It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Talk Logic.

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Whatap ATS,

It is time for Logic.

1 + 1 = 2.


What knowledge can we obtain by examining our surroundings, with a clear and healthy mind. If you have a problem, apply logic to it, and the answer you will find.

Logic Is Key


The inability of other people to apply logic to their problems, is the trigger that made me start this thread. I live around and with people. On a daily bases I depend on these people. Their actions have a direct impact on my reality. Now let's say someone in your direct surrounding, makes choices, that if he had thought with logic, would not have made, and in fact, would have made a choice that would have benefited the both of you, would he have applied logic to his problem.

You anticipate. You think the person would choose option 1, but his thoughts are not clear, and he chooses option 2. Because would he have chosen option 1, you both would have benefited greatly. But the person seems to be blind, thinking he benefits with option 2, while he is in fact losing, because he could have been much better off with option 1. This person and you have the same interest. His failure has a immediate consequence to your reality. Thus, as a immediate result, I ended up in a situation, that I did not want to be in.

Sometimes you may find yourself awake in a sleeping world. The above might be a bit confusing, but it makes sense in some way.

In the world today, there is a lack of logic. It has a name, Capitalism.

Everyone is busy trying to achieve their own interests. Instead of being unified, we are all separated. Everyone is fighting for the same peaces of bread. This will result in everyone competing. Some will win, and the others lose.

This is wrong. It's not Logic.


This totally unsocial self destructing mechanism, has created hierarchy. Hierarchy is a cold hearted *SNIP*

YOU ARE NOT IN CONTROL.


Hierarchy means that one group is superior, and the other group is bound to be inferior. It means that party A can do something, having direct consequences to party B, without party B being able to do a damn thing about it. Obviously party B is not in control, and is victimized by inequality.


What if we were all equal?

Then we would lose the need to compete. Compete. What does this mean. it is this element that keeps us all separated. It is so not logical. If we were all equal, the whole civilization of earth would be intelligent, so damn intelligent. every generation will be smarter then the previous one. Because every generation would pass on the their knowledge to the next generation. Everyone will get busy in doing science, art, music, whatever. Being all equal does not remove the fact that other people will affect my reality with their actions. It only balances the weights. It removes the fact that party B can be victimized by party A, without being able to defend itself. It has gained the ability of defense. In a way I am talking about corporate structures. Both parties have equal chances, because their strengths are the same. But wait! There is also no need to compete, this removes the reason to engage in whatever business they are in.


Is this logic?




edit on 30-1-2011 by cyberjedi because: grammar


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/31/2011 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The fundamental weakness in your analysis is that you are dealing with humans. Humans are irrational. They are "the rationalizing animal" NOT "the rational animal". Most people determine what they want, then rationalize why they want what they want after the fact. You can no more argue with a hard core Leftist (Palin is evil, all guns should be banned, corporations are the root of evil) than you can argue with a fundamentalist (Earth was created in 6 days 6000 years ago, Satan created dinosaur fossils to fool us, God really showed his butt to Moses). And for the same reason. Many people start with a belief structure and then discard any evidence that does not fit it. Very few people have a scientific temperament - including most "scientists" who really just want to get promoted academically and pontificate in front of their peers.

Realize this and forget your dream that humans will ever be logical.



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by SunSword
 


All that you have described, is the result of the absence of equality. If there was perfect equality, I am certain, humans will be able to apply logic to their lives, as they live their lives as whole of a community. No need to compete.
edit on 30-1-2011 by cyberjedi because: grammar



posted on Jan, 30 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cyberjedi
 



Whatap ATS,


This, right here, is a bad omen for what is about to follow.


It is time for Logic.

1 + 1 = 2.


That is basic arithmetic.

Logic is different. I'm not going to go on to explain Boolean Algebra/Logic, as there are a hundred places that do it already, and it is something rather inherent to my background in digital electronics, so I'm likely to gloss over details the average person would need to know. en.wikipedia.org...


What knowledge can we obtain by examining our surroundings, with a clear and healthy mind. If you have a problem, apply logic to it, and the answer you will find.


Logic is a tool for analyzing proposed solutions to find the most favorable solution given the criteria. You cannot apply logic to a problem - only to the entire 'set' including the problem, solution(s), and the goal.

For example - you observe that the dishes are piling up in the sink. That's not a problem, in and of itself, unless you have also established a requirement that the sink be cleaned. Presuming that is the goal - you can then set your dishes on the floor and clean the sink, satisfying the goal of cleaning the sink.

Now, if your goal is to clean the kitchen, you could set your dishes on the floor in the living room. Unless your goal is to not 'dirty' some other part of the house, or your goal is to clean the dishes. If that's the case, the proposed solutions that include cleaning the dishes better satisfy the criteria.


The inability of other people to apply logic to their problems, is the trigger that made me start this thread. I live around and with people. On a daily bases I depend on these people. Their actions have a direct impact on my reality. Now let's say someone in your direct surrounding, makes choices, that if he had thought with logic, would not have made, and in fact, would have made a choice that would have benefited the both of you, would he have applied logic to his problem.


Such as when people create threads in sub-forums that have little in common, thus cluttering the sub-forum with off-topic discussions.

The problem is that you are assuming someone should consider your deposition in their selection of solutions. When I buy a soda out of the soda machine, as opposed to from a store, it could be said that my room-mates lose out on the potential for me to spend that money on communal groceries, a new game/TV we will all use, etc. Over the course of a month - this amounts, easily, to $20+ that could have been saved and used elsewhere.

The same could be said when I choose to eat out as opposed to mess with cooking something (even though the stuff to cook is already in the fridge).


Sometimes you may find yourself awake in a sleeping world. The above might be a bit confusing, but it makes sense in some way.


I didn't quote that block of text, but you are presuming to know what is a favorable deposition for all parties involved in your scope of analysis.

I eat out about once a week - usually on a Saturday, after work with one of my friends (also a co-worker). I can spend about a week's worth of groceries on a single meal for two. I don't jeopardize my ability to pay rent or my various bills - I'm not living on that tight of a budget - but it's an expense that can be categorized as entirely unnecessary.

However, her and I spend quite a while talking. We've had some freakishly similar experiences in life (parents passing away, relationship issues, even the details of our previous relationship), and sit in a very similar situation - finding out that we've spent the last few years of our lives spinning our wheels and realizing we need to stop dreaming long enough to take a few steps forward.

