do Germany and France live under socialism today?

[moralist]

6 minutes ago, Peter said:

God and his son? You should watch that show, "Lucifer."

Sorry, Peter. I don't watch television. It's for people who heed to be told how they should see the world.

I have no such need.

 

Greg

[Peter]

“It's for people who heed to be told how they should see the world”??? Proofreaders! You can do better than this. We can’t have the TV Guide with misspellings. Send out a complimentary copy to Greg once it is edited . . . and proofread!

TV does not tell people what to think though it seems to have gotten to Greg. Heed my warning. Need my intelligence? It gives you news and opinion and it is up to the individual to yadda, yadda, yadda.

The TV show “Lucifer” is a bit tedious but it does attempt to show parts of “the myth” many don’t want to remember. It is edgy and irreverent. And no Greg TV does not brain wash anyone except in your Bizaaro universe.

Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality – Bill Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:38:21 -0500

Ellen Moore wrote: "I am aware of the passages you quote.  But I do not understand them to say that you think they mean.  Somewhere in the seminars, Rand said, "'fact' is an epistemological tool."  Your quotes reinforce that meaning, i.e., when we say that something is a "fact", we are saying that our epistemological statement corresponds to the concretes in existence."

It has long been my understanding that Ayn Rand regarded "fact" as metaphysical concept, and "truth" as an epistemological one. A "fact" is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge. A "truth" is the identification (or "recognition") of a fact, and is therefore contextually dependent of a given state of knowledge. I believe Ellen is confusing the two concepts, as Rand used them. Ghs

From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re-Post: Re: Borderline Cases Do Exist - No They Don't! Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:59:15 -0700. Ram Tobolski was critical of my post "Borderline Cases Do Not Exist." My response is below. And just to whet your appetite, I provide an answer to the age-old mystical question, "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it." Enjoy!

On 3/24/01 Ram Tobolski wrote: [previous stuff deleted]  > 5. Neil Goodell (3/21) aims to reject borderline cases altogether: Here's a syllogism that I hope will make this clear:  > Premise 1. Categories are arbitrary. By which I mean there is no metaphysical apriori reason to determine that a category shall include one thing but not another.> No, categories are not arbitrary. The metaphysical does not _determine_ our categories, but it strongly _conditions_ them. It strongly limits our possibilities, as much as we are objective.

Sorry, I don't know what this means. Our sensory system perceives different types of energy, and our psychophysical perceptual processes convert that energy into a form we can use. What is your answer to the question, does the sun radiate light that floods the earth? The correct answer is no, it does not. "Light" is a creation of our mind, it does not exist in the world *independent* of our mind. Our psychophysical processes transforms a small portion of the electromagnetic energy radiated by the sun into a form usable to us, and we call it light.

(So the correct answer to the oft asked question, "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no living entity there to hear it?" is: No. A falling tree generates atmospheric compression waves, but it requires a sensing mind to turn that energy into sound.)

Now, how are we to create a metaphysically "objective" category when our most powerful sensory system, vision, depends on a creation (or figment! of our own mind? A parallel argument can be made for all of our sensory systems, so the idea that something can be metaphysically objective, at least as Ram is trying to argue, is nonsense.

Want an even stronger example? Do you ever question the veracity of your senses? What would you say if I told you your senses "lie" to you all the time? Yes, they do. Your mind routinely alters the "output" of sensory processing so that what your mind perceives is *not* what was seen. Confused?

There is a psychological phenomenon called "color constancy." This is when we perceive a red apple as being the same red whether we view the apple using artificial light, under an overcast sky, or at noon on a cloudless day. Our visual system is not merely responding to the wavelength of light reflected by the apple, it is also compensating for the source of light. The effect is that we always see more or less the same red, even though the actual reflected light energy is quite different.

 There are many such perceptual constancy's, I used color as an example because it is fairly easy to understand. The underlying mechanism for how they work is poorly understood to say nothing of how/why such a process evolved. My point is that if our perceptual processes can deceive us on such a fundamental property of vision, how on earth can there be any kind of metaphysical "determination" or "conditioning" for a category? The answer is there can't be, not unless the mind is in contact with Plato's world of Perfect Forms or some such!

Note: The argument I am making here has nothing to do with whether the senses report valid "information" or not. That is an entirely separate discussion and I am not questioning the validity of the senses here.

<Premise 2. Categories do not exist in the world. They exist solely in the mind of the perceiver. Our categories usually do not exist as-they-are in the world. But they rely on real, metaphysical distinctions. Otherwise they would not be objective.

