let's vandalise wikipedia entries!
sirb...@hotmail.com
blob dylan, for instance, is in fact both a woman and a genius. and so
on. could be fun. its better than usenet and with all the energy we
waste here, we'd make a right mess we would.
Wordsmith
How often does your mommy let you out of the basement?
W : )
Paul Ilechko
> W : )
Is that supposed to be a comb-over on your emoticon ?
sirblob
how often do you fuck wordsmith's mom?
Immortalist
I read the article and believe that if there was a concerted effort to
alter the truth, that over time this would be harder to maintane than
the more sustained and numerous attempts to continually adjust items
to reflect truth.
Dylan ("...vandals stole the handles")
http://youtube.com/watch?v=srgi2DkDbPU
An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopaedia, is a
comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all
branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.
...The "Encyclopédie" was edited by Jean le Rond d'Alembert and Denis
Diderot and published in 17 volumes of articles, issued from 1751 to
1765, and 11 volumes of illustrations, issued from 1762 to 1772. Five
volumes of supplementary material and a two volume index, supervised
by other editors, were issued from 1776 to 1780 by Charles Joseph
Panckoucke.
Realizing the inherent problems with the model of knowledge he had
created, Diderot's view of his own success in writing the
"Encyclopédie" were far from ecstatic. Diderot envisioned the perfect
encyclopedia as more than the sum of its parts. In his own article on
the encyclopedia, Diderot wrote, "Were an analytical dictionary of the
sciences and arts nothing more than a methodical combination of their
elements, I would still ask whom it behooves to fabricate good
elements." Diderot viewed the ideal encyclopedia as an index of
connections. He realized that all knowledge could never be amassed in
one work, but he hoped the relations between subjects could.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Diderot
Denis Diderot (1713-84) undertook the bulk of the editorial work and
the composition of many articles. He was assisted by the mathematician
and philosopher Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717-83) and its many
anonymous contributors included Voltaire, Montesquieu, Turgot,
Condillac, and Rousseau. Under Diderot's editorship, 17 volumes of
text and 11 of plates were published between 1751 and 1772.
At its completion, it consisted of 35 volumes of text, plates, and
indices.
The Encyclopedia was intended
as a compendium of all valuable
knowledge and as a guide to the
interdependence of the various
disciplines and spheres of
enquiry and technology.
Philosophically, the work was indebted to the empiricist tradition of
Bacon and Locke. More than just a source of information, the
Encyclopedia was intended to provide an education in enlightened
reason as many of its articles expressed by example, aside,
comparison, or in their tone an ethos critical of religious and
political tradition. In this sense,
it was a secularizing and
politically critical work.
This was not missed either by the Church or by the state censors. In
1759, the Encyclopedia was placed on the Papal Index of Forbidden
Books and banned from publication by the French censor.
Thanks to a benign period of state censorship shortly thereafter,
publication was only delayed.
Politically, the Encyclopedia reflects the aspirations and attitudes
of the urban bourgeoisie, the "Third Estate," whose representatives
were, in 1789, to initiate the revolutionary defiance of Church and
Nobility.
http://www.etss.edu/hts/hts3/info5.htm
[G] - The Encyclopedia & the Philosophic Dictionary
The popularity of so irreverent a book as Candide gives us some sense
of the spirit of the age. The lordly culture of Louis XIV's time,
despite the massive bishops who spoke so eloquent a part in it, had
learned to smile at dogma and tradition. The failure of the
Reformation to capture France had left for Frenchmen no half-way house
between infallibility and infidelity; and while the intellect of
Germany and England moved leisurely in the lines of religious
evolution, the mind of France leaped from the hot faith which had
massacred the Huguenots to the cold hostility with which La Mettrie,
Helvetius, Holbach and Diderot turned upon the religion of their
fathers. Let us look for a moment at the intellectual environment in
which the later Voltaire moved and had his being.
La Mettrie (1709-51) was an army physician who had lost his post by
writing a Natural History of the Soul, and had won exile by a work
called Man a Machine. He had taken refuge at the court of Frederick,
who was himself something of an advanced thinker and was resolved to
have the very latest culture from Paris. La Mettrie took up the idea
of mechanism where the frightened Descartes, like a boy who has burned
his fingers, had dropped it; and announced boldly that all the world,
not excepting man, was a machine. The soul is material, and matter is
soulful; but whatever they are they act upon each other, and grow and
decay with each other in a way that leaves no doubt of their essential
similarity and interdependence. If the soul is pure spirit, how can
enthusiasm warm the body, or fever in the body disturb the processes
of the mind? All organisms have evolved out of one original germ,
through the reciprocal action of organism and environment. The reason
why animals have intelligence, and plants none, is that animals move
about for their food, while plants take what comes to them. Man has
the highest intelligence because he has the greatest wants and the
widest mobility; "beings without wants are also without mind."
Though La Mettie was exiled for these opinions, Helvetius (1715-71),
who took them as the basis of his book On Man, became one of the
richest men in France, and rose to position and honor. Here we have
the ethic, as in La Mettrie the metaphysic, of atheism. All action is
dictated by egoism, self-love; "even the hero follows the feeling
which for him is associated with the greatest pleasure"; and "virtue
is egoism furnished with a spy-glass." Conscience is not the voice of
God, but the fear of the police; it is the deposit left in us from the
stream of prohibitions poured over the growing soul by parents and
teachers and press. Morality must be founded not on theology but on
sociology; the changing needs of society, and not any unchanging
revelation or dogma, must determine the good.
The greatest figure in this group was Denis Diderot (1713-84). His
ideas were expressed in various fragments from his own pen, and in the
System of Nature of Baron d'Holbach (1723-89), whose salon was the
centre of Diderot's circle. "If we go back to the beginning," says
Holbach, "we shall find that ignorance and fear created the gods; that
fancy, enthusiasm or deceit adorned or disfigured them; that weakness
worships them; that credulity preserves them; and that custom respects
and tyranny supports them in order to make the blindness of men serve
its own interests." Belief in God, said Diderot, is bound up with
submission to autocracy; the two rise and fall together; and "men will
never be free till the last king is strangled with the entrails of the
last priest." The earth will come into its own only when heaven is
destroyed. Materialism may be an over-simplification of the world-all
matter is probably instinct with life, and it is impossible to reduce
the unity of consciousness to matter and motion; but materialism is a
good weapon against the Church, and must be used till a better one is
found. Meanwhile one must spread knowledge and encourage industry;
industry will make for peace, and knowledge will make a new and
natural morality.
These are the ideas which Diderot and d'Alembert labored to
disseminate through the great Encyclopedic which they issued, volume
by volume, from 1752 to 1772. The Church had the first volumes
suppressed; and, as the opposition increased, Diderot's comrades
abandoned him; but he worked on angrily, invigorated by his rage. "I
know nothing so indecent," he said, "as these vague declamations of
the theologians against reason. To hear them one would suppose that
men could not enter inter the bosom of Christianity except as a herd
of cattle enters a stable." It was, as Paine put it, the age of
reason; these men never doubted that the intellect was the ultimate
human test of all truth and all good. Let reason be freed, they said,
and it would in a few generations build Utopia. Diderot did not
suspect that the erotic and neurotic Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78),
whom he had just introduced to Paris, was carrying in his head, or in
his heart, the seeds of a revolution against this enthronement of
reason; a revolution which, armed with the impressive obscurities of
Immanuel Kant, would soon capture every citadel of philosophy.
