Genius
Posts: 965 
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 5th, 2008, 03:25 AM
The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.
I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.
Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.
Quoting dancing-loon
Yes, reluctantly I must agree! For example, I would want the people to decide, if we want to go to war in Afghanistan or not, after all the facts and pros and cons have been laid on the table. A war, killing other people and getting our own soldiers killed and maimed, that is a big issue and should never be decided solely by a handful of power people. NEVER! Therefore, when the question of war participation comes up we, the people, should decide. We should also decide, when it is time to withdraw. It is us, the people, who pay for everything, and it is our children who bear the brunt!
That is a known flaw of democracy. The Americans call it the "Vietnam syndrome," where essentially, given the option to exercise their free will, a population will not want war. As you can imagine this is quite an obstacle for the Industrial Military Complex, politicians, central bankers and corporations in general. It was to stop this syndrome that reporters were "embedded" with military watchdogs and coffins could not be photographed. There is a huge propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war because no one sensible (with proper information) would support it and the hawks know that.Yes, reluctantly I must agree! For example, I would want the people to decide, if we want to go to war in Afghanistan or not, after all the facts and pros and cons have been laid on the table. A war, killing other people and getting our own soldiers killed and maimed, that is a big issue and should never be decided solely by a handful of power people. NEVER! Therefore, when the question of war participation comes up we, the people, should decide. We should also decide, when it is time to withdraw. It is us, the people, who pay for everything, and it is our children who bear the brunt!
Quoting dancing-loon
This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:
May I ask... WHY are we continuing this form of undemocratic government decade after decade after decade? How could we affect a change for the better, achieve a truly democratic people government? We likely would have to start a new grass-root movement that would capitalize on people power. Unfortunately, the person who would try to start such a movement would probably be assassinated... like Martin Luther King!
The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.
I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.
Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,774 
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 5th, 2008, 11:24 AM
you have no idea how much I appreciate your answer and your link. I listened to the Howard Zinn video!! My daughter happened to phone just now, and I told her about my question and your answer, about Sacco and Vanzetti and Howard Zinn. She in turn told me about the silent army, called Black Water. I had no idea!!
Please, don't feel there is no point in you answering, or explaining something a bit more in detail. You never know what goes on behind the forum!!
I have to admit, though, that sometimes, when people post km-long posts, I give up and move on. Really, it is regrettable, because so much effort was put into them, so much information and cross-references gathered... but it overwhelms me!
You mentioned education, people need to be educated first to understand the logistics of the power elite. Yes, I agree fully. But people will have to want to know The truth and nothing but the truth!!!
I have to go now!
Quoting Scott Free
Oh, Scott...
That is a known flaw of democracy. The Americans call it the "Vietnam syndrome," where essentially, given the option to exercise their free will, a population will not want war. As you can imagine this is quite an obstacle for the Industrial Military Complex, politicians, central bankers and corporations in general. It was to stop this syndrome that reporters were "embedded" with military watchdogs and coffins could not be photographed. There is a huge propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war because no one sensible (with proper information) would support it and the hawks know that.
This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:
The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.
I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.
Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.
This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:
The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.
I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.
Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.
you have no idea how much I appreciate your answer and your link. I listened to the Howard Zinn video!! My daughter happened to phone just now, and I told her about my question and your answer, about Sacco and Vanzetti and Howard Zinn. She in turn told me about the silent army, called Black Water. I had no idea!!
Please, don't feel there is no point in you answering, or explaining something a bit more in detail. You never know what goes on behind the forum!!
I have to admit, though, that sometimes, when people post km-long posts, I give up and move on. Really, it is regrettable, because so much effort was put into them, so much information and cross-references gathered... but it overwhelms me!
You mentioned education, people need to be educated first to understand the logistics of the power elite. Yes, I agree fully. But people will have to want to know The truth and nothing but the truth!!!
I have to go now!
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,442
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 5th, 2008, 03:55 PM
Quoting Colpy
It's strong democracy allows it to have an even stronger dictatorship than Canada, money buys strong government for someone but it ain't the taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the best example on earth of a purely democratic dictatorship is Canada with a majority government.
The use of Order in Council to by-pass Parliament (Thanks PET) and extreme party discipline in the House puts direct, unlimited power in the hands of the PM. Neither of these things are so pronounced in any other true democracy.
The USA, with it's division of powers, two year Representative terms, and effective Senate, is MUCH more democratic than Canada.