We've had some pretty in-depth and helpful conversations over and after those trips out to eat. Helping her get back into a productive state of living and being able to be self-sufficient is a goal I see to be more worth the extra expense. Sure - we could just hang our in the car, at the apartment (or her house), or some other place that isn't below freezing right now - but it's pretty damned cute to watch her devour a burger before I can finish a quarter of mine. Carnivorous little thing.


In the world today, there is a lack of logic. It has a name, Capitalism.


Capitalism is an exchange-based evolution of small market networks (the 'village' economy versus the inter-city economy). In a small market - the farmer knows the blacksmith and the two's interdependence is self-evident. Same with the carpenter and all others in the community. However, in larger markets, I don't know you or have any way of determining how you contribute to society. The only way I can is through some common metric of exchange - money. The more money you have, the more potential you have to contribute to society because of the recognized value of your capital reserves and/or the productivity that has allowed you to accrue that investment.


Everyone is busy trying to achieve their own interests. Instead of being unified, we are all separated. Everyone is fighting for the same peaces of bread. This will result in everyone competing. Some will win, and the others lose.


Sure, if the number of people producing bread remains the same while the population increases, someone is going to have to go without bread. Thankfully, however, the crux of 'capitalism' and free-market dynamics is that I could suddenly grow a wild hair up my bum, grow some stuff, and sell some bread if there's a lack of people making bread.

Let's say I do that. Why should I just hand people bread? Obviously - most people are doing something productive in society, building the cars we use, manning the registers we frequent, maintaining the roads, etc. However - I know of quite a few people who do nothing, too. People who do nothing but sit there and not contribute to society generally lack money. To ensure that people I give bread to are also contributing - it makes sense to charge money for the bread I make - especially since most other people making things I need also charge money.


This is wrong. It's not Logic.


Logic is not something you can hijack to justify your pity-party.


Hierarchy means that one group is superior, and the other group is bound to be inferior.


I'm going to sound like a prick - and you're going to deal with it. I perform within the upper 90 percentile in metrics of physical capability and intellectual pursuits. I am, by almost every available metric - superior to over 90% of the rest of the population. It doesn't matter what you do, I'll learn it faster than you and do it better in a frustratingly short amount of time, with only a few exceptions to the trend.

My father was the same way, as were my grandparents. It's likely my children will be the same way.

It's entirely plausible and likely that my family line - and other family lines with similar hereditary (genetic and non-genetic) properties will ultimately hold most of the leadership and developing positions within society.


It means that party A can do something, having direct consequences to party B, without party B being able to do a damn thing about it.


By all means, tell me of your woes and what others can do to make your stay on this planet more comfortable.

Seriously. It is not other people's responsibility to always consider you. It is impractical. That is why you have a mouth of your own. That is also why we have developed a democracy with representatives, so that you may voice your concerns about issues so that those issues can be presented to the legislative bodies.

The system can't work when people rely on their government-issue telepathy implants.


Obviously party B is not in control, and is victimized by inequality.


This is implying party A is in control of party B? What an illogical assumption. Simply because party B has difficulty demonstrating competence in controlling the individual lives of its members does not mean party A is in control.


What if we were all equal?


We aren't all equal. We are all human - but we are not equal as we are all individuals with our own traits and characteristics. When you add all of those traits up - we are still not equal. That is not to say any one person is worth more or less than another - but that people are so different and beyond quantification as to not even be preoccupied with attempting to strive for equality beyond recognizing when someone is contributing (even the retard can bring up good points that a room full of geniuses is missing).


Then we would lose the need to compete. Compete. What does this mean. it is this element that keeps us all separated. It is so not logical. If we were all equal, the whole civilization of earth would be intelligent, so damn intelligent.


To be blunt - I want my kids to be smarter, faster, stronger, and better equipped than any other person's out there. I want my family, my friends, and the families of my friends to be the same way. I see it as my responsibility to do what I can to improve myself and others I know. I view it as a form of competition. If things go south - I want a group of friends and family who can rely upon each other and assert our existence.

Others handle competition entirely differently - rather than attempting to improve themselves and others around them, they attempt to sabotage other people.

Really, competition is the heart of evolutionary theory - the populations best equipped to handle the environment at the time will out-number and eventually become the successors to populations that did not exhibit traits that allowed them to handle the environment.

Any idea that demonizes the competitive spirit of life on our planet seems to be rather narrow-minded.


Everyone will get busy in doing science, art, music, whatever.


In a capitalist economy, you don't get paid unless you are doing something considered to be productive and worth being paid to do. It can be my own productive endeavor (entrepreneurship) or as an assist to some other person(s) endeavor (being an employee) - in either case, given the options of "don't eat" and "work to be productive" - I choose the "work to be productive." An empty bank account is some serious motivation. I can say that because I've been there.


Being all equal does not remove the fact that other people will affect my reality with their actions. It only balances the weights. It removes the fact that party B can be victimized by party A, without being able to defend itself. It has gained the ability of defense. In a way I am talking about corporate structures. Both parties have equal chances, because their strengths are the same.


This doesn't really make any sense.

"Let's all be equal. If we are equal, we get rid of competition and make corporations fair."

How do you propose to do this, exactly?

Tax the wealthy out of existence so we're all sitting on the same amount of capital? Force corporations to be non-profit?

It's like saying "We need to use antigravity in airplanes. It would make everything much safer and more efficient."

True. However, I'm not aware of a single functioning "antigravity" device. No one has even successfully demonstrated and repeated an experiment that demonstrates gravity can be negated. Thus, talk of implementing antigravity is like talking about implementing stargates for public transportation.


Is this logic?


Probably doesn't really matter. So long as you feel as though you are in "Party B" - your issues and problems can be rationalized as being caused by "Party A." I know people in the top 10% of the income bracket who still blame some ambiguous "elites" for the problems and issues they face.

I just like to think of myself as being in a party and class all of my own. I never cared much for society, and don't really care too much about its final deposition. I care about those I know and interact with - beyond that - I really don't consider people worth my time and effort. If you're in the room with me and problems happen - I consider you my responsibility. Otherwise - you're just another face in the crowd.

