silence."
-Leopold Stokowski

"See deep enough, and you see musically; the heart of nature being everywhere music."
-Thomas Carlyle

"Music can name the un-nameable and communicate the unknowable."
-Leonard Bernstein

"In the end I think of music as saving grace for all humanity."
-Henry Miller

"Music is well said to be the speech of angels; in fact, nothing among the utterances allowed to man is felt to be so divine. It brings us near to the infinite."
-Thomas Carlyle

"We haven't found the words to describe our music. Maybe we will one day."
-Sigur Ros

... ... ...ohhhm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum)mmmmmmmm y
god
that's beautiful


+

explanation
~s (http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=565105&postcount=405)~

->-

the post above

(resonant transfer powers us within its 3 dimensional orthogonal space)

- where the human mind exists on a higher orthogonal plane to out physical form

~So~

(energy) -> resonant transfer powers evolutionary events

evolutionary events occur by cycles of

(3d -> 4d -> 13d)

whereby
imagine a straight piece of string which has a start and an end
x------------------x
being bent from

straight -> dodecahedron

x- | _ _ _
x- | _ _ _ |-x
x- | _ _ _ |


it still has a start and an end -
and energy can lead to the string forming a concentric dodecahedron

x- | _ _ _
x- | _ _ _ |-x
x- | _ _ _ |

->-

x- | _ _ _
x- | _ _ x-|
x- | _ _ _x|


now switch to the idea of an onion (vegetable) -
as a single line which folds into layers -

- kinda' like this

((()))

each ( ) is a dodecahedron

-> just 1 line of string though

folding three dimensional Moebius by concentric eversion

-*-

'om' 'kora' 'resonant transfer' 'our inner power supply' 'gravity'
->-
evidence of god

musical ripples
sense in our meta verse

~ unknowable and provably so ~
~ provably real through reflections in space ~

reflections
ripples
echoes
resonant flickers

music gives us insight into howsoever we would like to characterize
{him,her,it}

proof of existence of the unprovable -
- music -

the quotes above are so important -
- maybe most explicitly so -

'... ... the heart of nature being everywhere music
the heart of nature being everywhere music
the heart of nature being everywhere music ... ... '

is the one :-) line synopsis -

music is the purest - most fundamental reflection of a face which we cannot gaze upon -
thinkin' gorgon
thinkin' gorgonzola
thinkin' tyramine
thinkin' Tyr
thinkin' Asgard

that's better
:-)

the problem is that

member #1 paraphrase
play nicely
member #2 paraphrase
not angry with me
member #3 paraphrase
shake hands
member #4 paraphrase
still be friends

from four different sources are all inappropriate -
the reason is that during a discussion

argument -> better? <- argument

not

person -> better? <- person

The four quotes above are attributes of person and not mind -
- for instance

man likes man
man plays nicely with man
man rude to man

- the problem -
that we need to separate

argument -> better? <- argument
from
person -> better? <- person

I don't think I have emotions against a person -
I have

arguments which want to learn and compete against other arguments

winning represents explaining 'reality better'
not hitting another

that's the world of physical competition head butting the world of mental competition
- physical model is about fist fight
- logical model is about explanatory capacity over the physical model

logical model -
(a) it rains when the sky is blue
(b) it rains when the sky is overcast with clouds

Hypothesis (b) wins when tested -
and is accepted

Competition by explanatory capacity over reality -
hypothesis testing
parsimony
Occam's razor
and Bayesian a priori/posteriori methods cover the formalization of scientific methods copying from building mind

(:-) ps
all covered previously on ADDF)

weren't
Occam
Bayes
and aren't
parsons
->-
priests?

and so I'm not sure if
person liking other person
person disliking
person being rude to

and all that sort of stuff
- ever enters my mind

honestly -
I think that I'm considered by all of the guys here who have responded - to having been rude -
- when all I'm trying to do is to keep emotions out of the equation in certain contexts - not out of the equations in all contexts -
- because emotion cannot enter into certain arenas.

And where this may involve behaviour which is not entirely 'normal' -
- during the course of communication -
I really like the Bohm dialogue.

All of this is only really an argument which I used when ADDF::crazy~feet began attacking ADDF::Stabile for his view on how man was capable of rape -

however there she was attacking -
here I'm suggesting that a seemingly neutral stance can shift the angle of a playing field hosting a discussion

(for this to be the 5th or so post on the subject-
I guess I feel this point is important -
why?
There are plenty of real stupid arguments in the world -
how many of them are due to mistaken inferences?)

