Posts by one_ugly

28

Explain monogamy to me

by joelbear in

jw
friends

.

my preferred social construct would be a group of 5 to 10 men sharing space, chores, well everything.. if i were heterosexual i think i would prefer the same situation, 2 or 3 families living together and sharing all.. actually i believe this should be a worldwide goal, total community in every sense of the word.. i see no advantage served by social and sexual diads.. please explain it to me.

one_ugly_time

Are you referring to emotional monogamy or physical monogamy... and can the two be seperated... and is monogomy "normal".

I contend that if you are not physically monogomous, then you are not emotionally monogomous, except with possibly yourself, but certainly not with another individual. Even the most stoic individuals require emotional content (regardless of how perverse the emotions may be) to have a desire for physical contact. This is why I believe all animals have feelings.

However, I believe you can have mulitple emotional partners and still remain physically monogomous (the most common marriage, IMHO). I don't believe any single individual can mirror another individual enough so that there is a true emotional monogamy. Otherwise, we would be mating recluses !

And for the homophobic, I contend that male-to-male emotional non-monogomy is far more common than any other type... Ask any "heterosexual" married man to stay away from his "buddies" for a month and see what a basket case he is.

Then there is the topic of spiritual monogomy.

OUT

36

Transcript: Beware of the Voice of Strangers

by Scully in

many thanks go to the following who made this possible:.

nosferatu for originally acquiring the recording and uploading it for everyone to hear.. hamas for hosting it so that even more people could listen to it;.

and finally to euphemism and odrade for their help in transcribing the entire talk with me.. without further ado, here is the transcript for the talk beware of the voice of strangers:.

one_ugly_time

Excellent transcript !!!

I noticed this when I heard the talk, but wasn't sure if maybe I missed it, but nowhere do they come right out and say that apostates or opposers are lying or wrong. The closest they come is when they say, "they do this to speak half-truths, to withhold details".

In fact, they barely attempt to accuss with the statement -- (re highlighted for proper emphasis)

16:06
Again, through e-mail or chat rooms, you can receive experiences or comments about our beliefs, information indeed that is generally unverifiable; it may very well be untrue. The comments may also be a cover for spreading apostate propaganda. How do you know? Well, you simply may not know until it’s too late.

I have enjoyed studying language the past few years, in order to get a grasp on a few things surrounding my upbringing.

Examining one little piece... "..., information indeed that is generally unverifiable" This a a contradictory supposition... meaning that the word "indeed" means "without a doubt" followed by the contradiction "generally" ie "usually"... changing the sentence to "...,information that is without a doubt usually unverifiable". Either it is "indeed" unverifiable or it is "usually" unverifiable...

Now, the mental strokes it takes to understand what was said is even worse when you consider that the same words could mean - "information indeed, that is generally unverifiable" -- "information" means "A collection of facts or data" or in our normal thought process, if we hear the use of the word information, we take it for granted that it has been reported and/or somewhat verified. Now, the sentence processes internally as "facts that are without a doubt that is (are) usually unverifiable"... a really confusing statement

One piece of one sentence... and this speech has used this technique over and over... The study of Erickson and hypnosis shows this method of "communication" to be very valuable for creating cognitive dissonance, leaving the recipient of the comunication bewlidered and confused, and shutting down the "logical" side of the brain... ultimately ignoring most of the language and responding to the percieved message, not the actual message.

One final comment about other manners of language that are used quite often... as in the final sentence "Well, you simply may not know until it's too late." We are supposing at this point that the meaning is "You won't know if what you heard is (fact/fiction) or (verifiable/unverifiable) or (apostate propaganda/???) until it is too late"... The real problem here is "until it is too late". Too late for what ? There is a subtle manipulation of emotions telling you that if you take in any of this communication at all, then once you do, you are the same as the apostates, you are wicked, you are unable to determine for yourself right or wrong, it is too late to ignore it, filter it, or use your own ability to think -- it is too late -- for what else -- to live forever !!! But this is never said !

OUT

Well, you simply may not know until it’s too late.

26

A logis puzzle, based on a true story

by stevenyc in

jw
friends

you're a contestant on a tv game show.

the host has three boxes, a,b, and c. .

one of the boxes contains keys to the star prize, a car and the other two are empty .

one_ugly_time

Nice job OldSoul --

Very nice little program !!! It takes alot to convince you... and it's good to see you convinced yourself !

It is a very interesting puzzle and twists are "natural" logical thinking.

