QUOTE (Reincarnation and Tibetan Lamas- tibet.org
+)
+)
The Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama are among hundreds of high Tibetan religious leaders believed to be reborn in a new body after they die. These Buddhist masters have such strong personalities and such a depth of meditative realization that when they go through the natural process of death and rebirth they retain philosophical knowledge.
Reincarnation is not just a philosophy in Tibet, it is a living practice, one which has been obstructed by the Chinese since they took control of Tibet in 1950. Search parties are sent out to examine children born soon after the high lama's death who show auspicious signs, such as natural events at the time of the child's birth, unusual intelligence, or memories of monastic life. The choice is confirmed by venerable monks who recognize their deceased teacher's personality in the young incarnate, and the incarnate often recognizes the monks, even if they are disguised.
A similar practice is followed on physorg. Soon after a crank has been expelled, search parties (FM) seek out crank sockpuppets who show such signs are unusually low intelligence and memories of gibberish posts.
The crank sockpuppet usually retains the "philosophical knowledge" from its previous birth. When the search party (the FM) arrive, the crank sockpuppet often recognizes them.
Reincarnation is not just a philosophy in Tibet, it is a living practice, one which has been obstructed by the Chinese since they took control of Tibet in 1950. Search parties are sent out to examine children born soon after the high lama's death who show auspicious signs, such as natural events at the time of the child's birth, unusual intelligence, or memories of monastic life. The choice is confirmed by venerable monks who recognize their deceased teacher's personality in the young incarnate, and the incarnate often recognizes the monks, even if they are disguised.
A similar practice is followed on physorg. Soon after a crank has been expelled, search parties (FM) seek out crank sockpuppets who show such signs are unusually low intelligence and memories of gibberish posts.
The crank sockpuppet usually retains the "philosophical knowledge" from its previous birth. When the search party (the FM) arrive, the crank sockpuppet often recognizes them.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 19 2008, 06:03 PM)
QUOTE (Reincarnation and Tibetan Lamas- tibet.org+)
The Dalai Lama and Panchen Lama are among hundreds of high Tibetan religious leaders believed to be reborn in a new body after they die. These Buddhist masters have such strong personalities and such a depth of meditative realization that when they go through the natural process of death and rebirth they retain philosophical knowledge.
Reincarnation is not just a philosophy in Tibet, it is a living practice, one which has been obstructed by the Chinese since they took control of Tibet in 1950. Search parties are sent out to examine children born soon after the high lama's death who show auspicious signs, such as natural events at the time of the child's birth, unusual intelligence, or memories of monastic life. The choice is confirmed by venerable monks who recognize their deceased teacher's personality in the young incarnate, and the incarnate often recognizes the monks, even if they are disguised.
A similar practice is followed on physorg. Soon after a crank has been expelled, search parties (FM) seek out crank sockpuppets who show such signs are unusually low intelligence and memories of gibberish posts.
The crank sockpuppet usually retains the "philosophical knowledge" from its previous birth. When the search party (the FM) arrive, the crank sockpuppet often recognizes them.
Excellent find
A most dreadfully scintillating thread Doc. 
QUOTE (Username+Mar 19 2008, 06:21 PM)
A most dreadfully scintillating thread Doc.
I thought there was another religion that thinks the dead are reincarnated into animals and other lower forms of life?
QUOTE (Ron+Mar 19 2008, 07:20 PM)
I thought there was another religion that thinks the dead are reincarnated into animals and other lower forms of life?
That could be the PhysOrg religion. It certainly explains why sockpuppets get dumber everytime they return
That could be the PhysOrg religion. It certainly explains why sockpuppets get dumber everytime they return
I have heard of feeding pigeons and deer birth control to control population......... Can we put birth control into trolll food?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 19 2008, 07:21 PM)
That could be the PhysOrg religion. It certainly explains why sockpuppets get dumber everytime they return
QUOTE (Username+Mar 19 2008, 09:10 PM)
Well, except for you and Max.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 19 2008, 06:03 PM)
A similar practice is followed on physorg. Soon after a crank has been expelled, search parties (FM) seek out crank sockpuppets who show such signs are unusually low intelligence and memories of gibberish posts. The crank sockpuppet usually retains the "philosophical knowledge" from its previous birth. When the search party (the FM) arrive, the crank sockpuppet often recognizes them.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Mar 19 2008, 03:42 PM)
I have heard of feeding pigeons and deer birth control to control population......... Can we put birth control into trolll food?
Just as long as you don't put it in toad-chow! Oh, wait, a vasectomy trumps Depo-Provera, right?
Just as long as you don't put it in toad-chow! Oh, wait, a vasectomy trumps Depo-Provera, right?
I thank those of you who appreciated my documentation of the procedure for identification of the Panchen Lama of physorg.
I did, too. The original, not the derivation or devolution, if you wish, of the practice as it is carried out here.
Thank you!
Thank you!
QUOTE (Sapo+Mar 20 2008, 12:07 AM)
I did, too. The original, not the derivation or devolution, if you wish, of the practice as it is carried out here.
Thank you!
You're welcome.
Thank you!
You're welcome.
QUOTE ("THEY"+Mar 19 2008, 02:42 PM)
I have heard of feeding pigeons and deer birth control to control population......... Can we put birth control into trolll food?
The best way to get rid of trolls is to simply not feed them. They will quickly starve if no one responds to them.
The best way to get rid of trolls is to simply not feed them. They will quickly starve if no one responds to them.
What would man do without provocative ideas? These trolls and cranks are not always wrong to bring strange ideas to science...why is anything considered off limits? To my mind all should be considered, then if one finds a strong disagreement...they should show why, as opposed to the constant berating.
I believe that Dalai would be interested in this public display of power and control, but he may not approve of all the judgment involved.
I believe that Dalai would be interested in this public display of power and control, but he may not approve of all the judgment involved.
QUOTE (tikay+)
These trolls and cranks are not always wrong to bring strange ideas to science...why is anything considered off limits?
You're missing the point. The FM has nothing wrong with "out there" ideas. But if you can't back up your theory, or if you simply ignore all constructive criticism, then you're likely to get the FM on your back. It's even worse if you start to push your theory as fact, like Zarkov or Farsight. If you're going to do those things you're in no place to complain if the FM gets on your back.
WE HAVE DONE THAT. Don't you get it? No amount of logic will work against these cranks. The more you explain things to Farsight, the more he says you're insulting and abusing him. The more you correct Zarkov, the more he's going to ignore you. Understand? Logic simply does not work against these types of people.
WE HAVE DONE THAT. Don't you get it? No amount of logic will work against these cranks. The more you explain things to Farsight, the more he says you're insulting and abusing him. The more you correct Zarkov, the more he's going to ignore you. Understand? Logic simply does not work against these types of people.
I believe that Dalai would be interested in this public display of power and control, but he may not approve of all the judgment involved.
I honestly doubt that we'd care.
You're missing the point. The FM has nothing wrong with "out there" ideas. But if you can't back up your theory, or if you simply ignore all constructive criticism, then you're likely to get the FM on your back. It's even worse if you start to push your theory as fact, like Zarkov or Farsight. If you're going to do those things you're in no place to complain if the FM gets on your back.
QUOTE
To my mind all should be considered, then if one finds a strong disagreement...they should show why, as opposed to the constant berating.
WE HAVE DONE THAT. Don't you get it? No amount of logic will work against these cranks. The more you explain things to Farsight, the more he says you're insulting and abusing him. The more you correct Zarkov, the more he's going to ignore you. Understand? Logic simply does not work against these types of people.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| To my mind all should be considered, then if one finds a strong disagreement...they should show why, as opposed to the constant berating. |
WE HAVE DONE THAT. Don't you get it? No amount of logic will work against these cranks. The more you explain things to Farsight, the more he says you're insulting and abusing him. The more you correct Zarkov, the more he's going to ignore you. Understand? Logic simply does not work against these types of people.
I believe that Dalai would be interested in this public display of power and control, but he may not approve of all the judgment involved.
I honestly doubt that we'd care.
QUOTE (tikay+)
why is anything considered off limits?
IMHO nothing should be off limits. We should be open to hear all kinds of ideas. Someone recently discussed the pros and cons of an ejection seat from a horse.
Some people here keep claiming that they can prove relativity wrong all the time here.
Obviously if someone is making wild claims, they have to provide enough evidence to support it. Also it is unrealistic for people to think that their ideas, even if they are correct will be accepted here without any challenge. IMHO good theories will survive irrespective if they are accepted on this forum or not.
This thread is simply a parody of the process in which the banned members keep coming back with a different name (sock puppets as they are called here) and how the FM identify them.
IMHO nothing should be off limits. We should be open to hear all kinds of ideas. Someone recently discussed the pros and cons of an ejection seat from a horse.
Some people here keep claiming that they can prove relativity wrong all the time here.Obviously if someone is making wild claims, they have to provide enough evidence to support it. Also it is unrealistic for people to think that their ideas, even if they are correct will be accepted here without any challenge. IMHO good theories will survive irrespective if they are accepted on this forum or not.
This thread is simply a parody of the process in which the banned members keep coming back with a different name (sock puppets as they are called here) and how the FM identify them.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 25 2008, 05:08 AM)
good theories will survive irrespective if they are accepted on this forum or not.
Agreed. As the cranks so often point out, many of the really good ones weren't accepted at first. But the cranks forget that these theories were well thought out, based on actual research and well argued. These theories were never hurt by any discussion or argument.
Oh... and The Master was too cool to be associated with any crank sock-puppet.
Agreed. As the cranks so often point out, many of the really good ones weren't accepted at first. But the cranks forget that these theories were well thought out, based on actual research and well argued. These theories were never hurt by any discussion or argument.
QUOTE
This thread is simply a parody of the process in which the banned members keep coming back with a different name (sock puppets as they are called here) and how the FM identify them.
You could have titled the thread "Dr Who and the return of The Master", and someone would have brought up what The Doctor thought about it all.Oh... and The Master was too cool to be associated with any crank sock-puppet.
QUOTE (N O M+)
Oh... and The Master was too cool to be associated with any crank sock-puppet.
I agree. He and The Doctor are my heroes
I agree. He and The Doctor are my heroes
QUOTE (NOM+)
You could have titled the thread "Dr Who and the return of The Master", and someone would have brought up what The Doctor thought about it all.
A possible limitation of communicating on an internet forum.
A possible limitation of communicating on an internet forum.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 25 2008, 08:42 AM)
QUOTE (N O M+)
Oh... and The Master was too cool to be associated with any crank sock-puppet.
I agree. He and The Doctor are my heroes
I'd never have guessed
I agree. He and The Doctor are my heroes
I'd never have guessed
I'm more of a Dalek admirer myself.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 24 2008, 02:42 PM)
I agree. He and The Doctor are my heroes
QUOTE (Moomin+)
I'm more of a Dalek admirer myself.
Gen. Jack O'Neill (with 2 L's) would kick all their asses, and still have time to watch The Simpsons afterwords.
Booya.