All of this is only really an argument which I used when ADDF::crazy~feet began attacking ADDF::Stabile for his view on how man was capable of rape -
- human emotions are important -
- though they need to be tempered by logic and logic needs to be tempered by emotion -
I think the trick is to know which one applies -

- it's clear to me that I must be wrong -
for four of the heaviest contributors to this site considering that I have been rude -
and to just want us to continue back as though nothing has happened

but I honestly believe what I've said -
- and I really don't know why it appears as though I'm considered the offender here.

It's not nice -
how can communication succeed if we don't know when one another is speaking from emotional rather than logical perspective.

Here though -
I'm talking about eliciting emotional reactions in another -
unintentionally
- which obfuscate debate -

How does one know what is permitted (what one can say)?

It never occurred to me that I was being rude -
- and yet it never occurred to anybody else (it seems) that I wasn't being rude -

this is a real problem -
- not here -
- but for man stopping all of the silliness which characterizes the profound silliness of mans

see wikiP for wars over the last 5000 years
(as profound misunderstandings of either themselves
or
another)

back round to Bohm -
though ADDaway's point
- but this is just 'chit-chat' applies -

to which I respectfully reply that ADDers don't do 'chit-chat'

- this is a real tough question -

how do you know what I mean ?
how do I know what you mean ?

We have a fundamental problem since we have different dictionaries which're based within our own minds
contextually defined upon our own lives.

What does that mean ?

Communication has a point ?

If we ask a question - why do proper answers differ from replies kinda' like this

'jgvdkfhjfljf/levjl/fvl.dfnv.fnv.jn.vjdn'


they differ because there's some meaning within the standard reply where there isn't any meaning in
'jgvdkfhjfljf/levjl/fvl.dfnv.fnv.jn.vjdn'

so ADDers 'chit-chat'
I'm wondering whether 'chit-chat' should be considered as 'worthwhile' (meaningful) as any oral communication.

Hello SB,

I do see your point on the part quoted below. I was conscious of that very thing as I wrote it, though I certainly would not have been had you not mentioned how it affects you. I guess that I don't often feel the way you feel, but probably more because I'm oblivious than anything having to do with "credentials." I might even just be a little calloused from litigating.

the problem is that

member #1 paraphrase
play nicely
member #2 paraphrase
not angry with me
member #3 paraphrase
shake hands
member #4 paraphrase
still be friends

from four different sources are all inappropriate -
the reason is that during a discussion

argument -> better? <- argument

not

person -> better? <- person

The four quotes above are attributes of person and not mind -
- for instance

man likes man
man plays nicely with man
man rude to man

We have to try to avoid those same sorts of issues as lawyers, i.e., stick to the argument, no personal attacks, etc. But some hard attacks on an argument can come across as attacks on a person, even if they are not meant that way, and even if they are worded delicately.

I suppose, though, that I want to challenge the notition that arguments can be divorced from the person and his or her life experiences. I think that they cannot. If we had a discussion about men and rape, for example, my perspective (as a female) is inherently different from a man's. Period. There's no way to avoid that. Men do not fear the bogeyman when their wives are away for the evening and they're trying to fall asleep. Yet however irrational this fear may be (since the men most likely to hurt us are those with whom we choose to interact), we women tend to have it. It's an inherent difference of experience. So I like to know people's histories, to the extent possible, and I guess that I like them to know mine so that they can know whether they want to trust my perspective on something, etc.

Finally, I also think that whether one person is nice, or respectful, or supportive, or whatever, is a critical part of the relationship between those who regularly engage in debate. I'm a lot less likely to make a fuss over a late brief if my opponent has cut me slack elsewhere, you know? And courteousness goes a long way toward establishing that.

Anyway, my point about the whole Einstein/Bohr, Superstring theory, thing (you managed to hit the central core of my thesis topic, it turns out) was that, if you've read Relativity: A Clear Explanation That Anyone Can Understand, and know enough about quantum mechanics to know that it concludes that "matter" and momentum are not only not observable within certain ranges, but in fact don't EXIST except as a probability at any given time (and you appeared to have homed right in on the whole Bohr thing so I figured that you likely knew that through natural curiosity, not "training") if you've got that much under your belt, then it hardly matters how you got it there, know what I mean? We can debate Einstein's points, and Bohr's, and Feynmann's, and superstring theorists'.

But I do understand your point re: creds after you described yourself as physically sick.

'Course, ;), I understand that point better now because I know more about you, now don't I? If I'd thought that you were a Physics Ph.D., as I originally did.... then I wouldn't likely "get" why it would make you anxious. In this case, my "credentials" made me blind, don't you think? So isn't it worthwhile that we both knew that about one another?

Nice "chatting" (heh heh) with you, SB. Gotta run.

Sandy.

Sandy

you write real intelligent posts :-)

thanks

~s

Hmmmmmmm, is there any way to have a post laminated to put on one's wall?

