cyberspacer has been seconded for banination by Barseps. This account will now be disabled. If you would like to appeal this banination, cyberspacer, you may contact the administrators.

cyberspacer has been blacklisted as a bottom-dwelling spammer by chicchorea. This account has been ban-hammered and all its comments redacted.

cyberspacer has been nominated for banination by chicchorea. This may be due to abuse or violations of the posting guidelines. If this nomination is seconded, the account will be permanently disabled.

You are empirically incorrect. You are proposing an impossible scenario, that somehow 1.5bn world wide are perfectly aligned, have some say over the actions of all the other people simultaneously and ergo bear some responsibility for any actions committed under the broad umbrella of "Islam"...

http://enews.fergananews.com/articles/2698

To speak of “Islam” as a homogenous phenomenon is analogous to speaking of “Christianity” as a single whole that includes Catholics and Orthodox, Protestants and Copts, and countless other sects, including such marginal ones as the Mormons, the Scientologists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Of course, we never do so, because we intuitively recognize that the label loses all meaning when forced on to such a diverse group. We seldom have such qualms, however, when it comes to Islam, even though the label “Islam” covers just as wide a spectrum of geographic, cultural, and sectarian diversity as the label “Christianity.” If anything, it is even more internally diverse than Christianity, which crystallized around an institutionalized Church from the very beginning. In Islam, such an institution never developed. There is no religious hierarchy and no single individual qualified to pass final judgment on questions of belief or practice. Within thirty years of the death of the Prophet, the Muslim community had split on matters of doctrine. Since then, there have been multiple and simultaneous sources of authority among Muslims. Authority is located not in church councils and such, but in individuals who derive their legitimacy from their learning, piety, lineage, and reputation among peers. This gives Islam a slightly anarchic quality: authoritative opinions (fatwa) of one expert or one group can be countered with equally authoritative opinions, derived from the same sources, of another group, or one set of practices devotional practices held dear by one group can be denounced as impermissible by another. In more extreme cases, such conflict of opinion can turn into a “war of fatwas,” fought out, in the modern age, in the press or in cyberspace. (If Islam were held in a more positive light in the West today, this diversity would be described as a “free market of ideas”!) To speak of Islam as a homogeneous entity ignores this fundamental dynamic of its tradition.

This pluralism extends to the most basic level of belief. The major sectarian divide in Islam, between Sunnis and Shi‘is, goes back to the very origins of Islam. The two doctrines evolved in parallel, and therefore it is incorrect to see in them an orthodox/heterodox divide. All Muslims share a number of key reference points (the oneness of God, loyalty to the Prophet and his progeny, the need to prepare for the Hereafter, to take a few examples), but they have been played upon in different ways by different sects and movements. Nor do the two sects exhaust the diversity, for they both have many branches and various theological and legal schools within them, while many modern ideological groups straddle the divide between the two sects.

Or
http://wasalaam.wordpress.com/2007/02/06/the-myth-of-homogeny-in-islam/

I could provide link after link, discuss Sunni vs Shia, or any one of the innumerable other sects (70+ iirc), discuss Islams war with itself throughout history etc, all demonstrating that you are wrong.

You are portraying (demonising actually) Islam in the same way the two morons in the video are, by making all Muslims responsible for any action committed by a Muslim. You talk about enlightenment, but your post reeks of bigotry, hardly the hallmark of an enlightened person, right?

Incidentally, the "popular" view of Islam is of a homogenous group of people, us vs them, a group to be afraid of, or to attack. The average person on the street (ie. plumb ignorant, much like yourself) would not be aware of just how complex it is, far more so than Christianity. It's exactly why the talking heads who got schooled kept trying to make out that Islam was homogenous, and were proved wrong...

But give it your best shot trying to shoot down the considered opinions of Phd's, scholars, philosophers etc if you want to continue to make a fool of yourself.

People worried about tracking my activity in cyberspace,..."SUCK COCK BY CHOICE!"

Thank you, I had not seen that before. I met him just recently at a very cozy book signing here in Victoria, BC. He was promoting his new book of collected stories, magazine articles, and interviews; "Distrust That Particular Flavor". He is everything that you imagine him to be, shy, quirky, ironic, brilliant. Truly a rare individual.

>> ^aurens:

There's a badass interview with William Gibson over at The Paris Review, in case you haven't already seen it.>> ^Deadrisenmortal:
The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.
=) You go WG!
>> ^PHJF:
Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

There's a badass interview with William Gibson over at The Paris Review, in case you haven't already seen it.>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.
=) You go WG!
>> ^PHJF:
Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

The first time that I ever heard of the term cool hunting or a cool hunter was in the William Gibson book Pattern Recognition written in 2001-2002. Regardless of any proof otherwise I am going to continue to believe that, just as he termed the phrase "cyberspace" and in essence predicted the prevalence of the internet in society, that he also invented the term cool hunting.

