Numerical Evolution's Journal|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
Numerical Evolution's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Wednesday, November 17th, 2010|
|Tuesday, December 26th, 2006|
What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
From the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surjection
I find the definition of Surjection, Surjectivity, Superjectivity but it is in mathematical language I don't understand, all these symbols of 'functions' I don't get.
I take it to be pure or transcendental (abstract) objectivity, abstracting from Alfred North Whitehead's metaphysics, where the (perhaps now unfortunately outdated) term 'Superject' means object, to Whitehead, 'eternal object' (a Subject or 'subjective form' being process, I take the other to be the product.) Is the object, using the term superject, the 'product' as in multiplication?
Superjectivity, or surjectivity seems to me to have a very precise mathematical definition, just like the differences between injectivity and bijectivity, and subjectivity.
My question, precisely put, is whether there is a more precise definition of subjectivity and superjectivity (certainly the one is just as precise as the other) from mathematics?
What is Surjectivity? Superjectivity? and Subjectivity, mathematically?
|Wednesday, December 13th, 2006|
Subjectivity and Profundity
Objectivity without a predicate nor a coefficient is what I mean by 'pure objectivity.' It is hard to imagine objectivity without the one imagining it, but that is precisely what objectivity is, independent of the subject. Such a conception of objectivity is, self-referentially, a conception still, but the concept's abstraction gives it the power to transcend finite concepts, just as the concept of the infinite does. In this same way, the infinite as a concept transcends its own status as a concept, since it is defined as that which overflows definition. Therefore, though pure objectivity (superjectivity or surjectivity) cannot be pinned down (yet pure subjectivity is the epitome of pinning down since I have defined it as the Infinitesimal), it yet can be known by the concept "Profundity," the source of all meaning and value, or the absolute value of value, or the absolute of value, or the value of the absolute.
So of course Profundity is a concept, and as such a form, but the syntactical object, the literal word is definitely distinct in what it signifies, which is its meaning, the only meaning which can truly be a consense, the only meaning which can be absolutely agreed upon, the meaning of meaning. The semantic object of the term is the infinite of significance. An object derived from objectivity is a contexturalized content, and so a latency of profundity, but a value still, since it is a content. But a content (particularized) is not polycontenturality, which, drawing on Gotthard Gunther's polycontexturality-as-subjectivity thesis, is Profundity.
Thats what I mean by transcendental objectivity. Objectivity in parentheses is the profane and omnipresent object of experience to which those who call themselves materialist-objectivists are attached, and they are the so-called empiricists, but their affiliations do not degrade transcendence itself. Transcendence is inherent to integration, and thus to integers, which even empiricists count on. Empiricists are overly-analytical, and to this extent, they do not appreciate the totality which is one and whole, since they analyze it, in whatever terms, at least in terms of their own consciousness. This is why and how their consciousness lacks essential novelty, and ultimate profundity.
Pure Subjectivity, in my view which I believe is correct based on my experience so far, is the transcendental oneness of the Infinitesimal, the dimensionless point which traces all distinctions, and from the literature I'm into I've identified it with the term 'first distinction' from Spencer-Brown and the post-disciplinary field of cybernetics and semiotics which took to it, but its meaning can be easily inferred, for instance, by comparison to the popular term 'first dimension.' I call it the Infinitesimal since this is how it appears in relation to its background of the Absolute Infinite. It is the entity which traces all distinct forms which appear in every regard, it is the one.
|Thursday, November 23rd, 2006|
The Infinitesimal: There Can Be Only One, but who else believes that?
Does anyone know of anyone else's view of the infinitesimal, unity over infinity in fractional form, which is the unicity of one-ness (any unit) which condenses to singularity (without a multiplicity of singularity, acknowledging the paradox, ignoring the plurality)?
I mean to quote the Highlander "There can be only one" [such entity]. I mean, how could there be another in the same frame of reference? They would condense to being the same one. Newton, Leibniz and Abraham Robinson adopted the definition of infinitesimal[s] as non-zero, but less than 'any known number,' suggestive of the "unknowable" aspect of this number, but its not so much unknowable as not graphically representable. Every point has some dimension, its expression is its extension. So the real dimensionless point (usually considered ideal, in contrast to real) is not visible, but it is because it is the viewer, the point of perspectivity, of the observer. If viewed, it could only be sight in itself, of itself.
