Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - idgo

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Luciferianism / Re: atheistic luciferianism
« on: Today at 12:01:59 am »
Why would someone who was already in contact with an entity they've concluded is Lucifer need any advice on Luciferianism from individuals who aren't in contact with that entity?

Luciferianism / Re: atheistic luciferianism
« on: December 06, 2019, 06:24:35 pm »
What do you mean when you use the term Luciferian, and why did you set out on this path?

I ask because "textbook" Luciferianism is essentially a journey toward a certain end that typically gets called "enlightenment", so the next steps in that work would be around building power and using that power knowledge/understanding to build more of the same. If you have any outstanding personal weaknesses which are preventing you from attaining your desires, a foundational step of the Work is to address and remedy them.

Dogmatic religions do make this part easy, in how they tell you what to do. LHP paths often lack such shortcuts: You have to not only do the thing, but first figure out what thing it's actually optimal for you to be doing at this point in time.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thor, Loki, LBM
« on: December 05, 2019, 06:16:42 pm »
The magician will practice Thor-LBM unless and until Loki-LBM is the better alternative.

Now that is an entirely feasible proposal. However, I don't think switching at will really works with the archetype of "heroism" at all, in that heroic archetypes have this cultural thing about trustworthiness, which is deeply tangled up in notions of consistency. No matter how many of the enemy a soldier shoots, no matter how many allies he rescues, the minute he turns around and shoots just one commanding officer or ally on purpose, he's getting court-martialed instead of commended. The Thor archetype is characterized by a consistency of action which, once broken, tends to remove the possibility of using it again upon the same audience.

In fact, I think it might paint a more accurate picture of the thor/selflesness/heroism axis of societal notions to describe it less by what people on it do, and more by what they don't: there's a whole thing where consistent good behavior seems to be considered a lot more desirable than inconsistent, mixed good/bad behavior, even if the net results of the latter bring more benefit.

In other words, one might say that someone embodying the Thor archetype has to do the (selfless/heroic/right) thing, and their choice is between whether to do that thing or to cease embodying the archetype. While there's sort of a "rule" against the hero being tricky if they want to remain a hero, there's no similar rule against the trickster being heroic from time to time when it suits them.

From this perspective, one could say that the Thor archetype is less popular among those fond of choice because Thor has one fundamental choice: Do the right thing (or you're not Thor any more? aka you can be destroyed by your own actions?). Similarly, from here the Loki archetype looks tempting because Loki has at least 3 true-to-character choices in any scenario: Follow the rules, break the rules, or rewrite the rules. Loki can help others or hurt others, depending on what suits him -- no action is truly out of character or off limits to a trickster, while so many actions are off limits to a hero. And perhaps importantly, a trickster can't really be socially un-made in the way that a hero can be un-made.

If it was possible to just switch between heroism and tricksterness without any cost, then I agree that would be the ideal path... but I'd say that with how social capital and trust and rumors and all those other ephemera of human-groups work, the cost to such switches is quite high. If one takes the Thor path for awhile,and then uses the powers gained therein to do something on the Loki path, it becomes rather off-limits to step back onto that Thor path in the same way ever again.

Basically, if one is 90% Thor and 10% Loki, once society sees both those sides, one will be painted as 100% Loki having deceitfully pretended to be Thor. People will go so far as rewriting their own pasts to get hurt over this perceived deceit, even those who would have suffered no discernible detriment if they had never found out about the Loki parts.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Thor, Loki, LBM
« on: December 05, 2019, 07:16:23 am »
My vocabulary is much improved by those words' addition; thank you for correctly identifying them as worth sharing here.

I'll sketch the shape of a speculation in answer to whether Thor-LBM makes sense, though I wouldn't be surprised if I don't dissect it cleanly enough to be easily followed:

There's the "thor good / loki evil" oversimplification. However, there's a more fundamental "good honest / evil dishonest" pattern. Then there's the "selfish / selfless" dichotomy: selfish glossing roughly to "motivated by the wellbeing of oneself", selfless approximately "motivated by the wellbeing of others".

This breaks down, of course, in how many actions benefit *both* oneself and others. But those are often irrelevant to moralizing, because it's those edge cases in which someone would have to choose between their or others' wellbeing that society, as the collection of "others", really cares what will happen in. I think the disproportionate importance placed on those zero-sum cases when judging character might be pretty central to this speculation.

