War on humanity

[YD]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:12:08 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

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

IOW, you're prepared to enforce your inferior truth with superior
weaponry. Figures.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:10:26 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

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.

OK, OK, I'll leave it in this time around. Below.

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

So how does all that apply to modern society? Not many saber toothed
tigers around to worry about nowadays.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:14:38 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

-----------------
You're dele<*SLAP-SLAP-SLAP*

I'm not debating a fucking thing you silly fool, I'm trying to get a
bearing on what you're really on about. You're deleting my questions
and replacing them with some previous unrelated drivel simply because
you're up against the wall and can't find a way to backpedal anymore.

You remind me of a scene in an old silent movie I saw on TV some time
ago. A peg-legged man got his peg-leg stuck in a hole in the floor and
spent the rest of the movie going around in a tight little circle
desperately trying to get unstuck. That's you, going around and around
and around, toc-toc-toc.

- YD.


--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:17:35 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
<rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40C12E26.573E@armory.com>:

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.
Then you still identify with what I'd call ego.

The true self was there all along, supporting you.
This is exactly where the problem is, you identify with the 'weights'
of the neural net, and that, by definition is unreliable (it changes).
How about identifying with its power source?
Then you can play any weights you like.
So, stand back from (rize above) the 'ego' part, and see yourself and know.
On the other hand, if you thing a specific configuration of weights represents
'you' you are for ever the prisoner of the system you so created.
JP

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

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

In their heart of hearts they know they're wrong, they just can't
let go of so involved a delusion.

Just like you, for example.

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

There is only one Good, it is Good, everybody knows it, but some won't
admit it, because they have needs born of their abuse as a child that
they think need satisfying before they can ever be Good/Fair/Just to
others. They will need to be stopped to protect the rest of us, but
whether they can ever access their real self is a mystery.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:12:08 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

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

IOW, you're prepared to enforce your inferior truth
-----------------

Nope, Superior truth.

with superior weaponry.
------------------

Yup.

Figures.
- YD.
------------------

You brought it up, moron.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:10:26 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.

OK, OK, I'll leave it in this time around. Below.

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

So how does all that apply to modern society?
------------------------

Our Evolved Nature indicates what we should do to become happy
again:

Share, fuck a lot, don't tolerate bullies, gang up on them and
destroy them together.

If you need to re-read the above before it makes sense, you should.

Not many saber toothed tigers around to worry about nowadays.
- YD.
--------------------------

No, people have taken their places, so there are still more "lions
on the road" we have to kill, like Capitalists. More road we have
to pacify to make it safe for the rest of us.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:14:38 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

-----------------
You're dele<*SLAP-SLAP-SLAP*
---------------

You'll get shit-fuck nuthin' behaving that way.
If you were here I'd beat you to death.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:17:35 GMT) it happened "R. Steve Walz"
rstevew@armory.com> wrote in <40C12E26.573E@armory.com>:

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.

Then you still identify with what I'd call ego.
-------------------------

Nonsense headgames. More disinfo to one-up. Sixties head-games.

Nobody exists without one, at all,
so don't play any pretend headgames.

What you're talking about is something different.

The true self was there all along, supporting you.
--------------------------

No, yours was. You're disrespectful.

This is exactly where the problem is, you identify with the 'weights'
of the neural net, and that, by definition is unreliable (it changes).
How about identifying with its power source?
Then you can play any weights you like.
------------------------

Delusion.

So, stand back from (rize above) the 'ego' part, and see yourself and know.
On the other hand, if you thing a specific configuration of weights represents
'you' you are for ever the prisoner of the system you so created.
JP
--------------------

Pretense.
Steve

 

[YD]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:25:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jun 2004 02:12:08 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

*CUTOFF*

Nope, Superior truth.

Prove it's superior, dickhead.

with superior weaponry.
------------------
Yup.

Anything can be "superior" if you shove it by force of violence.

Figures.
- YD.
------------------
You brought it up, moron.
Steve

Thanks for proving once again what a narrow minded little prick you
are.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:32:32 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

<remove bandwidth waste and faith in human nature manure>

Our Evolved Nature indicates what we should do to become happy
again:

Share, fuck a lot, don't tolerate bullies, gang up on them and
destroy them together.

How very idealistic. How do you propose to go about it?

Not many saber toothed tigers around to worry about nowadays.
- YD.

No, people have taken their places, so there are still more "lions
on the road" we have to kill, like Capitalists. More road we have
to pacify to make it safe for the rest of us.

Or learn to ignore them and take care of yourself. OTOH it might be an
idea to seem to join them and then work under cover.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:33:46 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

---------------
You'll get sh<*DOUBLE-WHAMMO*

Oooooh, scary. Well, I'm not, live with it. What if both my Truth
*and* my weaponry are better than yours? If you can afford the tickets
feel free to come over and let me make a McDonald's double out of you.
Hafta feed it to the dogs out on the street, though, nobody deserves a
meal like that.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[YD]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:22:04 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

YD wrote:

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.
------------------------
In their heart of hearts they know they're wrong, they just can't
let go of so involved a delusion.

