i dont think it matters either way we are still "slaves" of the nwo
Zeitgeist Movement = most hardcore NWO propaganda ever., page 2
privacy
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 02:50 PM by dalan.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I could not agree with you more.
Thank you!
It's rehashed Marxism. I spent enough time on the ZM boards to understand that it anti-democratic. It wants scientists to form an elite who decides what we can have. And this notion of robots doing all our jobs for us so we can write poetry and play lutes all day is just silly.
Write poetry and play lutes? Sure, if you wanted to, but don't you have any hobbies now that you spend time enjoying? What about more time with friends and family? What about more time to enjoy your connections with other humans, relationships?
What about more time to study psychology, history, philosophy, engineering, architecture, sociology, software development, hardware development, space exploration, food production, science, evolution, astronomy, physics, etc?
That doesn't sound like sitting around playing aflute to me, that sounds like human beings endowed with more time to actually grow, instead wasting their time drudging away at some 9-5...
Marxism? Sounds to me like someone does not understand the concept of Marxism...
Remember that time period in human history...you know the Industrial Revolution? When the class split between laborers/workers and owners/production managers was horribly visible?
Yeah, so Karl Marx was commenting on how the Proletariat (workers) needed to rise up against the Bourgeoisie (owners). That if the working class united they could take more power from the owners.
But they would still be working?
And it would still work within some kind of a political base?
And monetary value would still be the driving force of society...
Plus not to mention that with Marxism, education is reduced to what a person needs to learn to add to the "machine." As opposed to education in everything possible....
So yeah, The Venus Project and Zeitgeist Movements are Marxism.
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 02:52 PM by dalan.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Scarcer
The very idea that they believe human beings will magically cease all violence towards one another all because of this mythical - and scientifically unsupported- notion of abundance through robots, demonstrates how little they know about the science of behavior.
Scarcity doesn't even appear as a concept in the literature of Behaviorism. Other things are much stronger motivators, such as, attention. Status. Etc.
For people who claim to champion science, they are remarkably stingy with their data, and ill informed on the subjects they preach on.
That is an assumption.
Violence would not disappear, it would simply be studied to find out the root cause instead of ignoring it, and accepting it as "fact" like we do now.
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 03:00 PM by TrueTruth
reply to post by dalan.
Hi dalan. First, let's establish common ground. We both want to see the worls a better place. We both want to see the have-nots, have. We both believe that our resources could be more efficiently and fairly managed. We both understand that the present political order is tilted unfairly towards said haves.
Where we differ, is on the idea about how to change it. I'll first respond to this:
"You don't want your nature to change, so you do not want to grow? Our only "nature" is growth and change."
I'd rephrase it a little: the thing that characterizes the human animal is adaptability. Our ancestors had to deal with rapidly (relatively) changing climates back in Africa, and hence were shaped, via selection, to put a premium on mental acuity, over the physical. Different organisms use different features to get by. I do not, however, believe that we are 'growing' per say. That injects an element of teleology that I do not think exists, either in humans, or any other species. Insofar as we are all here, all species may be said to be equally 'grown'. If longevity means anything, the cockroach is more 'evolved' than the human. Though again, this is a logically void statement, based on the unsupportable proposition of goal directed development. There is no evidence for this in nature - we only perceive it as such based on the perception of ourselves as superior, which of course, is purely subjective, and not factual.
""Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."
I believe there must be a balance struck between an individual's desire to succeed personally, and a need to look out for one another, and see to it that nobody is left out in the cold. There is much more than greed to explain anti-social behavior, and much more to anti-social behavior, than greed. In the literature of Behaviorism, 'scarcity' as it's used by the ZM, really does not exist. A much stronger factor, so the research has shown, is attention - that is, social rewards, not material. One wonders if better attention to how we simply treat one another, positively reward desirable traits, etc, might to some degree obviate the issue of greed. It is observed by many, such as in the famous statement by Kissenger, that "power is the ultimate aphrodesiac". Much as rape is not so much about sex as power, so be it with resource hoarding (rich guys wanting it all). It's about status more than stuff, and the true science supports this hypothesis. It bothers me that the ZM ignores the true science, and instead uses its own untested ideas.