I am not going to spend time here explaining this error as Peikoff and Rand discuss it extensively. Here I'll say only that our categories are nothing like existents in the world. So-called "metaphysical distinctions" are a creation of our mind, of our psychophysical perceptual processes giving meaning to and interpreting different types of energy. This is *all* perception is.

Look at a red apple. Now blink your eyes and look at the apple again. The metaphysical distinction between these two glances is that time has elapsed and your brain is physically changed from the first glance to the second (yes, it is, otherwise you would have no memory of the first glance). This is a concrete, undeniable, "objective," metaphysical distinction. Is each glance deserving of a separate category? According to the argument Ram is putting forth, it should be.

The error Ram is making is attempting to ground his notion of "objective" as a metaphysical point-to-something-kind-of construct. This is incorrect. Objectivity is concerned with epistemology, specifically reasoning, and how we validate our knowledge. Existence merely is, it is not objective, subjective, or anything else, it just is.

<Therefore: Borderline cases are a manifestation of an individual mind as a result of idiosyncratic category definitions.> Not quite. This follows: Borderline cases are a result of our epistemological limits, of the gaps between our objective categories and the metaphysical distinctions on which they rely. \ No. *You* have a borderline case because your categories fall to either side (or somewhere else) relative to the existent. *I* have a category that exactly matches the existent. "Limits" and "gaps" are irrelevant. Our individual categories are different because, say, we have different amounts of experience with this particular existent; in my life I decided a category was necessary, but since you have only one or two or no previous encounters, no category was needed. [I get the feeling you're inventing problems where none need exist....]

 > <Easy example: A two-year-old's first trip to Marine World, the child sees a dolphin jumping out of the water and yells out, "Mommy! Daddy! Fish!" Mommy or daddy then corrects the child, "No honey, dolphins are not fish, they are mammals because they breathe air." > Is the child wrong? No. They are not wrong because, based on their knowledge, a dolphin looks and behaves just like a fish. As adults we have decided to not classify animals by their habitat but rather according to their metabolism and anatomy, and for these reasons dolphins are classified as mammals. But if we were to change the rules of the classification system, this might no longer be true. The child is right in calling the dolphin "fish" because for him "fish" is defined as "living in the water". For the parents "fish" is defined by metabolism and anatomy. So we are talking here about two different concepts, that happen to be represented by the same word, "fish". None of these concepts is arbitrary, as they both rely on real, metaphysical distinctions; and they both take part in non-contradictory mental integrations.

You are misusing the word "arbitrary" here. As I originally used the word, I meant no apriori determination. As used above, it is an accusation of sloppy reasoning. These are different concepts represented by the same word, and this is an example of context dropping (or shifting), and is an error. And contradiction has nothing to do with category formation per se (*good* categories yes, but not categories qua categories). People can integrate anything they put their mind to, contradictory or not, true or not.

[rest of Ram's post deleted] Just to wrap up, if you want to understand categories you had better understand the philosophical issues involved and the proper delineation between concepts. You also need to study biology and psychology to learn what our brain is really doing, at least so far as we have discovered. (Most) all of the posts I've read on this subject of "borderline cases" are sorely lacking in one or more of these areas. Neil Goodell

[BaalChatzaf]

10 minutes ago, Peter said:

“It's for people who heed to be told how they should see the world”??? Proofreaders! You can do better than this. We can’t have the TV Guide with misspellings. Send out a complimentary copy to Greg once it is edited . . . and proofread!

TV does not tell people what to think though it seems to have gotten to Greg. Heed my warning. Need my intelligence? It gives you news and opinion and it is up to the individual to yadda, yadda, yadda.

The TV show “Lucifer” is a bit tedious but it does attempt to show parts of “the myth” many don’t want to remember. It is edgy and irreverent. And no Greg TV does not brain wash anyone except in your Bizaaro universe.

Peter

From: "George H. Smith" To: "*Atlantis" Subject: ATL: Re: The facts of reality – Bill Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 11:38:21 -0500

Ellen Moore wrote: "I am aware of the passages you quote.  But I do not understand them to say that you think they mean.  Somewhere in the seminars, Rand said, "'fact' is an epistemological tool."  Your quotes reinforce that meaning, i.e., when we say that something is a "fact", we are saying that our epistemological statement corresponds to the concretes in existence."