Now - I talked a lot about myself. Obviously, I'm the type of person that places myself as a priority over concepts of a collective. Some people place "the greater whole" over their own person. I generally find these people lacking in ambition while being exceptionally efficient at being annoying - but they are free to make their own life choices.

I should actually say that I place my own interests over the interests of the "whole" - I am self-sacrificing when it comes to the people I know and care about.

In either case - I've rambled long enough. Typing this has spanned dinner and an entire load of laundry. The thread may have already been moved by a mod to more appropriate sub-forum. I know I come off as an elitist prick - and I am, to a degree - but I'm one of the first to realize when someone is bringing up a factor I didn't consider, or has more knowledge/experience on a topic.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by cyberjedi
 



Whatap ATS,


This, right here, is a bad omen for what is about to follow.

What? You want formal introductions? You don't like the spirit of youth?


It is time for Logic.

1 + 1 = 2.


That is basic arithmetic.

Logic is different. I'm not going to go on to explain Boolean Algebra/Logic, as there are a hundred places that do it already, and it is something rather inherent to my background in digital electronics, so I'm likely to gloss over details the average person would need to know. en.wikipedia.org...


What knowledge can we obtain by examining our surroundings, with a clear and healthy mind. If you have a problem, apply logic to it, and the answer you will find.


Logic is a tool for analyzing proposed solutions to find the most favorable solution given the criteria. You cannot apply logic to a problem - only to the entire 'set' including the problem, solution(s), and the goal.

For example - you observe that the dishes are piling up in the sink. That's not a problem, in and of itself, unless you have also established a requirement that the sink be cleaned. Presuming that is the goal - you can then set your dishes on the floor and clean the sink, satisfying the goal of cleaning the sink.

Of course, if there is a problem, we have already made the assumption, that there is a standard that requires the sink to be cleaned. Now, we have the problem: The sink is not clean. What can we do to change this situation? So that it solves our problem, to meet our objective: A clean sink. In this case, applying logic in perspective to our objective, we indeed need to move the dishes. Or, in the first place, never have made the dishes dirty.

Now, if your goal is to clean the kitchen, you could set your dishes on the floor in the living room. Unless your goal is to not 'dirty' some other part of the house, or your goal is to clean the dishes. If that's the case, the proposed solutions that include cleaning the dishes better satisfy the criteria.


The inability of other people to apply logic to their problems, is the trigger that made me start this thread. I live around and with people. On a daily bases I depend on these people. Their actions have a direct impact on my reality. Now let's say someone in your direct surrounding, makes choices, that if he had thought with logic, would not have made, and in fact, would have made a choice that would have benefited the both of you, would he have applied logic to his problem.


Such as when people create threads in sub-forums that have little in common, thus cluttering the sub-forum with off-topic discussions.You are getting off-topic here mate.

The problem is that you are assuming someone should consider your deposition in their selection of solutions. When I buy a soda out of the soda machine, as opposed to from a store, it could be said that my room-mates lose out on the potential for me to spend that money on communal groceries, a new game/TV we will all use, etc. Over the course of a month - this amounts, easily, to $20+ that could have been saved and used elsewhere.

The same could be said when I choose to eat out as opposed to mess with cooking something (even though the stuff to cook is already in the fridge).

No, the situations you have described can not be applied to the rules i have set. I'm talking about a situation were person A and B, share the complete same interest and the same goal. B is superior to A. B makes a choice, not logical to the most profitable solution, which is the goal. The result of B doing so, is that B himself doesn't get the most optimal performance, and he drags A down the hill with him. Party A is able to influence B, to a certain degree, but B still has the option to do as he pleases. Once B makes up his mind, A has to follow.


Sometimes you may find yourself awake in a sleeping world. The above might be a bit confusing, but it makes sense in some way.


I didn't quote that block of text, but you are presuming to know what is a favorable deposition for all parties involved in your scope of analysis.

I eat out about once a week - usually on a Saturday, after work with one of my friends (also a co-worker). I can spend about a week's worth of groceries on a single meal for two. I don't jeopardize my ability to pay rent or my various bills - I'm not living on that tight of a budget - but it's an expense that can be categorized as entirely unnecessary.

If it is your goal to eat out, then there are expenses that go along with that. The expenses made are necessary because you wanted to eat out. This is logic. But, in the interest of saving money, you could better go to the grocery store. What's logic and what is not depends on your interests.

However, her and I spend quite a while talking. We've had some freakishly similar experiences in life (parents passing away, relationship issues, even the details of our previous relationship), and sit in a very similar situation - finding out that we've spent the last few years of our lives spinning our wheels and realizing we need to stop dreaming long enough to take a few steps forward.

We've had some pretty in-depth and helpful conversations over and after those trips out to eat. Helping her get back into a productive state of living and being able to be self-sufficient is a goal I see to be more worth the extra expense. Sure - we could just hang our in the car, at the apartment (or her house), or some other place that isn't below freezing right now - but it's pretty damned cute to watch her devour a burger before I can finish a quarter of mine. Carnivorous little thing.


In the world today, there is a lack of logic. It has a name, Capitalism.


Capitalism is an exchange-based evolution of small market networks (the 'village' economy versus the inter-city economy). In a small market - the farmer knows the blacksmith and the two's interdependence is self-evident. Same with the carpenter and all others in the community. However, in larger markets, I don't know you or have any way of determining how you contribute to society. The only way I can is through some common metric of exchange - money. The more money you have, the more potential you have to contribute to society because of the recognized value of your capital reserves and/or the productivity that has allowed you to accrue that investment.

I am talking in the interest of equality. Please, spare me your explanation of Capitalism, you have totally missed the point. In an ideal world, there indeed no need for money. We may use an alternative, but certainly not run by banks and the FED. With this new system, people won't need to work, or just a lot less. Machinery will take over 75% of all production related labor. If all the suppressed energy technologies came to use, we would swim in abundance. Everyone is fair to each other, everybody shares the same common interest. Everyone works towards the betterment of the whole. People won't need to compete anymore.


Everyone is busy trying to achieve their own interests. Instead of being unified, we are all separated. Everyone is fighting for the same peaces of bread. This will result in everyone competing. Some will win, and the others lose.


Sure, if the number of people producing bread remains the same while the population increases, someone is going to have to go without bread. Thankfully, however, the crux of 'capitalism' and free-market dynamics is that I could suddenly grow a wild hair up my bum, grow some stuff, and sell some bread if there's a lack of people making bread. Tell this to all the children in the world dying as a result of poverty, a situation created by capitalism.

