War on humanity

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:34:41 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BD59C3.4F19@armory.com>:

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.
Wait a minute, if you own a home, you have to pay taxes on it here,

all sorts of taxes, so in your view the government that does that
are ribbers too? (Many here would agree with you hehe), now that
helps sell Waltz Communism to the medium well of does it not?
Bu tis not that what Hitler did (everubody a home everubody a car
(Volkswagen), but where does the money come from?
Complicated.

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.
You are stirring up the masses

Revolution!

Personnaly I think renting out a place can be a decent bussines,
there are also responsibilities and maintenance that you do not have
to worry about if you rent, but definitely have to worry about if
you own a home.
And many younsters simply have no money to buy one.
And may move a lot (jobs).
So there is a market there, what is wrong with 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.
You are 'slightly' biased for 'no private possessions' and now you want

to promote private property, that is not the old communism as I know it?
Maybe you are getting older and you now are really a true conservatist
republican hehe ;-)
JP

-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

 

[YD]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:17:34 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

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

<snipped some lengthy stuff>

All very nice and dandy a million or so years ago. How is it supposed
to apply to modern society?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:46:50 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

<schnipperoo-DAH!>

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

Explain your Truth. Hey, if *my* Truth turns out to be better than
yours does that mean I can come over and kill you?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:23:19 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

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 pie<*BITCH-SLAP*

The same to you. Blllrrrpffff...

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<*SLAM*

I know, I saw it. Explain X-spurt. Some relative to X-men?

<snip drivel>

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

So what *is* your position? Not backing up your claims with facts?
That you have a mind? What? Come out with it.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:53:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

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

Isn't that kind of extremist? Of course, you're not terrorists so
you're allowed to throw bombs all over the place somewhere half-way
around the world.

What's your view on religious culture in general, is it allowed in
Walz-land?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Winfield Hill]

YD wrote...

Steve wrote:

Islam is a sick rabid animal, KILL IT!

Isn't that kind of extremist?

Hi everyone. This thread just passed the 500 article mark.

Thanks,
- Win

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

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (3 Jun 2004 05:41:34 -0700) it happened Winfield Hill
<Winfield_member@newsguy.com> wrote in <c9n69u0195u@drn.newsguy.com>:

YD wrote...

Steve wrote:

Islam is a sick rabid animal, KILL IT!

Isn't that kind of extremist?

Hi everyone. This thread just passed the 500 article mark.

Thanks,
- Win

502 now

JP

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

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

Alien? What do you mean "alien"? Like it or not, military
leaders the world over have studied it because it works. Or
are you having a "multicultural crisis"?

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.

And you assume that he has _nothing_ good in him at all
because his "spirituality" does not conform to yours. How
easy it can be to demonize others.

you'll see he's no worse than any other "leader". They all
do the same.

True, but not ALL leaders do the same.

Yes, they do. It's how they keep their jobs. If nobody
followed them, what would they do?

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

No, I don't; as I've mentioned elsewhere (in this thread,
I think) I've arranged my life so that I don't need them.
Yes, they can be useful, and even fun, but they're not
necessities.

I refuse to follow the "petroleumistas" because I
disagree with their worldview. If enough people did the
same, the oil "problems" would simply fade away.

Refusing to follow political leaders would have the same
effect. I asked you which ones you follow; why didn't you
answer?

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.

Sigh. What they're talking about is how to conduct one
(in the least wasteful way) once it gets started. As you say
it's a very good idea to look at the causes of wars, but in
the end it's some asshole wanting everyone to do things his
way, and everybody else either goes along with him or doesn't.

At some point a leader (or more likely, those he has
convinced to follow him) will come knocking at your door
demanding your loyalty. The same applies to subtler things
like advertising media.

That's when it's imperative to know how to conduct a war
with the least losses _on both sides_, which is what Sun Tzu
was all about.

Deciding to "Study war no more" doesn't guarantee peace,
only slavery.

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.

I don't and I do (addressing your points in order).
However, there are so very many people who criticize things
without any background. You see the surface, but there are
things going on beneath that you don't see because you don't
know how to recognize them.

How does conflict originate (between individuals or
larger groups)? How to resolve said conflicts?

The Buddha's answer was to identify and eliminate our
individual unreasonable expectations (and by extension, to
avoid following along with the unreasonable expectations of
others); Sun Tzu's was similar on a larger scale, to
identify and exploit an enemy's but only after doing the
same for his own.

Both achieve the same end, which is to end conflict so
that you can get on with life, not spread death.

