Have a comment on this page? Email the Odd Emperor!

Mott world! More Mott world! Part 3

Here he is again! Full of piss and vinegar but with a tantalizing change of attitude!

>
> Sorry, your sentence kind of faded out there, would
> your care to clarify what "-- ?." means?
>

Knowledge; reasoning ability; veracity--The list goes on.

>>
>> Here, learn something:
>>
>> http://www.rense.com/general37/waves.htm
>> http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=648
>>
>
> Thank youl; I am *very* familiar with the content on
> both of those web pages. Are you aware that
> www.rense.com is well
> known to print anything without
> reguard to the relative truthfulness of the author?
> Are you also aware that Whitley Strieber has so
> totally discredited himself on so many occasions that
> one would need to look out a window if that fellow
> said that it was daylight. You call these reliable
> sources?

The point is a simple one. These anomalies exist, and are unaccounted for without the consideration of non-human or pre-human agency. The Eltanin antenna, for instance, was discovered decades ago, by a U.S. government survey ship. Your (typical) ad hominem, personal attack on someone reporting it (in this case Streiber, since this particular instance of the story was at his site--but it is in plenty of other places), in no way changes this fact. You use the typical ad hominem discrediting tactic of someone who is
short on knowledge and long on nerve. This seems to be your modus operandi in general, though.

The Eltanin Antenna was later found to be an ordinary sea creature, a sponge if you believeLarry Hatche's web page . The problem with sensational "evidence like this is that they almost always turn out to be something mundane. The really good evidence (and there is some) is usually boring looking stuff, things that most researchers scoff at in favor of crap like this sponge antenna.

> As for your other recommendation, Ill take a rain
> check on that, thank you very much. What I find
> arrogant is people expounding on subjects that they
> have little knowledge of.

My, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, you expound on books--with intellectual adjectives like "crappy," no less--that you have never read. Arrogance, cluelessness, and pomposity--as revealed by your nom de plume of "Emperor--" certainly are accurate terms to describe you. BTW, this is not "ad hominem;" it is observation based on demonstrable facts and examples.

OK, I've read it and my capsule description of it (the conclusion anyway) is "silly". There! Satisfied? ; )

>If you fall under this
> framework I would call you arrogant. Since I know you
> only from some of your work and this letter I can only
> say that your conclusions appear misguided and more
> than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
> based on what I have read on your web page. Your
> letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
>

Au contraire, I believe that your reply more than demonstrates your own abysmal arrogance and ignorance. You repeat the same errors of reasoning in your arguments; you make sweeping generalizations, ad hominem statements and pronouncements (based in no discernable fact, but only in your own arrogance and self-certainty), and puerile statements of various sorts.

>
>> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
> Nirvana....
>
> The last statement demonstrates that you have little
> understanding of the Hindu religion. That.s OK, the
> concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
> hard time with them.
>

Nirvana is a Buddhist tenet and concept--in fact, it is the penultimate goal of that religion. There you go again, demonstrating for all your complete ignorance of topics you stand in judgement of--in this case, religion, mythology, and related fields. You are truely a pompous cartoon, "Emperor." Unfortunately, you have no clothes. Your nude mind, shriveled and unrounded as it is, is not an appealing sight....

And *I* make puerile statements?

Heh!

>>
>>> Underground
>>> civilization is only the tiniest portion of a huge
> body of recorded mythology.
>>> Let me tell you about the Native American myth
> about how the jackass got his
>>> tale (tail?)
>>>
>>
>> It's certainly evident that you may have some degree
> of authority on
>> jackasses' tales--but paradoxically, your own
> thoughts, personal history,
>> philosophy, or even meaningful thoughts leave your
> story woefully flaccid
>> and thus the world unenlightened as to the fullness
> of your asininity.
>
> It.s very interesting how you cannot refute my
> argument; you can only insult me personally. This is
> known as the ad-homonym approach to debate, if some
> opinion offends you then you go after the person who
> made the statement, not the statement itself.

No, this is _your_ methodology. This is the method you demonstrate on your webpage, where you expound on matters and works of which you have absolutely no clue whatsoever. Again, to call you a buffoon is not an ad hominem attack; it's simply an observation based on your behavior and very poor reasoning ability. By the way, it's "ad hominem," not "homonym". Again, you demonstrate your ignorance, combined with a laughable arrogance.

> Generally speaking it is better (and much more mature)
> to go after my assertions and not my personality.
>

Again, you are calling the kettle black. You're also a
hypocrite--demonstrably so. You decry your own methodology here.

