Dux Avatarium

[Uni 306]

At long, long, long last, I'm finally graced with an avatar (the one I used to post by on the old board).

I'd like to express my deepest thanks to my long-time JWFan companion Stefan for making this possible. Da man? Yoda's got nuthin' on you, my friend.

- Uni....perched up there at his desk, preparing notes for another post.... :roll:

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Stefancos-

[ocelot 508]

Isn't it lovely how people get along

[Hlao-roo 389]

Isn't it lovely how people get along  

It sure is, dear friend.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

:cry: snif....I love you guys... :cry:

Stefancos- :cry:

[Hlao-roo 389]

:cry: snif....I love you guys... :cry:

We love you, too, Stefan.

[Ross 1]

Speak for yourself, Hlao.

-ROSS, who is sort of fond of Stefan :wink2:

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

And naturally YOU had to come and ruin a wonderfull thread, with your jaded and cynical outlook on life.

Stefancos- who weeps for Ross. :cry:

[Ross 1]

Sorry Stefan. The actual purpose of my post was to say I was fond of you. Now, I don't say that to everyone!

-ROSS who thought the emoticons made it clear

[Melange 446]

Dux Avatarium?

Sounds lke a track from "More music from Gladiator" or something

[Morn 8]

:? I'd like to see you install Linux.

[Uni 306]

Isn't it lovely how people get along  

Even lovelier to have started a thread (regardless how minor the subject) where we get some friendly commiseration for a change!

Dux Avatarium?  

Sounds lke a track from "More music from Gladiator" or something

Don't ask me....it just popped into my head. Sounded cool, and it has the added bonus of granting me the title "Duke of Avatar"--though where I presume to come by such nobility is anyone's guess. :roll:

:? I'd like to see you install Linux.  

He was all right, but I always liked Snoopy the best.

- Uni

[Morn 8]

Snoopy? ANd what does he have to do with Linux? :?

Morn - Not understanding this joke.

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

The other Linus. Linus Torvalds.

Marian.

[Uni 306]

S'allright, Morn....it took me a minute to catch onto yours, too.

No hints, though. Sorry.

- Uni

[Morn 8]

Ohh dear Uni.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

:cry: snif....I love you guys... :cry:

We love you, too, Stefan.

This MB really needs a gathering fast!

This is surely the weirdest MB I've ever seen. But then again, I just fit riiiight at home here.

It's good to see this MB is not being overrun with idiots that do nothing but bicker and bitch about everything...hmmmmm...anyway, let's hope it lasts.

Uni? Hmmm, did you simple wanted to use that term 'uni' or are you one of the few people that actually liked that %&*@#%!%* unicorn in Dungeons and Dragons?

[Morn 8]

This is surely the weirdest MB I've ever seen.

Try filmtracks!

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

This is surely the weirdest MB I've ever seen.

Try filmtracks!

Why?

Bunch of excentrics over there?

[Uni 306]

This MB really needs a gathering fast!

I'd love to see it happen.

This is surely the weirdest MB I've ever seen. But then again, I just fit riiiight at home here.

I'm curious....what's your definition of "weird" (in this context)? Unique, I agree, but we may be thinking along two different lines here....

It's good to see this MB is not being overrun with idiots that do nothing but bicker and bitch about everything...hmmmmm...anyway, let's hope it lasts.

Yeah, the B&B crowd has thankfully remained in the minority up until now. I used to post at the FSM board (and yes, I even checked out Filmtracks for a while), but after FSM's prolonged down time, it returned as a mutated, evil version of its former self, and I couldn't stomach it any more.

Uni? Hmmm, did you simple wanted to use that term 'uni' or are you one of the few people that actually liked that %&*@#%!%* unicorn in Dungeons and Dragons?

I don't know anything about this %&*@#%!%* unicorn (hope I got his name right....). Sounds interesting....but mine is a nickname I had in high school, short for "Universal Studios". Film buff, director hopeful....you get the idea.

