please respond to my research question

by **RollickHooper** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:33 pm

You're using the words "sedition" and "patriotism" in a way that's contrary to the way I was using them, and you know it. Which does nothing to further the argument. I worshipped Hendrix, I saw him in concert and all I could do was say, oh. my. god. oh. my. god. --over and over all night long. Maybe he was murdered; it doesn't change a fucking thing, as far as I'm concerned. A whole new world was murdered before it had a chance to be born-- [did he just say New World Order? Off with his head!]

by **sceneshifter** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:35 pm

seventhson, there are, at this time, as you would expect, people spontaneously popping up - all over the world, it seems - who are taking responsibility and seeming to know what to do - themes that keep coming up in people's ideas of what is best and necessary to do are: 1. only the people are powerful enough to bring down the superpowerful - govt, and even bigbusiness, are in thrall, as you would expect, to the most superrich/superpowerful - the people have brought down the superpowerful/superawful everytime 2. it has to be a grassroots, wordofmouth, leaderless, organisationless, individual, private spreading of the vital points - because anything organised will be attacked and destroyed 3. wordofmouth is sufficiently efficient to do the job in the short time [years, decades] available - eg, teaching the points to just one person a month will get everyone in the world clear in their minds in 33 months - factor in books, pamphlets, internet, etc and it only makes it faster 4. everyone in the world agrees already with this plan - since, if someone proposed that incomes should be distributed very very unevenly, everyone would be sure everyone will say that is superstupid, superdangerous etc - incomes are distributed extremely unevenly, therefore everyone agrees the present state is superstupid and superdangerous 5 everyone knows somewhere inside them that pay range is the cause of virtually all the violence - because, as above, if someone suggested superextreme payrange, everyone would know that that would generate extreme violence - corollaries: reducing payrange will reduce violence to virtually zero - only reducing payrange will reduce violence 6. but people need a huge clarification of their own understanding - by very sincere sober very serious thrashing out the points in discussion, meditation, cogitation, nonthinking thinking, sitting on hills, ruminating, thinking caps spinning at great speed, reading, research, re-ruminating, etc 7. socalled religious wars and race wars are in fact economic wars - proof: if you look at places in the world where there are religious or race differences without economic differences, there are no religious or race wars; therefore the real cause is economic - religions which are fighting are in fact 1. exploitation of people to join and serve the aims of bandits 2. people joining together to fight oppression eg mafias, triads, opec, etc 8. EVERYONE wins [BIGBIG] by decreasing the supersuper extreme payrange [which is from $1 to $1,000,000,000 per 100 hours] - 99% are paid more; 90% are paid from 10 to 1000 times more; the 1% who will get paid less will get 1. survival 2. freedom from the extreme unsafety of overpay among many underpaid 3. friendship and safety with all people; everyone gets free from the violence, tyranny and slavery - in other words, this is not about sacrifice, it is about greed - greed for happiness, peace and safety 9. the violence is escalative vendetta-style as both sides try to prevail - escalative in our time to extinction, thanks to e=mc2 - nuclear winter is death by vaporisation, burning, blasting, injuries without hospitals, doctors or medicine, radiation sickness, blindness of all animals from ozone depletion by atomic smoke, inability to scavenge due to perpetual darkness, cold [a triple iceage], starvation [no food growing, no animals feeding] 10. true ethics is about pursuit of happiness, therefore true ethics is not contrary to seflinterest; true ethics is contrary only to erroneous ideas of selfinterest, namely to the idea that one can anyway hurt anyone and not get hurt back - ie, people do not swallow injustice, oppression, slavery, daylight robbery tamely; plundering and conquering, powergrabbing and moneygrabbing [beyond one's earnings] is not an effective happiness strategy - no one can enjoy unless all enjoy - because people are vengeful 11. learning and teaching what everyone agrees with already, will create a general human will to bring overpay down from a million times the average to a survivable, sane and universally enjoyable level 12. laws needed, which will be passed easily when there is general agreement and clarified will, are simple - [and will save having to have millions of other laws designed to protect society from overpay eg antitrust laws] - eg on decease, fortunes over $3 million go straight to the most superunderpaid [robbed, edslaved] - no one can work more than twice as hard [100hrs/wk] as the average [50hrs/wk], so no income can be more than twice the average 13. in summation, if you have 100 children and 1000 sweets, and tell them to grab as many as they can and grab from each other, you will have violence and general misery, everyone against everyone perpetually - more extreme if you change the example from kids and sweets to to adults and survival-necessary supplies - if your laws aim to give everyone, out of the social pool of wealth, what they put in, no more no less, you will have general peace and pleasure, friendship and lollyeating 14. the lesson of history is unanimous that high pay inequity is fatal to a society, low pay inequity is absolutely necessary for survival, general wealth, peace and happiness - 15. there is enough world income for every family who works average hard to have US$50,000 a year - enough for every family to be millionaires on retirement by saving 2/5ths of their income - even if it was extremely unjust to pay every person US$10 an hour [including housewives/homemakers/mothers and students], it would be infinitely more pleasant than the extreme injustice we have now 16. this is not about compassion [which hasnt worked in 1000s of years]; it is about good practical sense; it is realpolitik - not hurting people is infinitely more realpolitik than hurting-people realpolitik 17. this simple lesson has not been learned during 1000s of years, but the people are now for the first time in history educated enough to learn these realities - if they will concentrate their healthy selfinterest into learning, and taking deep into their hearts, these points 18. we have three brains, reptilian, mammalian and human - we have to make the rational human brain bring the more primitive simplistic brains under control, by heavy thinking 19. limitation of fortunes was the foundation of the american dream - limitation of overpay is limitation of underpay - is limitation of higherpay/lowerpay conflict one site in which this spontaneous individual movement is happening is www.globalhappiness.org [not an org] - lots of good research here for rumination - lots of good points, quotes, perspective, etc i agree with you that 1% is far too real a possibility for me to ignore - imagine if there was a 1% chance of your house being blown to fook - there IS a 1% chance [or higher] of your 'house' [the globe] being blown to fook best of luck, survival soldier

