Not Good - Iran Escalation (flame war)

[william.scherk]

Thug life.

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits  such as yourself. You chose that, you launched it. Watch your fucking mouth and there will be no future trouble with me, get it?

"Fuck off, pedophile."

[Jon Letendre]

1 minute ago, william.scherk said:

Thug life.

"Fuck off, pedophile."

Indeed!

Thanks! I love being called out for my exemplary thug life.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

For your sentence to be true, he was not addressing a grave public concern. Instead, he was going after political enemies, as is seen in dictators like Kim Jun Un. I don’t think so Ellen.

Assuming Jon is correct about Gang operatives in Iran being the instigators of the drone shoot-down, the "grave public concern" is the work of political enemies for the sake of political and financial goals.  The issue isn't petty personal rivalries but major global scale schemes.

Ellen

[Peter]

17 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Assuming Jon is correct about Gang operatives in Iran being the instigators of the drone shoot-down, the "grave public concern" is the work of political enemies for the sake of political and financial goals.  The issue isn't petty personal rivalries but major global scale schemes.

Ellen

The Republican guard's top general admitted he did it yesterday in a news conference. I think the IRG is not a gang. They are a larger, better organized sub culture and "outfit" inside Iran, and wear uniforms and not gang insignias. Concocting a conspiracy/story about American Collusion as in "the CIA had a hand in this, by golly" is petty thinking. I am not saying all small sites with info cannot be truthful, but  . . .

I hope OL can be a place where ideas can be expressed and DEBATED without character assassination, and the argument from intimidation. I hope participants will learn to rationally discuss ideas and refutations of those ideas without behaving like Trailer Park Trash. I have asked Michael to uphold the expressed bylaws of OL and I hope he will. I usually block one person but I see their post headings if I don't sign in and look at Activity, and I sometimes decide to respond. That rarely works out well. It should always work out well, on a David Kelly inspired site. Peter

[Peter]

Always do the right thing? Is it moral to exaggerate to prove a point? 

From the causal remarks of the brilliant Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: Re: ATL: what's wrong with 'solipsistic' egoism? Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 00:28:51 -0500. Then it seems that what you're asking is the question "Why be moral?" No one *does* have to "live any type of life that he doesn't want for himself."  To use the example of a Mafia gangster, very possibly nothing I or anyone else could say to a person who wants the life of a Mafia gangster would dent the desire.  But would it be a good life by the standard of a rational ethics?  No, it wouldn't, any more than consuming a quart of alcohol a day would be a healthy life. Or, to make this personal: If you yourself don't want to live according to a rational code of values, then you don't gotta do it. But if you want to, then you need to know what a rational code of values is, and that's what ethics can tell you. Ellen S.

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: Question for Gayle (or: Lies and Rights in Gayle's Language) Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 01:19:46 -0500. Gayle, In a circumstance where you think it would be advisable to lie (for whatever reason), does the lie become not a lie? If a lie is a lie, why ever told, then why would you claim that in a circumstance where you think a rights violation is justifiable, rights become not rights?  How do *you* define rights such that you consider them to disappear when their violation is justified?  Or maybe you don't think the concept of rights has any validity at all, period? Ellen S.

[Peter]

Day two. America in Crisis, as SNL might say in a Walter Cronkite voice. “President Trump said in a tweet Friday that he stopped a U.S. attack on Iran that would have targeted three sites.” I am glad I am not the President. I hesitate running over a bee when I am mowing my lawn. If any of the actions of Iran described below occur, we know it is Iran sponsored, even if they deny it. The global strategy of Islam is for world domination since it is part of their religion. Calling Islam a religion of peace is ludicrous. Would American Muslims attack their own country? Are they contemplating treason at a few American mosques? I remember two congregations hearing those types of sermons. There are several Muslim countries like the Saudi's and the Indonesians who seem peaceful, though they may have a poor civil rights record. Several airlines have diverted flights to avoid the Strait of Hormuz. Peter       

NBC WASHINGTON — A limited U.S. strike on Iran of the sort President Donald Trump says he cancelled Thursday night could prompt a potent Iranian reaction that in turn might spark a much larger military conflict, current and former U.S. officials and experts tell NBC News.

Iran could do enormous damage to the global economy by mining the Strait of Hormuz, the waterway off its coast through which flows 40 percent of the crude oil traded internationally. That action, even if quickly countered by the U.S. Navy, would cause oil prices to spike. But that may not be Iran's first move in response to a limited American bomb and missile attack, experts say.

