Beyond the human condition
Just Walter
forgive me if I am repeating what has already been said or
if I am a little remiss in addressing the current format.
The volumes of books that bear witness to our perceptions
are simply too many for any one individual to fully
encompass what we, as humans, are all about...We pick and
choose what we feel is necessary to answer the variety of
questions that we ask of "ourselves" each day...Our
perceptions become individual, on a whole, yet pieces are
shared and confirmed with those who have arrived at similar
understandings...
Perhaps it would be safe to arrive at a conclusion that
although we are unique individuals, we have the capacity to
share parts of who we are...The sharing and exchange process
is part of the human condition...
So with the above in mind, which vehicle is best prepared to
channel this information that each individual has
obtained?...The scientific vehicle?...One with fact and
visual proofs to ensure our perceptions are factual...The
Philosophical vehicle?...One with deep thought and
perceptions that require the individual to go beyond their
senses...The atheist vehicle?...One that demands the burden
of proof remains on the individual with the perception, yet
no clear format of proofs is ever defined...The theist
vehicle?...Where proof rests on faith, and faith is entirely
individual...The cause and effect vehicle?...Where we
examine the condition after the fact...
Such complexities, so many areas to accomodate in sharing
the individual experience...we are truly an amazing
species...
The one vehicle that I have examined for many years and
continues to go beyond the human condition and offers hope
that as a species we have one means that will always produce
positive results...The vehicle of love...Now before one
rolls their eyes and makes a conclusion based on past
experiences...think about it...If any of the above vehicles
were approached in a loving way, would we not at the very
least obtain a clear perspective towards the others
views?...The exchange process of sharing information is
optimum when there is a sincere effort placed towards
love...Perhaps love is the very essence of why we have
religion and gatherings of people who have discovered that
this vehicle offers optimum results...Surely our species as
a whole can identify with this vehicle, so why do we not use
it to share that which we hold as our perceptions...Does
this mean that we are to compromise our perceptions?...No,
simply use the vehicle as a relible means towards expression
of perceptions...
As proof I submit myself...I have two boys and a wife I love
dearly...Many events have occured where I examine how I
address those I love and in turn use this vehicle when
communicating...If another chooses to push my buttons, I am
tempted to react in a most un-loving way...I wait and think
about how I would address someone I love, then proceed with
a response that encourages optimum communication...There are
many times when I fail to use this vehicle of love and it
has proven to be most in-effective...The point (if there is
but one to be made) is that love has proven to be an
effective vehicle towards communication...A foundation of
sorts that few can argue its effectiveness in a general
sense...So why do we not rise above the human condition and
use it?...
Just Walter
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Walter Fisher
You talk a great deal about "love".
My dictionary lists 16 definitions for the word "love".
Human beings cannot communicate unless they agree on the meaning of words
they use.
How would you define your version of "love"?
--
Walter
Dum vivimus, vivamus (Horace)
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
----
"Just Walter" <catalyst...@asia.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0615c12f...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
Just Walter
I am not sure how to respond to other posts yet so please
forgive me if this is not the correct format.
I concur that there are many things that inspire us, and
this is good...The point is that when we look at the
structure of love as a vehicle, we find a method to reach
beyond the everyday firewalls we have built in our survival
instincts...I am not talking about the glassy eyed "Life is
a flower", kind of approach...but at the interaction that
occurs when we allow ourselves to be less judgemental,
tolerant of anothers inability to grasp a concept, patient
with someone who may have reason to be abrupt or even
vulgar, recognizing that even if the other has a complete
opposite view or stance, we can place our reactive emotions
aside and proceed in a way that lends itself to effective
communication...As the other Walter pointed out there are a
variety of types of love, and I agree...This structure of
different types of love is a firm foundation to proceed in
effective communications...
We look at someone who is completely logical and accept
their concept of logic...It is within our grasp to
comprehend that this type of individual deals with logic as
their foundation for communication...I am suggesting that
love as a structure can surpass all other structures of
communication by encompassing them and simply laying a
foundation for approach and receptiveness...In a sense a
love structure is more constant and lends itself to a
foundation of creativity, instead of one where sparks are
flying...It is a structure that we already selectively do...
Perhaps if we were to dissect the structure and create a
format of communication based on some basic principles, we
may find the process of joining to be one that has never
been experienced before...One where an individual can freely
share their depth and perceptions without fear or
repercussions...
