War on humanity

[YD]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:20:54 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself an<*SLAP*

-Steve

I *can* think for myself and don't need any help to do it, least of
all yours. I just happen to think *differently* from you. But, I don't
go all around usenet shoving it down everyone's throat.

You're the one gesturing and posturing wildly. You really don't have a
clue about real life and real people. You can't show your though
processes, you have no references, nothing, so just like JSD you
repeat the same old diatribe ad nauseam until everyone gets tired of
it and then you get to feel everyone agrees since you ended up having
the last word. Proof by infinite repetition.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:21:34 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

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.
----------------------------
We can tell your motives now anyway. Don't you feel stupid?

Not at all. Do you?

- YD. Hey, it's juicenet, have fun!
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

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
-----------------

Only robbers are robbers. People who support robbers might be
dangerous, but more likely they are simply confused. People who
were born as naked and ignorant as you are, and who claim to own
YOUR home, are indeed robbers. You inherited that home by right
of your equal common ancestry with them, the same as a sibling
claiming their share of an inheritance. You own the planet in
common and EQUALLY by right of eminent existence, in other words,
just as soon as you are willing to organize and kill for it.

I think that if you asked most people who rent and have mortgages if
they would rather vote to simply own their home today by ganging
up on the rich and taking them away from them, I think a majority
would go for it.

Anyone who tried to collect rent or mortgage payment would simply
be killed outright as a robber. No one has the right to enslave
others to them by their accidental wealth, nor even by some fairly
acquired possession. And don't pretend that threat of eviction to
force people to pay monthly tribute the rich is any different than
any other type of criminal threat against another.

-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: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!
-----------------------------

No, it is simply the Truth.

No "PROOF" is even possible in the face of dishonest resistance,
or on Usenet,
or in the presence of any disbonest disingenuous partisans.

Phony cites and phony research abounds tailored to every single
possible gambit the dishonest partisan of any sick and wrong
cause might ever want to use to confuse people about the Truth.

The best thing to do with those dishonest people is simply to
kill them.

-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]

Tim Auton wrote:

[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
---------------------------

The only way to get rid of the terrorists is the obliterate the
sick religious culture that spawns them. Give people a chance to
surrender from that culture, and to renounce it and forswear it
forever, and then obliterate the rest with poison gas and shrapnel
bombs. Islam is a sick rabid animal, KILL IT!

-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]

Winfield Hill wrote:

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
----------------

No, we met them and they are exactly NOT us, and we must kill them all.

-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]

YD wrote:

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.
------------------------------------

Sure they are. Those who assert otherwise are unable to defend their
positions logically in the face of those truths, this is because they
persist in a belief system that ACTUALLY makes no sense even to them.
This was accomplished by brainwashing by abuse and shame in childhood.

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

*Your* process.
-----------------------

It has no possessor, the Truth is the Truth, whomever knows it.

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.
-----------------------------

No, they aren't, they have been shamed and guilted and mindcontrolled
away from that ethic, and they need to rediscover it. This was done
to make them docile slaves who were afraid of ganging up on their
masters and killing them.

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.
---------------------

Nonsense.

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.
--------------------------

My claims don't require it, one will either believe them because
they are obvious to a thinking being, or one refuses to BE a
thinking being because of their brainwashing will resist them
for reasons other than reason and logic. Shame as a technique of
mindcontrol in western society does this.

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?
--------------------------------

We would not have lived long enough to survive with these bodies.
Anyone who has bothered to learn the strength of mammalian muscles
in the animal kingdom knows that our muscles are of a preadolescent
type, much lower in strength to weight, and many less fast-twitch
fibers in them. This was caused by our neotany, the phenemenon of
or bodies evolving using the technique of becoming juvenile in form
in order to allow our skeleton more flexibility to new demasnds on
changes in posture and spinal straightness, permitting us enormous
brain growth for our skull size after birth, which is VERY unusual,
and making us less hirsute, with a much thinner less protective hide,
and leaving us with a weak receded jaw and no long canine teeth and
with a third the enamel thickness of our ape cousins.

This makes us the veritable weaklings of the entire animal kingdom,
and requires that we survive by technology and cunning, but most of
all, since these advantages are not available when we are asleep or
hurt or sick, and were NOT available before the present, by the
simple power of group solidarity! We had the feature of socality,
that of having regard for each other as we did ourselves, and we
valued each of us and would run toward danger to any one of us,
which is VERY unusual among social mammals.

Previous animal species had been either monkeys and apes or herd
animals with circling instincts, but which could be driven to terror
and to leave even their young behind at the drop of a hat, because
they don't feel as we do for the other members of their species.

And a species whose mothers can be scared off from protecting their
young CERTAINLY have little concern for other members, and in fact
they continue eating while watching predators devour one of their
own group alive!!

