Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Are you adequate?
No, of course not. 7%
Why, yes. 14%
I should think so. 21%
I'm not sure. 0%
Can you repeat the question? 7%
I'm sorry, I didn't hear you because my ego was in the way. 7%
No one is adequate. 14%
Adequacy is for those who care about appearances. 14%
Stop that, I get to ask the questions here. 7%
Other 7%

Votes: 14

 I'm so inadequate.

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Nov 30, 2001
Gosh. Gee. Golly (Translated from the cursing in order to not offend the more conservative members here) I'm not adequate

More diaries by Hagbard Celine
Back to School...
I am the secular humanist media conspiracy!
I am inadquate. I guess I should have seen this coming.

I'm not a right-winger or a Christian, so therefore I'm inadequate. I like logic, therefore I am inadequate. It makes me cry. SobPerhaps I should write a diary about how I'm leaving like Sylvester Q. But nope.


Even if nothing I post is funny, I will stay.

Even if tkatchev makes fun of me, I will stay.

Even if all my comments are rated 0, I will stay

Even if the editors decide that all my posts must be deleted due to my inadequacy, I will stay.

I will persevere, because I'm so emotionally attached to all of you.

Maybe someday I can be adequate.


Perseverance. (none / 0) (#1)
by tkatchev on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 01:54:43 PM PST
You are not a walking meatball. You are not an animal. You are human, which means that you have a soul.

Please think about this; I'm not making fun of you, just sincerely hoping to set a little spark.

(I know, I shouldn't be too pretentious. That is a sin, as well...)

Peace and much love...

maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#4)
by alprazolam on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:13:22 PM PST
You are human, which means that you have a soul.

Or, maybe he's merely the result of millions of nervous cells reacting to chemicals. Either way, it's not worth worrying about.

This whole soul thing...? (none / 0) (#6)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:19:36 PM PST
So you say I have a soul. I wouldn't say that because that's an inherently loaded word for me.

That's not to say that I don't agree with the basic concept.

That is, who I am is something than you can intellectually separate from my physical existance.

Maybe I'm not sparking the way you want.

Perhaps you're referring to the uniqueness of my existance in that my state of being human is special as compared to that of other animals.

I'm not a walking meatball. However, I am an animal. I just happen to be a domesicated primate. Laugh at evolution all you want...some of it was wrong, but the basic premise was right. IMO of course. I'm not trying to convert you, it's just that I disagree. I can respect those who have deep held religious beliefs and live by them.

If there was A.I. would it have a soul?

AI? (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:53:46 PM PST
Another appeal to science-fiction. It's usually considered de rigueur in situations like this, to post an entire short work of fiction to illustrate your point . Either way, it's nonsense. If pixies and gnomes existed would they have souls? Who cares? They don't exist, and they never will.

au contraire (none / 0) (#9)
by kingbilly on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 09:46:29 AM PST
"pixie", is, of course, merely a corruption of the word "pict".

Picts were the aborginal people in the LORD's chosen lands (Ulster and Scotland). They were subjected to a bloodthirsty campaign of genocide by a bunch of murderous paganists, who today call themselves "Roman Catholics".

These "pixies" (and their bretheren, the "dannan") were driven from their homes by homicidal maniacs like St. Patrick. For the next thousand years, a few surviving families clung on to their way of life in the hills, but still faced great persecution from the idolatrous red-socked paganists. As a result they suffered terribly from malnutrition, which is why historians such as Shakespeare depcited them as being small and rather spindly.

It is thus conclusively proved that pixies, being poor, persecuted ulstermen, do have souls, and it is instead the pope of rome who is the true soulless monster.

@==========@ ~~irish out!~~ @==========@

Brilliance! (none / 0) (#10)
by chloedancer on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 03:36:59 PM PST
Maybe I'm not sparking the way you want.