I'll have to refine this and try posting again...
Thanks for your input...
Edgar Svendsen
I adore working with people I love, the feeling of comaraderie, the
joy of sharing work and goals with them is one of life's joys.
But, I don't get more done then when I'm working with people I just
tolerate. I think I'm more creative when there are a few sparks
flying. It's hard to challenge someone you love, sometime I need to
be challenged.
If your goal is to feel good about the communication that's one thing.
If you goal is to use communication to facillitate new knowledge
that's another thing.
Just Walter
"Very interesting, but what does it mean?"
Although I recognize that the point being made needs some
refinement, I am suggesting that the structure of love as a
vehicle produces an optimum effect towards two or more being
receptive...As our proofs, we examine how we handle
objections or differences with someone that we love...If we
can rise above our knee jerk responses in dealing with
someone we do not know, and address what they have to say in
a love structure, we find that communication flows more
freely as we are able to express ourselves without the need
to resort to our instinctual defenses...
"My dictionary lists 16 definitions for the word "love"."
This goes to my point of how love can encompass the
complexity of our species...Indeed we find that the love
structure has a universal recognition, as we are able to
grasp and marry our own experiences with this structure...
"Human beings cannot communicate unless they agree on the
meaning of words they use."
Effectively, no...Yet human beings do communicate with words
which they feel have specific meaning and find that a
conflict arises when there are different perceptions...What
better way for two or more to effectively address this
conflict?...
"How would you define your version of "love"?"
Well you mentioned the dictionary as a source to review what
the definition of love is, and it is a start...Personally I
find that I can recognize love quite easily in the actions
or agressiveness of another...I see a passionate love when
someone goes to extremes...I see a flowing love when someone
communicates with patience and respect of anothers
perceptions...I see a tough love when someone is determined
to rise above their desire to coddle another for they
perceive the others need above their own emotions...I see a
kindness type of love where one is gently interacting with
no personal desires...Many facets to the structure of
love...
Once again the above are but a few examples, yet I believe
with some effort and time, we could collectively examine
love and arrive at a foundation for communication that lends
itself to optimum effectiveness...
The other point I am eluding to is that the love structure
is not limited to ones perceptions...Philosophical, logical,
atheist, theist, emotional, factual, all human conditions
can be encompassed with this vehicle...As a structure we
simply examine if it has merrit to be utilized as the most
effective communication tool...
Walter Fisher
Sometimes I wonder if "Love" is not a rather overused/abused concept. There
is erotic love, motherly love, brotherly love, generic love, abstract love
such as the Greeks described it in agape, etc., etc.
Is there a common denominator?
I like to define love as "the total acceptance of another human being,
without any desire to change him/her" This would certainly include motherly
love, agape and maybe all other forms of love except erotic love (when we
use love as a misnomer for sex)).
Maybe we should be more specific when we talk about love? What do you think?
An evasive subject!
Kind regards
--
Walter
Dum vivimus, vivamus (Horace)
The Happy Iconoclast: www.rationality.net
----
"Just Walter" <catalyst...@asia.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:0e2be268...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
Just Walter
The subject of love is indeed evasive, yet the structure of
it can be fully examined in each of the forms you have
expressed...As an example, your response is in a loving
format that allows another to openly communicate their
message...It encourages another to respond and to further
develop or express the idea or thoughts they originated
with...I believe you do this automatically as your
experience has shown that when you utilize this structure,
you obtain optimum results...
Perhaps what is needed is to take a pro-active approach
towards examining all structures of love and formulate a
basis that can be placed forward as the multitudes gather on
the net and express their perceptions...
I know I have yet to place forward a foundation, yet I will
work on this and perhaps enter it as another post...It may
take a little while, yet I would really appreciate your
views when I have my first draft to post...
Thanks for welcoming me on my first post by
responding...Indeed you have encouraged me to think this
through and formulate something more effective towards what
I view as the ultimate vehicle for communication...
Lucy
First let me say that I agree with "the flavour" of your thinking.
Argument and discussion is at the heart of a philosophy group. Those who
interact with tolerance and respect for one another (dare I say lovingly?)
communicate more effectively. Genuine dialogue occurs. People learn from one
another, change and grow. Where the initial stance of a respondent is a knee
jerk then there can be an increasing tendency to fault find, nit pick and
"broaden" a discussion to the point where it becomes an unfocussed flame
session.
