16 thoughts on “The Puppy Work Stoppage”

  1. This is very interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
    I have joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more
    of your wonderful post. Also, I’ve shared your site in my
    social networks!

  3. To J. Brian Harris–Me thinks you think in too many words!! Like any good lawyer, , the puppy thoughts are, “I rest my case.”

  4. lol awww he’s just taking a breather before starting up a new search for some trees thats all

  6. In every great leader’s life, there comes a moment when he declares “I shall not yield.”

    In this case, I don’t think the “leader” has a chance. His follower is laying down on the job. Looks like he’s pretty serious about it, too.

  9. Oro…. Feel free to post as many as you wish….. I was thinking the same thing…..

  10. I apologize for my previous post—it was crude and uncalled for. I was taken by surprise and offended by the first comment – an off-topic, gratuitous, sophomoric jab at the President while expecting a bunch of “oh, how cute” puppy love. Coming from a dysfunctional background where it was kill or be killed, I responded in kind.

    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa ultima.

    BTW, does Word Press have an app which blocks comments by certain posters?

  11. I call a game misconduct penalty for inserting politics into a puppy thread. Get some help, life is not all about partisan politics.

  12. Acyually, SA, I think the puppy is mimmicking a typical Republican Congressman — screw the sidewalk, only poor people use them

  13. A Valentine’s Day Present to the Turley Blog:

    I am gratified to see a picture of one of my research colleagues here; if, that is, I accurately understand what that puppy is declaring.

    My best guess so far, is simply that the puppy is refuting the Thomas Theorem.

    In my view, The Thomas Theorem (so named for sociologist William Isaacs Thomas) is, as I find it in several Internet sites:

    “It is not important whether or not the interpretation is correct– if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.”

    I offer a theoretical biology and bioengineering based upgrade to The Thomas Theorem, sadly wordy so far, to wit:

    “It is vitally important whether or not an interpretation is correct; for sufficiently incorrect and/or mistaken interpretations create proclivities for catastrophic societal disasters when acted upon as though the incorrect and/or mistaken interpretations are correct and unmistaken. Mistakenly believing that it is not important that interpretations be correct may be at, or close to, the most important of anomic interpretations extant.”

    I have long been painfully aware of the legal hypothetical of avoidable accidents, mistakes, and/or violations of law. Alas, I am not an attorney-at-law, nor am I a sociologist; nonetheless, I am exposed to the work of attorneys-at-law, and I am exposed to the work of sociologists. Alas, I am licensed as a Wisconsin Professional Engineer whose research focus is centered on tangible (not merely hypothetical) aspects of the structure of human society from the perspective of tangibly real public safety.

    Why do I find that puppy to be a research colleague? Because that puppy, much like me, has not learned to “think in words” with sufficient acumen as to be actually capable of equivalencing intangible hypothetical notions with tangibly measurable, hence actually and demonstrably real, observations.

    For the whole of my life as I am able to remember it, I have never observed any event of any sort which, having actually happened, could actually have been avoided through any actually achievable process. After living surrounded by human society and its falsifiable-because-of-incorrect-interpretation hypotheticals, I found myself able, at the age of 58 years, to write and defend a bioengineering doctoral thesis and dissertation which contains a null-hypothesis/alternate-hypothesis demonstration as to how and why avoidable events of all forms and functions are inescapably avoided, such that the only events which ever actually occur are those which, in the actual context of their happening, were actually unavoidable.

    Until someone scientifically demonstrates the actual happening of an actually avoidable event, which actual demonstrating I have come to regard as actually an absolute and eternal existential impossibility, much akin to that puppy, I shall unrelentingly reject what I find to be the basis premise of adversarial law and jurisprudence, said basis premise being, for me, the notion that actually avoidable events actually happen.

    My doctoral dissertation has been available on the Internet with a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License for more than a year, on the Indigo web site of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and had been downloaded more than 400 times when I last checked. Surely someone, on the Turley Blog or elsewhere would have had the courage to demonstrate that my thesis/dissertation is significantly in error?

    In my view, the philosophical/existential/biological question of whether life is, or is not, adversarial, is of such importance to the future of life itself that knowing accurately, and understanding accurately, whether adversarial interpretations of life are correct or not correct, is of such immensity of significance that the destruction of millions upon millions of human and other lives is a trivial cost when contrasted with the eventual cost of never learning whether or not life is inherently adversarial.

    Is it possible for any actually adversarial process to elude eventually becoming so adversarial to itself that it effectively commits a form of procedural altruistic suicide to escape from its adverse regard of itrself?

    There is a simple remedy to adversarial interpretation of life; that interpretation method is removing from interpretation of life events every form of interpretation which denies the necessity and sufficiency of every aspect of every life event.

    The alternative to life event interpretation based upon adversarial law and jurisprudence is temporally truthful life event interpretation. Perhaps rather akin to that puppy, I was fully capable of living without time confusion and time corrupted leaning when I was born, and have remained fully capable of living without time confusion and time corrupted learning ever since being born.

    A practical and practicable alternative to adversarial law and jurisprudence not only exists, it has been rigorously tested throughout my entire life without ever showing the slightest hint of inadequacy which I have been able to observe.

    How to I know this? How am I familiar with this? How do I understand this? By actually living it for my whole life;.

    While I do not welcome bullying and coercion, I do welcome a scientific demonstration of one actual event which actually happened which was actually avoidable when it happened, meaning that it did not actually happen (which would be the tangible proof of its being actually avoidable when it was actually not avoided, if such proof were attainable) when it actually happened.

    The existential basis of the adversarial system of law and jurisprudence is deception. Deception is a sign, in the biosemiotic sense, of an interpretation that is mistaken.

    I find that a person who is deceived cannot be consciously aware of being deceived, this being the simple consequence of being consciously aware of being deceived being contiguously identical to being not deceived.

    Please provide a tangible demonstration that refutes the above bioengineering research finding(s), if such tangible demonstration is actually possible.

  16. The dog’s nick name is ‘Barack’……. and then he totally collapsed, do to lack of a spine…

Comments are closed.