War on humanity

[R. Steve Walz]

W. Steven Richards wrote:

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:0hanb0tl0ec6i66cmgs79dkp69i8h7jfb0@4ax.com...
On Mon, 31 May 2004 04:05:18 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sun, 30 May 2004 04:43:57 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

Richard Henry wrote:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:Fucuc.9183$oh7.5111@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
newsS0uc.14926$mm1.915@fed1read06...

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com...

Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.

Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim. I've called
his
bluff, several times[0], and he either shuts up or switches to ad
hominem
name-calling.

Since he included "Dummy" in his last posting ro me, it looks like
he has
already surrendered.
-----------------------
Nonsense and lies, when you can't make rational sense and are losing
at argument, you demand cites and whine to divert attention from the
discussion because you can't reason logically. If you can't stay on
topic and argue from structure then you have no MIND!

-Steve

Structure needs substance to hold it up. So how about backing up your
claims? Are you aware that you sound more and more like JSD? Are you
now going to call me a rightist?
- YD.
---------------------
If you're serious:
Revive the thead before these clowns tried to demand "proof", which
anyone knows is not possible either on Usenet or with any devoted
partisans, and then present your logical arguments from structure
and THEN see if I do not either agree with you, or else I demolish
your argument with mine.

-Steve

Uuuuuhhh... riiiiight...

In Message-ID: <40B7F0F4.7736@armory.com> you wrote:

quote
Before the nobility enslaved them, the tribes were Leftist.
They shared as their highest aim.
/quote

When called on it, in Message-ID: <40B964C9.3682@armory.com> you
wrote:

quote
Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
---------------------
None are needed, read what I wrote and you'll know that.
And if you DON'T know from that, then you're mentally crippled!
/quote

and

quote
Do you have a verifiable source for that claim?
-----------------
I don't need one, it's obvious, which is WHY you're a Dummy!
/quote

Later on, in Message-ID: <40BAA9D6.57E0@armory.com> you state:

quote
None is required, it's was a logical assertion not needing proof
by any means.
/quote

Can we assume from this that you have reached the above conclusion by
pure thought, without any real facts to back it up? Could you please
explain your reasoning, as a thought experiment it shouldn't be all
that hard to write it up.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

You're a Lying, Scheming, Scum-Sucking Festering Pustule on the
Ass of a diseased camel! You're not worth the paper you're printed on!
You disgust me! You disgust Lice! You disgust Sludge!

And you're a brain-damaged, stupid, stupid idiot!

QED, it's so because I said so, nyaah nyaah.
W. Steven Richards
-----------------

Liar.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC1EAE.3874@armory.com...

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture. For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the gedanken
process. But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.
Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Can you cite one (just one) "first coursebook on Anthropology" that contains
"that very description"?

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC2128.7926@armory.com...
-

There isn't any such thing. There are no such things as proof, because
proof is always TO SOMEONE, and their acceptance of it is required,
and they may wish to disingenuously deny that, however reasonable
it is.

Nope, you're merely lying and posturing wildly!

No, YOU are. There is no such thing as "proof" and I told you why
above. All you are is posturing disingenuously for effect.

No, because univerisities do NOT peer-review their staff websites.

You see, "websites" is NOT where reputability comes into science.

Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself and need
"X-spurts" to do it for you? They're just other clowns like you!!

Pathetic.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC1EAE.3874@armory.com...

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture. For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the gedanken
process. But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.
Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Can you cite one (just one) "first coursebook on Anthropology" that contains
"that very description"?
----------------------------

Having read several, I won't dignify your whining. I don't do cites
on Usenet, or anywhere, for that matter, because they toady to
the pretense of a notion of expert authority that is anti-science.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC2128.7926@armory.com...
-
There isn't any such thing. There are no such things as proof, because
proof is always TO SOMEONE, and their acceptance of it is required,
and they may wish to disingenuously deny that, however reasonable
it is.

Nope, you're merely lying and posturing wildly!

No, YOU are. There is no such thing as "proof" and I told you why
above. All you are is posturing disingenuously for effect.

No, because univerisities do NOT peer-review their staff websites.

You see, "websites" is NOT where reputability comes into science.

Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself and need
"X-spurts" to do it for you? They're just other clowns like you!!