It has long been my understanding that Ayn Rand regarded "fact" as metaphysical concept, and "truth" as an epistemological one. A "fact" is that which is, regardless of anyone's knowledge. A "truth" is the identification (or "recognition") of a fact, and is therefore contextually dependent of a given state of knowledge. I believe Ellen is confusing the two concepts, as Rand used them. Ghs

From: Neil Goodell To: objectivism Subject: OWL: Re-Post: Re: Borderline Cases Do Exist - No They Don't! Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:59:15 -0700. Ram Tobolski was critical of my post "Borderline Cases Do Not Exist." My response is below. And just to whet your appetite, I provide an answer to the age-old mystical question, "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if no one is there to hear it." Enjoy!

On 3/24/01 Ram Tobolski wrote: [previous stuff deleted]  > 5. Neil Goodell (3/21) aims to reject borderline cases altogether: Here's a syllogism that I hope will make this clear:  > Premise 1. Categories are arbitrary. By which I mean there is no metaphysical apriori reason to determine that a category shall include one thing but not another.> No, categories are not arbitrary. The metaphysical does not _determine_ our categories, but it strongly _conditions_ them. It strongly limits our possibilities, as much as we are objective.

Sorry, I don't know what this means. Our sensory system perceives different types of energy, and our psychophysical perceptual processes convert that energy into a form we can use. What is your answer to the question, does the sun radiate light that floods the earth? The correct answer is no, it does not. "Light" is a creation of our mind, it does not exist in the world *independent* of our mind. Our psychophysical processes transforms a small portion of the electromagnetic energy radiated by the sun into a form usable to us, and we call it light.

(So the correct answer to the oft asked question, "Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound if there is no living entity there to hear it?" is: No. A falling tree generates atmospheric compression waves, but it requires a sensing mind to turn that energy into sound.)

Now, how are we to create a metaphysically "objective" category when our most powerful sensory system, vision, depends on a creation (or figment! of our own mind? A parallel argument can be made for all of our sensory systems, so the idea that something can be metaphysically objective, at least as Ram is trying to argue, is nonsense.

Want an even stronger example? Do you ever question the veracity of your senses? What would you say if I told you your senses "lie" to you all the time? Yes, they do. Your mind routinely alters the "output" of sensory processing so that what your mind perceives is *not* what was seen. Confused?

There is a psychological phenomenon called "color constancy." This is when we perceive a red apple as being the same red whether we view the apple using artificial light, under an overcast sky, or at noon on a cloudless day. Our visual system is not merely responding to the wavelength of light reflected by the apple, it is also compensating for the source of light. The effect is that we always see more or less the same red, even though the actual reflected light energy is quite different.

 There are many such perceptual constancy's, I used color as an example because it is fairly easy to understand. The underlying mechanism for how they work is poorly understood to say nothing of how/why such a process evolved. My point is that if our perceptual processes can deceive us on such a fundamental property of vision, how on earth can there be any kind of metaphysical "determination" or "conditioning" for a category? The answer is there can't be, not unless the mind is in contact with Plato's world of Perfect Forms or some such!

Note: The argument I am making here has nothing to do with whether the senses report valid "information" or not. That is an entirely separate discussion and I am not questioning the validity of the senses here.

<Premise 2. Categories do not exist in the world. They exist solely in the mind of the perceiver. Our categories usually do not exist as-they-are in the world. But they rely on real, metaphysical distinctions. Otherwise they would not be objective.

I am not going to spend time here explaining this error as Peikoff and Rand discuss it extensively. Here I'll say only that our categories are nothing like existents in the world. So-called "metaphysical distinctions" are a creation of our mind, of our psychophysical perceptual processes giving meaning to and interpreting different types of energy. This is *all* perception is.

Look at a red apple. Now blink your eyes and look at the apple again. The metaphysical distinction between these two glances is that time has elapsed and your brain is physically changed from the first glance to the second (yes, it is, otherwise you would have no memory of the first glance). This is a concrete, undeniable, "objective," metaphysical distinction. Is each glance deserving of a separate category? According to the argument Ram is putting forth, it should be.

The error Ram is making is attempting to ground his notion of "objective" as a metaphysical point-to-something-kind-of construct. This is incorrect. Objectivity is concerned with epistemology, specifically reasoning, and how we validate our knowledge. Existence merely is, it is not objective, subjective, or anything else, it just is.

