Space Patroller

Two for Qalid Sheik Mohammed: THE WALL, Pink Floyed COOL CLEAR WATER, 1954 "cowboy song" (done by two different artists) For Tim Geithner: THE CHEATER, Bob Kuban and the In-Men 1966

Extremely well put and seconded. Now, here's the good news: Often, it's Objectivism that fixes the problem. I don't know about you, but I get the feeling that it's as if Objectivism was custom designed for me. Repression can come from anywhere: One's relgious; read philosophical, teachings can be the source, either correctly or incorrectly intepreted The manner in which one was taught in the home to deal with such matters: "C'mon: Suck it up and move on" Behaviorally: the strain appears to go away when the feelings are repressed so that increases the likelihood that the nex time this happens, one will repress. This repeats until repression becomes the norm in one's life.

Nice. Often the real killer does things that throw suspicion on the person inquiring into the matter to keep suspicion from foling on him. Where were you on the night of January 17th. We've establisned that you were with Karen Anders on the night of January 16th. Now, I know where I was, I was getting Qalid Sheik Mohammed a big drink of water.

There is no Aristotelian philosphy that denies the value of emotion. They all oppose whim-worship, of "if it feels good, do it" Roddenberry's apperetnly flawed (and I say "apparently" because Spock's character could be interpreted as a man or Vulcan in transition and they never said they had no emotions only that they controlled them) is of Stoic origin Which is really the home of repression. Also answering the question of conscious vs subconscious, Rand has said that a person's implicit (unacknowledged, subconscious) philsophy (which often drives the behavior) is often better than his explicit one and that his sense of life, "a preconceptual, emotionally integreted equivalent of philosphy; specifically metaphyiscis", is an aid to philosphy and can be better than a person's explicit philosophy From my understanding the pon far was to bleed off the emotions and put them in a context that was OK but undiscussed. Well, if you're gong to abandon Aristotelian views, then you have to have a pressure valve. Also Spock and McCoy really served as two archtypal characters like the angel and devil that appear in cartoons which counsel the main charater to do things. Only instead of good and evil, it's the flawed dichotomy of thought vs feeling, with Kirk being the person who has to find some way to make the two work. To which there are two answers. 1) Compromise, do a little of each and put up with the contradiction, in which case you're never really happy, or 2) integrate, have them both going in the same direction. The only thing I can come up with is that the subconscious should be the home of process and the conscious should be the home of data, information, knowledge etc. One is method the other is content. The only time I make a principle explicit it is when I must state it. Most of the time my principles are used to control the process of logic. This is how philosophical principles are different form all others. When I solve a math or science problem, I get the data and think of the principle and see how the two line up and let the process implicit in the principle render the answer. In the case of philsophical principles, especially epistemology, I am rarely conscious of the principle. I ask "is this an axiomatic concept?", I don't ask "what is an axiomatic concept?". I ask "how does this square with the real world?", I don't think about "Existence exists" and only once have I thought about the full ramifications of that axiomatic concept as it applies to the human soul (volitional rational consciousness). http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/09feb.html So the only thing that repression has to do with Objectivism is as a misunderstanding thereof. I kind of hate to badmouth Branden as he was my first model of what a psychologist should be.

However, there is a basic contradiction in Rush's belief if he does support the idea of acting in one's self interest. According to the religious beliefs he professes. Man, and therefore, the individual, exists for the "greater glory of God". This means that he has no proper self-interest since he is a subservient being by nature. This means that Man can have no purpose on his own and therefore no independent self in which interest to act beyond the basic physical needs and that only to serve God.