"Computers can only calculate probabilities, they cannot force anyone to do anything. That requires sentience, something that they do not have."
I don't want decisions about human beings being determined by machines. They have no capacity for things like compassion, intuition, or value judgement. And the literature of Technocracy is unambiguous in its call for an elite - scientists - to be in charge of the basic apparatus of distribution. And as I learned speaking to several members of said movement on the ZM boards, this is completely correct. They make no bones about it. This is an anti-democratic idea, and on that basis, I view it as immoral. Further, how can you at once believe that human can 'grow', and at the same time, believe that we are so incapable of fairness that we need computers to do what essentially amounts to long division? And what about resources that are finite? We can't all have premium real estate, or the most attractive mates. There will always be inequity to some extent - and of course, as I said before, the hunger for status.
Lastly, I have seen zero hard data to support any of these ideas - ie, scarcity, resource abundance, or machines doing all these jobs.
peace.
[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]
Hi dalan. First, let's establish common ground. We both want to see the worls a better place. We both want to see the have-nots, have. We both believe that our resources could be more efficiently and fairly managed. We both understand that the present political order is tilted unfairly towards said haves.
Where we differ, is on the idea about how to change it. I'll first respond to this:
"You don't want your nature to change, so you do not want to grow? Our only "nature" is growth and change."
I'd rephrase it a little: the thing that characterizes the human animal is adaptability. Our ancestors had to deal with rapidly (relatively) changing climates back in Africa, and hence were shaped, via selection, to put a premium on mental acuity, over the physical. Different organisms use different features to get by. I do not, however, believe that we are 'growing' per say. That injects an element of teleology that I do not think exists, either in humans, or any other species. Insofar as we are all here, all species may be said to be equally 'grown'. If longevity means anything, the cockroach is more 'evolved' than the human. Though again, this is a logically void statement, based on the unsupportable proposition of goal directed development. There is no evidence for this in nature - we only perceive it as such based on the perception of ourselves as superior, which of course, is purely subjective, and not factual.
""Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."
I believe there must be a balance struck between an individual's desire to succeed personally, and a need to look out for one another, and see to it that nobody is left out in the cold. There is much more than greed to explain anti-social behavior, and much more to anti-social behavior, than greed. In the literature of Behaviorism, 'scarcity' as it's used by the ZM, really does not exist. A much stronger factor, so the research has shown, is attention - that is, social rewards, not material. One wonders if better attention to how we simply treat one another, positively reward desirable traits, etc, might to some degree obviate the issue of greed. It is observed by many, such as in the famous statement by Kissenger, that "power is the ultimate aphrodesiac". Much as rape is not so much about sex as power, so be it with resource hoarding (rich guys wanting it all). It's about status more than stuff, and the true science supports this hypothesis. It bothers me that the ZM ignores the true science, and instead uses its own untested ideas.
"Computers can only calculate probabilities, they cannot force anyone to do anything. That requires sentience, something that they do not have."
I don't want decisions about human beings being determined by machines. They have no capacity for things like compassion, intuition, or value judgement. And the literature of Technocracy is unambiguous in its call for an elite - scientists - to be in charge of the basic apparatus of distribution. And as I learned speaking to several members of said movement on the ZM boards, this is completely correct. They make no bones about it. This is an anti-democratic idea, and on that basis, I view it as immoral. Further, how can you at once believe that human can 'grow', and at the same time, believe that we are so incapable of fairness that we need computers to do what essentially amounts to long division? And what about resources that are finite? We can't all have premium real estate, or the most attractive mates. There will always be inequity to some extent - and of course, as I said before, the hunger for status.
Lastly, I have seen zero hard data to support any of these ideas - ie, scarcity, resource abundance, or machines doing all these jobs.
peace.