> Case in point; my review of your web page is mocking
> in tone, a little insulting to your conclusions but it
> does not in any way insult or offend you personally,
> nor does it call you names.
>

See the above statement. In fact, such insult is clearly implied; and the fact that you are clueless about the material you deride indicates clearly what kind of person you are. Have you read the books in question? Of course not. This paints quite a clear picture of you, or would seem to do so.

Really the point of all of this, Mr. Mott appears to have an inability to separate his ideas with himself, so much that anyone who confronts his ideas is in fact confronting him in a very real and personal way. This is exactly contrary to convention scientific thought, ideas can (and are) trashed all the time. Science is an error correcting philosophy and if one simply runs around and validates every idea without question we would not have science or anything close to it. BTW, Mr. Mott or anyone is WELCOME to trash my ideas if they like… or if they can.

> You on the other hand seem to delight in hurling a
> mass of insulting words in my direction *without once
> refuting my position*. This suggests that you actually
> agree with me!
>

Your "position" (a lack of one, actually) has been clearly refuted. Your own attempts at rebuttal only assist, in your self-discrediting (see all of the above).

Hmm, I always thought saying “your stupid-your stupid-your stupid” over and over again made one SOUND STUPID.

> This is a very bad stance if you are attempting to
> bolster your position against mine. It actually
> strengthens my position and makes you (in the opinion
> of some people who read these words) *look* like a
> jackass. If you wish to invoke debate on some point
> reflected on yur web page I am quite willing to debate
> you.
>

What do you call what we are doing?

You see, your entire position is based on ad hominem garbage; you know nothing of that of which you write. You have no basis for argumentation, since you have no knowledge of the topics (or books) you seek to refute.
You've really stuck your foot in it, haven't you?

>>>
>>> Aw bummer, Subterranean Myths has caved in! The
> page author has a new page up
>>> that advertises his crappy self published book,
> here is the original site.
>>>
>>
>> Website URLs change--but ignoramuses never do, as
> you are so willing to
>> demonstrate.
>>
>> Your ignorance is surpassed only by your gall. The
> nonfiction book is not
>> "self-published," and is available in several
> editions, one of which is a
>> slick tight paperback with both black-and-white and
> color plates, from
>> http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns . This is
> the book that was called
>> "a fascinating, informative, groundbreaking work" in
> a review in FATE
>> magazine (June 2001 issue, if you'd care to look it
> up).
>>
>
> If you would be so kind to tell me the publishing
> house name and perhaps the ISBN code I will be happy
> to retract that statement. BTW, self-published
> includes .on demand. publishing houses.
>

0-9713166-3-5. That's the ISBN of the paperback edition.

Well, I discovered later that just about every book printed in the US has one of these codes.

>> If you're referring to the fiction work, it's
> published by Softbook
>> Press/Gemstar:
>>
>
> Thank you for the information, (little author hint,
> next time give your prospective customer the TITILE of
> the book so that they don.t have to run author
> searches.) The item ID number is little help when the
> company database doesn.t seem to use that as a search
> field.
>
>

Thanks for the very little hint. Given the fact that I gave you the URLs to the books, your statement is meaningless.

>>
> http://www.gemstar-ebook.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eBookstore.woa/wa/find?asset
>> ID=5459
>>
>> ....and has been, for some time. The edition at my
> personal site is more
>> expansive and is a personal project, as it features
> additional graphics and
>> extra written material.
>
> Very cool! I don.t read fantasy very much (I.m more of
> a hard science fiction guy). I may even pick the book
> up and take a look, do you mind?
>

You will need a Gemstar e-book reader. The deluxe illustrated edition I offer on CDROM runs on any platform, as long as you have a web browser.

The fiction work is a satirical blend of fantasy and scifi.

>>
>> Tell me, how many glowing reviews have you seen in
> regard to your own work,
>> research, website, or even your personality? Little
> to none, I'd wager.
>>
>
> That would be untrue. Oddempire is a hobby, nothing
> more. Over the years I have found that the plethora of
> nonsense and outright lies on the Internet has grown
> much faster than critical review of such things. I
> used to jot down notes on pages that interested me and
> the Oddempire page grew out of that.
>

I agree with your statement here. In fact, I'm a stickler for facts and for verifiable evidence of any statement or claim. This has gotten me into hot water more than once, and has left no love lost among certain "new age" claimants and self-styled gurus.

And self styled gurus HATE disagreement and competition!

>> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,
> ideas, concepts, or
>> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas?
> Again, I would guess a
>> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.
>
> I certainly don.t self publish if that.s what you
> mean.
>

As you should have seen, neither do I. Hidden Mysteries and Gemstar are certainly not owned by me.