This is true of lower apes as well. But they at least seem to suffer
for their group loss. We, however, seem to run toward danger to any
one of us and to keep trying to protect or retrieve one of us till
we succeed by force of numbers and sheer fortitude of desire.

We speak with one voice, as if to say, you can't even have one of
us because we are all the same one. We have a group mind as a species,
one which regards each other of ourselves as a part of our one Self.
We don't even have to know another person to generate this kind of
sheer emotional power and speciel dedication to our mutual protection,
and that is amazing!

No other species does this, and it scares the willies out of predators,
because they are simply not wired up to handle it, they are primarily
instinctual, NONE of their usual prey EVER do ANYTHING LIKE that, the
sheer complexity of attacking so many of us at once confuses and
frighrens them, and they run away!! Now long sharpened sticks that
got invented by the australopithecines or by homo habilis did a lot
to make such mutual defense exploits safer, and even MORE frightening
to predators, like trying to attack a huge flexible pocupine.

This made following predators for fat-rich marrow bones to crack, as
habilis did, a reasonable and quite survivable strategy for us. And
carrying the bones and hammer stones utilized our upright posture even
more and solidified that feature of our design.

Later with habilis and erectus these methods enabled us to follow
predators that would stash their kills, like leopards, and rob them.
And later we learned to steal from them directly after THEY had made
the kill FOR us, scaring off even prides of lions with better spears
and finally, fire.

Any mere nuclear family sort of survival as primitive humans would
have been totally and completely impossible, the predator would have
eaten papa and come back for momma and the kids.

Our mutual cooperation AS A GROUP was OUR ENORMOUS advantage that
allowed us to become chief species on this rock! Technology that
would have even come ClOSE to enabling a lone man or nuclear family
to survive was only finally produced reliably in THE 20TH CENTURY!!

But we have evolved without all that, and our Nature is that of a
group-mind species, one that needs all other people and values them
as though they are parts of each of us. Our conquest of this planet
was entirely by group cooperation and sharing. Anything less than
that has merely resulted in less for us, being less than we can be
as a cohesive group leaves us with less for everyone. That is every
bit as true now as ever.

Even Capitalism is so unbelievably inefficient and wasteful of human
power and potential that we have well less than half what we'd have
if we went back to group power and communal solidarity and sharing.

The only reason we can EVEN THINK to be other than our evolved nature
is our big creative brain and our lack of instinct, which lack we
have because our species had to change so quickly and adapt, but it
can also lead us astray.

The only reason we can even get away with such dangerous exploits
outside of our Nature is that we ARE chief species, and every other
force of Nature that might punish us for it SEEMS to have fallen
before us, for the present at least. But we suffer for our digression
from our Nature, most of us are far less happy than we might otherwise
be, and much of our happiness is robbed from us by the rich and by
the disaffection from one another enforced by an enslaving class which
wishes to keep up from organizing against them.

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 think 54 years is more than long enough and any assertion to the
contrary is merely a disingenuous dodge.

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?
--------------------------

No, not on the Net, and I wouldn't expose reasonable work done
in decent circumstances to the Net's insane depredations.

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.
-----------------------------

Yes, but you won't like how:

The Truth is all about, and against, YOUR beliefs,

-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]

YD wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 06:20:54 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:


Why do you always imagine you can't think for yourself an<*SLAP*
---------------------

You cowardly little piece of vicious filth.

Here's what I said IN ITS ENTIRETY,
and which YOU knew you COULDN'T ANSWER!:

"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!!"

I *can* think for myself and don't need any help to do it, least of
all yours.
-------------

Bullshit. Prove it in argument, do it, don't talk about it.

You can't, you believe in the wrong shit because you have been
brainwashed out of thinking straight!!

I just happen to think *differently* from you. But, I don't
go all around usenet shoving it down everyone's throat.
----------------

If I had the pile of indefensible SHIT in MY head that YOU have
in YOURS, *I'd* be embarrassed to try to promulgate it as well!!!

You're the one gesturing and posturing wildly. You really don't have a
clue about real life and real people. You can't show your though
processes, you have no references, nothing, so just like JSD you
repeat the same old diatribe ad nauseam until everyone gets tired of
it and then you get to feel everyone agrees since you ended up having
the last word. Proof by infinite repetition.
- YD.
------------------

All you're doing is whining. Prove you have a mind, argue with an
actual position of mine, *I'LL* bet you CAN'T EVEN DO IT!!

-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

 

[Rich Grise]

"Winfield Hill" <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:c9j7m401v3p@drn.newsguy.com...

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

"he is us."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=%2Bpogo+%2Bpossum+%22we+have+met+the+enemy+and+he+is+us%22

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Andrew VK3BFA]

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<c9j7m401v3p@drn.newsguy.com>...