Reset on the bees; since I put it in: I brouaght that up as an exemple that argues against a conspiracy or some kind of conscious level of integrated activity between the news media, which I ought have mentioned specifically qua news media, and the other two elements (university and totalitarians). I could have just as easily used a flock of geese, a wolfpack or a herd of wild horses. I brought up conspiracy theory to head off the usual stuff you get if you bring up separate entities acting with a unity of results: The "Oh sure, they're all in cahoots" response. Much of the allure of conspiracy theory is the question "How could they [whoever the "they" is] NOT be in cahoots? How dumb do you think we are?", since, if you and I act in some way that yields a common end, we do so by agreement. Since among persons conscious action is the norm, it's hard to think of any other paradigm. "Cahoots" is not always true. For example I've taken up javacript sorftwear from a website (following the rule of leaving the author's name and address in place or putting it so that it shows). The author had no idea that I would find this to be, in most cases, a perfect fit for what I'm doing and did not even know I existed until I informed him or them (in which case I'm like the guy that invented sliced bread, having invented neither the bread nor the slicing machine). Go to Productivity and take a look at the power console. All I did was integrate into a larger system. then inform the writers of the material, but that was after the fact. Now, can we put the bees and conspiracy theories to bed? I ought have specified the news media since, if you buy MOTHER JONES, THE NEW YORKER or NATIONAL REVIEW, you know what you're getting. If you buy the Boston Globe (of which fewer and fewer are doing) but wheter that's a response to people understanding that it's a "left-wing rag" or the general demise of print news, I don't know) Since it sells itself as a news outlet, the reportage and what attends it such as placement of stories and retractions, is based on some resemblence to reality. ERGO had a section called "News and Commentary" in which, first a news story was reported and sourced then commentary was in its own paragraph. One may argue whether or not news and commentary ought be in the same column but that's another story, but you're told up front what you're getting. Again, to see the ramifications of this, familiarize yourself with GALLILEO'S REVENGE: JUNK SCIENCE IN THE COURTS. I'm a pretty sophisticated layman with respect to science but even I've been taken in by clever manipulation of the facts or argumentation that used principles of science that I know to be true in a false context. And there's the Big Lie "if you repeat something long enough it becomes accepted as fact". See Rand's "Today's unchallneged slogans become tomorrows accepted truths" (she understood it better than Goebles: Few perosns understand how brilliant she was outside the realm of philosphy or writing).

OT Great site although something in my security suite came up and gave me the option to block it I take it that this is your site. Greate Psychedelic, somewhat eerie. What did you use?

What I am out to stop is the deliberate, knowing dissemination of falsehood, which is fraud that is couched in "opinion" as wdll as the deliberate withholding of facts. Implicit in the claim of being a news outlet is the reportage of fact and the non-reportage of known falsehoods. As David Brudnoy said "They li-i-i-e", he didn't say "they have a wrong opinion". if you wish I can tell a stroy of it right from the top of my head that happend a few years back And Rush and Howie Carr can tell stories from the first person perspective. Petr. Beckmann told a story of how 60 Minutes edited something so that it was 180 degrees out of phase with the original. It's called "the cutting room floor". and enabled folks to get the whole piece on VHS. On the contrary, if they win, what side will you be on when the killing starts?

Much of my theory of media comes from things like "Who Prgrams the Programmers", David Brudnoy et al over the last 40 years. Part of that is that the media function as our societal "eyes and ears" as Brudnoy once described. If that analogy is correct, and Brudnoy had been a journalist fot 35 years and taught Journalism for some time at, I believe, Boston University, then the process of fraud, if such there is, originates with them: As Chaucer put it "A shiten shepherd and clene sheep". In terms of the information, the media have the power, by virtue of the training,, knowledtge, tools and resources, and therefore the responsibility, since they dispense this information. The customers have lives to leadn and can't really be asked to go through the work of untangling sophisticated, professionally-designed tapestries of fact and falsehood just as you and I could not even comprhend the workings of medicine save in the most basic ways (Do you know that I once took poison to live? It was a narrow-band poison called Cytoxin that only attacked cells in the division stage: Clever, huh?). It was Brudnoy who said outright that they lie and told stories of the events on college campi that would curl your teeth. That is my theoretical foundation and where I'm coming from. In you were the university-media complex then "totalitarian" would be oxymoronic. Also on my domain, because I deal in so much AV I refer to myself somewhere as a "media mogul" and one of my support websites (holds files that you do not access directly) is called "mediazilla".

