On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:51:44 -0000, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:53:19 -0000, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201405/the-mind-the-mass-murderer
Posted May 30, 2014 (so 'not' including many of the more recent ones...) >>>
excert:
In 2013, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on
public mass shootings. The CRS used as its working definition incidents
“occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths.” >>> The CRS identified 78 public mass shootings in the U.S. since 1983 that
had resulted in 547 deaths and 1, 023 casualties.
He also notes that most perpetrators are young males who act alone after >>> carefully planning the event. They often have a longstanding fascination >>> with weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings
usually occur in a public place and during the daytime.
Individual case studies involving psychological autopsy and a careful
analysis of the often copious communications left behind suggest common
psychological themes. The mass murderer is an injustice collector who
spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined
rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid
worldview with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and
grudge-holding. He is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are
enjoying life’s all-you-can-eat buffet, while he must peer through the >>> window, an outside loner always looking in.
Aggrieved and entitled, he longs for power and revenge to obliterate
what
he cannot have. Since satisfaction is unobtainable lawfully and
realistically, the mass murderer is reduced to violent fantasy and
pseudo-power. He creates and enacts an odious screenplay of grandiose
and
public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when he
does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others for
apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs. Fury, deep despair,
and
callous selfishness eventually crystalize into fantasies of violent
revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass murderer typically >>> expects to die and frequently does in what amounts to a mass
homicide-personal suicide. He may kill himself or script matters so that >>> he will be killed by the police.
Excellent description.
The frequency of mental disorders in mass murderers is controversial
because it is not clear where to draw the line between "bad" and "mad."
The paranoia exists on a spectrum of severity. Some clearly do not meet
criteria for any mental disorder and often may justify their acts on
political or religious grounds. Others have the frank psychotic
delusions
of schizophrenia. Many perpetrators are in the middle, gray zone where
psychiatrists will disagree about the relative contributions of moral
failure versus mental affliction.
That's a good article, right on the button actually.
### - in the 'vegas' event he wasn't poor and/or 'a loner looking-in' on >>> what he couldn't have, or was he? there are different ways of being poor >>> ya know?
You wouldn't know. His motive, if any, could be as alien to you as
the thoughts of a spider when hunting its insect prey.
### - which is exactly what am saying/suggesting + also positing the
theory that money isn't the only way to be 'poor' and thus 'looking-in' >(don't jump the gun just yet, at least let me get going first lol:)
i.e., 'wealth' can also operate/act as an impermeable barrier to what
many
consider a more meaningful life & living, in the sense that their riches >>> typically 'isolates' them from (what they consider to be) the
mainstream/real world experience everyone else is enjoying, and thus
such
peeps are often to be seen going out and 'slumming' it just to get some?
It isolates them from poverty, starvation, malnutrition, inept
healthcare, ignorance, low grade education, lack of travel and
inexperience of foreign cultures, frustration, envy, boredom, low
level genetic partnership and low level offspring, poor housing
options and a plethora of other negatives which any sane person would
wish to avoid.
Methinks there is a little self justification in your pontifications.
### - now you're not listening? (i.e., this is constructed particularly
for chris in an attempt to 'impart' something not more easily conveyed in
the usual descriptive manner... if your read somewhat between the lines
you might just catch it...)
iow: live all your life in an 'ivory tower' and the perception can
quickly
become one of being isolated from the rest of humanity and the simple
pleasures 'they' all erroneously appear to avail themselves of 24/7 but
which you can't personally reach?
What makes you think that people who amass a little lucre and hence
security as a consequence must live in an "ivory tower"? That's
fallactious thinking and again a projection of your own self
justification. Get over that way of thinking, be more objective and
you'll be a more acceptable person.
### - it's a truism that when quite plain and ordinary peeps suddenly
amass large wealth that problems can often begin, someone winning the
lotto (or whatever for example) and never having had the training to be >enabled to think in such amounts; gets them into trouble! (it happens!), >and/or perhaps more appropriately: those 'born' into large wealth and
who've never known anything else + the isolation (from the rest of
society) which is KNOWN to create an 'ivory-tower' effect, thus even the >term: 'slumming it'
For instance - I have what the majority of people would consider some
forms of wealth, a nice house freeheld in green title, cash and gold,
nice collections of this and that worth reasonable prices on the open
market, no debt to any person whatsoever and so on. Yet, I prefer
home cooked simple meals, walking and running, old cars well
maintained, simple (but fairly colourful) clothes, connection with
anyone who has a reasonable and interesting mind regardless of social
standing and so on. No isolation or ivory tower here Slider.