<Therefore: Borderline cases are a manifestation of an individual mind as a result of idiosyncratic category definitions.> Not quite. This follows: Borderline cases are a result of our epistemological limits, of the gaps between our objective categories and the metaphysical distinctions on which they rely. \ No. *You* have a borderline case because your categories fall to either side (or somewhere else) relative to the existent. *I* have a category that exactly matches the existent. "Limits" and "gaps" are irrelevant. Our individual categories are different because, say, we have different amounts of experience with this particular existent; in my life I decided a category was necessary, but since you have only one or two or no previous encounters, no category was needed. [I get the feeling you're inventing problems where none need exist....]

 > <Easy example: A two-year-old's first trip to Marine World, the child sees a dolphin jumping out of the water and yells out, "Mommy! Daddy! Fish!" Mommy or daddy then corrects the child, "No honey, dolphins are not fish, they are mammals because they breathe air." > Is the child wrong? No. They are not wrong because, based on their knowledge, a dolphin looks and behaves just like a fish. As adults we have decided to not classify animals by their habitat but rather according to their metabolism and anatomy, and for these reasons dolphins are classified as mammals. But if we were to change the rules of the classification system, this might no longer be true. The child is right in calling the dolphin "fish" because for him "fish" is defined as "living in the water". For the parents "fish" is defined by metabolism and anatomy. So we are talking here about two different concepts, that happen to be represented by the same word, "fish". None of these concepts is arbitrary, as they both rely on real, metaphysical distinctions; and they both take part in non-contradictory mental integrations.

You are misusing the word "arbitrary" here. As I originally used the word, I meant no apriori determination. As used above, it is an accusation of sloppy reasoning. These are different concepts represented by the same word, and this is an example of context dropping (or shifting), and is an error. And contradiction has nothing to do with category formation per se (*good* categories yes, but not categories qua categories). People can integrate anything they put their mind to, contradictory or not, true or not.

[rest of Ram's post deleted] Just to wrap up, if you want to understand categories you had better understand the philosophical issues involved and the proper delineation between concepts. You also need to study biology and psychology to learn what our brain is really doing, at least so far as we have discovered. (Most) all of the posts I've read on this subject of "borderline cases" are sorely lacking in one or more of these areas. Neil Goodell

There are facts (the very conditions and contents of the world)  and there are statements that assert facts.  The facts themselves are not linguistic constructions.  The assertions of fact  (which may be true or not true)  are linguistic constructions.  People create them.   The facts (of the world)  are there independent of people. 

In common usage a "statement of fact"  is a declarative proposition which asserts that such and such is a fact or which asserts a fact.

Here is a statement of fact. "there is a one thousand dollar bill in my wallet".   It happens to be a false statement.  I would be happy if it were a true statement.

[moralist]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

 

TV does not tell people what to think...l

Peter, it's impossible for you to realize the truth that TV is indoctrinating you while you're immersed in its images!

TV fosters nurtures promotes and defends the amoral liberal secularist view of the world, because that's the dominant political religion of the entertainment industry. Believe me, I know... because I live right smack dab in the middle of it!

I don't subscribe to that view so there's no need for me to watch it.

Television is for idiots.

Greg

[Peter]

Television is for idiots? The news too? I have watched TV my whole life and I am better for it. Smarter, better informed, and happier. I think kids should watch TV if supervised. Consider Broadway and old plays, old radio, movies, and TV as essential parts of American Culture.

Currently I watch Bull, all the NCIS’s except for the one in LA, Designated Survivor, Lucifer, and The Black List though I take issue with them all the time. I could not watch the last Lucifer for instance, it was so bad.  

Some of my all - time favorites are The X Files, Lost, Six Feet Under, The Twilight Zone, Downton Abbey, I Love Lucy, old westerns like Hopalong Cassidy, Disney’s Sunday shows including Davey Crocket, The Mickey Mouse Club, and The Mickey Mouse Show, Game of Thrones, Ally McBeal, The Brady Bunch, The Rockford Files, True Blood, Gilligan’s Island, 24, Alfred Hitchcock, Mork and Mindy, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, I Dream of Jeannie, Bewitched, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Mash, Moonlighting, House, Murphy Brown, Frasier, Sex and the City, Happy Days, All the Star Trek’s but especially ST TNG, The Golden Girls, Seinfeld, The Big Bang Theory, The Carol Burnett Show, Saturday Night Live (20 or 30 years ago, forget about today’s version,) All In The Family, Cheers.

I even look back at the old kid’s shows on my list with great respect. A lot of my favorite shows I could miss and see in reruns, but I rarely missed Lost, The X Files, Star Trek TNG, and Downton Abbey.  If you do not watch good TV you are cutting yourself off from American culture.

