WarpMyMind

is the member still bothering u?


If u wish for that member to leave u alone or u think he or she is a minor let me know and i can pass it on to EMG for u to get it checked out


other than that my best advice is to just no reply to him then he will get tired and will move on but if he is harrsing u please let us know or EMG


thanks

hope this helps

Tell him to go write a sci-fi novel :D

But seriously, yea, it sounds made up. Definitly a minor.

Jerm,

A little knowledge, combined with unbounded braggadocio, can be a very humorous thing.

The first item that caught my eye: "...the file I am most interested in, the enchanted keyboard curse file, well, I don't need it..." An interesting turn of events. And what a great opening line! I am thinking about retiring "Come here often?" for good.

And then:

"My old teacher(not school teacher)who my Username on WMM is based after, was far older then the earth."

How did this teacher get a name similar to SageMagnus? I thought maybe he was born after Simon and Garfunkel recorded "Scarborough Fair." I like the "Magnus" too. It's Latin, which I have heard is somewhat younger than the Earth...although most Latin teachers look the opposite. It wasn't widely used as a name until after the death of Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus). But who's to know how closely the nick follows the teacher's name? Maybe her name was ParsleyMagna.

ThymeLord, anyone? :)

You can tell the guy is very young. For one thing, he doesn't know the difference between there, they're, and their. Probably his teacher (yes school teacher) doesn't know the difference either. As long as the NEA or AFT gets its dues, what's the difference?

I hope the guy's a bullsitter...and not the night manager at the Bates Motel.

Jerm, here's a thought. Remember the characters that complained that the files were too loud, too soft, too much static, too late, too early. Send 'em each a copy of The Collected Works of SageMagnus. It's a shame you can't make their computers buzz every time they receive the next chapter. :wink:

S.

PS: Jerm, if you still have the info, can you either post or send me the days, dates, and times (whatever time zone you like, but please specify) that each of SageMagnus's PMs were written? E.g., Wednesday, August 3, 10:13 pm PDT. Many thanks.

The geomancers who live in my septic tank send their regards.

Jerm,

I provide this information in a separate post so that it's not lost in the shuffle.

As of midday, Wednesday, August 17, MDT, SageMagnus was Member No. 11639 (UserName/Ascending) out of 15,413 registered site users. He registered on April 4, 2005. He has made no posts in any Forum. I haven't looked, but it's a safe bet that he has made no Journal entries either. I have no way of knowing how many file downloads he has made. He was smart enough not to say whether or not he had downloaded Train Enchanted Keyboard.

All of which brings me to my second point.

This site has 15,413 registered users. Only 638 have even one post. (Members List: Total Posts/Descending). That means over 95 percent have made no posts at all. Maybe there have been 14,800 file downloaders, as opposed to downloads, but I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.

No doubt, a significant number are under-agers and/or trouble-makers who were smart enough to pre-register under a variety of names before they got bounced and thus before anyone was looking for them. Mortal was not so smart. He signed up as Morta1 (Morta-One) several hours after he was bounced as Mortal.

Who are the rest of them?

I have two modest proposals. I don't care whom non-posting ArcaneTheGeomancer sends PMs to, but his total number of PMs would be interesting. Equally interesting would be the non-posters who receive PMs. How would anyone know who they were? On the other hand, if a known site user sends PMs to a supposedly unknown, non-posting user, the very fact should awaken someone's interest.

Of most interest would be an unknown user who sends one PM apiece in fairly rapid succession to 10 other unknown users...and then those 11 accounts are not used again.

The first proposal: How many PMs are sent and received by unknown, non-posting registered users? Perhaps the results could be displayed on Show Me Your Tits. Then, as with Playboy, regular SMYT visitors could claim they go for the data and not for the pics. :)

Next, until Google came along, hotmail used to drop users after 30 days of non-use. Yahoo mail would drop users after 90 days of non-use. Perhaps they still do. I'm sure both companies--and others--have reasons for such policies.

Second proposal: SageMagnus is a prime candidate for erasure. He's been a member for 4.5 months. He has never made a post. Nobody ever heard of him until he started writing irritating PMs. I would not be surprised to find that hundreds, perhaps thousands, fall into the same category.

What's the point of erasure, some may ask.

I borrow from an old saying. Hopefully it has the redeeming feature of having been written by Benjamin Franklin. In any event, its truth is somewhat obscured by the old-fashioned language.

