Ontology of phenotypes?
Pyesetz the Dog
Here is the kind of thing I might like to post to such a board:
The Furry Code (v1.3) hasn't been updated in six years. There are some
glaring omissions in the list of phenotypes, particularly the primates.
What about
FPrM - Monkey or chimpanzee
FPrG - Gorilla
FPrH - Hairless river ape
Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them. Perhaps some
think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to do if
he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be something
else?
What if your real furry is a gorilla? Pretend to be a wolf? I'm fairly
sure I've met some of these.
For FPrH, consider a fanboy who lacks imagination and can see only a
hairless river ape when he looks in the mirror. Why can't fanboys
have Furry Codes?
<adjusts glasses> okay, thanks for listening. I think I can find my way
off this soapbox.
-- Pyesetz the Dog
"Brain the size of a planet, with an ego to match"
Claviarm
>Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such things?
The meaning of life cannot be absolutely determined, so effectively it
is whatever we decide it to be, yes?
>Here is the kind of thing I might like to post to such a board:
>
>The Furry Code (v1.3) hasn't been updated in six years. There are some
>glaring omissions in the list of phenotypes, particularly the primates.
>What about
>
>FPrM - Monkey or chimpanzee
>FPrG - Gorilla
>FPrH - Hairless river ape
>
>Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them. Perhaps some
>think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
>you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to do if
>he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be something
>else?
Become disillusioned with furries and leave them behind. That's my
suggestion...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Dave the welfare subsistence Hyena
until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
against him.
>Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them. Perhaps some
>think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
>you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to do if
>he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be something
>else?
Because monkeys are like dark mirrors of ourselves.
We can see our own behavior reflected in monkeys and it reminds us how
predictable and base we are.
That scares me, We must respond by killing all the monkeys.
---
"Following the light of the sun, we left the Old World."
-Inscription on Columbus' caravels
Loganberry
> Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such
> things?
42. HTH. =;)
> Here is the kind of thing I might like to post to such a board:
>
> The Furry Code (v1.3) hasn't been updated in six years. There are
> some glaring omissions in the list of phenotypes, particularly the
> primates. What about
>
> FPrM - Monkey or chimpanzee
> FPrG - Gorilla
> FPrH - Hairless river ape
>
> Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them.
<snip>
Really? I'm not a MUCKer, so I'm probably missing something obvious,
but that seems terribly unfair to me. After all, lemurs are also
primates, and furs with lemur phenotypes don't seem to attract the
same opprobrium as monkeys. I've never been quite sure why, though I
suspect it's because they're seen as "further from those nasty
humans" - anyone with, say, a tarsier pheno care to comment?
> Perhaps some think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just
> faking it".
Very probably. But then the "not real furs" comment is also applied
to just about any other sort of fur you can think of. Infighting is a
bit of a furry speciality, unfortunately - you only have to look at
the number of people over on alt.fan.furry who spend more time
attacking the "lifestylers" than they do enjoying their own side of
furry.
> For FPrH, consider a fanboy who lacks imagination and can see only
> a hairless river ape when he looks in the mirror. Why can't
> fanboys have Furry Codes?
<snip>
I guess the thinking is that if you consider yourself "just human",
you don't need a Code... but now I come to think about it, that's not
a very good argument. A major advantage of adding FPrH would be that
"plain old furry fans" could have a Code if they felt like it,
without feeling awkward at their lack of a non-human phenotype. After
all, most of the categories within the Code spec - art, cons and so
on - could apply to anyone.
--
Furry Code: FLR5aw A C- D>+ H+ M P++ R+ T++ W>+++$ Z Sm# RLAT a cln++
d e++ f++ h* iwf+++ j* p- sm#
"Be cunning, and full of tricks"
Logan's Runes - http://www.loganberry.furtopia.org
§ńühwřŁf
<404f01de...@news.individual.net>:
>"Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> shall never vanquished be
>until great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come
>against him.
>
>>Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them. Perhaps
some
>>think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
>>you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to do
if
>>he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be something
>>else?
>
>Because monkeys are like dark mirrors of ourselves.
>
Shhhhhhh! You'll poke big holes in their theories that way!
>We can see our own behavior reflected in monkeys and it reminds us how
>predictable and base we are.
>
Chimps eat meat! Who knew? And kill eachother...how sad :(
>That scares me, We must respond by killing all the monkeys.
>
We're doing that as a co-effect of habitat destruction. Hmmmm...humans
are monkeys too though, should we kill all them as well?
King Snuhw()1f
Warren Forest
news:pan.2004.03.10....@comcast.net...
> Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such things?
The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind. The answer is blowing in the
wind.
> The Furry Code (v1.3) hasn't been updated in six years. There are some
> glaring omissions in the list of phenotypes, particularly the primates.
Ug... tell me about it. The Furry Code just plain stinks. I mean, "Doom"?
Who the heck gives a flying fig about whether or not anybody plays Doom
anymore? And why was it even part of the Furry Code in the first place?
The answer seems to be that the Furry Code is just one of the many cheap
spin-offs of the Geek Code that was made in a hurry by other geeks without
much thought to anything else back when making codes were the 1337 thing to
do.
> Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them. Perhaps some
> think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
> you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to do if
> he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be something
> else?
Hmm... that's a bit sureal. I didn't realize they'd actually been banned.
That's just plain idiotic and self-righteous.
> For FPrH, consider a fanboy who lacks imagination and can see only a
> hairless river ape when he looks in the mirror. Why can't fanboys
> have Furry Codes?
Whenever I've given much thought to the issue, I've always concluded that a
crossover world with both furries and humans is more appealing than a purely
furry one.
--
Warren Forest, Canis Lupus Arctos - The Canadian Arctic Wolf
FCW3a A- C D++ H+ M- P+ R+ T++++ W Z- Sm#
RLET a32 c++ d-- e+ f h+ i+ j+ p sm#
Entei-rah Brekaythi
2004, with ne'er a thought given to the eve of alt.lifestyle.furry:
> <snip>
> I've never been quite sure why, though I
> suspect it's because they're seen as "further from those nasty
> humans" - anyone with, say, a tarsier pheno care to comment?
>
> <snip>
An interesting point, which to me raises the question of if there is such
opposition due its closeness to humans, to the extent the species are
omitted from the furry code, why then is there still a level '1' in the
species field for 'Basically human, with minor furry features (perhaps
eyes, nose, ears, claws, some fur, etc)? Is that saying a human with cat
eyes is somehow considered less human than a primate?
--
Entei-rah Brekaythi - Prince with a million enemies
(and no decent signature yet, but I'm working on it)
FLR4ad A C- D+ H+ M- P R- T++ W Z Sm# RLU a18 can++ d? e? f h+ iwf+++ j+ p
sm#
Loganberry
11 Mar 2004:
>> <snip>
>> I've never been quite sure why, though I
>> suspect it's because they're seen as "further from those nasty
>> humans" - anyone with, say, a tarsier pheno care to comment?
>>
>> <snip>
>
> An interesting point, which to me raises the question of if there
> is such opposition due its closeness to humans, to the extent the
> species are omitted from the furry code, why then is there still a
> level '1' in the species field for 'Basically human, with minor
> furry features (perhaps eyes, nose, ears, claws, some fur, etc)?
> Is that saying a human with cat eyes is somehow considered less
> human than a primate?
That's a very good question, which might perhaps be better directed at
those (if such there be; no-one's yet actually come forward and said
they're in this categeory) who object to the presence of great apes and
suchlike in the phenotype list.
My own hunch, though, going on my usual amount of evidence[1], is that
if you have a cat phenotype, even at "level 1", it could be interpreted
that at *some* level you'd like to be seen by others as a cat. So
you're "a human who yearns for felinity" or some such. If you have a
chimp phenotype, though, even at "level 6", then your *ideal form* is
too close to humanity for comfort.
[1] None. =:P
So, I suppose my answer would be that yes, a human with cat eyes
*could* be considered less human than a "100% chimp", simply because
the cat fur could be considered as wanting elements (albeit only minor
ones) from a species far further away from humanity than chimpanzees.
Loganberry
<snip>
> What about
>
> FPrM - Monkey or chimpanzee
I very much doubt you'd get away with condensing two such different
animals into one code! (Any Terry Pratchett readers will appreciate
this...)
> FPrG - Gorilla
> FPrH - Hairless river ape
<snip>
And now I come to think about it, why the aversion to the simple word
"human"? The phrase "Hairless river ape" does rather seem like a
somewhat desperate attempt to avoid the plainer term, or to make the
idea seem unattractive.
Silver Seams
news:Xns94A9105DA2E79...@130.133.1.4:
> I very much doubt you'd get away with condensing two such different
> animals into one code! (Any Terry Pratchett readers will appreciate
> this...)
As will my three-year-old. We were visiting a zoo a couple hours away,
and hopped off the zoo train at the primate stop. The guide pointed out
the ape house as we were doing so, which was fairly silly since that one
was right in front of us and the monkey house was less obvious.
Now, our local zoo has chimps and orangs, so we were going to skip over
the ape house. We asked our son, "Do you want to go to the monkey house?"
To the great amusement of the guide and other passengers, he turned to us
with a look of exasperation.
"Mommy, they're *apes*, not monkeys."
--
<URL: http://www.silverseams.com/ > Costuming, stuffed animals, etc.
Skytech
> Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them. Perhaps
some
> think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
> you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to
do if
> he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be
something
> else?
>
Seems to be a Western problem where non human primates violate a
social abhorance to an animal type that 'mocks' the superior human.
Other cultures with long histories of close association with local
primate usually have no qualm anthropomophizing them or cross-relating
human and primate traits.
Many people feel NHP are too close to human and therefore 'not animal'
so they refuse to include them in furry context. Just too close to
family and not exotic enough. Luckily there are enough examples in
furry related works giving ape and monkeys their due. I know I've seen
a lot of primates features anthropomorphically over the years.
--
La gvatanta vulpo (The vigilant fox)
Skytech
^^
<@@>
.]
Rabbitswift
I have noticed that. At least there are a number of furs who, for one
reason or another, have an aversion to primates. It's not something I quite
understand myself but then I happen to be a great fan of primates myself
{most particularly of gorrillas and apes}.
TapestriesMUCK bans them.
Erf? That I don't get at all. But then I'm not terribly big on MU*s anyway.
Perhaps some
> think that monkeys are "not real furs" or "just faking it". But if
> you believe that your furry avatar chooses you, what is a furfen to do if
> he's chosen by a monkey??? Hide under a rock? Pretend to be
something
> else?
>
A fair set of questions. I don't think I've talked to any fur who claims
those as their pheno/avatar/etc., but perhaps I have and they just didn't
tell me. Either way I don't see why this exclusion should be made. *shrugs*
But that's me of course.
"...I run like what I eat, how not, only better. Nobody runs like me."
---
'Again the red ghost of that laugh, making my fur rise and my ears flatten
back. "And no wonder you are still a fox, still, after so long and long a time,
so much subtle knowing. Don't you ever ponder on it, why you should still
be a fox?"'
--Soukyan's fox, "The Inkeeper's Song" Peter S. Beagle.
Furcode: FMS[Spotted Skunk]p4a/CF[Swift Fox]p4a/V[Fossa]p4a A- C- D
H++ M- P R+ T+++ W>++++ Z+ Sm# RLLW/AT a25 c++ d e++>+++
f++++ h? iwf+ j+ p++ sm#
Starling
> Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such
> things?
Right here, of course! Oh... other places too. The trick is not
finding a place to discuss, but finding the smart furries to discuss
with. Try http://www.iidb.org/ if you're looking for where I spend a
lot of time philosophicating.
> The Furry Code (v1.3) hasn't been updated in six years. There are some
> glaring omissions in the list of phenotypes, particularly the
> primates.
I think the furry code is fundamentally flawed in that regards. You
just can't reduce classification by animal (or fantastical creature)
to a few letters on a table, and not have someone left out. The
closest anyone has come to that is what they call taxonomy, with long
names like Austrolopothagnethusopodus. Not the sort of thing you'd
expect to fit into a furry code. Plus, even not counting the
fantastical creatures, there are thousands of different creatures out
there in real life! Writing the code for the F flag is irrevocably
difficult since there are an indeterminate number of phenotypes, and
variations thereof. Better just to tell it in plain language terms.