Turning the question back on you....just who is The Prick, who's the DD, and which one are we rooting for?

- Uni

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

I'm curious....what's your definition of "weird" (in this context)?  Unique, I agree, but we may be thinking along two different lines here....

Actually, if something is unique, then isn't it weird in most people's views? As in, not normal/common. So weird here means something positive. 8O

Yeah, the B&B crowd has thankfully remained in the minority up until now.  I used to post at the FSM board (and yes, I even checked out Filmtracks for a while), but after FSM's prolonged down time, it returned as a mutated, evil version of its former self, and I couldn't stomach it any more.

It's sad how people abuse the freedom to express themselves...with such kind of freedom, with any kind really, comes responsibility as well. Even freedom is limited.

I don't know anything about this %&*@#%!%* unicorn (hope I got his name right....).  Sounds interesting....but mine is a nickname I had in high school, short for "Universal Studios".  Film buff, director hopeful....you get the idea.

I see....well, Uni was the name of a young unicorn in the animated series Dungeons and Dragons from the 80's....I loved that series. The most annoying part of it was this Uni, sort of a sidekick that got himself always in trouble and yet contributed nothing to the series. I thought perhaps you wanted to make a statement.

Kidding of course.

Turning the question back on you....just who is The Prick, who's the DD, and which one are we rooting for?

Oh, that has become a pretty long story. So, here's a shortcut. I used both names (Prick and DD) in some 3D shooters, which had again a bunch of different reasons. I'm actually The Delicate Dutchman...perhaps that rings a bell, perhaps only a tiny one since I usually post scarcely (I believe I explained to you the concept about Walking Warm during some chat )...the DD was a name I just used in lack of a better one really.

Then somewhere along the line, cause of some jokes, it got changed to this prick vs dd stuff...nothing special really...actually, I'm thinking about changing names once again.

I just absolutely want to make sure people remain confused on who I actually am. LOL

[Omen II 1,235]

Dux Avatarium?

Sounds lke a track from "More music from Gladiator" or something  

Uni has cleverly mixed Latin and Sanskrit for his post title. The word dux is Latin for 'leader' while the word avatar is from a Sanskrit word meaning 'descent' (usually of a god). Uni has Latinised it to a neuter noun and put it in the genitive plural. Stefancos is therefore "leader of the avatars."

Ovid would surely have proved, as do I.

Damien - redefining 'tragic' on a daily basis.

8O

[Hlao-roo 389]

Of course, I should have expected our resident Latin expert to chip in here...

[Morn 8]

This is surely the weirdest MB I've ever seen.

Try filmtracks!

Why?

Bunch of excentrics over there?

That's an understatement!

Some of the recent messsages:

ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!! Christmas music!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: a different Joe,

Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 8:11 a.m. (cache-mtc-aa08.proxy.aol.com)

I JUST CAN'T TAKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

______________________-

Time for some national pride...

Posted by: Jostein Hakestad, johake@online.no

Tuesday, December 3, 2002, at 8:55 a.m. (davinci.ti.telenor.net)

The violin instrument you hear in "Riders of Rohan" is actually a Norwegian Hardanger-fiddle. It's different from a regular violin in that it has 8 strings (though I suppose it can also have 10). They're on top of each other, and gives the fiddle a polyphonic sound.

I found it cool that Shore used this instrument in The Two Towers. I mean, what better instrument to accompany the Rohan people (who are, essentially, a bit like Vikings) than a Norwegian fiddle!

_________

Apparently, I'm dead

Posted by: Chris Tilton, chris@christilton.com

Saturday, November 30, 2002, at 8:15 p.m. (rrcs-west-24-24-132-13.biz.rr.com)

If you scroll down to the middle of this page, you'll find my name, a date of birth and death, and a link to my website. How very strange and disturbing.