You're right. In such matters I make a distinction between "classical selfishness"= the popular usage and what I mean. Once understood, I have no problem with most people of some knowledge. Also, the same has happened to the word "altruis (tic, ism). It has come to mean "benevolent" rather than what Compte meant (which fed into Marx) It is a pity that tVoS did not include "Benevolence Versus Altruism". That was very explanitory In fact Rush has been pro self-interest and has read ATLAS SHRUGGED some 15 years ago.

HERE! HERE! to all of the above. As far as Beck's "one regulation..." I think this is mostly the cry of the fed-up. It is also true that Big Business has a lot for which to answer, mostly, not standing for capitlaism (after first learning what it is) and up to the tyrannists.

they might be interesting. FUTURE SHOCK I read in the ealy 1970's THE THIRD WAVE is just a "post industrialist" thing which I haven't read but which was reviewd in REASON Magaizine. "post industrialism" was used to support the 1970's incarnation of the eco's and was to convince people that we did not need manufacturing industries so that people would not get what was about to happen to them. It was Alvin Toffler who did the 1964 PLAYBOY interview with Ayn Rand which was on a fairly high intellectual level.

I'm not a member of the GOP and I've said that, too I don't see any listed here, or do you think I'm a telepath and can just pick it out from your mind? It would seem that if one wants a principle to be used, it is at least common courtesy to state it. and show how it applies. One does not "think" in principles, one applies them.

The issue is not wheter I like the media, it is are they part of a threat to this country and freedom Shortly Americans will be paying a carbon tax. The mainstream media have been disseminating thsi for a couple of years and guess what, the Congress is about to implement it. In the 1970's the media started with the "gas guzzler" stuff and promoted the idea of the governemtn setting mandatory mileage standards. at that time cars were getting 18 mpg city and 25 highway Have you looked around lately? they dragged out "gas guzzler" again and guess what Congress is doing. In doing much of this, especially in the case of envirionmentalism. They outright lie. In the 1960's the major media promoted Ralph Nader's UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED, which destroyed the Corvair. The finding of Congress was that it was a bunch of bull. Look at the case of DATELINE and the exploding pickup gase tank. Totally fake. multiply that times 10. That's my point vis-a-vis the media. Not wheter I like it or not. In fact I don't buy their

