I've watched both The Prisoner and TOS... All as TV repeats.

Does that make me the youngest of the lot of yer?!


And to get back on topic:


Facts are fascinating.

Who needs other's tedious tawdry dreams and make-believe when we have an infinity of the real world around us yet to explore?!


Forever onwards with the quest to forever roll back the boundary of ignorance!

Keep searching
Martin

+1

You're older than her.

facts are boring

---

boring is judgement
boring is a hole in the fabric of spacetime

---

Finally! You actually responded to what someone was saying rather than just deride them.

Understand. I am responding to Ideologues, as I would, and do, respond to Religious Fanatics. Both are the same to this Atheist of both.

The Religious state all problems will be solved, if one believes and follows some God. This is entirely ridiculous, and I do point it out.

This Forum does not have many that believe that. But interestingly (as I have observed in life), Fanatical God Believer's response, is the same as Ideological Believer's, when confronted.

According to you everyone is an ideologue. You realize you have called me both a left wing and a right wing ideologue in the past already? Perhaps not everyone who has a set of ideas or believes is instantly an 'ideologue' same as that not everyone who believes in God is a religious fundamentalist.

Even so, your ideologues are rather vague, given that you talk about either left wing or right wing ideologues. Being 'left wing' is not an ideology nor is being 'right wing'. Both are sides on the political spectrum and they cover a wide range of actual ideologies (Communism, Fascism to name both ends of the spectrum).

Regarding solutions to the Worlds, Cultures, Racial, etc., Problems:

I have given some of my ideas, in these Forum's. Which are always (of course) derided by The Left.

No they are criticized. Criticism is a compliment, as it means someone took the time to look at your idea and find weak points or inconsistencies with it.

The only one who really derides other peoples ideas is yourself, when you pass off ideas, suggestions or arguments as silly and unthinking without actually going into detail about whats wrong with it.

I am not silly, nor stupid, to think I can change the minds of Believer's. I give my opinion, and possible solutions, and move on. Pointing out The Believer's stupidly in the mean time. Anything else, would be a waste of my time.

You worked at a university right? How did you teach students? If they did something wrong, would you just tell them they were stupid for being wrong? Or did you take the time to explain WHY the student was wrong so that next time the student wouldn't make the same mistake?

All you do in these discussions is call people stupid for not thinking like you do, but you never give any reason as to why we should think like you. Sure, even if you did, you might never convince us, but at least you would be more interesting to listen to and perhaps some of us might learn something. But if you consider that a waste of time, then why don't you save yourself and everyone else here some more time by stopping with the endless 'silly, unthinking left wing' blablabla that seems to be your standard response to almost everything.

I am a practical person, and as an Anti-Capitalist: You may be interested in my solution to Criminal International Capitalism.

It is very practical, and has worked in the past.

Perhaps if you ever bothered to talk about your solution and give arguments as for why it is a better solution than everything else.

It is nothing The Left has, or will ever propose, nor implement. Their 'solutions' have only resulted in the murder, and enslavement, of 100 Million Innocents.

One final thing here, the left is (again) only a side of the political spectrum. You are lumping everything from Communists, to social democrats to environmentalist parties together. Only one of those has ever had a significantly negative impact on this planet in a few countries. Its a little insulting to lump everyone together.

The 1960s show with Patrick McGoohan.

umm i may have seen it as repeat i was a bit to young back then 4 yrs old , 1967-1968 The Prisoner (TV Series)

I know the actor he's in a few things .

It was nearly twenty years before i was born, yet i've seen every episode.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

boring is judgement
boring is a hole in the fabric of spacetime

boring is trying to bore a hole (let allow 6) in a well aged ironbark strainer post.

Cheers.

Get your brain out of the gutter! I'm a fan of The Prisoner, did you never watch it?

yes , So your Queen Bee then ! :)

Not that Prisoner, LMAO!!
The 1960s show with Patrick McGoohan.

I'm old enough to remember "Ett fall för John Drake":)
The English name of series is Danger Man (in England) or Secret Agent (in the US), not to be confused with the series The Prisoner, with the same actors, which, however, in the later series called number 6 and whose identification with John Drake is moot.
It was the name of a television series that premiered in England September 11, 1960 and also been shown on Swedish TV and which was about a secret agent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JOXTWqzw2I

Therefore, as they always do: They 'Ignore' (AKA attempt to censor) others. As if anyone, outside of their 'Intellectual Monastery' would care.

This small group cares. No one else does.

And there you go again, complaining about getting censored. Except no one censors you here. At worst, they ignore you because you are the intellectual equivalent of a wet blanket. Otherwise, they criticize you for saying dumb, offensive, racist or just ignorant nonsense.

Of course, having the intellectual capacity of a wet blanket, you cannot respond to any actual criticism, so you repeat the same drivel ad nauseam, complaining that you are getting censored by either right wing or left wing intellectuals and how they all follow some kind of agenda. Its so boring. You are so boring. You aren't even trying anymore to actually make a point, to actually engage with other people on the content of their argument. All you try to do is some horrible attempt at character assassination by pretending everyone who you disagree with is part of some political side.

Of course, this will just go right over your head and you will respond in an entirely predictable manner.

Thank you for your Intelligent reply.