I am interested in your term "structure of love " which pops up elsewhere in
this thread.
I am not sure what we can mean by the structure of love.
At the end of the day can we take this line of thought beyond the notion
that loving people are easier to get along with than people who are hateful,
aggressive, querulous, cantankerous, embittered, hostile ...... etc?
Lucy
"Just Walter" <catalyst...@asia.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:20c2f050...@usw-ex0108-061.remarq.com...
nada
Drop some acid or something Lucy. BTW there ain’t no structures to
love. That’s meaningless, see? check Nietzsche re 'tolerance'
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man."
"It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid."
-- George Bernard Shaw
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Just Walter
Thank you for your response...I am going to try to refine
the idea of the structure of love and repost...We have a
great many logical and emotional definitions to examine, yet
I believe it holds the foundation for effective
communication...
I can relate to your point about the bantering that occurs
when we relate to knee jerk reactions, and even the fun of
playing with words in debate...Yet it would appear that
there exists a universal appeal to those who choose to
express and receive perceptions in a loving way...I know
that when we use the word love, it conjures up a traditional
emotional structure, however I believe there exists a
logical structure as well...
Thanks again for your response...It supports that there is
room for this type of discussion within this forum...
Lucy
love. That's meaningless, see? check Nietzsche re 'tolerance'
Your point is unclear.
Lucy
"nada" <nada_v...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:8k7klc$fnl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
heron stone
hi just
?what's with your name
?is it "merely" walter
?is it "honest" walter
?is it both
?is it neither
?or is it something else entirely
just curious
yours in Earth,
heron
--
Ecstatic wonder Heron Stone
is our natural state. mailto:her...@earthlink.net
Don't settle for anything less. http://home.earthlink.net/~herons/
nada
To: nada_v...@altavista.net (nada)
From: chi...@webtv.net (Marvinocnj)
Subject: Re: Beyond the human condition
CC:
Hi; A few weeks back through this webtv I did inquire if anyone knew
what was the circumstances that identified mankind to be called
"human".
I feel it's become very much a "distorted lable". In the world of
acdemic traditional subjective facts has a fixed impression. But in a
creative less idealistic fixed fact "human" can be replaced for a
more
healthy frame of referrence within those who truely understand what
"mutual respect conversation"means to them. For this open forum
it's a
waste of time with so many mischievous hecklers. RE:Marvin,N.J.
..
chimmeocnj
In article <8k7klc$fnl$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Chad
est.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Just Walter,
>
>While I agree that a consequence of love may be to enhance communication,
>reduce petty arguments and make way for real discussion (or better choices
>of action), I am going to play the role of 'Devil's advocate' here, in order
>to facilitate the development of your love idea.
>
>First of all, I propose that love merely represents the consequences of
>co-operative game-theoretic strategies by individuals - in certain
>situations, we have evolved to become 'completely co-operative', in order to
>maximise our survival potential; this is love.
>
>Secondly, while love of the sort you mention (love that facilitates
>communication between general individuals) does, in many cases, facilitate
>exchange through trust, reciprocity etc (instead of the use of 'threat', and
>in the absenseand impractibility of formal contract), this love is not
>'complete' love, in the sense that it is not unlimited, and is conditional
>on the maintenance of 'loving action' by others in the process of exchange.
>In effect, as a moral theory, it does not require 'doer relativity', and is
>thus not the sort of constraint-based deontological theory that you propose.
>The main other option is one in which all loving actions are considered
>equal, and not dependent on any calculations of outcome. In this case, how
>would you deal with a situation where, to engage in communication with one
>person lovingly, you would have to go against the wishes of another person,
>to whome that action of yours would be unloving? Do you work out which
>person 'deserves' the most loving communication based upon the outcome of
>communication with him/her? For example, Bertrand Williams considered an
>example where person A had to shoot oneof persons B-K in order that the rest
>survive. Now who does he decide to communicate with lovingly? Does he
>decide to communicate with the 9 people who each want to live, or does he
>communicate lovingly with the one person who does not want to die? Clearly,
>he decides to shoot one of the people and let the rest go, and as a rational
>person with a given concept of morality, he does this straight away without
>much thought at all...in effect, it is a knee-jerk response tothe situation.