I wish Kendall and Jake_Ellison hadn't slipped in between gags and my answer before I finished it. Since when are we a democracy? What do you say of my evidence stretching back two generations? Nothing. I couldn't do an ad hominem attack on the left if I wanted to. I couldn't make that stuff up without busting out laughing at it. I don't have to. All I need do is let it speak for itself and believe me, If I wanted to do an ad hominem, it would have gone unnoticed. What can you say about the peddlers of Environmetnalism over 2 generations? My answer is They can't suck enough? Someone said the question was "loaded". A good prosecutor knows the answers to the questions that he asks at trial. If you've ever had a teacher use the "Socratic Method", then you know he already knows the answers to which he is leading you. It's not a case of the questions being loaded, it's a case of where the evidence points down the road. If I saw someone kill their mother on May 3 and ask at trial "Where were you on May third?" and he says "in Albequerque at the shoe polish convention", was the question loaded? Of course he doesn't know that I saw him, that we have the gun with the prints and 3 other witnesses. I asked could we legitimately consider a conspiracy, the ansower needn't be "yes there is one". A complex deosn't mean conscious integration of action. Many non-believers in conspiracy, myself amongst them, say that the participants are trained to do thair part. But then, I'm also fond of saying "if it's not a conspiracy, it ought to be [it runs so smoothly over time]". But the predictions of conspiracy theorists on this matter of 40 years ago have largely come true if not in exact detail then in type and kind. Government is taking over industries, notably banking anf car manufacturing and it's just started. I think accurate prediction entitles people to a hearing as to accurate history. Now where were you guys 35-40 years ago when I was in the thick of this? Hopefully doing the same things that I did when I was that age; playing with trains, cars and trucks, oblivious to all of that. I bet more people belive there is a conspiracy than care to admit it under the dictum. "If you remove the impossible then what remains, no matter how improbable is the truth" and given the smoothness with which this complex runs, it would be natural to think that there is some level of integration and most persons would think that it has to be conscious. There's also "First time circumstance, second time happenstance, third time enemy action". What of the sixth time or the eigth or two generation of events? When a conspiracy theorist presents you with all of this and then asks "Now do you really think that this could all be by accident?" , are you going to say "yes"? Or "doesn't this all fit together too will to be dumb luck?", are you going to say "no"? You'll be laughed off the stage with "Just how stupid do you think we are?". Conspiracis are starting to sell. Look at how "intelligent design" is being sold. 27 years ago that was "Creation Science" or "scientific crationism" and it 's even convinced Antony Flew of the existence of something like a god. Another connection; in 2008 when the Carolina GOP irritated the McCain campaign, they threw the N Y Times editorial in the face of that GOP. and we do know that pols court the media (most likely at the urging of their university-trained advisory counsellors). Before Susan Ludel's article, most Objectivists thought that talk of that kind was right-wing conspiracy theory and we all would say to that "Oh, sure, they're all in it together" Add to that THE SPIKE and Howard Feymann's (sp?) piece on media bias in, I think Newsweek and the chat shows c1995 saying that reporters are trained to be leftist and are driving this, which replaced the 40+ year prior belief , with cause, that it was the editors who were the leftists driving media bias. the whole thing creates an interesting stew and sets the table for it to be easier to believe that there is conscious action than not. Gags had it right. Also notice "are we approaching a time when the media will have to be dealt with by forc? .... It's time to think about it..." From gags "No it's not time to deal with the media by force but it's sensible to be prepared" Same thing and again right. Not only is it not time but the means to do it properly are not in place. it would have to be by a government commited to prohibiting force or fraud and also of a whole piece rather than with some elements of totalitarianism in it and some elements of freedom. That government is not here at this time. In that sense, the Obama/Democrat controlled government can serve as a cautionary tale, giving persons a glimpse at statism before the tipping point is reached and we fall irretreivably off the edge. Don't forget, if you were ever taught it, that most major societies have gone through times when they have killed off the "intelligentsia". Usually this is a response to the "ivory tower syndrome" where the intelligentsia have become so isolated and ideatioanally impbrd that they've become alien, hence a percieved and often and often an actual threat to the survival of that civilization. That is not a judgement. It is a fact of history and one that we should want to avoid happening here. Just how that is to be accomplished I don't know. In terms of the "war of ideas". It is not just some abstract battle of words between two philosophers on hilltops shouting at each other. What the mind commands, the hand does. To quote Rand "Today's unchallenged slogans become tomorrows accepted truths" and people act on those accepted truths. The war of ideas becomes the war of actions or as I have said "You must spill oceans of ink (this was before the internet) before you spill rivers of blood". Gags, If I recall aright, it was you that asked a question of how I function. Well, one of the ways in the physical world is paying attention less to where things are, but where they will be. If you are going to cross a strett, you see where the cars are but you predicate your go/ho go on where they will be at time x. When you throw a football pass, it is not where the reciever is, but to where he will be when the ball arrives. the same is true of events. The presnet is already determined by the events of the past. the future is set by the past and present. Today is yesterday's tomorrow and tomorrows yesterday.