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)

So perhaps if we ALL stop arguing dogma and "My dog can beat your dog"
stuff, and actually recognise that no one is going to "win" anything
except a Phyrric victory, then maybe we can all sit down and try to
understand and maybe address some of the wrongs of each side? - calls
for a quantum shift in thinking, but how many more people need to die
before we get to this stage

ANdrew VK3BFA

 

[Terry Given]

"Andrew VK3BFA" <ablight@alphalink.com.au> wrote in message
news:1fc7b362.0406020051.7c2358fc@posting.google.com...

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:<c9j7m401v3p@drn.newsguy.com>...
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)

So perhaps if we ALL stop arguing dogma and "My dog can beat your dog"
stuff, and actually recognise that no one is going to "win" anything
except a Phyrric victory, then maybe we can all sit down and try to
understand and maybe address some of the wrongs of each side? - calls
for a quantum shift in thinking, but how many more people need to die
before we get to this stage

ANdrew VK3BFA

Alas Andrew empirical evidence clearly suggests MORE is the answer to your
question.

to paraphrase: dont focus on the problem, focus on the solution. Not likely
to happen though - neither side appears even remotely willing to concede
that some of the other sides arguments have merit.

Cheers
Terry

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich Grise wrote:

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."

Precisely why MAD worked.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Rich Grise wrote:

"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?

No. "Killing ground" is where you've gotten yourself into
a position where you're vulnerable, have no direct line to
attack the enemy, no room to maneuver or retreat, no supply
lines, etc.

Sun Tzu used the phrase not only to mean a direct
battlefield situation, but larger political and
philosophical arenas as well. Lots of people think it
applies in those senses to the U.S. but it doesn't.

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])

With a rather pointed lesson hidden in the game.

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?

If the U.S. truly wanted to rule the world, there
wouldn't _be_ any other governments or armies, now would
there? A real predatory Empire simply doesn't permit subject
states to possess any means of defending itself against the
Empire. Anybody that resists at all is simply stomped into
submission. That has not happened, you'll notice.

One thing about "mobbing" is that the mob will gather for
coordinated attack against the mutual threat, then when the
threat is gone, return to squabbling among themselves. It's
a purely temporary phenomenon.

Now consider what would happen if the U.S. were displaced
from "sole superpower" status as so many claim to want.

There's gotta be a word for somebody who
decides to commit war on somebody based on the despot's personal
bone to pick.

And a few ignored U.N. resolutions...

Mass Murderer? Remember, for freedom, it behooves
those who would be free to throw off the chains of the oppressor.

Assuming they have the means, which the average Iraqi
didn't, or didn't dare use because their relatives were
subject to kidnapping and other dire consequences.

And people who are being invaded are obligated to defend their
homes.

Right, like the French were obligated to defend
themselves when the U.S. et. al. "invaded" Normandy.

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.

Sigh. You say "murder", others say "collateral damage".
Also, you didn't mention that those innocents were put in
harm's way deliberately by those we went in to remove from
power.

Yet it wouldn't happen at all if the locals could have
overthrown their warlords on their own.

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.

Now you're equating Al Qaeda with Yankees fighting Redcoats?

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."

Don't be silly.

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

Can't happen; the "Buddy Holly" rule(s).

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.

Not a chance. The military, like any other arm of
government, will refuse stupid orders.

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.

Same general idea. But what do you do when the other guy
won't stop attacking?

Mark L. FErgerson

 

[Daniel Haude]

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.]
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:53:01 GMT,
R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com> wrote
in Msg. <40BD5E11.50BD@armory.com>

Islam is a sick rabid animal, KILL IT!

It's the religious extremists of all kind that are the sick and rabid
animals. Islam in itself doesn't have anything to do with it. Every
religion can be interpreted by demented individuals as justifying
murdering "unbelievers", and has been.

--Daniel

--
"With me is nothing wrong! And with you?" (from r.a.m.p)

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

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. ?

I assume you put question marks after those phrases you
didn't agree with or completely understand.

The above statement is simply a description of the
fundamental place of conflict in the nature of being alive.
If you'rer alive, the entire Universe is out to get you.
You're also out to get a piece of the Universe. If you
aren't, you can't eat or breathe.

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. ?

This refers to the philosophy (as rendered as religion or
whatever) that allows the general population to extend their
loyalty from themselves, to a way of life embodied in their
nation's laws etc., which ensures their descendants' future.
Those who share that philosophy will subsume their own
desires into it, and you may trust your confreres with your
life and those of your family.

It may also be referred to as "brainwashing" or
"bullshit" if it benefits a ruling class more than the
general population's descendants.

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. ?

Sun Tzu's way of stating the dichotomies that determine
how to assess a situation.