________

Boredom results into.....a useless post

Posted by: Christian Kühn, thescorefreak@yahoo.com

Friday, November 29, 2002, at 1:40 p.m. (scorefreak.vauban.uni-freiburg.de)

Howdy folks and ye thanksgiving-swept Americans!

Here I am sitting, just having finished an EXCELLENT cheese pizza with a lot of Dr. Pepper (burp!), listening to the N8 Edition of Armageddon (****), and having nothing else to do but to think and write...

1) You know that I got myself the Extended DVD for The Fellowship of the Ring. You know that I am the most eager fan of Shore's score. You know that I listen to this score five times a day, sometimes on double speed...well, we all know that Howard Shore composed roughly three hours of music for the film. Of that, 71 minutes are available on CD. Which makes 109 minutes of music left off of the CD! ARGH.

2) Could somebody provide me with the cover art for Fried Green Tomatoes, please?

3) Whaddya think of the fact that Star Trek - Nemesis could be Goldsmith's last Star Trek score? I mean, the man is not the youngest any longer and if the reports of his fight against cancer are true, then maybe...better not think about it. Either way, I will hold Nemesis in my hands on Christmas Eve, and I know that I will enjoy very much.

4) I know that I've ask this question a thousand times before, already, but well: apart from which score you think could win the Oscar next march, which one would you PERSONALLY see getting the recognition? I mean, Jens's and my choice are clear, while Ryan goes with Spider-Man and Jocko probably with Frida, Vestard with The Four Feathers (eh!) and.....

5) Jens and I talked yesterday about what could be done with magic to some of our composers? He ended up with something he called "No-more-action-music-Hex" for Zimmer (ah, yes!) while I chose a "Rip-Off-Suppression-Spell" for Horner. Any ideas?

6) Is there a score that in your believe only you and maybe the composer himself has ever heard?

______

Desperation

Posted by: Bobettechaude, ridicule23@hotmail.com

Sunday, December 1, 2002, at 9:01 a.m. (quebec-ppp209530.qc.sympatico.ca)

Oh boy, talk about a crappy sunday!

1- I have the flu and my nose is stuffed

2- My ashma just kicked in and I can't smoke, argh! (maybe just one...)

3- I have to go to work in 30min, making stupid wine.

4- I have no freakin money to buy a score that could cheer me up.

5- My car MIGHT BE trapped under a ton of snow (I really have to check this out before leaving for work...)

6- I have a paper due this week and frankly, I'm way behind on schedule.

Is it just me of sunday is the worst day of the week? Even porn is no good on sunday

bc

bored, sick and having trouble breathing. And why the hell am I listening to "Schindler's List" right now? IT'S DEPRESSING!

And that's just this week, which was quite mild.

but after FSM's prolonged down time, it returned as a mutated, evil version of its former self, and I couldn't stomach it any more.

But I like the topics they usually talk about! Good content.

[Uni 306]

Actually, if something is unique, then isn't it weird in most people's views? As in, not normal/common. So weird here means something positive.

That's what I thought you meant....just wanted to be sure.

It's sad how people abuse the freedom to express themselves...with such kind of freedom, with any kind really, comes responsibility as well. Even freedom is limited.

As it should be. Some people confuse real freedom with absolute freedom, which is in fact anarchy--which in turn is an antithesis to freedom, since it denies the very personal rights that make freedom such a wonderful thing. In short, taking too much liberty with your freedom (now there's an interesting construct....) usually means robbing someone else of theirs, and like you said, that's an abuse.

In this context, all that translates to mean that everyone should respect the opinions of others, even in disagreement. (Isn't that the best arena for intelligent discussion anyway?)

I see....well, Uni was the name of a young unicorn in the animated series Dungeons and Dragons from the 80's....I loved that series. The most annoying part of it was this Uni, sort of a sidekick that got himself always in trouble and yet contributed nothing to the series. I thought perhaps you wanted to make a statement.