Bingo! But that does not make it any the less a complex. That's why it's the University-Media-Totalitarian complex. remeber the hive as I described it? none of the bees have the level of consiousness to understand what they are doing at more than the perceptual level. And many of the "busienssmen" went to the same schools and the same inhumanities departments, too. If the current trjectory continues, where else can this go? A thrown rock that breaks a window is not under power when it does so, it is in ballistic free-fall. I am not reccommending that this be done by private militias, by the time it got to that, things would be in a real sad state. Because of the nature of this, it will have to be done in the right way and for the right reasons. A nut? Or Janes Drury; and let me tell you, to most people, Objectivists sound like nuts or Martians anyway, so that's a given. I rember when if you had told me that age-based pricing would be practiced. I'd tell you "g'won; you're crazy" or the government telling car companies what gas mileage their cars must get or the government fireing a major car company's preident or ten trillion dollars of debt, or... which, 40 years ago, if you mentioned any of, it would be considered extremist sci-fi; and bad sci-fi at that. and I would have been the first one to say it, too. That was then, this is now. I said "Are we approaching the time...". However, time is not the key element of any prediction, evetns are. Time is used as a rough estimate of when you can expect the events to occur. Hey when Congress is talking about regulating CO2, which is also a human exhalent, how long before.... ? I can tell you some other things that we never believed would have happened 40 years ago. or even 20. A lobster is cooked slowly so that it doen't know it's being cooked but bit by bit, increment by increment it dies. I used to regularly sneak up on "shy" cats. when the cat wasn't looking, I'd take a few steps and stop, let it look, the when it turned its head away take a few more and soon be standing next to it. By not moving when it was looking, I was like any other part of the scenery. Persons go into catastrophic debt in increments then wake up one morning and say "How the frig did THIS happen?". Did you ever play "1,2,3 Redlight?"? Do you disagree with my assessmen of the danger as 85% clear and 70% present? Less than a certainty but more than a potential. I would say that we have about 3 election cycles left. Of his writing Drury said "...This does not have to happen, but it is what might happen if things are let to go as they are going". Rand always said that the Soviet Union was fragile, but also dnagerous, Reagon and his advisors know just where to put, and not put, the pressure to make it break up without exploding, just like a good demolition company. But nature gives what it gives only once. The second time, we have to make it for ourselves.

There once was a horse, white and gray with whose thoughts Ayn Rand's wisdom held sway. He said to a mare whose barn he did share "Why it's perfectly clear: 'hay is hay'".

I say "small l libertarian". Being too cute causes more problems than it answers, such as eyes glazing over, and being wise-ass gets the kind of response it deserves. "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" is not a full-bore political system, it is the results of one i.e. the consequence of a system based on individual rights. Libertarian, qua politics is the closest to what I support based on Objectivism. But then, when I started that 30 years ago Objectivism was not that well known. and amongst 90% of the people if you said Objeictivist they would say "obwhostivist?", "Grind me a poun of that while you're at it", "I had one of thse but a wheel fell off" or "Wanna run that by me again in Englisn?" at which point, it's time to pack it in. You have about 15 seconds to engage someone so don't be obscurantist. The world works by "successive approximations". You start with a ballpark answer and get closer and closer. You see a galaxy before the individual stars, the stars before the full star system, the system before the individual planets and finally Eath and it's moon, then you land. If you get too cute and wise-ass, peope get the impression that you're deliberately trying to be sui generis and don't want to emesh themsleves in such matters and write you off as airy-fairy or stuck-up if they are normal and over 40.