Gen. Jack O'Neill (with 2 L's) would kick all their asses, and still have time to watch The Simpsons afterwords.
Booya.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 24 2008, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Moomin+)
I'm more of a Dalek admirer myself.
Gen. Jack O'Neill (with 2 L's) would kick all their asses, and still have time to watch The Simpsons afterwords.
Booya.
That's maybe so, however how many totally evil xenophobic psycho' monsters come equipped with a plunger and whisk?
Every kitchen should have one.
Gen. Jack O'Neill (with 2 L's) would kick all their asses, and still have time to watch The Simpsons afterwords.
Booya.
That's maybe so, however how many totally evil xenophobic psycho' monsters come equipped with a plunger and whisk?
Every kitchen should have one.
QUOTE (Moomin+Mar 24 2008, 03:39 PM)
Gen. Jack O'Neill (with 2 L's) would kick all their asses, and still have time to watch The Simpsons afterwords.
Booya. [/QUOTE]
That's maybe so, however how many totally evil xenophobic psycho' monsters come equipped with a plunger and whisk?
Every kitchen should have one.
Every deranged psychotic killer robotic alien I've ever built did.
Plus a shoe-shiner! As we all know, you can't destroy all life in the multiverse without shiny shoes.
Booya. [/QUOTE]
That's maybe so, however how many totally evil xenophobic psycho' monsters come equipped with a plunger and whisk?
Every kitchen should have one.
Every deranged psychotic killer robotic alien I've ever built did.
Plus a shoe-shiner! As we all know, you can't destroy all life in the multiverse without shiny shoes.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 24 2008, 08:45 PM)
That's maybe so, however how many totally evil xenophobic psycho' monsters come equipped with a plunger and whisk?
Every kitchen should have one.
[/QUOTE]
Every deranged psychotic killer robotic alien I've ever built did.
Plus a shoe-shiner! As we all know, you can't destroy all life in the multiverse without shiny shoes.
Indeed.
Every kitchen should have one.
[/QUOTE]Every deranged psychotic killer robotic alien I've ever built did.
Plus a shoe-shiner! As we all know, you can't destroy all life in the multiverse without shiny shoes.
Indeed.
QUOTE (Moomin+)
A possible limitation of communicating on an internet forum.
More like a limitation of one's brain.
EX-TER-MIN-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!!!!!!!!!
EX-TER-MIN-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!!!!!!!!!
I'd never have guessed
I know. I'm sutble like that.
More like a limitation of one's brain.
QUOTE
I'm more of a Dalek admirer myself.
EX-TER-MIN-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!!!!!!!!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm more of a Dalek admirer myself. |
EX-TER-MIN-AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE!!!!!!!!!
I'd never have guessed
I know. I'm sutble like that.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Gen. Jack O'Neill (with 2 L's) would kick all their asses, and still have time to watch The Simpsons afterwords.
Heck ya! Remember when he used the Ancient's supercool weapons to blow Anubis to smithereens?
Heck ya! Remember when he used the Ancient's supercool weapons to blow Anubis to smithereens?
QUOTE (Moomin+)
That's maybe so, however how many totally evil xenophobic psycho' monsters come equipped with a plunger and whisk?
Every kitchen should have one.
Don't forget the totally awesome levitation devices
Well this is close to this thread topic.
[img=http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9386/capt7112a33374a449a1bc3rb1.th.jpg]
A real Tibetan Lama and a very bad troll
http://www.nbc11.com/image/15665538/detail.html
(Oops I put it in the wrong thread the 1st time)
Every kitchen should have one.
Don't forget the totally awesome levitation devices
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Every deranged psychotic killer robotic alien I've ever built did.
Plus a shoe-shiner! As we all know, you can't destroy all life in the multiverse without shiny shoes.
Who needs shiny shoes when you've got red-and-white Chuck Taylor trainers?
Plus a shoe-shiner! As we all know, you can't destroy all life in the multiverse without shiny shoes.
Who needs shiny shoes when you've got red-and-white Chuck Taylor trainers?
Well this is close to this thread topic.
[img=http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9386/capt7112a33374a449a1bc3rb1.th.jpg]
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 25 2008, 10:03 AM)
Heck ya! Remember when he used the Ancient's supercool weapons to blow Anubis to smithereens?
My favourite bit was:
My favourite bit was:
QUOTE
Colonel Jack O'Neill: They didn't go for it.
Major Samantha Carter: They didn't approve the mission?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Well no, they did that. Once they knew the stakes and the whole fate of the universe stuff, both the President and Hammond realized we had no choice. He sends good luck, God speed and all those things he says when he thinks we're gonna die.
Major Samantha Carter: So what didn't they go for?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: The name I suggested.
Major Samantha Carter: For the ship?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Yeah.
Major Samantha Carter: Yeah, sir, we can't call it the Enterprise.
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Why not?
Major Samantha Carter: They didn't approve the mission?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Well no, they did that. Once they knew the stakes and the whole fate of the universe stuff, both the President and Hammond realized we had no choice. He sends good luck, God speed and all those things he says when he thinks we're gonna die.
Major Samantha Carter: So what didn't they go for?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: The name I suggested.
Major Samantha Carter: For the ship?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Yeah.
Major Samantha Carter: Yeah, sir, we can't call it the Enterprise.
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Why not?
QUOTE (paul h+Mar 24 2008, 09:38 PM)
Well this is close to this thread topic.
[img=http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9386/capt7112a33374a449a1bc3rb1.th.jpg]
[img=http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9386/capt7112a33374a449a1bc3rb1.th.jpg]
A real Tibetan Lama and a very bad troll
http://www.nbc11.com/image/15665538/detail.html
(Oops I put it in the wrong thread the 1st time)
QUOTE (N O M+Mar 24 2008, 09:47 PM)
My favourite bit was:
Here's a great one from the last season.
Here's a great one from the last season.
Dr. Jackson: I'm sorry, aren't you the one who knows the dragon's secret name? It's time to earn your keep.
Ba'al: Ah, yes. I may have exaggerated about that, slightly. Anyway, you didn't think that just by calling out its name, you'd suddenly be able to control it?
Dr. Jackson: I don't know. Name magic is common in most mythologies. To know something's secret name is to steal its power.
Lt. Col. Mitchell: So what are we supposed to do, start guessing
Vala: Darrel, the dragon.
Lt. Colonel Mitchell: How about Smokey?
Teal'c: Perhaps Puff?
Dr. Jackson: [annoyed]: Will you just give me a minute?
QUOTE
Colonel Jack O'Neill: They didn't go for it.
Major Samantha Carter: They didn't approve the mission?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Well no, they did that. Once they knew the stakes and the whole fate of the universe stuff, both the President and Hammond realized we had no choice. He sends good luck, God speed and all those things he says when he thinks we're gonna die.
Major Samantha Carter: So what didn't they go for?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: The name I suggested.
Major Samantha Carter: For the ship?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Yeah.
Major Samantha Carter: Yeah, sir, we can't call it the Enterprise.
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Why not?
Major Samantha Carter: They didn't approve the mission?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Well no, they did that. Once they knew the stakes and the whole fate of the universe stuff, both the President and Hammond realized we had no choice. He sends good luck, God speed and all those things he says when he thinks we're gonna die.
Major Samantha Carter: So what didn't they go for?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: The name I suggested.
Major Samantha Carter: For the ship?
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Yeah.
Major Samantha Carter: Yeah, sir, we can't call it the Enterprise.
Colonel Jack O'Neill: Why not?
Here's a great one from the last season.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Colonel Jack O'Neill: They didn't go for it. Major Samantha Carter: They didn't approve the mission? Colonel Jack O'Neill: Well no, they did that. Once they knew the stakes and the whole fate of the universe stuff, both the President and Hammond realized we had no choice. He sends good luck, God speed and all those things he says when he thinks we're gonna die. Major Samantha Carter: So what didn't they go for? Colonel Jack O'Neill: The name I suggested. Major Samantha Carter: For the ship? Colonel Jack O'Neill: Yeah. Major Samantha Carter: Yeah, sir, we can't call it the Enterprise. Colonel Jack O'Neill: Why not? |
Here's a great one from the last season.
Dr. Jackson: I'm sorry, aren't you the one who knows the dragon's secret name? It's time to earn your keep.
Ba'al: Ah, yes. I may have exaggerated about that, slightly. Anyway, you didn't think that just by calling out its name, you'd suddenly be able to control it?
Dr. Jackson: I don't know. Name magic is common in most mythologies. To know something's secret name is to steal its power.
Lt. Col. Mitchell: So what are we supposed to do, start guessing
Vala: Darrel, the dragon.
Lt. Colonel Mitchell: How about Smokey?
Teal'c: Perhaps Puff?
Dr. Jackson: [annoyed]: Will you just give me a minute?
QUOTE (N O M+Mar 24 2008, 04:47 PM)
My favourite bit was:
My favorite line in the whole series:
Samantha Carter "I'm sure I can MacGuyver something up."
said in the first episode, followed by an annoyed look from O'Neill.
My favorite line in the whole series:
Samantha Carter "I'm sure I can MacGuyver something up."
said in the first episode, followed by an annoyed look from O'Neill.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 25 2008, 12:06 AM)
My favorite line in the whole series:
Samantha Carter "I'm sure I can MacGuyver something up."
said in the first episode, followed by an annoyed look from O'Neill.
You should have seen the blooper reel for that episode
Samantha Carter "I'm sure I can MacGuyver something up."
said in the first episode, followed by an annoyed look from O'Neill.
You should have seen the blooper reel for that episode
On the subject of Sci-Fi quotes, my all time favourite:
QUOTE (Babylon 5+ "In the Shadow of Z'ha'dum")
Morden: "What do you want?"
Vir:"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange it for me, Mr. Morden?"
Vir:"I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I'd look up at your lifeless eyes and wave like this. Can you and your associates arrange it for me, Mr. Morden?"
My all-time fav is from Serenity
You should have seen the blooper reel for that episode
QUOTE
Operative: "Do you really believe that?"
Mal: "I do."
Operative: "You willing to die for that belief?"
Mal: "I am." (pulls out his gun and shoots at the Operative repeatedly) "Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
Mal: "I do."
Operative: "You willing to die for that belief?"
Mal: "I am." (pulls out his gun and shoots at the Operative repeatedly) "Course, that ain't exactly Plan A."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Operative: "Do you really believe that?" Mal: "I do." Operative: "You willing to die for that belief?" Mal: "I am." (pulls out his gun and shoots at the Operative repeatedly) "Course, that ain't exactly Plan A." |
You should have seen the blooper reel for that episode
Never seen it, but I damn well should. You know what you should see? You, ripping it to your PC and emailing it to me
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 25 2008, 04:33 AM)
My all-time fav is from Serenity
QUOTE (TheDoc+)
You should have seen the blooper reel for that episode
Never seen it, but I damn well should. You know what you should see? You, ripping it to your PC and emailing it to me
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 25 2008, 05:33 PM)
My all-time fav is from Serenity
No surprise, as you knew who Vera was
No surprise, as you knew who Vera was
Yeah how is Mal doing these days. great blooper real. Odd really. Why Tibetans and Buddhists are treated so badly when they have answers to things you don't really deserve, but are getting regardless. Just as a hint to all those out there why I could care less about your great ideas most times and take plenty of time inbetween my postings that are so helpful they disappear most times.