Pathetic.
------------

No, posturing one word responses are pathetic.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:16:36 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BBE7E9.6488@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Mon, 31 May 2004 04:01:05 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BAAEE2.20F@armory.com>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sun, 30 May 2004 06:00:10 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40B9794D.7562@armory.com>:

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote:

He doesn't have a verifiable source for _any_ claim.
---------------
That's because I NEVER make claims that I NEED ANY argument for
OTHER than an OBVIOUS logical structural argument from the known,
and I do this IN ORDER to prevent morons like you from merely trying
to divert the argument by insipidly whining for "cites" when you
prove that you can't even THINK for yourself and that you have NO
deep reasons behind the shit in your head.

Trust me.
--------------------------
I don't need to trust a ninny who can't think logically.


When I have seen people ask your cites, it's because your
argument is NOT logical.
---------------------------
Nonsense. Alleged only by people with ulterior vicious political
and defective phiolosophical motives to lie. They KNOW they can't
out-reason me, and so they HAVE to resort to that.

One cannot outreason a printed propaganda pamphlet either.
-----------------
Of course they can, if it's wrong.


Like for exampe the Bible.
The Universe was created 5000 years ago in 5 days (IIRC, but likely not),
----------------------
Since everyone knows that mountains don't disappear or form in a few
days, that is obviously ridiculous. And since everyone knows no one
was actually around to see it, such an assertion as the bible is even
more ridiculous!! There are an enormous number of reasons why such a
book must be regarded as a fairy tale, if only because we have no good
reason to believe that any human now alive can be trusted to have
conveyed a supposed "true account" to the present without having been
tempted to screw with it along the way in order to deceive people to
acquire power and manipulate others.


and Waltz Communism is the only possible programming for billions of
neural networks each made of billons of neurons, some of these networks
having very different interests, so the WALTZ ONE FOR ALL solution always
works?
-------------------
Of course it does, they operate due to the same basic genome.
The differences between people are quite tiny, otherwise we
wouldn't even be able to communicate with each other.


Never mind, on to other things....
JP
-------------------------
People thinking they differ that much is merely erroneous, and any
such belief in such differences, other than the emotional disorders
caused by abuse and greed which must be eliminated, are simply
brainwashing.

We obviously lived in communistic tribes for 100,000 years, and
evolved to live that way for far longer. We could not have defeated
predators and the elements with the weak body we have, compared to
the predators upon us, without an evolved ethic in our real human
nature of either of extreme group cooperation, or extinction as the
only alternatives.

Don't you think diversity has something to do with it?
In the same way our diversity in 'systems' may help us survive too.
-----------------
There's no conflict whatsoever between cooperation and diversity.
Diversity of ability benefits everyone in the group. Imagining that
diversity would have to invariably threaten the group is merely
stupid western capitalist delusion.


What makes you think YOU are not in the 'emotional disorder' category?
--------------------
How long a list do you want? That's a VERY open question. Start with,
"Gee, I don't FEEL sick or hurt anywhere.", and go from there. Or
you could re-read everything I've written for 12 years.


See, the way YOU see the world, is set by the filters in your brian (in neural
nets you say 'weights' perhaps), and may well not be what the world is really
like.
------------------------------------
Who cares? That could justify any sort of twistedness.
I only care about the world *I* live in.


For this same reason you cannot be 100% objective.
---------------------------
There is no such thing, because there's no such thing as an object.


Something may happen that makes you change your views, it already happened,
you were not born with these!
JP
------------------------------
Not precisely, but they fell out awfully quick compared to my present
age.

Anyway, to get anything done in life you have to play the ball
where it looks like it lies, and kill the people you believe are
evil. It doesn't matter if you're wrong, as long as you're honest
with yourself.

You can't wait to be perfected or totally sure you know, because
that never ever happens, and if it does it will always and quite
invariably be a huge surprise. And you can't wait to fight off
robbers, either, worrying you might be wrong about them, after all,
they didn't wait to find out if THEY were right! It's a matter of
existential exigency. Shoot them through the head and make every
effort to get away with it.
Well, the case if you are attacked, OK.

But your definition of 'robbers' as anyone not being a 'Waltz Commie'
would leave very few alive.
JP

 

[Dimitrij Klingbeil]

R. Steve Walz wrote:

Do you have a reference to support that claim?
----------------------------
Plenty! But you can get your own.
So if you get tired of posturing you could go look it up.
But then you're WAAAAY too dishonest to go do THAT!

May or may not be true, I did noy check it. Your style however brings me to
the idea to look these proof techniques up on the internet

Proof techniques
----------------

Proof by example
The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that it contains most of
the ideas of the general proof.

Proof by intimidation
``Trivial'' or ``obvious.''

Proof by exhaustion
An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof is useful.

Proof by omission
``The reader may easily supply the details'', ``The other 253 cases are
analogous''

Proof by obfuscation
A long plotless sequence of true and/or meaningless syntactically related
statements.