Naturally enough, Voltaire, who was interested in everything, and had
a hand in every fight, was caught up for a time in the circle of the
Encyclopedists; they were glad to call him their leader; and he was
not averse to their incense, though some of their ideas needed a
little pruning. They asked him to write articles for their great
undertaking, and he responded with a facility and fertility which
delighted them. When he had finished this work he set about making an
encyclopedia of his own, which he called a Philosophic Dictionary;
with unprecedented audacity he took subject after subject as the
alphabet suggested them, and poured out under each heading part of his
inexhaustible resources of knowledge and wisdom. Imagine a man writing
on everything, and producing a classic none the less; the most
readable and sparkling of Voltaire's works aside from his romances;
every article a model of brevity, clarity, and wit. "Some men can be
prolix in one small volume; Voltaire is terse through a hundred." Here
at last Voltaire proves that he is a philosopher.
He begins, like Bacon, Descartes and Locke and all the moderns, with
doubt and a (supposedly) clean slate. "I have taken as my patron saint
St. Thomas of Didymus, who always insisted on an examination with his
own hands." He thanks Bayle for having taught him the art of doubt. He
rejects all systems, and suspects that "every chief of a sect in
philosophy has been a little of a quack." "The further I go, the more
I am confirmed in the idea that systems of metaphysics are for
philosophers what novels are for women." It is only charlatans who are
certain. We know nothing of first principles. It is truly extravagant
to define God, angels, and minds, and to know precisely why God formed
the world, when we do not know why we move our arms at will. Doubt is
not a very agreeable state, but certainty is a ridiculous one." "I do
not know how I was made, and how I was born. I did not know at all,
during a quarter of my life, the causes of what I saw, or heard, or
felt. ... I have seen that which is called matter, both as the star
Sirius, and as the smallest atom which can be perceived with the
microscope; and I do not know what this matter is."
...Even if Philosophy should end in the total doubt of Montaigne's
"Que sais-je?" it is man's greatest adventure, and his noblest. Let us
learn to be content with modest advances in knowledge, rather than be
forever weaving new systems out of our mendacious imagination.
We must not say, Let us begin by inventing principles whereby we may
be able to explain everything; rather we must say, Let us make an
exact analysis of the matter, and then we shall try to see, with much
diffidence, if it fits in with any principle. . . . The Chancellor
Bacon had shown the road which science might follow. . . . But then
Descartes appeared and did just the contrary of what he should have
done: instead of studying nature, he wished to divine her. . . . This
best of mathematicians made only romances in philosophy. ... It is
given us to calculate, to weigh, to measure, to observe; this is
natural philosophy; almost all the rest is chimera.
The Story of Philosophy
by WILL DURANT
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671739166/
...[The] Royal Society which was to become the greatest association of
scientists in the world, named Bacon as their model and inspiration;
they hoped that this organization of English research would lead the
way toward that Europe-wide association which the Advancement of
Learning had taught them to desire. And when the great minds of the
French Enlightenment undertook that masterpiece of intellectual
enterprise, the Encyclopedie, they dedicated it to Francis Bacon.
"If," said Diderot in the Prospectus, "we have come of it
successfully, we shall owe most to the Chancellor Bacon, who threw out
the plan of an universal dictionary of sciences and arts, at a time
when, so to say, neither arts nor sciences existed.
The Story of Philosophy
by WILL DURANT
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0671739166/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A9die
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire
http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/diderot.htm
Jumbo
I like that. Honest.
But who would it bother? On my course, we're told not to use Wikipedia
cos it's unreliable. So ...
Francis A. Miniter
Vandalize is the right word. And there will probably criminal prosecutions.
So, sirblob, will we be reading about you in your own article on Wikipedia after
the charges are brought?
Francis A. Miniter
sirblob
wrote:
of course you can have the honour of being my defense lawyer, but on
the condition that you be joe pesci and your wife marisa tomei and
that i may be allowed to hump marisa whenever i please. if you're a
sort of dylan mcdermott i'll accept you if your wife is kelli
williams, with the same clauses applying to kelli as they do to
marisa, with the circumferences of my spheres of interest clearly
hovering above the latter (like a cat's preference for meat over
biscuits). however, if you belong to anyone slightly resembling an
ally mcbeal utopia, i absolutely, resolutely and radically reject your
offer without the slightest care in the world for the prestige and
honour you'd see sail away or whatever money you may offer.
sta...@dantenet.com
>From my experience there, it seems they (meaning the no-lifers who
have appointed themselves Editors Of The Universe) do a pretty good
job vandalizing THEMSELVES.--SWM
Paul Ilechko
It's been proven to be as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica. Of
course, there may be certain unreliable content at any point in time -
the trick is to be able to recognize that as such ...
*Anarcissie*
Seems to me nothing in any encyclopedia should be taken
on faith without consulting primary sources, if accuracy is
of great concern. That includes _Britannica_ as well as
Wikipedia.
Mercy Brown
More adept saboteurs than what we could probably produce have been
trying that for years. Often only enjoying the fruits of their
graffitic labor for a few hours (sometimes even minutes) before one of
the volunteer sentries / authors of an encyclopedic entry washes it
off and restores the former text (apparently the latter are from the
flipside of the same "too-much-time-on-our-hands" camp as the former).
They can *lock* editing access if the attacks persist (as in the case
of Presidential candidate articles during election seasons).
*:*
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Apr 17, 8:52 am, sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.cbc.ca/cp/entertainment/070411/e041170A.html
>
> > blob dylan, for instance, is in fact both a woman and a genius. and so
> > on. could be fun. its better than usenet and with all the energy we
> > waste here, we'd make a right mess we would.
>
> I like that. Honest.
>
> But who would it bother?
Me. I'm daft enough to believe that one of the purposes of the
internet is to spread knowledge and promote learning. It enables
people to educate themselves at very little cost to themselves
(assuming that their local library or school has the necessary
facilities). That's why I spend some of my free time updating and
contributing to some of the entries.
>On my course, we're told not to use Wikipedia
> cos it's unreliable. So ...
You are told that because you should not use it as your only source of
information. That is a lazy way to research. As someone has pointed
out elsewhere on this thread, an encyclopaedia is meant to be used as
a starting point....many wikipedia articles contain references and
further links.
As to unreliability, well that is something you will learn in life.
All information has to be treated with caution...some more than
others.
Dr. Barry Worthington
Jumbo
>
> It's been proven to be as reliable as the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Oh, well then.
> Of
> course, there may be certain unreliable content at any point in time -
> the trick is to be able to recognize that as such ...