QUOTE (Zarabdoofus+)
inbetween my postings that are so helpful they disappear most times.
All part of the conspiracy against you
Of course I won't mention all your mail we are redirecting, and your phone calls. And all those "wrong number" phone calls, that's just us keeping tabs on you. And have we noticed that your TV is always on the wrong channel?
All part of the conspiracy against you
Of course I won't mention all your mail we are redirecting, and your phone calls. And all those "wrong number" phone calls, that's just us keeping tabs on you. And have we noticed that your TV is always on the wrong channel?
Continuity
Tantra in Sanskrit meant loom; also specifically, the warp thread that dresses the loom and gives support to the fabric formed by the moving shuttle or, in a rug, the individual knots. Without it, there can be no cloth. It can also refer to the cord used for stringing beads to make a necklace, a rosary, mala or garland. Tantric or more rarely, tantrik, is the adjectival form of tantra and it has come to mean continuous, or continuity in the sense of unbroken.
[In English, you might be familiar with "tenterhooks," as in the phrase "To be on tenterhooks," meaning to be in a state of anticipatory suspense. These hooks are the nails upon which finished cloth is stretched to maintain consistency in width.]
Tantra in Sanskrit meant loom; also specifically, the warp thread that dresses the loom and gives support to the fabric formed by the moving shuttle or, in a rug, the individual knots. Without it, there can be no cloth. It can also refer to the cord used for stringing beads to make a necklace, a rosary, mala or garland. Tantric or more rarely, tantrik, is the adjectival form of tantra and it has come to mean continuous, or continuity in the sense of unbroken.
[In English, you might be familiar with "tenterhooks," as in the phrase "To be on tenterhooks," meaning to be in a state of anticipatory suspense. These hooks are the nails upon which finished cloth is stretched to maintain consistency in width.]
Freak.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 28 2008, 05:46 AM)
Freak.
I've noticed that he is a racist bigot. Which as someone with a genetic disorder, is rather hypocritical.
I've noticed that he is a racist bigot. Which as someone with a genetic disorder, is rather hypocritical.
But your a NEG'GER
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Mar 28 2008, 12:18 AM)
But your a NEG'GER
I find it ironic that you're posting on this thread, Chris, given that you are a sockpuppet.
I find it ironic that you're posting on this thread, Chris, given that you are a sockpuppet.
QUOTE (PIATLAS+Mar 28 2008, 01:18 PM)
But your a NEG'GER
Ah, but you can get away with being racist, since the polish were invaded by everyone
Ah, but you can get away with being racist, since the polish were invaded by everyone
Better to be a POS'ER!
QUOTE (tikay+Mar 28 2008, 06:53 PM)
Better to be a POS'ER!
So you gave a + to the poser yor_on.
So you gave a + to the poser yor_on.
I have been getting to know yor_on for a long time now. To know him is to love him.
QUOTE (tikay+Mar 28 2008, 07:53 PM)
I have been getting to know yor_on for a long time now. To know him is to love him.
And I guess you know/love that he supports trolls and posers like Zarkov, Good Elf and Samantha Hildreth?
And I guess you know/love that he supports trolls and posers like Zarkov, Good Elf and Samantha Hildreth?
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 28 2008, 01:55 PM)
So you gave a + to the poser yor_on.
He seems decent enough to me. He tries to be helpful and is fairly knowlegable -by the standards of this board, anyways- but he really needs to work on his grammar and syntax. Sometimes I have NO idea what he's trying to say...
I possed him for helping me wrap my brain around a concept in GR in my first thread, but since then his lack of communication skills has pretty much balanced out his decency.
Boy, between this thread and the Idealism thread, you just can't say anything right by me, today, eh?
Don't worry tho. We's still family, yannowhatImean?
He seems decent enough to me. He tries to be helpful and is fairly knowlegable -by the standards of this board, anyways- but he really needs to work on his grammar and syntax. Sometimes I have NO idea what he's trying to say...
I possed him for helping me wrap my brain around a concept in GR in my first thread, but since then his lack of communication skills has pretty much balanced out his decency.
Boy, between this thread and the Idealism thread, you just can't say anything right by me, today, eh?
Don't worry tho. We's still family, yannowhatImean?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Boy, between this thread and the Idealism thread, you just can't say anything right by me, today, eh?
Turncoat! You're absolutely dethpicable
Yeah yeah...
Turncoat! You're absolutely dethpicable
QUOTE
Don't worry tho. We's still family, yannowhatImean?
Yeah yeah...
Hi BDW,
Are you not highlighting one of modern society´s great mistakes - we allow human decency, or lack of it, to be distorted by communications skills. Just look at the politicians, pretty well any of them!!!
edward 3
Are you not highlighting one of modern society´s great mistakes - we allow human decency, or lack of it, to be distorted by communications skills. Just look at the politicians, pretty well any of them!!!
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 28 2008, 03:18 PM)
Hi BDW,
Are you not highlighting one of modern society´s great mistakes - we allow human decency, or lack of it, to be distorted by communications skills. Just look at the politicians, pretty well any of them!!!
edward 3
Damn straight.
Look at Hilary's latest scandal. She said she heard sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia, so she gets slammed as a liar, when the truth was, she heard about sniper fire. That's not such a big difference. (And yes, I've seen the video and heard her initial lie about it, and I don't see any discrepancy between what happened and what her latest explanation was, and I DO see why and how she would have exxagerated the way she did.)
She's really no more dishonest than other politicians, she just chose to exxagerate one anecdote a bit too much, and got caught, and now she's being demonized as a result of it.
Personally, I don't care if you're an all-out pathalogical liar. If you can manage an economy the way the Clintons can, I'll vote for ya.
Are you not highlighting one of modern society´s great mistakes - we allow human decency, or lack of it, to be distorted by communications skills. Just look at the politicians, pretty well any of them!!!
edward 3
Damn straight.
Look at Hilary's latest scandal. She said she heard sniper fire when she landed in Bosnia, so she gets slammed as a liar, when the truth was, she heard about sniper fire. That's not such a big difference. (And yes, I've seen the video and heard her initial lie about it, and I don't see any discrepancy between what happened and what her latest explanation was, and I DO see why and how she would have exxagerated the way she did.)
She's really no more dishonest than other politicians, she just chose to exxagerate one anecdote a bit too much, and got caught, and now she's being demonized as a result of it.
Personally, I don't care if you're an all-out pathalogical liar. If you can manage an economy the way the Clintons can, I'll vote for ya.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Personally, I don't care if you're an all-out pathalogical liar. If you can manage an economy the way the Clintons can, I'll vote for ya.
The President is usually surrounded by highly qualified advisers. So he/she doesn't have to be super smart (which apparently the Clintons are), but honest enough to give priority to interests of the country and its people rather than himself and his coterie.
The President is usually surrounded by highly qualified advisers. So he/she doesn't have to be super smart (which apparently the Clintons are), but honest enough to give priority to interests of the country and its people rather than himself and his coterie.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 28 2008, 04:13 PM)
The President is usually surrounded by highly qualified advisers. So he/she doesn't have to be super smart (which apparently the Clintons are), but honest enough to give priority to interests of the country and its people rather than himself and his coterie.
Well, when you're dealing with such a highly complex system as the American economy, what SEEMS to be the right choice often isn't, and experts often disagree about what the right choice is, so having a very intelligent person who makes the final decisiosn is still quite necessary.
And honesty doesn't have anything to do with prioritizing (unless you're referring to honesty with one's self, which is something I doubt most politicians have issues with, given the detrimental effect self-deception has, and the relative success most politicians have.)
Well, when you're dealing with such a highly complex system as the American economy, what SEEMS to be the right choice often isn't, and experts often disagree about what the right choice is, so having a very intelligent person who makes the final decisiosn is still quite necessary.
And honesty doesn't have anything to do with prioritizing (unless you're referring to honesty with one's self, which is something I doubt most politicians have issues with, given the detrimental effect self-deception has, and the relative success most politicians have.)
Perhaps it is when you are surrounded by supersmart advisers that you need to be pretty smart yourself - and, ya Clinton was smart but you guys "over there" got a collective fit of puritanism over what´s regarded as pretty normal "over here". So, Clinton could not campaign for Gore and, as they say, the rest is history.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
And honesty doesn't have anything to do with prioritizing (unless you're referring to honesty with one's self, which is something I doubt most politicians have issues with, given the detrimental effect self-deception has, and the relative success most politicians have.)
I guess I did not use the right words in the last sentence. I simply meant that the President has to be honest, period. I see a problem with that in the Clintons. McCain seems to be quite honest, but he sure isn't as intelligent as the Clintons or Obama.
Anyway, not being a US citizen I can't vote, only analyze.
I guess I did not use the right words in the last sentence. I simply meant that the President has to be honest, period. I see a problem with that in the Clintons. McCain seems to be quite honest, but he sure isn't as intelligent as the Clintons or Obama.
Anyway, not being a US citizen I can't vote, only analyze.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 28 2008, 09:37 PM)
Anyway, not being a US citizen I can't vote, only analyze.
Thank God.
Thank God.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 28 2008, 10:05 PM)
Thank God.
Why? Who do you think I'd vote if I could?
Edit: are you here to debate or just make wise cracks?
Why? Who do you think I'd vote if I could?
Edit: are you here to debate or just make wise cracks?
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 29 2008, 12:00 AM)
Edit: are you here to debate or just make wise cracks?
Debate what? Unless a Tibetan monk receives the nomination, how were your comments relevant to this thread?
Debate what? Unless a Tibetan monk receives the nomination, how were your comments relevant to this thread?
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 29 2008, 06:34 AM)
Debate what? Unless a Tibetan monk receives the nomination, how were your comments relevant to this thread?
Accepted. So why are you writing "Thank God" instead of that?
Accepted. So why are you writing "Thank God" instead of that?
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 28 2008, 04:37 PM)
I guess I did not use the right words in the last sentence. I simply meant that the President has to be honest, period. I see a problem with that in the Clintons. McCain seems to be quite honest, but he sure isn't as intelligent as the Clintons or Obama.
Anyway, not being a US citizen I can't vote, only analyze.
Honest to what degree? Completely and utterly? Impossible, everybody lies. More honest than most? Unlikely, by the very prospect. If most people are a 5 on an honesty scale, most politicians will be a 5, as well. And it is not acceptable to hold others to a higher standard than one holds oneself, so it's immoral to ask that politicians be more honest than most. Even if you had a politician who was a 6 on the afore mentioned scale, that would still involve some dishonestly. Well, that's ok, because they're more honest than most, but when would they lie? Well, they'd lie like most people: When they had a lot to gain and little to loose. Such as exaggerating the danger in a specific incident while campaigning.