Proof by wishful citation
The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a theorem from
the literature to support his claims.

Proof by funding
How could three different government agencies be wrong? Or, to play the game
a different way: how could anything funded by those bozos be correct?

Proof by democracy
A lot of people believe it's true: how could they all be wrong?

Proof by market economics
Mine is the only theory on the market that will handle the data.

Proof by eminent authority
``I saw Ruzena in the elevator and she said that was tried in the 70's and
doesn't work."

Proof by cosmology
The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or meaningless. Popular for
proofs of the existence of God and for proofs that computers cannot think.

Proof by personal communication
``Eight-dimensional colored cycle stripping is NP-complete [Karp, personal
communication].''

Proof by reference to talk
``At the special NSA workshop on computer vision, Binford proved that SHGC's
could be recognized in polynomial time.''

Proof by reduction to the wrong problem
``To see that infinite-dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we
reduce it to the halting problem.''

Proof by reference to inaccessible literature
The author cites a simple corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately
circulated memoir of the Icelandic Philological Society, 1883. This works
even better if the paper has never been translated from the original
Icelandic.

Proof by ghost reference
Nothing even remotely resembling the cited theorem appears in the reference
given. Works well in combination with proof by reference to inaccessible
literature.

Proof by forward reference
Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper of the author, which is often
not as forthcoming as at first.

Proof by importance
A large body of useful consequences all follow from the proposition in
question.

Proof by accumulated evidence
Long and diligent search has not revealed a counterexample.

Proof by mutual reference
In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow from Theorem 3 in reference B,
which is shown to follow from Corollary 6.2 in reference C, which is an
easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference A.

Proof by metaproof
A method is given to construct the desired proof. The correctness of the
method is proved by any of these techniques. A strong background in
programming language semantics will help here.

Proof by picture
A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines well with proof by
omission.

Proof by flashy graphics
A moving sequence of shaded, 3D color models will convince anyone that your
object recognition algorithm works. An SGI workstation is helpful here.

Proof by misleading or uninterpretable graphs
Almost any curve can be made to look like the desired result by suitable
transformation of the variables and manipulation of the axis scales. Common
in experimental work.

Proof by vehement assertion
It is useful to have some kind of authority relation to the audience, so
this is particularly useful in classroom settings.

Proof by repetition
Otherwise known as the Bellman's proof: ``What I say three times is true.''

Proof by appeal to intuition
Cloud-shaped drawings frequently help here.

Proof by vigorous handwaving
Works well in a classroom, seminar, or workshop setting.

Proof by semantic shift
Some of the standard but inconvenient definitions are changed for the
statement of the result.

Proof by cumbersome notation
Best done with access to at least four alphabets, special symbols, and the
newest release of LaTeX.

Proof by abstract nonsense
A version of proof by intimidation. The author uses terms or theorems from
advanced mathematics which look impressive but are only tangentially
related to the problem at hand. A few integrals here, a few exact sequences
there, and who will know if you really had a proof?

Disproof by finding a bad apple
One bad apple spoils the whole bunch. Among the many proponents of this
theory, we have found one who is obviously loony; so we can discredit the
entire theory. (Often used in political contexts.)

Disproof by slippery slope (or thin end of wedge, if you are British)
If we accepted [original proposal], we'd have to accept [slightly modified
proposal], and eventually this would lead to [radically different and
clearly objectionable proposal].

Disproof by ``not invented here''
We have years of experience with this equipment at MIT and we have never
observed that effect.

--------------------------
taken from http://www.cs.hmc.edu/~fleck see "Proof techniques"

 

[Richard Henry]

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC6EE5.336E@armory.com...

Richard Henry wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com> wrote in message
news:40BC1EAE.3874@armory.com...

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture. For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the
gedanken
process. But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.
Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Can you cite one (just one) "first coursebook on Anthropology" that
contains
"that very description"?
----------------------------
Having read several, I won't dignify your whining. I don't do cites
on Usenet, or anywhere, for that matter, because they toady to
the pretense of a notion of expert authority that is anti-science.

Well, in't that conVENient!

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (27 May 2004 19:21:52 -0700) it happened suntzuman@yahoo.com
wrote in <5cc38f6a.0405271821.6b66b9ca@posting.google.com>:

Good idea. If you want to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War, go to www.sonshi.com

More people who talk about warfare should do that. Too
many of them, like you Jan, think the U.S. has put itself on
"killing ground".

For sure Russia would retaliate nuclear, so would India and China.