The definition "non-zero, but smaller than any known number" opens the discussion for a plurality, and reason would have a multiplicity of such entities as they represent the infinitesimal distinctions all forms of and in our world, which compose it. I contrast this view with the singularity of the infinitesimal, that there can be only one real or true infinitesimal. The only other person (in this case, a mathematician and philosopher) I've found to hold this view is Lorenzo Pena of Spain, editor of the electronic journal Sorities. Is there anyone else?
I don't think multiplicity or plurality doesn't exist, of course it does, but there is no discontinuity of parts, it is contained in the continuum ("the real number line" R in mathematics), the four-dimensional space-time matter-energy continuum in our experiential case. The contents of the continuum plus the continuum compose the totality which we are given, the present. That totality is the unicity of one-ness, the singularity, the Infinitesimal. Other continuums (there must be infinitely many) also condense to the Infinitesimal this way, it is the alpha and omega in common. I identify it with the First Distinction of Spencer-Brown, which cybernetics has taken to. And I set the First Distinction in contrast with the First Dimension, that linearity of the number line (expression of the continuum), the first dimension being the first expression of the first distinction which is ever-present. The First Distinction is the cybernetic Proemial Relation between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity, and every distinction (and keys, key distinctions) are only instances of it. The transcendental distinction (also called difference) is the Spirit which animates us (as the point of perspectivity, the supreme being seeing itself being, that 'negativity within God'), the point at which the pen (-ultimate) strikes the paper (or 'page of assertion,' 'unmarked space') in the book. The abstract pen-point of punctuation is the programmer of all programs, the allegorical writer, the author, one-self, the Spirit as negativity in God, and I've found it to be with mathematical precision "The Infinitesimal."
So my question is, who else demands one true infinitesimal? Or am I to take credit for this radical conception of 'unity over infinity'? Please stop me from that, I don't want to be so alone in this expression. But I've searched a lot, and haven't found much confirmation.
|Tuesday, November 21st, 2006|
Leibniz and Newton defined infinitesimals as points which get ever samller akin to the distinctions which define everything. I have a definition of distinction which includes such a conception of infinitesimals, yet it is absolute oneness, the unicity of all units. In my definition, which I take from the one of two-value logic, (wherein the other is left unmarked, called the unmarked space) the one is perfect (pure and transcendental) self-reference, which is pure subjectivity to metaphysicians and scientists of consciousness.
Abraham Robinson's non-standard analysis also used infinitesimal distinctions to produce a calculus. But both these instances where empirically defined distinctions, such as the scissors's junction, or the point of overlap or contrast. The true infinitesimal is not an imaginary number, and this is my theory (I have only found a contemporary mathematician who agrees, named Pena, the editor of Sorites in Spain), the real infinitesimal is one, and there can be only one, and every instance of number "one," as any reference to one-self (and Schrodinger would agree) is the numerically one, the real beginning of the number line (and continuum, not at dimension one, but at the First Distinction, dimension one is the first extension), as I suggest that zero is only a number as much as the Absolute Infinite is. The so-called origin is not zero, but one, and the ultimate reality of the real numbers is what they are only in reference to as a whole (taken in the first place to be one, all numbers) and they are N over (fractional) Infinity, and One is Unity Over Infinity, the real Infinitesimal, There Can Be Only One (to quote M. Lambert).
See what I did? Zero doesn't exist. Nothing is just that. Non-being does not exist. That part is so very simple. But wait, it's all quite simple...
Oneness is being-in-itself, which is pure self-reference. One is absolutely imaginary in its staticity, since its reference to the Other (transcendentally, the Infinitely and Totally Other which Levinas speaks of, to label the Infinite as teh Other or pure Objectivity or Superjectivity) manifests in-so-much as Other Numbers manifest. In other words, One refers to whatever number has already been counted this time (empirically), otherwise it only refers to the Infinite.
Infinity is overwhelming. To capture its meaning is futile. We do have a word for it, but etymologically it is a negative word meaning "not-finite" where "finite" refers to our state of being, which is not the state of being-in-itself (the first phase of phase-locked space) but of beings (to make the ontico-ontological distinction) wherein we are taken to be only one of them (so-called finite). But we are one, the Subejct of the sentence, and of the universe of discourse, we are singular, I am. I am pure subjectivity in the absolute sense, and you are too, and so are we. So 'we' means one too.