Peter 

[Arkadi]

Peter--This is impressive! Do you have time, also, to read books? In particular, world classics (neglecting which cuts one off from the culture that is broader and deeper than just American one).

[Peter]

I read “The Classics” when I had to in school, which probably included two Russian authors, a few Americans, and a lot of English writers. At the same time, as a teen, I was into westerns especially Louis L’Amour. The name and genre may sound odd to you but they are excellent. I read all of Ian Fleming, Donald Hamilton (one of Rand’s favorites) and others.  

The books I read now, I buy, and eagerly read. I have about 20 books I have read in hard cover ready to give to the library. I miss the seafaring novels of Patrick Obrien. I am just finishing up “The Fix” (an FBI agent with an eidetic memory) by David Baldacci and I will read “Golden Prey” by John Sanford probably in about an hour, and it will probably be read in two or three days. I like the printed, paper page but I suppose one of these days I will get an electronic book reader . . . but not yet.

A lot of world cultures just seem odd and stupid to me. The snotty French? I would not visit though it would be nice to tour The Louvre. Here in America we are very, very free. I fail to see the usefulness in things like “saving face” in the orient or being “macho” in Mexico. They are irrational. Nor would I travel because it is not safe.

I was just watching President Trump boarding a plane in Israel. It looked to me like he stopped then proceeded, just in case a long range rifle was targeting where he would be in a second or two. I don’t want to live like that. Of course, he may have been waiting for the cameras to be lined up too, or both.  

Peter  

[BaalChatzaf]

13 minutes ago, Peter said:

I read “The Classics” when I had to in school, which probably included two Russian authors, a few Americans, and a lot of English writers. At the same time, as a teen, I was into westerns especially Louis L’Amour. The name and genre may sound odd to you but they are excellent. I read all of Ian Fleming, Donald Hamilton (one of Rand’s favorites) and others.  

The books I read now, I buy, and eagerly read. I have about 20 books I have read in hard cover ready to give to the library. I miss the seafaring novels of Patrick Obrien. I am just finishing up “The Fix” (an FBI agent with an eidetic memory) by David Baldacci and I will read “Golden Prey” by John Sanford probably in about an hour, and it will probably be read in two or three days. I like the printed, paper page but I suppose one of these days I will get an electronic book reader . . . but not yet.

A lot of world cultures just seem odd and stupid to me. The snotty French? I would not visit though it would be nice to tour The Louvre. Here in America we are very, very free. I fail to see the usefulness in things like “saving face” in the orient or being “macho” in Mexico. They are irrational. Nor would I travel because it is not safe.

I was just watching President Trump boarding a plane in Israel. It looked to me like he stopped then proceeded, just in case a long range rifle was targeting where he would be in a second or two. I don’t want to live like that. Of course, he may have been waiting for the cameras to be lined up too, or both.  

Peter  

There is no sensual accompaniment to reading pages off a computer screen or an  e-book reader.  No fell of the pages under the fingers. No handy margins for jotting down quick notes and limited opportunity to underline or high light.   It is much less fun reading e-books than real books.  With a real book you can flip among two or three different locations with no effect. With a computer you have to e-mark your places to get back and forth.  And most of all, it is hard to curl up under the covers with an e-book. 

[Arkadi]

Peter--Again, I am very much impressed by your capacity to digest stuff. As a teenager, I was reading at the speed of 100 pages of belles-lettres per hour whatever happened to be entertaining. But since then I have slowed down considerably and got a feeling that whenever I read or watch anything that  stimulates no reflection in me on my own, personal or social, experience, is a distraction and a waste of time.

[moralist]

23 hours ago, Peter said:

Television is for idiots? The news too?

Yes, Peter.

For idiots. 

Television news is "a proctologists view of the world". --Dennis Prager

TV news is entertainment ratings driven and designed solely to make you upset, angry, outraged, and afraid of things over which you have no personal control and for which you have no personal responsibility. This is because your attention can be captured by your own need to be emotionally upset. Television news operates on the principle of emotionally captured attention.

And whatever you give the power to emotionally upset you... controls you.

 

Greg

[Arkadi]

Greg--Well grasped! I stopped watching TV and reading newspapers at the age of 19, and I believe that all media news "is...designed...to make you upset, angry, outraged, and afraid of things over which you have no personal control and for which you have no personal responsibility." But is not this true of most fiction movies and books as well?

[moralist]

2 hours ago, Arkadi said:

Greg--Well grasped! I stopped watching TV and reading newspapers at the age of 19, and I believe that all media news "is...designed...to make you upset, angry, outraged, and afraid of things over which you have no personal control and for which you have no personal responsibility." But is not this true of most fiction movies and books as well?

