I say we have a strong contender to be on the TSA No-Fly List here. + a couple of other lists i can think off. I'll just forward this to the tip line, they can decide if your as crazy as you seem. Better safe than sorry I always say.

I'm taking back the word crazy. A friend of mine was discovered to be deeply schizophrenic and for years since then I've felt bad about using the word crazy. But you know what? My friend is crazy. He sees the world in a crazy way. The woman taking the video is definitely crazy and she's also an asshole. I for one don't feel we should accept disruptive behaviours from an asshole just because that asshole is crazy. I feel sorry for the postal worker. If I were the postal worker I'd be feeling paranoid that the lady was going to start some more shit, and if she came around again I'd give her one warning before calling the cops about her harassment and slander (uploading videos to YouTube that show me and call me "stalker").

That's straight up crazy talk.

You can't show any physical proof or tests to show that it works. Yet you say it does, because of what proof or evidence? If you say it happens, show the examples. Let them be put up for inspection and debate.

As for "spiritual elements" like love and fear, they aren't spiritual. They are a series of chemicals in our brain going off. I remember a joke a friend of mine said once, when someone once said: "You can't measure happiness." To which he replied, sure you can, just measure the amount of dopamine they've got going through their head.

We're a series of hormones, fluids and matter. All of it can be measure and calculated. If someone had their cancer or Type I diabetes cured by faith, why would that not make the news? Why would that not be the most promoted thing in the medical industry?

Faith can help your mental state and make you feel better. Feeling happier and better about yourself does have an effect on your general health, but it is not a cure for disease.

Mom only learns a lesson if prosecuted, until then she learns nothing.
Kid learned that mom is an insane hothead that blames others for her lack of concern and control over her own children and that he had better look out for himself, because she won't.
Skater learned what lesson? That using a park for it's intended purpose may get you assaulted, or when approached by a yelling crazy person you should protect yourself with what you have in hand?

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

Of course this is fake. They say it's a setup in the end. DUH. You dumb assholes. DID YOU EVEN FINISH THE VIDEO?! I'm going to beat the shit out of all of you.

Naw, I'm just kidding. I'm not really a violent crazy, but you're all in on this and it's viral. A viral comment that you're all in on.

Just reminding you of you being in on it. Just in case your brain forgot or was so caught up in the moment that it err'd and causes you to state the obvious criticism of a thing that was intended to be that.

I normally don't like "meta" pieces. It seems to easy to target the activity you're doing. "Hey, I'll do comedy about doing comedy!" or "Let's make a TV show about all the crazy stuff you run into when making a TV show!". But this was a seriously smart dissection of a bad article.

"Truth" is an idea in the mind of a crazy person. You don't need to know the truth in order to not lie.
I'm not sure where you pulled "truth" out of, I never wrote the word.
I do not hold ANY beliefs. I railed against those who do. Belief is thinking a thing is 'true' in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I am a scientist, and I think in hypothesis and theory, which allows for new information to reshape my thoughts. (but you seem to have told me to stop accepting new information)
Funny, you seem to have assigned a convenient label to me (liberal-conservative/republicrat-demicon ) not knowing if any fit a single one of my 9 heads. I used the standard anti-Obama stupidity that those who agree with douchebags like this guy use repeatedly, why can they label him but I can't use their label? Please elaborate.
I think perhaps you should take your own advice. That, and try to make cogent sentences/thoughts rather than blather. It's not useful to simply state 'your stupid and wrong and only a programmed idiot, stop trying to get new information and shut up.' without any actual information or even stated ideas to back you up.
That said, where would you suggest one get information if broadcast media and the internet are off limits? Print? HA!!!
As an aside, I don't live in Babylon, I live in the USA. Let the Mesopotamians deal with the turds.