In most definitions I've met, LHP ideals say to choose one's own needs when things are zero-sum. In other words, LHP teachings coincide pretty tidily with the archetypical notion of "selfishness".

Now I'd contend that the Thor archetype I've picked up from existing in society, without much study into what the actual mythos "really" says, is that of the deity who puts the needs of the populace before their own: in other words, kind of a selflessness avatar. Willing to risk their own life to protect the innocent, whatever. Similarly, I have picked up an archetype of Loki as a "selfishness" sort of avatar: no qualms about acting to the detriment of another for their personal gain.

With that framework in place, I might be able to convey the speculation itself: Loki and LHP, as archetypes or egregores or whatever you want to call their big fuzzy cultural definitions, because their combination is fundamentally kinda on the honest side of the spectrum: You might not like their flavor, but you get what it says on the tin.

Juxtaposing the Thor archetype with that of LHP, on the other hand, invokes a certain dissonance: You have to really pick at the bones of at least one of their definitions, possibly both, to get something that doesn't have a dishonest or misleading or incompatible sort of feel to it.

Sure, that's where you get by keeping the defaults of caring most about behavior in zero-sum cases. One attribute of "good" LHP might be to use one's Power to turn games from zero-sum to positive-sum -- I win more, but so does everyone else. That'd be a "Thor LHP" kind of outcome, making stuff better for others... but changing the rules of the game to get the desired outcome? That's way over ion the law-breaker's, not the law-maker's, side of the court.

I think a similar argument would run for the "lawful" vs "chaotic" axis of character alignment: people are relatively often forced to choose between power and lawfulness, power and selflessness, etc. So the Thor-adjacent values of classical heroism work ok with LHP values until that  dichotomy is encountered, but moving past it you get one or the other. Part of the whole heroism ideal is about sacrifice, about losing some amount of power (stereotypically loss of one's life) when there's a good enough reason to do so, and that doesn't seem compatible with the whole "power is the ultimate end" thing to me.

Try inverting the lawful/chaotic argument I just made: "people are relatively often forced to choose beween power and chaos, power and selfishness, etc." Nah, that's not a counterargument against myself that I could even start.

Anyways, I think about 2 sentences of that wall were actually useful, and while I have a speculation about which two they were, I cannot tell whether you'll view it the same way... so I'll leave the cruft around them in case its context is contributing to their utility.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Sorcerer's Lie
« on: December 05, 2019, 06:48:21 am »
...Holding the opinion that best aligns with desire.

Funny how such as we would have to train ourselves to do that, whereas doing that is the default for the average person.

Comical perhaps, but not necessarily surprising. I think folks who find themselves enjoying the sorts of conversations that are had around here are united by a certain fondness for choosing their own thoughts and experiences. The first step to choosing one's own experiences is to step out of the defaults of being-happened-to. But the ability to choose anything, even an opinion, comes along with an obligation to choose something (since even inaction is a choice itself). There's a perspective from which this might even look like a loss, to set aside that standard capacity to carry on with one's defaults in the "average" way. Perhaps it's similar to how an athlete might intentionally seek circumstances that make their sport harder, whether that's by training in a lower oxygen environment or carrying extra weights during practice, because the short-term setbacks are compensated by their longer-term effects. Doing the mundane on "hard mode" builds the strength or skill necessary to do the esoteric at all.

If that feels prematurely self-congratulatory, I find it helps to recall that the "average" person holds unique values and opinions as well, often on topics about which I maintain some level of ignorance due at least to the unavailability of sufficient time to study everything, and it's the process of averaging that makes the "average person" look so bland.

Incidentally, this line of reasoning has helped me spot the LHP utility of "humility": If simply being a little better than others meets one's needs, there's little impetus to continue improving. Humility seems to hack the social-competition circuitry of the mind to say "no, you're not that much better than them yet", and can allow one to continue generating useful mental energy with that set of wiring.

There are a handful of phone apps which attempt to identify plants from photos, if you're into that kind of thing.

If you'd rather drop the dependence on network connectivity along with the dependence on the supermarket, get a botanical guidebook for your region and learn how to read a dichotomous key.