Let's say I do that. Why should I just hand people bread? Obviously - most people are doing something productive in society, building the cars we use, manning the registers we frequent, maintaining the roads, etc. However - I know of quite a few people who do nothing, too. People who do nothing but sit there and not contribute to society generally lack money. To ensure that people I give bread to are also contributing - it makes sense to charge money for the bread I make - especially since most other people making things I need also charge money.

People need to compete for money. There are a x amount jobs, for a y amount of people. number y will always exceed x. This will spark people into competitiveness. Let's say, person A en B, have the same qualities. Both are identical in every way. But, there is only 1 job for them. Who get's it? A and B know of each other, both going for the same job. Person A tells the truth, and by that he tells all his capabilities. This makes him no better then person B. Person B knows this and anticipates on this. He will make up lies, which will result in him getting the job, because his credentials seem to better then person. Person B is a person that grew up in capitalism, he knows he has to compete.


This is wrong. It's not Logic.


Logic is not something you can hijack to justify your pity-party.??????????????


Hierarchy means that one group is superior, and the other group is bound to be inferior.


I'm going to sound like a prick - and you're going to deal with it. I perform within the upper 90 percentile in metrics of physical capability and intellectual pursuits. I am, by almost every available metric - superior to over 90% of the rest of the population. It doesn't matter what you do, I'll learn it faster than you and do it better in a frustratingly short amount of time, with only a few exceptions to the trend.

My father was the same way, as were my grandparents. It's likely my children will be the same way.

It's entirely plausible and likely that my family line - and other family lines with similar hereditary (genetic and non-genetic) properties will ultimately hold most of the leadership and developing positions within society.

Let's put you and your family in Somalia, from there on, please show me how superior you will be. Your resources will ofcourse be the same amount as that of the locals. You are not superior to anybody. Everyone is equal. Your education and wealth don't matter. If we raise everyone with the exact same set of tools and resources, only then may we see who truly is superior in development.


It means that party A can do something, having direct consequences to party B, without party B being able to do a damn thing about it.


By all means, tell me of your woes and what others can do to make your stay on this planet more comfortable.

Seriously. It is not other people's responsibility to always consider you. It is impractical. That is why you have a mouth of your own. That is also why we have developed a democracy with representatives, so that you may voice your concerns about issues so that those issues can be presented to the legislative bodies.

It is only impractical in a Capitalism controlled society, were one only thinks for himself. So let's say i do that. I have problem, with this problem, i got to my local representatives. But the problem here with democracy and capitalism is, that one goes to forward a problem, and wants a result most favorable to only himself. Everyone acts on behalf of his own interest. Then we go on to vote. All the people eligible to vote, have different standards, different views on what is fair and what is not. When we are all equal in resources, we will share the same interests, the same views and standards. The vote is democratic, yes, but that still does not mean it is fair.

The system can't work when people rely on their government-issue telepathy implants.


Obviously party B is not in control, and is victimized by inequality.


This is implying party A is in control of party B? What an illogical assumption. Simply because party B has difficulty demonstrating competence in controlling the individual lives of its members does not mean party A is in control.

And it is you who is making this assumption. Party A is not in total control of party B, but is able to affect party B, without party B being able to do something about it. Do you get it now?


What if we were all equal?


We aren't all equal. We are all human - but we are not equal as we are all individuals with our own traits and characteristics. When you add all of those traits up - we are still not equal. That is not to say any one person is worth more or less than another - but that people are so different and beyond quantification as to not even be preoccupied with attempting to strive for equality beyond recognizing when someone is contributing (even the retard can bring up good points that a room full of geniuses is missing).

I am not talking about being equal in characteristics, being equal in a economic way. So that person A has the same amount of resources available to him as person B.


Then we would lose the need to compete. Compete. What does this mean. it is this element that keeps us all separated. It is so not logical. If we were all equal, the whole civilization of earth would be intelligent, so damn intelligent.


To be blunt - I want my kids to be smarter, faster, stronger, and better equipped than any other person's out there. I want my family, my friends, and the families of my friends to be the same way. I see it as my responsibility to do what I can to improve myself and others I know. I view it as a form of competition. If things go south - I want a group of friends and family who can rely upon each other and assert our existence.

Others handle competition entirely differently - rather than attempting to improve themselves and others around them, they attempt to sabotage other people.

Really, competition is the heart of evolutionary theory - the populations best equipped to handle the environment at the time will out-number and eventually become the successors to populations that did not exhibit traits that allowed them to handle the environment.

Any idea that demonizes the competitive spirit of life on our planet seems to be rather narrow-minded. Again, I am talking about competitiveness in a economic way. I'm not talking about evolution, it has nothing to do with the subject, nothing. Certainly you can connect competitiveness wit that, but in a totally different context.


Everyone will get busy in doing science, art, music, whatever.


In a capitalist economy, you don't get paid unless you are doing something considered to be productive and worth being paid to do. It can be my own productive endeavor (entrepreneurship) or as an assist to some other person(s) endeavor (being an employee) - in either case, given the options of "don't eat" and "work to be productive" - I choose the "work to be productive." An empty bank account is some serious motivation. I can say that because I've been there.


Being all equal does not remove the fact that other people will affect my reality with their actions. It only balances the weights. It removes the fact that party B can be victimized by party A, without being able to defend itself. It has gained the ability of defense. In a way I am talking about corporate structures. Both parties have equal chances, because their strengths are the same.


This doesn't really make any sense.

"Let's all be equal. If we are equal, we get rid of competition and make corporations fair."

How do you propose to do this, exactly?

You just failed, exactly. If we were all equal in resources, and there were no need to compete, corporations would be the first things to disappear.

Tax the wealthy out of existence so we're all sitting on the same amount of capital? Force corporations to be non-profit?

It's like saying "We need to use antigravity in airplanes. It would make everything much safer and more efficient."

Fail.

True. However, I'm not aware of a single functioning "antigravity" device. No one has even successfully demonstrated and repeated an experiment that demonstrates gravity can be negated. Thus, talk of implementing antigravity is like talking about implementing stargates for public transportation.


Is this logic?


