edg, if you need a ghost writer or two or three to fashion responses and do your thinking for you, I'll volunteer. But there is a cost, and that cost is self-sufficiency. As for posting morals, the recent Supreme Court decision in the United States seems to have opened the door a bit for laxer morality on-line, even overriding Yahoo guidelines which are, well, guidelines only.
To quote the Court: 'The "general rule" is that a guilty mind is "a necessary element in the indictment and proof of every crime."' How many people really feel guilty about what they post on-line, or really precisely mean what they say? Particularly if they experience some kind of 'righteous indignation' do people feel guilty when they say something? And we sort-of sociopathic types also do not feel guilty as a matter of course; things fall where they may and one must proceed from there. Recriminations about what has passed before does not serve getting on in the present. If you lose an argument, you dust yourself off and try again. Sometimes it is a matter of endurance. When Judy was posting, it was really impossible to win an argument, so you just had to keep it going as long as the stamina lasts. Another technique is to just stop arbitrarily. You do not see Barry having recriminations, he'll engage in a skirmish, and then stop, probably doing something else that interests him for the moment, like a new episode of something, or maybe Maya wants to engage him. My bet she is getting to be as smart as some of the people on FFL, certainly at that age she has more curiosity than most adults, especially the TB type of adult. Morality is imposed from outside, while ethics is imposed from within. Morality is a prison, while ethics can provide freedom while engaging with others. While you do not post frequently, your posts have an interest, and they are different enough from the routine here to stand out. They tend to have a high-Q coefficient, 'Q' being 'quirky'. Notice that the 'Q' does not have an 'I' preceding it. A lot of the high-Q crowd is now on The Peak. But when something stands out, like a deer in the forest, it may look like a target to some, especially if what is said deviates from the perception of the person with the spotting scope. How else can disagreements arise? Everyone who deviates from a particular world view is a deviant. In the eyes of others, we are all deviants. One happy family sparring together for the hell of it. And obviously if God does not exist, his appearing before me could not have any effect. If x implies y; not-x; then, not-y. If you want to fire a volley, you need to load your cannon with more than cotton candy. ---In [email protected], <duveyoung> wrote : Anyone want me to smack Anartaxius around a little? I usually just post my stuff and then forgive all the trolls, but Anartaxius seems to be asking for it. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuttttt, it's so much work to rub someone's nose in their own doo-doo, and I'm not up for it unless I can get a mob assembled here that wants me to give Mr. A a major fucking correction about his FFL posting morals. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuutt, I don't have any fans here, so this ain't going to happen, and no way Taxi changes even if God appears before him and tells him to shape up. Okay, I'll put a number on it. If I get five others here to publicly encourage me to get him my best shots, I'll tear him a new one.