:)
Yes, that's the trick, all right.
tooly
"Wordsmith" <word...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176830129.2...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
I hate wikipedia. It stifles free thought.
Paul Ilechko
I hate thinking, it stifles mindless emotional response.
Jumbo
wrote:
> On 17 Apr, 20:49, Jumbo <c...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
> > But who would it bother?
>
> Me. I'm daft enough to believe that one of the purposes of the
> internet is to spread knowledge and promote learning.
Well, I guess you said "ONE of the purposes", so ... we'll allow it.
(I defend this adoption of a slightly magisterial tone by pointing out
I'm addressing someone who prefixes their web-name "Dr.")
> It enables
> people to educate themselves at very little cost to themselves
Yes.
> (assuming that their local library or school has the necessary
> facilities). That's why I spend some of my free time updating and
> contributing to some of the entries.
> >On my course, we're told not to use Wikipedia
> > cos it's unreliable. So ...
>
> You are told that because you should not use it as your only source of
> information. That is a lazy way to research.
You're right, dr. I phrased it very badly. I should have said "we're
told not to *cite* Wikipedia as a reference cos it's unreliable".
You're also quite right, when I'm stuck I sometimes go to google or
Wikipedia and work from there to better places.
> As someone has pointed
> out elsewhere on this thread, an encyclopaedia is meant to be used as
> a starting point.
Here I'd quibble. Some (better) encyclopedias can be used as more than
just starting points. If someone is writing a dissertation on, say, As
You Like It and wants some basic information on the bush-signs outside
early modern English wine-shops, and they go to a GOOD encyclopedia,
they might find enough in one stop for their purposes in that
instance. It's harsh to call that lazy if it represents the checking
of a minor detail in a 15000 word essay. If they went to Wikipedia,
given the way its compiled, they would have to do extra checking to
corroborate basic facts.
...many wikipedia articles contain references and
> further links.
Yes, true. Good point.
> As to unreliability, well that is something you will learn in life.
Gee, Dr, I'm not 18. I know I said I was on a course, but there are
many kinds of courses and horses out there.
tooly
"Paul Ilechko" <pile...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
news:58qiv0F...@mid.individual.net...
but it's true. It is becoming that for every simple interaction, one is
almost obligated to 'pre check' to make sure one's facts are straight.
Anyone can 'look' like an expert now. Just quote some diatribe off
Wikipedia. That is the true mindlessness going on IMO. What is really
being accomplished is that more and more people are becoming herded like
cattle through 'mind filtering' such that Wikipedia has become...ergo, 'free
thought', that is, thought that is inspired through sheer creativity as an
exercise of the brain in a free movement is becoming 'lost'. Think about
it. We have to consider that much of communication is about the urge to
express self. Wikipedia is smothering individuality, remolding us into
something like the Borg. It is a kind of tyranny as I see it.
V
V:
"Just as a life of virtue yields its own reward, a life of vice yields
its own punishment" - Plutarch - Priest of the Delphic Oracle circa 45
- 125 AD
Destroying other's peace will never yield you peace my friend.
Humans are creatures of habit. We can either develop good habits or
succumb to our old bad habits.
I suggest you find something other to do with your life. Personally, I
learned to enjoy movent and sport based activities that improve health
and mental abilities like: Hiking, Mountain Biking, Climbing Gym and
Rock Climbing, Basketball, Rollerblading, Trail Running, Jet Skiing,
Racquetball, Swim, Sun Bathing, Fishing, Canoeing, Skateboarding,
Weight Training, Target Shooting, Camping, Jogging, Kayaking,
Motorcycling, Snowshoeing, Skiboarding, XC Skiing, Yoga, Massage,
Meditation, Dirt Biking, Snow Tubing, Snorkeling, Scuba diving,
"A mans mind may be likened to a garden which may be intelligently
cultivated or allowed to run wild; but whether cultivated or
neglected, it must and will bring forth. If no useful seeds are put
into it, then an abundance of useless 'weed seeds' will fall therein
and will continue to produce their kind." ~ James Allen
French psychotherapist Emile Coue (1857 - 1926) came up with this
famous saying; "Every day, in every way, I am getting better and
better." He wrote "If our unconscious is the source of many of our
evils - it can also bring the cure. You have in yourself this
instrument of your cure." Sometimes this simple technique of Coue's,
worked miracles in cases of health improvement for persons using this
daily suggestion.
We are all born with a clean and sterile "garden" of a mind.
Everything we plant in this garden is from our own efforts and
thoughts. And as the good book said - "as yea sow - so yea reap." You
many times hear a phrase thrown around in 12 step circles, "Stinkin
Thinkin" which is another way of describing negative self talk. I
often hear addicts beating themselves up with their own mouth
continually programming themselves with many of these comments:
"I am no good"
"I'm a failure"
"Diets don't work for me"
"I can't lose weight"
"What's the use in trying"
"With my luck only bad will come out of it"
"I'm too old to try"
"I can't stand the snow"
"I can't remember anything - my brain is sh*t"
"What do you expect - I'm just a drunk?"
"I'm too fat to do it"
"I'm in a daze all the time"
"My marriage is on the rocks"
"I'm a mess"
"My house is a mess"
"I am always late"
"I'm sickly"
"There is something wrong with me"
"I'm a screw-up"
"I feel like I'm dying"
"What a pain in the ass"
"I'm always bouncing checks"
"I can't help myself"
"I always get sick this time of year"
"I always pick out an abuser"
"I'm always upset"
"I'm depressed"
"I'm stubborn"
"I feel like sh*t"
"Everything I touch turns to crap"
"I can't remember anything"
"I shop till I drop"
"I can't do any thing right"
"I'm no good with directions"
"I always hurt the one I love"
"I can't read a map"
"I can't cook anything - I burn water"
"No one likes me"
"I'm no good with names"
"I never win anything"
"I'm not very smart"
'I can't figure it out"
"It's my cross I have to bear"
"I'm not too sharp"
"I'm no good with computers"
"I'm always late with the rent"
"I can't balance my checkbook"
"I'm unlucky"
"I can never get any sleep"
"Whenever it rains I feel blue"
"I wish I was dead"
"I can't save a penny"
"I'm no good with numbers"
"I know it is good for me...but I still wont do it"
"This is a pain in the neck"
"My back is killing me"
"I can never figure women / men out"
"It's my Karma"
"My head is splitting"
"Everything I eat turns to fat"
"I don't like fruit or vegetables"
"Why doesn't anything ever go right for me?"
"I'm so stressed out"
"I'm always hungry"
'Why does (it) always happen to me?"
"I always end up offending people"
"My boss always ends up hating me"
"I'm no good at sports"
"I'm a klutz'
"I hate to exercise"
"I'm always making the wrong choices"
...and on and on.
Notice anything repetitive about these statements? Many are in
absolute terms that specify always, everything, every time, never.
