ah my friend...
remember it was you who asked me to help you understand my faith.
and i did so openly and honestly and with the total understanding that you would wholeheartedly disagree.
were you looking for some form of evidence?
i did not promise you any.
what we have here is a philosophical discussion.
i thought that was something self-evident.
we are discussion an intangible:faith.

reading your response i am puzzled at the volume of presumption based on very little.
much of which i had already addressed.
what were you trying to accomplish in your response?
what was your intent with all this?
i have been open,honest and put myself out there because you were respectful and curious.
i held no illusions you would ever agree with how i viewed things but i did think that maybe if i shared you would at least understand where i was coming from.
and that is always a good thing.

but i have to say for someone so adamant about evidence and research you presume volumes based on little or no information.you took it waaay past what i offered and formulated your own dynamic.
and while it kind of irritates me and i dont feel i should have to point this out,
i shall anyways...just because....

1.(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith.)
-i already stated that when new information is gained.the paradigm is changed.of course i value research but maybe i am not as schooled as you.maybe i dont have access or was unaware of certain research.
did this not even occur to you?
then you go on to ostracize EVERYBODY who does not value research the way you do and that if we did we would find no value in faith.then my friend..you dont have the first clue about faith (which means i have failed from the get-go..lol).but has the arrogance of this statement eluded you?you are judging people based on YOUR perceptions.

2.I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs.
-now on this i will agree.your suspicions would be correct.not because i avoid them but because i dont follow them.my studies are in cultural religious history,american history,world history,US and european governments and comparative religions.(and of course art,poetry and music).
if you have some suggestions and in video format i would be delighted to watch and learn.

3.I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”.
-and you base this presumption on what...exactly? when i have clearly stated the opposite.do i need to point out that i am a man of faith who frequents a predominantly atheist web site? i have never even heard of "demon haunted world" what is it about? it sounds interesting.

4.I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation.
-ok..now you are just being snide.many religious folk fall into this trap..i am not one of them."see? there is your evidence!".i thought you would understand what i was implying.i guess i was wrong.

5.I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed.
-again.what are you basing this on? because i have faith? is THAT what you are basing this presumption on? i addressed this in my letter to you.

6.I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want.
-are you projecting? or having a conversation with a different person and sent this to me? if my beliefs (which just by using that word means i have utterly failed to convey how i view things)were proven to be false..then they would be false.i would not curl into a ball and cry like a little girl.my faith is expressed through who i am but is not integrally me as a person.my faith is neither stagnant nor static but flows,drifts and morphs as time goes on.and to say how my faith in spirit makes me feel.well you are just guessing based on little or no information.i find this particularly hypocritical of how you present yourself.you have no idea HOW i feel or how i would react if it turns out that there is no spirit.come on man..you are better than this particularly nasty nugget.

7.I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.
-ok.here is where you literally take the gold for presumption.deepok chopra? really?
let me explain something so we are crystal clear here.every and all of my philosophies have been hard won.while the revelations may have been a gift my understanding of them has taken me on paths and roads you cannot even BEGIN to understand (or maybe you can.my turn to assume).my wisdom has been hard won,epic battles with my own self and the world around me.scars upon scars to garner the wisdom i now hold and the path i walk is a solitary one. NOT one i read from deepok fucking chopra.
i find the sciences fascinating and consume as often as i can with my limited understanding.i wish my curiosity for these things had not blossomed so late in my life but for 12 years i have been absolutely ravenous for information and for you to suggest that somehow i avoid the truth because it may disprove my beliefs..
aw fuck you man..thats hubris times ten and just plain fucking wrong.you are painting a picture on how you perceive me and i gotta tell ya man.that person you are picturing? it aint me.
i am a poet my friend and everything i do,say or relate to is all about the truth.in everything.. and that includes..ESPECIALLY..includes..self deception.
read my poem.its right here on my page under my favorite video.my first published actually.
and you included the SECRET? for real? let me tell ya and i say this often (ask my friends who read that garbage) if i ever meet the authors, i am slapping them dead in the face.may not be the same reason you would but we can do it as a dynamic duo../SMACK.