Find a nearby botanical garden and peruse the labels on the plants. Look up each plant in something that correlates names to photos to make sure you're clear on what the label was referring to, unless your local garden was so kind as to include images of the plants on their tags.

For establishing food sufficiency, a blend of farming and foraging is likely to serve you better than either technique alone. "Permaculture", "guerilla gardening", and "agroforestry" are useful search terms if you're interested in encouraging a landscape to be more edible with the minimum viable amount of work invested.

Satanism / Re: Satanic Theravada
« on: December 02, 2019, 11:14:43 pm »
All this follows, if one accepts its axioms contained.

However, I think that imprecision of your formulation of the first Truth is doing you a disservice: What of a reader who has already wrestled power over their own happiness back from Life?

Complete power over their own happiness? Well, if they have, then, as the saying goes, "More power to them."

Were you to phrase it as "Life wants too much power over your happiness", I think it would not lose that portion of the audience.

You really think full time happiness is so prevalent that I should consider happy people to be a key demographic?

It seems I wrote imprecisely. To clarify, I think there's a spectrum of how much power over one's happiness life can have. At one extreme would be circumstances where life has no power over someone's happiness; near the middle would be where life has an amount of power over one's happiness that one considers acceptable, and near the other extreme would be where one views life as having "too much" power over their happiness.

I'm near the middle, personally -- I wouldn't say that life has "too much" power over my happiness, yet I allow my happiness to relate to external factors in some ways, because to completely divorce my happiness from the observable results that my actions have in the world would not yield outcomes that I wish to pursue.

Also, I find it amusing that we both assumed the opposite of "life has power over my happiness" would be "I have power over my happiness" when, in fact, that opposite might actually be "nothing has power over my happiness".  Individuals whose happiness is constant and cannot be influenced by internal nor external factors tend to be considered mentally deficient, and more importantly, tend in my experience to have a much more difficult time gaining and using power.

I think that a clinically depressed individual might be the most relatable example of someone whose happiness is not controlled by "life" in the sense of the world around them: no matter how many positive experiences they have, they return to an equilibrium of misery. Similarly, it would take a rather creative definition of "self" to claim that such a person is in control of their own happiness either.

Satanism / Re: Satanic Theravada
« on: December 02, 2019, 07:04:04 pm »
All this follows, if one accepts its axioms contained.

However, I think that imprecision of your formulation of the first Truth is doing you a disservice: What of a reader who has already wrestled power over their own happiness back from Life?

Were you to phrase it as "Life wants too much power over your happiness", I think it would not lose that portion of the audience.

You invite the reader to fill in their own definition of "life" so long as it's consistent with the rest of the stated system, which postpones the mess of trying to form a shared definition of it until such a time as anyone attempts to extend the system. Clever.

When writing to certain readers, there's great utility in characterizing joy as a means to the end of power, rather than power as a means to the end of joy. However, there's one more step to be taken from "power", and one might worry that if you don't codify it clearly, others will create undesirable things with its absence: You seem to avoid any mention of the uses for which power is acquired; the changes to be made using it once one has it. Your Four Truths carry a certain implication that a lust for happiness underlies the drive for power, but English lacks a word for a longer-term experience than the implied ephemeral nature of simply "being happy".

Or one could simply call this an "amoral" system, as it's all "how" without "why".

General LHP Discussion / Re: Sorcerer's Lie
« on: December 02, 2019, 06:48:22 pm »
Many possible pasts could have led to a given present. (this requires a narrower definition of "present" than a casual thinker might be tempted to use -- it's just what's right here right now, and not micromanaging the "how it got that way" part)  Many possible futures can result from a given present. The details of which past one entered a present from bias the probabilities of which future will result, so an easy way to consciously control the future is through careful modification of aspects of one's past.

How does one modify aspects of one's past?

Oddly, I repeated read and re-read your sentence as saying "modulation" rather than "modification."

An uncharitable observer might describe it as lying to oneself.