> For FPrH, consider a fanboy who lacks imagination and can see only a
> hairless river ape when he looks in the mirror. Why can't fanboys
> have Furry Codes?
:shrugs: In my mind, humans are just another kind of furry (bipedal
mammal), but I didn't write the Furry Code. If I think of something
that will work better, I'll let it be known.
Starling
--
To mail me: wassdamo at pacbell dot net
Current form: ferret
Stories n' Stuff
http://transform.to/~starling
"The guy was a paragon, kissed hands and shook babies, helped old streets cross the lady..." -- Starling and Pyro
Pyesetz the Dog
>> FPrM - Monkey or chimpanzee
> I very much doubt you'd get away with condensing two such different
> animals into one code!
Yes, well, I wanted to talk about chimps (99+% human DNA) but Tapestries ban
refers to "monkeys", so I combined the codes for argument's sake.
>> FPrH - Hairless river ape
> why the aversion to the simple word "human"?
It seems the word "human" means "non-fur" in some furry contexts. I was
trying to suggest the possibility of a fur (a member of this community)
whose inner furry looks exactly like the outer body.
> The phrase "Hairless river ape" does rather seem like a somewhat desperate
> attempt to avoid the plainer term, or to make the idea seem unattractive.
It's also sort of a dig at those idiots who claim Homo sapiens evolved on
the savannah. The homo body design is very poorly adapted for a
veldt-dweller! It makes much more sense living on the shores of a river,
catching shellfish with its bare hands and eating them raw.
Pyesetz the Dog
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> wrote here on 10 Mar 2004:
>> Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such things?
> 42. HTH. =;)
HAND!
But is there a furry viewpoint on the question that Deep Thought was
answering with this number?
> furs with lemur phenotypes don't seem to attract the
> same opprobrium as monkeys.
Indeed, FPrL (lemur) is the only approved furry code for a primate.
Zaboomafoo fans?
> you only have to look at the number of people over on alt.fan.furry who
> spend more time attacking the "lifestylers" than they do enjoying their
> own side of furry.
I've been avoiding a.f.f.
> A major advantage of adding FPrH would be that
> "plain old furry fans" could have a Code if they felt like it,
Yes, but how would I go about getting that done? Ross Smith's email no
longer works. Chama's homepage hasn't been updated in two years(?). It's
a similar problem with the Geek Code -- Robert Hayden owns the copyright on
it, but is not interested in updating it or (apparently) allowing others to
update.
Pyesetz the Dog
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such
>> things?
> Right here, of course!
Thanks for your kind words. I suppose I should fill out a furvey.
> Oh... other places too. The trick is not finding a place to discuss,
> but finding the smart furries to discuss with.
Yes, I'm looking for a place where smart furries hang out.
> In my mind, humans are just another kind of furry (bipedal mammal)
Thank you! That is my point. If «furry» is a viewpoint or mindset, the
avatar need not be a "lower" animal.
Pyesetz the Dog
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> said:
>>Where do the smarter furries discuss the meaning of life and such things?
> The meaning of life cannot be absolutely determined, so effectively it
> is whatever we decide it to be, yes?
Sort of. In order to function properly, we need to believe that life has
meaning. To function as a community, we need a shared belief in a
specific meaning.
What is the furry view on the meaning of life?
Pyesetz the Dog
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> The Furry Code (v1.3) hasn't been updated in six years. There are some
>> glaring omissions in the list of phenotypes, particularly the primates.
>
> Ug... tell me about it. The Furry Code just plain stinks. I mean, "Doom"?
> Who the heck gives a flying fig about whether or not anybody plays Doom
> anymore? And why was it even part of the Furry Code in the first place?
I still play Doom. As a Furry Code element, I think it's supposed to
indicate your attitude towards violence. Winning at Doom requires fragging
humanoids. In its day, this was controversial.
>> Monkeys are undesirable avatars. TapestriesMUCK bans them.
> Hmm... that's a bit sureal. I didn't realize they'd actually been banned.
> That's just plain idiotic and self-righteous.
I haven't talked to the Tapestries people about this (it's just a note on
their home page), but it could be a pragmatic response to an observation
that the "Monkey" phenotype is typically chosen by trolls. Just a thought.
Loganberry
>> 42. HTH. =;)
>
> HAND!
>
> But is there a furry viewpoint on the question that Deep Thought
> was answering with this number?
Well, from a lapine point of view, it was clearly "What do you get if
you multiply hrair by hrair?" =;)
<snip>
> Zaboomafoo fans?
Aye-ayes?
> I've been avoiding a.f.f.
*sigh* I don't blame you, but it really is so sad, as I'd guess the
vast majority of people here are furry fans of one sort and another.
>> A major advantage of adding FPrH would be that
>> "plain old furry fans" could have a Code if they felt like it,
>
> Yes, but how would I go about getting that done? Ross Smith's
> email no longer works. Chama's homepage hasn't been updated in
> two years(?).
Well, I know that Chama was around a year or so ago, as he posted here
on alt.l.f. when the Furry Music Foundation website was down. You could
always try contacting him through there (www.furrymusic.org).
> It's a similar problem with the Geek Code -- Robert
> Hayden owns the copyright on it, but is not interested in updating
> it or (apparently) allowing others to update.
Hmmm. I suppose one answer would be to make an all-new code and do the
equivalent of GPLing it. The one Code I have anything to do with (the
Watership Down Code) I'd far rather someone else took on than it just
died. (Not that this I'm at all likely to let it go, but this is just
an illustration.) The problem then would be getting people to use it...
Dave the welfare subsistence Hyena
great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>>Because monkeys are like dark mirrors of ourselves.
>>
>Shhhhhhh! You'll poke big holes in their theories that way!
I read some stuff by bishops who got pissed over darwin because they
thought that saying that humans were related apes was an insult to
jesus.
§ńühwřŁf
>§ńühwřŁf <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> shall never vanquished be until
>great Birnam wood to high alt.lifestyle.furry. hill shall come against
>him.
>
>>>Because monkeys are like dark mirrors of ourselves.
>>>
>>Shhhhhhh! You'll poke big holes in their theories that way!
>
>I read some stuff by bishops who got pissed over darwin because they
>thought that saying that humans were related apes was an insult to
>jesus.
>
Seeing the Passion might be an insult to Jesus...
I really don't think Jesus cares. I bet he's written off humanity as a
lost cause...prolly lit out for another solar system to start all over
again.
King Snuhw()1f,WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND JESUS DOSEN'T CARE.
HE AIN"T COMIN BACK PEOPLE!
Claviarm
>> The meaning of life cannot be absolutely determined, so effectively it
>> is whatever we decide it to be, yes?
>
>Sort of. In order to function properly, we need to believe that life has
>meaning.
Nihilists don't function properly?
>To function as a community, we need a shared belief in a
>specific meaning.
Nah. The local furries here function as a community, and we don't
have that.
>What is the furry view on the meaning of life?
There isn't a single furry view on life any more than there is a
single American view on life.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>> Oh... other places too. The trick is not finding a place to discuss,
>> but finding the smart furries to discuss with.
>
>Yes, I'm looking for a place where smart furries hang out.
Smart furries stay away from other furries. You'll have to seek them
out on your own.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>It seems the word "human" means "non-fur" in some furry contexts. I was
>trying to suggest the possibility of a fur (a member of this community)
>whose inner furry looks exactly like the outer body.
And in what way would that person be a furry? Wouldn't he/she just be
a nonfurry who associates with furries?
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<4051affe....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
So whats that make you? Since you are hanging around ;o)
James Davis
@news.sysmatrix.net, stated the following:
Thats not true...
Why do people assume that intelligence means an aversion to people! Hawking,
Eddington, Assimov, and Gardner are(were) some very smart people, and they
liked hanging around others.
You're stereotyping!
Claviarm
>>>Yes, I'm looking for a place where smart furries hang out.
>>
>>Smart furries stay away from other furries. You'll have to seek them
>>out on your own.
>>
>So whats that make you? Since you are hanging around ;o)
You know I'm not so shortsighted as to say that accidentally. I've
never claimed to be smart...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>> Smart furries stay away from other furries. You'll have to seek them
>> out on your own.
>
>Thats not true...
>
>Why do people assume that intelligence means an aversion to people! Hawking,
>Eddington, Assimov, and Gardner are(were) some very smart people, and they
>liked hanging around others.
>
>You're stereotyping!
And you evidently don't know me well enough.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Starling
> Indeed, FPrL (lemur) is the only approved furry code for a primate.
>
> Zaboomafoo fans?
:ahem: That's Zoobamafoo. :)
Starling
Starling
> Sort of. In order to function properly, we need to believe that life has
> meaning. To function as a community, we need a shared belief in a
> specific meaning.
Yeah, ain't that just the truth. I'm totally dysfunctional, a poster
child for lost belief. :p
>
> What is the furry view on the meaning of life?
I'd say as far as furry is concerned, the meaning of life involves
lots of art of animals who are portrayed as people. ^.^
Starling
Scratch the Badger
<4050ec82....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
But since you are posting here you must not be smart. As you are not
staying away from other furries.
Your logic :o)
James Davis
news:4051ecb6....@news.sysmatrix.net, stated the following:
Indeed.
Claviarm
>>>> Smart furries stay away from other furries. You'll have to seek them
>>>> out on your own.
>>>
>>>Thats not true...
>>>
>>>Why do people assume that intelligence means an aversion to people!
>>>Hawking, Eddington, Assimov, and Gardner are(were) some very smart
>>>people, and they liked hanging around others.
>>>
>>>You're stereotyping!
>>
>> And you evidently don't know me well enough.
>
>Indeed.
So I'll go ahead and tell ya. A huge chunk of what I say here is
either tongue-in-cheek, sarcasm, or nonsense. Always you must read
what I am not saying as well as what I am. ;D
--
Claviarm is not necessarily saying that what he said at first was any
of those things.
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>>>>Smart furries stay away from other furries. You'll have to seek them
>>>>out on your own.
>>>>
>>>So whats that make you? Since you are hanging around ;o)
>>
>>You know I'm not so shortsighted as to say that accidentally. I've
>>never claimed to be smart...
>>
>But since you are posting here you must not be smart. As you are not
>staying away from other furries.
>Your logic :o)
Exactly. As I said, I've never claimed to be smart...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<4054c828....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
But you just claimed to be "not so shortsighted". Therefore you consider
yourself smart. Regardless of whether or not you've stated it directly
:o)
Dan Skunk
"Claviarm" <blat...@invalid.email> wrote in message
news:4050af7e....@news.sysmatrix.net...
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> said:
>
> >> The meaning of life cannot be absolutely determined, so effectively it
> >> is whatever we decide it to be, yes?
> >
> >Sort of. In order to function properly, we need to believe that life has
> >meaning.
>
> Nihilists don't function properly?
>
nihilists--at least the one's that don't kill themselves.
Funny how people are always looking for some higher purpose when their
ultimately isn't one. At some point, there's nothing higher.
Dan Skunk
"Skytech" <sky...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:c2oibr$ghp$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
> Seems to be a Western problem where non human primates violate a
> social abhorance to an animal type that 'mocks' the superior human.
> Other cultures with long histories of close association with local
> primate usually have no qualm anthropomophizing them or cross-relating
> human and primate traits.
>
> Many people feel NHP are too close to human and therefore 'not animal'
> so they refuse to include them in furry context. Just too close to
> family and not exotic enough. Luckily there are enough examples in
> furry related works giving ape and monkeys their due. I know I've seen
> a lot of primates features anthropomorphically over the years.
Interesting...
Why do people make such a distinction between humans and animals? Humans
are quite obviously members of the animal kingdom. In spite their culture
and technology, humans are made of exactly the same matter and perform
exactly the same biological functions and are controled by exactly the same
drives and instincts as every other creature.
I think of humans as just being one more species. No better and no worse.
