|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saul Luizaga
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeople WhoBreakTheLaw.He Answers Poorly.
Date: 23 Sep 2014 20:01:07
Message: <542209c3@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel wrote:
> This is a public service announcement:
>
> You might not be aware of it, but this is a violation of the rules in
> this newsgroup, it could get you banned from all povray newsgroups.*
No insults allowed? fine I'll take out the insults but I won't
apologize, the guy deserves it.
> Your behaviour also does also not help in getting your point across.
I made a post for that purpose.
> I suggest that you apologize and restrict the number of times you refer
> to what others have done on obscure websites
obscure? are you that paranoid or what it's wrong with you? Have you
ever heard the of 'humanitarian'? that¡s what all those sites are all
about, and I'll do as I please, because of my freedom of thought and
expression.
> and simply try to make your
> point using your own words and in an orderly fashion.
I did, and I explained this on the other post I made on this thread.
>
> Many of us are glad that at least there are some places on the internet
> that are free from profanities, trolls, porno, and spam. Please behave
> like a good guest in this community and keep it that way.
> Thanx
I am, I post things that are worth sharing, spam is the opposite,
selfish ads for self-benefit without consideration to others.
> *) As has been explained before, this newsgroup is not part of the
> general newsgroups of the internet jungle outside. It is hosted on a
> private server and only uses a standard protocol for everybody else to
> easily connect.
I don't pretend to disturb the newsgroup but inform, I've seen somewhat
interesting social articles, and I thought these would be also of
interest but I get received with rejection instead of analyzing what I
write and link.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money To People WhoBreakThe Law. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 23 Sep 2014 20:21:25
Message: <54220e85$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 19:43:43 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy", of course, that's the
> point, it's something fucking wrong with the World we live in and we
> should see that and at least discuss it, with off-line people and do as
> much as you can, even if it's just passing the news, so people get aware
> and that makes noticeable changes over time, are things of common
> interest not only for a certain Country but Humanity, I don't believe in
> nationalism, I consider myself a citizen of the World and as such my
> concern for their citizens.
Well, perhaps, but your replies to Doctor John certainly don't convince
me of anything.
Those kinds of emotional outbursts don't impress and they certainly don't
convince or help your case or cause.
There are plenty of reasons I didn't engage, but honestly, if those root
posts had been from someone whose name I didn't even recognize, I would
have considered them link spam and nothing more. The only reason I
reacted *at all* is because I remember you from being around here before,
and those memories of you were kind.
But how seeing how you're approaching this, my opinion is, shall we say,
somewhat lowered.
I find that when someone wants to discuss something, they tend to do more
than just post a link to a story - they tend to include some thoughts of
their own, some sort of personal interpretation of the content they're
linking to.
You didn't do that - hence the comment about it looking like "link
spam". I'm sorry if that hurts your feelings, but that's what it looks
like to me.
And your reaction to others saying that they've blocked you looks like a
tantrum that I'd expect from a child.
Which makes me wonder if you're going to say anything that's worth my
time to read, or if you're just going to swear at me for being honest
about what I'm seeing.
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeople WhoBreakTheLaw. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 23 Sep 2014 23:49:58
Message: <54223f66$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 23/09/2014 23:29, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Doctor John wrote:
>> Indeed , Jim and Chris. I have already blocked this poster.
>>
>> John
>>
> Fuck you asshole
No. That is going too far.
I complain!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: clipka
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeople WhoBreakThe Law. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 01:07:18
Message: <54225186@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 24.09.2014 01:43, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> I can't believe the reaction of you people to my messages, I thought
> you'd take them with rational, skeptical and critical thinking, but
> you're taking them emotionally, "I'm uneasy",
You're entirely missing the point here.
I /do/ take the content you linked to with rational, skeptical and
critical thinking.
The point here is the way you try to get "your" messages across.
And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
thinking: There is a certain gut feeling, developed from experience,
that rings an alarm bell in me - a gut feeling that I partially
understand, partially don't, but one thing I know is that this gut
feeling is there for a reason. It is not something that has been
instilled in me by my parents. It is not something I have been taught by
some mentor. It is not something that I've adopted from some peer group.
It is not something I've trained myself to. To the very contrary: This
gut feeling is the result of a lesson I've learned, personally.
In a nutshell, this whole thing boils down to whether "good" ends
justify "bad" means, and I think they don't. If you want to make the
world a less "corrupted" place, using "corrupted" means gets you nowhere.