I don't deny that Hillary purposefully attempted to deceive the public. But keep in mind, every time ANY politician makes a promise, they are essentially lying. How can any politician know without doubt that they will be able to deliver on anything? Not to mention those politicians who attempt to do what is patently impossible. Such as putting an end to racism in America. Implying a promise to do something is essentially the same as promising to do it, outright. By that standard, Obama's not very honest, either.
As far as McCain goes: "McCain has many traditionally Republican views. He has a strong conservative voting record on pro-life[185] and free trade issues, favors private social security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care." -Wikipedia
I wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much every position he favors. Abortions being illegal, international trade being hindered, privatized social security and a limited government role in health care all add up to a neo-conservative society. The sort of society that -when Muslim instead of Christian- gave us this lovely institution called "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism."
And WAAAAAAY back in the day, conservatism gave us the Witch Hunts. Not too long ago, it gave the Nazi party the popular support which they had hitherto lacked.
YES! I am comparing neo-conservatism in this country to the Inquisition, the Nazi party, and Al-Qaeda! Conservatism in politics generally results in far more evils than liberalism in politics does. Not to mention the fact that it drastically increases the list of things which can be called "evil..."
I wholeheartedly believe that moderacy is the right way to go in all things, and that maintaining a balance between the yin and yang of conservatism and liberalism is ideal. Having a liberal president breed stronger opposition from conservative elements among the government, while having a conservative president tends to breed stronger opposition from liberal elements among the general population, which is not nearly as well-equipped to balance out the president as the government is. Therefore, my stance of moderacy is best served by having a liberal president in the white house.
Besides which, I truly think it would be good for this country to have a female president. Women approach life from a very different angle than men, and this country has been headed up by a man every since it's founding. It's time to shake things a bit.
(I also think that a black president would do some good, but right now, I simply don't think Obama's capable of doing the job. I don't think he's experienced enough for it, and a bit too idealistic.)
Anyway, not being a US citizen I can't vote, only analyze.
Honest to what degree? Completely and utterly? Impossible, everybody lies. More honest than most? Unlikely, by the very prospect. If most people are a 5 on an honesty scale, most politicians will be a 5, as well. And it is not acceptable to hold others to a higher standard than one holds oneself, so it's immoral to ask that politicians be more honest than most. Even if you had a politician who was a 6 on the afore mentioned scale, that would still involve some dishonestly. Well, that's ok, because they're more honest than most, but when would they lie? Well, they'd lie like most people: When they had a lot to gain and little to loose. Such as exaggerating the danger in a specific incident while campaigning.
I don't deny that Hillary purposefully attempted to deceive the public. But keep in mind, every time ANY politician makes a promise, they are essentially lying. How can any politician know without doubt that they will be able to deliver on anything? Not to mention those politicians who attempt to do what is patently impossible. Such as putting an end to racism in America. Implying a promise to do something is essentially the same as promising to do it, outright. By that standard, Obama's not very honest, either.
As far as McCain goes: "McCain has many traditionally Republican views. He has a strong conservative voting record on pro-life[185] and free trade issues, favors private social security accounts, and opposes an expanded government role in health care." -Wikipedia
I wholeheartedly disagree with pretty much every position he favors. Abortions being illegal, international trade being hindered, privatized social security and a limited government role in health care all add up to a neo-conservative society. The sort of society that -when Muslim instead of Christian- gave us this lovely institution called "Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism."
And WAAAAAAY back in the day, conservatism gave us the Witch Hunts. Not too long ago, it gave the Nazi party the popular support which they had hitherto lacked.
YES! I am comparing neo-conservatism in this country to the Inquisition, the Nazi party, and Al-Qaeda! Conservatism in politics generally results in far more evils than liberalism in politics does. Not to mention the fact that it drastically increases the list of things which can be called "evil..."
I wholeheartedly believe that moderacy is the right way to go in all things, and that maintaining a balance between the yin and yang of conservatism and liberalism is ideal. Having a liberal president breed stronger opposition from conservative elements among the government, while having a conservative president tends to breed stronger opposition from liberal elements among the general population, which is not nearly as well-equipped to balance out the president as the government is. Therefore, my stance of moderacy is best served by having a liberal president in the white house.
Besides which, I truly think it would be good for this country to have a female president. Women approach life from a very different angle than men, and this country has been headed up by a man every since it's founding. It's time to shake things a bit.
(I also think that a black president would do some good, but right now, I simply don't think Obama's capable of doing the job. I don't think he's experienced enough for it, and a bit too idealistic.)
BigDumbWeirdo,
Derek1148 thinks that we should discuss only Tibetan Lamas on this thread, and I accepted. But what the heck, I think I'll just do what I want.
True, it is unrealistic to expect politicians to be completely honest or more honest than general people in society. But politicians tend to be more wily and shrewd than most people and this is how they get to the top. So voters should be careful that they are not electing a crook.
Consider this scenario - You are the coach of a soccer team. You have to appoint a team captain and you have 2 choices.
Player A is an excellent soccer player and has been in the team long enough to have good experience. But he is not honest, so it is possible that he may take money from the opposite side to play badly on purpose or try to corrupt the other players.
Player B is also a good soccer player, though not as good as Player A. He seems most likely do his best to lead the team towards victory. He is not as experienced as Player A.
Who would you choose? I would choose B.
I agree that there has to be a balance between Liberalism and Conservatism. Any of these pushed to the extreme can cause problems.
I don't think anyone should be elected because they are a woman or black. I know this is Not what you said, but personally I wouldn't even consider it as a one of the parameters for choice.
Derek1148 thinks that we should discuss only Tibetan Lamas on this thread, and I accepted. But what the heck, I think I'll just do what I want.
True, it is unrealistic to expect politicians to be completely honest or more honest than general people in society. But politicians tend to be more wily and shrewd than most people and this is how they get to the top. So voters should be careful that they are not electing a crook.
Consider this scenario - You are the coach of a soccer team. You have to appoint a team captain and you have 2 choices.
Player A is an excellent soccer player and has been in the team long enough to have good experience. But he is not honest, so it is possible that he may take money from the opposite side to play badly on purpose or try to corrupt the other players.
Player B is also a good soccer player, though not as good as Player A. He seems most likely do his best to lead the team towards victory. He is not as experienced as Player A.
Who would you choose? I would choose B.
I agree that there has to be a balance between Liberalism and Conservatism. Any of these pushed to the extreme can cause problems.
I don't think anyone should be elected because they are a woman or black. I know this is Not what you said, but personally I wouldn't even consider it as a one of the parameters for choice.
To add to my above post, if I could I would probably vote Obama. His pastor scares me though.
I wouldn't vote McCain for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned above. He seems to have integrity but his conservative policies are a bit scary. Another 100 years in Iraq if needed...sheesh.
I wouldn't vote McCain for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned above. He seems to have integrity but his conservative policies are a bit scary. Another 100 years in Iraq if needed...sheesh.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 29 2008, 11:34 AM)
BigDumbWeirdo,
Derek1148 thinks that we should discuss only Tibetan Lamas on this thread, and I accepted. But what the heck, I think I'll just do what I want.
He's probably right, but since when does ANY thread in this forum stay on topic?
It depends. In a world where only the listed factors come into play, B is the better choice. But in the real world, A is. Why? Because you can watch him. He may not be principled enough to resist the temptation of accepting a bribe, but he could be wary of the punishment if he is caught accepting a bribe. When someone offers him a bribe the first time, and as soon as the deal is sealed, you (the coach) walk over, take his money, and tell him how much trouble he'll be in if he's caught doing it again, would he do it again? Not likely. And you end up in a win-win scenario. The best, most experienced player is the captain, and he won't be accepting any more bribes.
Admittedly, this scenario I just described isn't applicable as an analogy to Hillary. But the following bit, is.
Who stands to gain the most from a strong American economy? The rich shareholders, investors, and property owners. So where's the motivation for such a person to do anything that would adversely affect the economy?
(In case you haven't noticed, I usually vote based on economic considerations. I believe that -realistically- the most beneficial thing for any nation to do is make itself stronger and richer first, and let all other considerations come second.)
It depends. In a world where only the listed factors come into play, B is the better choice. But in the real world, A is. Why? Because you can watch him. He may not be principled enough to resist the temptation of accepting a bribe, but he could be wary of the punishment if he is caught accepting a bribe. When someone offers him a bribe the first time, and as soon as the deal is sealed, you (the coach) walk over, take his money, and tell him how much trouble he'll be in if he's caught doing it again, would he do it again? Not likely. And you end up in a win-win scenario. The best, most experienced player is the captain, and he won't be accepting any more bribes.
Admittedly, this scenario I just described isn't applicable as an analogy to Hillary. But the following bit, is.
Who stands to gain the most from a strong American economy? The rich shareholders, investors, and property owners. So where's the motivation for such a person to do anything that would adversely affect the economy?
(In case you haven't noticed, I usually vote based on economic considerations. I believe that -realistically- the most beneficial thing for any nation to do is make itself stronger and richer first, and let all other considerations come second.)
I agree that there has to be a balance between Liberalism and Conservatism. Any of these pushed to the extreme can cause problems.
Check out my Idealism vs Reality thread for examples of liberal extremism.
No, you're right. Electing a person based on their race or sex is racist or sexist. My feelings, however, are that it would accomplish some good to have a woman in that position. I think she would handle things differently (not necessarily better) in such a way that would cause shifts in the American way of doing business, opening up new doors and new ideas. I can't prove that such is the case, however. I just think it is, and given the complete lack of evidence either for or against, I choose to act on it. (To be honest, it's not a major factor in my decision, just one of the factors that engenders the most conversation on the subject.)
No, you're right. Electing a person based on their race or sex is racist or sexist. My feelings, however, are that it would accomplish some good to have a woman in that position. I think she would handle things differently (not necessarily better) in such a way that would cause shifts in the American way of doing business, opening up new doors and new ideas. I can't prove that such is the case, however. I just think it is, and given the complete lack of evidence either for or against, I choose to act on it. (To be honest, it's not a major factor in my decision, just one of the factors that engenders the most conversation on the subject.)
To add to my above post, if I could I would probably vote Obama. His pastor scares me though.
I don't DISLIKE him, I just don't think he'd make a good president. He seems a bit TOO liberal for me, yanno? (Ironic, considering I've signed at least 3 dozen petitions to decriminalize marijuana on the state level, I believe gay people have just as much of a right to be married and adopt children, and I am whole heatedly pro-choice...)
Yeah, that's one of the issues with Hillary, too. Well, it's the flip side of the issue, really. Hillary would probably have some scandals, just like her husband, were she to be elected, but she's intelligent, wise, and experienced. John McCain's politics are "scary" as you so aptly put it, even though he's probably one of the squeakier clean politicians out there.
Derek1148 thinks that we should discuss only Tibetan Lamas on this thread, and I accepted. But what the heck, I think I'll just do what I want.
He's probably right, but since when does ANY thread in this forum stay on topic?
QUOTE
Consider this scenario...