my friend,
you state the all importance of evidence.the absolute value of truth based on facts and testable results.yet what you have done to here is base your opinion on almost no evidence nor facts.
you have judged me falsely.

now.lets move on to the questions.understand i asked them not looking for the correct answer but rather how you would respond to them.because there really is no "correct" answer,only what we know up to this point.
1.What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.
-berticus could answer this more scientifically than i could and since you do not believe in spirit any further discussion would be redundant.
my stance is that the ego is who you THINK you are,not who you actually are.i would elaborate but i dont think you would respect any of my conclusions.which are mostly anecdotal and not actual evidence.

2.What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.
-we dont fully know.that is the correct answer.we only know what we know by our standards and abilities to date.reality keeps becoming more and more grander and complex as we dig deeper and reveal more.this is an ongoing project and the rabbit hole keeps getting deeper.this is something that really excites and fascinates me.look at how much of reality we have uncovered in the past 100 years.dont you find it all fascinating?what was once unknown is becoming known and things never even suspected are becoming possibilities.that is just too awesome.

3.What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.
-consciousness is a subject that is still discussed in philosophical and theosophical schools.just like the subject of reality we dont fully know.we suspect and there have been great strides in understanding but at the end of the day...still dont really know.and i do not speak of something "outside" sorry if i came across that way.must have been a tad confusing for you,but consciousness is another rabbit hole.the more we learn the bigger the picture gets.which again..fascinates me.if you want to play around with reality and consciousness drop some acid,or mescaline,shrooms even and let creation melt like a chocolate sundae on a hot summers day.there are levels of consciousness and awareness and everybodys is different.theories that plants have a form of consciousness and we all pretty much agree that animals have a consciousness.

4.Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.
do you let everyone tell you how to act?
i tease...
this is a very scientific..and BORING... answer.and very,very one dimensional.but it has the value of allowing me a peek into your inner workings.so i thank you.
this is actually an exercise in self-reflection.was meant to make you think about just you and who you were for a second (mostly i get people telling me their occupation).
short..to the point..and very boring.
while we may be more self-aware than other animals i never stated we were magical beings,unless you count my faith in spirit and if thats the case...fair enough.
i am nothing special and hold no hidden secret key to the temples of delight and neither are you.i deal with everybody based on that assumption.

now lets deal with your conclusion:
1.The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences.
-where have i dismissed science that has been proven to be factual?or even remotely hinted i was prepared to?where are you getting this from? if i gave you that impression then i apologize because that is not how i view things.
now i shared a very personal revelation with you that i normally do not share.please do not dishonor that trust with contempt or disdain.i understand you do not believe and that is your right but at least respect my offer of something valuable to me,even if it is garbage to you.
this is why it is called "faith" and not "evidence".i did not offer evidence,i offered a revelation given to me which is where my faith resides.and all of our experiences are subjective.

2.What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add).
-again.this is why it is called faith and faith in and of itself is irrational.i do understand these concepts and realize their implications.and whats up with the snide remark about my incorrect usage of scientific terms? then teach me correctly..or are you one of those people that will let a dude walk around with his fly open? come on man...uncalled for.