Iran would likely first turn to its proxies, who could inflict major damage on American allies, experts say. Houthi rebels in Yemen could step up attacks against Saudi Arabian infrastructure with missiles and drones. Shiite militias could destabilize Iraq. Hezbollah, the Iran-backed terrorist organization, could attack Israel or other American interests anywhere in the world.

And if Iran wanted to kill Americans, any of those groups could do that on its behalf, with some deniability, said the experts. Shiite militias could overrun the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and seize hostages. Hezbollah, which, before 9/11, had killed more Americans than any other terror group, could strike in places as far flung as Latin America, where the group has a strong presence.

"Traditionally, when faced with this sort of American action, Iran doesn't tend to respond directly and immediately, but they do so asymmetrically and over a period of time," said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department official and Iran expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

President Trump said in a tweet Friday that he stopped a U.S. attack on Iran that would have targeted three sites. He told NBC's Chuck Todd in an exclusive interview Friday that, after being told the attack could cost 150 Iranian lives, he decided it was not proportional to the downing of an unmanned spy drone.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

I think the IRG is not a gang

My reference was to "The Gang," Peter, as per Jon's usage, not "a gang."

Read Jon for details on who "The Gang" are.  LOL

I don't think you're gonna get the discourse style you want - although not treating Jon as a kook would help if you want politeness from him.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

And may have been an ultraclever ruse to elicit just the revealing reaction it did elicit from Pelosi and Schumer.

Ellen

Ellen,

Don't forget the Neocons. There's a lot of money to be made in war for all kinds of war machine scoundrels.

I came across the following on the Babylon Bee (see here) as I was thinking about the Neocons (both Dems and Repubs). LOL...

 

Man, should something like that ever happen for real, it would throw a big-ass bucket of cold water on the online enthusiasm for killing.

Michael

[Jon Letendre]

3 hours ago, Peter said:

The Republican guard's top general admitted he did it yesterday in a news conference. I think the IRG is not a gang. They are a larger, better organized sub culture and "outfit" inside Iran, and wear uniforms and not gang insignias. Concocting a conspiracy/story about American Collusion as in "the CIA had a hand in this, by golly" is petty thinking. I am not saying all small sites with info cannot be truthful, but  . . .

I hope OL can be a place where ideas can be expressed and DEBATED without character assassination, and the argument from intimidation. I hope participants will learn to rationally discuss ideas and refutations of those ideas without behaving like Trailer Park Trash. I have asked Michael to uphold the expressed bylaws of OL and I hope he will. I usually block one person but I see their post headings if I don't sign in and look at Activity, and I sometimes decide to respond. That rarely works out well. It should always work out well, on a David Kelly inspired site. Peter

That’s just voices in your head, Peter, snap out of it.

Now respond politely, as though that’s what I’m doing, ok? ‘Cause those are the rules of politeness in PeterLand.

And if you don’t respond with full and complete politeness then you have no place at this site.

[Jon Letendre]

56 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

My reference was to "The Gang," Peter, as per Jon's usage, not "a gang."

Read Jon for details on who "The Gang" are.  LOL

I don't think you're gonna get the discourse style you want - although not treating Jon as a kook would help if you want politeness from him.

Ellen

Thank you, Ellen.

You know, I really would be delighted with simply being understood. Maybe you currently place no plausibility at all on what I am saying. That was the case when you first heard it, because you said so yourself. I did not attack you though, did I? Brant has asked questions about what I am saying, he has sought clarification, and I gave it. And that was it. I have no idea what plausibility he places on it and I don’t care. Not because I don’t care about Brant, I do, and I have a great respect for him, his character and his mind. I am happy with questions, clarifications and efforts to be understood.

You understand what I am saying. Peter plainly does not. And he has never sought clarification on anything. And he just demonstrated plainly again that he does not know what I am talking about, after a year and a half of my presenting it.

But he “knows” it is fantasy. This is a problem, because he still doesn’t even know what I am saying. He doesn’t see that problem. This is why I have no interest in his random opinions about something he can’t be bothered to first understand.

[Ellen Stuttle]

23 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Maybe you currently place no plausibility at all on what I am saying. That was the case when you first heard it, because you said so yourself.