### - sorry heh, but you don't count as a 'common' example of average
effects :)
for starters you're 'different' anyhow? a born-outsider, who suddenly
decided (for whatever reason, maybe to support a family or suchlike) to >execute a well-thought-out 'plan' to secure himself financially and goes >ahead and does so! simples! your inherent detachment automatically
enabling you to not only conceive & execute such a plan, but also to
handle the resulting change in status 'and' enjoy the change! (sounds like >nothing maybe to you, but never appears quite so simple & straightforward
to non-outsider types who always sweat all the small stuff...)
vegas dude was VERY wealthy! and as such, money became 'nothing' to him! >>> what most peeps struggle for their whole lives, often their main
motivation in life just to make ende meet, was never his problem! even
risking losing it all, and all this in a pitiful effort to actually
'feel'
something? some thrill? he could afford prostitutes and drugs (and
whatever else) no problemo! no challenge there! so becomes boring after
a
while, gambling big-time and dangerously; no challenge there either! the >>> fucker could virtually 'have' anything he wanted! which is fine until
you've 'had it' several times over? then what??
He was worth a few million, nothing spectacular. He may not even have
been aware of the cause of his outburst - it could have been very much
buried in his subconscious. So how can you surmise the above?
Ridiculous, Slider.
### - in the context of the above, easy!: he was just a quite ordinary
person who just so happened to have WON the game! he didn't COME from
wealth, he 'attained' it suddenly! - but 'unlike' you obviously didn't
have the detachment to handle it all, nor apparently the consequences of >suddenly finding himself completely outside his social class/milieu...
(iow: completely alone! - 'you' were estranged 'wherever' you found
yourself anyway; rich/poor was all the same to you, it just involved a >different game! not so for matie though...)
running out of normal challenges here boss?
life becomes... unsatisfying!
You wouldn't know. You're not being objective. You're projecting
your own issues onto this matter.
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:01:37 -0000, slider <slider@anashram.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:51:44 -0000, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:53:19 -0000, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201405/the-mind-the-mass-murderer
Posted May 30, 2014 (so 'not' including many of the more recent
ones...)
excert:
In 2013, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on
public mass shootings. The CRS used as its working definition
incidents
“occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more
deaths.”
The CRS identified 78 public mass shootings in the U.S. since 1983
that
had resulted in 547 deaths and 1, 023 casualties.
He also notes that most perpetrators are young males who act alone
after
carefully planning the event. They often have a longstanding
fascination
with weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings
usually occur in a public place and during the daytime.
Individual case studies involving psychological autopsy and a careful
analysis of the often copious communications left behind suggest
common
psychological themes. The mass murderer is an injustice collector who
spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined
rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid
worldview with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and
grudge-holding. He is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are
enjoying life’s all-you-can-eat buffet, while he must peer through the >>>> window, an outside loner always looking in.
Aggrieved and entitled, he longs for power and revenge to obliterate
what
he cannot have. Since satisfaction is unobtainable lawfully and
realistically, the mass murderer is reduced to violent fantasy and
pseudo-power. He creates and enacts an odious screenplay of grandiose
and
public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when he >>>> does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others
for
apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs. Fury, deep despair, >>>> and
callous selfishness eventually crystalize into fantasies of violent
revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass murderer
typically
expects to die and frequently does in what amounts to a mass
homicide-personal suicide. He may kill himself or script matters so
that
he will be killed by the police.
Excellent description.
The frequency of mental disorders in mass murderers is controversial
because it is not clear where to draw the line between "bad" and
"mad."
The paranoia exists on a spectrum of severity. Some clearly do not
meet
criteria for any mental disorder and often may justify their acts on
political or religious grounds. Others have the frank psychotic
delusions
of schizophrenia. Many perpetrators are in the middle, gray zone where >>>> psychiatrists will disagree about the relative contributions of moral
failure versus mental affliction.
That's a good article, right on the button actually.
### - in the 'vegas' event he wasn't poor and/or 'a loner looking-in'
on
what he couldn't have, or was he? there are different ways of being
poor
ya know?
You wouldn't know. His motive, if any, could be as alien to you as
the thoughts of a spider when hunting its insect prey.