Not a chance; in Russia's case they remember the MAD
doctrine from personal experience, and India's and China's
leaders are smart enough to learn from history.

These countries would also have allies in the case you describe,
nuclear allies.

Sure, everybody wants to play Nuclear War! Not.

I dunno, I thought about it actually for about 62 seconds (+ or - 1%), and
it seemed to me, now that most of the world is stocking up on nukes
(except perhaps Ghadaffy who lost nerve and sold out), the balance shifts.

That's "fighting the last war" thinking. All the world's
leaders spend a lot more time thinking these things through
than you did.

See, it maybe be true the US has 1000 nukes in subs pointed at most cities
in the world, but, the US is only so big.

Yup, but it doesn't matter.

Their anti-rocket system will likely fail half the time, half their rockets won't
even get of the ground, and more important, here:
Russia, France, India, Pakistan, China, and coming Germany, Iran, and a few more,
will, if the US keeps making enemies in international politics, form the 'other side'.

Still doesn't matter.

(And please, stop parroting that stupid "US keeps making
enemies in international politics" line. Everybody does
that. The U.S. is being "mobbed" the same way a bunch of
prey birds will mob an owl because we're being painted as a
predator.)

As for size of population and chances of survival, it seems a first strike
make even be possible from the 'other side'.
Or just a mistake..

That's what matters, because of the MAD doctrine. Nukes
are easier to retarget than you might think from watching
movies (AKA disinformation). Leaders want to survive, and
even assuming they're willing to do so at "stone age" levels
they need lots of peons to support them who won't survive a
large-scale nuclear exchange (for long). They know that no
matter who's in the White House, whoever throws first will
be hit hard.

Remember Nikita Krushchev? For all his table-banging, he
knew damn well that the U.S.S.R. simply wouldn't survive a
total exchange (or even a few "surgical strikes"), and he
wasn't willing to risk the final death of Communism on a fit
of pique. Current "other side" leaders are no dumber.

<snip>

So, the US is quickly losing its advantage, it has no resources of its own,
it has an incredible financial deficit, see if you are loaded with debt, you cannot
buy oil and uranium, you cannot bribe anyone, you can only threaten and concur.
But the US army will not run a mile without oil.

Push comes to shove, the Strategic Reserve will get it
far enough to take all the rest with extreme prejudice,
after which everybody else will be running on fumes and debt
will be irrelevant. Why did you think Qadafy "blinked",
because he's a coward? Nonsense; because he's smarter than
the average Arab. In fact, I fully expect him to extend
feelers of friendship to the U.S., and for them to be
accepted. The "balance" will shift yet again, and keep doing
so, in ways small thinkers can't anticipate.

Don't take that last line as an insult. Learn to think
big; start with that link suntzuman kindly provided. Hell, I
didn't know it was online either. For contrast, read Clausewitz:

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/On_War/ONWARTOC.html

(which I just found online)

He goes into some fairly exhaustive detail in an apparent
attempt to go Sun Tzu one better, but does get one thing
very right; you win by either defeating an enemy by
overwhelming him (the hard way), or convincing him it isn't
worth the effort to fight in the first place (the easy way).
In doing so, he expresses the belief that the hard way will
be preferred by most world leaders because they can afford
huge losses which can be made up in a couple of generations,
but that was in 1832; way before nukes invalidated that line
of thought.

Sun Tzu concentrated on the easy way; it leaves much more
usable resources in terms of both men and materiel around
afterward. Believe it or not, the U.S. War College favors
Sun Tzu, and knows that most others (that know the
difference) prefer Clausewitz.

Join me in hoping they don't have to be wised up the hard
way.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:06:24 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <tl5vc.39490$mm1.22225@fed1read06>:

Sun Tzu concentrated on the easy way; it leaves much more
usable resources in terms of both men and materiel around
afterward. Believe it or not, the U.S. War College favors
Sun Tzu, and knows that most others (that know the
difference) prefer Clausewitz.

Join me in hoping they don't have to be wised up the hard
way.

Mark L. Fergerson

OK, now I had to go to that first site..

I read it oh well, if you are into this:


SUN-TZU: THE PRINCIPLES OF WARFARE
"THE ART OF WAR"

Chapter One: Calculations

Sun-tzu said:
Warfare is a great matter to a nation;

it is the ground of death and of life;

it is the way of survival and of destruction, and must be examined. ?

Therefore, go through it by means of five factors;

compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses:

One, Way, two, Heaven, three, Ground, four, General, five, Law. ?