Kidding of course.

I dunno....I've gotten in trouble once or twice, and sometimes I wonder just how much I contribute (especially given my sporadic appearances, as Stefan loves to point out....).

Oh, that has become a pretty long story. So, here's a shortcut. I used both names (Prick and DD) in some 3D shooters, which had again a bunch of different reasons. I'm actually The Delicate Dutchman...perhaps that rings a bell, perhaps only a tiny one since I usually post scarcely (I believe I explained to you the concept about Walking Warm during some chat )...the DD was a name I just used in lack of a better one really.

Hey! Of course I remember you. I've thought more than once that there are some board veterans (or at least older posters) who're lurking around here under different names than the ones I remember. Nice to know you're still around....

Uni has cleverly mixed Latin and Sanskrit for his post title. The word dux is Latin for 'leader' while the word avatar is from a Sanskrit word meaning 'descent' (usually of a god). Uni has Latinised it to a neuter noun and put it in the genitive plural. Stefancos is therefore "leader of the avatars."

And in turn, your use of the word "cleverly" has just taken a new meaning, akin to "accidental"....:roll:

So what you're saying, then, is that this new title of mine means "Leader of our descent"...? LOL

All kidding aside, thank you for this. I'm an amateur philologist myself, and I do love seeing phrases cut up like that (for us, parsing is a sport). All the better knowing it's a brand-new form I created myself....

- Uni....who's having more fun with this thread than he ever expected to....:wiggle: yipee

[Morn 8]

As it should be. Some people confuse real freedom with absolute freedom, which is in fact anarchy--which in turn is an antithesis to freedom, since it denies the very personal rights that make freedom such a wonderful thing. In short, taking too much liberty with your freedom (now there's an interesting construct....) usually means robbing someone else of theirs, and like you said, that's an abuse.

That's only one form of anarchy. There is another form which has limited rules inforced by the community to protect the community from direct harm, in other words, democracy where the people are the government, not a government choosen by people.

In this context, all that translates to mean that everyone should respect the opinions of others, even in disagreement. (Isn't that the best arena for intelligent discussion anyway?)

Well I don't think that necessary, you can simply ignore people who don't respect opinions, it's not like you have to reply to every post. I mean I think that in messages boards pretty much lawless anarachy works extremely well, as filmtracks, FSM and especially newsgroups show. With message boards, it's very hard for users to damage other users freedom.

[Uni 306]

Well I don't think that necessary, you can simply ignore people who don't respect opinions, it's not like you have to reply to every post.

True.

I mean I think that in messages boards pretty much lawless anarachy works extremely well, as filmtracks, FSM and especially newsgroups show.

Those who can't stand those sites would disagree with you, I think. That sort of anarchy makes them very unappealing.

With message boards, it's very hard for users to damage other users freedom.

It's easier than you think, though it does require the consent of the person offended. They can choose to not take it quite so personally. But a big part of the "freedom" we're talking about here flourishes best when a person feels like they're part of the group, a contributor to the community, and supported (even in disagreement) by the other constituents. In those circumstances, they're much more likely to speak their mind, relatively assured they'll be understood and appreciated. On the other hand, when said user takes the brunt of a direct personal attack in specific response to their stated opinion (or even fact), it can easily have the effect of making them more self-conscious, and often even less willing to be as open, honest, and involved as they might otherwise have been. That sort of wing-clipping is a curtailing of the kind of freedom we're referring to here....and the fact that this board represents (for the most part) the former example is just the sort of "unique wierdness" that makes it so great.

Those other boards call for a more competitive, centralist approach to discussing a common interest like this (and is this a subject that really calls for that sort of discord...?). Too often you have to dig in against the "opposition," hoping that at least a few others might join you in the foxhole to last out the firefights that spring up all too easily. Granted, though, there are surely people out there who thrive in that sort of environment....and unless I'm much mistaken, I think you're just that sort of person, Morn. That's not a slam, just an observation. My earliest memory of you on this board has you proclaiming Empire Strikes Back as Williams's greatest feat, and you would brook no disagreement on the matter. Since that time, I don't think I'm the only one who believes that sometimes you throw down the glove just to be the only one who does it.

