The Archives - Sunnydale MU

Please peruse information archived from our research and events or return to Sunnydale MU Main screen

Our first piece in The Agora was submitted to us by famed psychic researcher & esoteric theorist Emeric Belasco. A man who I know needs no introduction, Dr. Belasco has some comments on our recent success in the Rosinante Project. If you have any comments or concerns, or would like to reply to Dr. Belasco, please do.

While no one doubts the tremendous merit of the Rosinante Project in both its scope and method,
there are, as with any project of this scope, questions that must inevitably arise. Specifically,
the conscientious celestial mechanician, no less importantly than the metaphysician,
must wonder at some of the assumed premises in the tacit argument provided by VanDriel,
the late Young, et. al. One need only examine the project leaders' relative dimensional
approach to temporal mechanics (i.e., their Young-Bakerian basis) to immediately perceive a
potentially calamitous stance in their mission planning. I am referring, obviously, to the
assumed validity of the "Elsewhere" axis. Recent work concluded (temporarily only!)
here at the MUToronto Kyussian Sublogics Programme provides some modifactions to the
traditional understanding of the Young models.

Young et.al. posit a "horizontal" axis leading from elsewhere to elsewhere in the (barely)
conventional models used in the Rosinante project. In the past, considerable success has
been achieved at minimal psychic cost while operating within this world-view. Recent data
accrued from both the probes "Supa Scoopa" and "Mighty Scoop" as well the last reliable
data from Decepticon Laboratories [see 1)Kitty, Blud, et.al "S.S.IV and M.S.II Datasets:15/10/97
through 17/10/97 via TRS80Net IIa." in Semiotronics, vol 56, no 2, Winter 98 and 2)
Walesh and Baumhauer, "The Nor/Nor Paradox and Rorty." MUPress, 1998] have
confirmed the existence of the previously hypothetical celestial existent "Mysteroid V".
While much of the debate surrounding Mysteroid V and the consequent implication are more
germaine to an epistemological readership, the support this discovery lends to a novel
thesis developed at the K.S.P. is startling. Cutting to the chase, I will argue that while
the "Elsewhere" axis is not completely invalid, in cases specifically controlled, as is
the projected Rosinante dataset, a categorically different "axis" is called for, and
defined, by the Mysteroid conclusions.

We know that a horizontally oriented conal "axis" has been indisputably validly argued
for and illustrated by the works of the early 1990s "California School" meta-logicians.[see P.E.
Woods and J.F. Garneau's prescient "Witnesses to a Future Passed/Past: Waking Up Tomorrow
Today and the 100 Degress of Zero." Martinus-Nijhof, 1997] In the case of time-loop probes
using the Zarkov communications array, abberations to the projected paths of said vehicles
on the "Elsewhere" axis had been plotted by at least two known self-aware D.I. networks [see
vol 2 of M. Joli-Prix's pioneering Ti994a serial/parallel zombification network accounts, as well
as Rosenberg's minor thesis from MUToronto]. Further investigations settled the issue when
a conical range of deviation was confirmed and mapped.[Woods and Garneau, 1998,
pp.401-440] The issue was considered dead, or at least asleep, until our team at the
K.S.P. made the grave and radical discovery that both Joli-Prix's and Rosenberg's networks
were running on the "insolent" curve of the D.I. axis. As is their capricious tendency,
[see P.Kalway, "Tendencies to Insolence on the D.I. Scale." in Semiotronics vol 55, no 1,
Spring 1996] the two networks were delivering substantially false information. Specifically,
the deviations of the projected paths were not only confined to countlessly probable "elsewheres",
but were also deviating into categorically shifted "Elsewhens."