The Way is what causes the people to have the same thinking as their superiors;

they may be given death, or they may be given life, but there is no fear of danger and betrayal. ?

Heaven is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints.

Ground is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and dangerous and safe. ?

General is wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and discipline. ?

Law is organization, the chain of command, logistics, and the control of expenses. ?

All these five no general has not heard;

one who knows them is victorious, one who does not know them is not victorious. ?

Therefore, compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses. ?

Ask:

Which ruler has the Way,

which general has the ability,

which has gained Heaven and Ground,

which carried out Law and commands,

which army is strong,

which officers and soldiers are trained,

which reward and punish clearly,

by means of these, I know victory and defeat! ?

A general who listens to my calculations, and uses them, will surely be victorious, keep him;

a general who does not listen to my calculations, and does not use them, will surely be defeated, remove him. ?

Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to assist outside missions. ?

Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages. ?

Warfare is the Way of deception. ?

Therefore, if able, appear unable,

if active, appear not active,

if near, appear far,

if far, appear near. ?

If they have advantage, entice them;

if they are confused, take them,

if they are substantial, prepare for them,

if they are strong, avoid them,

if they are angry, disturb them,

if they are humble, make them haughty,

if they are relaxed, toil them,

if they are united, separate them. ?

Attack where they are not prepared, go out to where they do not expect. ?

This specialized warfare leads to victory, and may not be transmitted beforehand. ?

------------------------------------------------
Now I want to point out one tiny tiny little thingy.
You CANNOT go by a rules set (at least not so simplistic as this).
In fact if the enemy knew you were using these rules he would have a ball
;-)
War, where does it originate? Why do people follow orders? Why do people
think you go to heaven if you die (for whatever cause, for example your
country)? why do people follow complete idiots (like for example GWB)?
Look at human nature first, and to understand that, understand your own
nature first, and to do that find someone how can help you find that,
www.maharaji.org.
And if you understand that and still want to fight, at least you knew what
you were fighting for, or I would hope so.
The complexity of the matter -will there be war - will there not be war- is
far greater then can be set in ANY ruleset, even if it looks really cool
Chinese or foreign...
Someone like GWB, who has no clue as to the true self, will guide billions
into ignorance, and induce ignorance and anger and hate and actually USE
that everywhere.
Not one of his promises will hold, not one good thing can come of him, as he
betrays the good in all people.
THAT is how it works.
If a new leader will come in time I seriously doubt if it still can turn the
pendulum of the conciousness change GWB the horrible induced, because, as
you know, once the pendulum moves, it moves at its own speed / frequency.
It swings against US now, and is in full motion, and will not stop no
matter what and who and when the next president.
The next one, if not GWB the horrible himself again, will reduce the swing
perhaps, but for the pendulum to start moving backwards many many years
will have to pass, even if all forces were that way.
And that last thing is not given.
It is already all over for the US.
JP

 

[maxfoo]

WScript.Echo "Count 5 Seconds"
WScript.Sleep 5000
WScript.Echo "5 Seconds has past"









Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Tue, 01 Jun 2004 21:40:18 GMT) it happened maxfoo
<maxfooHeadFromButt@punkass.com> wrote in
<5rtpb0h0kj4pad5b0tk1ss2ln2ahr5k8il@4ax.com>:

WScript.Echo "Count 5 Seconds"
WScript.Sleep 5000
WScript.Echo "5 Seconds has past"
C:

del *.*
?

 

[Tim Auton]

[Sun Tzu, the philosohpy of war and stuff like that]

You're all talking about the last war. The current "enemy" cannot be
defeated by guns and bombs. It respects no borders. The enemy is not
readily identifiable. You can't kill them all. In attempting to do so
with current methods you create more.

The people have the communications and powerful tools once the
preserve of the elite. The rules haven't changed much, but there are
now 6 billion players, so the game has changed a whole lot. We'll
learn, I just hope most of us don't die in the process.


Tim
--
Love is a travelator.

 

[Winfield Hill]

Tim Auton wrote...

You're all talking about the last war. The current "enemy" cannot be
defeated by guns and bombs. It respects no borders. The enemy is not
readily identifiable. You can't kill them all. In attempting to do
so with current methods you create more.

The people have the communications and powerful tools once the
preserve of the elite. The rules haven't changed much, but there
are now 6 billion players, so the game has changed a whole lot.
We'll learn, I just hope most of us don't die in the process.

We have met the enemy and they are us?