However, you very rarely stray into outright offense, so it's tolerable. Sometimes we could wish you'd jump into a discussion with a little less ardor and cynisism, but hey--that would be denying you your freedom, right?

- Uni

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

I think the form of anarchy some people really want (and I'd agree with them, just that it's simply not practicable, at least not until mankind has evolved more) is no laws, but rules "made" by the society. I.e. you simply don't do "something bad" because you know it's bad, and partly because it wouldn't be tolerated - but mostly because you just don't do it. Desireable I think, but it won't happen until many many years from now, if at all.

Marian - noticing he's starting to discuss politics on JWFan. :wow:

Star Trek: Nemesis (Jerry Goldsmith)

[Morn 8]

It's easier than you think, though it does require the consent of the person offended. They can choose to not take it quite so personally. But a big part of the "freedom" we're talking about here flourishes best when a person feels like they're part of the group, a contributor to the community, and supported (even in disagreement) by the other constituents. In those circumstances, they're much more likely to speak their mind, relatively assured they'll be understood and appreciated.

Well usually it would not be a majority of posters doing the mocking, I think that other users will keep them feeling like part of the group for all but the most sensetive person. In my experience personal attacks on totally anarchy boards are usually not that frequent anyway compared to here. And not that serious usually intended in a joking way.

On the other hand, when said user takes the brunt of a direct personal attack in specific response to their stated opinion (or even fact), it can easily have the effect of making them more self-conscious, and often even less willing to be as open, honest, and involved as they might otherwise have been.

Those are rare extremes.

Those other boards call for a more competitive, centralist approach to discussing a common interest like this (and is this a subject that really calls for that sort of discord...?).  Too often you have to dig in against the "opposition," hoping that at least a few others might join you in the foxhole to last out the firefights that spring up all too easily.

Actually, usually that only happens when jwfan posters make an input on FSM JW fanatics don't go well with Goldsmith fanatics.

Granted, though, there are surely people out there who thrive in that sort of environment....and unless I'm much mistaken, I think you're just that sort of person, Morn.  That's not a slam, just an observation.  My earliest memory of you on this board has you proclaiming Empire Strikes Back as Williams's greatest feat, and you would brook no disagreement on the matter. Since that time, I don't think I'm the only one who believes that sometimes you throw down the glove just to be the only one who does it.

Hehe, yes sometimes I might, but not often. 8O Usually it's just in your words ardor or just liking debating.

However, you very rarely stray into outright offense, so it's tolerable.  Sometimes we could wish you'd jump into a discussion with a little less ardor and cynisism, but hey--that would be denying you your freedom, right?

I admire ardor and cynisism 8O

[Marian Schedenig 8,192]

JW fanatics don't go well with Goldsmith fanatics.

But I do go well with myself.

[Jango Fett 0]

:? I'd like to see you install Linux.  

What about it I use it all the time It works fine by me and there are versions which can very resemble windows or mac

:mrgeen:

[Caldeira 0]

That's only one form of anarchy. There is another form which has limited rules inforced by the community to protect the community from direct harm, in other words, democracy where the people are the government, not a government choosen by people.

Well, that isn't really a form of anarchy. In fact that's communism (in theory). You know, "Power to the People", etc.

But I think I should not go any further...

Miguel -

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

As it should be.  Some people confuse real freedom with absolute freedom, which is in fact anarchy--which in turn is an antithesis to freedom, since it denies the very personal rights that make freedom such a wonderful thing.  In short, taking too much liberty with your freedom (now there's an interesting construct....) usually means robbing someone else of theirs, and like you said, that's an abuse.