Um, I think something I said didn't communicate accurately to you if you think that I ever placed no plausibility on what you're saying.  I've placed a lot of plausibility on it all along.  My asking questions about details - and entering correctives on certain wordings you've used (such as "total control") - isn't meant as questioning the fundamentals of "Gang" existence and goals.  I have no doubt of the reality of those.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, Peter said:

The Republican guard's top general admitted he did it yesterday in a news conference. I think the IRG is not a gang. They are a larger, better organized sub culture and "outfit" inside Iran, and wear uniforms and not gang insignias.      

Not a gang?

You must think they aren't a gang like the gangs of South LA.

--Brant

the Nazis weren't a gang nor were the brown shirts because they wore uniforms?

[Jon Letendre]

57 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Um, I think something I said didn't communicate accurately to you if you think that I ever placed no plausibility on what you're saying.  I've placed a lot of plausibility on it all along.  My asking questions about details - and entering correctives on certain wordings you've used (such as "total control") - isn't meant as questioning the fundamentals of "Gang" existence and goals.  I have no doubt of the reality of those.

Ellen

Well, how about that. OK, very good.

I also counted your reference to the old goodie that goes something like, ‘have you considered how many thousands of people that would have to keep the secret and we all know someone would have talked by now, and ...’  I did think you were far from acceptance.

But I also knew you were hot on the trail of that something you allude to at times, and I thought that if you can accept the reality of that, not maybe but the reality of it, then it was just a matter of time for you. I keep finding that it is older and larger than I thought. I find there is a burden of knowledge to it, do you? One day it feels like 99% are sleepwalking and unwakable, it’s discomfiting.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Read Jon for details on who "The Gang" are.  LOL

A clarification of the "LOL."

What I was laughing about, Jon and Peter, was the implausibility of Peter's reading Jon's posts with enough attention to understand the details.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

30 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Well, how about that. OK, very good.

I also counted your reference to the old goodie that goes something like, ‘have you considered how many thousands of people that would have to keep the secret and we all know someone would have talked by now, and ...’  I did think you were far from acceptance.

But I also knew you were hot on the trail of that something you allude to at times, and I thought that if you can accept the reality of that, not maybe but the reality of it, then it was just a matter of time for you. I keep finding that it is older and larger than I thought. I find there is a burden of knowledge to it, do you? One day it feels like 99% are sleepwalking and unwakable, it’s discomfiting.

Actually, I get into very few political conversations, and I haven't an estimate of the degree of obliviousness.  I'm more of the feeling, Doesn't everyone know it?  But clearly everyone doesn't.

30 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

I also counted your reference to the old goodie that goes something like, ‘have you considered how many thousands of people that would have to keep the secret and we all know someone would have talked by now, and ...’  I did think you were far from acreptance.

My best guess as to what you're referring to there is something I said about Saddam Hussein.  You described him as having total rule over his country, and I came back with his changing his sleeping place every night.  However much power he had - and I'm not challenging that he had tremendous power - he lived like a fugitive.  There were many people who wanted him dead.  His power didn't extend to preventing desires for his demise.

Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

2 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Actually, I get into very few political conversations, and I haven't an estimate of the degree of obliviousness.  I'm more of the feeling, Doesn't everyone know it?  But clearly everyone doesn't.

My best guess as to what you're referring to there is something I said about Saddam Hussein.  You described him as having total rule over his country, and I came back with his changing his sleeping place every night.  However much power he had - and I'm not challenging that he had tremendous power - he lived like a fugitive.  There were many people who wanted him dead.  His power didn't extend to preventing desires for his demise.

Ellen

Everyone doesn’t. There is massive obliviousness. 

No, it was months earlier. It was a version of the oldie but goodie. ‘Too many people would have to go along, too vast, etc.’ It’s ok, it doesn’t matter.

Fair points about Saddam.

[Peter]

3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Not a gang?

You must think they aren't a gang like the gangs of South LA.

--Brant

the Nazis weren't a gang nor were the brown shirts because they wore uniforms?

So if Brant wore a uniform in Nam for his country he too was in a gang? This is serious guys! See how I made the word gang, bold? Remember the Jets and Sharks in “West Side Story?” Two youngsters from rival New York City gangs fall in love, but tensions between their respective friends build toward tragedy. I cried. In Steven Spielberg's new adaptation of "West Side Story," Tony wears Chucks. Release date in the United States is December 18, 2020.

Gang: an organized group of criminals.