Probably doesn't really matter. So long as you feel as though you are in "Party B" - your issues and problems can be rationalized as being caused by "Party A." I know people in the top 10% of the income bracket who still blame some ambiguous "elites" for the problems and issues they face.

I just like to think of myself as being in a party and class all of my own. I never cared much for society, and don't really care too much about its final deposition. I care about those I know and interact with - beyond that - I really don't consider people worth my time and effort. If you're in the room with me and problems happen - I consider you my responsibility. Otherwise - you're just another face in the crowd.

Now - I talked a lot about myself. Obviously, I'm the type of person that places myself as a priority over concepts of a collective. Some people place "the greater whole" over their own person. I generally find these people lacking in ambition while being exceptionally efficient at being annoying - but they are free to make their own life choices.

I should actually say that I place my own interests over the interests of the "whole" - I am self-sacrificing when it comes to the people I know and care about.

In either case - I've rambled long enough. Typing this has spanned dinner and an entire load of laundry. The thread may have already been moved by a mod to more appropriate sub-forum. I know I come off as an elitist prick - and I am, to a degree - but I'm one of the first to realize when someone is bringing up a factor I didn't consider, or has more knowledge/experience on a topic.


In some way i think you have missed the entire point in my post, so be it. You are certainly not, superior, lol. You're going to have to deal with that.



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by cyberjedi
 



In some way i think you have missed the entire point in my post, so be it.


The point of your post was "if we all work together, things will be better."

Sorry if I don't award you some kind of prize for stating the obvious.

If you have -ever- been involved in management, community organization, etc - you would understand that it's one thing to say "we're all going to work together" - and another to do it. Some people just don't want to work. Others are distracted by the smallest thing. Some need to be shown how to do something in a particular way to 'get it.' Others won't get it and still do their damnedest to do the job (the wrong way).

We go through this in the factory. We have people who walk with a slouch, take ten bathroom breaks in an hour, and generally get fired pretty quick. We still meet quote with or without them - but the point is that we -as a group- don't tolerate people sitting around while we're doing all the work.

That is the inherent problem with systems aside from Capitalism/ Free-Market.

To address your ideas that hit on a tangent:

You go to work for one primary reason - you get paid. There are many reasons you would want to get paid - to pay bills, to save for goals/ambitions, to pay for food - the list goes on.

I have told a few people and mentioned it briefly a few times on these boards. My life's goal is to start up an all-in-one defense contracting service. I don't care much for the way the U.S. does things with regards to military contracting. I will build the best aircraft and weapon systems money can buy - both in bleeding-edge technological capability and in purely utilitarian design (it may not be an F-22, but it will cover your boys on the ground and not cost an arm and a leg).

Not only do I want to build and sell these units on the open market (as much as possible will be developed in-house under our own security safeguards and immune from government control over who I can and cannot sell to) - I want to contract combat action, as well. Mostly special-forces and industrial/cyber espionage/sabotage - but I'm not building the best gear we can come up with simply to sell it to other groups.

Part of sales would also be training and service contracts - you don't just want to buy a set of powered armor - you want some ideas on how to actually incorporate the monstrosity into your army.

Eventually - I plan on developing military solutions for extra-terrestrial activity (IE: "space" - not little green men). To compound that - I plan on being the one to head the team(s) responsible for the first functional "FTL drive." I want to be on the bleeding edge of development and push the envelope farther and faster than anything we've ever done before. From technology allowing for safe and reliable genetic modification of, not just individuals, but also their symbiotic bacteria and other organisms (the bacteria in your GI tract could be genetically modified to provide a number of benefits, especially when matched to specific changes to your body's functions and chemistry).

I'm fully aware that's a truly massive goal in life - but I plan on going places and taking those willing and able to come along with me. I am fully aware some would have some moral or ethical quandary with my goal - but really don't care too much. I am also aware that I cannot do it alone - I will need the help of other people; and that I have a responsibility to those who help me (as the founder and 'leader') and ensure they are taken care of and can also improve their quality of life.

However, I'm not really all that keen on the whole praising unicomp and "The Family" thing. I've always been far too competitive for the hivemind thing.


You are certainly not, superior, lol. You're going to have to deal with that.


The stars at the top of posts say otherwise - and that's all that matters on the internet.

That's a jab at humor, there - it's okay to laugh without the "lol" cue.

And that's why I'm really superior - when I laugh - I try my best to not laugh alone.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


The purpose of this thread is to compare things how they are now, to a ideal situation as to how thing could be, if everything was equal. And also to explain the importance of logic, as this is key in the process to remove a system of hierarchy, and introduce a system were everyone is being treated equally.

So it is not, if we all work together, everything will get better. It is more complicated then that. It is about bringing people back to see were we have gone, and how it could have been. And letting people know that we could solve almost all the problems in the world caused by capitalism. Capitalism corrupts, it makes people compete. Some people will inevitable lose, and so, they will starve. To not let this happen, they will need to figure out methods to stay profitable, to exploit others, creating artificial scarcity, it's a very nasty game.

Your replies indicate that have missed the point of this thread, hereby, this issue has been resolved.



posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by cyberjedi
 



The purpose of this thread is to compare things how they are now, to a ideal situation as to how thing could be, if everything was equal.


You propose to know what is ideal? For me and those around you? Learn your place, arrogant fool.

People like me want to be superior. We will never regard ourselves as 'equal' to the average person in society. Now - I, myself, don't care to instate a hierarchy imposing my self-asserted superiority. To me, that's like being the leader of a pack of raving monkeys - you're just another raving monkey. I want to break away and do my own thing, because you all are collectively too deficient for me to work with.

The ideal will -never- be for me to be 'equal' - as I will never accept it and openly resist a system that enforces me to be equal to someone else.

The ideal will -never- be to regard two individuals as being equal to each other. My friend, Chris, is not capable of being replaced with another person in any seamless fashion. The human animal is not wired to regard each other as interchangeable, and this poses problems for systems of "equality."


And also to explain the importance of logic, as this is key in the process to remove a system of hierarchy, and introduce a system were everyone is being treated equally.


There's a difference between a hierarchy and inequality.

The human nature is to defer decision making power within a group. You often hear tales in the midst of disasters of how someone would stand up and start organizing the efforts of the people nearby. We call these "emergent leaders." Our nature, when confronted with a shocking, overwhelming, or confusing situation is to listen to someone - anyone - who has a plan.