I said I prefer Aikido because I'm lazy. The idea in
Aikido is to sidestep an attacker so that he falls down (you
have to overbalance yourself in order to attack; simple
physics), but if he persists, you have to know how to turn
the force of his attack back against him. Eventually he'll
quit because he gets hurt.

Not hurting an attacker is preferable, but some won't
quit until lethal force gets involved. Now, which is worse;
killing him, or allowing him to kill you? Until that
question is faced squarely and honestly, you (or I) have no
business criticizing others' conduct.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:01:06 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <MPIvc.44263$mm1.10062@fed1read06>:

The Buddha's answer was to identify and eliminate our
individual unreasonable expectations (and by extension, to
avoid following along with the unreasonable expectations of
others); Sun Tzu's was similar on a larger scale, to
identify and exploit an enemy's but only after doing the
same for his own.

Both achieve the same end, which is to end conflict so
that you can get on with life, not spread death.

I said I prefer Aikido because I'm lazy. The idea in
Aikido is to sidestep an attacker so that he falls down (you
have to overbalance yourself in order to attack; simple
physics), but if he persists, you have to know how to turn
the force of his attack back against him. Eventually he'll
quit because he gets hurt.

Not hurting an attacker is preferable, but some won't
quit until lethal force gets involved. Now, which is worse;
killing him, or allowing him to kill you? Until that
question is faced squarely and honestly, you (or I) have no
business criticizing others' conduct.

Mark L. Fergerson
Lots of points... follow that thing, that proces inside you that

creates the bliss.
To understand what that is, you may need to look for someone
to show you.
And, from that point on, 'good' and 'bad' is very different from
any concept there of (political or otherwise).
In fact it cannot be explained in words ever.
That does only mean there are not enough words available.
It is not really complicated, but you may find that what is true
in one situation is not in the other.
Bush (to demonize) him, apart from being very close to the truth,
may perhaps make people aware and have a close look at the moster
(and his club).
That club is not going anywhere.
To fight or not to fight, old story, Krisha Arjuna look it up.
We HAVE to fight Bush, because he already is dead.
We HAVE to fight on the side of the true experience.
And the scene changes constantly, every second of every day, that is
why a rule set (as sonshi for example) is bound to fail.
EVEN in a fight (during it) the situation changes, and always the object
should be to end it, not create fights (wars) everywhere as the dumbass GWB
the horrible does, just to sell weapons, to make money, to eat, to multiply,
and sell more weapons full circle.
And using all knowledge available (that he understands, rather limited club
it is) to manipulate the masses.
AND doing all that being completely isolated from the true self 50% or more
of the time.
The fall from paradise, hell for him most off the time, for his followers,
for his country.
Does that answer your question?
While a true teacher shows you to be in heaven now.
And have heaven for the rest of your life if you so please.
www.maharaji,org for my teacher on that level, nothing to do with politics,
but everything to do with happiness.
JP

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:53:01 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

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

Isn't that kind of extremist? Of course, you're not terrorists so
you're allowed to throw bombs all over the place somewhere half-way
around the world.
------------------------

Terrorists are bad because they are wrong, not because they do
violence. Good has the legitimate right to do violence against
any and all who oppose it.

What's your view on religious culture in general, is it allowed in
Walz-land?
- YD.
-----------------------

It has to be absolutely harmless and non-demanding, or we 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]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:34:41 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40BD59C3.4F19@armory.com>:

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.

Wait a minute, if you own a home, you have to pay taxes on it here,
-------------

Everyone has to pay taxes, here the rich are greedy so they want
to take your house if you don't work so they can use it to enaslave
renters with it SO THEY don't have to work! I think everyone has a
right to a house as long as they live, but that if they don't work
we simply stop feeding them. If they can eat bugs, fine, then come
on over and eat mine over here. The rich should definitely have to
try bugs.

all sorts of taxes, so in your view the government that does that
are ribbers too? (Many here would agree with you hehe), now that
helps sell Waltz Communism to the medium well of does it not?
Bu tis not that what Hitler did (everubody a home everubody a car
(Volkswagen), but where does the money come from?
Complicated.
-----------------------------

People who use services should pay for them. People who want the
right to services in future should pay for their existence or die.
This gives us the right to tax them for them.

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.

You are stirring up the masses
Revolution!
----------------

Yup.

Personnaly I think renting out a place can be a decent bussines,
there are also responsibilities and maintenance that you do not have
to worry about if you rent, but definitely have to worry about if
you own a home.
-----------------

Nonsense.

And many younsters simply have no money to buy one.
And may move a lot (jobs).
---------------------

Nonsense. Homes are inherited, not bought, and repaired, and the VERY
few we need built should be built at public expense.