by **Seventhsonjr** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:36 pm

weird kooks? I don't think that is the case and once again the name calling is so infantile and unnecessary. A standard tactic of the far right creeps is to portray people who discuss a lot of these issues as "hysterical or PTSD or rat ass nuts". I think that to engage in civil discourse is an art. Some diplomacy is required. Calling people names or using extreme right wing style code words is NOT effective or productive. It is an overreaction. The fact is that you USED the words you used and should be able to accepot that they are controversial. I tend to take people literally by what they say. And yes, you tried to explain it and did a pretty decent job. I GET it. But the name calling etc didn't cease. Just an attack on all of us because we disagree again using the lame method of insult and debasement. Sure the powers that be, the empire, the facists and imperialists have destroyed the planet and killed off many species etc. But we common mystical rainbow warriors for peasce are trying to correct that through knowledge and the exchange of ideas. We will not give up and we will not justify giving up on humanity. That would be a cop out. But the way to fix it is not to support extinction. Hell THAT is what the BFEE wants (except for they and their heirs) they don't really need many slaves if the rest of us are dead. Hell - all they need are the weapons and the scientists and they will have a great time destroying the rest of creation in their necrophilic orgy of death . So if you myust leave - do so because the heat ius too much and because your discourse was offensive in extremis to many of us - at least a bunch of it was. rat ass nuts? weird kooks. Not hardly. Warriors for Truth and Justice and Peace. Nothing crazy about that at all. Wanting the annihilation of humanioty is rat ass nuts when there is a decent alternative for all creation. and there is IMHO Shalom/Salaam

by **proldic** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:39 pm

Don't try to squirm out of that one, wease...you were implying that his friends' belief in his murder was motivated by not wanting his legacy to be small, and not by the overwhelming evidence at the time. Maybe he was murdered; it doesn't change a fucking thing, for shame

by **proldic** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:46 pm

I invite all open-minded people to review the two links I put up about the DL, and the real beliefs behind the public image of Tibetan Budhism, that the Dr. dismissed out of hand. I await some credible non-theocratic response to the many damning points raised in those two articles.

by **DrDebugDU** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:49 pm

Like I said I don't want to study all his problems he has for some reason with the Dalai Lama, because it's one part. It's like going to McAdams are read all kinds of debunking strategies. I know the positive effect Buddhism had on my life and the positive effect the Dalai Lama had and therefore I have no intention of reading pages after pages of somebody just spreading hatred against it. Some points may be correct, but his intention is to spread hatred against the Dalai Lama and it sounds like he is of a sect or the Chinese who intends to get rid off the Dalai Lama (because they exist and they have treatened the Dalai Lama on many occassions) And Tibetan Buddhism is not perfect. Far from. But it holds a lot more potential than most other religions since it opens your mind. And the real slaughter happens now during the Chinese regime. But indeed Tibet was a feudalist society and full of corruption, but genocide is happening now by the Chinese. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 9/20/05 7:52 pm