AR: No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]

Robert Bidinotto wrote in, “The Contradiction in Anarchism:” Exactly who determines what use of force is "initiatory" or "coercive," and what is "defensive" or "retaliatory"? By what process is that determination made? Or, to put it in terms of "rights": Who determines whether, in any given use of force, "rights" have been violated -- and thus, who is the aggressor, and who the victim? By what procedure? What theory or interpretation of "rights" is to be used? Rand's? Henry George's? Lenin's? For society, how are such determinations made with finality? And how is that verdict enforced? As a corollary: who determines which agency is a "protection agency," and which is a mere gang of aggressors? By what method and standard? You see, anarchists sincerely believe that they are merely advocating "competition" in the protection of rights. In fact, what their position would necessitate is "competition" in defining what "rights" are.
end quote
 

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual, 182. The source of man’s rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man’s nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man’s rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life. end quote

R.A. Childs: Why is government necessary? "If a society provided no organized protection against force, it would compel every citizen to go about armed, to turn his home into a fortress, to shoot any strangers approaching his door — or to join a protective gang of citizens who would fight other gangs, formed for the same purpose, and thus bring about the degeneration of that society into the chaos of gang-rule, i.e., rule by brute force, into the perpetual tribal warfare of prehistorical savages. The use of physical force — even its retaliatory use — cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens."

This movie transplants the classic tale of "Romeo and Juliet" to New York City in the 1950s. The two feuding families are replaced by brawling street gangs. The Montagues become the Anglo Jets, led by Riff, and the Capulets become the Puerto Rican Sharks, led by Bernardo. At a dance, Tony, former leader of the Jets and Riff's best friend, and Maria, Bernardo's little sister, see each other across the room and it's love at first sight. With opposition from both sides, they meet secretly and their love grows deeper. However, the gangs are plotting one last rumble, a fight that will finally end the battle for control of the streets. Will Tony and Maria's love carry through a battle that threatens to destroy the people they love around them? —wickedphantom

[Peter]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

A clarification of the "LOL."

What I was laughing about, Jon and Peter, was the implausibility of Peter's reading Jon's posts with enough attention to understand the details.

Ellen

LOL is "Lots Of Luck." Did I get that right?

[Jon Letendre]

3 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

Actually, I get into very few political conversations, and I haven't an estimate of the degree of obliviousness.  I'm more of the feeling, Doesn't everyone know it?  But clearly everyone doesn't.

My best guess as to what you're referring to there is something I said about Saddam Hussein.  You described him as having total rule over his country, and I came back with his changing his sleeping place every night.  However much power he had - and I'm not challenging that he had tremendous power - he lived like a fugitive.  There were many people who wanted him dead.  His power didn't extend to preventing desires for his demise.

Ellen

I found it.

Ellen Stuttle

Posted November 13, 2018

   On 11/12/2018 at 1:47 PM,  Jon Letendre said: 

I’m not sure what distinction you make in your first paragraph. I am saying the real leaders of The Gang are many and United,  that they use blackmail and mind control and more to direct the activities of members and exert worldwide influence and control.

Don't you see a difference between keeping group members in line with blackmail and controlling, for instance, whether or not the North Korean government resorts to using nuclear weaponry?

Also, a difference between affecting what happens and running the show?  Even on the level of keeping group members obedient with blackmail, there's no guarantee of compliance.  Plus, the greater the number of people in a group, the smaller the chances of unanimity.  There are just too many factors for there to be a central control on the scale you appear to be saying exists. [Jon’s bold]

Anyway, I don't want to be arguing with you about who is or isn't a Gang member and to what extent the Gang runs world affairs.

My concern is with a small group of people who are not Gang members, who include a couple brilliant biochemists in their number, and who are developing ingenious biological methods of thinning out the globe's human population.

A few things you said sparked my curiosity as to whether or not your sources are aware of the schemes I mean.  Doesn't sound as if they are.



 Ellen

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

LOL is "Lots Of Luck." Did I get that right?

I apologize if I don’t understand your intention, Peter, but that is humor, right? You don’t really think that, but are using it to avoid addressing what Ellen said to and about you, is it fair to put it that way?

In my experience of people and life, what you are doing is just passive aggressively telling her she can go fuck herself. It is just another way of transmitting that message. And there is nothing wrong with communicating that.

But you seem to make a distinction between the two where one is qualitatively and morally different from the other.

I just wanted to say that I reject the validity of that distinction, except to say that one is for beta cowards and the other is for people who mean what they say and are happy to say exactly what they mean.

You keep giving sermons on common decency, so try now responding to the woman looking her straight in the eye.