While many of these statements can apply to some of us one time or
another, few of them are hard and fast 100% rules in our lives. Yet,
we are working overtime to make sure they do become us 100% at every
turn. This type of thinking just programs our minds and our bodies to
accomplish these tasks as we ask our subconscious to do these things.
Sometimes this programing starts passively by another's offhand
comment to us or even when we are kids and our parents or other adults
tell us such things. Then little by little they creep into our mind
and take hold.
Now we don't have to be perfect with changing our talk or our life,
but we can be aware of how we talk to ourselves and make an effort to
change our thoughts so they can work for us instead of against us. To
develop a desire to change, we must first recognize there is a problem
or sickness in us. Recognition or awareness is the fist step leading
to the desire to change. I go into this in more detail in an earlier
post entitled "The 3D's of Recovery ~ Desire, Determination and
Diligence"
All of the above examples are negative auto suggestions or negative
self talk that can be overcome - we have it in our power to change
these ideas - maybe not perfectly, but we can change them in a
positive direction. Philosopher David Hume defined a miracle as "the
suspension of natural law." While the subconscious can do many amazing
things, if we ask too many unrealistic "miracles" of it on a
continuous and daily basis that violate physics or natural law we can
get disappointed when it does not come through.
A common complaint with persons seeking spirituality is that they ask
God / HP for a daily suspension of natural law so they can keep
violating the 3 branches of laws that govern us and get disgruntled
when God / HP does not answer the requests. Entitlement is something
we all can suffer from, it stems form our ego. So, they get their ego
hurt and give up spiritual ways with a sigh, "What's the use." The
"use" or "answer to their prayers" is in themselves with how they live
and think. We should not forget that life on earth was never promised
to be heaven on earth and as we live - we die and as we die - we
suffer. This is the suffering of impermanence the Buddhists talk about
in the 4 Noble Truths.
An older Christian lady talked to me about "her cross" she had to
bear. She was starting to suffer from old age at 79 and felt this was
a "cross" for her from God. As I spoke with her I could see she had a
very low level of acceptance with many areas of living. She also told
me about a water heater that went out after 10 years of service and
how that upset her so much. I thought to myself well, I'd be ever so
grateful to get 10 years out of mine, as our heater went out with just
6 years of service. At the time, I was grateful to get 6 years of
service since I had talked with a fellow that had a water heater go
out in 4 years. She had no insight or acceptance into the impermanence
of things. Everything that lives gets old and suffers more or less the
same way. It is natural law and without this law nothing could grow
and we would not know life as we know it on our planet. Our babies
would not grow, there would be no rain, sun or nighttime and we could
not even taste foods or even digest it.
This lady was not singled out to "bear a cross" to suffer from old age
at 79 years of age. In fact, from my view she lived a life of little
suffering with health issues up to that point, since she lived a life
that was unhealthy, yet did not suffer much from this anti - health
lifestyle and was rewarded with moderately good health. No, her
problem were not due to God giving her a cross to bear - it was simply
due to natural law, the same law that applies to us all. And, if
anything, she had much good fortune with her life, yet had a hard time
seeing it and being appreciative and grateful for it. All problems are
creations of the mind and all that is created in the mind can also be
removed. It seems that many of us get stuck with looking for hope of
change someplace else other than within us. All change is ultimately
internal in nature, but we have hopes that someone else will do it for
us, rather than we doing it ourselves. Many religious practitioners
feel that any good change in their lives will come from the outside --
as a gift from God / gods without much effort from ones own self to
change.
Unrealistic use of the subconscious? If we give ourselves positive
self talk or suggestions that we are thin when we are fat and the
reason that we are fat is that we are eating 6000 calories a day, our
mind can only do so much with countering natural law. So, we should
not say that positive self talk does not work if we are constantly
working against it by violating the laws that govern us all. If we are
working a program of recovery and pointed in the right direction of
weight loss and food addiction recovery then giving such auto
suggestions to ourselves would be of benefit, just as all the other
tools we use to restructure our life are of benefit. We are suffering
from a case of egoism when we think we alone should be exempt from the
laws that govern everything else. T
he same would go for a person that beats themselves up for not being
able to slam dunk a basketball into a 10 foot hoop when they are only
5 feet tall. There might be someone, someplace that can do it, but it
might be 1 out of many millions. Sometime we get stuck with defining
our self worth with the unattainable and when we do not reach these
lofty goals our ego says we are a failure. This was a problem with me
in my prior life - seeking the unattainable and defining who I was by
the failure or success of reaching unattainable goals I set out for
myself. As I wrote in an earlier post entitled "On Meditation and
Finding Universal Truth, "People are too busy developing what sounds
good to the ego instead of what is good for the body and soul."
Many years ago after squandering much money trying to "buy" happiness
I learned that "one thing only goes so far with giving a person a good
life." True happiness and serenity is composed of many qualities and
not just one. Positive thinking as well as everything else falls into
this category requiring us to live balanced lives. Positive thinking
is important and useful, but it must be coupled with realistic and
attainable goals as well as doing the footwork to reach those goals.
If the goals are never realized with our best effort, (Efforts that
are within our personal and recovery programs limits) then we can
gratefully accept that it was not meant to be and move on without
shame or regrets. We can go too far with positive thinking just like
anything else the addict abuses.
The perennial positive thinker must spend much time and energy to
displace negative thoughts that pop up in their mind and this causes
blindness to the big picture. This unrealistic view could be dangerous
in some cases when caution is thrown to the wind and thoughts of
temperance and caution are viewed as negative thinking when a "can do"
attitude gets overblown with egoism. An excess of positiveness can
also block creativity and problem solving by displacing those thoughts
we view as negative. Moderation in all things as the ancient Chinese
sages said. On pages 122-125 of AA's 12 and 12, it goes into detail
about living right size. If realizing and staying within boundaries
was not an important issue, the 12 and 12 would not mention it. So, no
matter how we program ourselves, we all still have limits as
humans...and especially as recovering addicts.
There are many things required to cultivate a garden and the seeds we
plant are only part of the equation. If we have good seeds but do not
water them they will not sprout and grow. If we have plenty of water
but dead seeds, it yields nothing. If we only have one crop and it
fails due to bugs or a crop disease, we will starve, so it is good to
have diversity. There is a saying in Buddhism that a clay Buddha
cannot get through the water - as it will sink. A wood Buddha cannot
get through a fire - as it will burn. A bronze Buddha cannot get
through a furnace - as it will melt. But, a clay Buddha can get though
a furnace to become stone. A wood Buddha can float on the water and
not sink. A bronze Buddha can get though a fire without melting. In
the same way, we can use positive thinking and affirmations to give us
a diversity of tools to supplement our "crops" in our recovery work
and in our search for a peaceful life. But we must also not forget to
do our physical footwork required in recovery and restructuring our
lives as well as doing our spiritual recovery or 12 step work to make
our garden flourish.
Good luck,
V (male)
V
I hate wikipedia. It stifles free thought.
V:
The only true freethinkers are agnostic freethinkers.
That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for
ourselves.