I wouldn't have a problem with someone having a human phenotype even.
Furry appears to be partially, for some people, a rebellion against
humanity. This would explain anything human being seen as not furry.
I think though, as people rebell against human society and culture modeling
themselves on animals they are also, inadvertantly, becoming closer to their
human nature.
Silver Seams
news:8765dbx...@pacbell.net:
Actually, it's Zoboomafoo.
Claviarm
>>>>You know I'm not so shortsighted as to say that accidentally. I've
>>>>never claimed to be smart...
>>>>
>>>But since you are posting here you must not be smart. As you are not
>>>staying away from other furries.
>>>Your logic :o)
>>
>>Exactly. As I said, I've never claimed to be smart...
>>
>But you just claimed to be "not so shortsighted". Therefore you consider
>yourself smart. Regardless of whether or not you've stated it directly
>:o)
Well according to you, I think I am both smart and not smart. Good
job, there.
Personally, I'd not say that "not shortsighted enough to not realize
the logical conclusions of a statement" is equivalent to "smart."
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>> >> The meaning of life cannot be absolutely determined, so effectively it
>> >> is whatever we decide it to be, yes?
>> >
>> >Sort of. In order to function properly, we need to believe that life has
>> >meaning.
>>
>> Nihilists don't function properly?
>>
>Everyone has a belief that's life is good programmed into them. Even
>nihilists--at least the one's that don't kill themselves.
What does "most people believe that life is good" have to do with "in
order to function properly, we need to believe that life has meaning?"
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Pyesetz the Dog
> What does "most people believe that life is good" have to do with "in
> order to function properly, we need to believe that life has meaning?"
Clinical depression is associated with an inability to get anything done,
and also with a belief that one's life is pointless. One of the "talk
therapies" for depression is to find a way to convince the patient that life
is meaningful. Acquiring this belief (in successful cases) changes the
levels of neurotransmitters, causing the ennui to dissipate. Arguably this
is a tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem, but it does work
sometimes.
-- Pyesetz the Dog
http://www.pyesetz.furtopia.org
Claviarm
>Acquiring this belief (in successful cases) changes the
>levels of neurotransmitters,
And that's why I don't believe in anyone blaming their problems on a
chemical imbalance.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<40563247....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>>>You know I'm not so shortsighted as to say that accidentally. I've
>>>>>never claimed to be smart...
>>>>>
>>>>But since you are posting here you must not be smart. As you are not
>>>>staying away from other furries.
>>>>Your logic :o)
>>>
>>>Exactly. As I said, I've never claimed to be smart...
>>>
>>But you just claimed to be "not so shortsighted". Therefore you
consider
>>yourself smart. Regardless of whether or not you've stated it directly
>>:o)
>
>Well according to you, I think I am both smart and not smart. Good
>job, there.
>
It is possible to hold simultaneously, diametrically opposed veiwpoints.
>Personally, I'd not say that "not shortsighted enough to not realize
>the logical conclusions of a statement" is equivalent to "smart."
>
Daily you prove my convoluted theorems.
:¤)
Claviarm
>>>>>>You know I'm not so shortsighted as to say that accidentally. I've
>>>>>>never claimed to be smart...
>>>>>>
>>>>>But since you are posting here you must not be smart. As you are not
>>>>>staying away from other furries.
>>>>>Your logic :o)
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. As I said, I've never claimed to be smart...
>>>>
>>>But you just claimed to be "not so shortsighted". Therefore you
>consider
>>>yourself smart. Regardless of whether or not you've stated it directly
>>>:o)
>>
>>Well according to you, I think I am both smart and not smart. Good
>>job, there.
>>
>It is possible to hold simultaneously, diametrically opposed veiwpoints.
So what are you trying to demonstrate or prove? My position from the
beginning has been that smart furries are not here and by implication
that I am not smart. What's yours?
>>Personally, I'd not say that "not shortsighted enough to not realize
>>the logical conclusions of a statement" is equivalent to "smart."
>>
>Daily you prove my convoluted theorems.
>:¤)
See, I told you I'm not smart.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<40598e52...@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>>>>>You know I'm not so shortsighted as to say that accidentally.
I've
>>>>>>>never claimed to be smart...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>But since you are posting here you must not be smart. As you are
not
>>>>>>staying away from other furries.
>>>>>>Your logic :o)
>>>>>
>>>>>Exactly. As I said, I've never claimed to be smart...
>>>>>
>>>>But you just claimed to be "not so shortsighted". Therefore you
>>consider
>>>>yourself smart. Regardless of whether or not you've stated it
directly
>>>>:o)
>>>
>>>Well according to you, I think I am both smart and not smart. Good
>>>job, there.
>>>
>>It is possible to hold simultaneously, diametrically opposed
veiwpoints.
>
>So what are you trying to demonstrate or prove?
That you are so smart you outsmart yourself.
>My position from the
>beginning has been that smart furries are not here and by implication
>that I am not smart. What's yours?
>
That you are actually smart but have labeled yourself unsmart.
>>>Personally, I'd not say that "not shortsighted enough to not realize
>>>the logical conclusions of a statement" is equivalent to "smart."
>>>
>>Daily you prove my convoluted theorems.
>>:¤)
>
>See, I told you I'm not smart.
>
Your ability to parse my post collegiate lingo speaks otherwise.
Claviarm
>>So what are you trying to demonstrate or prove?
>
>That you are so smart you outsmart yourself.
That concept has never made sense to me...
>>My position from the
>>beginning has been that smart furries are not here and by implication
>>that I am not smart. What's yours?
>>
>That you are actually smart but have labeled yourself unsmart.
If you say so.
>>See, I told you I'm not smart.
>>
>Your ability to parse my post collegiate lingo speaks otherwise.
Twofold fie upon thee.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<405e253c....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>So what are you trying to demonstrate or prove?
>>
>>That you are so smart you outsmart yourself.
>
>That concept has never made sense to me...
>
Its the same thing as "second guessing".Which basically means that if you
have a thought that you feel is correct but you start to analyse it, you
can argue yourself out of your own convictions. Later, you usually find
out that you were initially correct in your somewhat intuitive
perception.
>>>My position from the
>>>beginning has been that smart furries are not here and by implication
>>>that I am not smart. What's yours?
>>>
>>That you are actually smart but have labeled yourself unsmart.
>
>If you say so.
>
I know damn well you're smart. Perhaps you don't want to be labeled as
vain or arrogant.
>>>See, I told you I'm not smart.
>>>
>>Your ability to parse my post collegiate lingo speaks otherwise.
>
>Twofold fie upon thee.
>
I have fie spray...
Claviarm
>>>That you are so smart you outsmart yourself.
>>
>>That concept has never made sense to me...
>>
>Its the same thing as "second guessing".Which basically means that if you
>have a thought that you feel is correct but you start to analyse it, you
>can argue yourself out of your own convictions. Later, you usually find
>out that you were initially correct in your somewhat intuitive
>perception.
That's what that means? Huh. In any case, I'm big on following
instinct instead of reason, and I certainly know that thinking about
things can get one going down the wrong path...
>I know damn well you're smart. Perhaps you don't want to be labeled as
>vain or arrogant.
Good, good. Please stop saying I'm smart now.
>>Twofold fie upon thee.
>>
>I have fie spray...
Tell me more! Can I purchase this miracle product for only three easy
payments...?
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<405ea7aa...@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>>That you are so smart you outsmart yourself.
>>>
>>>That concept has never made sense to me...
>>>
>>Its the same thing as "second guessing".Which basically means that if
you
>>have a thought that you feel is correct but you start to analyse it,
you
>>can argue yourself out of your own convictions. Later, you usually find
>>out that you were initially correct in your somewhat intuitive
>>perception.
>
>That's what that means? Huh. In any case, I'm big on following
>instinct instead of reason, and I certainly know that thinking about
>things can get one going down the wrong path...
>
Just checking.
>>I know damn well you're smart. Perhaps you don't want to be labeled as
>>vain or arrogant.
>
>Good, good. Please stop saying I'm smart now.
>
<shrugs>
>>>Twofold fie upon thee.
>>>
>>I have fie spray...
>
>Tell me more! Can I purchase this miracle product for only three easy
>payments...?
>
It involves a tincture of rotten fish heads....
and no...we only take VISA.
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Claviarm wrote:
> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> said:
>
>
>>Acquiring this belief (in successful cases) changes the
>>levels of neurotransmitters,
>
>
> And that's why I don't believe in anyone blaming their problems on a
> chemical imbalance.
>
you're so kind. :-/
Avenging_Lioness
--
"I'm wet... I'm naked... your sister is wearing my clothes... and this
is all part of some evil plot TO RULE THE WORLD AS A SOGGY CHIMP IN HIS
BIRTHDAY SUIT?!?!?!?"
Claviarm
>Claviarm wrote:
>> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>>Acquiring this belief (in successful cases) changes the
>>>levels of neurotransmitters,
>>
>> And that's why I don't believe in anyone blaming their problems on a
>> chemical imbalance.
>
>you're so kind. :-/
I can't in good conscience support someone in their decay because
they've blamed a chemical imbalance (or whatever else that's "beyond
their control") when they could well overcome the problem if only they
hadn't resigned themselves to failure.
Being at fault for a problem is the best thing in the world, because
it means you can fix it yourself...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<40650e17....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>"Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@sbcglobal.net> said:
>
>>Claviarm wrote:
>>> "Pyesetz the Dog" <pye...@comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>>Acquiring this belief (in successful cases) changes the
>>>>levels of neurotransmitters,
>>>
>>> And that's why I don't believe in anyone blaming their problems on a
>>> chemical imbalance.
>>
>>you're so kind. :-/
>
>I can't in good conscience support someone in their decay because
>they've blamed a chemical imbalance (or whatever else that's "beyond
>their control") when they could well overcome the problem if only they
>hadn't resigned themselves to failure.
>
You fail to adequately parse the depth and breadth of some forms of
mental illness then.
Are schizophrenics to be held completly accountable for their illness?
>Being at fault for a problem is the best thing in the world, because
>it means you can fix it yourself...
>
Only if you have the same "tools" that everyone else has. Your theory
assumes a level playing field, so to speak.
Claviarm
>>I can't in good conscience support someone in their decay because
>>they've blamed a chemical imbalance (or whatever else that's "beyond
>>their control") when they could well overcome the problem if only they
>>hadn't resigned themselves to failure.
>>
>You fail to adequately parse the depth and breadth of some forms of
>mental illness then.
>Are schizophrenics to be held completly accountable for their illness?
Dunno. I think if there's something they can do, they should do it
rather than sit around waiting for people to be sorry for them. Of
course, I've never known a schizophrenic who did the latter anyway.
I miss David Fox. Wonder where he went off to...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap5sat%24sti%241%40raccoon.fur.com&output=gplain
>>Being at fault for a problem is the best thing in the world, because
>>it means you can fix it yourself...
>>
>Only if you have the same "tools" that everyone else has. Your theory
>assumes a level playing field, so to speak.
Not really. "Do the best you can rather than sit around whining"
applies to everyone.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Elizabeth A. Johnson
*cries* you don't love me anymore. :(
you sting me like a jellyfish.
Scratch the Badger
<40669600....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>I can't in good conscience support someone in their decay because
>>>they've blamed a chemical imbalance (or whatever else that's "beyond
>>>their control") when they could well overcome the problem if only they
>>>hadn't resigned themselves to failure.
>>>
>>You fail to adequately parse the depth and breadth of some forms of
>>mental illness then.
>>Are schizophrenics to be held completly accountable for their illness?
>
>Dunno. I think if there's something they can do, they should do it
>rather than sit around waiting for people to be sorry for them. Of
>course, I've never known a schizophrenic who did the latter anyway.
>
Most are perfectly happy in their crazyness, sure. But most wont take
their meds without being forced, and then of those who get "stable" only
some will take it on their own. The rest have to be monitored & forced.
>I miss David Fox. Wonder where he went off to...
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap5sat%24sti%241%40raccoon.fur.com&
output=gplain
>
Was he scizo? He was annoying and conservative, well, the same thing
really.