Now with "good" and "bad" I don't mean the concepts coined by our
Christian heritage, and when I say "corrupted" I don't refer to the
concept of corruption as understood in politics. I even go as far as
saying I'm not talking about moral here, because moral is always
subjective and emotional. I'm talking about some basal, plain, rational,
non-judgemental "yup/nope, it's (un)desirable for this to be
done/achieved/whatever".
So, as I said before: The point here is the way you try to get "your"
messages across.
And those quotation marks delineate exactly the issue I have with it:
From all I read, I can only conclude that those are not /your/
messages. It is something you may have been instilled with by your
parents, have been taught by some mentor, have adopted from some peer
group, or have trained yourself to make your own - but at the end of the
day these messages are still /not/ yours: You don't have any personal
connection with them.
You may not want this to be true; you may not believe this to be true;
and I may even be wrong about it; but it's that very lesson I've
learned, personally, that has given me some very sensitive instinct to
exactly this type of situation.
And I've also learned that evangelizing about someone else's message is
- as far as "desirability to be done" goes - equivalent to spreading
outright lies.
Yup, that's right: If you have been taught that E=mc^2, and have not
done any toying around with this formula whatsoever to see what it does,
where it comes from and where it is leading to, then whenever you tell
someone else that E=mc^2, in a certain sense you're telling them an
outright lie.
Why? Because you, as the one spreading a message, are responsible for
the message, so it is your duty to verify that what you pass on is legit.
If you don't know whether you're spreading gold or horsecrap, you have
two possibilities to deal with it: (A) make it clear to the audience
that you don't know which one it is, or (B) hold your tongue.
As I said, you may not want this to be true; you may not believe this to
be true; and I may even be wrong about it; but I have the strong feeling
that you have no own experience whatsoever to back up the sources you're
linking.
(And again, this is not about whether the message is legit or not - it
is about the messenger not knowing.)
You may ask, why should (A) a messenger be responsible for the message
he carries, if (B) anyone has the possibility to check for themselves?
From my very own experience, I know that ignoring (A) is precisely what
leads to mass delusions and stuff like the 3rd Reich, because (B) is an
oversimplifying illusion.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saul Luizaga
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money To PeopleWhoBreakThe Law. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 01:40:48
Message: <54225960@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've learn to be a person of reason and rational, skeptical, critical,
logical thinking, because that's how scientists and reasoning people
find how amazing Nature is through Science and that's IMO the best
approximation to the truth.
I could never insult you for being honest, a rather rare commodity in
such a cynic, hypocrite, unethical, semi-civilized at best society we
live in, I appreciate it and you made it with reasoning, which I could
never reject, let alone insult you out of it.
But you made a mistake: I made about 6 posts with links, and only the
first 2 had no comments because I thought the title and its repetition
in the link would have sufficed as such. As I wrote on another post, my
intention is to give you news, to inform not really discuss, if you're a
rational person, you'll see something is wrong. I like a rational and
civilized discussion, but the links had an article where it was
described and I just give the comment that was appropriated, none if
that helps better to communicate the idea, as I did in the first 2.
I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to
inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very
least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of
conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than
just pointing out, and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.
I don't mind no-comments if the idea gets through.
I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
have a good time discussing, and you all should take things for what
they are, not for what you think they are, because you and at the seems
what everyone is doing.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Stephen
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeopleWhoBreakThe Law. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 02:07:21
Message: <54225f99$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/09/2014 06:40, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I define asshole someone that in a very unconsidered way makes fast and
> stupid judgements , and that Doctor John was 1, because I had the best
> intentions when I came here to discuss, after a long while, and to
> inform you of interesting things, and I get that attitude, at the very
> least he's being stupid IMO, but yeah, is bad for the spirit of
> conversation to actually go so negative on someone I think, rather than
> just pointing out, and by spirit I mean the feelings and mood.
>
> I don't mind no-comments if the idea gets through.
>
> I'm glad your memories of me were rather pleasant, my intention is t
> have a good time discussing, and you all should take things for what
> they are, not for what you think they are, because you and at the seems
> what everyone is doing.
I too remember you and remember the last image you posted. It distressed
me greatly. I am glad that you are still with us. :-D
Please be aware that this is an international newsgroup and what might
pass for a casual remark in America can be considered very offensive in
other parts of the English speaking world.
If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.
A quick link to illustrate this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28339497/ns/travel-travel_tips/t/throwing-shoes-blowing-noses/#.VCJcOBbk05c
Try being a little bit more laid back and not so intense and we will
welcome your contributions.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saul Luizaga
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeople WhoBreakTheLaw.He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 02:53:01
Message: <54226a4d$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
BTW, calling something obscure when it's not is an argument from
ignorance, something that scientist won't suppose to do, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saul Luizaga
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeopleWhoBreakTheLaw. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 02:59:25
Message: <54226bcd@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> other parts of the English speaking world.