3.If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.
--again i refer to faith.i get it man.you dont have any unless it is scientifically proven factual.
and most people are scientifically illiterate.you ever think instead of calling them retards (you didnt use those words but you may has well have)that maybe you could help them a bit? maybe share some of your understanding? point them in a direction that may answer their questions?
you are kind of being a douche in this last part,i dont think its intentional,but its very...douchey.
i mean..
you ask me a question.one in which i attempt to answer based on a revelation that was given to me over 30 years ago,and THEN turn around and basically say that im making shit up and that i am scientifically illiterate.
of course i am scientifically illiterate.
i am an ordained minister and a fucking poet!what did you expect?
but i own an insatiable curiosity.
i am constantly prodding the edges of my own understanding and attempting to further my knowledge base.
but i hold no illusions that i knew everything,nor do i look down upon those i disagree with.
i view every interaction as an opportunity to learn.

as i stated earlier.
i offered my faith,not certitude.
if the factual realm of science gives you comfort and makes you smile then i say ..good for you!
and might i suggest you share this passion with others?
i do not know what you meant to accomplish with your letter to me.
its tone is far different than our other transactions and some of its content and wording has me perplexed.
you have never been presumptuous with me before nor have you taken an arrogant tilt.
yet i find both of those in this letter.
meh../shrugs..text lacks the nuances of eye to eye conversation.
and being a person who uses words often i am fully aware of their total inadequacies to express ones thoughts/feelings/dreams at times.

just know that science reveals my understanding of creation to be spot on..
every..single..time.
and if you wish to call "god" the "universe"..
feel free.it is just as appropriate.
my path may be far different from yours but i still think your pretty cool.
while the fundamentalist stagnates in his own certitude..
i do not.
i am just me.
be well my friend.
namaste.

(No, I don’t suspect that you are anti-research, I suspect that you don’t value research or the scientific method as much as people should. If you did, you would find no value in faith. I suspect that you don’t read many science books, if any. I suspect that you don’t follow the most recent information coming out of neural science research labs. I suspect that the only research that you are primarily interested in is the kind of research that supports your pre-existing idea of the nature of reality. I suspect that you don’t actually understand the scientific method. I suspect that you’ve never read “The Demon Haunted World”. I suspect that you don’t really understand causation verses correlation. I suspect that you generally aren’t very skeptically minded and that your definition of “evidence” is loosely constructed. I suspect that you aren’t actually doing anything to falsify your beliefs. I suspect that you identify with your beliefs to the degree that if realized that they weren’t true you would feel a sense of loss of personal identity. I suspect that you value any answer, even if it’s potentially incorrect, over no answer at all. I suspect that you would rather believe in “spirit” than to disbelieve it because, as I suspect, it makes you feel good and it gives you the answer that you want. I suspect that you like the writings of Deepak Chopra and that you probably like movies "The Secret" and "What the Bleep Do We Know". I suspect that you have very little respect for truth and that your beliefs are more about perception rather than what can be known to be factual.

What is ego? I don’t know. I don’t study neurological brain functions as much as I wish I had the time for. The thing is, I’m not the one providing a bunch of nonsense answer about how it’s some sort of separate entity apart from myself, or that it has its own wants and desires part from my own. The burden of proof rests on the person making those claims.

What is reality? From Wikipedia “Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.” I would use that definition. I would also say that we absolutely can know what is real vs. what is not real by performing rigorous investigations into phenomenon that we observe and that during these investigations we use the scientific method to keep us from lying to ourselves. Contrary to the beliefs of people of “spirituality” and post-modernists, there are things that we can call objectively real and there is such thing as truth, that knowing the truth requires hardcore investigation and that once you know the truth, at least to a very high degree of certainty, you can know what is not true. By definition, reality is the collection of things and phenomenon that are real. Things like fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, gods, etc, aren't known to be real, they don't really exist, they aren't a part of reality. Sure, the idea of those things is real, but those things themselves aren't.

What is consciousness? It sounds as if you’re asking me what consciousness is as if consciousness is a thing. Consciousness isn’t a thing; it’s a bi-product of certain biological systems and it can be affected and manipulated by various means. It’s a collective brain state. Consciousness doesn’t exist somewhere in the universe and we’re interacting with it and even if that were true, there isn’t any actual evidence of that being the case. In humans, it is just the sense of awareness of one’s self with respect to others and of the relationship between the mind and the world that we interact with. You talk about consciousness as if it’s some sort of mystical force; it just sounds like magical thinking, attributing animal qualities to the universe. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. This notion that consciousness and the ego are somehow “outside” of us or separate from who we “are” is just a fantasy similar to fairies and unicorns. I know people that believe in actual fairies, the kind with wings, who control certain aspects of our lives. I put spirituality in the same exact camp as belief in fairies, there just isn’t any evidence that it’s actually true.