RE: Your use of the word 'Intellectuals'. Let me give the following analogy.

You are living in the European Middle Ages. The Brightest, Most Intellectual, and Educated people have gathered inside a Monastery, on top of a mountain. They shut themselves from the World for 20 years. They do acknowledge other Thinking and Cultures. But ignore and deman them. Because they are the Best...

One day, you approach the Monastery, asking for food. They allow you to enter (first outsider in 20 years), and you sit down at the dinner table, listening to their their conversation.

Listening to their 20 years of Cloistered Intellectual Conversation: You begin to realize, they have entered a Fantasy World, as all cloistered persons do.

As your attacking, name calling Post above, and others on your 'World' believe: I am this 'Outsider', who needs to be 'dismissed'. No different from the Monastery, I noted.

Do you understand? No.

Will you understand? No.

I understand that's a load of simplistic bollox.

The un-named poster just doesn't get it. When one's "cloister" involves less than 5000 within a small city of 106000, where the remaining 101000 are willing to tell you, "I don't like you" simply because they haven't known you all their lives ... who will tell you "I will put a knife in you if you mess with so and so" (and you know some of these people have spent time in jail), when if fact you and so-and-so are actually interacting just fine and becoming friends ... . Then maybe the so-called outsider, pointing fingers at the s0-called cloister, is in fact the insider of a cloister and is CLUELESS to the totality of the rest of our day-to-day experiences. The un-named so called dismissed so-called outsider WILL remain ignored until it is clear the wider spectrum is understood.

One final thing here, the left is (again) only a side of the political spectrum. You are lumping everything from Communists, to social democrats to environmentalist parties together. Only one of those has ever had a significantly negative impact on this planet in a few countries. Its a little insulting to lump everyone together.

Martin...

You were, of course, looking ...

For the usual attack-the-messenger rather than discussing the idea behind the message?...

Hope you don't call out my name in your sleep also!


(Note the "One final thing" ain't from me :-P )


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Clyde: No, no...there's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian, pre-capitalist --

Michel: Let me tell you something, alright --

Sarge: Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Clyde: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social --

Sarge: Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.

Clyde? "Do you like apples?"

"He's got big brains and she's got big brains, but Gooba's got the biggest ... brains ... of them all!"

Clyde: No, no...there's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian, pre-capitalist --

Michel: Let me tell you something, alright --

Sarge: Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Clyde: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social --

Sarge: Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.

Clyde? "Do you like apples?"

Love Good Will Hunting!

Clyde: No, no...there's no problem here. I was just hoping you might give me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern colonies. My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the southern colonies, could most aptly be characterized as agrarian, pre-capitalist --

Michel: Let me tell you something, alright --

Sarge: Of course that's your contention. You're a first year grad student. You just got finished readin' some Marxian historian -- Pete Garrison probably. You're gonna be convinced of that 'til next month when you get to James Lemon, and then you're gonna be talkin' about how the economies of Virginia and Pennsylvania were entrepreneurial and capitalist way back in 1740. That's gonna last until next year -- you're gonna be in here regurgitating Gordon Wood, talkin' about, you know, the Pre-revolutionary utopia and the capital-forming effects of military mobilization.

Clyde: Well, as a matter of fact, I won't, because Wood drastically underestimates the impact of social --

Sarge: Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.

Clyde? "Do you like apples?"

Love Good Will Hunting!

Ditto.

The problem with the un-named poster is, he thinks I am the Michael Bolton clone. Thus, he believes almost all of us here are are cloistered insiders. That probably includes you. He is unaware of:

1) I am actually a mixture of the Good Will Hunting character (and not just for the subject the prof tried to get him into) and that first year grad student.
2) Of the ways in which we so-called insiders used to interact with each other.

He does not realize how his assumptions lead him to baseless conclusions, increasingly difficult to comprehend posts and annoying ways of communicating with us, yet is suprised/upset/annoyed when any of us point it out and that we wish to ignore him.

The problem with the un-named poster is, he thinks I am the Michael Bolton clone.

Well i don't think your Micheal Bolton so your not talking about me hehehehehe

But i think i know who your talking about .

He's stirring the pot mate so don't bite when he goes fishing

And you can always block him so you don't have to read his posts if he is upsetting you that much .

---

"Since ... left, right, center and all approaches have failed or made matters worse [with no supporting evidence] ... they may be safely ... dismissed."

So, un-named poster, what are YOUR 'Solutions', hmmm?

I didn't mean for you to really post your solutions. These would be facts, as you are always right and that would be boring.

You are all still talking among yourselves. Believing you are the greatest, best, smartest, etc.

Dismissing others is typical.

You really are the living embodiment of irony, aren't you?

You are all still talking among yourselves. Believing you are the greatest, best, smartest, etc.

Dismissing others is typical.

You really are the living embodiment of irony, aren't you?

Hate the sin-naming, not the sin-namer. ;)

---

Reality Internet Personality

What a waste of time this thread is. Ive read it twice, Trying to see the humour or the irony.
The only thing that makes sense is the Dilbert cartoon. And I can see that it applies to both sides in here.

Dont get me wrong, I have posted some stupid things in my life, And Im sure I will in the future. But this is turning into a, I can outlast you thread.
You win I cant read anymore of this.

---

[/quote]

Old James