As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for
the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the
time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken
and useless.
Again, a freethinker is 'free to decide' how they wish to proceed.
Just be careful of falling into the trap of 'mind manacled
freethinker' as many ego based people fall into.
The prejudiced, blind, small minded thinker cannot entertain
freethought as they must block or censor the ideas and concepts before
testing them for truth.
Their ego will not allow it! Such people do not operate on truth, they
operate on ego. There is nothing wrong with having personal opinions,
but when we use these opinions to destroy others, then it does become
very wrong.
The difference between an authority and an authoritarian is this.
An authority speaks from a place of truth and such speaks as an
authority. Whereas an authoritarian rules by fear and not by truth.
For the truth stands on it own and the authoritarian stands on their
EGO.
No, egocentricity is not good for spiritual work and we need to be
open to others ideas and embrace them as nourishment for your growth
and sustenance for life - as no one person is God.
Traditional freethinkers (atheists) do not accept me as one of their
group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to
garner wisdom to live at peace. Traditional freethinkers do not like
anything that comes from religion.
Kind of a misnomer isn't it...I'm a freethinker...but I must block out
everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and
whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation?
Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And
realize the truth of Blake's words that "all deities reside within the
human breast."
If it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have to
look as far as the religion of humanity. But just paying secular
humanism lip service will not do any good.
Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.
I was at a religious discussion where the group was composed of a wide
spectrum of believers and non believers. One atheist said he ran his
life by the golden rule. Another person piped up that the golden rule
came from the bible, which made the atheist wince.
The atheist seemed to take pride in his self sufficiency and did not
like to run his life by anything that came out of the bible. When it
came up that the concept of golden rule might be from an earlier
source than the bible, the atheist was relieved.
This was a good reminder to me to examine where my guiding light
resides? Is it ego based or truth based?
When the guiding light of this atheist was not grounded in the bible
he was happy. But when it came from an area that he did not like, he
was upset.
How can the same material be used to build a palace by one man, yet
only build a hovel for another? By one spiritual practitioner seeing
truth and applying it to live a life at peace. And the other person
only seeing prejudice and problems and doing nothing.
Every religion was made by man and as such every religion is imperfect
as it is run by man. Despite these imperfections, each religion also
has many "perfection's" within it as well.
We can still be open to peace generating tools from any of the
religions and spiritual traditions that are available to us if we are
serious about being at peace. This requires us to run our life by
truth and not by prejudice.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Therefore, whatever you want
men to do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12). Nowadays this verse
is commonly referred to as "The Golden Rule," and is more commonly
quoted as: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Here are some of the earliest sources for this concept of reciprocity
~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause
him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient
Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.
* ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another
whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5,
Zoroastrianism.
* ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."
- Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.
* ~550 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your
countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh,
new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.
* ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find
hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
Now, whether you believe in God or believe in Jesus or are an atheist
or Buddhist does this wisdom not apply to you? This truth is universal
in nature as it is based not on being of a certain religion, other
than that of the religion of humanity.
In this case, you can adopt a peace generating tool and apply it to
your life irrespective of your religious beliefs or lack thereof.
I had to chuckle one time when an atheist argued that the golden rule
is not perfect, so he said he does not follow it. When I questioned
him about what he does follow as well as the state of perfection that
applied to his life, all he could do was reply with profanities and
attacks on me.
Those that can't argue truth...argue personalities.
If we are waiting for perfection when it comes to spiritual studies we
will always be disappointed. Before applying perfection to anything
outside of us, we should examine the perfection within us.
The nature of humans is that of imperfection, so we must always look
towards direction and forget perfection.
I heard a story one time in a Yoga lecture that illustrates this
point. "Range is of the ego - Form is of the soul." The only thing we
need to be concerned with is how is our form when it comes to our
spiritual practice and our life.
Regarding the golden rule? It is more perfect than imperfect, so it is
a most useful tool to live a life at peace by.
And when we combine it with other tools such as universality, natural
law, contrast the greater good with the greater right, etc the
synergistic effect is close to perfection as humans can get with this
subject.
But it takes some thinking and one will not see it without an open
mind. Wisdom for living a life at peace is all around us for the
taking. But many of us get blinded with labels and personal
prejudices.
Whenever we take it upon ourselves to beat down, we are headed in a
direction of destroying peace. We destroy our own peace as well as
others peace. As such, I practice from many religious and spiritual
traditions without problems or prejudices and readily look for such
gifts irrespective of what label they come under - on the contrary I
am most grateful wherever I find them.
If I am not able to use a concept, I leave it alone, but do not spend
my time or energies to beat others down.
Do we like to be beaten down?
I saw some paintings in a Japanese museum that showed a cousin of the
Buddha being of great power and to show his strength he went up to a
baby elephant and pushed it down to the ground. A second painting
showed the Buddha helping this baby elephant back up to his feet and
the Buddha lifted the elephant high up over his head and said, "It is
much better to uplift - than to tear down."
Whether this is a true story or not I do not know. But we can all
benefit from uplifting rather than destroying.
I see this predisposition to destruction many times in responses I
receive from my posts. The critiques offer much in the line of 'no
goods' but they seldom do they offer any substantive tools to finding
peace. Maybe I do not have it '100% right' but I have it 'right
enough' to be able to be at peace if I apply these principles. If I
waited for perfection, I would never act. I use the tools at hand.
Aristotle ~ "It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with
the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not
to seek exactness where only an approximation is possible."
This being able to 'rest satisfied' is something the perfectionists
lack and why they will never be at peace until they stop collecting
concepts and start using the concepts of peace generations.
The atheist I mentioned above demonstrated this with his blanket
dismissal of the golden rule since it is not 100% perfect. He could
offer no substitutes for the golden rule, all he could do was succumb
to personal attacks on me. We can examine our writing to see what
useful tools for finding peace we offer to others it also says a lot
about our own practice of generating inner peace.
When you practice peace promotion with others you will reap inner
peace promotion. When you practice destroying others peace, you will
reap self destruction of inner peace. This is the truth when the
prejudice of ego is stripped away.
Whether atheists, theists or Buddhists, I submit that you all drop the
pretense and lies that you have been grasping onto for entire life and
rebuild your life through a foundation of truth and testing and
regenerate yourselves into a truth based agnostic freethinker.
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
V
V:
"Over Thinkers Syndrome" ...my discussion of that topic from an
earlier post.
(An anonymous Buddhist #1) writes:
"I feel like my head will explode somedays. I keep looking for the
answer, but it only seems to get worse. Can I be guilty of thinking
too much?"
(An anonymous Buddhist #2) writes:
"I am so confused with trying to be a Buddhist. There are all sorts of
ideas and schools. I'm ready to give up as my head hurts with so much
information."