> If you had said to me what you wrote to the good doctor. You would be
> eating through a straw. That is how offensive I found it.
I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
guarantee you that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Thomas de Groot
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More MoneyToPeopleWhoBreakTheLaw. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 03:45:54
Message: <542276b2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24-9-2014 8:59, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I will say to you what ever I want how ever I want if I see it fit and I
> can help it, you'd be realizing that in person accomplishing your
> physical violence threat is a lot harder than you think it might be, I
> guarantee you that.
>
I disagree, sir. In a civilized world - and I still have the notion that
we are living in such a world, and I do my utmost best to preserve such
a world - insulting people is considered rude, low and stupid. In other
words, it is not better than physical violence. So, no. You /cannot/ say
what ever you want to others.
Discussion closed as far as I am concerned.
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Saul Luizaga
Subject: Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money ToPeople WhoBreakTheLaw. He Answers Poorly.
Date: 24 Sep 2014 05:13:11
Message: <54228b27@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> And yes, I also /do/ take that with rational, skeptical and critical
> thinking: There is a certain gut feeling
This is an oximoron that proves you wrong right there; so no you're not,
you're having an emotional response, you don't even know what it is, and
obviously haven't analyzed, but there you are trusting in it, which begs
the question, isn't this an argument from ignorance?
My only bad did was insulting Doctor John, so don't unfairly generalize
all my actions on a single mistake, the intentions were demonstrated by
my acts, and I think they were good enough and I reconsidered my bad deed.
The reason we have common considerations to feelings through courtesy
and manners is because it's moral, and it's the only reason, because we
require to treated morally correct so we feel in a non-denigrating,
safe-to-talk and mutual consideration environment, the core reason,
being we don't want to be hated, perhaps loved a little but mostly given
the opportunity of saying our peace with dignity, all those are
emotional + intellectual reasons, but mainly emotional, reason? human
dignity, the foundation of our morals and it's OK to demand them as
natural Human Rights, hence my reconsideration of my emotional outburst.
If you exclude all emotion you can't get to these moral ground
intellectually alone because intellectually they're meaningless without
emotional offense, instead without any emotion, you'll have perfect
logic, you wouldn't even have a reason to be offended, because you
evaluate on true or false, probable or improbable and a degree of it,
you wouldn't even have the concept of offense, I think.
And that I'm not connected actually to the links I posted, that is were
you're completely wrong, everything is connected to everything, Science
indicates so, in Nature there isn't an independent system existing on
its own completely, since we're in this Universe, everything affects us
somewhat someway. For example there is this popular PhD Physicist that I
don't recall his name, but he's popular in YouTube too, that says
according to Quantum Physics an electron that receives a bit of energy
that electron can't be in the same state of energy than another, so in
theory at least immediately across the Universe all electrons will shift
their energy states to be different, something more intuitive is a
jungle: everything interacts with everything, is simply obvious, Carl
Sagan also noticed in his series Cosmos: In order to survive, Earth must
be seen as a single organism, and an organism in war with itself is
doomed, or somethings similar, Climate Change another fact proving this,
so we're connected more than you think we do and most people are as
shortsighted as you are.
That's why I wrote on another post that people should first analyze my
post and then take it on its merit, not on what they think it is, and I
made it easy for anyone to do that by avoiding unnecessary commentary,
so you as many here are making mostly arguments from ignorance, which is
exactly what it's not supported by science of reasonable people. You
should go beyond your instinct, instinct is some kind of warning, nor an
educated opinion.
I make sure that the ideas I spread are probably correct, I'd gladly
accept a correction or discussion about it, as long as it's rational and
not tending to be unnecessarily long.
I've no idea on some messages, but probably true, or maybe true, anyway,
everything indicates so, it could be a scam, but I don't have a way to
verify directly, I don't live in USA, most messages are from there, but
anyway the ideas are the important, eventually they'll be validate for
its merits, so it's worth to follow somehow.
If I want something to be true or believe something to be true is
irrelephant, truth will remain to be, regardless, so it's truth the
goal, hence the analysis to at least have a look and check for its
validity in your ration opinion or educated opinion if you happen to be
an expert.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download '10269588_651070054989413_3964025147672603556_n.jpg' (25 KB)
Preview of image '10269588_651070054989413_3964025147672603556_n.jpg'
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|