Spood and Co.:

But let me rebuke. Allow me a moment.

There's a figurative pause here, for effect. It's not to be taken as any sort of indication of failure or weakness; likewise it's not an excuse for you to get up to take a piss or get that can of chips you were thinking about or to drive out to the coast to see a little bit of the way the water looks when the sun's getting this kind of attention from the press. This is a figurative pause with dramatic intent, and so is for my purposes only, not yours. Do not tread dangerously down this embankment, it turns into an abuttment, and then abruptly falls away into a stinking hole. You don't want to go there.

Pause accomplished. The tendancy of the group dynamic to change in a downward trending slope is obvious, if overstated. When viewed from a vantage point outside the scope of the project, (i.e. the way the general public might see it,) the overall direction of the data points is chaotic at best. Somewhere, you'll remember, there's a data point, a single, solitary data point, that represents the beginning of the work about which we're speaking. The thing you have to remember; the thing that you ignore at your own peril, is that that data point lies OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. We, and the theoretical outside spectator, does not know where that data point is. The very definition of our endeavor guarantees the validity of that statement. There is a single data point that can represent the beginning of the arc of the thing, but that point lies beyond the y-axis.

It could also be beyond the x-axis. Though that's absurd to even consider at first glance, it's also quite possible. The existence of a time that falls before the beginning of time is mathematically viable.

Given then that the trendlines here are difficult to comprehend when seen from any perspective, and given that we are of course human and so, quite excusably, we look at the thing from as close to it as we are, it is understandable that we'd have taken a view of the thing which is counter to its actual dimensions. From the perspective of N members of the set, where all of those N members occupy point (a, b) on the graph, (that point being a representation of this particular missive, here, and of course being within poking distance of the point or points at time X - 1, and probably within poking distance also of the point or points at time X + 1), the outlook for the subsequent direction of the project looks very grim indeed. From the proximity of this point at time X, datapoints come further and further apart.

Of course there's no logic to following this pattern to the conclusion to which you're following it. As you stated, we didn't know the parameters of this thing when we got into it. We didn't even consider, ridiculously enough, the possible repercussions of any slight changes in the physical environments of the members. We did not in fact include in the definition of the thing any concrete explanation of who even constitutes a member. Or of what a member is constituted. It is therefore not beyond question that a member could be made up entirely of unwashed table cloths.

Because we do not, to this day, have a finite working definition of the task, it is impossible for us to verify the validity of any conclusions drawn based on the previously mentioned graph, which is itself representative only of those points that fit the unclear definition we have put together based on no definition at all. We have generated this graph from whole-cloth. This graph is really a tool to use in showing outsiders what we do here. Inside, we've got no reason to trust that it means anything whatever.

This graph is a fucking whore.

I'm not arguing with you that the direction that you feel this enclave has been taking is disappointing. I'm not arguing that your interpretation is erroneous. What I am arguing is that you are possibly mistaken in attempting to make an interpretation at all.

So where we are in regards to this proposal, vis a vis the gentle fading of this great combination into the bald, faceless night, is nowhere. There are no conclusions to be drawn about any of this. There is no reason whatever to assume that changing someone's appointment calender bookback sandbucket heartmurmer salad spoon nut cracker spirit whistle plate spinner rod comb over board clipper address will do anything whatever to this dreadful ship someone isn't steering directly into anything at all other than to have done what it is already seeing seen to have being done already which is to introduce a point of discussion in opposite directions that are exactly like while wholly unlike any previous discussions held about any aspect of this very thing.

It's like I can see the back of my head right in front of my face.

If you've got any questions about this, I'll be standing here for the next minutes(X) + k minutes with my thumb in the spindle and my beverage firmly just out of reach. I'd be glad to continue.

- Helmset T. Emphaticallydenieseverything
Bundle, Bee

New Direction?

if thats the correct approach. Personally I have to say I'm so not sure thats the way we really want to go here. Lets not forget that these people have absolutely no idea whats going on, so to try and prompt them back into some kind of action is firstly contrary to the purpose of what we're doing, and secondly; its wearing the fabric of our anonymous and impartial position very thin. As far as they are concerned, I am just some guy who pops up once in a while, less so by the day admittedly, but I think they'd smell a rat the moment I tried to change tack and encourage something. I'm speaking from experience here, because you have to remember that I'm the one who's monitored this on a day to day basis when it was required. I have tried different tactics in the past, but it was to no avail, and thats why I'm reticent now. Also, this new proposal is far far bigger than anything I could ever have conceived of on my own. What is being discussed here is absolutely without precedence in this realm. Lets face it folks, the fucking realm is without precedence, so lets not forget how far out on a limb we already are with all this stuff. I find this proposition more than a little daunting. To my mind there are certain ethical issues to consider before we just start messing blindly on this level. I don't even agree with the big fees project, and I never liked the auto stuff either, despite its apparent effectiveness in jump starting some basic exchanges for a while. Ultimately we caused some distress and acheived no long term benefits. To repeat that kind of tactic knowing its futile would seem to me to be teetering on the sadistic.

What you have to understand is that for them, its not a case of growing tired of the parameters and the 'objectives', but a case of life seeming to change, and those changes seem to take them away from the interaction they once shared so regularly. These occasional blips of courtesy calling we have now are nothing more than ghost-like remnants of the old social group. I hesitate to go so far as to say they are motivated by a pang of what might be guilt... guilt for outgrowing the old 'gang''.. but thats what i think this is to a lesser extent, and that in my mind is not enough of a binding fabric to support our objectives here. I'm not saying we should abandon the whole thing, but i think we need to look elsewhere for the laboratory material. Also we need to learn from this failed attempt, and I think we will.

What we are experiencing here is something we didn't think to factor in at the beginning, and to me thats almost laughable... We didn't consider that we would possibly encounter a natural social stagnation that could undermine our plans. That alone should be the clearest indication of just how much we have also developed and changed as a group ourselves over the last couple of years. It seems ludicrous that we set out on this thing without ever once asking what would happen if circumstances brought about a change in their group dynamic. Doesn't that seem ludicrous to you?

So anyway, I digress. Whilst I agree that things have indeed stagnated to the point (and beyond it) of terminating this whole thing, I don't agree with trying to take steps to resucitate it, because that alters the parameters of the whole scenario. We'd be good as taking the fixing plates out of the scenery and praying it didn't get breezey down there. I personally never got into this to start playing with people on anything more than a psychological level as even that could be deemed as innapropriate.

That's my thought for the day. I realise I may be in the minority here, but I have to say how I honestly feel, and whilst I don't wish to pull rank, I am the one who has piloted this thing from the first.

All comments appreciated.

So Hell's Oh, again?

Spooky:

It's been a long time since we've talked. I mean really talked.

It's also been a long time since we've posted anything here. i mean really posted anything here. According to some numbers I don't understand the meaning of, it's been since the pre-dawn of history era.

The doctors say everything's going to be fine, so long as we don't pick at it.