Nice stats rick1199... a few years ago I think I could have actually written that out - but only if it were a homework assignment :)

ugly

26

A logis puzzle, based on a true story

by stevenyc in

jw
friends

you're a contestant on a tv game show.

the host has three boxes, a,b, and c. .

one of the boxes contains keys to the star prize, a car and the other two are empty .

one_ugly_time

Break it down... it is easy with this few of choices... In order to show it, we have to assume that Monty Hall knows the answer or he wouldn't be able to discard a box... that is why the odds increase greater than 50% to change... Here we go... Monty knows Box C wins...

Pick A - Discard B - Swap to C, WIN
Pick B - Discard A - Swap to C, WIN
Pick C - Discard A or B - Swap, Lose...

2 out of 3 times, you WIN if you swap...

The odds increase to 2/3 BECAUSE of the knowledge required to remove a 'losing' box. If Monty didn't know the answer and randomly removed a box... well, let's see.

Pick A - Discard B - Swap to C, Win
Pick A - Discard C - Swap to B, Lose
Pick B - Discard A - Swap to C, Win
Pick B - Discard C - Swap to A, Lose
Pick C - Discard A - Swap to B, Lose
Pick C - Discard B - Swap to A, Lose

The odds become 1/3 to WIN - this is the way street hustlers play the game... inverting the odds of a well known game that if played like Monty gives the contestant the advantage.

ugly

59

9/11 Attacks-- No planes say conspiracy theorists

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

ianone and others have been spreading their propaganda on this forum and elsewhere on the internet for quite some time that it was not commercial airliners but smaller planes, rockets, or detonations that brought down the world trade center and hit the pentagon.

but zacarias moussaoui disagrees with them.

see " 9/11 attacks.

one_ugly_time

Y'all jackasses that go around making accusations like that are spitting on the graves of thousands of innocent civilians who were murdered just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Obviously a heated topic and still emotionally touches nearly everyone that recalls the events of this tragedy. I agree, Mike, that those that deny the tragedy and the severe impact of these events are scum of the earth. And those involved with the planning and execution of this event are beyond evil.

However, I don't believe this topic was started in an attempt to deny any such thing. It was someones inquiry into the possibility that the sick, evil, and twisted minds involved could possibly be from American soil and/or a direct result of American politics played to the limit. (If this were true, these so-called America's involved would certainly conspire in every imaginable way to cover up their involvement.) It was an inquiry into the possibility that the pentagon attack was not what we have come to believe. Yes, I realize they mentioned the WTC as well, but this is not really the just of most of these theories.

Conspiracy theorists get us and keep us emotionally attached to events. I choose to find the value for myself in that feeling and will counter their arguments with action rather than words. When the original "Hunt the jumbo jet" production was released, I took a step back and watched with an open mind.

I came to one simple conclusion - very much like the Kennedy assasination -- there was more behind this tragedy than the American people know or will ever come to understand. And that conclusion INCLUDES the higher powers within the American government. Even they will never fully "know" all of the "facts".

Through this tragedy, the government has learned more about what is necessary to truly protect a nation. Nearly 5 walls of one of the nations most secure facilities where penetrated and the impact it took to accomplish this was never anticipated. I imagine facilities in WV and Colorado in particular are being heavily re-inforced due to the number of "unimaginable" methods of penetration that our national securites group are now imagining as possible.

On a positive note --

I read an email the other day that truly touched me... I don't have it right now, but to paraphrase... it gave 20 or so samples of individual lives that were spared from this tragedy...

One ladies son forgot his homework, so she was late heading out to her office that day...

One man spilled his coffee and stopped to pick up a shirt before going into work...

....

None of these people ended up going to work that day.

These people all worked at the WTC on Sept 11, 2001...

OUT

59

9/11 Attacks-- No planes say conspiracy theorists

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

ianone and others have been spreading their propaganda on this forum and elsewhere on the internet for quite some time that it was not commercial airliners but smaller planes, rockets, or detonations that brought down the world trade center and hit the pentagon.

but zacarias moussaoui disagrees with them.

see " 9/11 attacks.

one_ugly_time

So you are saying it is uninformed scientists and scholars ? And the Penn and Teller have all the facts. After all, they made a show ?!

Haven't touched a bong in over 20 years and not paranoid. Again, it is you who drew the conclusion on how I believed based upon the information I presented. I never said I believed the moon landing was faked; nor did I imply I believed that. I was very straight about presenting the beliefs and notions of others. Why is it assumed I believe what I present to be others points of views - AND stated that they were others points of views.