Precisely, that's what I always say as well.....freedom is not only precious, it's fragile too. There's more constriction than there is freedom...which is not that unfortunate because it's constriction to teach us that freedom is precious.

In this context, all that translates to mean that everyone should respect the opinions of others, even in disagreement.  (Isn't that the best arena for intelligent discussion anyway?)

I agree, though, how can you respect an opinion about actual disrespect?

I dunno....I've gotten in trouble once or twice, and sometimes I wonder just how much I contribute (especially given my sporadic appearances, as Stefan loves to point out....).

Nonsense....the only times people get in trouble is when they're not being politically correct, and that is something (as long as you respect freedom, and that of others) to applaude for.

What many people also don't get is that there are two ways to destroy freedom...by going overboard...or underboard. We talked about the first one, but if you are politically correct all the time, then there's no freedom in this as well, as a matter of fact you destroy freedom too. In this case you must be so carefull about what to say, when to say it et cetera, that you made a prison for yourself and others (since such people blame others for being to 'explicite'), that's not freedom, that's a lack of freedom. And if an enire culture is beginning to get based upon political correctness (which was created to 'assure' and eventually to 'force' the freedom of others), then they've lost their freedom as well. People don't understand that they should balance basically everything...don't hurt other people...no of course not, but don't hurt yourself, and eventually with that others as well, either.

So in my book, as long as you meant it to be truely contributing, you can say whatever you want whereever you want....though with that we enter another paradox...that of 'tact'. But let's not talk about that now...in order to not make it too complex.

And so, you are allright in my book.

Hey!  Of course I remember you.  I've thought more than once that there are some board veterans (or at least older posters) who're lurking around here under different names than the ones I remember.  Nice to know you're still around....

I have been around for ages, but usually don't post very often, as a matter of fact, I was here virtually from the very beginning...though usually more like a reader of the homepage, and then as lurker of the MB later, only finally to delve into this strange MB for myself and...ehm...contribute.

I think I'm the only veteran here, without the veteran status.

[Uni 306]

I think the form of anarchy some people really want (and I'd agree with them, just that it's simply not practicable, at least not until mankind has evolved more) is no laws, but rules "made" by the society. I.e. you simply don't do "something bad" because you know it's bad, and partly because it wouldn't be tolerated - but mostly because you just don't do it. Desireable I think, but it won't happen until many many years from now, if at all.

Heh....you're right. We're straying dangerously near forbidden territory here....but I can't resist toeing the line once more before dropping it.

You're touching on some intruiging stuff here, but your first step requires another: How do the people in the society know that something is "bad"? You "just don't do it," as you say, but why? What tells you it's wrong? You've been conditioned, naturally, taught by parents or school or whatever....but what told them that such behavior was immoral? In the end, there has to be a source, some inherent understanding of right and wrong, assumed by all who consider themselves moral citizens. To make any statement concerning that source would be to cross the line in the sand where this board is concerned, so I'll leave that up to you; except to say that this is the initial step on a road that has always fascinated me.

Actually, usually that only happens when jwfan posters make an input on FSM JW fanatics don't go well with Goldsmith fanatics.

You're right, of course. The same thing seemed to happen when JW fans spoke up over at the Hornershrine, too (I haven't been there in forever....is that place still around?).

And I agree with most of what you said, too. I'd probably have to recharacterize the FSM interaction as less personal attack and more just wide-open, brawling debate. Less class, I think, but if you can hold your own and not take things too personally, then it's all right.

It is interesting that in a place like this--more of a community environment--the ill-considered sludge that sometimes rises to the surface often does strike a little more personally. I wonder if this is something akin to sibling rivalry, where in being "closer" with one another, we often risk cutting more deeply than we intend to. If so, it would be indicative of both the very postive (friendlier relationships) and the sometimes negative (vulnerable feelings) aspects that can arise by taking things a step further than the average chat group.