Infinity is in permanent super-position, for it to be posited requires not perfect superjectivity (objectivity) but perfect subjectivity, which is the Spirit which animates us. The Absolute Value of the Infinite (the Infinities of pluralists, including trans-finities) is the Absolute Infinite. The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality. That's a bold declarative statement.
The Absolute Infinite is Ultimate Reality.
The Infinitesimal is Pen-Ultimate Reality.
There can be only one Infinitesimal, and it is Unity over Infinity, the Unity of Infinity, Spinoza and Plotinus' Infinity, as if 'The One'.
Now is the time for these secrets to be revealed, and this is the place of it.
The Zero doesn't exist, and if you demand it to be, you must acknowledge your one-ness, and your two-valued logic. But ultimately you are One, and you are the origin of reality.
Thanks a lot,
|Wednesday, May 17th, 2006|
Pythagoreans -> Essenes -> Christianity -> Darwin ?
It recently came to my attention that Jesus may have been a member of the Essenes, and that the Essenes may be an offshoot of the Pythagoreans. The Essenes are suspected of being responsible for the dead sea scrolls. The Essenes were vegetarians, and Jewish books that allowed for eating meat, or slavery were seen as fiction by them. As Darwin was a Christian there seems to be the possibility of a direct line between Pythagoras, and Darwin.
|Saturday, September 10th, 2005|
New stuff for the info page WIP
I have doing an increasing amount of volunteer, and activist type stuff. The more I do the more I feel that I need to encourage other people to get involved because there is just so much that needs to be done, and too much money/political power opposing progressive interests. Most organizations promoting something or another are doing so because of some moral value that it's members hold. They tend to be limiting in their scope. Churches are the most common organizations that promote a large number of morals instead of just a few. I thought that pytharwinism is sort of like an atheist cult so perhaps I could utilize the power of logical beliefs to convince people of the morals I have adopted over the years. I assumed that it would be easy to show that my values were just a case of sound reasoning because I am a logical person, and I came up with much of my theory of what the universe is years ago. It turned out that I didn't have as clear an idea of why I ended up with the morals I did as I thought. I've been working on a new introduction for the info page for quite a while now, and don't have it ready yet, but would like to share what work I've done so far. I think I am much more clear about my world view than I was before, but I haven't done much to work in my morals yet. I think I will just talk about them with entries over the next few week, or months, and then try to work them back into the overall idea later once I have a clearer way to explain them. So without further delay here it is so far. ( About pytharwinismCollapse )
So it isn't nearly finished. It is starting to feel like a book, and I really don't know when I will have it done. I hope it is interesting. I'm not totally sure if I am going to move in this direction. I think I might fork, and have one side be the numerical evolution stuff, and another community for activism separate from any dogma, or world views, but I'm not sure yet.
|Wednesday, July 6th, 2005|
Hello sleeping commnity, I have something to post finally.
I'm not a numerologist. I don't know why the number 3 is more metaphysically powerful than the number 2, but it is. Passion and enthusiasm, which sometimes can be enough to sway a croud, aren't even necessary. You can manufacture faith out of nothing and there are an infinite number of patterns and lines that connect key to key-all deceptively simple.
sorry if this doesn't exactly fit what this community is for, but I just tried this and found that it worked very well. It's fascinating how much of music is math.
|Monday, June 13th, 2005|
World Naked Bike Ride
The ride was on Saturday, and I missed it for multiple reasons. Maybe I will be brave enough to do it next year. I think it is a good idea. Mass media has been promoting the myth that nudity, and sex are the same for too long. They have also been promoting that people need to have perfect bodies. So people seem to think that being naked in public is like having sex in public which is absurd. They also think that their bodies are something to be embarrassed about and ashamed of if they aren't perfect. I think being comfortable in one's own skin is part of self esteem.
Now this also has many other positive aspects to it. Removing cloths also removes most indications of social status so people feel much more like one another. It is exercise. It is a protest of the dependence on cars, and how their dominance of the streets almost makes it unsafe to bike except in large groups. It is a protest against dependence on oil.