You sound suspiciously like a frustrated aspiring writer....

>>
>> If you wish to publish this message, at least have
> the guts to publish it in
>> its entirety. Of course, I fully expect you not to
> do so. Self-styled
>> "cynics" (not skeptic mind you--cynic) such as
> yourself tend to spend their
>> time attacking those things which they either lack
> the mental capacity to
>> comprehend or of which they are woefully uniformed,
> as well as in tearing
>> down others in envious fits of pique which only mask
> their own self-loathing
>> and (deservedly) low self-esteem.
>>
>> Rest assured: Should you decide to go the route or
> message reproduction,
>> I'll be glad to reciprocate in multiple forums.
> With full message thread
>> content, of course.
>>
>
> Oh thank you thank you for the wonderful instruction!
> I will have to put that down in my little instruction
> book, (lets me see.) print the entire message and make
> sure you include the author.s fits of pique directed
> against you. Hmm, yup! I think I can do that!
>

You're welcome. BTW, feel free to lift that "fits of pique" from my previous message if you're at a loss for words. Oh--you already did.

Paraphrased, you do know what that means? I think not...

> Are you aware that when I choose to republish an email
> message I always reproduce them in their entirety
> unless they are relating what I would conceder
> personal or sensitive information.
>
> I.m not exactly sure what .I'll be glad to reciprocate
> in multiple forums. means in this context. Please be
> aware that I have a minimal copyright on any published
> material reflected on the Empire of the Odd web page.

Your copyright does not supercede my own. In other words, a conversational exchange of e-mail is equally owned by both recipients. This is a matter of fact under the law. Surely you already knew this?

Actually that's not quite correct. ANY written work is copyrighted as soon as it leaves a person's fingers. Email is no exception. This means that the owner has some rights regarding it's republication and it is NOT implicitly owned by the recipient.Cornell has a good overviews.

Some people have suggested that displaying private email here is a violation of copyright, technically it is but I'm applying the fair use clause regarding satirical publications, and Mr Mott DID demand that I publish his letters in their entirety while I have politely asked him to give me first refusal for my works in his non satirical publication and he went ahead and published my words anyway.

(This is all faintly silly I know... what kind of web page is this

anyway! I forgot! )

> If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
> that you run it by me first. I already have your
> permission to publish your words, thank you very much!
>

Yours is assumed by your participation in this conversation. You can further assume that any reproduction will be reciprocal.

Ooh, he's telling me that he intends to republish these letters without permission.

>
>> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a book
> once in a while. You
>> might even learn something.
>>
>
> I.m reading about four right now, I.m in the middle of
> a re-write of one and in the primary write of another
> (it.s a slow week).
>

Re-writing...What? Surely not your own work(s)?

How about a little evidence? Can you point me to your published works? I'd love to take a look at them.

Yah right, first he says, "I have a right to steal from you" and then "So..where's more of your stuff!"

Charming!

> As for learning; I learned a lot about you today,
> thanks!
>

Ditto.

>> p.s., "non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter
> necessitatem" is part of the
>> primary thesis of the nonfiction work
>> (http://www.hiddenmysteries.com/caverns). Read it,
> and you might have a
>> better understanding of the depth of meaning behind
> Ockham's words.
>>
>
> I have used Ockhams statement in its pure form, Not
> the watered down version that we use colloquially,
> I.E. .the simplest explanation is usually the correct
> one..
>

I utilize Occam/Ockham's theorem in a similar frame of reference. If you go to http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html, and read Section 8, you'll see what I mean.

I did actually read that section. Mr. Mott is once again all over the map, making one conclusion after another using a mass of conflicting "evedence."

Here he suggests that since aliens are all bipeds, have recognizable organs of sight, hearing, speech etc they must have come from our own solar system and not from some alien world. This is exactly right! (in my humble opinion) But it still presupposes these apparitions have some sort of physical reality (and realty.) But that's far from the simplest explanation.

> Now, let me see if I understand the last thing. you
> want me to *purchase* your book and that somehow
> proves that I don.t understand William of Ockham.s
> words? What sort of logic is that? (seems rather
> convoluted which makes my point precisely)
>

The above point should clarify that for you. If you want more information (or knowledge on the topic of the book) you can buy it if you wish. I certainly don't care either way. But you should read something before you pan it.

> Take care- take a few deep breaths and calm down
> before you reply to me again.
> OK?

I actually enjoyed our exhange. Good mental exercise.

--Wm. M. Mott

And so it could have ended here, but....