The issue now becomes one of waiting. Once data begins streaming back from Cygnus X-1,
and assuming that the onboard systems have remained isolated and non-networked, the analysis
of the data can begin. Temporal and celestial machanicians and logicians will have their hands
full searching for deviations from projected data that would indicate a slippage into
parallel yet superimposed "elsewhens." These almost unmeasurable (depending on the degree
of rotation) deviations may take one or both of two forms. Inconsistencies of the mundane
post hoc ergo propter hoc sort of fallacy may crop up in the 12th through 17th TB
of data sent back, or more diabolical and indeed, disasterous non-validities of the type
documented in "Faeries Wear Boots" could skew the conculsions. (e.g. "Faerie boots a
dancing with dwarf: You've gone too far?") Whatever the case, the problem of mapping O.V.
and it's returning data will be immense.

Of course, the status of the Plobarian civil war could render my analysis equally incogent,
or moot. [readers are directed to Belasco's 1994 monograph "Plobarian Bounty Hunters and
Quebecois Subculture: Into the Voi[-Vo]d." McGill-Queen's University Press, 1994. Ed.]

Emeric Belasco.

Well, our first response to Mr. Belasco's concerns is provided by our very own Dr. Party Kalway.
Without further ado here is his short, but succinct reply:

Belasco suggests that some networks running insolently may be responsible for
some questionable theorizing and data analysis. My question to him is, "how
does he know these systems are running insolently?" Indeed, the heart of the
problem with these hypothesized insolent networks is the question of even detecting
such behaviour. If Belasco had given my paper proper attention, he would have made the
logical connection that there is no way, at least in Maxi's (Joli-Prix, Ed.)
case, of detecting this insolent behaviour. The insolent paradigm is just that,
a paradigm of behaviour that we now know is logically necessary, but difficult, if
not logically impossible, to detect in actual practice. Perhaps Belasco et.al (sic)
should make some of their findings available to a wider readership before he makes these kind
of claims. While I am not disputing that there may, and most likely will be
ir/regularities with the O.V. data, and while I agree with his hypothesis about
the state of the Plobarian nation, hi "Elsewhens" thesis needs to be re-argued.
It seems, on the face of it, to be interesting and relevant, but he doesn't make his case here.

Dr. Party Kalway

Our second piece in the Agora was this penetrating review of the latest publication to come from
the famous & erudite pen of Admiral Jubal L. Ahad, retd.:

Admiral Jubal L. Ahad, retd.
"Fools, Woofs and Other Myths: A Socio-semiotic Analysis of the Class War in Higger-Jigger Land."
377pp, including 14 pages of colour plates and two pull-out maps. 38.99 clothbound, 21.99 trade paperback

review in brief by B. Mattias Walesh.

Over the past 15 years, the conventional wisdom about the class war in Higger-Jigger Land has
become entrenched in academic circles. Cormier's thesis has gained such a monolithic position
in the current scholarship, that all oppositional views have gone unnoticed until very lately.
Inspired by recent critical legal theory advances, most notably those published by F.R. Letemple, Q.C.,
Admiral Ahad has provided the serious student of Higger-Jiggerian political economy with
an indespensible and provactive text.

Using Letemple's hypothesis that Kimberson's "Progressive" movement was in fact autonomous of
H. Slimey's control, Ahad builds an irrefutable argument of collosal import. Contending that Kimberson's
accomplishments have for too long been conflated and equated with the aerial heroics of J.Jones on a
metatextual level [see Ahad, J.L. "Kimberson and Jones: Mythopoetic Equivocations in Contemporary Legal
Theory." in Miskatonic Law Review, vol 102, number 2, pp.35-71. Ed.], Professor Ahad makes one
of the most daring leaps in modern Higger-Jiggerian studies:

When Kimberson won the second ballot for leadership of the A.D.P. [Action
Democratique Populaire du Higger-Jigger Land], he was in effect renouncing
his past as president of Les Syndicalistes et Cabbalistes Jiggerian. More importantly,
he was seen by the Woof underground press as repudiating all pronouncements he
had made on behalf of his erstwhile comrade in arms, J. Jones, from whom he was,
in effect, wresting control of the A.D.P.