[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 03:04 PM by TrueTruth
Originally posted by dalan.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by Scarcer
The very idea that they believe human beings will magically cease all violence towards one another all because of this mythical - and scientifically unsupported- notion of abundance through robots, demonstrates how little they know about the science of behavior.
Scarcity doesn't even appear as a concept in the literature of Behaviorism. Other things are much stronger motivators, such as, attention. Status. Etc.
For people who claim to champion science, they are remarkably stingy with their data, and ill informed on the subjects they preach on.
That is an assumption.
Violence would not disappear, it would simply be studied to find out the root cause instead of ignoring it, and accepting it as "fact" like we do now.
Which part is an assumption?
It is not assumption but fact that the VP's ideas about scarcity as a prime mover of human behavior is unsupported by science, or that the true science of it, Behaviorism, considers social reinforcers to be a much stronger determinant of behavior. Until I see data to the contrary, I will have to consider this junk science.
It is also not an assumption that they have produced no hard numbers on their ideas of scarcity. I tried to contact JF personally more than once, and he didn't so much as respond to me. Nobody who calls themselves a scientist should be operating without data, or be unwilling to let others attempt to in/validate it. That process is the essence of science itself, and he is flouting it, instead asking people to fund him based on faith alone.
Please tell me - what here is the assumption?
[edit on 28-11-2009 by TrueTruth]
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 03:26 PM by dalan.
Originally posted by TrueTruth
reply to post by dalan.
Hi dalan. First, let's establish common ground. We both want to see the worlds a better place. We both want to see the have-nots, have. We both believe that our resources could be more efficiently and fairly managed. We both understand that the present political order is tilted unfairly towards said haves.
This would be our common ground.
Where we differ, is on the idea about how to change it. I'll first respond to this:
"You don't want your nature to change, so you do not want to grow? Our only "nature" is growth and change."
I'd rephrase it a little: the thing that characterizes the human animal is adaptability. Our ancestors had to deal with rapidly (relatively) changing climates back in Africa, and hence were shaped, via selection, to put a premium on mental acuity, over the physical. Different organisms use different features to get by. I do not, however, believe that we are 'growing' per say. That injects an element of teleology that I do not think exists, either in humans, or any other species. Insofar as we are all here, all species may be said to be equally 'grown'. If longevity means anything, the cockroach is more 'evolved' than the human. Though again, this is a logically void statement, based on the unsupportable proposition of goal directed development. There is no evidence for this in nature - we only perceive it as such based on the perception of ourselves as superior, which of course, is purely subjective, and not factual.
Social interaction. Changing climate. Adapting to circumstance, these are mechanisms for change that I was relating to. When someone comes to a new conclusion, that conclusion is re-enforced by the growth of new synapse connections in the brain. That is growth. `Learning, experience, these are apart of our evolution.
""Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."
I believe there must be a balance struck between an individual's desire to succeed personally, and a need to look out for one another, and see to it that nobody is left out in the cold. There is much more than greed to explain anti-social behavior, and much more to anti-social behavior, than greed. In the literature of Behaviorism, 'scarcity' as it's used by the ZM, really does not exist. A much stronger factor, so the research has shown, is attention - that is, social rewards, not material. One wonders if better attention to how we simply treat one another, positively reward desirable traits, etc, might to some degree obviate the issue of greed. It is observed by many, such as in the famous statement by Kissenger, that "power is the ultimate aphrodesiac". Much as rape is not so much about sex as power, so be it with resource hoarding (rich guys wanting it all). It's about status more than stuff, and the true science supports this hypothesis. It bothers me that the ZM ignores the true science, and instead uses its own untested ideas.
How much are we socialized for the lust for power, status and greed though? it is an integral part of our culture...
What about indigenous tribes through out the world that had no concept of greed or power? Many native American tribes shared resources, and technological developments among the society, because if they did not work together they would not survive.
