Random Poll

[Online Brewing Supplies]

It often makes me wonder with this type of question if the OP really knows his **** or is just wasting my time ??
I also found the question to be quite leading, have you studied politics Kev ??
Nev

 

[Lord Raja Goomba I]

It often makes me wonder with this type of question if the OP really knows his **** or is just wasting my time ??
I also found the question to be quite leading, have you studied politics Kev ??
Nev

In which the only possible response isn't "yes" or "no", but "I'll have to consult with my advisors".

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

i vote equal

 

[warra48]

Did I go to golf today? YES
DId I get a good score? NO

 

[hellbent]

I just spent 5 mins reading all the comments on this topic without having the foggiest whats been voted on!
Strange things emerge from Queensland and the locals .......maybe this is one of em... so on that account I will vote.....
yes yes yes no!!

 

[TidalPete]

Eight-in-a row ------ Yes! yes! yes!

 

[krausenhaus]

SEVENTY PERCENT???

I move to start a new website where all you backward 'yes'-types aren't welcome, and myself and my progressive 'no'-voting brethren can mingle in peace without opression by the yessist majority.

WHO'S WITH ME

 

[Dread]

I know EXACTLY what I was voting on ! That's why I voted yes , totally unreservedly & unconditonally . I'm proud to be a brewer & part of the unreserved 70% who voted yay instead of nay which lesser mortals may have chosen to do, being inferior of course they would not have seen the error in their mindset causing to make such a drastically incorrect choice. Nay sayers hang your heads & nads in shame!

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Can we at least have a maybe option

 

[dougsbrew]

i stayed awake last night thinking that i may have reacted to quickly and gone the yes vote without thinking of the reprocussions.
upon noticing the 'delete my vote' tab, i have decided to withdraw my yes vote and move over to the dark side..its now no for me..

 

[Rowy]

Can we at least have a maybe option

Maybe........

 

[MFleck]

I'm usually a glass half full kinda person, but the answer remains the same: "More beer!"

 

[TidalPete]

Maybe........

Perhaps?

 

[TasChris]

Where is Lecterfan with his clever word games. Surely he can clarify the complexities for us

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Perhaps?

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Will need to form a committee that of course would be impartial or imextract

 

[TidalPete]

Will need to form a committee that of course would be impartial or imextract

Perhaps but who knows??

 

[jyo]

Kev, can you guarantee us that these results won't end up on The Project being misconstrued and taken completely out of context at the end of some half-arsed news report about grizzly bears? If you can't, I am retracting my vote.

 

[manticle]

Where is Lecterfan with his clever word games. Surely he can clarify the complexities for us

If you think using the word 'sublime' in a sentence without mentioning Kant or Burke yet somehow eloquently dealing with the similarities between the two distinct ideas without once conflating them is remotely clever, then I suggest you vote 'No' and save Lecterfan, yourself and I the trouble by avoiding any Wittgensteinianesque rule-following paradox. Instead, perhaps postulate that a negative vote in all instances means something for all and nothing for none and thus the negativity itself is negated by an underlying, yet undeniable a priori positivity which, in fact suggests only 'yes' could be the answer.

Or Bollocks.

Where's the option for bollocks?

 

[iralosavic]

I think we lack the political, cultural and ethical maturity as a nation to put this issue before our leaders and I don't see the point in putting our own vote forward either way as we are only really a pseudo-democracy.

 

[ratchie]

No NO Never No NO NEVER NO MORE

 

[Lecterfan]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

 

[bum]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

That's ******.

 

[jyo]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

Reported.

 

[WarmBeer]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

TL;DR; Wearing a cowboy hat reroutes blood from the concise part of the frontal lobe.

 

[bum]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

I already responded to this.

 

[manticle]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

What is often forgotten by those who haven't read the lost Socratic Polemics volumes (in particular the section on proto-nihilism) is that the Zarathustrian archetype was, is and always will be, interested in the construct, both physical and metaphysical, of the shoe and its symbol of both progress and fuitlity - a dualism therefore created between the purposeful and the purposeless.

In a strange way, Zarathustra was destined to walk though the market looking for suitable shoes and yet knew they would never reveal themselves, thus revealing within himself a sense of hopelessness which conversely contains a futile hope - the ultimate nihilistic paradox.

Dichotomies are as futile and yet as necessary as the shoe and therefore your real answer can only ever be 'Yeah, nah".

 

[Yob]

Now look what you've gone and done… Still better than apathy I guess…

 

[manticle]

Well if you want to deconstruct the concept of ap...oh **** it.

 

[hellbent]

I would suggest that the answer is less important than the process of uncovering the presuppositions of the question (which, as I shall demonstrate below, is in turn less important than the processual ontological mechanisms at play), but in order to fulfil what I see as a genuine and essential obligation of each of us, I have answered no.

The obligation to participate and the very necessity of the question from the outset outweighs the consequences of the response. In much the same way that all processes require that which works to cease the process, both the yes and the no serve as visceral responses to the abgrund of non-questioning.

To question, in this instance, is to affirm, or to posit. In this affirmation lies the unconcealment of a more primordial truth, one that can not be articulated in terms of dichotomies, but must be represented at a meta level not just by the question, but by the process of questioning, and, as per above, the necessity of this process.

While it is largely true that the method of inquiry largely dictates the findings of such, this truly nihilistic form of inquiry, the very "interrogation of being" (Heidegger, Sein unt Zeit) itself - perhaps better re-framed as 'the question that asks only that one respond' - is reminiscent of the questioning of Zarathustra as he strides through the market place... The solipsism of non-questioning gives way to the affirmation of a totality. This totality brings one both despair and freedom, but again, highlights the necessity of the question. The question is all: it 'is' - the answer we give is unimportant, it only asks that we respond as such - the question is thus the unbearably heavy obligation of existence itself.

YMMV.

**** eh.... wish I had said that!