Who am I? I could say that I am who I define myself to be based on what information that I have about myself combined with the model of myself that is retained in other people’s minds whom I interact with and also the collective actions that I’ve taken and continue to take. It just seems like you’re adding a layer of mysticism over the nature of humans, as if there is something magical about humans over other primates, or other carbon based life forms. Again, there is nothing mystical or magical about who people are.

The reason why I suspect that you are not scientifically minded is because you’re prepared to dismiss ongoing research which may or may not be conclusive but you’re willing to provide your own answers and form your own beliefs based on your own subjective experiences. What good are those answers if they have no basis in reality. Just because there is no definitive consensus doesn’t mean that you can substitute in your own beliefs. Doing that, in and of itself, is irrational. Everything that you’ve said that you believe in has its basis in magical and wishful thinking, not in science, even though you're using scientific terms (incorrectly I might add). If there isn’t a conclusive answer, than why make one up? The only thing that individualized answers to these questions offers to me is evidence of how scientifically illiterate people actually are. Scientifically literate and rational people don’t answer questions that they don’t have objective and research driven answers to and if they do propose an answer when there isn’t something they can be objectively highly certain of, they submit it as conjecture, a mere hypothesis, very little more than an inconclusive guess.

P.S. I agree that Freud is now useless in the light of research from cognitive sciences. The reason for this is primarily because his conclusions were based on subjective and anecdotal information.

P.P.S. In the other comment you talked about your definition of god as being all of the particles and the material in the universe, basically, you're saying that the universe is god. Why not just call the universe the universe rather than attaching something unnecessary to it. I realize that you probably like to look at it that way, that the universe is god but that really isn't necessary and in a way, it isn't very helpful either.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
do you suspect that i am somehow anti-research?
on the contrary my friend.research is the very thing that proves my premise concerning our curiosity and drive to know.the very "spirit" or essence of what i am trying to convey.
do you think that i am fearful that maybe research and a desire for the truth may prove my thesis wrong?
why would i be fearful?
i make only claims of faith not of certitude.
i hold no illusions that my faith can be certified by any verifiable means and hence a main reason why i do not espouse some hidden truth and force others to respect or believe my conclusions.
thats religions job,not mine.

let me ask you these questions:
what is ego?
what is reality?
what is consciousness?
WHO are YOU?

please do not answer with a scientific paper because none of these questions have been answered adequately.they are an ongoing investigation and there has been no definative concensus.
but they are worthy questions,maybe the most important of all questions.
i guess that is relative.
i find them to be very important questions and the answers on an individual basis reveal much about that person.

ps:freud was a cunt.avoid using him as a basis for the ego.his work concerning that particular dynamic has already been eviscerated.

This is from OuterWorldVoice on NeoGaf:

So he killed 3000 people in New York. He beggared and is responsible for the deaths of thousands more in Afghanistan and other parts of the middle, near East and Africa. He fomented pointless purposeless rage in the pursuit of a racist, mysognistic and cruel worldview that regarded everyone outside of his fringe mentality as an enemy worthy of death.

On top of all that, he had a massive ego and no real plan. His agents were children, women, the illiterate, the foolish and the brainwashed. And he sent them to death and murder as martyrs by proxy while he squatted in comfort and adulation, hidden from danger and sight.

He's a piece of fucking shit and I hope there's a black millisecond he experienced before oblivion took him, that he realized there were no virgins waiting for him in paradise and that everything he ever stood for was a farcical fairy tale and a crime against humanity.

I'm surprised you're surprised.