### - which is exactly what am saying/suggesting + also positing the
theory that money isn't the only way to be 'poor' and thus 'looking-in'
(don't jump the gun just yet, at least let me get going first lol:)
No. You posted the text of a fairly insightful article and then
followed it with what *you* were "saying/suggesting + also positing".
What you said was far from clear. Can I suggest you make clear and unambiguous statements or arguments so that the reader cannot be
mistaken about what you are intending to state? You seem to make
these really ambiguous statements - they are murkier than the bottom
of our Yarra River here in Melbourne - and then when some part of the statement which is a little less ambiguous than the rest of it is
challenged, you come out with something along the lines of "###-which
is exactly what I am saying..."
Maybe you are intentionally doing this so you have wriggle room in
order not to be pinned down to any particular position. Try to put
your position in clear, unambiguous words, the shorter and simpler the better.
Example - "there are different ways of being poor, you know" followed
up by some examples of what you are thinking of. Don't leave it up to
the reader to guess what's on your mind, tell him/her. Don't leave it
up to the reader to guess and then to criticise the reader if his/her
guess is wrong. Don't assume everyone thinks the way you think - just
like I *know* everyone doesn't think the way I think.
i.e., 'wealth' can also operate/act as an impermeable barrier to what
many
consider a more meaningful life & living, in the sense that their
riches
typically 'isolates' them from (what they consider to be) the
mainstream/real world experience everyone else is enjoying, and thus
such
peeps are often to be seen going out and 'slumming' it just to get
some?
It isolates them from poverty, starvation, malnutrition, inept
healthcare, ignorance, low grade education, lack of travel and
inexperience of foreign cultures, frustration, envy, boredom, low
level genetic partnership and low level offspring, poor housing
options and a plethora of other negatives which any sane person would
wish to avoid.
Methinks there is a little self justification in your pontifications.
### - now you're not listening? (i.e., this is constructed particularly
for chris in an attempt to 'impart' something not more easily conveyed
in
the usual descriptive manner... if your read somewhat between the lines
you might just catch it...)
Nope. You have an issue with wealth, but you don't define the term. I assumed you meant that wealth is real assets and liquid money net of
debt. Most people think *that* rather than esoteric concepts of
religious wealth, spiritual wealth and so on. Again, also, you're
assuming people think in ways you do. That's an invalid assumption.
Telling me, after I query your OP, that I must "read between the
lines" is patently ridiculous. Why should I? Is it because you can't express yourself properly? Is it because you won't admit you're
wrong? Why should anyone be forced to "read between lines" when your educational background in England is such that you're assumed capable
of direct, clear expression?
iow: live all your life in an 'ivory tower' and the perception can
quickly
become one of being isolated from the rest of humanity and the simple
pleasures 'they' all erroneously appear to avail themselves of 24/7
but
which you can't personally reach?
What makes you think that people who amass a little lucre and hence
security as a consequence must live in an "ivory tower"? That's
fallactious thinking and again a projection of your own self
justification. Get over that way of thinking, be more objective and
you'll be a more acceptable person.
### - it's a truism that when quite plain and ordinary peeps suddenly
amass large wealth that problems can often begin, someone winning the
lotto (or whatever for example) and never having had the training to be
enabled to think in such amounts; gets them into trouble! (it happens!),
and/or perhaps more appropriately: those 'born' into large wealth and
who've never known anything else + the isolation (from the rest of
society) which is KNOWN to create an 'ivory-tower' effect, thus even the
term: 'slumming it'
Most people don't win lottery or win against the long term odds in
casinos etc. Otherwise government and private betting agencies would
not survive. Ditto for born into wealth. The vast majority of us are
born poor and stay that way unless we have the nous to study, qualify
and work hard and amass assets over the long term. That takes
discipline and plenty of it. Hard mind focus unrelenting over long
periods of time. No fucking ivory tower there sport :)
And no isolation either. For my part, I'll dip into the herd and try
to find reasonable company infrequently but mostly I don't due to free
choice so any isolation on my part is illusory and the same with a lot
of independent free thinking and uncommonly different people. And why wouldn't people who are bright enough to amass wealth not want to
isolate themselves from largely stupid, Big Mac eating, non-reading, non-educated, blinkered, unaware people who can under no circumstances
add to their life experience apart from being a salutory warning to
**not go there**?
For instance - I have what the majority of people would consider some
forms of wealth, a nice house freeheld in green title, cash and gold,
nice collections of this and that worth reasonable prices on the open
market, no debt to any person whatsoever and so on. Yet, I prefer
home cooked simple meals, walking and running, old cars well
maintained, simple (but fairly colourful) clothes, connection with
anyone who has a reasonable and interesting mind regardless of social
standing and so on. No isolation or ivory tower here Slider.