@shinyblurry
@newtboy has offered you his reasoning on the "whys" and he is not the first who has pointed this out to you.
his criticism does not come off as an attack on you at all but rather a fair assessment on how you interact in discussions here on the sift and i have seen many others (including myself) who have offered the same criticism.
@bareboards2 alluded to this very practice right here on this thread.

so while i will defend your right to be here and say what you need to say and ask empathy from others who may interact with you,i cannot understand your logic in posting walls of text peppered with biblical verses.
you acknowledge the fact this is a secular site yet continue to post scripture to people who have no interest in said scripture.

you cannot force people to give scripture the validity that you give it.

so you really cant blame people for tuning you out when you quote-mine,deflect,contradict and go verse crazy.

if you are trying to reach people then speak to them as people.but stop using the very vehicle they hold zero belief in,thats just a waste of time.

disagreements are fun but repetition is boring.you cant ask for a certain amount of patience and understanding and then not give it in return.

weirder part:
either her agents/controlling investors/PR managers are working overtime to get her crazy off the internets (blocked facebook access, blogs taken down, twitter hold [unconfirmed]) or there is actively someone out there trying to stop her. my guess is the PR and press trying to make her look less crazy.

(if you need a good laugh, check her facebook page, i kid you not. Gonzo)

These are comments from someone who clearly has not given this plant a chance. No, it is not quantum physics. I stay in the same room, it is evident by someone observing that I am in fact in the room. But, what I have seen and felt was on a quantum level. I was in fact for some reason flying at the speed of light. It sounds absolutely crazy because it is, that is why it should be studied. Why are so many so afraid to accept that whatever this is, is an astounding mystery?

I say give it a shot and find out for yourself. I was the same way, I thought it was hoopla too, then I found out. I doubt Science, bless its soul, will ever unlock this mystery.

Also, I do not condone the use of this by kids or young adults. This should stay far out of reach of them. Actually, now that I think about it, lol, it is probably not a good idea to promote this thing for this very reason.

Also, I am sorry for getting crazy at you BPM.

I take offense at the assumptions you made here and on several other posts, assumptions you seem fine with that help to define your presence online-I come off as a terse, bitter asshole on certain offerings here often due to the slanted banter but mostly when my smug meter pegs the red too many times after reading smegma like,

"So they need skills like this to walk around and shoot up rapists?

"Knowing how to walk around and shoot stationary targets is not that useful in real world situation...unless you are walking through a school shooting up kids laying on the ground".

"you gun crazies"

"these delusional gun crazies"

"Did you get those stats from NRA's PR department?"

"Ok, i'll bite your troll bain"

Your comments on threads that take offense at the direction of Congress on this issue sound EXACTLY like the creature Feinstein as she clucks and embarrasses herself daily in these hearings regarding another ineffectual attempt to standardize worldwide, the availability of boomsticks of any kind to citizens anywhere-I have been watching the slow train-wreck of U.S. politics for 40 years with the help of the massive disinformation/indoctrination mechanism of the media machine.....it's offensive, as are those living in an insular and idyllic world of fantasy and delusion, not unlike yours.

Especially detest the smug, holier-than-thou bullshit tone (as I have stated hundreds of times before when someone crawled-up my ass on this site), and ESPECIALLY on issues of police vs. citizenry, firearms, and left vs. right (two meaningless labels that have nothing to do with the mechanism of how the game really works).

I am happy to remain a voice crying in the wilderness here but I won't take asshole or douchebag lying down- ...I am a very gracious, and reasonable person otherwise-

I promoted this video for Buck, a recent addition to the users here, because the issue is fundamentally connected to the reason the U.S. is still here and get's swept aside in favor of kitty-cats, Russian car wrecks, and people fucking themselves up....

Oh, and because I like the cut of Buck's jib-I regard ANY new user who actually embeds videos here, votes and comments who offers an alternative to the regular fare here a breath of fresh, fucking air-

You appear to me to be another person deluded by their own world view enough to use labels, stereotype (which you have obviously done with myself) cry racism, or employ a similar tactic when faced with common sense or reason colliding with your ideals. It's sophomoric and offensive and unimpressive.

Don't sweat it-If You creep-through my past comments I'm sure you'll find many examples of my own foot-in-mouth-Peace

Further proof of how delusional you gun crazies are. You have no fucking idea on my position on domestic surveillance, warrant-less wiretaps or redefinition of US citizens as terrorists.
As a matter of fact, I guarantee you 1000% that I actually proactively do more to protect YOUR civil liberties against those things than you do by waving your penis-compensator around!