Doesn’t have to be that message, that’s not what I am saying. But deal with what she said to you, respond to her like a man, in whatever way being a man is, for you.

Or shut the fuck up with your sermons from now on. Deal?

[Jon Letendre]

I think that psycho-epistemological dispositions play a big role in the disconnect. To explain what I mean, I will address two modes of solving problems or finding truth, which I name the comparison mode and the trust mode.

 

The comparison mode is when you evaluate a new proposition by trying to get it to fit in with everything else you already confidently know (without ever forgetting the reasons for and contexts of those confidences) without breaking things or making a mess. If it slips right in without issues, then confidence in it rises, and you can then move on to other tests, some of which must actually come prior such as: is it itself coherent and non-contradictory? The time spent dwelling on that question pays huge dividends because it requires you to first become intimate with the meaning, scope, implications, etc. of the new proposition. I am not doing the process justice, and there are necessary efficiencies, for example you can’t and shouldn’t call up everything you know, but rather only that knowledge which this new proposition is likely to touch.

 

You may find that something the new proposition directly implies and therefore requires also butts heads with current understanding and the resolution can be as simple as increased confidence or even acceptance of the new proposition and tossing out of that one item of current knowledge that disagreed with it. For example, I might see that semi-credible accusations of murder are being made about individual A, but I immediately see a need to reject it because I know A and she is a good person who knows pain, has been through a lot and would not want to cause harm. Seriously, she knows loss. She lost her first three husbands in freakish accidental bra-entanglements, asphyxiation was the technical term, so, wait, oh shit. Both systems have an explanation for the three tragic events, so you have to evaluate the conflicting explanations and recognize that the new proposition, despite all the other filters it still has to pass, actually explains some things very well, much better in fact than the old system did.

I have simplified a lot, this mode is cognitively demanding and can be uncomfortable. If the subject is what is really going on in the world, then a lot of things get 1-10 plausibility grades, not true/false, and you keep on working through it, serene all the while, though bereft of that sweet, sweet absolute certainty. Nothing ever feels settled.

 

The trust method is what many of us use when we have insufficient confidently held knowledge to use the Comparison method. Such as when we have to choose a dentist, dental clinic or mechanic/shop. We cannot use the comparison method at all, indeed a doctor or mechanic could give us a diagnostic opinion and a treatment plan that were absolutely absurd and we would stand no chance of detecting it. So we have to choose a person or entity to trust, then absorb their message. This was the dominant mode of coming to understand the world we were in when we were very young.

We may apply sophisticated methodology and discipline to the task of choosing the people and entities to trust, always having several and carefully somehow resolving any conflicts between them.  These choices could be carefully made and we may actually do quite well with it, arriving at a lot of more or less correct conclusions. You might change who you trust, tossing out what came from the old source and adopting that which is from the new one. It might feel like being open-minded, it might feel like a version of the comparison method.

I think that many people remain in a trust method mode their whole lives. Try as they may they simply cannot do the comparison method. They don’t have a deep well of integrated information and or they don’t possess an aptitude for the analytical modes. When they try they ending up comparing source qualities again, applying indirect tests such as what do friends think of it? What do people at OL have to say? Are they Christian or otherwise bad people? Has anyone ever told me it is a terrible source? Have I ever caught this source lying? Do they cuss? Then, they accept or reject the source essentially as a whole. This is Billy’s mode and Billy always projects this onto others. He insinuates his opponent is a fervent cultish believer in person X, even while this is his mode and his opponent is trying but failing to keep Billy focused on the proposition, which can and should be objectively evaluated, without need for reference to any personalities.

Yesterday Peter said I “cannot be trusted” as a source of information about what’s going on in the world. I found that to be so very strange. I can’t imagine forming the question in the first place — can I trust Brant? Can I trust Michael? I honestly cannot imagine even forming that question. I may as well wonder if they put on both socks then both shoes or a sock then a shoe then a sock then a shoe. I do evaluate what they say, as a whole and as discrete aspects. I evaluate assertions and their implications. Obviously I wonder about and try to evaluate people’s honesty, but that is personal, not epistemological. I think those two are honest, but that is no credential whatsoever for any assertion they may make. Their assertions get no epistemological passes just because I am confident they are trying to be honest, just as nothing asserted by a liar can be affected epistemologically by the irrelevancy that he likes to lie a lot.

