|A Point About Rambling
Well, I was reading a post when I wondered what really is a post when this thought came to me, no, not the thought that this thought is referring to but a different thought, one that occured to me at the moment that I was thinking about posts, but the thought was not the thought of thinking about the post, instead it was a thought about people, and who they really are, if they really are, and what really 'are' is. Everyday we post on something that does not really have any mass, no matter and yet is. This thought led me to some of the many ideas posted upon this board, which like the board had no mass, a massless mass of theories that have no mass, but since there does not seem to be any catholics in Randland does masslessness realy matter? This question of religion brought me to my first point. Since their are no masses, and these people here have no mass, and their are no catholics, which would mean the catholics have no mass, it should be entirely not unreasonable to assume that the no mass catholics can attend the massless masses because the masses that have mass do not exist so things that have no mass cannot atend them. Since this was my first point I have to have a second point and that would mean that my first point had to have a point or I could not have a second point because the lack of a first point would make a subsequent point impossible and so this point which I am now writing would not be a point at all and that would mean that I was writing this all for naught, but it still is and therefore it must be worth something even if it was nothing because the preceding did not mean anything though it also existed. Label this point two. In a coralary to point two which had no point but still existed any how, from no fault of mine, believe me I have fought the existence of this point for the whole duration of this post, just as I have fought the existence of all points in this post, so that I may have one post wihtout any points at all. Call this point three. I have now made three points in a post that must have no points so my next point will be a point to prove that these points have no points and therefore cannot be points thus proving that the post has no points much less a point four which this point is so the post has no points. Because a point is something at the end of writing utensils and ice-cicles, dow rods that have been sharpened etc. and this post contains none of these thing and therefore must be pointless. To those of you that feel that a point can be other than a physical object, such as a thought, I would like to point out, and I am not using a pencil to do it, that in order for me to adress this point about the nature of points you must first make this thing which you believe is a point an actuall psuedopoint so we can determine if it is more than a psuedopoint. Unfortunately, since it is a psuedopoint it cannot be a point and therefore it is impossible for it to be a point. So being pointless the preceding must qualify as RAMBLING. YES RAMBLING. I HAVE RAMBLED AND IT WILL NOT BE THE LAST TIME I HAVE RAMBLED. I WILL CONTINUE TO RAMBLE UNTIL SOMEONE DETERMINES WHO THIS MASSLESS RAMBLER IS. YOU MUST HAVE EVIDENCE, AND DUE TO THE RELATIVE NATURE OF POINTS, WHICH IN TURN IS REMINESCENT OF A POST THAT I POSTED, THOUGH I AM NOT SURE IF I DID BECAUSE THE POST BOARD HAS NO MASS SO HOW CAN I SAY I POSTED IT, I WOULD SAY YOU HAVE YOUR FIRST CLUE. AND YES A CLUE IS DIFFERENT FROM A POINT.
If I recall correctly, the Watcher's real name was Aemon.