This is not bloodlust. I would cheer for the death of Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot. We cheer not because of righteous vengeance, but because this zit on the world's asshole is finally gone and he can no longer bring pain and misery or spread his herpes all over the world.

I'd like to add that purely by the numbers, among 90% of American non-Atheists does it not seem logical that there would "of course" be less bad stuff and more good stuff (purely materially speaking and completely disregarding spiritual and mental peace) purely because there are less of them? by a 9:1 ratio. i.e. less people... less bad stuff. I would also like to think that there are far more non-atheists that are in poverty, are illiterate, in jail, etc. because when you are in a position where you are force to come face to face with actual reality and not a "Material Reality" you can't make yourself feel better by eating, taking a shower, having sex, spending money, etc. God is constantly talking to everyone. This is what I, and any true Non-Denominational Christian who believes the entire Bible and won't over emphasize certain verses and take others out of context will believe. When humans are put in situations where they are challenged they will instinctively try to make their environment or body "feel good" or just try to make it less uncomfortable. When you don't have that option you have two options (more probably but this is for effect) One, you become bitter, angry, or sad and decide to live your life that way. Two you decide to actually listen to what God is telling you and your life is radically changed and you don't care entirely what your surrounding environment is like. (Jesus was homeless by the way) I'm not here to argue, I am simply replying and informing you of why the (what little true) facts are in the video.

That's one of those weird things that's REALLY hard to explain to a computer illiterate. Is there REALLY some system in what things you should click or double click? Click on folders in tree view to expand them. Double click on folders in the main view to open them. Try explaning that! Double click on items on the desktop. Single click on similar looking things in the browser...

Computers simply aren't that user friendly. They require you to find things out on your own. This is probably where the largest amount of fail comes from: computer illiterate people do not know how to find out things. Or rather, the easiest way they found was to call YOU, instead of doing a quick Google search or reading the manual.

Most of the time, when I help someone fix their "e-mail" that "bas become slow", I don't know what to do beforehand. No matter how many times I explain that I simply searched Google to find a solution, they still look at me like I just made it all up myself and think I know everything about every stupid piece of software.

Another thing. Norton PREYS on these people. Everyone I ever helped has that crapware installed, and you have to buy a new version every year. It does nothing but clog up the system with warnings about how EVERYTHING is just a disaster waiting to happen. WAIT! DO NOT SEND THAT EMAIL! THEY WILL STEAL YOUR BANK ACCOUNTS AND KIDNAP YOUR CHILDREN! PAY US! PAY US!

I hate the term "Computer illiterate". Whenever I hear it, all I hear is "I can't read text on a monitor, that's why I haven't used the help menu". Maybe I'll start telling others I'm "car illiterate" to explain why I take it to a mechanic.

Mmm, self imposed tax for the scientifically illiterate...

@SDGundamX. The first 3 (as defined by the Catholic church—it’s actually 5-6 lines in the Biblical text) that you refer to tell the Israelites who have just fled Egypt to worship only the one god, Yahweh. You interpreted that to mean that it says that all people in the world must become Christians and followed that with the further interpretation that Christians can’t think about the commandments and must follow them to the letter even when it would be irrational to do so

Ah, the old "its only meant for the jews then and there" defense.. Well, then why are even discussing them?

I am considering them in their context, their ENTIRE context, which includes the later clarifications of them; the proper way to treat slaves, how disobedient children must be put to death, how witches cannot be suffered to live, how anyone making offerings to other gods must be put to death..

If these rules are merely local, time-restricted directions, invented by illiterate, desert-dwelling barbarians, then I suppose they are understandable to some degree.

But we have to consider them for what they are claimed to be: Commandments from an all-knowing god. Not only that, but it is claimed that they are the basis for our sense of right and wrong. My point was that this is clearly ridiculuos: these are not good rules to live by: They are in direct opposition to religious freedom, they posit ridicululuosly hard punishments for things that could hardly even be considered crime, and they speak of some of the most brutal and disgusting crimes one can imagine as if they were part of a perfectly acceptable behaviour.