Early in our dynamics I would be busy presenting some medium-long chain reasoning and Billy would ask for a link. And I would say, “There is no link, it is just a chain of reasoning. Don’t you see that the alternative systems get basically equal scores except this one explains that better than the other one does?” Then he would dance around and celebrate that I wouldn’t throw down a link to other people asserting what I was asserting. He never would address the reasoning, but only deride it, it is obviously dumb reasoning, he’s done with that. Then he would follow-up soon thereafter with lots of links of people saying what I was saying and point out that this one is a Christian, this one might believe in UFOs believes there are substantial, undisclosed space programs, this one believes there are elites who use sexual blackmail, such as against pedophiles who they control and place in positions of power. I’ve seen it so many times, not just our interactions, but between he and MSK in all their hundreds of discussions over the years, as well. He rarely evaluates a raw idea, he always wants to test it by evaluating a sample of the people who believe it.

We humans vary a lot in skillsets. I think many of us just don’t have the aptitude for holding a lot of variables and multi dependencies and implications at once. We have other aptitudes, we express ourselves well, so there is nothing to “detect” until something like Aristotle’s Wheel Paradox gets discussed in detail and it is made clear.

The thesis I and many others present about what the world really is, is terrifying.

If much at all of it is correct then most of what you know about how the world really works, is wrong and has to go. It would affect your whole worldview and even Sense of Life. It would mean you were massively duped top to bottom your whole life, it would mean you have been defending evils. You would have to do something, and at least for a time, risk looking like Jon has looked for the last two years.

And, if you use the trust method, then it might be Jon who you should trust next.

It’s terrifying, it is out of the question.

[anthony]

Hey Jon, I think this is excellently done. All the more cause to keep in mind that trust in someone else's conclusions, should not be assumed. They arrive, you know, from ones reasoned chain of concepts, induced from *many* particulars (and data and sources), and so are hard, almost impossible, to reproduce and communicate. Something to bear in mind, and that you touched on yourself. What looks glaringly obvious to you isn't so to another. And for good reason: all propositions made by others, one reads, must be passed through one's "smell test" - does this conform to reality as I know it, by *my* series of inductions and integrations (and comparisons and  differentiations)? The independent-minded listener can't take all that in, purely on trust. For someone, me or Peter to display a healthy skepticism to your propositions, isn't an attack on "you". I do think from reading you you have made over-hasty conclusions, mostly pointing to conspiratorial, notorious figures who do disgusting things, and sure, some in underground groups - cults.. I find myself, still, naively shocked at what superficially 'moral, upstanding' people can do. I don't doubt events will prove you right, on some, but not in every instance. (My pov is of the philosophical-political "conspiracy', by dangerous ideologues supported by many gullible innocents, planning our world - trying to shape the minds of individuals and masses. Those receive my greatest disgust). I think you're hasty and unjust, too, when you react slightingly e.g. against Peter's intelligence, visibly assuming his willful  obduracy, when all he usually makes are very mild and mannered observations. He is most pertinent too, when you dig into them. He doesn't know what you know, you don't know what he knows and has experienced. So it goes for everybody.

[Peter]

Tony wrote: What looks glaringly obvious to you isn't so to another. And for good reason: all propositions made by others, one reads, must be passed through one's "smell test" - does this conform to reality as I know it, by *my* series of inductions and integrations (and comparisons and  differentiations)? The independent-minded listener can't take all that in, purely on trust. For someone, me or Peter to display a healthy skepticism to your propositions, isn't an attack on "you". end quote

Well expressed Tony.  Peter

[Peter]

I went back to a few days (maybe two not counting today) and here is one opinion expressed. Can you figure out who said these things? Peter

Hoping for a different outcome like the retard I say you are.  . . . snap out of it. Now respond politely, as though that’s what I’m doing, ok? ‘Cause those are the rules of politeness in PeterLand. Or shut the fuck up with your sermons from now on. Deal? Fuck off pedophile. Fuck your light humor. I wasn’t hostile until after this shit from shithead-in-Chief. Heres a clue, fucktard, “the voices in your head” is a cheap attack. I don’t react well to cheap attacks from ignorant, weak little shits such as yourself. How many coups, fucktard? Go fuck yourself, Peter, that's what happened in Dominican Republic.

[Peter]

To Michael and all others reading this. I’m thinking about taking another month off from communicating and supporting OL. I would hate to see such a wonderful site become a toxic waste dump. Are those posts conducive to living like an objectivist? Peter