It almost sounds like a conspiracy, right? We have long known about the university end of this and the currnet President is buddies with Bill Ayres who is a known and unrepentent lefitist radical. But what about the media. Well if you saw how the Tea Parties were portrayed on Commmnist News Network, do I have to say any more? Yet this same klatch treats ACORN like a grassroots orgaization. vilifies capitalism by habit and had been known for "All the news that fits, we print [and cover up for like Nixon at a Watergate party]" since when. Beyond that. since 1990, they have been shown to be 90+% Democrat, which is proving to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Looney Left, and treat evrionmentalists like the high priests of some retrogradereligion to which they subscribe, bringing with it astrology, psychics and wicca, that makes Christianity look downright rational This is not new, Go through your volumes of The OBJECTIVIST and find "Who Programs the Programmers" by Susan Ludel and see how OLD that is. It was that article, appearing in the rational publication that convinced me that this wa not just conservative claptrap. and that was two generations ago. Now the usual leftwing BS peddlers will say "[sneer] but do you really [sneer] think they're in cahoots [sneer]?". I don't know. But I do know that they hang out at the same cocktail parties and peddle the same line of cowpies. I also know the job of each in a society. The university are the theoraticians, the media dissminate and the politicians act on what is dissminated. This is true of any society. So you tell me. They don't have to be "in cahoots". the bees in a hive aren't in cahoots, but each knows its task and that task integrates with the tasks of the others. Now Rush Limbaugh often plays clips from the Sunday shows and many of the same phrases occor on different shows. So one may legitimately ask after conscious integration. if you want to get a sense of it, read the part of AS about the test of Reardan Metal for railroad tracks and the furor that ensued and you have it exactly right and this was written at a time when the situation hadn't become so blatant: And who can forget Bertram Scudder? Meet Charlie Rose. We also have Bernie Goldberg's latest book saying that the media as an institution actively supported Obama, prceeding from a biased system to an activist system. Given the connection between the Democrat left, the University left and now the media being institutionally active. The idea of a complex is not exactly tinfoil tyrolian, is it? it seems to be in a latency, rather than potential, stage Are we approaching a time when the media will have to be dealt with by force? It is the porper role of government to prohibit force and fraud, and to retaliatee against either. It is juxt a matter of time before the left, if allowed to continue in power, will do so. The danger is 85% clear, and 70% present. It's time to think about it and prepare. These guys ain't playing patty-cake, more like Rollerball. If I may direct your attention to the mid '80's there was a comic strip called "Boom Count" that showed Opus looking in on a meeting of the media elite speaking in Russian on a telephone and the last panel with jus Opus saying "somehow or other, didn't you just know it", satirzing the folks who said "the media take their order from Moscow" Well my friend and I, discussiong this on the phone had a hoot and I said "it's really the other way around. Moscow gets its orders from the media". when he did a double-take and asked what I meant I said that Communism is the political system that is the logical result of what the media dissminate whcih comes out of the (in)humaniaties departments of the colleges like Harvard, Brown, Columbia et al and can be traced to "Give us this day our daily bread".

BEM FEIT! Not only that but values are hierarchical, meaning that you may need to forego one value to acquire another. This can vary with situation. If I am starving, a T-bone steak is of more value than $500.00 at that time. Attaining any value "by right", by which I mean in accordance with the laws of the universe and their consequences for Man is itself a value beyond the specific value attained and a major one at that since it not only deals with specific values but with human-ness as a value. "To write down, to talk down, to think down: Nothing can be left of a person thereafter. And nothing ever is" (Gee, who wrote that?) In some ways I regard dishonesty as bad as murder since it is an attack against the uniquely human means of knowldege which is the defining element of being Man (volitional rational consciouness)

Reading a book or watching a move focuses the mind outward. (If you can find it, Read "Kant Versus Sullivan"). Using a psycho-active drug, qua psycho-active drug (in a non-meical context) is attempting to use the mind to generated material that should come from outside the ego (which is Platonic; re "the Cave". One may and should look inward to examine function. i.e. introspection but not to generate content except through the process of reasoning re: factual premises+valid reasoning=true conclusions. While the use of drugs to alleviate psychological problems may be true in some cases, most of the time it's done because it "feels good" (I always said that if I did any of this beyond the stage of curisity, my drug of choice would be speed. I might have been willing to drop acid, but only under very contolled circumstances and with safety precuations that did not exist in the normal settings and knowing what I know now, I couldn't even be tempted to). I tried it enougo to "get it" (the times were different, drugs were controversial and I am curiosity-driven) and it didn't feel good so I dropped it. Most stoners don't look at it beyond the range of the moment. In fact, having had the experience, I wonder why persons would do it. One can easily "bend" one's mind and the drugs destroy your sense of time. If you've got good sci-fi and a good imagination, you don't need pot. If you're over 21, try re-studying algebra and the principles you missed at age 14; that'll take you somewhere else in a hurry. Even a proper study of Statistics will blow your mind. We can afford to study advanced math as principles (without getting scared of, sidetracked by or bogged down with arithmetical calculations) now because we have machines to do the number-crunching. One of the things I like about Accounting is to see the way it all comes togetyer.