If we get rid of idle hands, we lessen the risk of becoming an interloper's workshop.
.

erm just a possobility but a few days ago was PMing people in the chat room telling them I was an immense gold dragon with power over them all.
That was thanks to Daz and a few soft words could be the same here?

Sounds like a young man who is experimenting with not only the files ,but also lots of mind altering substances to me . The voices in his head obviously are not just the ones that he may( or may not )be listening to on here perhaps?? :?

If he was on mind altering substances it is very unlikely he would have been able to type that muchh and that legibly, though of cours as Sandy pointed out it was by no means perfect.

He's probably just a fool trying to get attention, though I don't think he should be banned all he has done is write a few dodgy private messages some of which he may not done had wossname not feigned interest.

Not all mind altering substances enable ones mind to become stupid ...It depends on the mind thats ingesting the substances in the first place really!! :twisted:

First of all, I am Quite aware that by feigning interest I welcomed more pm's from SageMagnus. But, like I said before, I love to spot a bulls**tter. But as I read his PM's I became more and more irritated with his attempts at labeling himself as a 'lesser diety'. As I said, I did not post all 5 or 6 posts because I didn't think anyone would want to read all of them. I did not write back to SageMagnus after his 3rd post, but the pm's just kept comeing. Lastnight I wrote a pm asking him why he needed hypnotic transformation files if he could 'alter physical reality with his mind' . I also made the point that he sounded like a teenager trying to impress a peer, rather then an enlightened guru trying to educate. To be fair I challenged him to make it rain in my town that night. It didn't rain lastnight.

I agree with Sandy. If someone chooses not to actually participate on thie site, then why be a member. That being said, I can also understand that some people are not as 'net-social' as others. So maybe some of the members on here are just shy, and that's why they never post. Unfortunately, I would guess as many as half of the members that never post are just either teenagers looking for something with a hint of porn or people that were interested for long enough to sign up then found a new hobby.

Do I think SageMagnus should be banned? No. As much as the posts began to irritate me, he was never malicious or offensive. I doubt he will pm me again anyway. Do I think that people that are abusive to other members should be banned? Of course. Let's just go with senority on that one. If a member has been participating in the group for a long time and someone that has not even posted once get into a scuffle, kick the newbie. Assuming the newbie is being abusive or in some way intentionally insulting. ok, I am getting off subject.

Lastly, missypuss, I completely agree with you. Mind altering substances are more then just fun for the grateful dead fans. They can be very useful in exploring alternate realms of conciousness. When I was younger my friends and I would go on expeditions to the local wilderness and discuss many faccets of modern life while under the influance. If one uses mind altering substances intent on learning rather then just 'tripping' it can be very benneficial. I know that some of you are gonna be pissed about that last statement, but oh well.

Some people thought the macarena was the coolest thing in the world, I thought it made people look stupid. Am I right? I don't care. That's just how I see it.

:twisted: I think SageMagnus is a bit of a BSer. If he could alter reality at will why would he need the files. :twisted:

:lol: When I was a young Kitten Jerm , I thought Mind Altering substances would help me to become a better hunter....
They didnt of course..
And now I am an older wise Pussycat I see the error of my ways,
But still I enjoyed myself experimenting!!

*
I wansn't saying they make you stupid.

All I am saying that it is very hard to write generally, hard enough to read.
Let alone understand the very confusing concept of time. :?

[quote="loony28'] :twisted: Well the guy could have been crazy I'll admit that. I happen to believe that the moon landings were faked. Some of the photos just could not be real with what they said they had. For instance they claim that the only source of light was the sun but if you look at one picture of the lunar lander with one of the astronaughts in front of it, you will notice that the lander casts a shadow towards the camera that should of covered the astronaught making him dimmer but he is clearly visible like he would be with a light shining on him. Look through the pictures and you will see that shadows cast by rocks intersect as they would with more than one light source. Also how could they get the images centered when the cameras were mounted on their suits? Think about those for a while. :twisted:[/quote]

Space nerd that I am, I've spent a lot of time looking at those photos, ever since I was a kid, but I've yet to see a moon photo with anything that would convince me it was faked. Shadows in a two-dimensional photograph don't always behave the way we think they should when there's uneven terrain involved. Sunlight is reflected off the moon's surface at the astronauts' feet, and also off the Earth shining above them, illuminating areas we might otherwise assume should be in darkness. Slightly off-center photographs are corrected all the time simply by cropping the image.