Thanks,
- Win

(email: use hill_at_rowland-dot-org for now)

 

[Terry Given]

"Tim Auton" <tim.auton@uton.[groupSexWithoutTheY]> wrote in message
news:253qb0lcm9u36c7pokte45h48b7lpgbve2@4ax.com...

You're all talking about the last war. The current "enemy" cannot be
defeated by guns and bombs. It respects no borders. The enemy is not
readily identifiable. You can't kill them all. In attempting to do so
with current methods you create more.

The people have the communications and powerful tools once the
preserve of the elite. The rules haven't changed much, but there are
now 6 billion players, so the game has changed a whole lot. We'll
learn, I just hope most of us don't die in the process.


Tim

Nice argument Tim. check out the beheading thread on ABSE...

Cheers
Terry

 

[Rich Grise]

"YD" <yd.techHAT@techie.com> wrote in message
news:u9cnb0l3gg8ct26gcb4g4cvsfvha6kukkq@4ax.com...

On Mon, 31 May 2004 06:50:37 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

KR Williams wrote:

In article <c9e86k$63n$1@sparta.btinternet.com>,
g4fgq.regp@ZZZbtinternet.com says...
The difference between right and wrong is a matter of opinion.

This is only true if you've utterly abandoned your own Will.

==========================

In my opnion there's no such thing as free will.

How can you say that!
Keith
------------------
Simple. You cannot change your mind by an effort of will without
reason, and if you change your mind due to reason, then you are
externally caused by your life experience. This means that there
is no such thing as "Free Will". You can lie about changing your
mind to try to win the argument, but we all know better. The notion
of "Free Will" is a western myth based on the desire of the RC
church to punish people for their desires, which supposedly they
should be able then to control, and cannot. It goes along with
the confessional and was used to manipulate people by pretending
they could stop having human nature and could control their own
thoughts, which is merely insipid mind-control dogma.


-Steve

Hey, I just made up my mind to ignore you. Hm, no I didn't.

- YD, just popping in to confuse the issue.

Well, I thought I was going to write an essay on indecision, but now

I'm not so sure...

 

[Rich Grise]

"Mark Fergerson" <nunya@biz.ness> wrote in message
news:tl5vc.39490$mm1.22225@fed1read06...

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (27 May 2004 19:21:52 -0700) it happened
suntzuman@yahoo.com
wrote in <5cc38f6a.0405271821.6b66b9ca@posting.google.com>:

Good idea. If you want to read Sun Tzu's The Art of War, go to
www.sonshi.com

More people who talk about warfare should do that. Too
many of them, like you Jan, think the U.S. has put itself on
"killing ground".

Well, US troops are doing a lot of killing on Iraqi ground. Is that what
that means?

I dunno, I thought about it actually for about 62 seconds (+ or - 1%),
and
it seemed to me, now that most of the world is stocking up on nukes
(except perhaps Ghadaffy who lost nerve and sold out), the balance
shifts.

That's "fighting the last war" thinking. All the world's
leaders spend a lot more time thinking these things through
than you did.

I thought "War Games" with Matthew Broderick was cool - it looks at Global
Thermonuclear War as a game. (Spoiler[0])

See, it maybe be true the US has 1000 nukes
Yup, but it doesn't matter.
Their anti-rocket system will likely fail half the time, ...
Still doesn't matter.
(And please, stop parroting that stupid "US keeps making
enemies in international politics" line. Everybody does
that. The U.S. is being "mobbed" the same way a bunch of
prey birds will mob an owl because we're being painted as a
predator.)

Well, how do you explain the US's behavior other than predatory? Or
possibly Imperialistic? There's gotta be a word for somebody who
decides to commit war on somebody based on the despot's personal
bone to pick. Mass Murderer? Remember, for freedom, it behooves
those who would be free to throw off the chains of the oppressor.
And people who are being invaded are obligated to defend their
homes.

The victims of the US's bullying, having no military power to stand
up to the behemoth, fight back with the only tools available. How
many countries has the US invaded and murdered 3000 or more innocent
civilians? That's men, women, and children.

It's really scary that the bully has risen to power. Another problem
the victims have with the bully is that if the victim does fight
back, the bully usually has the authorities in his back pocket and
the victim gets in trouble for popping the bully in the snoot.

So, maybe the freedom fighters should come up with somethign a little
subtler, since the bully can come back at you with $3,000,000,000,000.00
worth of guns and bombs and stuff. And the bully seems to have the
principal in his back pocket. And, unfortunately, most of the voters.

As for size of population and chances of survival, it seems a first
strike
make even be possible from the 'other side'.
Or just a mistake..

