Theos-Talk Archives (April 1996 Message tl01304)

At 08:49 AM 4/28/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Alex,
>We disagree on the nature of an adept and clearly about Socrates.  The man
>was a bore.
>What saved his reputation was that his pupils were better than he was.
>Ghandi was less adept than lucky.  Any people of the time other than the
>British would have made quick work of him.  I remember being dragged to see
>that terrible movie by my girlfriend at the time and muttering to myself
>through the whole thing "Why is this man alive?"
>I'm afraid that do-gooders do not impress me.  I prefer do-badders.  They're
>more fun, especially for a historian.
>
>Chuck the Barbarian, MTI, FTSA, MG of 5
>Heretic
>Tourblemaker
>
>"Learn the rules, then break the rules." The Megalith of Dr. Mirabilis
>
>Actually Chuck, re; Socrates Morphantos, as I remeber him, he was a lot
like you, a Gad Fly with an evil sense of humor. He was anything but a bore,
and the people like our friends on this list considered him terribly evil.
(Just like you) Don't forget he was executed for "debauching and misleading
youths". I think it's time you gave me, chapter and verse, your definition
of an Adept. And by that I don't mean citations of others words, I'm neither
Daniel of Eldon. Adepts are impressive not because they are either
"do-gooders" or "do badders" but because they are impressive in and of
themselves, like Voltaire.

alexis the arrogant
the eclectic person
veritas vincit omnia
Member: Gang of Five

"THERE ARE NO RULES" - Alexis dolgorukii