The safer/easier side of the technique is to leave facts unchanged, but modify interpretations. For instance, the other day a friend invited me to go catch a film at a certain time (implying that day, but not specifying). I arrived at the theater, and discovered there was no showing at that time on weekends, but only on weekdays. Upon calling the friend, it turned out they intended to make the invitation for a later day, and simply overlooked mentioning the date. As I travel home from the theater, I have a few choices about what story I might tell myself about the recent past. One story might be to characterize my friend as stupid or flaky and the trip as having been wasted, which could be of utility if I'm looking for an excuse to end that friendship for some reason. Another story might be to characterize myself positively for my flexibility in arranging to watch the film on the later day instead, and look at having been party to the friend's mistake as a sort of bonding -- it's a get-out-of-medium-sized-mistake-free card for me to carry, in a way, as the friend is now more likely to reciprocate my patience. Neither of these interpretations changes the events that happened observably to others, yet which I choose is likely to affect my mood and possibly behavior for hours to days.

This is a neighbor to some Law Of Attraction stuff, though not identical -- I believe that the work and consequences of fighting Consensus are not often worth the hassle.

Less safe/easy is the option of completely rewriting one's chosen past. Simply dropping in a different past wholesale, into a timeline whose facts will soon contradict it, breaks once contradicted. For instance, dropping the past "I won the lottery yesterday" into one's experience in a timeline with an ordinary bank balance sets one up for the choice of a major let-down when facing the facts, or "madness" in which one never reconciles observable phenomena with Consensus / the OU.

A similar short-term "full past rewrite", with a whole lot less hazard of undoing itself or going insane, is the thought experiment of having swapped consciousnesses with oneself from a timeline in which things are going materially "better"/"worse". If things are going poorly for me, I can write a timeline in which "I" am actually a variant of me for whom things were going well, who got bored or felt charitable and decided to help out the me where I previously was by switching places. Similarly, if things are going great but I'm bored, I can write a timeline in which complacent/bored "me" swapped with a less fortunate "me", so I-in-this-timeline came from somewhere things were going far worse and appreciate it better. This superficially looks like "dimensional jumping" philosophy, though they tend to diverge from me in speculating about whether there's actually "another you" that one can swap with. It also holds echos of stoicism, though I find the quantum swapping version to be far more entertainment for the same benefits.

Modulation of aspects of one's past... I wonder if that makes any sense and is useful at all.

Modulation, in how modulating a frequency or tone is to raise or lower, shorten or lengthen it? That makes at least one sort of sense to me -- imagine a huge audio mixer board in the control room of the mind, where one might turn up or turn down the influences of various formative experiences on one's present self! "no, I-today would benefit from having a greater deal of skepticism at the moment, but I can afford to lower the self-discipline for awhile to relax" or similar. There's probably a short essay to be written in the various ways that several modern schools of psychotherapy could be characterized as "modulation of the past", as well.

General LHP Discussion / Re: Sorcerer's Lie
« on: December 01, 2019, 05:33:15 pm »
Then there was the dictum: "Make your death your ally."

Out of context, that sounds like a generic badass sort of quote one might see from a celebrity or metal band.

In context, every other time I've seen Castenada refer to an "ally", he's talking about something that resent science-ey terms might call an anthropomorphization of a drug. Every time his teacher introduces a new intoxicant, he learns things about that intoxicant's personification, and is encouraged to decide whether or not that personification is an "ally" that he'd like to continue collaborating with.

So to do like those people who try to translate the bible from ancient English to more palatable modern forms, might I propose a re-interpretation: Castenada saying "make death your ally" is likely most similar to the 2019 sentence "smoke death and have an enlightening trip".

General LHP Discussion / Re: Sorcerer's Lie
« on: November 29, 2019, 07:05:38 pm »
Isn't Castenada a delight? Most of his work has been "debunked" in the sense of "found unlikely to have ever come to pass in Consensus", so he can be appreciated by those who appreciate a good "impossibility" now and again, and those who demand perfect boring consistency, alike.

I prefer to consume his work by reading a little, thinking a long time on it, then reading a little more, which leads progress through it to take longer on the calendar than I spend on many other authors. That is to say that I haven't partaken of his own descriptions of the Sorcerer's Lie yet, so I might later recant most of this post as having described something similar but unrelated.