Not in the full context, which is. The only choice you have is to think or not to think [written many times] This is a "forced" choice. it is not the case that not thinking is the default setting. We have "drivers" for this. notably curiosity, sense of life and the knowledge that we might need this to survive. So the act of "choose to think" returns +1, later or -1, there is no null. when I come upon something, my mind goes after it without being told to and it's hard to stop it from doing so. If I'm not careful, I can be consumed by the matter. In that sense, I have not "grown up". The choice to think explains itself. Next comes the choice of focus and that's more complex. The choice not to think is active evasionn; specifically the "blank out" that Rand referred to so often, as in RM. Now if you are not damaged psycho-physically. not mistrained or mistreated and if you are an adult. you pretty much know when you're playing around the edges. Even non-adults kinda of get when they are not using it all. One of Rand's questions was could the process be semi-automatized. From how I understand it, she was never 100% certain of the answer but she seemed to think it could. It can. Curiosity impels us toward it and sets the template. However, we spend most of our intellectual effort to disable that function so that its proper use is not understood. As to intellectual capacity. There are two ways to go at it; wide scope or narr-band. A guy with a 140 IQ, if he uses it over a wide scope will outperform a guy with a 160 IQ (sometimes even in his own area of specialization) that is narrow-banded. A person with one working eye at 1/14th function can reach mid-level reading skills. To get an image of wide-scope vs narrow-band, think of a graphic equalizer or multi-track audio mixer with sliders. Narrow-band means that all the sliders are pretty much near the bottom with one or a very few of them raised significantly. Wide socpe or wide-band is with all of them pretty will up the scale to a greater or lesser degree. The reason for the former is that in wide banding his use of his mentality a person may (almost will) discover the key in one category of action that solves a problem in another that the narrow-banded mentality, not straying from its specialty, missed because it was not sent there. For the latter it's "Where there's a will there's a way": It you want it, and you are let, encouraged to and the dffort is asked of you and rewarded, you will find or devise a way to get it. There is a third aspect; association. If you hang out with all kinds of persons and be aware of what is going on, you'll wide-band your mentality and learn to know the smart from the dumb. As you reach and proceed through adutlhood, you will learn to be selective about your friends. Intellectual capacity is not entirely static, only 70% is genetically "determined" so you can kick it up another 30%. Learning how to use it effectively and the will to do so are force multipliers. And guess what the root of the best set of force multipliers is. Let me quote Rand "...philsosphy will not tell you if you are in Zanzibar, but it will tell you how to find out..." Poeple think of philosophy as a set of static ideas. It is not. It is more like a download om the order of mentality_setup.exe. when you engage the ideas into your "operating system" (double-click "mentality_setup.exe") they becomes an active component. specifically the epistemology. And guess what the best phiosophy is.

Hey Jerko, I didn't offer my hand for you to twist my arm: GFY; and at lightspeed!!

Since it is not enforceble totally it will be enforced selectively. Now I can really talk about the eoc-crackers' Carbon mothprint. That was one of my jokes five months ago (I said of Al Gore "I'm not worried about any carbon footprint. I'm worried about his carbon mouthprint"). To quote Felix Unger: Egad! I'm Rosemary's Baby! POLLUTINT IS PATRIOTIC!!!! AAAWWWW---RIIIGGHHTTTTT!!!!!!!!!