V writes:
Whatever the area of mind abuse - a sick mind that is constantly
busy cannot heal itself without rest. Too much thought is just as bad
as too little. Sometimes we get caught up in regrets of the past or
worries about the future. I discussed these topics in my earlier
posts "Sticky Mind" and "Cultivating the Garden of Your Mind" I will
not discuss those areas of thought abuse here since people complain to
me my posts are already too long. I will only say that whenever I
escape in the past or get lost in fantasies about the future, it
reminds me to practice mindfulness and bring my thoughts back to the
present. Computer and electronic gadget addiction seems to be rampant
in society. All this electronic abuse gives us information and
sensation overload. Instead of spending time relaxing our minds we
constantly use it. What happens when you exercise a muscle too much?
You over train the muscle and it breaks down and cannot recover until
it is given time to rest and rebuild. I discussed this concept of mind
rest and over stimulation in my pervious post 'Voluntary Solitude.'
Besides worrying about the past or the future, many of us are a slave
to addictive and compulsive thinking in other areas. Sometimes these
areas seem beneficial such as acquiring knowledge, but whenever there
is excess the beneficial can turn deadly as well. Another issue is
that of fear and pleasure. It is much more pleasurable being a
'student' than having to go out in the world and apply what we have
studied for so long. We can keep being a student and hiding
indefinitely, but when the time comes to graduate, this is the acid
test of 'putting our money where out mouth is' and put our theories to
the test of practical application. You see a lot of excessive and
extreme thinking in Buddhist circles with "my Buddhism is better than
your Buddhism" type of debate. Egocentricity and pride is not limited
to Buddhism, other religions have the same problems. The other
religions just don't have the habit of such mind numbing debate as the
Buddhist have.
Academic types as well get their pride from such debates and who is
the smartest. Academic smarts mean little to me - I prefer peace
smarts. You see, some persons are 'too smart' to ever be at peace.
They know all the answers and their god is their intellect. Just as
money cannot buy happiness or buy peace neither can academic smarts.
Remember, "a wise mans knows what he says and a fool can only say what
he knows." This is echoed in the 12 step saying, "If you talk the
talk you need to walk the walk." I've know many a philosophers in my
time, most working to be perfectionists and a lot of them prefer
studying, talking and debating but never quite get around to practical
application when it comes to oneself. Is your interest in philosophy
or debating a help or hindrance to your Buddhist practice? It is OK
to study and train the mind, but when the word 'excessive' comes into
play, that is the turning point when our training and studying becomes
a hindrance. Either our actions promote out peace or destroys our
peace - that is the bottom line.
The mark of a real philosopher is one that lives by their own
philosophy. Without application, knowledge is useless. (Well, at least
99.9% useless. Knowledge without application is useful for one thing.
It is useful for cluttering up the mind and providing a distraction to
actually living life - instead of just thinking about it.) Always
inquire how the person applies their 'theories' to living a life at
peace. Everything I write to you about I can tell you in detail how I
apply these tools to living a life at peace. This 'know what you say'
by practical application in ones own life is something that many a
philosopher cannot do. Yes, they know plenty of theories, they can
give lectures on it, but when it comes to practical self-application
to living a balanced and harmonious life many of them are lost.
Thoreau once noted that people inviting him to a dinner would get
their 'pride' from how expensive and fancy a meal that could provide.
He said on the other hand, he got his pride from how simple a meal he
could make. We can get stuck and blinded with perfecting extreme
views. This shows us where our pride is located - our pride is located
in perfectionism. I see this a lot of spiritual practitioners that are
of the "all or none" variety. They get stuck being perfectionists in
the minutia while the rest of their life is out of balance. Where is
my pride located? In short my pride is in living a balanced life
within my comfortable means and at peace. My credo is: to live within
my means, comfortably fit within my space and gratefully accept my
current position in life. I argue with no one. If I have the truth, I
keep it and use it and share it. If you do not want it that is OK, I
make no demands you adopt it. If I am wrong and you have the truth I
adopt it readily and now I have the truth as well. Wherever the truth
is - that is where I go. This is not so just because people have the
cleverest argument to prove the 'truth' of the day. The proof of the
pudding is in the eating - arguing over the unanswerable is where many
Buddhist loses their practice and their peace - they lose it in ego.
Otherwise the spin doctors would be the ultimate gurus of the
spiritual path and developing peace.
Spin doctors? Each religion has them to promote their brand of truth,
so lets not just berate the Buddhists. For example, Vatican II
resulted in some of the greatest changes in the history of the
Catholic Church. A few changes were Catholics were now 'allowed' to
pray with Protestants and attend weddings and funerals in Protestant
churches. I'm sure a lot oft thinking want in to developing these
prejudices, then much more thinking time was needed to reverse them.
Psychologist William James once said, "A great many people believe
they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
What is the truth? The truth is that which promotes peace within and
with all. The truth is that which does not change. The humans beings
mind continually changes - truth does not. I discuss this in my
earlier post "Our Guiding Light...Prejudice or Truth."
Many time pride is equated with happiness. I can be happy for someone
else without developing too much attachment or self pride for having
them in my life. Once I start making comparisons and feel I am better
than someone else for having something in my life better than they
have the battle with pride starts. Meditating on impermanence or non
existence helps me when pride starts getting out of hand. If not, my
happiness start to become material based instead of spiritually based.
Many people like to debate and discuss, but that is as far as they get
and fall short of ever applying much of it in their lives to develop
peace. Such a state is called analysis paralysis. They like spending
their time debating the unanswerable, since it appeals to the ego and
it is much easier to write about the path than actually follow the
path themselves. I had to become practice based instead of ego based
to find any success. My earlier post entitled "Finding Universal
Truth" goes into more detail on this subject. Excesses of all sorts
can blind us from actually living life in a mindful and present way.
Here is a list of the benefits we derive from addictive habits. See is
any apply to you and what benefit you get from excessive thought and
debate.
The 7 benefits we derive from our addictions. (This list is
abbreviated version.)
1) Pain Reliever
Addictions help distract us from our pain.
2 Pressure Relief
We use addictions to help blow off stream from stressed and unbalanced
life we live though overextending ourselves to the point of breaking
by living a lifestyle of "jugglers syndrome" and by having too many
irons in the fire.
3) Time Filler
The devil finds work for idle hands - Thoreau. Many time I have heard
an addict say they went to their addiction out of boredom cause they
had nothing else to do to pass time.
4) Escape Vehicle
Addictions make great escape vehicles to distract us from our problems
- most of what we have created for ourselves by living unbalanced
lives. I try and catch myself when I practice this escapism and work
to bring my thoughts back to the present. Whenever the fantasy starts
I check to see what I am escaping from? Why do I fixate on something
else instead of where I'm at?
5) Pleasure Vehicle
As sensation addicts we like the sensation we get when we participate
in our addiction. It feels good to receive the brain chemicals or high
I get when I participate in my drug of choice. In short, if it feels
good I over do it and keep doing it until it turns into pain - then
and only then I know I need to stop.