;)

Sandy

We can debate Einstein's points, and Bohr's, and Feynmann's, and superstring theorists'.from google
In this Feynman diagram, an electron and positron annihilate producing a virtual photon that becomes a quark-antiquark pair~aka~

PART II
- speed of light
(taking in superstrings)

we're formed when two things just like this Youtube 'boink' together
~etc~


not too sure whether there's much left to talk about in physics -?-

they've just made things too difficult with 'jargon'
- pictures make it all much easier to imagine (just drawn on paper with a pencil)

- they're all correct (all the physics guys above) (at least nearly)

when two [identical] things [in opposition] just like this Youtube 'boink'

electron -> <- positron are
two [identical] things [in opposition]

where

annihilate == 'boink'

quark-antiquark pair == (in the youtube video - the final picture post-emergence)
where the product is a unary duality and importantly - where

'boink' =translates to= 'bonk' -
- a productive duality of two opposites resulting in child process.

A kid is produced by a physical man + physical woman - producing baby -
and then of
mental man (physical gender independent) + mental woman (physical gender independent)
laying down structure of mind.

Stage II (mental) is more important (meaning a higher emergent property) -
- and can be seen as a powerful justification proving that gay couples can adopt - the kid'll be better than fine -
- just figured that that needed to be said -

maybe something to do with a flashback to 'the torchsong trilogy' from the '80s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torch_Song_Trilogy
In the second, two years later, Arnold meets Alan, and the two settle down into a blissful existence that includes plans to adopt a child
- anyway -

:-)

SB_UK and Sandy sitting on a tree K-I-S-S-I-N-G, first comes postin' then comes conjoinin', then comes <>(:-))<> in a SB-andy carriage! ;)

Sincerely yours,

ADDAWAY
Love Counsel'or
Licensed Lust Shrink'er
Master Soc. netW.
Ph.enis, D.ucter
Physical-World Bank Co.
British NO-KY Petroleum Bldg.
No. 69-Honey"moon" Suite
Immoral Cro-Magnon World
Zip-It 123 PLS

:cool:

Hahahahahaha!!!!!!!

Was waiting for that one!

Crimeneys, first Driver tells me that I sound very friendly, and now my lust for SB's mind's been fully exposed! I'm done, I tell ya! Done. My reputation is shot here!

Guess I'll just have to borrow Tracy's thigh highs...

Sandy

Oh, and Addaway... It's "in" a tree.... but I'll bet that you knew that, didn't you, you perv.

http://www.enfresh.net/aen/house3.jpg

ADDAWAY
Love Counsel'or
Licensed Lust Shrink'er
Master Soc. netW.
Ph.enis, D.ucter
Physical-World Bank Co.
British NO-KY Petroleum Bldg.
No. 69-Honey"moon" Suite
Immoral Cro-Magnon World
Zip-It 123 PLS


~s (http://www.enfresh.net/anew/eng.htm)~

There is an overflow of excretion which originates nasty smell and bacteria causing contagious disease.

love is ?

does ADDaway sit in the middle ?

a sorta' dual function confessional -
(confessioncessionalurinal?)
where the blue and the red apply to mental layer male and female ?

'forgive me ADDaway - for i have sinned'

ex-cell-ent dude!

keep it up!

ha ha!!!

smoking ?

Hahahahahahaha!!!!!!! :D

Loooooonnnnnnngggggg deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeep drag.....


Blows smoke straight up to avoid hitting Addaway in the face given that he IS in the middle....

Hahahaha! Ok, that whole exchange made my day, here!

Y'all have good ones! :)

Back on topic... Robin Williams is undeniably ADHD. and id assume Jim Carrey is too.

I have tons of respect for Robin Williams, hes so wild, so creative many many thinga ADHDers wish tey could be

famous ADDer

animal from the muppets
(a bit like addaway)

famous ADDer

--- TINY TINY TANGENT ---

The Riemann hypothesis Involving zeta functions, and an assertion that all "interesting" solutions to an equation lie on a straight line. It seems to be true ... ...

imagine a straight piece of string which has a start and an end
x------------------x


___________________
x------->-----------x. plasma energy line - an insulated wire at our core (our power line)
___________________


-*-

Reality is this piece of string driving structures around its (evolution) - wound through a series of geometries defined by a (3d -> 4d -> 13d)n
process... ... ...

--- TINY TANGENT --- ENDS

famous ADDer

miss piggy from the muppets
(a bit like Tracy)

famous ADDer

ps

famous ADDers

Bohr the poet
Einstein the philosopher
Feynmann the comic
Riemann the artist

with

Plato the dreamer
Descartes the party animal
and
Kant the can

- ps -
they're all the same -

duality runs at the heart of ADD world

- or rather -
the duality to
_______

--->---- (the unknowable)
_______