>So, as a knee-jerk response to the situation, if he considers the outcome of
>actions (rather than just considering the intrinsic value of loving
>actions), he chooses communication with the 9 instead of with the 1 (who
>does not exist until he is shot), and 'love' loses it's meaning. If, as a
>different knee-jerk response, and perhaps the one I should have mentioned
>first, since it is the action that you imply by a universal respect of love,
>he does not consider the outcome of his action (only the loving action
>itself), he could not possibly choose between the hypethetical 9 and 1,
>given that none of them are willing to sacrifice themselves for the others.
Maybe I miss the point, and sorry if I do, but surely the moral thing to
do would be to communicate with the person he is going to shoot,
regardless of any outcome. He should tell them why they're for the chop,
and apologise. This would atleast let the person die knowing why. The
rest of the group are all going to live, so they don't need any loving
communication. I cannot understand why the rational thing to do is
simply to shoot one as a knee-jerk response. If he loved all of them, he
would have to use a different criteria for choosing which one to shoot.
He could pick out the eldest for example.
>
>You may say that if all of the 10 people follow the love structure, they
>will all be capable of communicating with each other such that they reach
>the conclusion that 'one of us has to go'. However, there is a problem with
>this in that it requires the 10 agents to consider the outcome of their
>actions when deciding who (the HYPOTHETICAL 9 or 1) gets the 'unloving'
>communication of being shot as a knee-jerk moral reaction. And if they have
>to consider the consequences of their action, there is a contradition, since
>it was assumed that consequences are not considered - all actions,
>communications are necessarily taken in a loving structure. Thus, they all
>die.
>
If all 10 people follow the love structure, then surely they will all
have an urge to sacrifice themselves for the good of the rest. If the
alternative is that they all get shot, the one who has the most courage
will prevail as the one to die.
--
Chad
jan sand
thing is to be sincerely stupid.
Jan Sand
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:25:24 GMT, nada <nada_v...@altavista.net>
Scram
Shakespeare...Touchstone could make the most cutting observations
and get away with it because he was a "fool." Why do I think
that you're well aware of this already?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
jan sand
interpreted.
Are you accusing me of making cutting observations?
Jan Sand
nada
jan...@mindspring.com (jan sand) wrote:
> As much as I am fond of GBS, it seems to me that the most dangerous
> thing is to be sincerely stupid.
>
> Jan Sand
>
(Pygmalion?) as I don’t read fiction so called (what isn’t is another
matter) – I came across those 2 quotes (out of context) somewhere on
the Web.
I don’t see anything amiss with "It is dangerous to be sincere unless
you are also stupid." AFAIK it’s true.
For it to read so, one merely assumes the obvious, that most men are
stupid. Conformist’s manner of being and ‘seeing’ being a norm
predictably all manner of dishonesty, insanity, banality etc. passes
for honesty, sanity, desideratum… Infant or idiot that hasn’t learned
to lie cannot be said to be honest. Stupid man learns to lie alright
but congenital idiocy doesn’t equip him for rational inventory of
bullshit he tells himself and other i.e. stupid man is incapable of
honesty. He just can’t tell forest for the trees.
And no amount of EDukasion will veer his attention from compulsively
zeroing on that ‘finger’ either.
(A Buddhist nun named Wujincang said to the sixth Zen Patriarch, Hui
Neng:
"I'd like you to explain a passage in the Nirvana Sutra for me." To
which Hui Neng replied,
"I'm sorry, but I can't read. You go ahead and read it to me, and then
I'll explain it."
"If you can't even read the words, how can you understand the
principles behind them?" asked the nun.
Hui Neng responded, "The truth is independent of language. Language is
like my finger.
I can point out the moon with it, but it is not the moon. And you don't
need to point at the moon to see it.")