The fact that most people ignore most of the contents and interpret left and right, well, for the purposes of my argument (The ten commandments are not godgiven/the source of our morality/good rules to live by)is IRRELEVANT. If I wanted to make extravagant claims about the wisdoms contained in Mein Kampf, I'd make damn sure to tone down the various mentions of "the jew problem", but that wouldnt change a goddamn thing. Mein Kampf isnt the source of our morality and innate good behaviour (quite the contrary). And the same can be said of the bible/Ten Commandments.

Have you been to or around any public schools lately?

Mainstream urban US public education is more the antithesis of what you describe. Antisocial behavior is rampant. Team building and problem solving...for some, for the most part,... walk and look around the cities,...workplaces for that matter. Incapability and disfunction are too well represented. Public schools are, too often, holding pens and clearing houses. I know and have talked to a number of educators. I have known a number of others, even a few that were functionally illiterate in highly rated schools.

Unbelievable horror stories. The seventh largest school district in the US and high school classrooms with 35 to 40 seats and 70-80 students sharing 30 odd books. That qualifies as teamwork and problem solving. I have known university graduates that could not spell much less write a sentence or a paragraph. Functionally illiterate from a major university with BBA's and such.

Is it proposed that exposure to every manner of behavioral expression, to put it euphemistically, is necessary to prepare one for the personal and interpersonal demands of life? Is it a given that those homeschooled live in a vacuum? Who should be the arbiter(s) of one's progeny's social, ideological, etc., etc., exposure and orientation? Personally, I would welcome that there were viable, wholesome, comprehensive, competent....

As to the characterizations that religious zealots comprises the preponderance of homeschool parents, it is over done. People that have the means, fiscally and personally, to devote their lives for the duration of a child's education period to provide the best, most solid and grounded framework for their progeny's foundation of knowledge in this difficult life are to be respected...revered. It is a remarkable and largely selfless sacrifice.
>> ^RedSky:

I mean more the sense of character it develops, ie resolving conflict, standing your own ground, working in teams, basically the kind of attitude that allows you to survive in a dog eat dog world. You could say that being home schooled still allows you to socialise and develop these same skills, but compared to the kids who spend 6 and a half hours, 5 days a week doing it at the least, they'll still be at a disadvantage.

>> ^marinara:

i would respect the judge more, but he's 100% against net neutrality. he loves turning over my internet connection over to abc/disney so they can profit off my tube.


Would your rather the government control that tube? I assure you, they would be far more restrictive, ask Howard Stern. I would like to see what his take on it is if you had any links on that I would love it

I think a better cure would to let other providers into these non-compete zones so people can have real consumer choice instead of governments legislating people into these horrible situations in the first place. >> ^NetRunner:

"At least [newspapers] go out of business when they don't tell the truth."
Uh, it's a little rich for someone on Fox News to say that truth has anything to do with the business model of modern press organizations.
For example, that's not part of the quote from Jefferson...


To me, it was rather clear that was his own attribution, not part of the quote. He was also (Jefferson) big on reading, by which I mean, having a free press doesn't matter if most of the population is illiterate. He is usually seen as the champion of small government, but it was mainly he who made the push for public education. In that, if the public was smart enough, it would be able to see that Fox and other news companies are more interested in news that leads and bleeds than gauges the pulse of history.

How did this book become a number one bestseller? I thought 75% of Fox's viewers were illiterate.

Dude, you seem to be the only one that doesn't understand what I'm saying. So I'm not going to tailor my posts to cater to your whims, sorry. If you can't understand what I'm trying to say, then simply ignore my posts and move on. It's really that simple.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.

Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.
In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. <IMG class=smiley src="http://static1.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/oops.gif"> I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.