As for "mein freund", wtf is that supposed to mean? Is that a subtle hint at nazis? If so then you are an even bigger fucking idiot than I realized.

But whatever, talking here is obviously pointless. Ignorance is bliss.

>> ^hpqp:

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?
Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.
And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.
>> ^swedishfriend:
1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.




You're an idiot and a previous poster had the right idea by saying his opinion is worthless cause he's ignorant. You rise to the level of idiot because you seem to think your opinion about this subject matters. Might as well ask you how the fuck NASA should spend it's money.

Wow. I hesitated answering you, because someone who calls imprisonment "kidnapping" might not have all their marbles, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
1) I don't know about Norway, but I live in a similarly rich and privileged country (Switzerland) and I can assure you that we have poor people who cannot afford housing with private toilets per person, flat screens with cable TV, or even a bedroom all to one's self.
2) Yes, of course criminals owe a debt to society. Legal procedures cost money. Police enforcement (to find/arrest them) costs money. The services that the victims of crimes are provided with by the state cost money. And then there is the direct debt depending on the crime (e.g. theft as you concede) as well as the moral debt (e.g. in case of physical/sexual abuse or murder) which usually translates into compensation money. Not to mention the price it costs to lodge and guard the criminals in prison.
3) Says you and what proof? Are you suggesting there are no homeless people in Norway? No families living in large numbers in small apartments, several per room/toilet? You're talking out of your ass.
4) This is where you get really crazy. Are you saying that there is no punishable crime? That it is not taking advantage of society to use violence/coercion/trickery/infraction to attain wealth (or sexual satisfaction), for example, instead of taking the legal routes?

Moreover, where did you get the idea that rehabilitation is out of the question? One does not need luxury to learn to be an honest member of society. And the idea is not to make people bored/crazy through isolation, quite the contrary. If you had read my comment carefully you'd have noticed that I advocate hard work for prisoners (which is a part of rehabilitation along with education programs etc. which I support), and basic living conditions which also means sharing one's cell; neither of these allow for boredom or isolation.

And if you're going to say it is not fair to make them work, then you hold truly deluded (and hypocritical) beliefs on society.

>> ^swedishfriend:

1) I am sure the poor people in Norway live as well or better and they are not locked up against their will.
2) Debt to society? They may owe a debt to the person they stole from or hurt. I do not agree with the idea: we are going to kidnap you and lock you up against your will and then make you pay for the costs. Not fair at all.
3) No-one in Norway would call those things luxuries no matter how poor which is why they don't mind putting them in prisons.
4) The person who is forcibly taken and held against their will is taking advantage of society? Do you think it was a prisoner who made these rules?
I think it is questionable enough that society should be allowed to commit the crime of kidnapping when individuals are not allowed to do so but then to also try to keep criminals from rehabilitating only makes the problem worse for everyone. Why try through boredom and isolation to make people crazy or crazier. That doesn't seem like it would help anyone in society least of all the person who is held against their will.
>> ^hpqp:
I am totally against giving so much luxury to prisoners, for several reasons.
1) It is highly unfair that a criminal would be given better living conditions than the poor people who, despite the temptation, respect society's rules.
2) Criminals are in prison to pay their debt to society, often one that has cost the taxpayer a pretty sum. They should be working in basic conditions to pay that back, not leeching even more.
3) I totally agree that prisoners should be treated humanely, but suggesting that depriving them of certain luxuries (such as TV, private WC/shower, etc) is inhumane means that society is already treating those who cannot afford those luxuries while still respecting the law inhumanely already, and should perhaps give the honest citizens the priority.
4) If it is expected of the honest citizen to work and pay her/his own costs, even if that means going without luxuries, it should be all the more so of those who have broken the law. I have especially no pity for the kind of criminal who chooses crime for the easy money, all the while taking advantage of the country's lenient judicial system and generous taxpayers.