I just picked this at random from couple sites because
www.psychcrawler.com (psychology search engine) SUCKS and my den is
beyond mess (finding a book here is a matter of luck and I don’t
count on that).
http://www.piaget.org/
According to Piaget, all development emerges from action; that is to
say, individuals construct and reconstruct their knowledge of the world
as a result of interactions with the environment. Based on his
observations of children's application of rules when playing, Piaget
determined that morality, too, can be considered a developmental
process. For example, Ben, a ten year old studied by Piaget, provided
the following critique of a rule made-up by a child playing
marbles: "it isn't a rule! It's a wrong rule because it's outside of
the rules. A fair rule is one that is in the game". Ben believed in the
absolute and intrinsic truth of the rules, characteristic of early
moral reasoning. In contrast, Vua, aged thirteen, illustrates an
understanding of the reasoning behind the application of rules,
characteristic of later moral thinking. When asked to consider the
fairness of a made-up rule compared to a traditional rule, Vua
replied "It is just as fair because the marbles are far apart"(making
the game equally difficult).
In addition to examining children's understanding of rules about games,
Piaget interviewed children regarding acts such as stealing and lying.
When asked what a lie is, younger children consistently answered that
they are "naughty words". When asked why they should not lie, younger
children could rarely explain beyond the forbidden nature of the
act: "because it is a naughty word". However, older children were able
to explain "because it isn't right", and "it wasn't true". Even older
children indicated an awareness of intention as relevant to the meaning
of an act: "A lie is when you deceive someone else. To make a mistake
is when you make a mistake". From his observations, Piaget concluded
that children begin in a "heteronomous" stage of moral reasoning,
characterized by a strict adherence to rules and duties, and obedience
to authority.
This heteronomy results from two factors. The first factor is the young
child's cognitive structure. According to Piaget, the thinking of young
children is characterized by egocentrism. That is to say that young
children are unable to simultaneously take into account their own view
of things with the perspective of someone else. This egocentrism leads
children to project their own thoughts and wishes onto others. It is
also associated with the uni-directional view of rules and power
associated with heteronomous moral thought, and various forms of "moral
realism." Moral realism is associated with "objective responsibility",
which is valuing the letter of the law above the purpose of the law.
This is why young children are more concerned about the outcomes of
actions rather than the intentions of the person doing the act. Moral
realism is also associated with the young child's belief in "immanent
justice." This is the expectation that punishments automatically follow
acts of wrong-doing. One of the most famous cases of such childhood
thinking was that of the young boy who believed that his hitting a
power pole with his baseball bat caused a major power blackout in the
New York city area.
The second major contributor to heteronomous moral thinking in young
children, is their relative social relationship with adults. In the
natural authority relationship between adults and children, power is
handed down from above. The relative powerlessness of young children,
coupled with childhood egocentrism feeds into a heteronomous moral
orientation.
http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
Lawrence Kohlberg is a moral philosopher and student of child
development. He is director of Harvard's Center for Moral Education.
His special area of interest is the moral development of children - how
they develop a sense of right, wrong, and justice. Kohlberg observed
that growing children advance through definite stages of moral
development in a manner similar to their progression through Piaget's
well-known stages of cognitive development. His observations and
testing of children and adults, led him to theorize that human beings
progress consecutively from one stage to the next in an invariant
sequence, not skipping any stage or going back to any previous stage.
These are stages of thought processing, implying qualitatively
different modes of thinking and of problem solving at each stage.
These conclusions have been verified in cross-cultural studies done in
Turkey, Taiwan, Yucatan, Honduras, India, United States, Canada,
Britain, and Israel.
An outline of these developmental stages follows:
KOHLBERG'S STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT
A. PREMORAL OR PRECONVENTIONAL STAGES: Behavior motivated by
anticipation of pleasure or pain.
STAGE 1: PUNISHMENT AND OBEDIENCE:
Avoidance of physical punishment and deference to power. Punishment is
an automatic response of physical retaliation. The immediate physical
consequences of an action determine its goodness or badness. The
atrocities carried out by soldiers during the holocaust who were
simply "carrying out orders" under threat of punishment, illustrate
that adults as well as children may function at stage one level.
STAGE 2: INSTRUMENTAL EXCHANGE:
Marketplace exchange of favors or blows. "You scratch my back, I'll
scratch yours." Justice is: "Do unto others as they do unto you."
Individual does what is necessary, makes concessions only as necessary
to satisfy his own needs. Right action consists of what instrumentally
satisfies one's own needs. Vengeance is considered a moral duty. People
are valued in terms of their utility.
B. CONVENTIONAL MORALITY: Acceptance of the rules and standards of
one's group.