Precisely, that's what I always say as well.....freedom is not only precious, it's fragile too. There's more constriction than there is freedom...which is not that unfortunate because it's constriction to teach us that freedom is precious.

Interesing that you should mention this....I'm reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the first time right now (on the recommendation of a friend). There's a chapter in it where the teacher of History and Moral Philosophy discusses the downfall of the North American Alliance at the end of the twentieth century, primarily due to the breakdown in what you call "constriction". Heinlein wrote it in 1959, but it's amazing how close his prediction is to the truth of our age. We find ourselves drained of more and more personal freedoms simply because we want to allow everyone too much freedom. So we refuse to spank our children, we slap delinquents on the wrist and let them free to do more violence, we tie the hands of schools and parents, telling them that to "constrict" is to deny a child their rights--when in truth, too much freedom is like giving a child too much candy. It does them no good in the long run. Pop psychology's gonna be the end of us all. As a result of it, we can no longer walk in our parks after dark; we live in a latchkey society, forced to protect everything we own; and we can't let our kids out of our sight for an instant. It's astonishing how much freedom, much of it already lost, that we take for granted.

If, on the other hand, we define boundaries for ourselves and teach them to our children, we ensure the continuation of freedom for everyone. It's basically the same thing you said in your (excellent) bit on political correctness, the willing brother to pop psychology.

So in my book, as long as you meant it to be truely contributing, you can say whatever you want whereever you want....though with that we enter another paradox...that of 'tact'. But let's not talk about that now...in order to not make it too complex.  

And so, you are allright in my book.

Tact is supplemental, the process of fine-tuning freedom. It isn't required for freedom to exist, but it sure is an improvement.

And thanks....I've always wanted to make an appearance in someone's book. :)

- Uni

[Trumpeteer 302]

This MB really needs a gathering fast!

I'd love to see it happen.

- Uni

It's going to happen sooner or later.

www.jwfan.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=phpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=150&highlight=london

Jeff -- who loves the guys and gals on this board, too

[Morn 8]

You're touching on some intruiging stuff here, but your first step requires another: How do the people in the society know that something is "bad"? You "just don't do it," as you say, but why? What tells you it's wrong? You've been conditioned, naturally, taught by parents or school or whatever....but what told them that such behavior was immoral? In the end, there has to be a source, some inherent understanding of right and wrong, assumed by all who consider themselves moral citizens. To make any statement concerning that source would be to cross the line in the sand where this board is concerned, so I'll leave that up to you; except to say that this is the initial step on a road that has always fascinated me.

No, morals can be based on logic.

So we refuse to spank our children, we slap delinquents on the wrist and let them free to do more violence, we tie the hands of schools and parents, telling them that to "constrict" is to deny a child their rights--when in truth, too much freedom is like giving a child too much candy.

I agree, except for the first part, spanking is abuse, there are other methods that are just as much a punishment.

[Melange 446]

while the word avatar is from a Sanskrit word meaning 'descent' (usually of a god).  

Adi Da Avatar. (watch out for him). LOL

Krishna was considered an Avatar in India by the way. Direct incarnation without any past karma. Pure avatar. P.S : What the hell happened to this thread??.At some stage it went into political discussions and morals and all sorts of really wierd subjects.

[tharpdevenport 4]

Avatarless!

ocelot:

Isn't it lovely how people get along... amount of hair under their arms?

I wish i could post something, i have no scanner. Hey Ricard, are there any limitations to what can and cannoit be used as a Avatar? I got this picture i took, but am unsure if i can ever use it.

