WhereWasI walks down the street, sets up a podium out of milk crates, begins hitting his wrench off of the nearby street post, and then clears his throat.

"My fellow mafioso, and those of you who don't understand but still where the attire, I come here today to open a discussion on people who rehash the same old thing in old topics. Discussing old topics is important for the younger bloodlines, in my eyes, and a lack of it would lead me to think that it must be difficult to go through this thing of ours without any journals. After analyzing a few journal entries on speeches and speakers surrounding such topics I agree with the issue brought forward and believe something caused by the men who simply seem to rehash what others have said that has killed these conversations. A type of man who simply follows the system in front of him without question, and never seems to answer the question of 'Why?' very well. With full knowledge of some of these subjects, I was honestly left confused to whether or not the responder knew anything of the subject at all and I think I actually lost some of my knowledge of the subject from merely reading about their words and the fact those words took up space in my brain that could've been better used as memory of being struck in the face, despite the fact some of the words looked familiar from other topics I had researched. I will not discuss which speakers or discussions because these are statements no longer relevant to many of these bloodlines and I'd hate to possibly disservice someone for something an ancestor from long ago did."

"The type of comment made by these people repeating the words of others seems to be centered around what has been done historically rather than actually answering the question of 'Why?'. This is not an answer to why, this is an answer to 'what have others done in the past?' and that has almost never been the question of the inquirer. When presented with the question, sometimes a generalized answer came about, but when asked 'Why?' again on the subject almost no one seemed to have an answer to why someone thought the way that they did about the subject. As if the reasoning had no answer, when clearly it has to because the reason was developed by thought, otherwise it wouldn't exist in a way for these louts to rehash over and over again."

"I believe a blind trust of the system is what's killing these conversations and I start by showing such trust has betrayed humanity in the past, is currently betraying some of you, and is incapable of anything intentionally positive."

"There used to be a belief that the world around you was flat. It is now believed to be round. How many of you know how to prove this without using the words of another or a picture produced by another? I will use the works of the men before me to show you the proper way to analyze this phenomenon."

"The proper method of proof is using geometry, take a piece of paper and produce a right triangle on this and imagine one of the points, not the right angle, is the top of a mountain, and the other that isn't by the right angle is your perspective. Unless something is blocking your path, you should always be able to see the top of the mountain. If something is, and it's shorter than the mountain, you should be able to back up and eventually see the top of the mountain. That doesn't happen though, the farther you get from the mountain the lower the mountain appears. The only way that's possible is if you're changing the angle you're looking, but you're still looking straight ahead. Therefor, you must be standing on a surface that isn't flat."

"Now I'll apply the use of another man's thoughts to another topic, those who think I'm an idiot. Ask them which line or thought of mine is stupid. I have, and no one has presented a single piece they just keep using the word. Now I challenge any of you who've read this far and believe it to find a piece that makes me stupid in any of my comments produced anywhere. I stand by every comment I've made."

"For those of you who're capable of reading past that little challenge, I thank you for at the very least assuming I'm not an idiot regardless of whether it's based on this or other material. It will likely get me a few off color comments, but I welcome them because it'll give me an opportunity to show that even when one is searching for a comment of that nature, I'm still capable of defending the thoughts behind it. I am a man, not a beast, therefor I think. I do more than simply respond to natural urges, my kind have mastered fire and the oceans."

"Finally I must discuss the lack of thinking behind simply plugging in an old answer. Each and every problem man can come across has a set of variables that should make it unique. Each and every answer is based off of certain variables, though many answers render most variables unnecessary for consideration. The difference in circumstances, or variables, in each problem means that there will be different correct answers for different problems. So when you apply an answer that was brilliant for another problem; it plausibly be equally brilliant, have a lesser value, or be catastrophically wrong for that individual problem. It is not plausible, even though it's possible, for that answer to fit another situation better. That doesn't mean the thinking behind it can't be reapplied, it simply means that for new problems you may have to apply it in a new way."