Who would you choose? I would choose B.
Who would you choose? I would choose B.
It depends. In a world where only the listed factors come into play, B is the better choice. But in the real world, A is. Why? Because you can watch him. He may not be principled enough to resist the temptation of accepting a bribe, but he could be wary of the punishment if he is caught accepting a bribe. When someone offers him a bribe the first time, and as soon as the deal is sealed, you (the coach) walk over, take his money, and tell him how much trouble he'll be in if he's caught doing it again, would he do it again? Not likely. And you end up in a win-win scenario. The best, most experienced player is the captain, and he won't be accepting any more bribes.
Admittedly, this scenario I just described isn't applicable as an analogy to Hillary. But the following bit, is.
Who stands to gain the most from a strong American economy? The rich shareholders, investors, and property owners. So where's the motivation for such a person to do anything that would adversely affect the economy?
(In case you haven't noticed, I usually vote based on economic considerations. I believe that -realistically- the most beneficial thing for any nation to do is make itself stronger and richer first, and let all other considerations come second.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Consider this scenario... Who would you choose? I would choose B. |
It depends. In a world where only the listed factors come into play, B is the better choice. But in the real world, A is. Why? Because you can watch him. He may not be principled enough to resist the temptation of accepting a bribe, but he could be wary of the punishment if he is caught accepting a bribe. When someone offers him a bribe the first time, and as soon as the deal is sealed, you (the coach) walk over, take his money, and tell him how much trouble he'll be in if he's caught doing it again, would he do it again? Not likely. And you end up in a win-win scenario. The best, most experienced player is the captain, and he won't be accepting any more bribes.
Admittedly, this scenario I just described isn't applicable as an analogy to Hillary. But the following bit, is.
Who stands to gain the most from a strong American economy? The rich shareholders, investors, and property owners. So where's the motivation for such a person to do anything that would adversely affect the economy?
(In case you haven't noticed, I usually vote based on economic considerations. I believe that -realistically- the most beneficial thing for any nation to do is make itself stronger and richer first, and let all other considerations come second.)
I agree that there has to be a balance between Liberalism and Conservatism. Any of these pushed to the extreme can cause problems.
Check out my Idealism vs Reality thread for examples of liberal extremism.
QUOTE
I don't think anyone should be elected because they are a woman or black. I know this is Not what you said, but personally I wouldn't even consider it as a one of the parameters for choice.
No, you're right. Electing a person based on their race or sex is racist or sexist. My feelings, however, are that it would accomplish some good to have a woman in that position. I think she would handle things differently (not necessarily better) in such a way that would cause shifts in the American way of doing business, opening up new doors and new ideas. I can't prove that such is the case, however. I just think it is, and given the complete lack of evidence either for or against, I choose to act on it. (To be honest, it's not a major factor in my decision, just one of the factors that engenders the most conversation on the subject.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't think anyone should be elected because they are a woman or black. I know this is Not what you said, but personally I wouldn't even consider it as a one of the parameters for choice. |
No, you're right. Electing a person based on their race or sex is racist or sexist. My feelings, however, are that it would accomplish some good to have a woman in that position. I think she would handle things differently (not necessarily better) in such a way that would cause shifts in the American way of doing business, opening up new doors and new ideas. I can't prove that such is the case, however. I just think it is, and given the complete lack of evidence either for or against, I choose to act on it. (To be honest, it's not a major factor in my decision, just one of the factors that engenders the most conversation on the subject.)
To add to my above post, if I could I would probably vote Obama. His pastor scares me though.
I don't DISLIKE him, I just don't think he'd make a good president. He seems a bit TOO liberal for me, yanno? (Ironic, considering I've signed at least 3 dozen petitions to decriminalize marijuana on the state level, I believe gay people have just as much of a right to be married and adopt children, and I am whole heatedly pro-choice...)
QUOTE
I wouldn't vote McCain for pretty much the same reasons you mentioned above. He seems to have integrity but his conservative policies are a bit scary. Another 100 years in Iraq if needed...sheesh.
Yeah, that's one of the issues with Hillary, too. Well, it's the flip side of the issue, really. Hillary would probably have some scandals, just like her husband, were she to be elected, but she's intelligent, wise, and experienced. John McCain's politics are "scary" as you so aptly put it, even though he's probably one of the squeakier clean politicians out there.
Hi BDW,
I´m a bit puzzled by your invitation to check out the "Idealism v Realism" thread for examples of Liberal Extremism - I made a number of contributions to that thread and I have just rechecked it but I cannot find any comprehensive list of such examples. As a matter of interest, what is your definition of Liberal Extremism? And Obama is TOO liberal? - man, he´d have trouble getting into a right - wing party in Europe !!!!
regards
edward 3
I´m a bit puzzled by your invitation to check out the "Idealism v Realism" thread for examples of Liberal Extremism - I made a number of contributions to that thread and I have just rechecked it but I cannot find any comprehensive list of such examples. As a matter of interest, what is your definition of Liberal Extremism? And Obama is TOO liberal? - man, he´d have trouble getting into a right - wing party in Europe !!!!
regards
edward 3
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 29 2008, 07:50 PM)
To add to my above post, if I could I would probably vote Obama.
What a shock.
What a shock.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 29 2008, 04:13 PM)
Hi BDW,
I´m a bit puzzled by your invitation to check out the "Idealism v Realism" thread for examples of Liberal Extremism - I made a number of contributions to that thread and I have just rechecked it but I cannot find any comprehensive list of such examples. As a matter of interest, what is your definition of Liberal Extremism? And Obama is TOO liberal? - man, he´d have trouble getting into a right - wing party in Europe !!!!
regards
edward 3
Tree hugging hippies were mentioned... New age "let's all love each other" gurus, too...
I´m a bit puzzled by your invitation to check out the "Idealism v Realism" thread for examples of Liberal Extremism - I made a number of contributions to that thread and I have just rechecked it but I cannot find any comprehensive list of such examples. As a matter of interest, what is your definition of Liberal Extremism? And Obama is TOO liberal? - man, he´d have trouble getting into a right - wing party in Europe !!!!
regards
edward 3
Tree hugging hippies were mentioned... New age "let's all love each other" gurus, too...
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 29 2008, 10:02 PM)
What a shock.
Good. The negative I just gave you wouldn't shock you either.
Good. The negative I just gave you wouldn't shock you either.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 29 2008, 10:16 PM)
Good. The negative I just gave you wouldn't shock you either.
Wow, that hurts. Hey, tell me about your candidate's most important piece of legislation. Bills he pushed for. Votes he made.
Wow, that hurts. Hey, tell me about your candidate's most important piece of legislation. Bills he pushed for. Votes he made.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 29 2008, 10:21 PM)
Wow, that hurts. Hey, tell me about your candidate's most important piece of legislation. Bills he pushed for. Votes he made.
I will. When you are through with your "holier than thou" attitude.
I will. When you are through with your "holier than thou" attitude.
To support a cause or political movement without some understanding of the leadership and motives is dangerous. History is rife with examples. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and etc.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
To support a cause or political movement without some understanding of the leadership and motives is dangerous. History is rife with examples. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and etc.
Wow...what a tremendous piece of wisdom. If only we had known this earlier. Now all we need is a gadget for measuring leadership and a mind reading device for knowing motives.
How does it feel to be at the receiving end of wise cracks? So why don't you tell us which presidential candidate you would support and why?
Wow...what a tremendous piece of wisdom. If only we had known this earlier. Now all we need is a gadget for measuring leadership and a mind reading device for knowing motives.
How does it feel to be at the receiving end of wise cracks? So why don't you tell us which presidential candidate you would support and why?
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 30 2008, 04:12 AM)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
To support a cause or political movement without some understanding of the leadership and motives is dangerous. History is rife with examples. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and etc.
Wow...what a tremendous piece of wisdom. If only we had known this earlier. Now all we need is a gadget for measuring leadership and a mind reading device for knowing motives.
You might be right. We can never know someone's true motives. But we can educate ourselves. Have ever read Mein Kampf? It was published about 1926. This should have been sufficient warning for the world.
To remain deliberately ignorant is not a virtue. And it is not healthy.
Wow...what a tremendous piece of wisdom. If only we had known this earlier. Now all we need is a gadget for measuring leadership and a mind reading device for knowing motives.
You might be right. We can never know someone's true motives. But we can educate ourselves. Have ever read Mein Kampf? It was published about 1926. This should have been sufficient warning for the world.
To remain deliberately ignorant is not a virtue. And it is not healthy.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Mar 30 2008, 04:36 AM)
You might be right. We can never know someone's true motives. But we can educate ourselves. Have ever read Mein Kampf? It was published about 1926. This should have been sufficient warning for the world.
To remain deliberately ignorant is not a virtue. And it is not healthy.
It is easier to dissect and point out the cause of an event after it has happened. Much harder to know in advance.
To remain deliberately ignorant is not a virtue. And it is not healthy.
It is easier to dissect and point out the cause of an event after it has happened. Much harder to know in advance.
QUOTE (vkamath+Mar 30 2008, 04:55 AM)
It is easier to dissect and point out the cause of an event after it has happened.
It may be easier but it certainly has less value. That is why knowledge and understanding are important. Do you want be a groupie or an educated and informed supporter?
It may be easier but it certainly has less value. That is why knowledge and understanding are important. Do you want be a groupie or an educated and informed supporter?
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
It may be easier but it certainly has less value.
Exactly. So your assessment that the reading of Mein Kampf would have provided sufficient warning to the world has less value.
What would be of greater value but harder is if you can predict who will make a better president in 2008.
Exactly. So your assessment that the reading of Mein Kampf would have provided sufficient warning to the world has less value.
What would be of greater value but harder is if you can predict who will make a better president in 2008.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
That is why knowledge and understanding are important. Do you want be a groupie or an educated and informed supporter?
Is there a non-obvious answer to that question? From your statements it seems you make "educated and informed" choices. Lets hear it.
Is there a non-obvious answer to that question? From your statements it seems you make "educated and informed" choices. Lets hear it.
One’s political views are based on many factors. And the consequences of being wrong can be severe. But when one is young there is a tendency to be more idealistic.
“If you are not a Liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain.” – (Winston Churchill)
“If you are not a Liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain.” – (Winston Churchill)
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
One’s political views are based on many factors. And the consequences of being wrong can be severe. But when one is young there is a tendency to be more idealistic.
It is good to be idealistic in thinking and realistic in action. There has to be a balance.
“If you are not a Liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain.” – (Winston Churchill)
Yes, lets take as a baseline the words of a prime minister of another country from the 1950s.
Edit: How unrealistic is that?
I was just trying to give you a break for your ignorance of a candidate you claim to support. I was offering you the cover of being young, not stupid.
It is good to be idealistic in thinking and realistic in action. There has to be a balance.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
“If you are not a Liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not Conservative by 40, you have no brain.” – (Winston Churchill)
Yes, lets take as a baseline the words of a prime minister of another country from the 1950s.
Edit: How unrealistic is that?