>>>Being at fault for a problem is the best thing in the world, because
>>>it means you can fix it yourself...
>>>
>>Only if you have the same "tools" that everyone else has. Your theory
>>assumes a level playing field, so to speak.
>
>Not really. "Do the best you can rather than sit around whining"
>applies to everyone.
>
You obviously can't parse what I'm trying to convey. Have you ever had
extended contact with mentally ill or disabled people?
Starling
> Dunno. I think if there's something they can do, they should do it
> rather than sit around waiting for people to be sorry for them. Of
> course, I've never known a schizophrenic who did the latter anyway.
Well, it's not so much they're waiting for someone to feel sorry for
them... more like they're speaking in disjointed sentences, unable to
even think a complete thought, not aware of the people around them,
having powerful delusions that don't have any basis on reality. There
are people out there who's wetware is indeed broken, either through
injury or that strange tendancy for the late onset people in their
20's to slide from normal to schizoid. Alzheimers is a brain disease
that deeply affects its victims, and ultimately kills them.
I guess my point is, you can't say it's all in your head any more than
you can say it's all in the chemistry. People with messed up
chemistry can take drugs and stuff to get better sometimes, and people
with messed up self images and such can use Chicken Soup For The Power
Of Postive Thinking or something to get better sometimes. Both
the brain we have to work with, and what we do with it have an effect
on the stability of our mental state.
Starling
Who is schizotypical, but planning on not getting any worse. ^.^
Claviarm
>>>Are schizophrenics to be held completly accountable for their illness?
>>
>>Dunno. I think if there's something they can do, they should do it
>>rather than sit around waiting for people to be sorry for them. Of
>>course, I've never known a schizophrenic who did the latter anyway.
>>
>Most are perfectly happy in their crazyness, sure. But most wont take
>their meds without being forced, and then of those who get "stable" only
>some will take it on their own. The rest have to be monitored & forced.
I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand, so I'll just say
that I'm against using medication to control people's mental state
against their will.
>>I miss David Fox. Wonder where he went off to...
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap5sat%24sti%241%40raccoon.fur.com&
>output=gplain
>>
>Was he scizo? He was annoying and conservative, well, the same thing
>really.
Eh, I just thought of him because he had the same position as me on
this issue.
>>>Only if you have the same "tools" that everyone else has. Your theory
>>>assumes a level playing field, so to speak.
>>
>>Not really. "Do the best you can rather than sit around whining"
>>applies to everyone.
>>
>You obviously can't parse what I'm trying to convey. Have you ever had
>extended contact with mentally ill or disabled people?
Depends what you mean by extended (and what you mean by mentally
ill/disabled, I suppose). Probably not. Though I doubt there's a
condition in which one is better off being depressed for oneself than
trying to improve.
Like Pyesetz was saying, clinical depression can sometimes be cured by
having the person alter his or her thoughts, which then alters the
chemistry. The relationship between chemistry and mental state is
two-way. Though I can't agree with him that it's a
"tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem"--I'd say that's just a
result of the west's one-sided view of the mind--but on the contrary
it's the way we should be doing first, and the one that should be
considered 'forward' instead of 'backward...' because behavioral drugs
don't cure anyone, they just mask the symptoms.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>> I can't in good conscience support someone in their decay because
>> they've blamed a chemical imbalance (or whatever else that's "beyond
>> their control") when they could well overcome the problem if only they
>> hadn't resigned themselves to failure.
>>
>> Being at fault for a problem is the best thing in the world, because
>> it means you can fix it yourself...
>
>*cries* you don't love me anymore. :(
>
>you sting me like a jellyfish.
Without malice? How apt...
What am I supposed to say? "Yes, you're screwed, go lay down and die
now?" Strange, seems to me it's nicer to say "you have the power to
make it better."
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>> Dunno. I think if there's something they can do, they should do it
>> rather than sit around waiting for people to be sorry for them. Of
>> course, I've never known a schizophrenic who did the latter anyway.
>
>Well, it's not so much they're waiting for someone to feel sorry for
>them...
S'what I said. I've never known a schizophrenic to do that. Only the
sane sit around and whine. Just clarifying...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Elizabeth A. Johnson
naw, the schizophrenic scream and yell at invisible people, bang on the
walls, break dishes, slam doors, and play with the squeaky plumbing all
night long so I can't get any sleep and eventually start to suffer from
sleep deprivation, traumatic stress syndrome... like the insomnia isn't
bad enough on it's own. *sighs*
§ńühwřŁf
<40654D17...@sbcglobal.net>:
>
>naw, the schizophrenic scream and yell at invisible people, bang on the
>walls, break dishes, slam doors, and play with the squeaky plumbing all
>night long so I can't get any sleep and eventually start to suffer from
>sleep deprivation, traumatic stress syndrome... like the insomnia isn't
>bad enough on it's own. *sighs*
>
>Avenging_Lioness
Heh...your neighbors r00l! Are they really wacked? Calling the cops gets
you nada? Well...when I lived next to a skankaho with a dog that barked
all friggin night I had a fan that I turned on when I went to bed.
White noise will drown out your fuckhead neighbors a bit methinks.
HTH
KIng Snuhw()1f
§ńühwřŁf
<406605cc....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
You might want to google on this term;"Slave mentality".
People who are used to succeeding tend to have more "tries" in them than
people who are used to failure. Its a horrible feedback loop that
develops over time. People who have had bad luck and poor coping skills
tend to have what psychologists call "learned helplessness".
Success can be taught, but who wants to mentor the billion or so people
who have internalised feeligs of hopelessness learned by what their
parents gave as an example, and their general life experiences?
We come back to the "fuck em, its every man for himself" edict that
conservatives cite.
King Snuhw()1f
Scratch the Badger
<406502d0....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>>Are schizophrenics to be held completly accountable for their
illness?
>>>
>>>Dunno. I think if there's something they can do, they should do it
>>>rather than sit around waiting for people to be sorry for them. Of
>>>course, I've never known a schizophrenic who did the latter anyway.
>>>
>>Most are perfectly happy in their crazyness, sure. But most wont take
>>their meds without being forced, and then of those who get "stable"
only
>>some will take it on their own. The rest have to be monitored & forced.
>
>I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand, so I'll just say
>that I'm against using medication to control people's mental state
>against their will.
>
Even if they're dangerous psychotics!?!?
>>>I miss David Fox. Wonder where he went off to...
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ap5sat%24sti%241%40raccoon.fur.co
m&
>>output=gplain
>>>
>>Was he scizo? He was annoying and conservative, well, the same thing
>>really.
>
>Eh, I just thought of him because he had the same position as me on
>this issue.
>
He was easily trolled ;o)
>>>>Only if you have the same "tools" that everyone else has. Your theory
>>>>assumes a level playing field, so to speak.
>>>
>>>Not really. "Do the best you can rather than sit around whining"
>>>applies to everyone.
>>>
>>You obviously can't parse what I'm trying to convey. Have you ever had
>>extended contact with mentally ill or disabled people?
>
>Depends what you mean by extended (and what you mean by mentally
>ill/disabled, I suppose). Probably not. Though I doubt there's a
>condition in which one is better off being depressed for oneself than
>trying to improve.
>
That wasn't my argument. I was asking you if you understood that some
peoples mental condition precludes them from being held personally
responsible.
Do you?
>Like Pyesetz was saying, clinical depression can sometimes be cured by
>having the person alter his or her thoughts, which then alters the
>chemistry.
Talk therapy is effective. But its usually used in conjunction with a
chemical adjustment. Excercise and therapy is just about as effective as
drug therapy alone.
> The relationship between chemistry and mental state is
>two-way. Though I can't agree with him that it's a
>"tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem"--I'd say that's just a
>result of the west's one-sided view of the mind--but on the contrary
>it's the way we should be doing first, and the one that should be
>considered 'forward' instead of 'backward...' because behavioral drugs
>don't cure anyone, they just mask the symptoms.
>
They allow a person to see that there is another veiwpoint or outlook to
be had. Often people are convinced that theres no hope.
Elizabeth A. Johnson
I tried, but he wouldn't let me grope him.
Paul Johnson
Hash: SHA1
"Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
> I tried, but he wouldn't let me grope him.
I keep offering but you won't grope me!
- --
.''`. Paul Johnson <ba...@ursine.ca>
: :' :
`. `'` proud Debian admin and user
`- Debian. Because it *must* work. debian.org aboutdebian.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAZyWJUzgNqloQMwcRApgNAJ9/NLSQ7puX2ig5vT3UTSZE2CRlEQCbB5Jt
wB1NyZ0JCfu5a3WTlo2PAxU=
=aFza
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Elizabeth A. Johnson
Paul Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Elizabeth A. Johnson" <lizo...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>
>>I tried, but he wouldn't let me grope him.
>
>
> I keep offering but you won't grope me!
lol if I ever get to Conifur.
Claviarm
>>I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand, so I'll just say
>>that I'm against using medication to control people's mental state
>>against their will.
>>
>Even if they're dangerous psychotics!?!?
Put them somewhere, then. Or give them the choice between the two.
But giving people mind-altering drugs against their will strikes me as
extremely bad.
>>Depends what you mean by extended (and what you mean by mentally
>>ill/disabled, I suppose). Probably not. Though I doubt there's a
>>condition in which one is better off being depressed for oneself than
>>trying to improve.
>>
>That wasn't my argument.
Does it have anything to do with mine, then?
> I was asking you if you understood that some
>peoples mental condition precludes them from being held personally
>responsible.
>Do you?
Responsible for what?
>> The relationship between chemistry and mental state is
>>two-way. Though I can't agree with him that it's a
>>"tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem"--I'd say that's just a
>>result of the west's one-sided view of the mind--but on the contrary
>>it's the way we should be doing first, and the one that should be
>>considered 'forward' instead of 'backward...' because behavioral drugs
>>don't cure anyone, they just mask the symptoms.
>>
>They allow a person to see that there is another veiwpoint or outlook to
>be had. Often people are convinced that theres no hope.
It's a tool that might be used along the way, for those that really
want it. But drugs aren't the ultimate solution and shouldn't be
treated as such.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<4068ae3b....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>I don't see what it has to do with the issue at hand, so I'll just say
>>>that I'm against using medication to control people's mental state
>>>against their will.
>>>
>>Even if they're dangerous psychotics!?!?
>
>Put them somewhere, then. Or give them the choice between the two.
>But giving people mind-altering drugs against their will strikes me as
>extremely bad.
>
But if they are not in touch with reality, how can they make an informed
decison in the first place?
>>>Depends what you mean by extended (and what you mean by mentally
>>>ill/disabled, I suppose). Probably not. Though I doubt there's a
>>>condition in which one is better off being depressed for oneself than
>>>trying to improve.
>>>
>>That wasn't my argument.
>
>Does it have anything to do with mine, then?
>
Sure :o)
>> I was asking you if you understood that some
>>peoples mental condition precludes them from being held personally
>>responsible.
>>Do you?
>
>Responsible for what?
>
For thier actions and decisions.
try splashing cold water on your face?
>>> The relationship between chemistry and mental state is
>>>two-way. Though I can't agree with him that it's a
>>>"tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem"--I'd say that's just a
>>>result of the west's one-sided view of the mind--but on the contrary
>>>it's the way we should be doing first, and the one that should be
>>>considered 'forward' instead of 'backward...' because behavioral drugs
>>>don't cure anyone, they just mask the symptoms.
>>>
>>They allow a person to see that there is another veiwpoint or outlook
to
>>be had. Often people are convinced that theres no hope.
>
>It's a tool that might be used along the way, for those that really
>want it. But drugs aren't the ultimate solution and shouldn't be
>treated as such.
>
Sure...for people who have neurochemistry that will stay in the normal
zone once they have had some intervention.
Some people will need to stay on the drugs forever.
sad but true.
Pyesetz the Dog
> You might want to google on this term;"Slave mentality".
Obviously there *are* a significant number of furs who have found freedom
in furry and managed to pull that freedom into their RL, but...