"I will demonstrate this with the understanding of how a toaster works. Some will tell you that one needs to know about making a toaster work is knowing to put bread in, pull the spring back and wait for it to heat the bread to a point where it is toasted. This isn't why the bread is toasted, this is how a toaster is operated. A toaster uses the concept of converting electrical energy into heat. Certain metals don't allow electricity to pass through them very easily and this causes the electrons passing through to slow down. The reduced energy is then converted into heat, because energy doesn't simply go out of exist, it just changes form. This excess heat is used to toast your bread. Now if I ask you to heat a small shack would you have an idea of how to solve this problem with knowledge from how to use the toaster, or how the toaster actually works? It's done often through the same process of converting energy to heat, and many space heaters use the process of slowing electrons through metals in combination with burning fuel. Good luck to the man who only knows how to work a toaster on heating that building, I'm sure his knowledge of turning the toaster on will give him some results, just not the results required for real success."

"My suggestion on how to improve these threads is to disarm those who would destroy the community and themselves by just rehashing the same old lines without knowledge of why they were designed. The answer on how to remove them is to think, and only accept answers of reason not history. Similar to how the toaster works, there may eventually be a change in the community that causes the issue to bear almost none of the same principles that it did before. The best thing you can do is analyze the issue and try to understand the logic behind it, then explain or discuss it stating your assumptions of why it is currently done and what might be different from back when the policy was first thought of. This way you have a well thought out answer and you know your reason for participation. Your intentions will obviously be to discuss or teach something on the subject when someone asks questions, whereas the other will simply state historical appearances in place of the answer to the question 'why?'. Using historical references without thinking of the reasoning is simply following the old system without thinking, and questions will make it apparent that they made their decisions without thought or understanding on the subject."

"I must warn you that this method has caused many to lash out me, so they may do the same to you despite the fact you're simply asking a question to better understand their reasons for their decisions. I personally choose to strike back, but I advise against that because it sends the wrong type of message and I genuinely hope that one day I will be able to practice true indifference in the face of such attacks as they are attacks from a being choosing not to think, a creature I personally deem not human, but I also doubt I ever will."

WhereWasI tips his hat to Myrddin,

"Thank you for the topic, I hope I've given you something from my take on the problem and I look forward to any questions or disagreements from my logic."

(OOC: I've already noticed one glaring grammatical mistake, but decided to go with my thoughts as is without editing to preserve the raw concepts behind them. I apologize to any of you that this may disturb, but it is a process I have great faith in.)

I'm just letting you know that I lost interest and that I'm going back to kicking your ass all over the Streets on my terms.

Jesus, that is soooooooo boring!

"It's okay Kuklinski, big words and thoughts are tough. I wouldn't expect you to understand the topics at hand and present a legitimate response. Go with the classics, petty insults without any backing."

I have now thoroughly read this extended piece of prose and I have the following review:

This is a piece of ass, written by Mr Ass.  This is following an assessment of WhereWasI.  He's an Ass and a Mean T.

"Yes that's exactly what I was going for when dissecting the issue of why older topics aren't brought up as often because old answers are being rehashed. Thank you for noticing. Now take your sorry dodging to the proper discussion, no need to dodge debating me in every thread in the streets."

OK, Mr Ass.  Still, least someone other than yourself mentioned your sad little opus.

"Privately I've had 6 others approach me on the subject, though I won't provide who because I have a feeling you'd harass them. Unlike you I don't need public attention, if I can teach even one mind even one thing it made the whole discussion worth it."

You probably should thank Morrissey... He gave this speech a little kindling when no one else was. The title was upset me and made me didn't want to read it. Immolation of thought... the concept in that... I think some heavy drugs or a lobotomy would be a bit more precise. 

"The title fits what I wrote because people who blindly follow a system sacrifice their ability to think on a subject more and more over time by blindly trusting it. I don't believe I could possibly think of a better title for what that process is, and I'm sorry if others can't stomach a metaphoric title but I chose it for a reason."

Well, of course, it was supposed to be a metaphorical title... It just was a turn off to me... Maybe "Self-Immolation of Thought" would've been better... Not just "Immolation" on its own but... that still wasn't a thank you to Morrissey. 

"I'm not going to thank the clown for attention I didn't want. If a listener passed on a discussion because of a title they're probably not very open to ideas of that nature anyways and that means they weren't my selected audience."

I took drugs tonight, I can confirm it was NOWHERE near as good as reading SIoT.