[Guest]

Interesing that you should mention this....I'm reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the first time right now (on the recommendation of a friend).  There's a chapter in it where the teacher of History and Moral Philosophy discusses the downfall of the North American Alliance at the end of the twentieth century, primarily due to the breakdown in what you call "constriction".  Heinlein wrote it in 1959, but it's amazing how close his prediction is to the truth of our age.  We find ourselves drained of more and more personal freedoms simply because we want to allow everyone too much freedom.  So we refuse to spank our children, we slap delinquents on the wrist and let them free to do more violence, we tie the hands of schools and parents, telling them that to "constrict" is to deny a child their rights--when in truth, too much freedom is like giving a child too much candy.  It does them no good in the long run.  Pop psychology's gonna be the end of us all. As a result of it, we can no longer walk in our parks after dark; we live in a latchkey society, forced to protect everything we own; and we can't let our kids out of our sight for an instant.  It's astonishing how much freedom, much of it already lost, that we take for granted.

If, on the other hand, we define boundaries for ourselves and teach them to our children, we ensure the continuation of freedom for everyone.  It's basically the same thing you said in your (excellent) bit on political correctness, the willing brother to pop psychology.

True, all so true. And so here we have another paradox...that of democracy. Everyone is equal and free, everyone has a right to do this and that, and everyone can have an opinion about everything, which of course are good things, but the reality is that most people don't really know what they're doing, thus don't really know what is good for them, thus in stead of having a 'utopian' democratic society, you end up with a pop pulp individualistic land torn apart by many cravings of this and that, and so stuff happens that are not good for people, resulting in stuff people don't want, resulting in a democracy you don't want.

So this biggest flaw in democracy is probably this: the idea that the need of the many outweighs the need of the few, but putting it more realistically, and what it eventually has turned out to be.....the want of the many outweigh the want of the few. In stead of going by what has proven to be right, or most likely to be right based on something solid as evidence, strong experience, logistics, et cetera, people choose what people want, not what is right or what is the right thing to do on the longer run, or even what simply could have been a better option between ill choices. This is than made official and undiscusable by means of 'vote'.

Democracy unfortunately is not based upon expert's views (experts of course are people who know what they are talking about, not people that think they do), but on populistic ones, as you said. Which sometimes are conveniently transformed to political views. The view of the expert doesn't stand a chance when a different view is too popular.

People can only talk with their emotions when they don't have the ratio (either not given by birth or education) to solve problems. Most people don't have information about how to handle criminals best, and so they use the next 'best' thing...their (primitive) emotions, and seemingly do so poorly and wrongfully, since some of our out-dated emotions are based on different surroundings and times. And so the removal of crime in any democracy is YET again based upon emotional response or better yet negativism (better kill it before it kills you), just like any other type of society, in stead of something that could actually work, but 'feels' wrong.

Then again, I'm not an expert myself....it's just a ridiculous theory. lol

And here comes another one.

But I think one of the biggest problems is that most people portray mankind to be an intellectual race, where in reality it's not ('intellect' is dependent on point of view of course). Obviously, the cruel thing is that you cannot solve that. Well, you can, but by doing so, mankind will no longer exist. Cause the only way to do so is by changing mankind itself. This would basically mean an evolution of mankind into something else (which is always welcome of course). People simply don't know how to handle themselves, and with that, everything else. Unless people change, and I really do mean CHANGE (evolve/devolve), the problems will not. The next best thing I guess is to have some kind of new society, even though you would have to be carefull with that too, perhaps an improvement over Democracy, something like an Expertacy, or something less stupid sounding.

And so, I guess, the meaning of life is.....paradox; to keep us guessing and not knowing, and wanting (to know) always more.

Tact is supplemental, the process of fine-tuning freedom.  It isn't required for freedom to exist, but it sure is an improvement.

Hmmm, perhaps tact is like an interpreter, or mediator. Perhaps tact doesn't fine-tune freedom, perhaps it molds or blends it. But then again, that all depends on the point of view I guess.

Hmmm, I've always had problems with points of view...many seem to counteract each other on the same topics/stuff, even though they are not really conflicting...I mean, life's a paradox, so...completely different points of view should be able to coexist in such environments anyway?

:confused:

...very weird, but very intriguing.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

That was me.