Is "slave mentality" more common among furs than in the general
population? Are there a lot of furs who are "hiding out" in furry fandom,
trying not to think about their unwillingness to make another RL attempt
to escape from the drudgery of their lives?
-- Pyesetz the Dog
http://www.pyesetz.furtopia.org
Pyesetz the Dog
> Like Pyesetz was saying, clinical depression can sometimes be cured by
> having the person alter his or her thoughts, which then alters the
> chemistry. The relationship between chemistry and mental state is
> two-way. Though I can't agree with him that it's a
> "tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem"--I'd say that's just a
Perhaps one could use the epithet "Western" for the whole concept of "the
tail wagging the dog" as being an unnatural act that must be suppressed.
Why is it that the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog?
> but on the contrary
> it's the way we should be doing first, and the one that should be
> considered 'forward' instead of 'backward...' because behavioral drugs
> don't cure anyone, they just mask the symptoms.
If schizophrenia is actually caused by death of dopaminergic neurons,
thinking better thoughts won't cure it, either.
The idea that "matter creates thought" leads to the belief that defective
thoughts are just symptoms and the underlying problem is electrical or
chemical. But some defective thoughts (such as slave mentality) are
software in origin. Any electrochemical abnormalities that might be
associated with them are just symptoms.
§ńühwřŁf
<pan.2004.03.31....@comcast.net>:
>Snuhwolf wrote:
>> You might want to google on this term;"Slave mentality".
>
>Obviously there *are* a significant number of furs who have found freedom
>in furry and managed to pull that freedom into their RL, but...
>
You're taking my statement way out of context and we dont play that here :)
Here the context restored:
Claviarm <blat...@invalid.email> wrote in
<406605cc....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>
>What am I supposed to say? "Yes, you're screwed, go lay down and die
>now?" Strange, seems to me it's nicer to say "you have the power to
>make it better."
>
And I said:
You might want to google on this term;"Slave mentality".
People who are used to succeeding tend to have more "tries" in them than
people who are used to failure. Its a horrible feedback loop that
develops over time. People who have had bad luck and poor coping skills
tend to have what psychologists call "learned helplessness".
Success can be taught, but who wants to mentor the billion or so people
who have internalised feeligs of hopelessness learned by what their
parents gave as an example, and their general life experiences?
We come back to the "fuck em, its every man for himself" edict that
conservatives cite.
>Is "slave mentality" more common among furs than in the general
>population?
I'd say that furries tend to be more passive so yes. But this was a discussion
of why Avenging Lioness wasnt more pro-active in her managing her health
issues.
*Thats* what this convo is about.
> Are there a lot of furs who are "hiding out" in furry fandom,
>trying not to think about their unwillingness to make another RL attempt
>to escape from the drudgery of their lives?
>
You could accuse any fringe group of escapism. As well as people who follow
team sports, use drugs, do extreme sports...people try to distract themselves
from their unpleasant realities.
Its normal.
King Snuhw()1f
Pyesetz the Dog
> Pyesetz wrote:
>> Snuhwolf wrote:
>>> You might want to google on this term;"Slave mentality".
>>
>> ... furs who have found freedom in furry
>
> You're taking my statement way out of context and we dont play that here:)
Sorry.
> But this was a discussion of why Avenging Lioness wasnt more pro-active
> in her managing her health issues. *Thats* what this convo is about.
The subject line says "Ontology of phenotypes".
>> Are there a lot of furs who are "hiding out" in furry fandom,
>>trying not to think about their unwillingness to make another RL attempt
>>to escape from the drudgery of their lives?
> You could accuse any fringe group of escapism.
I'm not "accusing". I've seen many fur homepages that specifically claim
"escapism" as what interests them about furry. This leads to the
question, "escape from what?"
> people try to distract themselves from their unpleasant realities.
Yes, but since you mentioned slave mentality, I thought I'd run with that
ball. A.k.a. "defeatism" and "Your Erroneous Zones" (Wayne Dyer). Is it
just dogs that feel furrier when they've been defeated at something?
> Its normal.
Yes, unfortunately. It appears slave mentality is the main thing that our
schools today are trying to teach.
> King Snuhw()1f
Please excuse this unnecessary deviation from your original flight plan.
Claviarm
>> But this was a discussion of why Avenging Lioness wasnt more pro-active
>> in her managing her health issues. *Thats* what this convo is about.
>
>The subject line says "Ontology of phenotypes".
This is usenet. Subject lines mean nothing, especially after the
thread has been around for more than a day or two.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 04:40:39 +0000, Claviarm wrote:
>> Like Pyesetz was saying, clinical depression can sometimes be cured by
>> having the person alter his or her thoughts, which then alters the
>> chemistry. The relationship between chemistry and mental state is
>> two-way. Though I can't agree with him that it's a
>> "tail-wagging-the-dog approach to the problem"--I'd say that's just a
>> result of the west's one-sided view of the mind [snip]
>
>Perhaps one could use the epithet "Western" for the whole concept of "the
>tail wagging the dog" as being an unnatural act that must be suppressed.
>Why is it that the tail cannot be allowed to wag the dog?
Sure, I can go with that. (Heh heh, I do use "western" as a negative
term quite often...)
>> but on the contrary
>> it's the way we should be doing first, and the one that should be
>> considered 'forward' instead of 'backward...' because behavioral drugs
>> don't cure anyone, they just mask the symptoms.
>
>If schizophrenia is actually caused by death of dopaminergic neurons,
>thinking better thoughts won't cure it, either.
Well then, it's not a chemical imbalance, is it? And so it doesn't
apply to the statement I originally made... and so isn't much of an
argument against it. This pleases me...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>I'd say that furries tend to be more passive so yes. But this was a discussion
>of why Avenging Lioness wasnt more pro-active in her managing her health
>issues.
>*Thats* what this convo is about.
I wasn't ever talking about her specifically, by the way. Though what
I've said may apply.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>>Put them somewhere, then. Or give them the choice between the two.
>>But giving people mind-altering drugs against their will strikes me as
>>extremely bad.
>>
>But if they are not in touch with reality, how can they make an informed
>decison in the first place?
Ah, so you justify forcibly giving them mind-altering substances
because you think you know better? Even if they tell you they don't
want them, you know that's only because they just don't know what's
going on? I imagine a lot of things could be justified like that. A
lot of very bad things...
>>> I was asking you if you understood that some
>>>peoples mental condition precludes them from being held personally
>>>responsible.
>>>Do you?
>>
>>Responsible for what?
>>
>For thier actions and decisions.
>try splashing cold water on your face?
I don't see why they wouldn't be. If Joe kills Fred, it doesn't
really matter why (excepting self-defense, I suppose). Fred is still
dead.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<406f2046....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>Put them somewhere, then. Or give them the choice between the two.
>>>But giving people mind-altering drugs against their will strikes me as
>>>extremely bad.
>>>
>>But if they are not in touch with reality, how can they make an
informed
>>decison in the first place?
>
>Ah, so you justify forcibly giving them mind-altering substances
>because you think you know better? Even if they tell you they don't
>want them, you know that's only because they just don't know what's
>going on? I imagine a lot of things could be justified like that. A
>lot of very bad things...
>
The russians used to put dissidents in mental hospitals.
You're resorting to the most extreme argument though. From dealing with
mentally ill people I know that while some don't want to take their meds
because "the government is controlling my mind!!!", most will accept the
need for it in order to make the voices go away.
>>>> I was asking you if you understood that some
>>>>peoples mental condition precludes them from being held personally
>>>>responsible.
>>>>Do you?
>>>
>>>Responsible for what?
>>>
>>For thier actions and decisions.
>>try splashing cold water on your face?
>
>I don't see why they wouldn't be. If Joe kills Fred, it doesn't
>really matter why (excepting self-defense, I suppose). Fred is still
>dead.
>
Why is there smoke coming out of your ears?
Scratch the Badger
<406c1e92....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>>If schizophrenia is actually caused by death of dopaminergic neurons,
>>thinking better thoughts won't cure it, either.
>
>Well then, it's not a chemical imbalance, is it? And so it doesn't
>apply to the statement I originally made... and so isn't much of an
>argument against it. This pleases me...
>
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmm....yes it would be a condition necessary for the
existence of a chemical imbalance. Without the neurons to absorb the
dopamine it would tend to remain in the system. Also if the neurons arn't
receptive to dopamine, they remain activated.
ANY deviation from the critical balance of serotonin, dopamine etc in
your head make you all crazy with the voices and the seeing angels and
satan tells you to kill the kittens, OY!
§ńühwřŁf
>Shunwolf wrote:
>> Pyesetz wrote:
>>> Snuhwolf wrote:
>
>>>> You might want to google on this term;"Slave mentality".
>>>
>>> ... furs who have found freedom in furry
>>
>> You're taking my statement way out of context and we dont play that
here:)
>
>Sorry.
>
You can make up your grade later...
>
>> But this was a discussion of why Avenging Lioness wasnt more pro-
active
>> in her managing her health issues. *Thats* what this convo is about.
>
>The subject line says "Ontology of phenotypes".
>
I see. Thread drift is the norm however.
>
>>> Are there a lot of furs who are "hiding out" in furry fandom,
>>>trying not to think about their unwillingness to make another RL
attempt
>>>to escape from the drudgery of their lives?
>
>> You could accuse any fringe group of escapism.
>
>I'm not "accusing". I've seen many fur homepages that specifically
claim
>"escapism" as what interests them about furry. This leads to the
>question, "escape from what?"
>
"The drudgery of their lives"????
Your text btw.
>
>> people try to distract themselves from their unpleasant realities.
>
>Yes, but since you mentioned slave mentality, I thought I'd run with
that
>ball. A.k.a. "defeatism" and "Your Erroneous Zones" (Wayne Dyer). Is
it
>just dogs that feel furrier when they've been defeated at something?
>
How would I know how all dogs feel? I *attempt* to interpret what our
dogs feel. Often I'm not getting the message though. Are you like the Pet
Psychic then?
>
>> Its normal.
>
>Yes, unfortunately. It appears slave mentality is the main thing that
our
>schools today are trying to teach.
>
Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world. If kids
knew how fucked up the RAt Race really is, they'd be shooting themselves
in *much* greater numbers.
>
>> King Snuhw()1f
>
>Please excuse this unnecessary deviation from your original flight plan.
>
Why are we being re-routed to Lockerbie!?!??!!?
ARE THOSE BOX CUTTERS!?!?!?
AGHHHHHHHGHGHGHG!
Oh...and if anyone thinks *I'm* being insensitive, take a look at this:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15575&mode=nested&order=0
King Snuhw()1f
§ńühwřŁf
<406d1f21....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
Right. Word For The Day: Lung-butter.
Enjoy.
King Snuhw()1f
Pyesetz the Dog
>>"escapism" as what interests them about furry. This leads to the
>>question, "escape from what?"
>>
>"The drudgery of their lives"????
>Your text btw.
Well, yes, that is an answer. But it seems so mundane. Would "the slavery
of their lives" work for at least some? Find freedom in furry!
>>Is it just dogs that feel furrier when they've been defeated at something?
>How would I know how all dogs feel? I *attempt* to interpret what our
>dogs feel. Often I'm not getting the message though. Are you like the Pet
>Psychic then?
No, I also often fail to get the message. We cannot know how other
creatures feel (furson or household pet) except insofar as their behavior
matches something that we would do if we felt a certain way.
By "dogs feel furrier" I was referring to human furs who choose the FCM
pheno. Like in the recent "are all foxes gay?" thread. Obviously wild
foxes are not always gay or there would never be any kits. Skytech has
kits, so the rule for FCF's has exceptions, but might still be a useful
predictor for the likely orientation of an FCF that you've just met.
Are there other rules like FCF=gay that are "mostly true" of furs? Are
there any known rules for FCM's? I proposed one about defeatism, but I have
not met many canine furs and have no idea how solid this rule is.
>> slave mentality is the main thing that our schools today are trying to teach.
>>
>Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
>mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world.
Can you find a reference for this definition?
The first google hit on "slave mentality" is
http://hometown.aol.com/jemiltd/myhomepage
which equates it with Stockholm syndrome.