STAGE 3: INTERPERSONAL CONFORMITY:
Right is conformity to the behavioral expectations of one's society or
peers. Individual acts to gain approval of others. Good behavior is
that which pleases or helps others within the group. "Everybody is
doing it." One earns approval by being conventionally "respectable"
and "nice." Sin is a breach of the expectations of the social order.
Retribution, however, at this stage is collective. Individual vengeance
is not allowed. Forgiveness is preferable to revenge. Punishment is
mainly for deterrence. Failure to punish is "unfair." "If he can get
away with it, why can't I?"
STAGE 4: LAW AND ORDER:
Respect for rules, laws and properly constituted authority. Defense of
the given social and institutional order for it's own sake.
Responsibility toward the welfare of others in the society. "Justice"
normally refers to criminal or forensic justice. Justice demands that
the wrongdoer be punished, that he "pay his debt to society," and that
law abiders be rewarded. "A good day's pay for a good day's work."
Injustice is failing to reward work or punish demerit. Right behavior
consists of maintaining the social order for its own sake. Authority
figures are seldom questioned. "He must be right. He's the Pope (or the
President, or the Judge, or God)." Consistency and precedent must be
maintained.
---------------------------------
I can hack the rest coz that’s where it de facto stops.
Such is moral imbecility - F E Katz elaborated upon it in
Ordinary People and Extraordinary Evil : A Report on the Beguilings of
Evil
State Univ of New York Pr 1993; ISBN: 0791414418
“The book grew out of my being both a Holocaust survivor and behavioral
scientist. It led me to be convinced that we need very dispassionate
ways of looking at horrendous actions; that our greatest danger comes
from people who are NOT crazy but sane people who believe they are
acting honorably and morally. We need to understand just how this
works. That is the objective of this book. “
[e.g. ch.2 behaviour mechanisms at work/incremental processes/ PACKAGES
& RIDERS/ the Q of autonomy/ ]
Scram
(you were agreeing with me weren't you?) If you get through all
that Lawrence Kohlberg stuff try reading Carol Gilligan for the
update on how male moral development differs from female moral
development.
nada
Scram <surrende...@arabia.com.invalid> wrote:
> Manoman, it's a red-letter day when I got nada agreeing with me
> (you were agreeing with me weren't you?)
I am expert at guessing meanings but I double-checked ‘red letter
day’ coz it didn’t fit - why the fuck would u say that? I’ve disagreed
with u zilch times, what’s more I’ve agreed with u once – vide infra.
BTW, atypically, on that occasion I meant ‘poet’ in non-pejorative
sense, as - kinda neat way to put it. Get yuz head around it before u
accuse me of petulance. Or is that the general impression u got of me,
fuck if I know why.
http://mailbits.com/Trivia/Source/73.htm
In the
Middle Ages, monks working as scribes marked Saint's days and
other religious observances in red on the calendar. Such dates
needed to stand out because they were special and sometimes
required preparation.
Modern calendar makers have preserved that practice, marking
holidays in red. By extension, any day that's really special
for you, because you did something great or had some good
fortune, is a red letter day.
(Source: DICTIONARY OF WORD AND PHRASE ORIGINS by W. & M. Morris)
Re: I need a label...
Date: 07/07/2000
In article <8k3fpd$t7d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
nada <nada_v...@altavista.net> wrote:
> In article <13169820...@usw-ex0103-086.remarq.com>,
> Scram <surrende...@arabia.com.invalid> wrote:
> > Well, I don't know what label you'd put on yourself before but
> > now you just sound like an average run-of-the-mill Capitalist.
> > Some people spell that a-s-s-h-o-l-e
> > Some spell it p-r-a-g-m-a-t-i-c
> > However you spell it, welcome to the modern world.
> >
>
> that's fuckin poetry and doesn't even rhyme
Marvinocnj
respect". I'd be wasting my time being part of your narrow minded
subject. RE:Marvin,N.J.
chimmeocnj
Marvinocnj
Bernard Shaw "It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are stupid", DO
YOU read his thought as a Fact or an Impression? This is the starting
point of which kind of Philosopher any of us truely are. Thank you for
calling me an idiot. Yes I've been an idiot using the "response" form
instead of the "mail to" to discover sincere enthusiasts. Yes, I've
been speaking to the wrong audience. Thank you for setting me straight.
RE:Marvin:N.J.
chimmeocnj