So there is a market there, what is wrong with it?
---------------------

It is a means of enslaving serfs so a rich class doesn't have to
work, and people who do that should be killed.

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.

You are 'slightly' biased for 'no private possessions'
----------------

No, the earth cannot be owned, we all have a right to inherit homes
from those who brought us into the world against our express informed
consent and permission. We all have the right to live in the aedifices
our species has built.

and now you want
to promote private property, that is not the old communism as I know it?
------------------

No. This is the way that makes sense.

Maybe you are getting older and you now are really a true conservatist
republican hehe ;-)
JP
-----------------

Not bloody fucking likely.

-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:40C0015A.110A@armory.com...

YD wrote:

What's your view on religious culture in general, is it allowed in
Walz-land?
- YD.
-----------------------
It has to be absolutely harmless and non-demanding, or we kill it.

Irony meter reading:

100 <------
|
|
50
|
|
0

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 04 Jun 2004 05:03:28 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"

<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40C00388.24BD@armory.com>:

No, the earth cannot be owned, we all have a right to inherit homes
from those who brought us into the world against our express informed
consent and permission.
This IS a very interesting statement!

When you (part of you) was that sperm fighting its way in the vagina, to
win from all the other spermatoids, to get there to be the first one to
fertilize that egg, were you it doing against your will?
WHY were you going there? you could have said:
'I am no slave of this all, I am on strike, let someone else win!' ?
Everybody has an equal right.
Oh, I see, you worked for it.

We all have the right to live in the aedifices
our species has built.
Seems you will have to fight for it!

JP

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:01:06 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <MPIvc.44263$mm1.10062@fed1read06>:


The Buddha's answer was to identify and eliminate our
individual unreasonable expectations (and by extension, to
avoid following along with the unreasonable expectations of
others); Sun Tzu's was similar on a larger scale, to
identify and exploit an enemy's but only after doing the
same for his own.

Both achieve the same end, which is to end conflict so
that you can get on with life, not spread death.

I said I prefer Aikido because I'm lazy. The idea in
Aikido is to sidestep an attacker so that he falls down (you
have to overbalance yourself in order to attack; simple
physics), but if he persists, you have to know how to turn
the force of his attack back against him. Eventually he'll
quit because he gets hurt.

Not hurting an attacker is preferable, but some won't
quit until lethal force gets involved. Now, which is worse;
killing him, or allowing him to kill you? Until that
question is faced squarely and honestly, you (or I) have no
business criticizing others' conduct.

Lots of points... follow that thing, that proces inside you that
creates the bliss.

Take your own advice; stop expending your energy pissing
and moaning about how awful somebody else is. Unless that's
your idea of bliss...

To understand what that is, you may need to look for someone
to show you.
And, from that point on, 'good' and 'bad' is very different from
any concept there of (political or otherwise).

You miss a very subtle point; "good" and "bad" are
concepts defined by the cultural filters we are taught to
see through, and those filters are pre-defined (see "way" as
mentioned by Sun Tzu) by those who would lead us. Hence if
we take the trouble to see what definitions are common to
all cultures, we gain a better idea of what "universal" good
and bad might be.

Yet in all cases, it is considered "good" to follow one's
leaders; that's where the subtlety arises. In order to
unscrew that, ask _why_ we need leaders in the first place.

In fact it cannot be explained in words ever.

Then why do you want me to go to:

www.maharaji,org

so I can follow _your_ leader?

What makes you think I _need_ a leader?

That does only mean there are not enough words available.
It is not really complicated, but you may find that what is true
in one situation is not in the other.

Wow, no shit! Depends how deep you go.

Bush (to demonize) him, apart from being very close to the truth,
may perhaps make people aware and have a close look at the moster
(and his club).
That club is not going anywhere.

Yes they are, and they want to take us with them in order
to perpetuate their power over us.

We have the power to choose not to follow. All six
billion of us.

To fight or not to fight, old story, Krisha Arjuna look it up.

Older than that, Jan, much older.

We HAVE to fight Bush, because he already is dead.

No, we don't. We can choose to ignore him and those like him.

You still focus on only one member of the "club". Widen
your scope. Those political leaders that appear to oppose
him are members of the same club; they play by the same
rules. In fact, all of them are no matter which "side" they
appear to be on. The fact that they choose "sides" (and try
to get others to take that "side") is proof.

We HAVE to fight on the side of the true experience.