### - sorry heh, but you don't count as a 'common' example of average
effects :)
True.
for starters you're 'different' anyhow? a born-outsider, who suddenly
decided (for whatever reason, maybe to support a family or suchlike) to
execute a well-thought-out 'plan' to secure himself financially and goes
ahead and does so! simples! your inherent detachment automatically
enabling you to not only conceive & execute such a plan, but also to
handle the resulting change in status 'and' enjoy the change! (sounds
like
nothing maybe to you, but never appears quite so simple &
straightforward
to non-outsider types who always sweat all the small stuff...)
I think being born under different circumstances (by born I mean the formative parts of my life, my early and middle childhood) would have
made me a different person but perhaps even still a side runner to the
herd. And you're right - I met my wife who was from a working class
Italian family while she was hitch hiking around Australia and I was
bumming in far northern tropical Queensland and I had such interest in
her I followed her back to the other side of Australia and adopted the straight life - at 18 bought the house next door when the old guy who
lived there died (off his sister, made her an offer before the funeral
lol), started Uni again part time, got a job in the Federal
Government, got married and all that stuff.
But because of genetics (both parents officers in the military, both
highly intelligent) and upbringing (I won't go into that, just like
you won't go into your kids and wife and past life) I was still an
outlier and willingly so, my wife much less so. When I met her I was
big time into drugs of every description but mainly acid and
mushrooms. I love that shit, out of the mind, trips, discovery, all
the gods of every pantheon already in the mind just waiting to be
ignited ... and detachment is good, a highly valued asset in top rank soldiers and politicians who need to make very difficult decisions.
Some might say it even ranks as a personality trait which borders on
disorder but I say detachment, the ability to switch off, is a
survival trait of the highest degree.
vegas dude was VERY wealthy! and as such, money became 'nothing' to
him!
what most peeps struggle for their whole lives, often their main
motivation in life just to make ende meet, was never his problem! even >>>> risking losing it all, and all this in a pitiful effort to actually
'feel'
something? some thrill? he could afford prostitutes and drugs (and
whatever else) no problemo! no challenge there! so becomes boring
after
a
while, gambling big-time and dangerously; no challenge there either!
the
fucker could virtually 'have' anything he wanted! which is fine until
you've 'had it' several times over? then what??
He was worth a few million, nothing spectacular. He may not even have
been aware of the cause of his outburst - it could have been very much
buried in his subconscious. So how can you surmise the above?
Ridiculous, Slider.
### - in the context of the above, easy!: he was just a quite ordinary
person who just so happened to have WON the game! he didn't COME from
wealth, he 'attained' it suddenly! - but 'unlike' you obviously didn't
have the detachment to handle it all, nor apparently the consequences of
suddenly finding himself completely outside his social class/milieu...
(iow: completely alone! - 'you' were estranged 'wherever' you found
yourself anyway; rich/poor was all the same to you, it just involved a
different game! not so for matie though...)
### - am gonna top-post here thang because you piss me off? (laughing...)
i.e., i've tried to answer ALL your queries ALREADY??
in order to 'help' you understand what can hardly BE understood, i gave
you a small challenge re paul dirac?
and in immediate response you handed ME a challenge, which i duly
fulfilled, and even 'apparently' passed with flying colours, and then
totally IGNORED my original offer of an explanation via paul dirac!?
and now, here you are AGAIN, demanding (you're very demanding you know?) >explanations about shit that can hardly even BE explained?!?!
PAUL DIRAC!!!
do the fucking analysis!
and then MAYBE you WONT have to KEEP asking (and demanding answers to)
such stupid fucking questions!!! DUH!
(am i getting through to you thang? - laffing - are you getting a clue
yet?)
this is a VERY difficult subject!
that ONLY the very best can solve!
HOW can you 'understand' if ya don't DO the work??
else i'll have to assume you don't want to understand?
and don't ignore this or you can fuck off! ;)
this poetry business is a serious thing thang!