What if it were the other way around. Isn't it possible that you are
the deluded one but are so stuck with it you refuse to see it as a
delusion? Would you really admit in your heart of hearts that you're
wrong? Is there only that one absolute Truth? What if several kinds of
"good" (for want of a better expression) were equally good? Or a
combination of parts of them? Are differing viewpoints allowed in your
regime?

snip vicious ad hominem lie


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

Just like the Catholics a few hundred years ago. And several kinds of
missionaries up to only a few decades ago. Doesn't sound like all that
good to me.

Define good. Are there degrees of good? Can a superior good stomp on a
lesser good?
- YD.
-----------------------------
There is only one Good, it is Good, everybody knows it, but some won't

Only one "good", that's hilarious. No degrees of "good", only the one
you've pulled out of your deluded ass, and you're of course the master
and high priest of it.

admit it, because they have needs b<*BLAST*

Who'll shove it down their throats? You're just as bad as all the rest
of the fanatics.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:25:29 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

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.

IOW, you're prepared to enforce your inferior truth
-----------------
Nope, Superior truth.


with superior weaponry.
------------------
Yup.

Figures.
- YD.
------------------
You brought it up, moron.
Steve

Prove it's superior, dickhead.
-------------------

You're dishonest and disingenuous, hence nothing CAN be fairly proved
TO YOU BECAUSE you're dishonest and disingenuous about admitting it.
And because of that, NOTHING *CAN* be "proved" to anyone who actually
NEEDS it in the way you claim to so NEED it so badly on Usenet, or on
any other forum where your own sort of dishonesty is not being
peer-reviewed by others and your lies intentionally regulated.

Anything can be "superior" if you shove it by force of violence.
------------------------------

Irrelevant. If the Majority wins, it does so by its inherent justice.
You just won't LIKE a world in which you are absolutely prevented
from bullying, defrauding or lying to or about anyone else!

The Majority can finally win any conflict, if they just bother to.
Whether they will is the only determinant regarding the final outcome
of all historical questions.

Thanks for proving once again what a narrow minded little prick you
are.
---------------------

You systematically deleted everything that revealed your total and
unbelievable stupidity. I have restored it, thus proving that your
dishonesty shows once again, that YOU'RE the ONLY narrow-minded
fucking retarded little prick here.

-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 Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:32:32 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

remove bandwidth waste and faith in human nature manure

Our Evolved Nature indicates what we should do to become happy
again:

Share, fuck a lot, don't tolerate bullies, gang up on them and
destroy them together.

How very idealistic. How do you propose to go about it?
----------------------

I just told you. The Majority possesses all power, it merely needs
to develop the recognition that it must organize that power.

Not many saber toothed tigers around to worry about nowadays.
- YD.

No, people have taken their places, so there are still more "lions
on the road" we have to kill, like Capitalists. More road we have
to pacify to make it safe for the rest of us.

Or learn to ignore them and take care of yourself.
--------------------------

While the Majority is deprived of its rightful control of its
extended "body", the earth, this is not possible, those who
stole it must be dealt with harshly to instill fear in the
criminal portion of Human Nature, so that it does not show
itself.

OTOH it might be an
idea to seem to join them and then work under cover.
- YD.
----------------------------

For a time, at different times, but then that wouldn't be discussed
openly, and the claim that one should is subject to debate, skepticism,
and being judged a cop-out and a punishable deception on the part of
those who merely wish to continue to benefit illicitly and continue
your greed.
Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

YD wrote:

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:33:46 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

You're dele<*SLAP-SLAP-SLAP*
---------------
You'll get shit-fuck nuthin' behaving that way.
If you were here I'd beat you to death.
Steve


Oooooh, scary. Well, I'm not, live with it. What if both my Truth
*and* my weaponry are better than yours?
----------------------

You have no "truth", and the weaponry you pretend to control can be
coopted by the Majority whom you must rely upon in order on to survive
as a Plutocrat, and that is so in ALL cases. Your fate is sealed by
your ignorance, dishonesty, and viciousness.

If you can afford the tickets
feel free to come over and let me make a McDonald's double for you.
-------------------------

So that's where you work. You're a Classic impotent rage-aholic.

I'd think you'd have figured out by now who your REAL enemies ACTUALLY
are!

-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 Sun, 06 Jun 2004 03:22:04 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com
wrote:

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.

Not in their own eyes.
------------------------
In their heart of hearts they know they're wrong, they just can't
let go of so involved a delusion.

What if it were the other way around.
---------------------

It isn't. You're saying, "But what if light and dark were really
reversed, huh"??", but you're wearing sunglasses to avoid the light
thus giving the lie yourself.