It may be that those scientists and scholars need to put down the bong and join society. However, if they did that, we wouldn't have the class of people in society that kept the checks and balances on such events.

one_ugly_time

The true morality of a man is shown by what he does when nobody knows and nobody will find out. * cant remember, but not original *

32

If this was your last post on JWD, what would you say?

by Rod P in

jw
friends

suppose something came up that was beyond your control, but you were given one last chance to say something on this forum for all the posters here.

what would you say to all of us for the last time?.

rod p.

one_ugly_time

I am going treasure hunting

59

9/11 Attacks-- No planes say conspiracy theorists

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

ianone and others have been spreading their propaganda on this forum and elsewhere on the internet for quite some time that it was not commercial airliners but smaller planes, rockets, or detonations that brought down the world trade center and hit the pentagon.

but zacarias moussaoui disagrees with them.

see " 9/11 attacks.

one_ugly_time

I've already given outline details and you're more than capable of doing the research yourself, although your sceptical little face makes me wonder why you'll even bother as you have already formed an opinion about something you apparently don't know about.

I don't believe you ever asked or received my opinion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories. It seems you are so caught up in criticizing me personally that you failed to realize that you have no clue how I believe or whether or not I have even formed an opinion. You only know that I am open-minded enough to allow other people to express their opinion and exhaust their own means to finding their truth (since I am sure you agree that there is no such thing as an absolute truth). What is called a "conspiracy" today could very well be deemed one of the greatest political acts in history - given ALL the surrounding information.

You are either saying that;
a/ it is understandable people dispute the 'standard version' of events as they are in denial, or
b/ that people dispute the conspiracy theories as they are in denial about what really happened
... please clarify what you mean.

I'm not sure I understand the difference between a and b as you have listed them. I was leaning toward a) in my statement, but along the lines of the most recent conspiracy theory that you have mentioned, I would argue that b) clearly applies to those that don't agree with your position. I am simply saying, that we all form opinions - and yet very very rarely are those opinions based soley on "fact". Questioning "the facts" is no different than questioning "the truth".

I watched myself, on NYC new, as the reports of the 1st tower getting hit rolled in. It was originally reported as a twin engine or small powered aircraft. At the time, lots of speculation and no answer - no video or pictures readily available for the reporters. They began evacuating limited portions of the 1st tower. Commenting on the structural damage, design, and ability to withstand the event. I recall two helicopters in the air during the time that the 2nd aircraft came toward the WTC. By this time, which is only 11 minutes later, all US airspace had been officially closed. The 2nd aircraft was filmed and watched as it happened (or as close as the general public gets to live, given any FCC madated delays). Before this, the 2nd tower was cleared of any possible danger from the 1st tower, so evacuation proceedings were halted.

Is that version close ? Without video camera or tape recorder, that is how I remember the day... the events are scattered, time stood still, was it REALLY a jumbo jet ? If I only got to see it once, and didn't see the headline photos and constant replays for the next week, I am not sure I would have believed my own eyes. It wasn't simply beyond comprehension from a destruction standpoint... it was emotionally deep and cutting.. it changed America and the American public. It raised doubts about our National Security and our CIA...

I have personally never seen a video recording of anything striking the Pentagon. Easily in the top 10 of the most guarded and secure facilities in the world. Cameras exist all over the Washington DC area... in the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington monument, and elsewhere... yet, I have still never seen a video recording of anything striking the Pentagon. So, was it as BIG as reported. Remember, the original reports for the WTC crash were of a smaller twin engine aircraft. Somebody who watched it happened got it wrong !!! Or why else would that have been said ?

"You believe in fairies, so obviously your judgement is in question"
... is a supported criticism (as there are definately no fairies).

The comment "so obviously your judgement is in question", although not nearly as harsh as some of the previous statements, including my skeptical little face, it is still a personal attack. Justification for the attack does not reduce that idea that you made a generalized attack on an individuals ability to make a judgement.

"You support abortion, so obviously are happy if people eat babies"
... is a personal attack, amongst other things.

I beg to differ... "so obviously you are happy if people eat babies" is not an attack at all. It is an erroneous conclusion made by someone (other than the person that supports abortion) with very poor analytic skills and little understanding of what a logical syllogism is. It is a poor conclusion based upon a premise that has no correlation to the conclusion - except with the individual "creating" the attack.