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:56 pm

I'm sorry. While I read these forums I'm scanning all my grandmother's old slides so I'm not reading carefully. If Nymara said "humanity doesn't deserve to live", got jumped on, and then explained that she was not being literal but expressing her despair at the general nature of humanity in her view...we should accept that. Nymara, on the other hand, please understand that you can get "jumped on" in one thread here, but accepted completely in other topics. Thus, criticism does not amount to "gatekeeping" or "censorship." Only if Jeff deleted your post could one think such a thing. I just got called a nazi repeatedly in another thread. Ironically, it was because I was concerned that the idea that there is simply no hope and no redemption for humankind, in and of itself, can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. But, you know, I just put that poster on my "ignore" list for now. And another poster on this board really jumped my ass a few times and we really got into it. I've learned a lot from him, however. In fact, I don't mind any reasonable criticism and debate...but namecalling is just pointless.

by **Nymarya** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:27 pm

*I* didn't start the name calling, you sanctimonious codependent assclowns. Your buddy AnnaLivia called me braindead. But that's OK cuz she's your buddy. Double standard. Truth searchers? Cheesy liars. All anyone has to do is go back and read the thread to see how you rewrote history to defend your pal's attack on me. I'm an abuse survivor myself. So I can see better than other people when someone's reaction is neurotically overboard. OK, now I'm really done, after seeing that I didn't make a mistake to write you people off.

by **Col Quisp** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:22 pm

Geez, I don't know what to say. I'm sorry you are leaving. I enjoyed your posts and your humor. Don't let this upset you so much. This is a really good bunch of people, and there are always going to be disagreements no matter where you go. This just got way out of hand on both sides. I'm not saying you should kiss and make up, but please reconsider. We're not as bad as you think we are. And this whole thing is so silly, really. I mean, take a step back and see how it escalated. I'm no expert on abuse, but it could be coloring your reaction. I don't pretend to know what you've gone through, and I'm not trying to preach. Maybe you felt cornered? I do know that there are many here who HAVE experienced abuse, and this board has been a good place for those discussions. Lately, we've veered off those topics due to all the weird crap going on in the world. Maybe all this weird activity is also causing strife. I won't repeat what others have said to try to smooth things out. I understand if you don't want to stick around. I hope you will at least lurk now and then!

by **greencrow0** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 11:39 pm

I believe the chances are about 50/50 that humans will be extinct by 2050. When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told an audience last weekend that he recently ad a hair of his tested for mercury...recently and when the test results came back, they showed many times the safe amount of mercury in his system. The scientest who did the test told him that if a woman with that percentage of mercury became pregnant, she would have a child with a developmental disability. Kennedy corrected him....'could' have a child with a developmental disability, right? No said the scientist, would have a child with a developmental disability...there was no chance she could bear a normal child with that amount of mercury in her system. This is what we are doing to our race, poisoning and degrading it. I think back to the example that noted Canadian geneticist David Suzuki often gave on his award winning TV show 'The Nature of Things' years ago. He said 'put some fruit flies in a glass jar with all the necessities of life for them. Let them multiply'. After a certain period of time, suddenly the jar will go black. All the flies will be dead. Why? Because they will have used up all their recources, including air, moisture and food due to unlimited procreation. It won't happen gradually, although the decline certainly will be gradual...but when the end comes, I predict it will be as swift as what always happens in the test with the fruit flies in the glass jar.