That's a hierarchy. A hundred people on their own program is going to be chaos, and not going to accomplish much. This is, actually, part of physics. The more energy a system contains, the more chaotic it is. For example - as you go farther away from the sun, planetary winds only get more extreme. Winds on Saturn are stronger than the winds on Jupiter. Even though we receive far more energy from the sun, that energy leads to chaotic motion within the atmosphere - different winds and pockets of pressure flowing in different and conflicting directions.

From this, it can be easily understood that the less thought a group puts towards their own actions, and the more decision making power can be limited to a single influence, the more coherent and effective the group can be at its goals.

To put it simply - the most efficient collectives expressing equality are going to not have value for the individual. All individuals are equal and taken to the lowest common denominator for the sake of the stability of the group.


So it is not, if we all work together, everything will get better. It is more complicated then that.


I'll say. You should stick to your basics and stop trying to confuse yourself with talk of logic and social engineering. It would actually make an argument against you more difficult.


It is about bringing people back to see were we have gone, and how it could have been. And letting people know that we could solve almost all the problems in the world caused by capitalism.


By all means, describe the woes and crimes that can be attributed to capitalism.

Then remind yourself that people like Stalin, Hitler, and Hussein were -all- about this whole "everyone is equal" stuff and demonizing capitalism.

I know the quality of discussion generally flies out the window the moment one of those names crops up in the thread... but - really.

I also must wonder what this has to do with science/technology. You're already well on your way to establishing your image as that of a logically thinking person.


Capitalism corrupts, it makes people compete.


Capitalism doesn't make people compete. Capitalism didn't create sports. Capitalism didn't create monogamous relationships where we instinctively compete for the attention of -one- person.

I wouldn't say capitalism makes people compete as much as it is people are going to compete, and we call that capitalism.


Some people will inevitable lose, and so, they will starve.


This wold be true if capitalism stipulated that only the company with the highest net profit (not necessarily profit margin) survived. However - this is not the case, and is a horribly incomplete and deficient perspective as seen from a society that values athletes over entrepreneurs.

I don't have to start up McDonald's to be a successful fast food restaurant. I don't have to drive McDonald's out of business or drive another restaurant out of business in order to run a successful business.

Now, granted - in this area, the restaurant market is saturated. There simply isn't enough demand for restaurant service to allow me to operate with a profit without cutting into the clientele of other businesses, considerably.


To not let this happen, they will need to figure out methods to stay profitable, to exploit others, creating artificial scarcity, it's a very nasty game.


This is, not at all, required. In fact, it is generally frowned upon by both society and other businesses. If I run a business making stoves, and the demand for stoves goes down to the point where I am looking at running out of work for my employees in several months - I am going to have to do something to stay in business.

What are my options?

The first thing I'd do is look at my market share and the prospects of getting new customers. This means finding new ones and looking at contracts going up for bid.

Along with that is looking at ways to be more competitive. That means a few things - mostly in how to reduce waste within the manufacturing process. Are supplies being moved around effectively, or do they spend all day playing Tetris with a pallet-jack? Are we fixing process related flaws and manufacturing artifacts, or are we spending a quarter of the day fixing the same problem on 5% of the parts? ... Do we even have someone keeping track of this stuff?

That does a few things - it allows greater productivity meaning we can make a lower bid without sacrificing quality, and also allows us to handle far more volume than previously allowed. It also reduces prices to the consumer, which ultimately leads to lower costs of living and increases the quality of life across all income grades.

"But you had to compete for that spot, which means someone else lost."

That contract, sure. And market dynamics lead to periods of rapid growth and expansion where companies produce goods and services in markets with very low competition. Operating overhead is usually quite high during these times and leads to lower volume/business ratios (it takes a lot of factories to supply market demand). However, when the market begins to saturate and/or demand declines, businesses inherently start figuring out ways to do more with less. In some cases - the process can be streamlined to improve productivity by over 100%. Demand hasn't changed - same number of stoves needed as last year - but businesses are able to produce twice as much.

A logical application of math would indicate that it would no longer be necessary for all of those businesses to continue making stoves.

But let's analyze another option I, as the owner of this business, have.

Not only can I look at how to more effectively do what I've always done - make stoves. I can also look at doing something else. What other markets have demand in them? I'm making stoves - so it's not like I'm going to dash off and start making computers all of a sudden - but what can I also make with the time that will be available because I'm producing more in less time and not able to keep all of my shifts busy with just building stoves?

Perhaps I could look at making space heaters, fire-proof safes, grills, or markets that various parts of my process could be adapted to fulfill (Perhaps I keep assembly busy building refrigerators while having the machinists machine flow valves for gas lines and the welders welding frames for TV stands). I don't have to do everything in-house, or involve all of my process in a bid for a contract.

It is -never- a preferable or desirable business move to lay people off, reduce wages, or cut benefits. You have spent a while building up a competent and reliable team of professionals. Your success hinges on the morale and success of this team. If they can get more working at their local McDonald's while having a much less intense workload... what keeps them from leaving? They probably have an application in, already, and are just waiting in line.

The same goes for laying them off. Every day you lay them off increases the likelihood you'll have to hire someone new when you do get more work. Every new person is a wild card, and someone who must be trained and adapted to the job.


Your replies indicate that have missed the point of this thread, hereby, this issue has been resolved.


The problem lies in your inability to comprehend my responses, which have quite clearly expressed an understanding of your topic, and addressed them. I have, in this response, gone into much more detail than previously, but it is all an extrapolation from my previous posts. Nothing really new, just more detail and explanation of each point.

However, you seem to have a very non-standard vocabulary where this topic belongs under "Science and Technology." Personally, I would have picked "Social Issues."

What your topic boils down to is the classic socialist/communist argument that private ownership is the reason why people are hungry, out of work, and otherwise 'unequal to those in control.' Things will be better if we all work together towards the same things.

The problem is, however, that physics mandates such systems reduce individuality and deffer authority. Hive insects are wired with a set of 'rules' they follow - a sort of pre-programed check on individuality. Humans, however, are not wired to be governed by such elementary goals. In order to accomplish 'hive' mentalities, we must subdue individual thought and choices while turning over those decisions to a single individual (or at least small groups of people).