QUOTE
Yes, lets take as a baseline the words of a prime minister of another country from the 1950s.
Edit: How unrealistic is that?
Edit: How unrealistic is that?
I was just trying to give you a break for your ignorance of a candidate you claim to support. I was offering you the cover of being young, not stupid.
Hi BDW,
I asked you to quote some examples of your previous references to Liberal Extremism - and you come back with a vague reference to tree-huggers. This has nothing to do with liberalism - you are confusing idealism with liberalism. Liberalism is nothing more than a high level of tolerance towards those whose views you do not share.
Derek,
As for Churchill - with the amount of brandy that guy consumed before breakfast between the ages of 20 and 40..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regards
edward 3
I asked you to quote some examples of your previous references to Liberal Extremism - and you come back with a vague reference to tree-huggers. This has nothing to do with liberalism - you are confusing idealism with liberalism. Liberalism is nothing more than a high level of tolerance towards those whose views you do not share.
Derek,
As for Churchill - with the amount of brandy that guy consumed before breakfast between the ages of 20 and 40..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regards
edward 3
Edit.
Look ^^^^^^ see ^^^^^^^ he's done it again .. post edited into nothing.
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
I was just trying to give you a break for your ignorance of a candidate you claim to support. I was offering you the cover of being young, not stupid.
I don't need any cover. Supporting any particular candidate does not make me stupid. In the worst case it can prove me wrong. I am willing to accept that I am wrong given enough evidence. Ask yourself if you are willing to do that?
So for the nth time, instead of making more wise cracks and Winston Churchill or Hitler references, simply tell me who your choice of candidate is and why.
I don't need any cover. Supporting any particular candidate does not make me stupid. In the worst case it can prove me wrong. I am willing to accept that I am wrong given enough evidence. Ask yourself if you are willing to do that?
So for the nth time, instead of making more wise cracks and Winston Churchill or Hitler references, simply tell me who your choice of candidate is and why.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 30 2008, 06:57 PM)
Derek,
As for Churchill - with the amount of brandy that guy consumed before breakfast between the ages of 20 and 40..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regards
edward 3
President Lincoln, when advised that General Grant was a “drunkard”, stated: "… find out…what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals."
As for Churchill - with the amount of brandy that guy consumed before breakfast between the ages of 20 and 40..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regards
edward 3
President Lincoln, when advised that General Grant was a “drunkard”, stated: "… find out…what brand of whiskey Grant drinks, because I want to send a barrel of it to each one of my generals."
I read through this WHOLE thread because it was suppose to be about sock puppets and cranks, and this is what I end up with? Political debate? Bah!
I wanna talk sock-puppets!
I wanna talk sock-puppets!
QUOTE (Edward 3+Mar 30 2008, 01:57 PM)
Hi BDW,
I asked you to quote some examples of your previous references to Liberal Extremism - and you come back with a vague reference to tree-huggers. This has nothing to do with liberalism - you are confusing idealism with liberalism. Liberalism is nothing more than a high level of tolerance towards those whose views you do not share.
Derek,
As for Churchill - with the amount of brandy that guy consumed before breakfast between the ages of 20 and 40..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regards
edward 3
Edward, I truly believe now that much of the accusations of stupidity that have been leveled at you are due to your apparent problems with reading comprehension. Extremists of any sort are inherently idealists. Idealism is a necessary component of extremism, and I fail to see how anyone could possibly imagine any form of extremist political view as occuring without any level of self-deception about the nature of the world.
The reference to tree huggers was not particularly vague, nor was any mention of
"I love you all" new age gurus absent from that thread, so your claim is simply wrong.
I don't have any issue with you at this point, so I'm not going to neg you or make fun of you, but I had the let it be known that I do believe you have a signifigant difficulty understanding what you read, and will phrase any posts to you appropriately in the future.
As for Churchill, you must look at a man's accomplishments, not his vices to determine his level of wisdom. Being an alcaholic has nothing to do with the wisdom contained in any quote of his, as long as it does not refer to alcoholism.
I asked you to quote some examples of your previous references to Liberal Extremism - and you come back with a vague reference to tree-huggers. This has nothing to do with liberalism - you are confusing idealism with liberalism. Liberalism is nothing more than a high level of tolerance towards those whose views you do not share.
Derek,
As for Churchill - with the amount of brandy that guy consumed before breakfast between the ages of 20 and 40..............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
regards
edward 3
Edward, I truly believe now that much of the accusations of stupidity that have been leveled at you are due to your apparent problems with reading comprehension. Extremists of any sort are inherently idealists. Idealism is a necessary component of extremism, and I fail to see how anyone could possibly imagine any form of extremist political view as occuring without any level of self-deception about the nature of the world.
The reference to tree huggers was not particularly vague, nor was any mention of
"I love you all" new age gurus absent from that thread, so your claim is simply wrong.
I don't have any issue with you at this point, so I'm not going to neg you or make fun of you, but I had the let it be known that I do believe you have a signifigant difficulty understanding what you read, and will phrase any posts to you appropriately in the future.
As for Churchill, you must look at a man's accomplishments, not his vices to determine his level of wisdom. Being an alcaholic has nothing to do with the wisdom contained in any quote of his, as long as it does not refer to alcoholism.
BDW,
I am at all times careful to use words accurately. You, on the other hand, on this thread and on the Idealism v Realism one, have gotten yourself utterly confused as to the meaning of terms such as idealism, realism and liberalism. You say an extreme liberalist must be an idealist - this is nonsense and you are taking your own earlier post out of context - concentrating on the adjective "extreme" instead of the noun ( the substantive issue of liberalism). An extreme liberal is one who displays a high level of tolerance towards the views of others - idealists usually tend to be capable of entertaining only their own limited view of the world.
As for your reference to accusations of stupidity being levelled against me , would you care to quote examples of what you refer to - from posters with some degree of credibility please.
As for the reference to literacy, I think you will find that the literary content of my posts has been fairly high - but you may wish to adduce evidence to the contrary.
regards
edward 3
ps - as for your references to Churchill - high accomplishment does not necessarily indicate wisdom. Would you classify Bush as a wise man??
pps - phrase your posts to me as you wish - but for your own benefit, perhaps if you simplify your forms of expression it will act as an aid to coherence.
I am at all times careful to use words accurately. You, on the other hand, on this thread and on the Idealism v Realism one, have gotten yourself utterly confused as to the meaning of terms such as idealism, realism and liberalism. You say an extreme liberalist must be an idealist - this is nonsense and you are taking your own earlier post out of context - concentrating on the adjective "extreme" instead of the noun ( the substantive issue of liberalism). An extreme liberal is one who displays a high level of tolerance towards the views of others - idealists usually tend to be capable of entertaining only their own limited view of the world.
As for your reference to accusations of stupidity being levelled against me , would you care to quote examples of what you refer to - from posters with some degree of credibility please.
As for the reference to literacy, I think you will find that the literary content of my posts has been fairly high - but you may wish to adduce evidence to the contrary.
regards
edward 3
ps - as for your references to Churchill - high accomplishment does not necessarily indicate wisdom. Would you classify Bush as a wise man??
pps - phrase your posts to me as you wish - but for your own benefit, perhaps if you simplify your forms of expression it will act as an aid to coherence.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Apr 1 2008, 02:22 AM)
I am at all times careful to use words accurately.
You might try to do so, but so far, you've managed to convince how many people of your lack of intelligence? 9 unique negatives. Well, 10 as soon as a finish posting here.
Of your 4 unique positives, from whom did they come? Einsteinear, who posts nonsensical physics, then claims he did so knowingly and that AlphaNumeric became the butt of some idiotic joke when he corrected the boy...
PJParent, who'se expressed dogmatic religious beliefs as well as a hatred of the FM. 4Dguy, who's... well, nuts, and yor_on, who possed you after you posted in his defense in his recent thread. Not one positive in your list praises your intelligence or coherence. Wanna go through my feedback and see how many people praise mine?
Of your 4 unique positives, from whom did they come? Einsteinear, who posts nonsensical physics, then claims he did so knowingly and that AlphaNumeric became the butt of some idiotic joke when he corrected the boy...
PJParent, who'se expressed dogmatic religious beliefs as well as a hatred of the FM. 4Dguy, who's... well, nuts, and yor_on, who possed you after you posted in his defense in his recent thread. Not one positive in your list praises your intelligence or coherence. Wanna go through my feedback and see how many people praise mine?
You say an extreme liberalist must be an idealist - this is nonsense and you are taking your own earlier post out of context - concentrating on the adjective "extreme" instead of the noun ( the substantive issue of liberalism).
Then simply prove me wrong. Name one kind of extremist of ANY sort that doesn't need an idealistic view of the world in order to hold their extreme beliefs. Just one would invalidate me. (Note that now, I'm not restricting this to political extremism, which makes things even easier on you.)
Ummmm.... So you're a political dictionary writer, now? If not, you have no business defining the phrase, only quoting existing definitions. Like this. Since wikipedia has no article title "extreme liberalism," I instead, search for an article on a synonymous term: Far Left. And I find it. And there, in the second paragraph, you find a series of examples of Far Leftist ideologies.
"The term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, social anarchism, anarchist communism, left communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism.[1][2][3] However, in the 19th century in Europe, North America and European colonies, anyone who supported secularism and universal suffrage likely would have been described as far left. Anyone in the early 20th century who supported trade unions and civil rights for minority groups may have been labeled a far leftist." - Wikipedia: Far Left
Communism, anarchism... Even acceptable ideologies such as universal sufferage, civil rights for minorities... All of these REQUIRE a certain level of idealism.
Ummmm.... So you're a political dictionary writer, now? If not, you have no business defining the phrase, only quoting existing definitions. Like this. Since wikipedia has no article title "extreme liberalism," I instead, search for an article on a synonymous term: Far Left. And I find it. And there, in the second paragraph, you find a series of examples of Far Leftist ideologies.
"The term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, social anarchism, anarchist communism, left communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism.[1][2][3] However, in the 19th century in Europe, North America and European colonies, anyone who supported secularism and universal suffrage likely would have been described as far left. Anyone in the early 20th century who supported trade unions and civil rights for minority groups may have been labeled a far leftist." - Wikipedia: Far Left
Communism, anarchism... Even acceptable ideologies such as universal sufferage, civil rights for minorities... All of these REQUIRE a certain level of idealism.
As for your reference to accusations of stupidity being levelled against me , would you care to quote examples of what you refer to - from posters with some degree of credibility please.
I've bolded the most important part of your challenge. Since you were obviously offended by my incredibly civil manner of conveying a criticism, you would have been even more insulted by anyone who criticized you in a less civil manner. So how could ANYONE on this site call you stupid without you deciding that their credibility is nill? It's a catch-22, and it's not only illogical, but impossible to counter. This makes it a tautology, useless in debate. But, since I am a forthright and honest person, I will give you an honest response to your challenge.
Trout gave you a neg while linking to this post of yours.
Dallas gave you your first feedback, a negative.