I haven't been ignoring this group. I have been working on a new info page, and it has become quite large. I want to clarify things, align it to the new focus on values, and remove chaos. Though in the process of adding new information I think I also add new questions so perhaps it is impossible to make everything clear, but I will try to at least make it better.
|Tuesday, May 24th, 2005|
Be careful what you believe
Marketing holds more power in the United States of America than logic. It is a sad truth, and I'm not quite sure how to fight it.
News media realized that they can get more advertising money from candidates if they only give abysmal election coverage. The result is that when it got close to the election there were more minutes of propaganda advertising than news of the candidates during any given newscast. Even the news coverage was usually a horse race bit about who is highest in the polls. Many voters even believed that US forces found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Totally clueless.
Another point, and this one from science. Global warming is something scientists all over the world agree is a real phenomenon. Even if we stop actively adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere today it will take IIRC 200 years for earths temperatures to stabilize. There is a lot of money being spent to combat this truth. The caribou have already been in decline for years as a result of rising temperatures, and now the Bush administration wants to destroy vast tracts of their very fragile ecosystem to mine for a resource whose use will lead to even more global warming. Which will of course lead to even more decline of their population.
How can you protect yourself from having your mind poisoned with false truths on a daily basis? That is a hard question to answer. First I would say try to avoid commercial media as much as possible. It will actually make your life happier. It might not be obvious why at first it will make you happier, but if you think about how many messages you get in commercials about how you aren't good enough it will start to be clearer. They tell you that you need to lose weight. That if you don't eat some wonderful food that you are missing out on life. That the stuff you have is junk, and needs to be replaced. I don't think you would keep many people as friends if they treated you like that on a regular basis, but people tune in to these kinds of messages on TV, and radio all day long. The second thing I would say to do to protect yourself is try to read multiple sources on a subject. Even with the internet this doesn't tend to be an easy task. When I tried to find out more information about the college level national championship soccer game a girl I know played in online instead of finding multiple viewpoints I found 50 copies of the same article. The associated press dominates news reporting so much that it is often hard to find another viewpoint when any AP article on the matter exists.
I think that is enough standing on my soap box for now. I'm going to try to write regularly about some of the issues I mentioned in last weeks post, and a little bit about what people can do about them.
|Monday, May 16th, 2005|
A whole year goes by
Wow there hasn't been a post here in a whole year. I blame myself for that. I'm planning on reviving the list with some rethinking I have been doing. I should be concentrating on values rather than world views. Namely: environmentalism, humane treatment of living things, personal freedoms/rights, anti-censorship, sharing, free knowledge, and logic. I'm not quite ready to go into more details, but I didn't want to miss my one year deadline.
|Sunday, May 16th, 2004|
Digits of pi
I don't think we exist as digits of pi, but the discussion is interesting. http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/pickover/pimatrix.html
Now that I posted the link I can close the browser window that has probably been open over a week.
Perhaps one of these days I will actually get around to writing a real entry about this journals topic. It is a tricky subject to dive into. I didn't realize how hard until I tried to write the bio page. If anyone thinks they can write it better I am open to suggestions. Current Mood: lazy
|Wednesday, March 10th, 2004|
We are all Ratios.
Hello. I just found this community and was very intrigued with what I read. I think I would benefit from being a part of this. And though I'm at work right now and cannot dedicate proper time to certain objectives and inquiries that are currently stirring in my brain, I do plan on returning shortly and posting as I see fit. Thank you. Current Mood: curious
|Sunday, November 30th, 2003|
WARNING: SELF GRATIFICATION MAY LEAD TO SELF GRATITUDE, EVEN APPRECIATION.
|Friday, November 28th, 2003|
just a thought
what is motion? If one were in a windowless room won a boat in a calm sea, where thew were no pauses or jerks: could one tell if they were moving or not? The answer is no. Motion is relative. Most things in this planet are relative too. It is the moist important aspect, everything is relative. There is no one thing independent of anything else. For example a butterfly flapping it's wings may cause a tornado several hundred miles away. Everything is connected to everything else. Even these words which you read are connected to some previous definition that you've learned. Since everything is then connected, then there must be a beginning. That beginning is fundamental units.
Fundamentals units define everything. They are axioms, that is self-evident truths. Can we describe time with out seconds? There is no definition for the second other than itself. Different time units do not exist. Derived units are an extension of the fundamental ones which make it possible for us to describe further phenomena. However, these phenomena are nothing more than manipulation of the units. First we describe fundamental units.