The third hit,
http://www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_announce/2001/000557.html
is one of those self-denigrating pieces that Canadians are so good at. It
equates slave mentality with the conformist culture of Canada.
It seems the phrase has a somewhat variable definition.
>If kids
>knew how fucked up the RAt Race really is, they'd be shooting themselves
>in *much* greater numbers.
During the Vietnam War, it was clear how fucked up the rat race was, so they
"tuned in, turned on, dropped out".
>Oh...and if anyone thinks *I'm* being insensitive, take a look at this:
>http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15575&mode=nested&order=0
Yeah, that slide show was disgusting. I can't wait until Bush gets thrown
out of the White House on his ASS!!! (Obligatory Patriot Act disclaimer:
The image of our president landing in the street on his keister is just a
metaphorical rendering of a wished-for result from lawfully-registered
voters acting nonviolently through their voting booths.)
-- Pyesetz the Dog
Claviarm
>>Ah, so you justify forcibly giving them mind-altering substances
>>because you think you know better? Even if they tell you they don't
>>want them, you know that's only because they just don't know what's
>>going on? I imagine a lot of things could be justified like that. A
>>lot of very bad things...
>>
>The russians used to put dissidents in mental hospitals.
>You're resorting to the most extreme argument though. From dealing with
>mentally ill people I know that while some don't want to take their meds
>because "the government is controlling my mind!!!", most will accept the
>need for it in order to make the voices go away.
As I said, if they want the drug, give it to them. If they don't,
then don't force it on them.
>>>For thier actions and decisions.
>>>try splashing cold water on your face?
>>
>>I don't see why they wouldn't be. If Joe kills Fred, it doesn't
>>really matter why (excepting self-defense, I suppose). Fred is still
>>dead.
>>
>Why is there smoke coming out of your ears?
Over in the other thread you rejected Nekobe "blaming it on his brain
chemistry." Seems to line up with what I said exactly.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Scratch the Badger
<406c502c...@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>Ah, so you justify forcibly giving them mind-altering substances
>>>because you think you know better? Even if they tell you they don't
>>>want them, you know that's only because they just don't know what's
>>>going on? I imagine a lot of things could be justified like that. A
>>>lot of very bad things...
>>>
>>The russians used to put dissidents in mental hospitals.
>>You're resorting to the most extreme argument though. From dealing with
>>mentally ill people I know that while some don't want to take their
meds
>>because "the government is controlling my mind!!!", most will accept
the
>>need for it in order to make the voices go away.
>
>As I said, if they want the drug, give it to them. If they don't,
>then don't force it on them.
>
Wow. To me thats the moral equivalent of having a friend who is addicted
to something, and not bothering to try and help them overcome it.
Didnt the Buddha say "save all sentient beings"?
Where is your compassion?
>>>>For thier actions and decisions.
>>>>try splashing cold water on your face?
>>>
>>>I don't see why they wouldn't be. If Joe kills Fred, it doesn't
>>>really matter why (excepting self-defense, I suppose). Fred is still
>>>dead.
>>>
>>Why is there smoke coming out of your ears?
>
>Over in the other thread you rejected Nekobe "blaming it on his brain
>chemistry." Seems to line up with what I said exactly.
>
You just outed my sock :)
Thanks Rat boi. Btw, I left it up to personal responsibility for Nekobe
who is not delusional. Personality disorders perhaps, but not activly
psychotic. You seem to fail to see the grey areas. Is everything in your
world so easily called? So 'black and white'?
Elizabeth A. Johnson
no no no it's vampires! and werewolves in the trash can. and I'm the
next immaculate conception.
§ńühwřŁf
<pan.2004.04.01....@comcast.net>:
>Snuhwolf wrote:
>>Pyesetz the Dog <pye...@comcast.net> wrote
>>
>>>I've seen many fur homepages that specifically claim
>>>"escapism" as what interests them about furry. This leads to the
>>>question, "escape from what?"
>>>
>>"The drudgery of their lives"????
>>Your text btw.
>
>Well, yes, that is an answer. But it seems so mundane. Would "the
slavery
>of their lives" work for at least some? Find freedom in furry!
>
I prefer the term escapism.
>
>>>Is it just dogs that feel furrier when they've been defeated at
something?
>
>>How would I know how all dogs feel? I *attempt* to interpret what our
>>dogs feel. Often I'm not getting the message though. Are you like the
Pet
>>Psychic then?
>
>No, I also often fail to get the message. We cannot know how other
>creatures feel (furson or household pet) except insofar as their
behavior
>matches something that we would do if we felt a certain way.
>
I read some theory that dogs have evolved to be very good interpreters of
*our* behavior and moods though.
>By "dogs feel furrier" I was referring to human furs who choose the FCM
>pheno.
WTF is FCM?
> Like in the recent "are all foxes gay?" thread. Obviously wild
>foxes are not always gay or there would never be any kits. Skytech has
>kits, so the rule for FCF's has exceptions, but might still be a useful
>predictor for the likely orientation of an FCF that you've just met.
>
>Are there other rules like FCF=gay that are "mostly true" of furs? Are
>there any known rules for FCM's? I proposed one about defeatism, but I
have
>not met many canine furs and have no idea how solid this rule is.
>
Uh huh. I've finally figureed out your strategy: be as obtuse as possible
and play dumb when confronted.
Sorry hon but I've seen usenet played from *every* angle and you're not
doing anything particularly new.
Try again.
>>> slave mentality is the main thing that our schools today are trying
to teach.
>>>
>>Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
>>mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world.
>
>Can you find a reference for this definition?
>
>The first google hit on "slave mentality" is
> http://hometown.aol.com/jemiltd/myhomepage
>which equates it with Stockholm syndrome.
>
"The Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional attachment, a bond of
interdependence between captive and captor that develops when someone
threatens your life, deliberates, and doesn't kill you.’ (Symonds, 1980)
The relief resulting from the removal of the threat of death generates
intense feelings of gratitude and fear that combine to make the captive
reluctant to display negative feelings toward the captor."
So since thats the definition of Stockholm Syndrome, then no, I wouldn't
say that schools are instilling these attitudes or feelings in children.
>The third hit,
> http://www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_announce/2001/000557.html
>is one of those self-denigrating pieces that Canadians are so good at.
It
>equates slave mentality with the conformist culture of Canada.
>
>It seems the phrase has a somewhat variable definition.
>
It goes on to say the lack of creativity is due to some sort of social
opression. But Jim Carrey, Tom Green, and Mike Myers are from
canaduh...so I'd say that theres creativity there.
>
>>If kids
>>knew how fucked up the RAt Race really is, they'd be shooting
themselves
>>in *much* greater numbers.
>
>During the Vietnam War, it was clear how fucked up the rat race was, so
they
>"tuned in, turned on, dropped out".
>
Kent State....shootin kids for protesting is ok how?
>
>>Oh...and if anyone thinks *I'm* being insensitive, take a look at this:
>>http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=15575&mode=nested&order=0
>
>Yeah, that slide show was disgusting. I can't wait until Bush gets
thrown
>out of the White House on his ASS!!! (Obligatory Patriot Act
disclaimer:
>The image of our president landing in the street on his keister is just
a
>metaphorical rendering of a wished-for result from lawfully-registered
>voters acting nonviolently through their voting booths.)
>
I think the republicans are actually worried :)
They got some big 18 wheeler to try and sign up voters.
King Snuhw()1f
Pyesetz the Dog
>WTF is FCM?
It's a furry code. You know, like FCW for "wolf"? Apparently Captain
Packrat doesn't like dogs, so he rendered "canis domesticus" as
(F)urry-(C)anine-(M)utt.
Sorry if FCM as a shorthand for "dog pheno" was too geeky.
>> Like in the recent "are all foxes gay?" thread. Obviously wild
>>foxes are not always gay or there would never be any kits. Skytech has
>>kits, so the rule for FCF's has exceptions, but might still be a useful
>>predictor for the likely orientation of an FCF that you've just met.
>>
>>Are there other rules like FCF=gay that are "mostly true" of furs? Are
>>there any known rules for FCM's? I proposed one about defeatism, but I
>>have not met many canine furs and have no idea how solid this rule is.
>>
>Uh huh. I've finally figureed out your strategy: be as obtuse as possible
>and play dumb when confronted.
>Sorry hon but I've seen usenet played from *every* angle and you're not
>doing anything particularly new.
>Try again.
Perhaps you understand my strategy better than I do. Could you explain?
What the Hell am I trying to accomplish by posting to this group? Am I some
kind of troll?
>>>> slave mentality is the main thing that our schools today are trying
>>>>to teach.
>>>>
>>>Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
>>>mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world.
>>
>>Can you find a reference for this definition?
Too bad UrbanDictionary.com has no hit for this.
>>The first google hit on "slave mentality" is
>> http://hometown.aol.com/jemiltd/myhomepage
>>which equates it with Stockholm syndrome.
>
>"The Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional attachment, [snip]
>I wouldn't say that schools are instilling these attitudes or feelings in
>children.
You're quite right. I don't agree with the first author, or his simile
between the WWII holocaust and the enslavement of African Americans. My
point was the breadth of meaning for the phrase "slave mentality". This guy
uses it for "the mentality of an ethnic group composed of former slaves".
>>The third hit,
>> http://www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_announce/2001/000557.html
>>is one of those self-denigrating pieces that Canadians are so good at.
>>It equates slave mentality with the conformist culture of Canada.
>>
>It goes on to say the lack of creativity is due to some sort of social
>opression. But Jim Carrey, Tom Green, and Mike Myers are from
>canaduh...so I'd say that theres creativity there.
That's what I like about Canadian self-denigration. It's so ridiculous!
It's like they have to stretch the truth 'til it breaks just so they can
feel as bad about themselves as all the people who live in those crappy
countries.
>>It seems the phrase has a somewhat variable definition.
Again, my point is not that your definition is "wrong", but that there seem
to be many definitions, so I reject your claim that "slave mentality" cannot
be used to describe what our schools teach.
>>>If kids
>>>knew how fucked up the RAt Race really is, they'd be shooting
>>>themselves in *much* greater numbers.
>>
>>During the Vietnam War, it was clear how fucked up the rat race was, so
>they "tuned in, turned on, dropped out".
>>
>Kent State....shootin kids for protesting is ok how?
Well, I *haven't* seen Usenet played from every angle, so I'm not sure what
your rhetorical device is here. 18-yo kids who are pro-Nixon shooting 18-yo
kids who are anti-Nixon may be understandable, but certainly not "ok".
Or are you saying that the Guardsmen shot the students because they didn't
realize how fucked up the rat race is, and would have killed more had they
known? Somehow the logic doesn't quite follow.
Claviarm
>Snuhwolf wrote:
>>WTF is FCM?
>
>It's a furry code. You know, like FCW for "wolf"? Apparently Captain
>Packrat doesn't like dogs, so he rendered "canis domesticus" as
>(F)urry-(C)anine-(M)utt.
>
>Sorry if FCM as a shorthand for "dog pheno" was too geeky.
As it turns out, very few people memorize the code. Even the ones who
use it often just use the web-based decoder. This surprised me when I
found out, because I had committed it to memory when I wrote mine...
And of course there's plenty of folks who aren't familiar with the
code at all. Better to just use the actual words than the coded
acronyms...
>Perhaps you understand my strategy better than I do. Could you explain?
>What the Hell am I trying to accomplish by posting to this group? Am I some
>kind of troll?
We're all trolls now. It's in the ALF Revolution Act of 2002.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Claviarm
>>As I said, if they want the drug, give it to them. If they don't,
>>then don't force it on them.
>>
>Wow. To me thats the moral equivalent of having a friend who is addicted
>to something, and not bothering to try and help them overcome it.
It seems to me that the equivalent to forcing the mind-altering drugs
on the mental patient would be strapping the addict down and denying
them access to whatever they're addicted to. It's neither my nor your
place to do that to another person, even if we think it's for the
best.
>You just outed my sock :)
>Thanks Rat boi.