That's what matters, because of the MAD doctrine. Nukes
are easier to retarget than you might think from watching
movies (AKA disinformation). Leaders want to survive, and
even assuming they're willing to do so at "stone age" levels
they need lots of peons to support them who won't survive a
large-scale nuclear exchange (for long). They know that no
matter who's in the White House, whoever throws first will
be hit hard.

Not if the target doesn't find out who threw it. I'm kinda hoping
for a suitcase bomb in washington DC some day when they're all
there. I suppose the remaining chain of command would ever blow
up whoever's highest on the current shit list, or if we^H^Hthey
got enough top brass, the chain of command might be surgically
pruned down to some level where some sanity might exist, and
they'd go, "Well, let's not blow up the whole fucking world
without a formal declaration of war from congress."

And BTW, while the congress is at home and just the top brass
are there is when it should be done.

And I do NOT advocate violent overthrow of anything, I'm merely
stating that if certain forms of violence happen in the struggle
to reinstate The Constitution Of The United States, well, so be it.

Remember Nikita Krushchev? For all his table-banging, he
knew damn well that the U.S.S.R. simply wouldn't survive a
total exchange (or even a few "surgical strikes"), and he
wasn't willing to risk the final death of Communism on a fit
of pique. Current "other side" leaders are no dumber.

Problem is, "this side" leaders appear quite dumber, i.e. capable
of such insanity.

....

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/On_War/ONWARTOC.html

(which I just found online)

He goes into some fairly exhaustive detail in an apparent
attempt to go Sun Tzu one better, but does get one thing
very right; you win by either defeating an enemy by
overwhelming him (the hard way), or convincing him it isn't
worth the effort to fight in the first place (the easy way).

I don't know if this was Sun Tzu, but I'd heard that some "Way,"
possibly Tao, had a philosophy like, "Avoid conflict if at all
possible, but if you have no choice, then win, quickly and
decisively." It doesn't say anything about methods - I think
the two above things are both "right," but I'd consider "win by
overwhelming" different from "win by fighting dirty," which is
the only option when the guy's bigger, faster, tougher, better
armed, ... Or Win by Guile, which might be like II above, but
still a little bit different.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

[0]

Broderick's character and the computer are playing "global thermonuclear
war" in a mode kinda like, "play every possible game automatically and
learn." There are these huge screens on the wall that show cities being
blown up a la "Missile Command," but hi-res monitors, with 12' x 8' screens
with the detail of MapQuest, in bunches of combinations, and every scenario
ends in a "draw" where everybody's dead. Finally, there's some cusp,
and the computer stops playing, there's a dramatic pause just long
enough for people to start gasping for breath, and the computer says,

"Interesting game. The only way to win is not to play."

Cheers!
Rich

 

I go to the site (sonshi.com) almost everyday. Check out their discussion board.


Jan Panteltje <panteltje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<140cb1a8b5631e570e4842f3743ccb4b@news.teranews.com>...

On a sunny day (Tue, 01 Jun 2004 13:06:24 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <tl5vc.39490$mm1.22225@fed1read06>:

Sun Tzu concentrated on the easy way; it leaves much more
usable resources in terms of both men and materiel around
afterward. Believe it or not, the U.S. War College favors
Sun Tzu, and knows that most others (that know the
difference) prefer Clausewitz.

Join me in hoping they don't have to be wised up the hard
way.

Mark L. Fergerson

OK, now I had to go to that first site..
I read it oh well, if you are into this:


SUN-TZU: THE PRINCIPLES OF WARFARE
"THE ART OF WAR"

Chapter One: Calculations

Sun-tzu said:
Warfare is a great matter to a nation;

it is the ground of death and of life;

it is the way of survival and of destruction, and must be examined. ?

Therefore, go through it by means of five factors;

compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses:

One, Way, two, Heaven, three, Ground, four, General, five, Law. ?

The Way is what causes the people to have the same thinking as their superiors;

they may be given death, or they may be given life, but there is no fear of danger and betrayal. ?

Heaven is dark and light, cold and hot, and the seasonal constraints.

Ground is high and low, far and near, obstructed and easy, wide and narrow, and dangerous and safe. ?

General is wisdom, credibility, benevolence, courage, and discipline. ?

Law is organization, the chain of command, logistics, and the control of expenses. ?

All these five no general has not heard;

one who knows them is victorious, one who does not know them is not victorious. ?

Therefore, compare them by means of calculation, and determine their statuses. ?

Ask:

Which ruler has the Way,

which general has the ability,

which has gained Heaven and Ground,

which carried out Law and commands,

which army is strong,

which officers and soldiers are trained,

which reward and punish clearly,

by means of these, I know victory and defeat! ?