by **Seventhsonjr** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:35 am

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *I* didn't start the name calling, you sanctimonious codependent assclowns. Your buddy AnnaLivia called me braindead. But that's OK cuz she's your buddy. Double standard. Once again I think that you are way overreacting., But you are correct. I, for one, recommended mutual apologies. BUT, reviewing the exchange, it is clear that you stuck to your point ("We do not deserve to survive") and Annalivia felt that was asinine and called you on it. I never said she was rioght to call you brain dead --- I just think it was not an unexpected type of response to your proposal that we all ought to drop dead for the good of the earth. It was a contentious statement designed to be controversial in the first place. Maybe witty, but intended to give a rise to some people. You got a response that was to be expected. You should not be snippy about it. Now to accuse me or any9one else of taking sides because someone is a buddy is absurd. You have repeatedly insisted that everyone here is batshit crazy and you insist on continuing rabid insults even when SOME here have actually said they understand and even agree. My guess is that despite the deep philosophical point you raise, your real point has been an overreaction and ultradefensiveness over a natural response to an intentionally provocative statement. That appears to me to be disingenuous. Provocateur-like. But so was calling you braindead instead of a reasoned response by Annalivia. All of this makes for interesting and hot threads. But my bottom line point is that humanity is not to blame foir the corruption of its leaders. We TRY to stop them and get them to do right and they mow us down like Jews at Babi Yar or in utero fetusrs at Chernobyl. WE are not the problem and do not deserve to die. Our leaders are. And they need to be replaced. This trivialization of the issue, a diversion, a series of personal attacks, detracts from the real discussion. What are our odds NOW and what can we do to improve them. For me it is about ALL species. But hell God or whatever may have other plans for us - including a global Tsunami of mutagenic flu introduced by Cheney or Rumsfeld et al which can take us to hell on earth in a year or less and literally take us all to the Styx for our crossing to whatever spiritual battles await elsewhere beyoind this earth. Why don't you guys take it outside? And let the others talk serious stuff.

by **AnnaLivia** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 3:29 am

...the bathrooms are sparklin’ and there’s enough red peppers in the freezer to last a winter’s worth of chili and spaghetti sauce and chicken nacho’s. Did I miss anything while I was gone? Look. I plain don’t think there can BE such a thing as an overboard reaction…not in writing, for heavensake…to the statement Nymarya made. She did most certainly NOT say “let’s discuss the idea/possibility that if humans went extinct they might actually deserve it”, like PWillow did. No sir. She volunteered outright that she was in favor of our extinction, as long as plants and animals are spared. “In favor of.” Pro-extinction. Hello? Now, I ask you, what is a person who sanely prioritizes their survival and happiness, supposed to say to that? On what planet is calling someone brain-dead an offense that rises to the level of declaring support for the demise of the human species? How can anyone who is enjoying sunshine and oxygen and the squillions of blessings raining down on us all, possibly be thinking that it might be the right thing to decide to deny all future comers what we have, period? That is quite beyond chutzpah. Nymarya had plenty of chances to change lanes, and missed them all by a mile. I certainly did come back to find out that I’d lost this skirmish. What I wanted was for Nymarya to figure out that her statement was absurd, malicious, and shameful. The very idea is self-poisoning. Instead, she tried to the end to have it both ways; she was kidding, only she wasn’t. Her posts speak for themselves. She is nowhere close to seeing what her statement means. I doubt there is going to be any re-think, but you never know. She has told us she is an abuse survivor, and I’m certain I’m not the only one saddened to hear of the abuse part, and happy for the survivor part. And Nymarya, if you’re still reading, I’d bet my bottom dollar that if there’s any place on the web where a person could simply offer a genuine apology for things said in anger and be received back into the tribe, it’s this place. you really have said nastier things to the group than you did to me. No, we don’t all agree, but another thing you have dead wrong is your estimation of the caliber of this crowd. I would like it noted that not only is there the utter lack of calls for censorship we all love RI for in this thread (just one reason), but that I specifically and consciously excluded all of N’s posts save the ones in this thread, in my response. I made it crystal clear that that was all I was addressing. We now return you to our normal broadcast. Oh, wait, I forgot, us ain’t normal. Never mind. just cherish that fact.

by **smiths** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:19 am

its almost incomprehensible to see how this thread developed, people do need to keep hold of a sense of humour but name calling is just plain wrong (although sanctimonious codependent assclowns did make me laugh) there is a big difference between feeling heartbroken about what humans are doing to each other and the world around us and hoping for the species' extinction, but anyway, change is certain, species that are able to adapt to this survive longer than those that dont, part of that adaptability is a spread of behavioural characteristics through birth differences and personal experience, so some people are caring and some are ruthless, some are daring and some wait and see, some get fat and others waste away badness is more prone to short term success because it can exploit tools that the goodness doesnt have, coersion, aggresion and murder for example, theres been plenty of people who could have led the people to great things, but they got wacked, the baddies on the other hand rise and stay, cos the goodies feel that wacking them would be wrong, my point is, any creature that survives long enough to evolve higher level cognitive abilities will exhibit the same range of characteristics, and the same problems of baddies taking over through force will persist, there is no end or solution, just a constant vigilance and struggle, personally i feel optimistic, because i look at the general conditions of the past and can see that they have improved for most people over time, we have also tried out a lot of methods of social organisation and are getting closer to understanding the ones that will ultimately work, this isnt the beginning of new fascism folks, its the death throes of the old fascism, the last lunges, i have to believe that really or i'd self combust