There are two examples of credible people criticising your intelligence. Now, feel free to deny their credibility all you wish, as I know you will.
I have had to explain relatively simple concepts to you at least 4 times so far. That does not indicate a high level of literacy, nor does your confusion of the concept of reading comprehension and literacy. They are two different things. Literacy refers to your abilities with a specific written language. Spelling, grammar, etc. Reading comprehension refers to internal thought processes that occur when you read the writings of others, and how you interpret them.
I have had to explain relatively simple concepts to you at least 4 times so far. That does not indicate a high level of literacy, nor does your confusion of the concept of reading comprehension and literacy. They are two different things. Literacy refers to your abilities with a specific written language. Spelling, grammar, etc. Reading comprehension refers to internal thought processes that occur when you read the writings of others, and how you interpret them.
ps - as for your references to Churchill - high accomplishment does not necessarily indicate wisdom. Would you classify Bush as a wise man??
Yes, actually. Immoral, egomaniacal and lacking in common sense, but obviously posessed of enough wisdom to use those advantages he was given by his parentage and upbringing to his full benefit.
This is the root of it all. You imply that my posts are incoherent and overly complex. Many many people on this site, including many of the cranks, find my posts to be coherent and none too complex. So what does that suggest? That my posts are overly complex and incoherent? No, it suggests that you find them so. You, and you alone, which leaves no conclusion other than: The problem is on your end, not mine.
You might try to do so, but so far, you've managed to convince how many people of your lack of intelligence? 9 unique negatives. Well, 10 as soon as a finish posting here.
QUOTE
You, on the other hand, on this thread and on the Idealism v Realism one, have gotten yourself utterly confused as to the meaning of terms such as idealism, realism and liberalism.
Of your 4 unique positives, from whom did they come? Einsteinear, who posts nonsensical physics, then claims he did so knowingly and that AlphaNumeric became the butt of some idiotic joke when he corrected the boy...
PJParent, who'se expressed dogmatic religious beliefs as well as a hatred of the FM. 4Dguy, who's... well, nuts, and yor_on, who possed you after you posted in his defense in his recent thread. Not one positive in your list praises your intelligence or coherence. Wanna go through my feedback and see how many people praise mine?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You, on the other hand, on this thread and on the Idealism v Realism one, have gotten yourself utterly confused as to the meaning of terms such as idealism, realism and liberalism. |
Of your 4 unique positives, from whom did they come? Einsteinear, who posts nonsensical physics, then claims he did so knowingly and that AlphaNumeric became the butt of some idiotic joke when he corrected the boy...
PJParent, who'se expressed dogmatic religious beliefs as well as a hatred of the FM. 4Dguy, who's... well, nuts, and yor_on, who possed you after you posted in his defense in his recent thread. Not one positive in your list praises your intelligence or coherence. Wanna go through my feedback and see how many people praise mine?
You say an extreme liberalist must be an idealist - this is nonsense and you are taking your own earlier post out of context - concentrating on the adjective "extreme" instead of the noun ( the substantive issue of liberalism).
Then simply prove me wrong. Name one kind of extremist of ANY sort that doesn't need an idealistic view of the world in order to hold their extreme beliefs. Just one would invalidate me. (Note that now, I'm not restricting this to political extremism, which makes things even easier on you.)
QUOTE
An extreme liberal is one who displays a high level of tolerance towards the views of others -
Ummmm.... So you're a political dictionary writer, now? If not, you have no business defining the phrase, only quoting existing definitions. Like this. Since wikipedia has no article title "extreme liberalism," I instead, search for an article on a synonymous term: Far Left. And I find it. And there, in the second paragraph, you find a series of examples of Far Leftist ideologies.
"The term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, social anarchism, anarchist communism, left communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism.[1][2][3] However, in the 19th century in Europe, North America and European colonies, anyone who supported secularism and universal suffrage likely would have been described as far left. Anyone in the early 20th century who supported trade unions and civil rights for minority groups may have been labeled a far leftist." - Wikipedia: Far Left
Communism, anarchism... Even acceptable ideologies such as universal sufferage, civil rights for minorities... All of these REQUIRE a certain level of idealism.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| An extreme liberal is one who displays a high level of tolerance towards the views of others - |
Ummmm.... So you're a political dictionary writer, now? If not, you have no business defining the phrase, only quoting existing definitions. Like this. Since wikipedia has no article title "extreme liberalism," I instead, search for an article on a synonymous term: Far Left. And I find it. And there, in the second paragraph, you find a series of examples of Far Leftist ideologies.
"The term far left has been associated with ideologies such as communism, social anarchism, anarchist communism, left communism, anarcho-syndicalism, Marxist-Leninism, Trotskyism and Maoism.[1][2][3] However, in the 19th century in Europe, North America and European colonies, anyone who supported secularism and universal suffrage likely would have been described as far left. Anyone in the early 20th century who supported trade unions and civil rights for minority groups may have been labeled a far leftist." - Wikipedia: Far Left
Communism, anarchism... Even acceptable ideologies such as universal sufferage, civil rights for minorities... All of these REQUIRE a certain level of idealism.
As for your reference to accusations of stupidity being levelled against me , would you care to quote examples of what you refer to - from posters with some degree of credibility please.
I've bolded the most important part of your challenge. Since you were obviously offended by my incredibly civil manner of conveying a criticism, you would have been even more insulted by anyone who criticized you in a less civil manner. So how could ANYONE on this site call you stupid without you deciding that their credibility is nill? It's a catch-22, and it's not only illogical, but impossible to counter. This makes it a tautology, useless in debate. But, since I am a forthright and honest person, I will give you an honest response to your challenge.
Trout gave you a neg while linking to this post of yours.
Dallas gave you your first feedback, a negative.
There are two examples of credible people criticising your intelligence. Now, feel free to deny their credibility all you wish, as I know you will.
QUOTE
As for the reference to literacy, I think you will find that the literary content of my posts has been fairly high - but you may wish to adduce evidence to the contrary.
I have had to explain relatively simple concepts to you at least 4 times so far. That does not indicate a high level of literacy, nor does your confusion of the concept of reading comprehension and literacy. They are two different things. Literacy refers to your abilities with a specific written language. Spelling, grammar, etc. Reading comprehension refers to internal thought processes that occur when you read the writings of others, and how you interpret them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As for the reference to literacy, I think you will find that the literary content of my posts has been fairly high - but you may wish to adduce evidence to the contrary. |
I have had to explain relatively simple concepts to you at least 4 times so far. That does not indicate a high level of literacy, nor does your confusion of the concept of reading comprehension and literacy. They are two different things. Literacy refers to your abilities with a specific written language. Spelling, grammar, etc. Reading comprehension refers to internal thought processes that occur when you read the writings of others, and how you interpret them.
ps - as for your references to Churchill - high accomplishment does not necessarily indicate wisdom. Would you classify Bush as a wise man??
Yes, actually. Immoral, egomaniacal and lacking in common sense, but obviously posessed of enough wisdom to use those advantages he was given by his parentage and upbringing to his full benefit.
QUOTE
pps - phrase your posts to me as you wish - but for your own benefit, perhaps if you simplify your forms of expression it will act as an aid to coherence.
This is the root of it all. You imply that my posts are incoherent and overly complex. Many many people on this site, including many of the cranks, find my posts to be coherent and none too complex. So what does that suggest? That my posts are overly complex and incoherent? No, it suggests that you find them so. You, and you alone, which leaves no conclusion other than: The problem is on your end, not mine.
BDW,
I have given negative feedback to a few people - it is something I regret because it is a childish, immature and intellectually lazy form of response. If you choose to judge me by my negative feedback level then your judgement falls into this category.
You remain incoherent on topics that you started - if you want to compare extreme liberalism with idealism that´s fine, but to have to resort to switching the comparison to "extremism" v. "idealism" is really grasping at straws. You are now comparing the adjective of the first with the substantive noun of the second - this is pathetic in terms of intellectual dishonesty.
Further dishonesty - you are unable to define "extreme liberalism - a term you introduced to the discussion - so you substitute a wholly inaccurate synonym "Far Left" and present us with definitions of this term. As far as a proper definition is concerned all you have to do is check the definition of "Liberalism" and then adapt this by the whatever magnitude of extremism you had in mind. Strange to go hunting for a definition AFTER you introduced the term - and then off you go and right away you are again confusing liberalism with idealism.
Trout negged me for my interpretation of photon time dilation - he may have been correct but not all would agree with his interpretation of this issue. At least I was discussing science.
What concepts have you had to explain to me? On the Idealism v Realism thread you were floundering because you had not properly defined for yourself the meaning of these terms. When I threw some light on the topic you actually agreed with me.
And Bush is "wise" - obviously another term you are throwing about carelessly without giving any thought to its meaning.
edward 3
I have given negative feedback to a few people - it is something I regret because it is a childish, immature and intellectually lazy form of response. If you choose to judge me by my negative feedback level then your judgement falls into this category.
You remain incoherent on topics that you started - if you want to compare extreme liberalism with idealism that´s fine, but to have to resort to switching the comparison to "extremism" v. "idealism" is really grasping at straws. You are now comparing the adjective of the first with the substantive noun of the second - this is pathetic in terms of intellectual dishonesty.
Further dishonesty - you are unable to define "extreme liberalism - a term you introduced to the discussion - so you substitute a wholly inaccurate synonym "Far Left" and present us with definitions of this term. As far as a proper definition is concerned all you have to do is check the definition of "Liberalism" and then adapt this by the whatever magnitude of extremism you had in mind. Strange to go hunting for a definition AFTER you introduced the term - and then off you go and right away you are again confusing liberalism with idealism.
Trout negged me for my interpretation of photon time dilation - he may have been correct but not all would agree with his interpretation of this issue. At least I was discussing science.
What concepts have you had to explain to me? On the Idealism v Realism thread you were floundering because you had not properly defined for yourself the meaning of these terms. When I threw some light on the topic you actually agreed with me.
And Bush is "wise" - obviously another term you are throwing about carelessly without giving any thought to its meaning.
edward 3
QUOTE (Edward 3+Apr 1 2008, 01:28 PM)
I have given negative feedback to a few people - it is something I regret because it is a childish, immature and intellectually lazy form of response. If you choose to judge me by the my negative feedback level then your judgement falls into this category.
That's just crap. As I said, you deny the credibility of anyone who criticizes you. The fact that you've recieved more criticism than praise is one you then interpret to mean that the feedback system is inherently flawed, despite your own admitted participation in it. That's not logically valid. It's entirely biased, and based on a preconceived notion.
Bullsh*t. You are the only person ever on this site to accuse me of being incoherent. What is the simpler, more believable explanation; that I am incoherent and only you have noticed, or that I am not incoherent and you personally do not understand my posts? Occam's razor applies...
Bullsh*t. You are the only person ever on this site to accuse me of being incoherent. What is the simpler, more believable explanation; that I am incoherent and only you have noticed, or that I am not incoherent and you personally do not understand my posts? Occam's razor applies...
if you want to compare extreme liberalism with idealism that´s fine, but to have to resort to switching the comparison to "extremism" v. "idealism" is really grasping at straws.