Sock? What in all the world are you talking about? I get the two of
you mixed up, you see. *obvious wink* Surely I've covered it up now!
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Pyesetz the Dog
> As it turns out, very few people memorize the code. Even the ones who
> use it often just use the web-based decoder. This surprised me when I
> found out, because I had committed it to memory when I wrote mine...
I guess you're a computer geek, then. Not only do I have a furry code, my
alter ego has an actual geek code. C+++$ USL+++$ L++$ E+++$ M+$ V+++$
No, I'm not kidding about all those dollar signs. Once I was "Stuart the
VAX-Wizard". Now I'm "Pyesetz the Dog". Hello! Nice to meet you.
> Better to just use the actual words than the coded acronyms...
Unless I'm trying to be deliberately obtuse via übergeek-speak. Using
enumeration symbols instead of the English words they stand for was the
hallmark of the computer nerd, before we all became computer geeks.
> We're all trolls now. It's in the ALF Revolution Act of 2002.
What? Loganberry is a troll?
I thought I wasn't a troll because I make at least some attempt to stick
to the "furry lifestyle" topic. I guess I'm just deluding myself. This
email has nothing to do with furry.
Claviarm
>> As it turns out, very few people memorize the code. Even the ones who
>> use it often just use the web-based decoder. This surprised me when I
>> found out, because I had committed it to memory when I wrote mine...
>
>I guess you're a computer geek, then. Not only do I have a furry code, my
>alter ego has an actual geek code. C+++$ USL+++$ L++$ E+++$ M+$ V+++$
>No, I'm not kidding about all those dollar signs. Once I was "Stuart the
>VAX-Wizard". Now I'm "Pyesetz the Dog". Hello! Nice to meet you.
Hi, I'm Claviarm. I'm not sure if I can still be called a computer
geek, as I've fallen behind the times. Or does it make me even more
geeky that I'm the only one left who loves DOS? *g*
>> We're all trolls now. It's in the ALF Revolution Act of 2002.
>
>What? Loganberry is a troll?
I don't make up the rules, I just tell people about them... oh wait,
yes I do.
>I thought I wasn't a troll because I make at least some attempt to stick
>to the "furry lifestyle" topic. I guess I'm just deluding myself. This
>email has nothing to do with furry.
Eh, I've never been a proponent of strict topic limitations, so I
don't mind.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
§ńühwřŁf
>Snuhwolf wrote:
>>WTF is FCM?
>
>It's a furry code. You know, like FCW for "wolf"? Apparently Captain
>Packrat doesn't like dogs, so he rendered "canis domesticus" as
>(F)urry-(C)anine-(M)utt.
>
>Sorry if FCM as a shorthand for "dog pheno" was too geeky.
>
I never bothered to learn the CODE OF THE FURS...
the code of the West I'm well versed in however.
>
>>> Like in the recent "are all foxes gay?" thread. Obviously wild
>>>foxes are not always gay or there would never be any kits. Skytech
has
>>>kits, so the rule for FCF's has exceptions, but might still be a
useful
>>>predictor for the likely orientation of an FCF that you've just met.
>>>
>>>Are there other rules like FCF=gay that are "mostly true" of furs?
Are
>>>there any known rules for FCM's? I proposed one about defeatism, but
I
>>>have not met many canine furs and have no idea how solid this rule is.
>>>
>>Uh huh. I've finally figureed out your strategy: be as obtuse as
possible
>>and play dumb when confronted.
>>Sorry hon but I've seen usenet played from *every* angle and you're not
>>doing anything particularly new.
>>Try again.
>
>Perhaps you understand my strategy better than I do. Could you explain?
>What the Hell am I trying to accomplish by posting to this group? Am I
some
>kind of troll?
>
Case In Point. Can you say "playing dumb"?
I knew you could :)
>
>>>>> slave mentality is the main thing that our schools today are trying
>>>>>to teach.
>>>>>
>>>>Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
>>>>mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world.
>>>
>>>Can you find a reference for this definition?
>
>Too bad UrbanDictionary.com has no hit for this.
>
Try this: www.londonslang.com
>
>>>The first google hit on "slave mentality" is
>>> http://hometown.aol.com/jemiltd/myhomepage
>>>which equates it with Stockholm syndrome.
>>
>>"The Stockholm Syndrome is an emotional attachment, [snip]
>>I wouldn't say that schools are instilling these attitudes or feelings
in
>>children.
>
>You're quite right. I don't agree with the first author, or his simile
>between the WWII holocaust and the enslavement of African Americans. My
>point was the breadth of meaning for the phrase "slave mentality". This
guy
>uses it for "the mentality of an ethnic group composed of former
slaves".
>
Okey.
>>>The third hit,
>>> http://www.freedomsite.org/pipermail/fs_announce/2001/000557.html
>>>is one of those self-denigrating pieces that Canadians are so good at.
>>>It equates slave mentality with the conformist culture of Canada.
>>>
>>It goes on to say the lack of creativity is due to some sort of social
>>opression. But Jim Carrey, Tom Green, and Mike Myers are from
>>canaduh...so I'd say that theres creativity there.
>
>That's what I like about Canadian self-denigration. It's so ridiculous!
>It's like they have to stretch the truth 'til it breaks just so they can
>feel as bad about themselves as all the people who live in those crappy
>countries.
>
I think generalizing on the scale of a nation is less than accurate and
probably self-defeating.
>
>>>It seems the phrase has a somewhat variable definition.
>
>Again, my point is not that your definition is "wrong", but that there
seem
>to be many definitions, so I reject your claim that "slave mentality"
cannot
>be used to describe what our schools teach.
>
Must have been your personal experience. Mine was much different.
>
>>>>If kids
>>>>knew how fucked up the RAt Race really is, they'd be shooting
>>>>themselves in *much* greater numbers.
>>>
>>>During the Vietnam War, it was clear how fucked up the rat race was,
so
>>they "tuned in, turned on, dropped out".
>>>
>>Kent State....shootin kids for protesting is ok how?
>
>Well, I *haven't* seen Usenet played from every angle, so I'm not sure
what
>your rhetorical device is here. 18-yo kids who are pro-Nixon shooting
18-yo
>kids who are anti-Nixon may be understandable, but certainly not "ok".
>
Yes, obviously.
>Or are you saying that the Guardsmen shot the students because they
didn't
>realize how fucked up the rat race is, and would have killed more had
they
>known? Somehow the logic doesn't quite follow.
>
I was just throwing out a memorable cultural reference.
I could have said" woodstock" just as easily but my personality is one
where I tend to focus on the negative as its easier to remember.
King Snuhw()1f
§ńühwřŁf
<4071e03a....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>Scratch the Badger <scratc...@glay.org> said:
>
>>>As I said, if they want the drug, give it to them. If they don't,
>>>then don't force it on them.
>>>
>>Wow. To me thats the moral equivalent of having a friend who is
addicted
>>to something, and not bothering to try and help them overcome it.
>
>It seems to me that the equivalent to forcing the mind-altering drugs
>on the mental patient would be strapping the addict down and denying
>them access to whatever they're addicted to. It's neither my nor your
>place to do that to another person, even if we think it's for the
>best.
>
One question: do we as Buddhists accept the edict "save all sentient
beings"?
>>You just outed my sock :)
>>Thanks Rat boi.
>
>Sock? What in all the world are you talking about? I get the two of
>you mixed up, you see. *obvious wink* Surely I've covered it up now!
>
Too late...the sock is outta the hamper...
King Snuhw()1f, you owe me a sock now.
Claviarm
>>It seems to me that the equivalent to forcing the mind-altering drugs
>>on the mental patient would be strapping the addict down and denying
>>them access to whatever they're addicted to. It's neither my nor your
>>place to do that to another person, even if we think it's for the
>>best.
>>
>One question: do we as Buddhists accept the edict "save all sentient
>beings"?
I'm not a Buddhist. I accept some of the basic principles of Buddhism
and think it's a great path to walk, but it's not mine. In any case,
wouldn't the Buddhist thing to do be to help them recover, perhaps try
to convince them to take the drugs if you think that's right, rather
than forcing them to? Maybe it's just me, but force seems like
something the Buddha wasn't real big on...
>>Sock? What in all the world are you talking about? I get the two of
>>you mixed up, you see. *obvious wink* Surely I've covered it up now!
>>
>Too late...the sock is outta the hamper...
>
>King Snuhw()1f, you owe me a sock now.
Hm, if I ever lose one in the dryer, I'll give you the other one of
the pair.
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
Pyesetz the Dog
>>Pyesetz
>>>Snuhwolf
>>>I've finally figureed out your strategy: be as obtuse as possible
>>>and play dumb when confronted.
>>>Sorry hon but I've seen usenet played from *every* angle and you're not
>>>doing anything particularly new.
>>>Try again.
>>
>>Perhaps you understand my strategy better than I do. Could you explain?
>>What the Hell am I trying to accomplish by posting to this group? Am I
>>somekind of troll?
>>
>Case In Point. Can you say "playing dumb"? I knew you could :)
I don't play "dumb". I play "absent-minded professor". I try to keep it
unclear whether I really don't know something or have just forgotten it
momentarily. This helps me to play "know-it-all" even though I don't
actually know everything.
It's a simple question with a simple answer. Claviarm says "yes": I *am* a
troll, because we all are. I like that; very easy to understand. I'm not
sure if it's true, but it's certainly an easy answer!
If I ever figure out exactly why I'm posting to this group, my motivations
will immediately mutate into something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
>>>>>> slave mentality is the main thing that our schools today are trying
>>>>>>to teach.
>>>>>>
>>>>>Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
>>>>>mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world.
>>>>
>>>>Can you find a reference for this definition?
>>
>>Too bad UrbanDictionary.com has no hit for this.
>>
>Try this: www.londonslang.com
I did, but it didn't help. They have no entry for "slave mentality", and
Google says the phrase is not used at all at their site.
>> I reject your claim that "slave mentality" cannot be used to describe
>>what our schools teach.
>Must have been your personal experience. Mine was much different.
I suppose I shouldn't mention that I have never held a wage-slave job in my
life. I baby-sat for the VP of a software company, moved into programming,
and have never been paid to do anything else. Though recently my current
job has been changing from "I'd pay *them* to do it" to "So this is sort of
what life is like for wage slaves?" But still it's nothing like the Burger
King job my wife once had.
Can you ever talk to me again?
>>>>During the Vietnam War, it was clear how fucked up the rat race was,
>>>>so they "tuned in, turned on, dropped out".
>>>>
>>>Kent State....shootin kids for protesting is ok how?
>>
>>Well, I *haven't* seen Usenet played from every angle, so I'm not sure
>>what your rhetorical device is here. [snip]
>>
>I was just throwing out a memorable cultural reference.
>I could have said" woodstock" just as easily but my personality is one
>where I tend to focus on the negative as its easier to remember.
So it was a meaningless irrelevant statement, posted in order to increase
the general confusion level? Does that mean...that...you're a....TORLL?
Or were you agreeing with me that Kent State and Woodstock were caused by
people realizing how fucked up the rat race is and refusing to participate?
§ńühwřŁf
>Pyesetz the Dog <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>Snuhwolf wrote:
>>>Pyesetz
>>>>Snuhwolf
>
>>>>I've finally figureed out your strategy: be as obtuse as possible
>>>>and play dumb when confronted.
>>>>Sorry hon but I've seen usenet played from *every* angle and you're
not
>>>>doing anything particularly new.
>>>>Try again.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you understand my strategy better than I do. Could you
explain?
>>>What the Hell am I trying to accomplish by posting to this group? Am
I
>>>somekind of troll?
>>>
>>Case In Point. Can you say "playing dumb"? I knew you could :)
>
>I don't play "dumb". I play "absent-minded professor". I try to keep
it
>unclear whether I really don't know something or have just forgotten it
>momentarily.
And you're good at re-labeling...please continue :)
>This helps me to play "know-it-all" even though I don't
>actually know everything.
>
Horrors!
>It's a simple question with a simple answer. Claviarm says "yes": I
*am* a
>troll, because we all are. I like that; very easy to understand. I'm
not
>sure if it's true, but it's certainly an easy answer!