"Computers can only calculate probabilities, they cannot force anyone to do anything. That requires sentience, something that they do not have."
I don't want decisions about human beings being determined by machines. They have no capacity for things like compassion, intuition, or value judgment. And the literature of Technocracy is unambiguous in its call for an elite - scientists - to be in charge of the basic apparatus of distribution. And as I learned speaking to several members of said movement on the ZM boards, this is completely correct. They make no bones about it. This is an anti-democratic idea, and on that basis, I view it as immoral. Further, how can you at once believe that human can 'grow', and at the same time, believe that we are so incapable of fairness that we need computers to do what essentially amounts to long division? And what about resources that are finite? We can't all have premium real estate, or the most attractive mates. There will always be inequity to some extent - and of course, as I said before, the hunger for status.
Machines already make decisions for us, Doppler radar can make scans for pilots so that they know how high they are flying instead of trying to eye it themselves. Managing resources means using the most efficient methods to, say, build someone a home. Aesthetics are secondayr to making sure tha everyone has a home and no one has to spend a night in thcold laying in the dirty, city street.
Lastly, I have seen zero hard data to support any of these ideas - ie, scarcity, resource abundance, or machines doing all these jobs.
I will look up all the research for this thread.
Just give me time.
I can't find reason why people on earth couldn't transform to better organized
community than now. reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 03:49 PM by ItzMeRon
I was a part of the TZM since before day one of the start of their forums. I was a very active and loyal member to the movement. I will share with you
what I know about TZM.
I do not believe TZM is a shill for the NWO but I believe they are a cult like organization. The leadership is a mess. The moderators of the forums are mainly kids or fools. The Forum is run by tanktop, who is the most inefficient man of morals and values that I have ever seen run anything before. He is the dude that drops the suitcase at the end of the second film. Nearly anyone he has given any kind of administrative power on the boards to is either an ignorant kid, or some devout James Randi follower. TZM is run like Never Never Land without Peter Pan. And Peter hardly contributes to the boards. They prohibit speaking about certain subjects, as you can see here:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...
(And if you cant get that link to work, it is because the site is broken that way. You have to cut and paste the link again.)
No, I do NOT think Peter is his real name. I went on acccepting that for early on quite sometime into the start of my experence there. And I know because I live in Florida and I noticed that The Venus Project was only 2-3 hours away and really wanted to know if they really existed, so I found their number, gave a call. I think it was Jacque answered the phone. He quickly passed the phone to Roxanne Meddows. She was very nice. But during our conversation, while she was refering something we were talking about she paused before his (Peter) name and then said "...um, oh yes Peter.....Or at least that is what we call him." I will never forget it. So I asked and have been looking for legal documents where Peter has been sued, as he claims he was, to show is real name on who the suit was addressed to. And Jordan Maxwell also uses an fake name, as you can see here:
www.ftc.gov...
And we know that a lot of Peter's work was Jordan Maxwell when he made his films.
Jacque Fresco either was or is a Raelian, as you can see here:
raelianews.org...
When I was a part of TZM at the start of their forums, there from 200 to 2000 people viewing or partispating online at one time. right now I am on their forums and there is 1 Guest online and 1 person viewing. It is a dying movement and is a really a lost cause. I would say that 95% or more of the people who originally started with me there are now no loger there at all.
I could go on and on so I wont. lol I will watch the 3rd film if and when it comes out. I would recommend the movies to watch but not the movement its' self....And that is being nice.
[edit on 28-11-2009 by ItzMeRon]
[edit on 28-11-2009 by ItzMeRon]
I do not believe TZM is a shill for the NWO but I believe they are a cult like organization. The leadership is a mess. The moderators of the forums are mainly kids or fools. The Forum is run by tanktop, who is the most inefficient man of morals and values that I have ever seen run anything before. He is the dude that drops the suitcase at the end of the second film. Nearly anyone he has given any kind of administrative power on the boards to is either an ignorant kid, or some devout James Randi follower. TZM is run like Never Never Land without Peter Pan. And Peter hardly contributes to the boards. They prohibit speaking about certain subjects, as you can see here:
www.thezeitgeistmovement.com...