(thing-thang?? lol)
and it's NOT for the foolish! (like jeremy hah!:)
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 01:15:42 -0000, thang ornerythinchus ><thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 23:01:37 -0000, slider <slider@anashram.org>
wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2017 00:51:44 -0000, thang ornerythinchus
<thangolossus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 06 Nov 2017 13:53:19 -0000, slider <slider@nanashram.com>
wrote:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/saving-normal/201405/the-mind-the-mass-murderer
Posted May 30, 2014 (so 'not' including many of the more recent
ones...)
excert:
In 2013, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) issued a report on >>>>> public mass shootings. The CRS used as its working definition
incidents
“occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more
deaths.”
The CRS identified 78 public mass shootings in the U.S. since 1983
that
had resulted in 547 deaths and 1, 023 casualties.
He also notes that most perpetrators are young males who act alone
after
carefully planning the event. They often have a longstanding
fascination
with weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings
usually occur in a public place and during the daytime.
Individual case studies involving psychological autopsy and a careful >>>>> analysis of the often copious communications left behind suggest
common
psychological themes. The mass murderer is an injustice collector who >>>>> spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined >>>>> rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid
worldview with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy, and
grudge-holding. He is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are >>>>> enjoying life’s all-you-can-eat buffet, while he must peer through the >>>>> window, an outside loner always looking in.
Aggrieved and entitled, he longs for power and revenge to obliterate >>>>> what
he cannot have. Since satisfaction is unobtainable lawfully and
realistically, the mass murderer is reduced to violent fantasy and
pseudo-power. He creates and enacts an odious screenplay of grandiose >>>>> and
public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when he >>>>> does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others
for
apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs. Fury, deep despair, >>>>> and
callous selfishness eventually crystalize into fantasies of violent
revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass murderer
typically
expects to die and frequently does in what amounts to a mass
homicide-personal suicide. He may kill himself or script matters so
that
he will be killed by the police.
Excellent description.
The frequency of mental disorders in mass murderers is controversial >>>>> because it is not clear where to draw the line between "bad" and
"mad."
The paranoia exists on a spectrum of severity. Some clearly do not
meet
criteria for any mental disorder and often may justify their acts on >>>>> political or religious grounds. Others have the frank psychotic
delusions
of schizophrenia. Many perpetrators are in the middle, gray zone where >>>>> psychiatrists will disagree about the relative contributions of moral >>>>> failure versus mental affliction.
That's a good article, right on the button actually.
### - in the 'vegas' event he wasn't poor and/or 'a loner looking-in' >>>>> on
what he couldn't have, or was he? there are different ways of being
poor
ya know?
You wouldn't know. His motive, if any, could be as alien to you as
the thoughts of a spider when hunting its insect prey.
### - which is exactly what am saying/suggesting + also positing the
theory that money isn't the only way to be 'poor' and thus 'looking-in'
(don't jump the gun just yet, at least let me get going first lol:)
No. You posted the text of a fairly insightful article and then
followed it with what *you* were "saying/suggesting + also positing".
What you said was far from clear. Can I suggest you make clear and
unambiguous statements or arguments so that the reader cannot be
mistaken about what you are intending to state? You seem to make
these really ambiguous statements - they are murkier than the bottom
of our Yarra River here in Melbourne - and then when some part of the
statement which is a little less ambiguous than the rest of it is
challenged, you come out with something along the lines of "###-which
is exactly what I am saying..."
Maybe you are intentionally doing this so you have wriggle room in
order not to be pinned down to any particular position. Try to put
your position in clear, unambiguous words, the shorter and simpler the
better.
Example - "there are different ways of being poor, you know" followed
up by some examples of what you are thinking of. Don't leave it up to
the reader to guess what's on your mind, tell him/her. Don't leave it
up to the reader to guess and then to criticise the reader if his/her
guess is wrong. Don't assume everyone thinks the way you think - just
like I *know* everyone doesn't think the way I think.
i.e., 'wealth' can also operate/act as an impermeable barrier to what >>>>> many
consider a more meaningful life & living, in the sense that their
riches
typically 'isolates' them from (what they consider to be) the
mainstream/real world experience everyone else is enjoying, and thus >>>>> such
peeps are often to be seen going out and 'slumming' it just to get
some?
It isolates them from poverty, starvation, malnutrition, inept
healthcare, ignorance, low grade education, lack of travel and
inexperience of foreign cultures, frustration, envy, boredom, low
level genetic partnership and low level offspring, poor housing
options and a plethora of other negatives which any sane person would
wish to avoid.