Being unable to comprehend the peak power output of a Saturn V's first stage is fine. This lack of comprehension doesn't drive many people to believe men didn't land on the moon. Lack of comprehension is a poor excuse for believing in nonsense when that nonsense is know by those believing it to be unusual and contraversial versions of events.

You are correct. However, the amount of radiation measured in space, especially near the moon and other planets, along with the aluminum-foiled, polypropelene mesh suits that lacked any resistance to radiation... as well as the fragile nature of the outter lining of the space suits... and the "flying flag" video... have left some doubt in the minds of more than one reputable and respected scientist and scholar. They have access to the same "facts" as everyone else and yet draw different conclusions, based not upon emotion, but training and education... Now, 30+ years later, none of the astronauts that "landed on the moon" have any symptoms of the level of radiation exposure that would have been eminent if they really did land on the moon. Is it a conspiracy or simply uninformed scientists?

Now, all this information is available on the net. If you're really interested in learning about it, fine. Please feel free to dispute any of the above facts I have given regarding Iran, obviously with supporting material.

In all seriousness, if I did find any "facts" that disagreed with yours, you would simply discount them as uninformed or maybe even "credulous morons". You see, you already have your version - and it is undisputable. I accept that. And don't believe you to be a liar even if you disagree with my "facts"... Making these issues personal is exactly what the conspiracy theorists wanted to do...

Well wishes... I am going treasure hunting

one_ugly_time

59

9/11 Attacks-- No planes say conspiracy theorists

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

ianone and others have been spreading their propaganda on this forum and elsewhere on the internet for quite some time that it was not commercial airliners but smaller planes, rockets, or detonations that brought down the world trade center and hit the pentagon.

but zacarias moussaoui disagrees with them.

see " 9/11 attacks.

one_ugly_time

I could easily comment on how abbadon did call others liars with his rhetoric.

As you have said I called other liars, unless you were attacking my statement about Blair and Bush (which in context it is obvious you are not), it is you who are lying,

You are correct this is not the context. But understand, wordsmith, that I said I could comment on "how abbadon did call others liars"... With this statement, it is obvious to me that a) I didn't lie assuming I could still comment, b) I never said or implied you called anyone on this thread a liar. c) In essense, you are calling the conspiracy theorists liars.

It really doesn't matter to me if you do or don't believe this way or that way. However, denial is still one of the safest ways to survive a tragedy and all the ensuing emotions that following.

Many of the statements about not being able to comprehend a plane that large disintegrating are most likely true.

No, I am talking about comprehension, not belief.

So, whilst you may not like my style, it worked, along with what other people who were saying about the false claims made. I ridiculed the theory, and would have happily extended that to someone who was deceptive or senseless (as I did in my discussion with Lovestruth and Ianone on the same topic), but in this thread it was the theory I was bashing, which it richly deserved.

He has a right to his own opinion. He has no right to his own facts. His argument goes against established facts. It is therefore a false argument. And it does effect his credibility, as anyone incapable of doing the research to blow clap-trap like this out of the water were BLOODY luck to get out of a cult... and quite likely to fall victim to the first conman they meet...

Yep, sounds like I lied and you bashed the theory pretty good. Thanks for the nice response.

Rather than attacking the real conspiracies that destabilise this world and set-up problems for the furture, people waste their time in nonsense. This bugs me. Apparently it doesn't bug you.

I would love to hear about the "real conspiracies"... and review the facts

gambit

59

9/11 Attacks-- No planes say conspiracy theorists

by Kenneson in

jw
friends

ianone and others have been spreading their propaganda on this forum and elsewhere on the internet for quite some time that it was not commercial airliners but smaller planes, rockets, or detonations that brought down the world trade center and hit the pentagon.

but zacarias moussaoui disagrees with them.

see " 9/11 attacks.

one_ugly_time

Leolaia - Great pictures and your silence speaks volumes.

I could easily comment on how abbadon did call others liars with his rhetoric. It is too bad such flame throwing and personal attacks had to occur in order to "persuade" someone "out of cult thinking"... Like that ever works...

I too have many open questions, but seeing an F4 (I think) complete disintegrate is overwhelming. Many of the statements about not being able to comprehend a plane that large disintegrating are most likely true. I can't comprehend it, even after seeing the crash test. I have never experienced 500 mph or anything close.

Those that are grieving have to come to their own conclusions of the what, why, how, who, and all that in order to move on with life. We never know who is greiving as they research and discuss this tragedy. Share what we know... with compassion.

gambit

one_ugly_time

Posts by one_ugly_time