I am always right.
It’s this superhuman thing I have. I’m always right. I can’t think of a single time in the Exaulted History of Me when I was wrong. Never. Isn’t that incredible? Wow. I’m so totally tripping out on this.
So I think, now that I’ve discovered this, I’ll make me an axiom:
1) I am always right.
2) If you agree with me, you are right.
3) You are always right if you always agree with me.
4) If you don’t agree with me, you are wrong.
5) If you always disagree with me, you are wrong.
So simple, yet so beautiful. Also, I’d like to remind you that if you think I’m not right about always being right, according to my axiom, you are wrong. And since I’m always right, my axiom must therefore also be right, so you might want to re-consider that. Yeah, you heard me. Yeah, you, I saw you there. Reconsider, and you might be right.
![[caedmonscall.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/ccneticon.jpg "The quasi-official fan site of Caedmon’s Call.")
![[derekwebb.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/dwneticon.jpg "The official fan site of Derek Webb.")
![[rmfo-blogs.com]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/rmfoblog.png "About the [rmfo-blogs] service.")
We bow down to you o great one.
Is it hard being so perfect? I only wish… ye for my DEATH.
January 5th, 2005 at 11:16 amenjoy your bliss!
January 5th, 2005 at 7:16 pmSomething seems to be terribly wrong. I AM THE ONE WHO´S ALWAYS RIGHT and I DON´T AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAY IN YOUR POST, therefore YOU ARE WRONG.
January 10th, 2005 at 3:41 amThe only problem with this is that you violated axiom #4, meaning eve if you think you’re always right, you can’t possibly be, since you disagree with me as you said. Thus, disagreeing with me, even when disagreeing with my axioms, means you’re wrong, just like the axioms say.
Also: duuuuuuuuude.
January 10th, 2005 at 10:46 amI’m merely observing that your ‘axiom’ is not even a genuine axiom, or even a syllogism….
Anyways, if you are able to make such a statement, why can another person with ’superhuman’ elements not make the same statement as you, thus making you both wrong.
shan.
January 10th, 2005 at 11:02 amI would accept your critique of my axiom as neither axiom nor syllogism, if it weren’t for the fact that I’m always correct. Due to this fact, the axiom is indeed an axiom, and a syllogism, and the fact that you disagree with me proves that you’re wrong: consider the axiom, and you will see why.
January 10th, 2005 at 1:07 pmu evr get bored of being an a$$hole?
January 10th, 2005 at 2:29 pmI mean that in the most meaningful manor.
I’d just like to know one thing.
Where’s the proof that you’re EVER right - let alone always?
January 10th, 2005 at 2:36 pmYou assume that I need to prove that I’m always right. I, however, do not. Watch.
1. I am always right.
2. Thus, I can posit it as an axiom:
3. Axiom: I am always right.
4. If you doubt that I’m always right, refer to the axiom.
5. If you doubt the axiom, refer to the fact that I am always right.
6. Congratulations, now that you’ve seen the light, you might want to lighten up. For instance, lose about fourteen pounds. Exercise more. Practice smiling. Envision puppies and flowers. Think of things that make you happy that don’t involve hurting other humans and assorted insects. Get some extra sleep tonight.
Also, you can 7. Say asshole without the dollar signs. No one’s going to tell your mom.
January 10th, 2005 at 4:38 pmnope. he doesn’t ever get sick of it. it’s good cause it’s rather amusing from time to time :D
T’was wondering, according to what standard are you always right? How to you define right? And how would you respond to the question: have you ever considered if a higher being than you exists above you? Higher as in much more psychologically, spiritually, socially, logically, ethically, and morally, (and many more “ally’s”) developed with a greater realization and control of these things existentially, as well as over other people, including you?
merely trying to grasp the concept of your ‘axiom/syllogism’
shan
January 10th, 2005 at 4:42 pmHere’s a better question: “Why do I need a standard of right if I am always right?” If I’m always right, I’m the standard.
However, I never claimed to be perfect in any way. I’m not particularly psychologically better than the next guy, except for the axiom that I’m always right. I didn’t even claim that everything I do is always right; I’m just always right, according to the axiom. Did you read it? Read it again. What does it say? If you said “Dax is always right”, then congratulations, you are right, because that’s what it say. Also because you agree with me, though that’s a secondary issue. The axiom is prime.
Because I’m not perfect, but always right, I can say with confidence that there is a Higher Power, one that is always right and perfect. And you can agree with confidence this HP exists, because (as you know by now) the axiom states that I’m always right.
My, this is fun.
January 10th, 2005 at 4:54 pmThere is something desperately wrong with a person who refuses to be wrong-winning is a need. The one who wants to be right is willing to be critically analytical and learn from their experiences and opportunities-their need is to find the right answer despite their personal opinions…
shan
January 10th, 2005 at 5:04 pmThe problem is your analysis is that I don’t need to win. “Winning” is merely a side-effect of always being right, and if you were always right (you could accomplish this by agreeing with me), you would understand that on such a plane, winning is robbed of all meaning. It’s like breathing.
You have to understand that these are not my personal opinions. They are facts. They are facts because the axiom states that I’m always right. I don’t need to be critical of my own experiences, because my innate rightness bypasses the need for self-criticism. I’m always right about myself, my experience, and my opportunities.
I once again invite you to read the axiom and my stunning locution of it.
January 10th, 2005 at 5:16 pmLOL.
2 things… :
1.) whoever called dax an “a$$hole”: calm down. dax is obviously bullshitting. and i thought it was a rather brilliant bullshit. as in, a well-rounded, healthy, steaming pile. dax may indeed be an asshole, but whether dax is or is not an asshole on a regular basis is a discussion that has no place in a fun-loving post as this. go wash out your mouth with soap. or maybe with some of those cow pies.
2.) shan: i cannot believe you fell into dax’s trap. from the get-go, is it not obvious that this axiom is yes, obviously false b/c it is not based in reality, but is impenetrable? you cannot take it apart b/c he is using preconceived notions and not willing to think outside the box OF those notions. and he makes it BLEEDINGLY obvious by CONSTRUCTING that box in plain view — even ADVERTISING the fact. it’s much like many nonChristians who won’t listen to Christian ideas and many Christians who won’t listen to ANY ideas.
what a sad world we inhabit, dax. it’s a good thing we istari-types are here to give some guidance to the masses.
oops, i was just an aZZhole (…no S’s!!)
::K::
January 18th, 2005 at 6:43 am