=) You go WG!

>> ^PHJF:

Obviously using "cool" in the hipster sense of the word.

Actually Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has all your base!
They deal with ICMB prevention, space superiority, and cyberspace/telecommunication kill-switches. That's where the money goes these days, not to NASA.

>> ^vaire2ube:

no ordinance just slugs at such high velocity they destroy targets
lasers that can destroy flying objects
mechanical exoskeletons from Alien to help move cargo
the navy has all your base.

>> ^Payback:

Until websites become the black, oozing, horrific monsters in Neuromancer, it's just graffiti.


I read that book (Gibson, William: Neuromancer) and its vision impressed me very much. It's an "old" yet fantastic imagination of cyberspace. Recommended!

a match made in cyberspace [heaven]
congratulations, i'd say you're off to a great start

>> ^jwray:

>> ^skinnydaddy1:
>> ^jwray:
People also destroy the environment by accumulating a lot of pointless possessions for the sole purpose of social status competition.

You mean like Star Points?

Cyber possessions don't count. If you want to save the environment, transfer more of the status competition from physical to cyberspace.


Right, because the computer you use gets free energy. The toxic elements vanish after upgrading or replacing the computer and you never ever hear of someone with several computers to manage their on line possessions or hear of anyone being killed for cyber Possessions.

Face it. If your not living in a cave wearing dead animals and hunting your own food. Your killing the Environment and even then I'm sure your still destroying the environment in some way.

>> ^skinnydaddy1:

>> ^jwray:
People also destroy the environment by accumulating a lot of pointless possessions for the sole purpose of social status competition.

You mean like Star Points?


Cyber possessions don't count. If you want to save the environment, transfer more of the status competition from physical to cyberspace.

>> ^kymbos:

Your argument, if I am not mistaken, is that the students showed solidarity. I got that. My point is that showing solidarity involves more than joining a facebook group. It involves dedication, time, and effort. It involves more than pressing a fucking 'like' button on facebook.

This argument always annoys me -- They're organizing. Facebook is the new social forum, and attracting clicks is a show of attracting popular support. A "Like" on a Facebook site could represent a vote in a public election. A few posts on a blog can start a political movement. The leaders of the youngest generation use these technologies to connect with each other across the entire world, and they'll understand how to translate that effort into power better than anyone because they grew up with it.

There will always be those who aren't willing to do more than go to the polls or press "Like" on a page or stick a magnet of a colored ribbon on their car, but that doesn't mean that the activist who showed up at a rally in the '60s isn't behind his computer on an IRC channel today. It was through IRC that Anonymous mounted attacks on several establisment websites, and it was WikiLeaks that exposed the new battleground of ideology and power for the world to see. On the other side, a bank can force someone out of a home the bank doesn't even own through the power of computer software that runs without a single human checking it at any point. Companies are able to stifle and empower the flow of information at their discretion without recourse or review.

The war for our future is being fought in cyberspace. As such, Facebook seems a good a place as any to find a few like-minded friends.

oh good, you're the hero and the martyr.

the lady who used to get beat up by her exhusband finds your self aggrandizing comments cringe-worthy and obnoxious.

blankfists comment was not funny, but obviously satirical.
is he often an insensitive prick when he thinks he's being funny? of course.
do i suspect him of latent misogyny? yep
do i think he actually finds violence against women funny and means anyone harm? nope.

i'm the first one to verbally rip the sift a new asshole when i think it's being stupid or wrong or is looking at a topic like a bunch of immature pricks or is lacking perspective. but noone here disagrees with your world view, only your self-righteousness.

>> ^bareboards2:

I am being a dick for asking a question?
I can't help thinking that the folks who are so quick to jump on me for ASKING A QUESTION are the super sensitive, delicate ones here.
But you are right. No told me to take down my question. I have just been pommeled for asking it.
That's not censorship.
Nor was my question censorship.
So we can lay this to rest now, right?
Besides, I am quite happy. I have achieved my goal. To let the hypothetical person(s) I am worried about know that blankfist's comment wasn't funny and that someone out in cyberspace recognizes that it might be extraordinarily painful and scary to read it. That someone has their back. It would have been nicer for them if they didn't have to wade through blankfist in the first place, but hey. At least there is a counterpoint.
No censorship required. And certainly no need to beat me up for asking a question.