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

"Litmus tests" to determine if you can trust your
superiors to give good orders, and those under your command
to execute them.

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

You could phrase that as "the law of fang and claw"; how
to value battle resources.

All these five no general has not heard;

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

Seems obvious to me.

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

Frinst, if your enemy is not politically coherent (has no
Way), you need not consider lesser things as he won't be
capable of coordinated action in battle.

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! ?

_Before_ actually commencing battle.

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. ?

Seems obvious to me.

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. ?

The third only makes sense if you understand that in
assessing an enemy's capability, you may be fooled by
deliberate disinformation on his part.

Therefore, if able, appear unable,

if active, appear not active,

if near, appear far,

if far, appear near. ?

Therefore, bullshit him before he bullshits you.

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. ?

And fuck with his head wherever possible.

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

Don't tip your hand.

------------------------------------------------
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).

Of course you can.

In fact if the enemy knew you were using these rules he would have a ball
;-)

Nope. He would do the same calculations, and if the
balance were in his favor you'd know it and capitulate
without having to go through the tedious business of
actually fighting. Same for the other way around.

Point is, it's a very basic form of simulation, now done
with computers etc.

You might claim exceptions, frinst a fanatical enemy who
doesn't care if they survive as long as you die. But, at
some point he'll notice that if he simply cannot overwhelm
you, all his forces will be destroyed, so he can't win. He
may be fooled into thinking a sudden strike (say by "dirty
bomb") might remove all your leaders, but remember your
leaders took this into account and disperse themselves while
maintaining communications (the "Buddy Holly" rule).

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)?

Or OBL, or anyone else? Because they are led to believe
that the leader in question is acting in their best
interests, that's why. Which idiot are you following?

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.

I'm a Buddhist.

And if you understand that and still want to fight, at least you knew what
you were fighting for, or I would hope so.

I favor Aikido since I'm lazy.

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...

Really? Sun Tzu did pretty well by them.

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.

Doesn't matter, because neither he nor any other
individual can make the kinds of mistakes you're thinking of
_by themselves_.

Besides, what makes you think GWB or anyone else has a
patent on inducing ignorance, hate and anger? Look around.

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.

Look, I know you hate GWB irrationally, but eventually
you'll see he's no worse than any other "leader". They all
do the same.

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.

You really want that to be true, but you have no solid
basis for believing it.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

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.

Nope, you just bring them out of hiding, so to speak.

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.

Why do you think Berg had his throat cut? He was thying
to bring that kind of access to the outside world that
allows new ways of thinking to displace old ones. Al Qaeda
et. al. cannot permit that. Samizdat is their kinds' enemy.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Andrew VK3BFA wrote:

Winfield Hill <Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:<c9j7m401v3p@drn.newsguy.com>...

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)


So perhaps if we ALL stop arguing dogma and "My dog can beat your dog"
stuff, and actually recognise that no one is going to "win" anything
except a Phyrric victory, then maybe we can all sit down and try to
understand and maybe address some of the wrongs of each side? - calls
for a quantum shift in thinking, but how many more people need to die
before we get to this stage

Exactly why I recommend all "armchair generals" to read
Sun Tzu.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:55:25 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <Huhvc.40503$mm1.38602@fed1read06>:

<snip alien sonshi nonsense>

Look, I know you hate GWB irrationally, but eventually
There is nothing to hate, he is brain dead (at least spiritually),

and it is like blowing in the wind...
Love is an internal experience, nothing to do with a nothing like GWB the
nothing.

you'll see he's no worse than any other "leader". They all
do the same.
True, but not ALL leaders do the same.

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.

You really want that to be true, but you have no solid
basis for believing it.
There is nothing to 'believe' look around.

Do you have a car? How about an electric one with some solar cels


Look, here are those sonshi guys (and girls likely) thinking about
how to CREATE war, what a waste of inner time, while you could be using
the same energy to create peace...
They are simply sick.
You can feel that if you read it, a product of ignorant mind.

You claim to be a Buddhist, well, he realized for sure his mortality,
and the pressiousness of his time, and why bother putting energy into
creating war if you can enjoy the bliss inside now.
JP

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Jun 2004 01:56:18 GMT) it happened "Rich Grise"
<null@example.net> wrote in <6tavc.13297$Lq1.11386@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>:

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
Right I think in some Chinese fighting sports (arts) it is teached

that 'the best way to win is not to let it come to a fight at all'
(My simple translation).
Unforunally a mad man like for example G-idiot-WB may attack like a
mad dog... inrespective of anything.
In such a case only nuking him to extinction is a solution.
get it over with fast.
JP

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (1 Jun 2004 19:49:17 -0700) it happened suntzuman@yahoo.com
wrote in <5cc38f6a.0406011849.2b707e62@posting.google.com>:

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

JP