(And if you cant get that link to work, it is because the site is broken that way. You have to cut and paste the link again.)
No, I do NOT think Peter is his real name. I went on acccepting that for early on quite sometime into the start of my experence there. And I know because I live in Florida and I noticed that The Venus Project was only 2-3 hours away and really wanted to know if they really existed, so I found their number, gave a call. I think it was Jacque answered the phone. He quickly passed the phone to Roxanne Meddows. She was very nice. But during our conversation, while she was refering something we were talking about she paused before his (Peter) name and then said "...um, oh yes Peter.....Or at least that is what we call him." I will never forget it. So I asked and have been looking for legal documents where Peter has been sued, as he claims he was, to show is real name on who the suit was addressed to. And Jordan Maxwell also uses an fake name, as you can see here:
www.ftc.gov...
And we know that a lot of Peter's work was Jordan Maxwell when he made his films.
Jacque Fresco either was or is a Raelian, as you can see here:
raelianews.org...
When I was a part of TZM at the start of their forums, there from 200 to 2000 people viewing or partispating online at one time. right now I am on their forums and there is 1 Guest online and 1 person viewing. It is a dying movement and is a really a lost cause. I would say that 95% or more of the people who originally started with me there are now no loger there at all.
I could go on and on so I wont. lol I will watch the 3rd film if and when it comes out. I would recommend the movies to watch but not the movement its' self....And that is being nice.
[edit on 28-11-2009 by ItzMeRon]
[edit on 28-11-2009 by ItzMeRon]
reply posted on 28-11-2009 @ 03:53 PM by TrueTruth
reply to post by dalan.
The quote function here makes me batty, so I'll just do it the old fashioned way...
"Social interaction. Changing climate. Adapting to circumstance, these are mechanisms for change that I was relating to. When someone comes to a new conclusion, that conclusion is re-enforced by the growth of new synapse connections in the brain. That is growth. `Learning, experience, these are apart of our evolution."
You are correct about what happens to the brain when we learn - new neural connections are made. However, this is not passed on to offspring any more than rhinoplasty would result in my children not inheriting my honker. That's just not how it works.
"Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."
I still don't think that follows. Again, I point to social reinforcers as primary, and the science supports this.
"What about indigenous tribes through out the world that had no concept of greed or power? Many native American tribes shared resources, and technological developments among the society, because if they did not work together they would not survive."
Indeed. It is often observed that in many tribes, it is scarcity of resources that actually led to better cooperation - quite the opposite of how the ZM imagines it. Also, many of these tribes could also be quite cruel. They were in no way less violent. Simply not true.
"Machines already make decisions for us, Doppler radar can make scans for pilots so that they know how high they are flying instead of trying to eye it themselves."
True enough. But there's a reason we still have pilots in those planes - machines aren't very good at emergency landings. There's a specific example I have in mind, described to me by a retired NASA scientist I know...the nuts and bolts of it is that he made some kind of miraculous recovery of a plane out of control, and the scientists who studied it have concluded that a machine would have never saved those lives. Machines offer wonderful assistance - but the VP takes it to a form of radical fundamentalism, as if they will offer us salvation from ourselves. And it's folly to believe our own inventions will save us. To say nothing of the many jobs machines can't do, or the falsity of resource abundance JF postulates - simply not proven.
I eagerly await the hard data.
The quote function here makes me batty, so I'll just do it the old fashioned way...
"Social interaction. Changing climate. Adapting to circumstance, these are mechanisms for change that I was relating to. When someone comes to a new conclusion, that conclusion is re-enforced by the growth of new synapse connections in the brain. That is growth. `Learning, experience, these are apart of our evolution."
You are correct about what happens to the brain when we learn - new neural connections are made. However, this is not passed on to offspring any more than rhinoplasty would result in my children not inheriting my honker. That's just not how it works.