Not really, Arkadi. Reading or watching fiction is done with the tacit understanding that it is a dramatic portrayal which is not real...

...whereas TV news sells itself to the viewer as being reality... when it couldn't be farther from it.

The whole point of TV news is to upset the viewer in order to keep their emotionally captured attention fixated to the screen.

It's agenda is to promote the secular political religion of liberalism.

 

Greg

[Arkadi]

Greg--If I watch TV with an understanding of its design to capture me emotionally, I am immune to its aforesaid design, just as I am immune to being emotionally captured by fiction, if I view it with an understanding that  it is a dramatic portrayal which is not real. However, most people forget this when watching fiction, because they watch it precisely for the sake of being captured, i.e., for same reason as they wach the news.

[moralist]

17 hours ago, Arkadi said:

Greg--If I watch TV with an understanding of its design to capture me emotionally, I am immune to its aforesaid design, just as I am immune to being emotionally captured by fiction, if I view it with an understanding that  it is a dramatic portrayal which is not real. However, most people forget this when watching fiction, because they watch it precisely for the sake of being captured, i.e., for same reason as they wach the news.

While that's ah accurate description, Arkadi...

...a distinction still hasn't been made. So the two remain regarded as moral equivalents when in reality they are not. Novels aren't lying to you about being real. TV news is lying to you about being real. Of what good is it for you to waste your time watching TV news even if you were to know it's lying to you?

Fake TV news is for fakers... for it fosters nurtures protects and defends the lies they love.

Greg

 

[Arkadi]

Greg--TV news contain lots of factual truth. Your belief that it is 100% lie (like in North Korea ?) smacks of paranoia, in my view.

[Arkadi]

p.s. Moreover, for most people the media news are the only way to get access to factual truth about not only the world at large but even events in their local community.

[moralist]

10 hours ago, Arkadi said:

Greg--TV news contain lots of factual truth. Your belief that it is 100% lie (like in North Korea ?) smacks of paranoia, in my view.

Yeah... like human caused catastrophic global warming!

That's a lie tailor made for government worshipping secularist suckers... and they lap it up like dogs on vomit. TV news constantly moves from crisis to crisis in order to keep people angry upset and fearful... because that's how it keeps them watching. And it's always about things over which they have no control. It's important to keep people feeling like helpless victims so that they'll cry to their mommie government for it to care for them like little babies.

TV news is insidious because it hides lies inside truths to further the media's agenda of promoting the political religion of secular statism. 

 

Greg

[moralist]

9 hours ago, Arkadi said:

p.s. Moreover, for most people the media news are the only way to get access to factual truth about not only the world at large but even events in their local community.

Baloney.

When I want to know what's going on in my local community, I simply talk with my neighbors.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

News has gone from garbage behind the curtain to garbage in front of the curtain. It's always stunk up the theater.

--Brant

[Arkadi]

Greg--So, you learned who had become our President from your neighbors? And how did your neighbors learn it, if not from the media?

[moralist]

59 minutes ago, Arkadi said:

Greg--So, you learned who had become our President from your neighbors? And how did your neighbors learn it, if not from the media?

That's not my local community. It's also something over which I had no control. While I cast one vote, I had absolutely no control over how other people voted. In fact in my state a leftist c**t got 3,000,000,000 more votes than the President got.

You seem to be having difficulty making distinctions between things which are obviously not the same. Are you able to realize there is a difference between the reality of what goes on in my local community and the fantasies of ratings driven commercial network TV news?

You don't notice how TV news molds your view of the world because you both belong to the same secular poitical religion.

It's preaching to the choir.

Greg

[Arkadi]

Greg--I do not watch TV, as I said; but (1) I believe that I need to know who is the President of my country, (2) I learn it from my friends, and (3) they learn it from the media. If they were not following the news, I would have to do this myself.

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Arkadi said:

Greg--I do not watch TV, as I said; but (1) I believe that I need to know who is the President of my country, (2) I learn it from my friends, and (3) they learn it from the media. If they were not following the news, I would have to do this myself.

Three degrees of separation?

--Brant

Grover Cleveland is dead

[BaalChatzaf]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Three degrees of separation?

--Brant

Grover Cleveland is dead

Pa, Pa! Where's my Pa?  Dead and buried, Ha, Ha, Ha.

[Arkadi]

Brant--In some cases even more, for some of my friends do not follow the media either. I just simplified it for clarity.