That's perhaps the finest one-sentence summary of the whole of human relational dissonance conundrum I've ever encountered. While it might not have been received/interpreted in the context you'd prefer, it does have an inherent value, nonetheless. Perhaps you're further along in your quest for adequacy than you've perceived.

Yes it could have a soul. (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Dec 3rd, 2001 at 12:54:38 PM PST
It depends what you define AI as. It is 100% theoretically possible to create a robotic mouse which behaves exactly the same as a real mouse - indistinguishable. You may argue that the robotic mouse is programmed and doesnt have a soul but if it is indistinguishable from the real one then how can we know that the real mouse isnt programmed and has no soul?
The same is true of humans. All basic emotions and thoughts can be derived from the basic survival instinct and developed with the social
order we live under and also developed with the ability of learning. An artificial human intelligence would therefore be indistinguishable from humans. Arguing that it has no soul would be pointless because if it behaves and understands exactly the same as us but has no soul then why are we so sure that we have souls? To argue otherwise is like trying to argue that only you have a soul and everyone else doesnt because they are robots.

On a note though - a bad mistake people make is to believe that an AI is totally programmed by someone. Noone would program it what to say and how to react to situations or what its favorite color was or suchlike. Its only programming would be the basic core of its 'brain' - how to process data and store information and make comparisons, much like our brain is already programmed to do at birth. Any abilities such as language and characteristics would then be learnt or developed by the AI during its lifetime.

Stop claiming to be me! (none / 0) (#2)
by Inadequate on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:07:40 PM PST
I am me, not you. We both can't be me, and since I know I am, you must not be. Do you see me posting diary entries stating "I am Hagbard Celine"? No, and I expect the same from you. Thanks.
I am inadequate.

My sincerest apologies. (none / 0) (#3)
by Hagbard Celine on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:11:06 PM PST
I had no idea you existed or I would have put (adjective) after all of the inadequates in my diary. Please take no offense. I am not stealing your identity and I don't even have those credit cards you lost.

Go ahead, hang in there/here. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Moonshadow76 on Fri Nov 30th, 2001 at 02:16:49 PM PST
First, thanks for not swearing so as not to offend my sensibilities. I'm half teasing, as I've read quite a bit of "blue" language at this site so far and I'm still here. But actually, I personally don't swear. At all. And my friends think that's really funny. It's just one of my quirks.

A for deciding you are automatically "not adequate" because you are not right-wing or Christian, I don't think those would work to count you out of the running. From what I read SOMEWHERE here where I stumbled into stuff about the editors, there seems to be a wide range of people "in charge" here. They mentioned there is a Mormon (I'm ex-Mormon), a Scientologist, and I think a Satanist, I vaguely got the impression somewhere there are Wiccans and maybe other Pagans here too and not just "mainstream" Christians. People have yelled calling each other all SORTS of things, too conservative, too liberal, whatever they have personally taken sides against.

Because I'm so new here I still haven't figured out how to rate someone's posts, or even if I have that function available to me, but if someone tells me how, and you post something I think is a good quality post, I'll rate it.

No, WE are the Secular Humanist Conspiracy ! (none / 0) (#8)
by Inden on Sat Dec 1st, 2001 at 01:46:54 AM PST
Solidarity among the persecuted minority of gentle adequacy political outcasts my brother! To persevere here is its own reward innasense.

We were betrayed by Clinton's phoniness but we need not stab each other in the back. The game is to bully us until we cry, provoke us into slipping up and then to pounce like the Social Darwinists "they" are, to shake our conviction, if they can, in who we are and what we believe.

"They" (now a registered trademark of Generic Political Rhetoric Inc., a proud member of the Hegemon Fund's international family of intellectual property holding companies) learned this game, most likely, from having it done to them in their bleak humorless lives of puritanical dedication to

On the playground of adequacy, we are the picked upon nerd boys. We are their Christ figures as they re-enact the roles of Pontius Pilatus (and is there a Judas among "them"! Are you Jewish too like me by sheer random chance of irony?


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to