I do use an underlying model of stuff to which I find myself comparing other systems, and which can be parted to accept alternative systems when it suits me to use them firsthand. I find it most useful as a map for getting back to myself from the rather curious places where certain lines of inquiry can cause one to end up. It goes something like this:

  • There's an infinite space of all possible experiences that can be had. It's everything imaginable, at least, and everything imaginable from each of those points, and so on. (the space or holes of "experiences that can't be had" are an interesting diversion, but orthogonal to this particular point)
  • Time and self are orderings of those experiences. The ordering of "self" can pass through an experience several times, so closely that it almost touches itself -- I imagine what it'll be like to have the experience, I have the experience, I recall the experience. That's "self" passing through almost the same point 3 times right there.
    In this model, it gets pretty unhelpful pretty fast to split hairs about whether other "selves" are the same person, or different people, from one's present experience. There are ways in which all other individuals can be modeled as distant points on the same line of "self" as the thinker, and also ways in which I a moment ago can be modeled as an entirely different person from I right now, who was in turn an entirely separate I from the one finishing this sentence, but those models are of questionable and infrequent utility beyond entertainment and philosophy.
  • Many possible pasts could have led to a given present. (this requires a narrower definition of "present" than a casual thinker might be tempted to use -- it's just what's right here right now, and not micromanaging the "how it got that way" part)  Many possible futures can result from a given present. The details of which past one entered a present from bias the probabilities of which future will result, so an easy way to consciously control the future is through careful modification of aspects of one's past.
  • The spectrum of techniques for predicting and altering the probabilities of which future will follow a given present has blocks claimed by both "science" and "magic", though the line between those fields is more dependent on when you are and who you ask than the stalwart proponents of either seem to enjoy thinking about.
  • Everything I think that I think and perceive has been filtered through a mind-bogglingly complex arrangement of chemicals that represent the culmination of a long process of attempted self-replication and self-improvement at a variety of scales. These processes have a lot of inertia, which can yield unpleasant surprises when underestimated or disrespected
  • It's possible for a system or model to be irreparably broken in one area and yet perfectly useful in another. This one included.
  • The purpose of life -- not just human life -- can be viewed as "propagating the patterns that one finds it worth having". This usually means meeting the needs of survival through reproduction, but in humans it seems to continue to persuasion and occasionally even research.

Lounge / Re: LHP/Satanist/Setian Discord Server
« on: November 26, 2019, 06:31:08 pm »
They're like dandelions. Keeeep popping up

Isn't that a bit harsh? Dandelions aren't that bad -- they're edible in a pinch, improve poor soils, and feed beneficial insects. JoS doesn't even manage to stretch the Overton window in a direction that's useful for the rest of us.

Entertainment / Re: Penpals
« on: November 23, 2019, 01:05:36 am »
In what ways would you expect a digital penpal system to differ from the extant system of journal threads?

Journals / Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« on: November 22, 2019, 02:45:01 am »
Attempting to draw useful conclusions from my work, as I find myself doing in philosophical argument with Why, reminds me of the potential merit to more formal study.

Dali's point that if you have the skill to paint like a Master, you can paint anything you want. "Pollock could actually paint a figure or scene if he chose, yet after him there were imitators who only knew the abstract, had not the skills, and brought only juvenile sensibilities to the canvas. The result was also crap.
(from, where I end up from refreshing my memory on the actual Fotamecus origin story).

Why makes a rather humorous face when surprised by a completely novel concept, which occasionally makes me aware that I've said something different from the other pile of words.

Reality is self-healing. Everything that happens in the OU/Consensus/Real World will have some understandable cause in retrospect, if you look hard enough for it. What makes it magic is when none of those causes seemed to you to happen in the time you perceived as leading up to the event.

That goes two ways -- on the one hand, perhaps the causes really never happened to you, and only look present in retrospect because you had to bring them into existence to bring their effect -- like the speculation about a God burying dinosaur bones. Or perhaps the magic-effect is actually mnemonic blindness: Similarly to deja vu, perhaps it's a neural misfire where you failed to record the causes as they happened, or even had them recorded for awhile but then erased them right before noticing the effect, so when you went looking for them afterward they seemed new.

I don't know if I particularly like either of those, yet noting a phenomena without noticing its causes before noticing it is absolutely a perceptual experience I have from time to time... so, from that same self-healing principle, I expect I must be able to look back and identify at least one plausible explanation that could have led to it.

You know how much of what we call "bad" humanity is doing to the planet? Well we could be having just as much of an effect in the opposite direction

Sure, I cribbed that one out of some Geoff Lawton TED talk, but drop it on some openminded wanderer at 2am and you might just see where cartoons got the idea of eyes literally bugging out with amazement.