This is a direct application of information theory where each individual could be considered a particle within a gas (or liquid, if you wish). Injecting energy into the gas excites the molecules and causes them to move in various random directions (this is why hot air expands). Removing energy from the gas causes the molecules to reduce their chaotic and random individual motion. In the case of more isolated systems (such as planets), injecting energy into the system ultimately leads to pockets of air of different temperatures, conflicting streams, and stuff we refer to as "weather." The average velocity/direction of the atmosphere, however, is relatively slow.

Go farther out, away from the sun, and planets have very extreme average wind velocities in their atmospheres. This is due to the lack of energy being placed into the system. Individual molecular direction is restricted and thus more likely to conform to other factors.

This planet has life. The others, for all we can tell, don't. Bees build hives and make honey. A thousand years ago, the wheel was a pretty damned nifty thing. Now the wing is old news and games that read and interpret our body motion via cameras are all the rage.

Bees still make hives and honey.

.... What's the problem with competition, again?



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 01:39 AM
link   
My biggest problem with the belief that logic is the end all, be all is that many times there are so many variables and unknowns that making a purely rational decision is almost impossible. Also, sometimes different factors carry more weight, and which factors carry what weight is often highly subjective. Overall, pure logic is a horribly inefficient tool to be given the pedestal that it has. In terms of practicality, it provides decent guidelines and is a good compass, but it's hardly the end all, be all of most situations.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Do not call me names, it displays a total lack of standards, they are not welcome on these boards.

Well, our economy is active on a monetary system. This means that all money created, has to be payed back to the bank, with interest. The problem is then that the money to pay back the interest, doesn't exist. Until the process repeats itself again and again, eventually, when the banks refuse to put out new loans, everything will end up in the bankers pockets, houses, cars, whatever assets there are in place.

Now, we find ourselves in a situation were obviously some people can pay back their loans, and others inevitable can't. This system is not fair, at all. You would want to make certain strategic moves to stay profitable, thus competing with others. let's say there are 100 dollars total. there are 120 people, needing 1 dollar each. Obviously, no matter how hard they fight for it, some people will not have a single dollar in their pocket, either they go to the bank for a loan, or they become criminal.

www.youtube.com...

This movie might explain this better then i can.

And yes, i will choose the ideal situation, everything equal to all. Chances are, that you could have been born in a 3rd world country, suffering the direct consequences of capitalism, total exploitation, cheap labor. Were the West and the US experience great wealth, others must suffer to match the equation. The people in 3rd world countries are nothing less then you or me, they are completely innocent, and thus a victim of our economic system. You could have been born in such position, i wonder how superior you would have felt then.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by gnosticquasar
 


Yes, if we all thought for ourselves, it would be very difficult.

If we all had the same goal and objective, we could setup a massive operation into improving the standard of living on earth. If we joined forces and not think of only our own interest, but thought of the interest of the community, we would all win.

There is no need for people to suffer in this world, it's stupid, it's nonsense. There are solutions, we should remove the monetary system, as this is the prime cause of inequality in the world, i welcome and look forward to sustainable development. If we managed our resources very good, the planet could sustain billions of more people.
All the people in the world would will only the whole city of Los Angeles. We can do some much better.

Have the same goal and purpose, then we can apply logic reasoning, for the benefit of everyone.



posted on Feb, 2 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by cyberjedi
 



Do not call me names, it displays a total lack of standards, they are not welcome on these boards.


I was bestowing upon you a description. This is different from calling you a name, particularly when taken in context with the discussion.


Well, our economy is active on a monetary system. This means that all money created, has to be payed back to the bank, with interest. The problem is then that the money to pay back the interest, doesn't exist. Until the process repeats itself again and again, eventually, when the banks refuse to put out new loans, everything will end up in the bankers pockets, houses, cars, whatever assets there are in place.


This is entirely false, and the explanation of why is likely to go so far over your head that it's foolish of me to even try and explain - but everyone takes their turn in the dunce cap.

A loan is a service. Just like car rental or having your hair cut. Interest is the fee charged for that service.

Sit down and think about it for a minute. Why should I loan you $5k of the $10k sitting in one of my bank accounts? To be a good person? Yeah - I've offered to help pay for some medical/dental expenses of a few of my friends - but you and I aren't exactly friends, and you're not looking for a loan to cover medical bills. Therefor - I'm going to charge you interest on the loan so that I can pay some of my bills, too.

However, the bank also pays me interest on the $10k I have in a CD. The CD pretty much assures that the money is going to stay in their vault and they can use it to loan money to other people. It makes things far easier, from their perspective. The incentive for me to let them hold on to that capital comes in the form of dividends (interest) paid on the account. They are paying me for providing a service (capital reserves) to them. The more capital and the longer it stays, the greater the dividend.

Banks don't just poof money into existence (well, they do, to a degree, with Fractional Reserve Banking) - they rely on the investment of other people.

The problem we are experiencing is due to a re-hash of the 'first' stock market crash that signified the beginning of the Great Depression. Banks were reporting capital gains that were based on, effectively, credit. This was heavily tied in with the home mortgage market, and government programs that effectively removed penalties for banks to issue mortgage loans to high-risk demographics had artificially inflated the housing market since the 80s. Market demand leveled off and the rate of inflation could no longer hide the problems of defaulting loans stemming from the FHA, and we saw the housing market collapse. This was exacerbated by the fact that banks were doing some crafty (and risky) reporting of assets and gains for the sake of higher stock values.

It comes from there being more capital (money) in circulation than actually exists in hard assets (wealth - such as productivity and things people own, such as homes, cars, etc). The housing boom was masking this problem and 'sinking' a lot of the inflationary spending into mortgages. Now it's time to pay the piper, and everyone loses - especially the banks.

The problem the banks are seeing is that they don't have enough wealth to cover their liabilities - and even if they were to repossess all delinquent assets, the housing market burst pretty much leaves the banks SOL, as the outstanding loan is often considerably more than the property is worth.


Now, we find ourselves in a situation were obviously some people can pay back their loans, and others inevitable can't. This system is not fair, at all. You would want to make certain strategic moves to stay profitable, thus competing with others. let's say there are 100 dollars total. there are 120 people, needing 1 dollar each. Obviously, no matter how hard they fight for it, some people will not have a single dollar in their pocket, either they go to the bank for a loan, or they become criminal.