So, by allowing you to pick ANY sort of extremist (not just a political extremist) to invalidate my claim that idealism is a prerequisite of political extremism I am somehow "grasping at straws?" HOW does it NOT make it even easier for you to invalidate my claims? Don't retort to this section, ANSWER THE QUESTION. Explain EXACTLY how allowing you to choose ANY SORT OF EXTREMIST, instead of limiting your choices to political extremists, and challenging you to show how they hold their views without any idealism does anything but make it easier for you to invalidate my claim. I threw you a bone and you accuse me of grasping at straws, and that's about as dishonest as it can get.
Bullsh*t. Completely and utterly.
Bullsh*t. Completely and utterly.
Further dishonesty - you are unable to define "extreme liberalism - a term you introduced to the discussion - so you substitute a wholly inaccurate synonym "Far Left" and present us with definitions of this term.
More complete bullsh*t, and hypocritical bullsh*t at that! FIND ME A DEFINITION OF LEFT WING POLITICS THAT DOES NOT REFER TO LIBERALISM. That's the second challenge I'm throwing your way. "Far Left" and "Extremist Liberalism" are completely synonymous.
Which yeilds the SAME EXACT ANSWER AS "FAR LEFT."
Which yeilds the SAME EXACT ANSWER AS "FAR LEFT."
Strange to go hunting for a definition AFTER you introduced the term - and then off you go and right away you are again confusing liberalism with idealism.
Strange to me how you keep repeating a claim that you've yet to provide any evidence of, barring your own misinterpretations of what I meant to say in certain posts, despite my contradicting explanation.
You're right. People who don't know much about physics might not agree with him. But those who know a thing or two unanimously support his position.
You're right. People who don't know much about physics might not agree with him. But those who know a thing or two unanimously support his position.
What concepts have you had to explain to me?
Example
Here, I gave you a list of things I thing are good about the world. You then directly claimed that I said they were a list of things I wanted to change. I had to re-iterate my position in simpler, less precise terms in order for you to understand. How do you POSSIBLY recieve a list of things I DON'T want to change about the world, and then turn around and claim they are things I DO want to change? I SPECIFICALLY said that they were things I DID NOT want to change! You didn't just misinterpret my post, you completely ignored what I said!
Idealists seem to focus on what they think humanity could be, instead of on what humanity is, or what humanity really could be, and yearn for a world that cannot and (in my opinion) should not exist.
That's just crap. As I said, you deny the credibility of anyone who criticizes you. The fact that you've recieved more criticism than praise is one you then interpret to mean that the feedback system is inherently flawed, despite your own admitted participation in it. That's not logically valid. It's entirely biased, and based on a preconceived notion.
QUOTE
You remain incoherent on topics that you started -
Bullsh*t. You are the only person ever on this site to accuse me of being incoherent. What is the simpler, more believable explanation; that I am incoherent and only you have noticed, or that I am not incoherent and you personally do not understand my posts? Occam's razor applies...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You remain incoherent on topics that you started - |
Bullsh*t. You are the only person ever on this site to accuse me of being incoherent. What is the simpler, more believable explanation; that I am incoherent and only you have noticed, or that I am not incoherent and you personally do not understand my posts? Occam's razor applies...
if you want to compare extreme liberalism with idealism that´s fine, but to have to resort to switching the comparison to "extremism" v. "idealism" is really grasping at straws.
So, by allowing you to pick ANY sort of extremist (not just a political extremist) to invalidate my claim that idealism is a prerequisite of political extremism I am somehow "grasping at straws?" HOW does it NOT make it even easier for you to invalidate my claims? Don't retort to this section, ANSWER THE QUESTION. Explain EXACTLY how allowing you to choose ANY SORT OF EXTREMIST, instead of limiting your choices to political extremists, and challenging you to show how they hold their views without any idealism does anything but make it easier for you to invalidate my claim. I threw you a bone and you accuse me of grasping at straws, and that's about as dishonest as it can get.
QUOTE
You are now comparing the adjective of the first with the substantive noun of the second - this is pathetic in terms of intellectual dishonesty.
Bullsh*t. Completely and utterly.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are now comparing the adjective of the first with the substantive noun of the second - this is pathetic in terms of intellectual dishonesty. |
Bullsh*t. Completely and utterly.
Further dishonesty - you are unable to define "extreme liberalism - a term you introduced to the discussion - so you substitute a wholly inaccurate synonym "Far Left" and present us with definitions of this term.
More complete bullsh*t, and hypocritical bullsh*t at that! FIND ME A DEFINITION OF LEFT WING POLITICS THAT DOES NOT REFER TO LIBERALISM. That's the second challenge I'm throwing your way. "Far Left" and "Extremist Liberalism" are completely synonymous.
QUOTE
As far as a proper definition is concerned all you have to do is check the definition of "Liberalism" and then adapt this by the whatever magnitude of extremism you had in mind.
Which yeilds the SAME EXACT ANSWER AS "FAR LEFT."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As far as a proper definition is concerned all you have to do is check the definition of "Liberalism" and then adapt this by the whatever magnitude of extremism you had in mind. |
Which yeilds the SAME EXACT ANSWER AS "FAR LEFT."
Strange to go hunting for a definition AFTER you introduced the term - and then off you go and right away you are again confusing liberalism with idealism.
Strange to me how you keep repeating a claim that you've yet to provide any evidence of, barring your own misinterpretations of what I meant to say in certain posts, despite my contradicting explanation.
QUOTE
Trout negged me for my interpretation of photon time dilation - he may have been correct but not all would agree with his interpretation of this issue. At least I was discussing science.
You're right. People who don't know much about physics might not agree with him. But those who know a thing or two unanimously support his position.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Trout negged me for my interpretation of photon time dilation - he may have been correct but not all would agree with his interpretation of this issue. At least I was discussing science. |
You're right. People who don't know much about physics might not agree with him. But those who know a thing or two unanimously support his position.
What concepts have you had to explain to me?
Example
Here, I gave you a list of things I thing are good about the world. You then directly claimed that I said they were a list of things I wanted to change. I had to re-iterate my position in simpler, less precise terms in order for you to understand. How do you POSSIBLY recieve a list of things I DON'T want to change about the world, and then turn around and claim they are things I DO want to change? I SPECIFICALLY said that they were things I DID NOT want to change! You didn't just misinterpret my post, you completely ignored what I said!
QUOTE
On the Idealism v Realism thread you were floundering because you had not properly defined for yourself the meaning of these terms.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| On the Idealism v Realism thread you were floundering because you had not properly defined for yourself the meaning of these terms. |
Idealists seem to focus on what they think humanity could be, instead of on what humanity is, or what humanity really could be, and yearn for a world that cannot and (in my opinion) should not exist.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo from the Opening Post of Idealism vs. Reality+)
Finally, there are the goals of such idealists. They want to live in a world with no arguments. No wars, no crime, no betrayals, no feuding...
And after that I continued to refine the definition I was using. Yet you claim I was "floundering." That's complete bullsh*t.
You "throwing some light on the topic" was re-phrasing and repeating things I'd already said. More bullsh*t.
You "throwing some light on the topic" was re-phrasing and repeating things I'd already said. More bullsh*t.
And Bush is "wise" - obviously another term you are throwing about carelessly without giving any thought to its meaning.
So you think he's not? Well then, why is he president, and you're not? Are you the CEO of a major international company? A Nobel prize winning scientist? A successful musician, athlete, actor or artist? No? None of the above? In other words, you've not managed to reach the level of success that Bush has. So what, then, makes you qualified to judge him as not being wise?
What makes you think there aren't different forms of wisdom? Criticisms of Bush pretty much entirely consist of his foreign policy, his intelligence and his conservatism. Well, being conservative isn't foolish, if it was, this country would be dominated by liberals.
It's YOU who've failed to think about what you say before you say it. I've given you two challenges, to find an example of an extremist who doesn't hold idealistic views, and to find a definition of "far left" that isn't synonymous with "extreme liberalism." If you can't answer those, don't bother responding to this post, because I'll have nothing further to say to you.
And after that I continued to refine the definition I was using. Yet you claim I was "floundering." That's complete bullsh*t.
QUOTE
When I threw some light on the topic you actually agreed with me.
You "throwing some light on the topic" was re-phrasing and repeating things I'd already said. More bullsh*t.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| When I threw some light on the topic you actually agreed with me. |
You "throwing some light on the topic" was re-phrasing and repeating things I'd already said. More bullsh*t.
And Bush is "wise" - obviously another term you are throwing about carelessly without giving any thought to its meaning.
So you think he's not? Well then, why is he president, and you're not? Are you the CEO of a major international company? A Nobel prize winning scientist? A successful musician, athlete, actor or artist? No? None of the above? In other words, you've not managed to reach the level of success that Bush has. So what, then, makes you qualified to judge him as not being wise?
What makes you think there aren't different forms of wisdom? Criticisms of Bush pretty much entirely consist of his foreign policy, his intelligence and his conservatism. Well, being conservative isn't foolish, if it was, this country would be dominated by liberals.
It's YOU who've failed to think about what you say before you say it. I've given you two challenges, to find an example of an extremist who doesn't hold idealistic views, and to find a definition of "far left" that isn't synonymous with "extreme liberalism." If you can't answer those, don't bother responding to this post, because I'll have nothing further to say to you.
So I´m the only person ever to accuse you of being incoherent? Ok bullshit artist , it´s taken some time, but now you´ve been copped - and you can´t hack it. Typical bully!
Your last paragraph pretty well summarises what I have been saying - read it again - and this time if you´re unsure of the meaning of words try the O.E.D instead of your own potted, personal, ever-flexible thesaurus.
Your last paragraph pretty well summarises what I have been saying - read it again - and this time if you´re unsure of the meaning of words try the O.E.D instead of your own potted, personal, ever-flexible thesaurus.
QUOTE (Edward 3+Apr 1 2008, 03:19 PM)
So I´m the only person ever to accuse you of being incoherent? Ok bullshit artist , it´s taken some time, but now you´ve been copped - and you can´t hack it. Typical bully!
Your last paragraph pretty well summarises what I have been saying - read it again - and this time if you´re unsure of the meaning of words try the O.E.D instead of your own potted, personal, ever-flexible thesaurus.
I've given you two challenges, to find an example of an extremist who doesn't hold idealistic views, and to find a definition of "far left" that isn't synonymous with "extreme liberalism."
Merely telling me to use the dictionary doesn't accomplish either one of those.
Your last paragraph pretty well summarises what I have been saying - read it again - and this time if you´re unsure of the meaning of words try the O.E.D instead of your own potted, personal, ever-flexible thesaurus.
I've given you two challenges, to find an example of an extremist who doesn't hold idealistic views, and to find a definition of "far left" that isn't synonymous with "extreme liberalism."
Merely telling me to use the dictionary doesn't accomplish either one of those.
This discussion was concerned with Liberalism and Idealism - because your arguments don´t fit you want to change t