I stuck a Leggo up my nose when I was about one year old. So far I had to go to the emergency room. Was this the beginning of a long and lustrous career in cybernetics or a boneheaded kid thing that only lead to chronic sinus trouble and one nostril being larger then the other? I'll give you three guesses.
dj On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > :^D Perhaps you are thinking too late in age, Slip. You never popped a > wheel off a car when you were 4? 3? 2? This is common childhood > behaviour, so if it never occurred for you, perhaps you were > exemplary. > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I think that it may be a generalization on your part Chris in the "we" >> reference, as many children, myself included, cherished anything that >> resembled a toy. I never broke a toy in my life and would become very >> adamant when my brother would waste away his, and sometimes mine. I >> meticulously cared for every toy I was ever lucky to receive, which >> weren't many. I had cousins that had everything and would destroy it >> all in the rumpus room. Toys that I envied were recklessly smashed by >> those insolent little brats. I still today buy for myself toys, >> simple toys, toys that I could never afford to have. I love my >> gyroscope, my top and my RC cars. >> I do understand what you are saying in that we don't really realize as >> children the value of what we have received and in "that" we learn the >> makings of it, the mechanism upon which some of us have the ability to >> discover our desire to be one with it, as a career, as a hobby. >> I'm sorry you broke all your toys, Chris, you might be one of my >> distant cousins. LOL >> >> >> On Feb 26, 4:09 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Hi Sagir >>> I don't think this is negativity, as much as learning. When we are >>> children, we don't really mean to break our toy cars...at least not >>> the first time we pull the wheel off. It just happens. The second >>> time, we DO mean to pull the wheel off, but only because we are >>> establishing a causative norm. At that point, however, we have a >>> broken car, and we go crying to our Mom and Dad to fix it...and that >>> then becomes our goal (hopefully), to learn how to fix it ourself. >>> >>> I see nothing negative in this process. It seems to me to be the >>> natural order of growth and learning. >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:24 PM, saghir anwar >>> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > hi...sir with due apology ,i will not endorse ur point of view.u started >>> > from human nature that we break the toys in childhood and become engineers >>> > when grow old.its our distructive instinct.we we groom ,we become rational >>> > and utilize our energies to construct something in positive way.but we >>> > have >>> > also seen that poorly groomed persons oftenly commit follies and get >>> > irrepareable loss sometime.so we can manage to recover ,if we used our >>> > faculties in a positive way...sorry to be critical but negitivity can not >>> > bring positive results.thanx saghir >>> >>> > --- On Thu, 2/26/09, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> > From: Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> >>> > Subject: [Mind's Eye] Re: It's too late for planet Earth >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Date: Thursday, February 26, 2009, 6:52 AM >>> >>> > I have a similar thought process. I often liken the macro of the human >>> > race to the micro. When we are young, we break our toys, simply >>> > pulling them apart. Some of us, as we get into our teen years, begin >>> > disassembling small engines, and electronics, curious as to how they >>> > work, attempting to reassemble them. A few of us go on to become >>> > technicians of such things. As a civilization, we have done much the >>> > same, randomly tearing things down as cavemen, becoming more precise >>> > in our disassembly as an industrial nation, and hopefully, as an >>> > advanced civilization of the future, we will become technicians, >>> > reassembling the planet in a way which provides symbiotic sustenance >>> > for all. I really don't see any reason that greenhouse skyscrapers >>> > located in each metropolitan area couldn't provide local food sources >>> > for the populace. This planet could reasonably sustain twice the >>> > population, if we were managed effectively, and didn't piss in our own >>> > bathwater. >>> >>> > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >>> >> 2009/2/26 archytas <[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> Our current space vehicles >>> >>> remind me someone of primitive spawning in plants - like a group of >>> >>> algae forming a tower to boost one of their number from the surf to >>> >>> the jet stream. >>> >>> >> I think there's little point investing any money on manned space >>> > flight. The >>> >> cost is too high and we -- being a short-lived species -- are not >>> > especially >>> >> suited to travelling the enormous distances of our galaxy. >>> >>> >> Lovelock reckons certain countries (the UK, parts of Canada, New Zealand, >>> >> etc) will effectively become life rafts for the human population. These >>> >> countries would be broken down into super-high density cities and areas >>> >> of >>> >> intensive GM-farming (forget the current fixation about free-range >>> > chickens, >>> >> my hippy friends). The borders of these countries, sadly, would need to >>> >> be >>> >> barricaded and policed to stop the unfortunates getting in. >>> >>> >> Ian >> > >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