No, we don't. We can _choose_ to experience things as we
wish, and tell others. Others then can choose. If you fall
into the trap of proselytizing _your_ vision, you are no
different from any other "leader" (or enthusiastic followers
of such leaders) because you are attempting to spread your
chosen idea of "truth" at the expense of others'.

Some people choose to follow others because it simplifies
their lives. Is that "good" or "bad"?

Who has the right to decide that, besides the ones doing
the choosing? Nobody. But;

Who has the responsibility of pointing out the
consequences of their options? Everyone who has thought it
through _as far as they could_.

This latter point is how civilization advances; we share
our insights and everyone who hears _chooses_.

And the scene changes constantly, every second of every day, that is
why a rule set (as sonshi for example) is bound to fail.

Re-examine what you said to Steve Walz re: spermatozoa.
Conflict is an absolutely fundamental part of life, and
denying that leads only to slavery or death.

What you see as the "changing scene" is just window
dressing tailored to particular cultural filters; the
fundamentals cannot change.

There are any number of rule sets that could be used to
codify those fundamentals, and Sun Tzu's is as good as any
and better than most simply because it is applicable to
individual conduct as well as that of larger groups.

In fact, if you think about it, an individual sperm may
not be making conscious decisions on its trip, but it's
following Sun Tzu's rules exactly. So is an amoeba, so is a
school of fish, so are you and I, and so are all six billion
of us. Some of us are just better at it than others because
we know that there are rules, and how to tell who's
following them consciously.

That's why animals can be separated into predators and
prey, and humans into followers and leaders.

Animals have no other options, but we do.

<rant snipped>

Does that answer your question?

I didn't ask a question.

While a true teacher shows you to be in heaven now.
And have heaven for the rest of your life if you so please.
www.maharaji,org for my teacher on that level, nothing to do with politics,
but everything to do with happiness.

So, you want me to follow _your_ leader? Suppose I choose
not to; am I then one of GWB's "dumbass followers" by
default? Please tell me you aren't that simplistic.

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Fri, 04 Jun 2004 08:51:14 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <hU0wc.47514$mm1.45792@fed1read06>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Thu, 03 Jun 2004 10:01:06 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <MPIvc.44263$mm1.10062@fed1read06>:



Does that answer your question?

I didn't ask a question.
Oh yes you did.

am I then one of GWB's "dumbass followers" by
default? Please tell me you aren't that simplistic.

I do not give a shit what you do.
Because you have no free will anyways.
JP

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:17:34 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

YD wrote:

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

snipped some lengthy stuff
---------------

Which were all the answers to your questions, and which you deleted
and then re-asked the question as if I hadn't asked it.

LAME. And dishonest.
Steve

Here it is repeated:
------------------

All very nice and dandy a million or so years ago. How is it supposed
to apply to modern society?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
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 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 04:46:50 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

schnipperoo-DAH!

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

Explain your Truth. Hey, if *my* Truth turns out to be better than
yours does that mean I can come over and kill you?
- YD.
---------------

You can always try in any case.
But I'll bet that you being wrong will make you die,
because that's what I'll do.

-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 Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:23:19 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

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 pie<*BITCH-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!!

So what *is* your position? Not backing up your claims with facts?
That you have a mind? What? Come out with it.
- YD.
-----------------

You're deleting the answer and then re-asking the question.
Debate and delete are not the same word.

-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]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Fri, 04 Jun 2004 05:03:28 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"

rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40C00388.24BD@armory.com>:
No, the earth cannot be owned, we all have a right to inherit homes
from those who brought us into the world against our express informed
consent and permission.

This IS a very interesting statement!
When you (part of you) was that sperm fighting its way in the vagina, to
win from all the other spermatoids, to get there to be the first one to
fertilize that egg, were you it doing against your will?
-----------------

That wasn't me, Me is My SelfAware being. I didn't occupy this
body till after its birth.

WHY were you going there? you could have said:
'I am no slave of this all, I am on strike, let someone else win!' ?
Everybody has an equal right.
Oh, I see, you worked for it.
-----------------

Irrelevant in light of the above.

We all have the right to live in the aedifices
our species has built.

Seems you will have to fight for it!
JP
-----------------

Deal. I got a majority of angry people, whaddaYOO got?

-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

 

[YD]

On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 04:54:09 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:
snipsss....

Isn't that kind of extremist? Of course, you're not terrorists so
you're allowed to throw bombs all over the place somewhere half-way
around the world.
------------------------
Terrorists are bad because they are wrong, not because they do

Not in their own eyes.

violence. Good has the legitimate right to do violence against
any and all who oppose it.

Define good. Are there degrees of good? Can a superior good stomp on a
lesser good?

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.