I know/knew the point of your first reply--however, since you unfairly and directly compared what happened with you to being mad at something like this happening, then I simply pointed out the two versions as completely incompatible.

You then stated, this time to me, to stop speaking for you--which I did not. Perhaps you were once again telling Re to stop but that makes little sense...

Now you're all huffy and sad because your feelings are hurt. This reminds me of the last time we discussed and you flipped because I inferred something from your writing. However, you assumed something about my writing so we were pretty even...

I just give up on you Duck; either write what you actually mean or do not write at all. Don't just use words you think are appropriate. I am an over-analytical sort and so I get confused when people use words just to hear themselves speak... I will always mistake your point if you have no clue how to put it down in posts.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^reiwan:
I'd hate to bust anyones bubble, but if anyone here on the sift was getting bubbles blown in their face from some girl, you would be livid. He may have been very curt with her about what she was doing, but he handled it better than a lot of non-uniformed people would have.
Then she is taken aback and complains about not getting any respect after what she did? fuck her.

No, I wouldn't be "livid" if someone was blowing bubbles in my face. Kids do it all the time. I ask them nicely to stop. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

Wow... Apples to science here.
First, that woman is old enough for all of us to legally play her field. She is not a child. To put this in perspective, all of the above would have to be met... A-You would have to have an adult blow bubbles in your face. B-It would have to be at your job. C-It would also have to be in front of a crowd that does not work with you, D- You would have to lose authority from both your co-workers and the public watching...
Way different scenario.
Kids do it? Kids also piss the bed. Kids also pick their noses and do not wash their hands. Kids do a lot of things adults should not. What if a kid went up to your father's casket and blew bubbles on his corpse? Again, way different...
Now, in a funtastic world, let's reverse the roles. Have the cops blowing bubbles into the crowds with industrilized bubble blowers (So every one get's it.) I say this because if she is allowed to blow bubbles, someone will step it up... and take it to the next level. Someone mentioned flowers next? Sure, with poison ivy on them. Pranks rarely get gentlier if allowed to continue.
But, in all, this cop is a hat... Just because he said about bubbles being a detergent... Lame-o was his name-o.

My point, as before with you has obviously gone over your head. Here I'll say it again so you hopefully can understand it clearly. Please don't speak for me, as I can speak for myself.

I never spoke for you; so what is your point? I have an idea--as I did not speak for you, don't speak for me by saying I spoke for you. Pot, kettle.


Dude, what in THE fuck are you talking about? Do you even READ what I'm saying in my posts before you fucking reply, or are you just an illiterate ass hole? Seriously.

In the conversation, I was asking reiwan (who I was replying to by the way) not to speak for me. THAT was the point of my reply. YOU had nothing to do with it. But somehow you decided it was all about you anyway. I wasn't trying to compare the situation in the video to a kid blowing bubbles in my face. I was saying "shit happens, get over it". It's really that simple. I used to play music for a living. I've had far worse done to me in front of "crowds that don't work with me" by adults than someone blowing bubbles in my face. So I'll make a simple request to you as well now. Please don't lecture me on what I would and wouldn't do in any given situation.

I don't believe it. It doesn't mesh up with the whole Adam and Eve story which God tells us is TRUE per the Bible. Heck. The 10 Commandments were written on stone rather than a digital storage device. 6000 years ago such highly efficient devices didn't exist... and God simply wanted to make sure he used the highest technological medium for the day. Stone and Chisel.


Why such a highly impractical. Highly immobile. Prone to shattering. Difficult to reproduce. Material? Well... to spread his word to the global masses in as SLOW and UNRELIABLE a method as possible via word of mouth. Through illiterate sheepherders who were likely more interested in populating their flock of 'sex sheep' than increasing the religious flock. All to support some invisible dude in the sky with a resurrected zombie son (who is supposedly God himself), who unbelievably claims to walk on water. Any wise man would have simply used a fucking raft to cross a damn body of water. But. He just had to show off didn't he?! The fucker.