by **DrDebugDU** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:03 am

I thought you left. I am also on the record of saying, that given the escalation it was better that you took some absence from this board, because it sounds like this is not the place for you, and maybe you should look at your own role in this fight. I guess you are blind to your own role and why that part is the most important. Far more important than Anna's faults. Even though you will repay my words with anger and abuse, let's analyse your statements in detail. <hr /> Last post: > *I* didn't start the name calling, you sanctimonious codependent assclowns. Little boys in the playground argument. "I didn't start the fight. I made a post and Anna called me names, so she started the fight and now I call you names". It also indicates that you keep on calling names and want to escalate it further. > Your buddy AnnaLivia called me braindead. It's me against everybody else. Poor me syndrom. Anna is the person who started it all and I am not to blame. > But that's OK cuz she's your buddy. More "me against the rest" argument. Also more "poor me syndrom". Wanting people to sympathise without talking about your own faults. > Double standard. So what is the double standard here? The majority do not agree with your first statement and the majority didn't like the escalation which has happened. Indeed it was Anna who started it, but at her 3rd reply she stopped the escalation and was greeted by even more name calling and an attempt to ridicule everybody in a "you are either with me or against me" gambit. > Truth searchers? Cheesy liars. All anyone has to do is go back and read the thread to see how you rewrote history to defend your pal's attack on me. Ridicule the group. More name calling. Let's reread it and indeed you made the first post. Anna called you names. Your responded with more name calling. Anna made it worse. Then you really made it worse. Then marya mocked because nobody responded. Anna stopped the name calling and said she didn't like the post and then you started the escalation to the whole group and of course the group defended itself against that attack. And then you made an ultimatum with even more name calling. Then the group doesn't accept the ultimatum. And you lash out a last time in this post. So who is rewriting history here? You could have made up, but you kept on escalating it until it was finally out of control. > I'm an abuse survivor myself. Honey, look around. Most of the people here know about abuse. It should also be noted that abuser are almost always abused themselves. I was raped as a child as well. You didn't know that, you just assumed that you were the only one and that is a false assumption. However I see you acting like an abuser in this thread. So don't play that "poor me syndrom" card here. I think that your problem is that poor me syndrom way of thinking, because it'll make the world black and white and is at the root of many problems. > So I can see better than other people when someone's reaction is neurotically overboard. Claim at superiority. It makes matters even worse. And once again name calling. The only truly "overboard" reaction is the one quoted above. > OK, now I'm really done, after seeing that I didn't make a mistake to write you people off. "You are either with me or against me" gambit played again. Also a justification without looking at your own faults. In short given your behavior I think it is better that you leave until you finally figured out that you are causing the problems which you blame on others. And I think you have serious problem with anger, hatred and ego, because the posts are filled with the one-letter word *I*. That small word which is at the root of so much suffering. Edit: The reason why I am writing this is because you wanted to create sympathy and have people ask you to remain here and choose you over Anna. I'm sorry but I don't play that game, because that way the abuser wins and you are the abuser in this thread. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 9/21/05 5:22 am

by **Martha** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:43 am

If you thought what AnnaLivia said was really bad then I hope that you never go to Usenet, the namecalling would kill you. I hope you change your mind and stay, you seem like an interesting person. ---- edit, I'm not choosing Nymarya over AnnaLivia, I like AnnaLivia too. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=martha@rigorousintuition>Martha</A> at: 9/21/05 7:48 am

please respond to my research question

I was there junior

reply seventhson - what can we do?

Re: Goodbye and thanks for all the fish

No, gramps

shadow of DL

Re: shadow of DL

re: Nymara

One last comment.

Nymarya

Extinction by 2050?

Re: One last comment. You People???

Ok! Whew!

a thought on behaviour

Re: One last comment.

Re: One last comment.

Who is online