It is these aforementioned units which are the basis for definitions. For example a person is nothing more than a heap of matter. He has mass and dimensions. This mass and these dimensions are described by the fundamental units. This means we are dependent on the units. One may argue that human interactions are a "higher act". However, it has been proven that it is nothing more than a series of electrical impulse, which govern us. The electricity is an expression of the fundamental units. They are translated into what we believe be unique. All matter has the different ways of being translated into a four-dimensional being. Everything is subject to the parameters set by the fundamental units.
The derived unit is important as well. Derived units are difficult. For example a cat multiplied by a book would yield a cat-book. This is what we've been trained to do in our grade school. Arbitrarily join x and y because they are being multiplied. But variables represent something. When certain phenomena happens in nature it is possible to use the fundamental units to describe them. But for convenience derived units are used. But derived units express relationships. Newtons describe Force, which is something that will make something else accelerate which means that it's speed will increase exponentially. Matter is an expression of natural phenomena, and since phenomena is the units we are the units.
We are ultimately expressions of the units. Which means our emotions are too. SO procreation is nothing more than an act which makes out universe. Procreation is the subject of greatest interest because it is the driving force behind life. It is also the driving force behind evolution. DNA reproduces via organism. Ultimately a species' goal is to reproduce. Even though humans attempt to deny this fact it is true. Since these acts are nothing more than movements through a four-dimensional plane they are nothing more than expressions of fundamental units. It is the units which breathe life into existence.
Finally, the universe is made of everything. We have just concluded that anything is made from these units. Hence we conclude the universe is these units. Everything is the same, a translation of the units.
my name is Jo and I'm new here
|Wednesday, November 26th, 2003|
THE FAMOUS FIVE
e^(pi*i) - 1 = 0
Who's up for some discourse, eh?
It has come to my attention, or rather -> been beated, personably, into my waking state of consciousness, that the institutions of academic and faculties of modern scholarship are flawed, fundamentally flawed. How and why? you may ask? Namely, there are is an enormity of managerial and interpersonal defects inherent within the human condition. Don't believe me? Fine, I'm not really going to care for the sake of this entry but, I suggest taking a good long look around you cocerning where people in this world throw their money, and money is, afterall, a kind of trust intrinsic to the relations we as people work about and bide by. But as for schools and such, I'm not quite so sure that teachers or professors and to a certain extent, lecturers, are working on levels contradictory to the failures inherent to faculties of learning within each and everyone of us. I am considering a stance that regards the brain, the human brain I'm talking about, it'll be years and centuries possible before we starting learning in classrooms with dolphins, as confined to a set and finite system of limitations that confine and restrict knowledge by and by on a individual by individual basis.
There need to be mesures that work in kind of counter-cognizance to flaws autistic and otherwise, and these methods should be made (dare i say) dogma! within the accepted and traditional aspects of the teacher-pupil bond. Naturally, I'm working from a perspective that does not consider the fraternal relationship that an instructor has with his or her pupils, the way in which there is a kind of love/hate bond in the sharing of knowledge, the teaching of tact in conceptual instinct, and the objective forwarding of scholarship. A great deal of reasoning behind why education as it stands in itself is flawed at its facets is the lack of relevance and importance that education has been relegated. This issue is again, circumnavigates itself back to an issue of money.
Let's look at this thing and universal bartering agent: money. Why do we even need some physical, tangible, and emotionally void substance in the middle ground of exchange? There is a violence to the way animals share resources and the vitals of life, we're eager to be greedy afterall and it won't be long before wars will be fought over water and stuff essentially just as meager... So then there's no hope for us all expect for what we do out of love, for love, though not nescessarily selfless, is compulsory and it's the biological reasoning for why there are so many of us anyway (I'm still speaking about the humans reading this, stop conceptualizing universes in which we don't exist! Such endeavours are fruitless!). But is the exchange of knowledge a kind of love? Is it a kind of altruistic sharing of wealth? Or could one consider the phenomenon a fruitless and idealistic stalling of an otherwise entropic universe, one bound to death by means eventual?