You're confusing capital with wealth.

Capital is money - currency - a standard unit of commerce.

Wealth is productivity and held assets - your job, home, vehicle(s), and hobbies/side-jobs.

Capital is often used to express wealth and facilitate the development of wealth. Wealth, however, is mostly subjective in nature and a completely unrestricted resource.

Congress could authorize a "stimulus" that gives every individual in the U.S. two million dollars. There would still be the same amount of food at the store, the same amount of fuel being produced, and the same amount of people holding a job (roughly). Everything would become more expensive. This is, exactly, what was happening in Post-War Germany (World War I).

However, if four new businesses are created in the community, the amount of dollars in the community are rather immaterial. The business produces goods and/or services and puts people to work. Since it is not a closed system, the community will see an additional flow of capital provided by the productivity of the businesses.

In the grand scheme of things, however, there are two things to consider; inflation, and deflation.

Inflation occurs when the currency/wealth ratio increases. This can be due to the authorization of more currency on the market by a government or private industry (private bank notes), or by a decrease in productivity with no change in the circulating currency (or a combination of the two).

Deflation occurs when the currency/wealth ratio decreases. This is usually caused by the productivity increasing beyond the yearly increase in circulating currency - but it can also be caused by banks and governments taking currency out of circulation.

When inflation occurs, you see 'higher' costs of food, housing, and generally all other consumer items. Often, because capital is in such supply, companies will issue raises. You may be getting $20/hour, but this is hardly going to matter if you're paying $3,000 a month in rent and paying $5 for a can of green beans and $18 for your average fast-food combo meal. Your overall financial outlook hasn't changed - the numbers on both sides of your income/expenses equation have just increased.

The best way to envision your working days is to do it in terms of hours. How many hours do you spend working to pay your rent? How many hours do you spend working to pay for food? How many hours get to be saved? Your wealth has increased when you spend fewer hours working to sustain your existence and more of your hours go into savings. This holds true whether your expenses have gone down or your pay has gone up.


This movie might explain this better then i can.


That's not saying a whole lot for the video.


And yes, i will choose the ideal situation, everything equal to all.


Glad we agree you are merely asserting your superiority.


Chances are, that you could have been born in a 3rd world country, suffering the direct consequences of capitalism, total exploitation, cheap labor.


China went from being a third world nation to a second world nation because it was being "exploited" by the U.S.

Those people may have been working for $0.25/hour equivalent, but many would still return home to the same communities that region lived in for the past thousand years or more. They used that pay to supplement their meals and lives with goods they would have, otherwise, never had.

I'm not going to condone a number of the labor practices -put in place by their own people-, such as sweatshops - but the reality of it all is that countries like China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan have all gone from being practically third-world to second and first world nations. Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, being under more direct influence of the U.S., are considerably better places to live than China - which has made great efforts to resist U.S. culture and influence (despite being a huge supply of cheap labor).


Were the West and the US experience great wealth, others must suffer to match the equation.


This comes from the common misconception that wealth is a finite resource, and from complete ignorance of what the economy is.

You all (liberals) make the economy far more complex than it needs to be. The economy is a pretty simple thing - it is people doing what needs to be done. That's it. We pay farmers to produce food because it needs to be done. We pay auto makers to make cars because it needs to be done. We pay people to serve us food at restaurants because, well - we want it to be done, and need it to be done in cases where we are traveling.

Money is merely a medium of exchange.


The people in 3rd world countries are nothing less then you or me, they are completely innocent, and thus a victim of our economic system.


When the little hooligan countries of Africa can stop shooting each other, our aid workers, and stop driving their economies via "419 scams" - perhaps I'll agree that they are "innocent" and "equal." We can, by en large, live and work together without shooting at each other and blowing each other up. You and I obviously have some stark differences. I don't kick open your door and roll a grenade into your living room over it.

That's not how everyone in those third world nations behaves - but we also don't do a whole lot of business with those regions. They are not economically viable. The only places they are come from high-demand resources, where the costs of hiring private security teams can be justified by the value of the resource (such as oil). Spending several hundred million building some McDonald's in Zimbabwe would be a pretty silly idea when half of them end up blown up or shot up due to riots (that may or may not have anything to do with McDonald's being there).


You could have been born in such position, i wonder how superior you would have felt then.


I would not exist in such a position as my consciousness is a direct result of my genetics, fetal development, and life experiences. It's like saying "What if Bill Gates had been born into a poor family in the Philippines?" - he wouldn't be Bill Gates, now would he?

I could have only been born to the parents that I was born to, into the life I was born into, and could only have developed out of the experiences I have had. Any other set of factors leads to a completely different person, and it is pretty silly to entertain the notion.

Contemplating a similar person being born into a third world country - I'd likely be killed while being a child soldier or some kind of pirate/militant organization. Providing he survived - his aptitude for strategic thinking and learning would have put him into close contact with various militant leaders and warlords - eventually to succeed them or fracture to form his own group. It is unlikely he would have the same concept of moral and ethical values - but recognize the value of popular support, and thereby appreciate the people as a means to an end, if nothing else.

I don't feel superior because of the country I live in or because of the income I (don't) make. I feel superior because my abilities greatly exceed even the 'above average' category. I don't know everything about chemistry. When I meet someone who does know more than me about chemistry - I walk away knowing what they know about chemistry, and what four or five other people knew, as well as what several physicists know about physics.

My ability to learn that, keep it all straight, and put it to use is a tall order. To have that, plus a body in good health, good genes, and fairly good looking (conceited, I know - but I've been complemented on my looks enough to let it inflate my ego) - my only real weaknesses lie in my tendency to procrastinate and 'dream' rather than 'do.' That, and my inability to see females as being capable of being 'bad' or 'evil.' IE - some people just get a kick out of hurting others (to various degrees). I always have difficulty accepting that a girl would do such a thing - despite the rather obvious and logical deduction that she is.

I know you would be quick to point out that my arrogance is one of my greatest weaknesses - but this is a forum where people debate and discuss. The best way to get information out of someone willing to compete against you in a discussion is to up the ante. It's how I learn what you know - some of it will be new, some of it won't. In person, where people are far more forthcoming - asking for explanations or to be shown how to do something suffices (and is often better than debating on an internet forum).

Anyway - I've rambled on far longer than necessary.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join