A general who listens to my calculations, and uses them, will surely be victorious, keep him;

a general who does not listen to my calculations, and does not use them, will surely be defeated, remove him. ?

Calculate advantages by means of what was heard, then create force in order to assist outside missions. ?

Force is the control of the balance of power, in accordance with advantages. ?

Warfare is the Way of deception. ?

Therefore, if able, appear unable,

if active, appear not active,

if near, appear far,

if far, appear near. ?

If they have advantage, entice them;

if they are confused, take them,

if they are substantial, prepare for them,

if they are strong, avoid them,

if they are angry, disturb them,

if they are humble, make them haughty,

if they are relaxed, toil them,

if they are united, separate them. ?

Attack where they are not prepared, go out to where they do not expect. ?

This specialized warfare leads to victory, and may not be transmitted beforehand. ?

------------------------------------------------
Now I want to point out one tiny tiny little thingy.
You CANNOT go by a rules set (at least not so simplistic as this).
In fact if the enemy knew you were using these rules he would have a ball
;-)
War, where does it originate? Why do people follow orders? Why do people
think you go to heaven if you die (for whatever cause, for example your
country)? why do people follow complete idiots (like for example GWB)?
Look at human nature first, and to understand that, understand your own
nature first, and to do that find someone how can help you find that,
www.maharaji.org.
And if you understand that and still want to fight, at least you knew what
you were fighting for, or I would hope so.
The complexity of the matter -will there be war - will there not be war- is
far greater then can be set in ANY ruleset, even if it looks really cool
Chinese or foreign...
Someone like GWB, who has no clue as to the true self, will guide billions
into ignorance, and induce ignorance and anger and hate and actually USE
that everywhere.
Not one of his promises will hold, not one good thing can come of him, as he
betrays the good in all people.
THAT is how it works.
If a new leader will come in time I seriously doubt if it still can turn the
pendulum of the conciousness change GWB the horrible induced, because, as
you know, once the pendulum moves, it moves at its own speed / frequency.
It swings against US now, and is in full motion, and will not stop no
matter what and who and when the next president.
The next one, if not GWB the horrible himself again, will reduce the swing
perhaps, but for the pendulum to start moving backwards many many years
will have to pass, even if all forces were that way.
And that last thing is not given.
It is already all over for the US.
JP

 

[YD]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:10:21 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

The "facts" from which all my gedanken experiments are formed are
never more than the simplest abd most agreed-upon obvious truths
of common knowledge shared by everyone in this culture.

Not everone, apparently.

For them
to be other than things everyone agrees on would invalidate the gedanken
process.

*Your* process.

But I find, those who don't like my conclusions
will go back and try to pretend that they can't trust these "facts"
and that they never agreed to, which is merely their ruse. Like
the previous example of someone questioning that early humans were
tribal, which any paleoanthropologist would say was an absolutely
absurd posture!

Of course early humans were tribal, no doubt about that. In fact, they
still are.

And if I say that means they were communistic, well, you can find
that very description of the meaning of the word tribal in every
first coursebook in Anthropology on every shelf in the nation.

This is where things go a bit loopy.

Pretending at the end of my argument that you don't accept the
premise is a day late and a dollar short!

Premises, all right, you still haven't backed up your claims.

Could you please
explain your reasoning, as a thought experiment it shouldn't be all
that hard to write it up.
- YD.
----------------
Specify what you want explained,

The claim that early humans survived purely by sharing. How did you
get there purely by thinking about it?

I'll explain it, and if you disagree

you will have to make and defend your point regarding my thought
experiment logically. We will go back and forth that way till it
is agreeable, but resist the temptation to break off the process
without agreement, nor be disingenuous with unrelated strivings.

I think you haven't thought it fully through yet.

I assure you it can be done, it IS done all the time by professionals
doing peer-review of reasonableness, I have done it a lot, and it is
more rewarding and more fruitful than quoting people of questionable
motives who are also not present who cannot be questioned anyway,
which is really nothing more than a dodge.

Got something published? On the net?

You see, finally, when people believe in something, it never comes
down to how many cites or quotes there are supporting it, but to
whether it makes sense to THEM in terms of common and simple truths
and how reasonable and logical it is in their light. When people
believe in something and fight and die for it, it is never a matter
of experts, because the people who finally certify ALL expertise,
and the people who award doctorates and MDs and PhDs, are finally
always, nobody other than you and me!!

So it's all about belief?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.