6) Mystical or Religious Experience
Yes, our addiction is our religion. All our addictions have pleasure
aspects within them and we get rewards for participating in them in
the form of euphoric experiences. Euphoric experience can be related
to the spiritual as well. The definition of a religious mystic is one
that partakes in an altered state of conciseness with God / god or the
spiritual realm. Our addictions also give us this altered state of
consciousness and feeling of euphoria. So, we can say that our drugs
are our gods and our addiction is our religion. There is a reasoning
to our madness - it is not just pure madness as most addicts think.
7) Death Sentence
Finally, if all else fails - addictions are great killers and
destroyers of life. We hate the life we have created for ourselves and
see no other way out.
Wang Ming writes:
"Too much knowledge leads to overactivity; better to calm the mind.
The more you consider, the greater the loss. Better to unify the mind.
Excessive thinking weakens the will. The more you know, the more your
mind is confused. A confused mind leads to vexation..."
Wang Ming's feelings are mine as well. If you don't agree, then follow
your path of excessive thinking, discussion and never ending debate of
the unanswerable and see where that leads you? If it does not lead to
a place of peace, then increase it and keep increasing it until you
try the oopisite direction of less thinking. You do not have to
please, me - you only have to please yourself. Remember, even though
water and air are life sustaining they are also life destroying when
in excess. This is the foundation of voluntary simplicity - seeking
the golden mean of balance as the Buddha found by following the middle
path. If you are still confused, you can always find the answer to a
question by looking deep inside yourself and ask if the person, place,
activity or thing promotes your peace or destroys it? And if you have
no insight to what is inner peace - then you might try some relaxation
of the brain and practicing mindfulness as a first step to finding it.
My earlier post "Putting Peace First" goes into detail with this
subject of peace awareness.
Here is a story about the mind and the senses.
"A crocodile, bird, dog, fox, monkey and snake were tied together with
a rope and then let them go. Six creatures of very different natures.
Each animal will try tog go back to its own lair by its own method.
The snake will seek a covering of grass, the crocodile will seek
water, the bird will want to fly in the air, the dog will seek a
village, the fox the solitude ledge and the monkey will seek the trees
of a forest. That the animals are connected by one rope, the strongest
at any one time will drag the rest Man is tempted in different ways by
the desires of his 6 senses; eyes, ears, nose, touch, tongue and mind
and is controlled by the predominate desire. If the creatures are all
tied to a post they will try to get free until they are tired out and
then will lie down by the spot. Just like this if people will train
and control the mind there will no further trouble from the other 5
senses. Once the mind is under control peace can be found."
We can get so bombarded with facts and theories that 24 hours in a day
would not be enough to act on all of them anyway. So due to over
complicating things people just give up. When we have an engine that
is too complex and has 1000 working parts and 1 part goes bad...the
whole engine shuts down and 1 thing kills the other 999. So it goes
with too many demands we place on ourselves for happiness and
contentment...1 thing kills the other 999. Voluntary simplicity or
simple living helped me build a less complex engine with fewer parts
to break down. Instead of 1000 parts, I now have only a handful of
parts to manage. This simplicity applies with my life as well as my
spiritual practices. The antidote to over thinking is not 'no'
thinking, but just simplified, natural, relaxed and peaceful
thinking. Let thought serve you and not you be a slave to thought.
Excessive thought can distract us from 'right' thought as well. My
main focus of my Buddhist practice is concentrated on the 3 pillars of
Buddhism that are common to all schools of Buddhist practice: I've
settled on the essence of Buddhism and that is what I work on and find
much peace with this type of simplified practice.
3 Pillars of Buddhism
1- Practicing mindfulness and meditation to develop peace and self
awareness of our own true nature.
2- Accepting the liberating wisdom of impermanence and practicing non-
clinging and a lessening of craving and desires.
3- The development of compassion for others.
Buddhists are not required to believe or not believe in God, so anyone
can make use of this philosophy irrespective of their religious
beliefs or lack thereof. In addition to the 3 pillars, we can use the
eightfold path to guide us. Within the 3 pillars and the eightfold
path are a lifetime of practice. No need to get lost in perpetual
debate and spend you precious time in idle talk that only serves to
massage one ego. Plenty of work to do right here, right now, unless we
prefer to keep our minds distracted through our perpetual complexities
we are so addicted to. We do need to give some thought of the 'right'
way to live as the eightfold path tells us, so we should never try and
be devoid of thought in our lives, but instead look for a balance and
let thought serve us for once. My previous post "Paying Homage to
Charles Ponzi" goes into the topic of 'mental blindness' in more
detail.
The Eightfold Path
1. Right View
2. Right Intention
3. Right Speech
4. Right Action
5. Right Livelihood
6. Right Effort
7. Right Mindfulness
8. Right Concentration
The anonymous Buddhist #1 that was quoted at the beginning touched on
the answer in his statement, "I keep looking for the answer, but it
only seems to get worse." This is an important lesson. If one
direction does not work, try the opposite direction. In this case, try
looking less. We can apply this 'law of opposites' to most of life's
questions. And when coupled with putting our inner peace first as our
guide, we will not be so bewildered as to what are the right and wrong
ways to live. In the end peace will stem from balance in all areas of
practice. The Buddha sets the example with this topic of 'idle talk'
or the endless debate of the unanswerable with the story of the arrow.
If you are not familiar with it, check it out and it might help you
finally come to a place of satisfaction in your life.
Until you can come to 'satisfaction' with theories and concepts you
can never be at peace. You will be in the category of concept
collector and stuck in a place of analysis paralysis and always be
looking and never finding. Others just chuck it all as 'too complex'
and give up as Buddhist #2 wrote. How do I answer #2's despair?
Simplicity, Simplicity, Simplicity as Thoreau wrote. The turning point
is the day you stop looking and collecting and start actually
practicing these concepts of spiritual living so you may live a life
at peace. When you stop asking questions and can start giving answers
as to how you live a life at peace...you are there.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree
of precision which the nature of the subject admits and not to seek
exactness where only an approximation is possible." Aristotle
sirb...@hotmail.com
> "Paul Ilechko" <pilec...@patmedia.net> wrote in message
>
> news:58qiv0F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > tooly wrote:
> >> "Wordsmith" <wordsm...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
that's cuz you're a capitalistic twirp who feels humiliated by
anything that's open source and because you miss the gerontocratic
authoritarianism of the Author in this age of p2p.
sirb...@hotmail.com
what's the profile of the wikipedia police? scriptbots going over
hourly?
Jumbo
> Wikipedia is smothering individuality, remolding us into
> > something like the Borg. It is a kind of tyranny as I see it.
>
> that's cuz you're a capitalistic twirp who feels humiliated by
> anything that's open source
Maybe s/he is. Open source is what everything is. But then there's the
other kind of capitalistic twirp who thinks s/he's not a capitalistic
twirp who loves new trends cos s/he's a slave to fashion (capitalist
means of fake desire generation) and promotes open source for as long
as it's fashionable.
> and because you miss the gerontocratic
> authoritarianism of the Author in this age of p2p.
yada indeed.
sirb...@hotmail.com
> On Apr 20, 2:39 pm, sirbl...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Wikipedia is smothering individuality, remolding us into
> > > something like the Borg. It is a kind of tyranny as I see it.