Isn't it possible that you are
the deluded one but are so stuck with it you refuse to see it as a
delusion?
----------------------

No. This stuff is like mathematics, the process checks its work
backwards. You just don't even bother with the math and instead
you assert an answer merely because it pleases you. I'm bound by
the rules of logic and mathematics. You have been offered the
chance to argue logically numerous times and obviously declined,
for no one has seen you offer logical syllogism to be examined.
You refuse to do so because you sense a "trap" in your heart of
hearts, down at the level where you KNOW that you're actually
wrong!

Would you really admit in your heart of hearts that you're
wrong?
----------------------

I learned that I was, long ago, and I resolved never to be so again.
I resolved that I would permit and admit self-change where my state
was shown to be the poorer argument. You won't find that now.

Is there only that one absolute Truth?
---------------------

Yes.

What if several kinds of
"good" (for want of a better expression) were equally good?
---------------------

Show me a VALID example, I have never found one.

Or a
combination of parts of them? Are differing viewpoints allowed
in your regime?
-------------------------

I have no "regime". I shall be ruled by the Majority who defends
the Truth just as everyone will be. I submit myself to that, and
to coming to understand the Majority Will.

snip vicious ad hominem lie
-------------------

This pretense here is actually YOUR lie.

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

Just like the Catholics a few hundred years ago. And several kinds of
missionaries up to only a few decades ago. Doesn't sound like all that
good to me.
-------------------------

Everyone uses violence, but only the Truth has the Right to be
defended by violence, the rest is illegitimate!

Define good. Are there degrees of good? Can a superior good stomp on a
lesser good?
- YD.
-----------------------------
There is only one Good, it is Good, everybody knows it, but some
won't admit it, because they have needs born of their abuse as a
child that they think need satisfying before they can ever be
Good/Fair/Just to others. They will need to be stopped to protect
the rest of us, but whether they can ever access their real self
is a mystery.
Steve
-----------------
Only one "good", that's hilarious. No degrees of "good", only the one
you've pulled out of your deluded ass, and you're of course the master
and high priest of it.
-----------------------

There is only one best way, and that will triumph.

Who'll shove it down their throats? You're just as bad as all the rest
of the fanatics.
- YD.
-------------------------

No.
You see, because ONLY YOU are the fanatics and only YOU are WRONG!

-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

 

[Mark Fergerson]

Jan Panteltje wrote:

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.

The only question I can find in the post to which you
replied "Does that answer your question?" is in this paragraph:

* 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.

You didn't address that.

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.

So why do you care what GWB does?

And why don't you think I have "free will"? Are you in
Steve Walz's camp?

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Mon, 07 Jun 2004 07:40:45 -0700) it happened Mark Fergerson
<nunya@biz.ness> wrote in <c8%wc.57445$mm1.19497@fed1read06>:

Jan Panteltje wrote:

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.

The only question I can find in the post to which you
replied "Does that answer your question?" is in this paragraph:

* 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.

You didn't address that.

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.

So why do you care what GWB does?
Because he is a thread, you are not.

And why don't you think I have "free will"? Are you in
Steve Walz's camp?
You do not recognize a joke when you see one?

That reasoning was in one of the posts (cannot rememeber by who),
and, I sort of think it is probably true we sort of think we
make a decision, while subconcious processes actualy lead to it.
So, you have no choice
This is why I think it is impossible to convince anyone of anything...
Your input may trigger some weights in the neural net so it flips
the other way on a subject... Depends on its state, hardwiring, other
things, complicated.
JP

Mark L. Fergerson

 

[YD]

On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 18:50:52 GMT, "R. Steve Walz" <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote:

<adjusted for bandwidth saving time>

-------------------
You're dish<*WHAM*

No, *you* are dishonest and disingenuous, nothing CAN be fairly proved
TO YOU BECAUSE you're dishonest and disingenuous about admitting it.
And because of that, NOTHING *CAN* be "proved" to anyone who actually
NEEDS it in the way you claim to so NEED it so badly on Usenet, or on
any other forum where your own sort of dishonesty is not being
peer-reviewed by others and your lies intentionally regulated.

Anything can be "superior" if you shove it by force of violence.
------------------------------
Irrelevant.

Not to GWB and cohorts.

If the Majority wins, it does so by its inherent justice.

And just what is that Majority supposed to be? You're so good at
blabbering generalities, but never giving any detail on what you're
at. A good strategy for squirming out of the holes you dig yourself
into.

The Majority can finally win any conflict, if they just bother to.
Whether they will is the only determinant regarding the final outcome
of all historical questions.

See above. How are they, whoever they may be, going to go about it?

Thanks for proving once again what a narrow minded little prick you
are.
---------------------
You syst<*WHAMMO-WHAMMO*

All I've done is save the world from re-reading the stale stuff,
lover-boy.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.