This is why I argue for the installment of devices - tools that are to be agreed upon - that will set precedence for combating a condition inherent to us as an illness in the pursuit of pure scholarship. Some five sets of rules... Well, I'm not going to suggest anything as I am tired, seemingly confined to apathy and will never amount to anything... Now that we've the self-deprications out of the way (hey, I mean, we all got rip on ourselves sometimes, right? How else does the individual growth in its strength?)
So five edicts/aphorisms that, while counter-intuitive in construction, will provide for a better learning enviroment:#1
Questions are crucial, even those seemingly absurd in delivery. Question until a lack of answer becomes comfortable and potentially humorous.#2
Never feign misunderstanding. An ear open too wide is on par with self deception.#3
While I'm unsure if a person can learn while sleeping, I'm certain anybody can learn from dreaming
"Why." is a sentence. Though no one should be proud to saying it.#5
Matters of opinion are aesthetic building blocks. Facticity and tradition are ethical foundations.
Ok, I take all this back. We're doomed in fuction and now I feel like I've copied a page from the manuscript of 1984...
|Monday, September 1st, 2003|
I've read the bio and I'm intruiged. But I do think this community needs some more explanation. The bio is total chaos. But, perhaps, that is the point. I don't really know.
How do you explain yourselves?
|Monday, August 11th, 2003|
the reason why something seemingly ubiquitous and simple like masturbation i sconsidered by many people to be worthy of 'feelings of guilt' is because there has to be some way of testing justice and morality, and why not test is on some arbitrary, ubiquitous and simple thing? it's not a matter of malicious intent, it's just a way of seeking justice. it may seem somewhat problematic to leverage justice against something so innocent, but all laws involve the same leverage and the same innocence. that is why in a democracy, they remain more or less malleable according to the people or to whom they elect. for instance, a girl was wearing a shirt that says 'masturbation is not a crime'.
|Tuesday, July 29th, 2003|
X- posted from my own journal
I wonder how many of my friends have been secretly replaced by AI scripts. Most of my friends I rarely see in person. The evidence I have that then even exist is purely electronic. Some people lets call them efriends for electronic friends I have never seen in person. It is not unusual for me to communicate with them as much or more than people I know IRL (In Real Life). While it is unusual for me to call any one friend more than 3 times in a week even if they are really close, with some of my efriends it is unusual to go more than three days without chatting with them. Sometimes real life friends turn into efriends. People who I went to school with have moved away, and now I keep in touch by sending emails to their cell phone in japan, or chat on AIM across an 8 hour driving gap. With a few people I even use the phone. Although that is far more personal it is still packet data streaming across ATM networks.
The emotional bonds can be stronger than the electronic web that supports them. Thinking about one of my efriends who died still brings tears to my eyes six months later. I only knew her for a matter of months, but her influence will touch me for the rest of my life.
It is possible for me to spend most of my waking hours in some kind of electronic communication. I was able to open my soul by that means long before I could actually tell a person sitting in front of me the same things. I can imagine myself at a party sitting in a corner typing on a computer. It comes to me so much more naturally than speaking across a gap of air to a human ear. Actually I have done that at a party. Still I would rather someone gave me a hug IRL than get a hundred replies to a post with "*hugs". I need human contact, and I just don't get it.
It doesn't help my situation that so many of the people I chat with all the time are hundreds to thousands of miles away. Unless I join some kind of traveling show it seems unlikely that I will meet many of them. I think my best bet to become real friends with people is to go to school in a big college town like Boston, or find work in a huge city like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. Then people might visit me, or even move in down the street.
I think I should try to make friends in more traditional ways like public places, but the people I usually find most interesting are nearly hermits themselves so I am not likely to find them out in the open. I can either put up a smoke signal, and hope they investigate, or go on a hunt. Current Mood: contemplative
|Saturday, July 5th, 2003|
It really annoys me that I have to do this, but I really think this community will be more popular if people take it seriously. I think that if Judaism was a new belief today people would say "I have to mutilate my penis to join?! You must be joking". Such that people will give pytharwinism a chance before leaving I decided that it would be better if it wasn't on the main info page. Those people who really care I'm sure will do some digging. Therefore I am circumcising the info page.
I finally got around to banning the teenager who was making off topic posts, and even stuff that is probably copyrighted. I apologize to anyone who was annoyed by her posts.
Below is the stuff I am cutting from the info page. ( cut from the info pageCollapse ) Current Mood: annoyed