>
Troll is what stupid people call their superiors.
FYI
:)
>If I ever figure out exactly why I'm posting to this group, my
motivations
>will immediately mutate into something even more bizarre and
inexplicable.
>
Because you're as bored an lonely as the rest of us?
>>>>>>> slave mentality is the main thing that our schools today are
trying
>>>>>>>to teach.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Um....no. They try and instill a sense of "conformity" but a slave
>>>>>>mentality gets into you when you go off to the working world.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you find a reference for this definition?
>>>
>>>Too bad UrbanDictionary.com has no hit for this.
>>>
>>Try this: www.londonslang.com
>
>I did, but it didn't help. They have no entry for "slave mentality",
and
>Google says the phrase is not used at all at their site.
>
It was a random link...I like to toss out links at random...here comes
another:
www.dailyrotten.com
>
>>> I reject your claim that "slave mentality" cannot be used to describe
>>>what our schools teach.
>
>>Must have been your personal experience. Mine was much different.
>
>I suppose I shouldn't mention that I have never held a wage-slave job in
my
>life. I baby-sat for the VP of a software company, moved into
programming,
>and have never been paid to do anything else. Though recently my
current
>job has been changing from "I'd pay *them* to do it" to "So this is sort
of
>what life is like for wage slaves?" But still it's nothing like the
Burger
>King job my wife once had.
>
Downsizing hasn't sent your job to India yet?
>Can you ever talk to me again?
>
You post, I respond, thats how it works.
>
>>>>>During the Vietnam War, it was clear how fucked up the rat race was,
>>>>>so they "tuned in, turned on, dropped out".
>>>>>
>>>>Kent State....shootin kids for protesting is ok how?
>>>
>>>Well, I *haven't* seen Usenet played from every angle, so I'm not sure
>>>what your rhetorical device is here. [snip]
>>>
>>I was just throwing out a memorable cultural reference.
>>I could have said" woodstock" just as easily but my personality is one
>>where I tend to focus on the negative as its easier to remember.
>
>So it was a meaningless irrelevant statement, posted in order to
increase
>the general confusion level? Does that mean...that...you're a....TORLL?
>
I have TORRL PRIDE.
>Or were you agreeing with me that Kent State and Woodstock were caused
by
>people realizing how fucked up the rat race is and refusing to
participate?
>
They were events in a historical reference genrally known as the "60's.
I think that people realised how unmeaningful life can be for people who
go off and do the same thing in jobs they hate long before the 60's
though.
King Snuhw()1f
§ńühwřŁf
<406fdd47....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>§ñühwø£f <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>>It seems to me that the equivalent to forcing the mind-altering drugs
>>>on the mental patient would be strapping the addict down and denying
>>>them access to whatever they're addicted to. It's neither my nor your
>>>place to do that to another person, even if we think it's for the
>>>best.
>>>
>>One question: do we as Buddhists accept the edict "save all sentient
>>beings"?
>
>I'm not a Buddhist. I accept some of the basic principles of Buddhism
>and think it's a great path to walk, but it's not mine.
So you think its Okey to pick and choose what yuo like about a religion
or philosophy combining various bits into something you like?
Hmmmm...
> In any case,
>wouldn't the Buddhist thing to do be to help them recover, perhaps try
>to convince them to take the drugs if you think that's right, rather
>than forcing them to? Maybe it's just me, but force seems like
>something the Buddha wasn't real big on...
>
Sure, but you said dont bother, not try and convince.
>>>Sock? What in all the world are you talking about? I get the two of
>>>you mixed up, you see. *obvious wink* Surely I've covered it up now!
>>>
>>Too late...the sock is outta the hamper...
>>
>>King Snuhw()1f, you owe me a sock now.
>
>Hm, if I ever lose one in the dryer, I'll give you the other one of
>the pair.
>
I want the one with the eyes...
King Snuhw()1f
Pyesetz the Dog
>Pyesetz the Dog <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in
>>I don't play "dumb". I play "absent-minded professor". I try to keep it
>>unclear whether I really don't know something or have just forgotten it
>>momentarily.
>
>And you're good at re-labeling...please continue :)
Well, at least I'm good at something!
>> I *am* a troll, because we all are.
>>
>Troll is what stupid people call their superiors.
They're also the anti-heroes in Scandinavian legend.
Often it seems you self-identify as a troll.
>>If I ever figure out exactly why I'm posting to this group, my
>>motivations will immediately mutate into something even more bizarre and
>>inexplicable.
>>
>Because you're as bored an lonely as the rest of us?
Thank you! That was just the straight line I was looking for. I'll move my
response to a new thread, in case anyone has kill-filed this one because
of its complete takeover by trolls.
Do I have any cause for pride in having starting this "Ontology" thread that
now has about 100 posts in it?
>>>Try this: www.londonslang.com
>>
>>I did, but it didn't help. They have no entry for "slave mentality",
>
>It was a random link...I like to toss out links at random...here comes
>another: www.dailyrotten.com
I've been there, but I like their www.boners.com site better. Here's one
you probably like:
http://www.boners.com/grub/791595.html
and here's one that has slightly-furry content:
http://www.boners.com/grub/791571.html
I *am* a daddy! So I guess I'm smarter than that turtle!
>>Though recently my current job has been changing from "I'd pay *them* to
>>do it" to "So this is sort of what life is like for wage slaves?" But
>>still it's nothing like the Burger King job my wife once had.
>
>Downsizing hasn't sent your job to India yet?
No. We tried outsourcing to India, but the results were poor. Currently
we're outsourcing to Russia, China, and France(!). I'm part of the "home
team", coordinating what the foreigners do while occasionally getting some
work done myself. The Russians are green (they're all so young!) but they
really want to learn how to do the job well and they work for peanuts.
Anyway, outsourcing is not why my job has become crappy...
>>Can you ever talk to me again?
>You post, I respond, thats how it works.
*wags tail*
>>So it was a meaningless irrelevant statement, posted in order to increase
>>the general confusion level? Does that mean...that...you're a....TORLL?
>
>I have TORRL PRIDE.
But TORRL is what stupid people call their superiors. So you're a stupid
person and you're proud to consider yourself your intellectual superior?
The image of "smoke coming out of my ears" bears no resemblence to reality.
Claviarm
>>I'm not a Buddhist. I accept some of the basic principles of Buddhism
>>and think it's a great path to walk, but it's not mine.
>
>So you think its Okey to pick and choose what yuo like about a religion
>or philosophy combining various bits into something you like?
>Hmmmm...
Considering I don't claim to be Buddhist, I don't see what would
restrict me from accepting the logic that suffering is caused by
desire but not believing in Buddhism's particular view of
reincarnation, for example. *shrug* If I claimed to be Buddhist and
then just sort of followed what I liked, there might be a problem, I
suppose.
>> In any case,
>>wouldn't the Buddhist thing to do be to help them recover, perhaps try
>>to convince them to take the drugs if you think that's right, rather
>>than forcing them to? Maybe it's just me, but force seems like
>>something the Buddha wasn't real big on...
>>
>Sure, but you said dont bother, not try and convince.
I said don't force, not don't bother.
>>>King Snuhw()1f, you owe me a sock now.
>>
>>Hm, if I ever lose one in the dryer, I'll give you the other one of
>>the pair.
>>
>I want the one with the eyes...
I want that dog puppet from the pets.com ads back in the day...
--
Claviarm
ICQ 16521227
§ńühwřŁf
>Snuhwolf wrote:
>>Pyesetz the Dog <pye...@comcast.net> wrote in
>
>>>I don't play "dumb". I play "absent-minded professor". I try to keep
it
>>>unclear whether I really don't know something or have just forgotten
it
>>>momentarily.
>>
>>And you're good at re-labeling...please continue :)
>
>Well, at least I'm good at something!
>
Avoiding the issues.
>
>>> I *am* a troll, because we all are.
>>>
>>Troll is what stupid people call their superiors.
>
>They're also the anti-heroes in Scandinavian legend.
>
>Often it seems you self-identify as a troll.
>
I'm the anti-hero of this legend ;)
>>>If I ever figure out exactly why I'm posting to this group, my
>>>motivations will immediately mutate into something even more bizarre
and
>>>inexplicable.
>>>
>>Because you're as bored an lonely as the rest of us?
>
>Thank you! That was just the straight line I was looking for. I'll
move my
>response to a new thread, in case anyone has kill-filed this one because
>of its complete takeover by trolls.
>
Kill teh torrls...
>Do I have any cause for pride in having starting this "Ontology" thread
that
>now has about 100 posts in it?
>
ALL HAIL TEH ALMIGHTY POST COUNT!!!
>>>>Try this: www.londonslang.com
>>>
>>>I did, but it didn't help. They have no entry for "slave mentality",
>>
>>It was a random link...I like to toss out links at random...here comes
>>another: www.dailyrotten.com
>
>I've been there, but I like their www.boners.com site better. Here's
one
>you probably like:
> http://www.boners.com/grub/791595.html
>and here's one that has slightly-furry content:
> http://www.boners.com/grub/791571.html
>I *am* a daddy! So I guess I'm smarter than that turtle!
>
And most plushophiles as well :)
>>>Though recently my current job has been changing from "I'd pay *them*
to
>>>do it" to "So this is sort of what life is like for wage slaves?" But
>>>still it's nothing like the Burger King job my wife once had.
>>
>>Downsizing hasn't sent your job to India yet?
>
>No. We tried outsourcing to India, but the results were poor.
Currently
>we're outsourcing to Russia, China, and France(!). I'm part of the
"home
>team", coordinating what the foreigners do while occasionally getting
some
>work done myself. The Russians are green (they're all so young!) but
they
>really want to learn how to do the job well and they work for peanuts.
I thought they worked for vodka?
Hmmm...
>Anyway, outsourcing is not why my job has become crappy...
>
Why then?
>>>Can you ever talk to me again?
>>You post, I respond, thats how it works.
>
>*wags tail*
>
<blows nose>
>>>So it was a meaningless irrelevant statement, posted in order to
increase
>>>the general confusion level? Does that mean...that...you're
a....TORLL?
>>
>>I have TORRL PRIDE.
>
>But TORRL is what stupid people call their superiors. So you're a
stupid
>person and you're proud to consider yourself your intellectual superior?
I'm my *own* intellectual superior.
>The image of "smoke coming out of my ears" bears no resemblence to
reality.
>
Well its better than talking out of ones ass :)
King Snuhw()1f
§ńühwřŁf
<40704ad6....@news.sysmatrix.net>:
>§ñühwø£f <snuhwo...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>>I'm not a Buddhist. I accept some of the basic principles of Buddhism
>>>and think it's a great path to walk, but it's not mine.
>>
>>So you think its Okey to pick and choose what yuo like about a religion
>>or philosophy combining various bits into something you like?
>>Hmmmm...
>
>Considering I don't claim to be Buddhist, I don't see what would
>restrict me from accepting the logic that suffering is caused by
>desire but not believing in Buddhism's particular view of
>reincarnation, for example. *shrug* If I claimed to be Buddhist and
>then just sort of followed what I liked, there might be a problem, I
>suppose.
>
You are obviously a superior being then :)
>>> In any case,
>>>wouldn't the Buddhist thing to do be to help them recover, perhaps try
>>>to convince them to take the drugs if you think that's right, rather
>>>than forcing them to? Maybe it's just me, but force seems like
>>>something the Buddha wasn't real big on...
>>>
>>Sure, but you said dont bother, not try and convince.
>
>I said don't force, not don't bother.
>
But it might not work without force.
>>>>King Snuhw()1f, you owe me a sock now.
>>>
>>>Hm, if I ever lose one in the dryer, I'll give you the other one of
>>>the pair.
>>>
>>I want the one with the eyes...
>
>I want that dog puppet from the pets.com ads back in the day...
>
Heeeeees back...I saw it on a new commercial for something the other day.
I didnt remember the product but the image of a dog puppet with a wrist
watch around its neck is somehow fascinating.
KIng Snuhw()1f