Methinks there is a little self justification in your pontifications.
### - now you're not listening? (i.e., this is constructed particularly
for chris in an attempt to 'impart' something not more easily conveyed
in
the usual descriptive manner... if your read somewhat between the lines
you might just catch it...)
Nope. You have an issue with wealth, but you don't define the term. I
assumed you meant that wealth is real assets and liquid money net of
debt. Most people think *that* rather than esoteric concepts of
religious wealth, spiritual wealth and so on. Again, also, you're
assuming people think in ways you do. That's an invalid assumption.
Telling me, after I query your OP, that I must "read between the
lines" is patently ridiculous. Why should I? Is it because you can't
express yourself properly? Is it because you won't admit you're
wrong? Why should anyone be forced to "read between lines" when your
educational background in England is such that you're assumed capable
of direct, clear expression?
iow: live all your life in an 'ivory tower' and the perception can
quickly
become one of being isolated from the rest of humanity and the simple >>>>> pleasures 'they' all erroneously appear to avail themselves of 24/7
but
which you can't personally reach?
What makes you think that people who amass a little lucre and hence
security as a consequence must live in an "ivory tower"? That's
fallactious thinking and again a projection of your own self
justification. Get over that way of thinking, be more objective and
you'll be a more acceptable person.
### - it's a truism that when quite plain and ordinary peeps suddenly
amass large wealth that problems can often begin, someone winning the
lotto (or whatever for example) and never having had the training to be
enabled to think in such amounts; gets them into trouble! (it happens!), >>> and/or perhaps more appropriately: those 'born' into large wealth and
who've never known anything else + the isolation (from the rest of
society) which is KNOWN to create an 'ivory-tower' effect, thus even the >>> term: 'slumming it'
Most people don't win lottery or win against the long term odds in
casinos etc. Otherwise government and private betting agencies would
not survive. Ditto for born into wealth. The vast majority of us are
born poor and stay that way unless we have the nous to study, qualify
and work hard and amass assets over the long term. That takes
discipline and plenty of it. Hard mind focus unrelenting over long
periods of time. No fucking ivory tower there sport :)
And no isolation either. For my part, I'll dip into the herd and try
to find reasonable company infrequently but mostly I don't due to free
choice so any isolation on my part is illusory and the same with a lot
of independent free thinking and uncommonly different people. And why
wouldn't people who are bright enough to amass wealth not want to
isolate themselves from largely stupid, Big Mac eating, non-reading,
non-educated, blinkered, unaware people who can under no circumstances
add to their life experience apart from being a salutory warning to
**not go there**?
For instance - I have what the majority of people would consider some
forms of wealth, a nice house freeheld in green title, cash and gold,
nice collections of this and that worth reasonable prices on the open
market, no debt to any person whatsoever and so on. Yet, I prefer
home cooked simple meals, walking and running, old cars well
maintained, simple (but fairly colourful) clothes, connection with
anyone who has a reasonable and interesting mind regardless of social
standing and so on. No isolation or ivory tower here Slider.
### - sorry heh, but you don't count as a 'common' example of average
effects :)
True.
for starters you're 'different' anyhow? a born-outsider, who suddenly
decided (for whatever reason, maybe to support a family or suchlike) to
execute a well-thought-out 'plan' to secure himself financially and goes
looks like charlie manson is getting
ready to croak. california's oldest
douchebag is about to check out.
good luck in hell, some people will
be waitin' for ya chucky.
you just had to tell me that didn't you?
of course there is no hell. Hell is right
here in the prison Charlie is at right now.
I guess there is no consequence once you
leave this planet. What was it all about then?
It was all about right here, right now. Always.
No. Not forever. :)
Not infinite and not eternal.
It's just the 'default', based on what is known about life, and in the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary. I wouldn't have said
anything further had he not specifically asked.
No one should assume he has eternal life, when everyone
dies and no one returns. The 'default' is... death is death.
My finger is alive, responding to desires, typing this message.
But if it got chopped off and thrown in the trash it would decay,
not return again and again forever, attached to other bodies. :)
The 'default' is: all you get are all the 'nows' of this life,
until you die. That is all anyone knows FOR SURE that we DO get.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 104:24:48 |
| Calls: | 2,071 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,135 |
| Messages: | 947,059 |