||Dylan was flanked by a row of award-takers from other branches, all of which had found the dead doves in their habitats, who said that they would add theirs from their respective laboratory or home freezers, with some emphasising that they had not even been aware that it was toxic, adding for example medicine and peace to literature.
All of the artists, activists and scientists and everyone in between stressed that the so-called "Noble Prize" originated from a marketing campaign of an explosives-maker that over the time of generations expanded into a fireball reaching far beyond the corporation’s customer relations events, and required to be squeezed back into proportions compatible with its purpose.
Dylan said the Taliban deserved the awards due to their unique use of Alfred Nobel’s technology for the triple purposes of artistic creation, scientific performance and active peace-making.
He underlined that the Islamic research body was worthy of all the branches of the highly controversial prize in honour of its widely successful public education effort conducted for the benefit of the enlightenment of the global village, using public attacks in order to depict the anatomy of covert operations, plus an extra excuse by notorious gun nut Syria Paying for American troops spreading American habits into their territory.
An award-winning economist, who opened his speech with the statement that he had copied most efforts from someone known to be more likely to reject a bomb than to take it and hence never tossed a war dove, gave a report about scam science vehemently endorsed by Dylan. Scam science, also known as junk science, is the science of scam or the scam of science, depending on implementation, like risk management, only more risky.
The science of scam researches the scam of science, that is scam masquerading as science is being looked at with a scientific method and exposed as the scam it is. The other side’s pride it is however to cloak its scams into scientific appearances, and in doing so to keep up with reconnaissance and exposure, but for true scam science that is not where the work ends but where it begins.
The speaker exposed an instance in which scam perpetrators had been masquerading as research scientists running a phoney experiment in which they would attempt to reduce an actual scientist’s funding through all kinds of bureaucratic tricks, and measure how long it might take for the scientist to give up in despair. The scam perpetrators then claimed to have gained insight that could be used for the management of research.
But the speaker stressed that it was not worth anything for real world use, because it was from a situation in which the scientist was defrauded over the true cause of the withholding of the funds, and would naturally divert some research capacity to figuring that out in order to make a change, depending on its estimations how reliable the given explanation for the lack of funding was, as well as on its actual reliability.
As the speaker pointed out, since the phoney set-up was based upon fraud rather than upon transparent scarcity of information, results were worthless for transparency-oriented situations. Another scam was targeted at auctioning off a target scientist’s research materials and laboratory buildings, and measuring the response as to work out corporate proposals how to efficiently shut down censored branches without transparent debate and logic.
A third form of scam science mentioned as an example here occurred as scam perpetrators had taken a criminal effort to steal research materials, and when they feared taking the heat for their crime they broke into yet another office to steal educational materials not for their own use or that of their customers, but only to cover their tracks, stir up confusion and stifle criticism with a demented implication of belittlement.
The scientist said that this was an example of hate crime, as opposed to greed crime. While greed crime may be forgiveable within a certain extent once the loudest protest is that of the stomach, for hate crime there is no such relative justification.
He said, if science is compared to a field with a thousand flowers blossoming, then the greed criminal is the person who takes plants without tipping the roadside cash box. Love may be a forgiveable motive, for example, though not necessarily a lasting excuse. On the other hand, the hate criminal is the one who takes the business sign a few miles down the road to the botanic garden as to undermine someone else’s effort without even taking a gain for itself; and even an additional waste of work, since it is much bigger than a business card.
An engineer followed up reporting how he had cracked into a scam science program and boiled it down to a matter of research providing valuable results for understanding the nature of scams and the mindset of their perpetrators. Of course scam science is not science, as little as dish water is soup. Scam science is the kind of science that does neither fill nor clean any dishes any more, not even as a first step in a cleaning procedure, but only reshuffles the waste.
He said whether it was being called scam science or nuclear science was a mere matter of wording, and that to him Dylan’s top catch-phrase in the widely known song was a serious warning of radioactive fallout. How many roads a person would have to walk or block to have a reactor, processing factory or mine shut down, he said was a matter of experiment depending on so many different variables that it was worth taking the effort even when countless people have done it before.
He then elaborated that the scam perpetrator had disguised and even regarded itself as a social scientist that would be approaching people with prescribed multiple choice tests. But the content of the material was obtained illegally in unfair competition using eavesdropping devices, burglary tools and other weapons of mass destruction. As a result, all results were worthless, since when confronted with it people would not or not only respond to content, but to the fact that they were seeing evidence of capital crime against themselves.
When he took the scam perpetrator’s cellphone, put it into a milloscope, and fed the output back into the device, he said the whole set and setting radically changed, and his counterpart had turned into a mentally disabled person clogging the floors of its nursing home with toy cars. Of course his peers then scrutinised him: How do you know for sure that the person is retarded? Very simple, the engineer said.
When I asked it to get its toys out of my way so they would not get damaged, it did not, but just turned them around telling me it assumed I wanted to see their other sides. When I then asked it to provide an explanation why my needs were not respected in the behaviour, I got the absolutely lame excuse that they were there to help me.
You know, like for finding the child molester it does not matter so much which body parts had been touched upon with fingers, eyes, words or thoughts, but that the child molester is the one which insists it was helping the child with his actions, the one which displays the cover of hypocrisy as thick as if something shaky was to be found underneath.
Of course the abuser does not actually help, but hurt in way designed to make it exclusively necessary to take its assistance so it can covertly dictate the terms. The help excuse is only there to give the abuse and covert dictatorship a higher priority than any daily life routine, which is why many experts have described the employment thereof as morally suicidal.
He also ran an extraterrestrial intelligence search algorithm on the detail content, but no significant meaning could be deciphered from the pattern of the arrangement of the toys, the engineer elaborated. Yet a retard would take a grotesque sort of pleasure out of seeing targets display their feelings about crime that is nothing but its own evidence, or vice versa. From finding that occur, I know, although not being a social scientist myself, the speaker closed, warning of the grave dangers scam science poses to human society.
Bob Dylan followed up with a comment that one reason why the Taliban deserved the explosive award was because they would dare to make the conclusion that against crazies of the described kind even terror attacks can be a means of help, namely when they are being synchronised with the context-loaded abuse to mark it as what it is across the space/time continuum.
He pointed out that many years ago a Taliban spokesperson in a press conference answered a question on the handling of the American gun-nut with the explanation that it was necessary to make a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate government branches, and for the latter it was necessary to get cut in entirety and not merely by part.
He added that with their employment of explosives as the big drum in the orchestra of international diplomacy to which people would listen more than to their own parents, the Taliban had convinced him that they were the right ones to make a true choice to whom to pass it on.
He closed the session with a widely laughed-at remark that such as bomb squads treat a bomb like a "baby", any scientist should treat this award, and vehemently oppose any splitting up thereof with the demand that if they cannot have it completely at least the other person should, for the sake of justice and integrity and truth, and last but not least the option to pass it on without having to hold a vote.
Critics commented that while many recipients still regarded the dead dove as a portfolio pearl rather than a toxic asset, by adding a hybrid fridge which would be a bad idea to store unplugged inside, Dylan had turned the "Noble Prize" into a "Darwin Award" with a little help of his friends, while critics of the critics followed up that this was only appropriate given what made the money it was sponsored from.
Taliban offices did not directly comment upon the assignment, but a statement today asked French Muslims to vote for a candidate which would bear the resolve to step down and schedule fresh elections in case an EU bureaucrat was elected in a neighbouring country, in order to put France’s coming abandonment of the bureaucratic bloc on a transparent condition.
Saturday, Apr 22nd 2017