Oddly enough, when I look for the actual Dali quote, I get "“Begin by learning to draw and paint like the old masters. After that, you can do as you like; everyone will respect you."" from some clickbait, which is reprised in the faintly more reputable I think I like Max K's interpretation better, though.

I wonder whether I'll need another set of names soon. I've never been much of a hand at picking them; instead, they seem to eventually just happen to me.

Journals / Re: idgo forgot its grimoire at home and is using this instead
« on: November 21, 2019, 11:36:05 pm »
An acquaintance with some gaping knowledge gaps opened up to me about some of their own prior work and questions after that larger group discussion, and prodded a bit for my online identities. I didn't share outright, but...  wheather it'll be sooner or later, I'll bet they will end up here eventually if they follow my ideas too far, as certain corners of the internet are really quite a tiny place. However, my outlook is pretty fucking "reply hazy, try again" on whether I ought to be attempting to teach/guide at all. I think there's some insight that I've had about the idea of me teaching and it's stored next to a memory about refinishing furniture, but I can't find either of them at the moment.

Further conversations have transpired with... the acquaintance with the gaping knowledge gaps. Let's nickname them Why for now, because Why is a question that's right in the middle of them, and they'll need a handle around here. It'll do.

In a way, I am reassured: First, I am reassured that they are a stable System. As an intelligent entity (or pair thereof), they've formed a damned workable worldview, though it has its limitations. Nothing structural seems rigid enough to shatter. Second, I am reassured that I am not prying in the ways of which I disapprove. I ask the occasional openended question, and they talk for hours -- they seem to find introspection a favorite hobby.

It turns out that I can, essentially, "just ask what their axioms are". They volunteered their axioms to me upon noting that I'd listen. I am within realms where a warning would barely be required even of a stupid listener, and this one isn't that.

All I've even really said so far is "what about thus? Are you acquainted with such-and-such a topic? I wonder if..." and "when I've been or if I was in such situations, I expect I might feel such a way".

I found myself having to summarize a variety of topics more concisely than I've forced myself to do before, and in retrospect I can see some opportunities for improvement. In particular, I'm not happy with how my synopsis of the LHP/RHP similarities came out -- I think the next time I find myself wanting it, I ought instead focus on the "one-ness" of both end goals. That might make more sense to humans who use language.

Why pointed out some amusing observations about my own human communication style, as well:

* Apparently my social skills seem to have been reverse engineered from observations, rather than just copied off the standards like others' sometimes appear. Perhaps this references my willingness to switch context from small talk to philosophical argument and back at the drop of a hat?
* Apparently the way in which I present ideas takes more work to disentangle than how most do, perhaps related to the density of information that I occasionally pack into a sentence. "If there's a concept, and many possible thoughts that point at the truth, and many possible words that point at each thought, it's like you use words from different thoughts that point at the same concept" or similar. I attribute this to my having a certain laziness, an unwillingness to premasticate and regurgitate concepts for listeners of more delicate intellectual palette, as it were.
* Apparently my distaste for value judgement is unusual in their experience. I don't think I explained it fully; they were so delighted to keep expounding upon their own ideas that the incompleteness of my explanation was harmless for the time being. I frequently asked Why to rephrase their more complex ideas without the True/Untrue, Real/Unreal, Good/Bad dichotomy, and found the resulting statements far easier to follow. On the one hand, this could be blamed on a certain lack of intellectual rigor on Why's part -- I've asked them to try expressing those thoughts in e-prime as an exercise of clarity if desired. On the other hand, it could be blamed on a certain intellectual laziness on my own part -- I find that value judgments often halt inquiry at a point earlier than I enjoy following it to, and I find it takes me a great deal of unnecessary work to think with my accustomed habits while also adopting a paradigm in which Absolute Truth is its usually intended self.

On the whole, I am pleased to have had the opportunity to question some of their habits which I find often lead to unpleasantness, such as a tendency to generalize about the populace based on superficial interactions rather than gathering deeper-interaction conversational data from diverse individuals.

It could perhaps be said that rather than any nonsense about teaching, I've picked "recreational argument/debate" as the path forward for now. Despite my jests about "assigned reading", debate is adequate.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22