"Social engineering" simply means that if you grow up in a profit structure that engineers scarcity you are more likely to be socialized towards greed."
I still don't think that follows. Again, I point to social reinforcers as primary, and the science supports this.
"What about indigenous tribes through out the world that had no concept of greed or power? Many native American tribes shared resources, and technological developments among the society, because if they did not work together they would not survive."
Indeed. It is often observed that in many tribes, it is scarcity of resources that actually led to better cooperation - quite the opposite of how the ZM imagines it. Also, many of these tribes could also be quite cruel. They were in no way less violent. Simply not true.
"Machines already make decisions for us, Doppler radar can make scans for pilots so that they know how high they are flying instead of trying to eye it themselves."
True enough. But there's a reason we still have pilots in those planes - machines aren't very good at emergency landings. There's a specific example I have in mind, described to me by a retired NASA scientist I know...the nuts and bolts of it is that he made some kind of miraculous recovery of a plane out of control, and the scientists who studied it have concluded that a machine would have never saved those lives. Machines offer wonderful assistance - but the VP takes it to a form of radical fundamentalism, as if they will offer us salvation from ourselves. And it's folly to believe our own inventions will save us. To say nothing of the many jobs machines can't do, or the falsity of resource abundance JF postulates - simply not proven.
I eagerly await the hard data.
A Long Time In The Making and Here\'s The Proof - Thine Eyes and Ears Do not Deceive Thee!!!!
Posted 15 days ago with 19 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 19 member flags
Behind the Swoosh: Your clothes come from this type of sweatshop hell
Posted 15 days ago with 9 member flags
Posted 15 days ago with 9 member flags
Google will now access and use all your personal data and browsing history
Posted 16 days ago with 8 member flags
Posted 16 days ago with 8 member flags
Newest topics, updated in real-time:
You know how when you Press Your Eyes, you get interesting effects?? Well,
Science & Technology, Posted 1 hours ago
Science & Technology, Posted 1 hours ago
Frozen continent! Europe's rivers, lakes and even seas are iced over
Fragile Earth, Posted 1 hours ago
Fragile Earth, Posted 1 hours ago
Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:
Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 51 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 51 flags
Thomas Jefferson, A man of the past who may have seen the future
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 28 flags
US Political Madness, Posted 16 hours ago, 28 flags
***Programming The Nation FULL Video- Limited Time Only!!***
Education and Media, Posted 11 hours ago, 22 flags
Education and Media, Posted 11 hours ago, 22 flags
Cop allegedly pulled gun on pregnant woman over too many grocery items in checkout
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 19 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 19 flags
Scientists Warn Supervolcano Will Destroy U.S Much Sooner Than You Think
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 16 flags
Anonymous Take Down Greece Government and Police Websites
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 12 flags
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 12 flags
Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:
Brainwashed Cops Shoot Unarmed Woman Motorist To Death For Rolling Up Her Car Window
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 114 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 11 hours ago, 114 replies
U.S. Navy: Iran prepares suicide bomb boats in Gulf
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 99 replies
Middle East Issues, Posted 12 hours ago, 99 replies
Hollow Earth Theory Using Cold Fusion as evidence of the possiblity.
General Conspiracies, Posted 15 hours ago, 77 replies
General Conspiracies, Posted 15 hours ago, 77 replies
The Illuminati and the Free Masons and their TRUE relationship
Secret Societies, Posted 17 hours ago, 68 replies
Secret Societies, Posted 17 hours ago, 68 replies
Scientists Warn Supervolcano Will Destroy U.S Much Sooner Than You Think
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 62 replies
Fragile Earth, Posted 14 hours ago, 62 replies
Cop allegedly pulled gun on pregnant woman over too many grocery items in checkout
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 50 replies
Social Issues and Civil Unrest, Posted 16 hours ago, 50 replies
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.030 seconds
Page processed in: 0.453 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.030 seconds
Page processed in: 0.453 seconds