A lot of my "off-time" over the last few years has been spent working on a couple of way-too-low-budget independent films, and I can tell you first-hand that shadows and lighting do things we just don't always expect. National Geographic did a great documentary about all these issues not too long ago, and there are plenty of websites with the same information. I'm firmly in the "We Landed On The Moon" camp (and even more so since I've had to deal with lighting film myself).

I doubt I'll convince you, I know, but just make sure you don't say this in front of Buzz Aldrin. He might take a swing at you, like he did Bart Sibrel a couple of years ago... :wink:

loony28, whether or not the Moon landings were faked, there are some great "space walk" photos from the mid-1960s. The US pics showed the astronaut against an inky black, crystal-clear background. Razor sharp edges to the flight suit and the orbiting craft.

It was a shame that the Soviets released their pictures first. So many details to remember...or overlook. Their photos were cloudy, the backgrounds were off-white, and there was an unexplained bright light to the left of center in one or more of the prints. US scientists studied the pictures long and hard. Too much education is a dangerous thing. The answer was too easy.

Taken in a swimming pool. With a camera, complete with flashbulb, in a (more or less) watertight container.

Even in the days of perestroika, nobody found out how many rolls of film were wasted by aiming the camera (and flash) directly at the aqua-cosmonaut. The reflection of the flash against the water completely obscured the Soviet 'naut. Apparently, the photographers finally aimed the camera slightly to the left and then, as morrcomm suggests, cropped the prints.

:twisted: Ok I'll bite that the pictures could of been cropped but there are other things that lead me to believe the moon landings were faked. If there was reflected light from earth then there would of been two shadows from the same object. When the lander was supposedly landing on the moon, you clearly heard the astronaughts but no engine noise. The guys at NASA supposedly etched crosses into the camera lenses, but if you look closely you will see at least one picture were part of a cross or crosses are covered up by objects. How can that happen if they were etched into the lenses? :twisted:

You would be able to hear the astronauts because they were speaking to noises inside their helmets. You wouldn't be able to hear the ship because sound doesn't travel in space and as far as I'm aware, the moon has no atmosphere.

dumb question, but if he can alter reality, why would he need to use the files in the first place???

Wow this is all so scary.

to the original topic: that crazy boy scares me. he reminds me of a friend of mine who used to argue that he was evolved from a fox, and that he watched his true love (a vixen) be shot in front of him.

so just play along with the crazy people i say.

AS TO the the Lunar Landing, i watched a documentary on the space channel that dealt with all kinds of conspiracy theories, and one of the major ones was, you guessed it, the lunar landing. it did make some compelling points, however.

The Kuiper Belt, which is a radiation belt (heavy heavy) radiation is between us and the moon. For the astronaughts to get through it, and back, without experiencing any kind of radiation (which fyi: those spacesuits + the spaceships...well if they were built with the materials the government says they were built with), is nearly impossible. unless they're wolverine...or maybe Superman (remember when he flew all that garbage and those guns into the sun? and he wasn't wearing a space suit? duuude sweet).

That was the major compelling point. And then they had a Russian astronaught (from the first Russian space flight ever attempted I believe) who argued that the ease with which the American's claimed to have gotten to the moon is nearly impossible! And he went on to explain it, but this was years ago and I've never seen it since.

Whether it was real or not...well it doesn't really matter too much to me. Space travel is really pretty nifty, so I'll thank you to leave me alone with my Heinlein et all.

Great conspiracy type book to check out though: 1984 by George Orwell. I love that book, it made me experience SO many emotions.

Isadora, it's interesting to see the spelling "astronaught" to describe the space programs' participants from the US and the Soviet Union--especially in light of the direction this thread has taken.

With the claims and counterclaims about travel to the moon, this is an appropriate (mis)spelling. "Naught" means: nothing, cipher, zero. "Naut" comes from the Greek word for sailor. If/if the guys went nowhere, then "astronaught" would beat "astronaut" any day.

That, of course, leaves open the question what happened in the summer of 1969 when the moon landing is reported to have taken place.

As for the comments from the Soviet "cosmonaught" (who was probably Khrushchev's and Brezhnev's poster child, Yuri Gagarin), take them with a grain of salt. If his interview was made between 1969 and 1985, he was..er...wise to say exactly what he reputedly said. Solzhenitsyn, Sharansky, and Bonner reported that it got very cold after speaking one's true opinions and, even worse, facts that disagreed with the received wisdom.