>
> > that's cuz you're a capitalistic twirp who feels humiliated by
> > anything that's open source
>
> Maybe s/he is. Open source is what everything is. But then there's the
> other kind of capitalistic twirp who thinks s/he's not a capitalistic
> twirp who loves new trends cos s/he's a slave to fashion (capitalist
> means of fake desire generation) and promotes open source for as long
> as it's fashionable.
that depends on whether or not at that precise instant in time, space
and the seventh continuum i'm jerking off at pizza hut.
sirb...@hotmail.com
someone who just a few days ago added bits n pieces to wikipedia here
n there and within hours the poor chap had his ip blocked. really, is
there a volunteer bunch of wikipedia minutemen out there protecting
it, a bit like the monitors we had in school that didnt allow anal sex
in the chemistry room? come on thats pathetic. or have we made out of
the average citizen a 'virtuous' moral being of pro-information brave
new world geekdom? correct over fair tsunamis of humanists?
David Oberman
>that depends on whether or not at that precise instant in time, space
>and the seventh continuum i'm jerking off at pizza hut.
"Don't be vulgar, Jean. Let us be crooked, but never common."
____
Fifteen minutes of fugal writing must be
considered alien to any sonata scheme.
-- John Burk
sirb...@hotmail.com
sirb...@hotmail.com
sirb...@hotmail.com
sirb...@hotmail.com
David Oberman
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On Apr 18, 4:57 pm, "Dr.BarryWorthington" <s...@abertay.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 17 Apr, 20:49, Jumbo <c...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
> > > But who would it bother?
>
> > Me. I'm daft enough to believe that one of the purposes of the
> > internet is to spread knowledge and promote learning.
>
> Well, I guess you said "ONE of the purposes", so ... we'll allow it.
> (I defend this adoption of a slightly magisterial tone by pointing out
> I'm addressing someone who prefixes their web-name "Dr.")
And why not?
>
> > It enables
> > people to educate themselves at very little cost to themselves
>
> Yes.
>
> > (assuming that their local library or school has the necessary
> > facilities). That's why I spend some of my free time updating and
> > contributing to some of the entries.
> > >On my course, we're told not to use Wikipedia
> > > cos it's unreliable. So ...
>
> > You are told that because you should not use it as your only source of
> > information. That is a lazy way to research.
>
> You're right, dr. I phrased it very badly. I should have said "we're
> told not to *cite* Wikipedia as a reference cos it's unreliable".
> You're also quite right, when I'm stuck I sometimes go to google or
> Wikipedia and work from there to better places.
>
> > As someone has pointed
> > out elsewhere on this thread, an encyclopaedia is meant to be used as
> > a starting point.
>
> Here I'd quibble. Some (better) encyclopedias can be used as more than
> just starting points. If someone is writing a dissertation on, say, As
> You Like It and wants some basic information on the bush-signs outside
> early modern English wine-shops, and they go to a GOOD encyclopedia,
> they might find enough in one stop for their purposes in that
> instance.
Yes, but a serious scholar in that field would surely go to Eric
Partridge first. People who research at that level will only cite
encyclopaedias for a special reason (For example, in the past, I have
cited the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia.)
>It's harsh to call that lazy if it represents the checking
> of a minor detail in a 15000 word essay.
An essay or a dissertation? An undergraduate might get away with it,
but a postgraduate ought to have a good reason...
> If they went to Wikipedia,
> given the way its compiled, they would have to do extra checking to
> corroborate basic facts.
Quite. That's because of idiots like the original poster.
>
> ...many wikipedia articles contain references and
>
> > further links.
>
> Yes, true. Good point.
>
> > As to unreliability, well that is something you will learn in life.
>
> Gee, Dr, I'm not 18. I know I said I was on a course, but there are
> many kinds of courses and horses out there.
Sorry, Jumbo, but that seems to be the average age of some of the
posters in this thread......
Regards,
Dr. Barry Worthington
> > All information has to be treated with caution...some more than
> > others.
>
> > Dr.BarryWorthington- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jumbo
wrote:
> On 20 Apr, 13:05, Jumbo <c...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
pointing out
> > I'm addressing someone who prefixes their web-name "Dr.")
>
> And why not?
Well, I didn't say you "shouldn't" do it.
>> Some (better) encyclopedias can be used as more than
> > just starting points. If someone is writing a dissertation on, say, As
> > You Like It and wants some basic information on the bush-signs outside
> > early modern English wine-shops, and they go to a GOOD encyclopedia,
> > they might find enough in one stop for their purposes in that
> > instance.
>
> Yes, but a serious scholar in that field would surely go to Eric
> Partridge first.
A serious scholar might go to Partridge first, but if they didn't I
wouldn't decide they weren't a "serious" scholar. AFAIC, serious
scholars can work in all sorts of ways.
> People who research at that level will only cite
> encyclopaedias for a special reason (For example, in the past, I have
> cited the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia.)
Again, I wouldn't like to be quite so prescriptive. People who
research at "that level" might choose to cite an encyclopedia because
they looked there and found what they needed for their purposes. How
that procedure is judged should depend on the context.
> >It's harsh to call that lazy if it represents the checking
>
> > of a minor detail in a 15000 word essay.
>
> An essay or a dissertation?
AFAIA, in British English "essay" can be used as a synoynm for
"dissertation", especially when an author wishes to avoid repetition
and the reference is of local subsequentiality, absence of ambiguity
permitting.
> An undergraduate might get away with it,
> but a postgraduate ought to have a good reason...
"Good" reason? You mean, they used an encyclopedia and it provided
them with basic information adequate for their purposes?
>
> > If they went to Wikipedia,
> > given the way its compiled, they would have to do extra checking to
> > corroborate basic facts.
>
> Quite. That's because of idiots like the original poster.
Granted the OP is an idiot (on the abundant evidence of his/her posts
on various subjects), I woudn't agree that all would-be saboteurs and
tamperers of/with things like Wikipedia are idiots. They too may have
their "special" reasons.
sirb...@hotmail.com
you twirps, there are no facts for there is nothing but splendour.
Jumbo
> you twirps, there are no facts for there is nothing but splendour.
Make that 17, dr.
sirb...@hotmail.com
were you the jerk who corrected a wikipedia entry that said zooey
deschanel was currently in love with sir blob.
Anim8rFSK
Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
Indeed. For instance, some of the boys books series pages, like Tom
Swift and the Hardy boys, have been compromised by a scheme that goes
somewhat like this. Evil Person (hereafter referred to as EP) does a
full rewrite of the page, to EP's own agenda. Then, under various
screen names, EP starts a war, making and unmaking small changes, until
it gets the attention of the moderators, who do a restore to the last
full rewrite, and lock the page. Voila! EP's got his version locked in
place and nobody can fix it.
Dr. Barry Worthington
> On 22 avr, 18:19, Jumbo <c...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
The artificial sweetener?
Dr. Barry Worthington