The use of Order in Council to by-pass Parliament (Thanks PET) and extreme party discipline in the House puts direct, unlimited power in the hands of the PM. Neither of these things are so pronounced in any other true democracy.
The USA, with it's division of powers, two year Representative terms, and effective Senate, is MUCH more democratic than Canada.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,442
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 5th, 2008, 03:58 PM
Quoting Scott Free
It would take a shhhhh revolution, keep it quite though DL, were not ready yet the spark plugs for the tank are still on backorder.
That is a known flaw of democracy. The Americans call it the "Vietnam syndrome," where essentially, given the option to exercise their free will, a population will not want war. As you can imagine this is quite an obstacle for the Industrial Military Complex, politicians, central bankers and corporations in general. It was to stop this syndrome that reporters were "embedded" with military watchdogs and coffins could not be photographed. There is a huge propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq war because no one sensible (with proper information) would support it and the hawks know that.
This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:
The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.
I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.
Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.
This is a complicated question with no simple solution. I have investigated and found this:
The French revolution, which pretty much began the modern era of the nation state as we know it, never had a chance to realize its revolution fully. Before a truly remarkable system could be set up some elite managed to intervene and sabotage the process. While ideas from Voltaire and other great thinkers were utilized it was done so in a way less sincere than people were lead to believe. Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite. In essence they gave in, so we can enjoy the semblance of freedom we have today, so they could keep their heads, but also to prevent us from getting real freedom. You can get a sense of what I'm talking about from Howard Zinn, though he takes a very narrow US centric view and is too wrapped up in his own nationalism to see the larger picture IMO.
I think that to change our system would require an immense and difficult campaign to educate people. Few people have any concept of real history and are too frightened for actual freedom. We live with the notion that we need the elite and their system of laws enforced by violence. We see constitutions as granting us freedom instead of the reality which is that they steal it. The vast majority of people think we need the elite and, in point of fact, the elite have gone to great lengths to get us thinking we need them; that an egalitarian system, while nice in concept, could never actually work - or so we are led to think.
Anyway, I could go on but there is really no point. It just pisses people off when I post on this topic because they don't get it. People seem to be genuinely happy with their slavery.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,867
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
May 6th, 2008, 06:53 AM
Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite.
----------------------------------------------------------------Scott Free--------------------------------------
We should have a healthier respect for the dangers of tyranny of the majority, mobocracy.
The real key is to change the culture of the elite.
Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite.
----------------------------------------------------------------Scott Free--------------------------------------
We should have a healthier respect for the dangers of tyranny of the majority, mobocracy.
The real key is to change the culture of the elite.
Genius
Posts: 965
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 6th, 2008, 06:58 AM
A mob is a mob and I don't see any benefit in either tyranny.
I do not believe in the elites superiority. Perhaps you think they are better than you but I do not.
I think they are less than the average man, in that, they perpetrate greater harm.
Quoting jimmoyer
So far all our systems have been rule by mob. Sometimes it is the elite mob and sometimes it is the general mob.
Other thinkers like Godwin were pretty much ignored as they advocated so much freedom it, frankly, scared the pants off of the elite.
----------------------------------------------------------------Scott Free--------------------------------------
We should have a healthier respect for the dangers of tyranny of the majority, mobocracy.
The real key is to change the culture of the elite.
----------------------------------------------------------------Scott Free--------------------------------------
We should have a healthier respect for the dangers of tyranny of the majority, mobocracy.
The real key is to change the culture of the elite.
A mob is a mob and I don't see any benefit in either tyranny.
I do not believe in the elites superiority. Perhaps you think they are better than you but I do not.
I think they are less than the average man, in that, they perpetrate greater harm.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,604
May 6th, 2008, 07:27 AM
Scott Free
I suppose it depends what we mean when we're using the term "elites". I reserve the right to question my doctors prognosis and diagnosis but I'm prepared to admit it far more likely that he knows and understands a great deal more about human physiology than I do. The mechanical engineer and the architect, the sculptor and the composer, provide me with the actualizations of skills and talents that I cannot call my own. There is in fact a rather lengthy list of people whom I regard as smarter and more knowledgeable about a great number of things that I am significantly ignorant and misinformed about. Are these people the "elites" you're referring to?
Scott Free
I suppose it depends what we mean when we're using the term "elites". I reserve the right to question my doctors prognosis and diagnosis but I'm prepared to admit it far more likely that he knows and understands a great deal more about human physiology than I do. The mechanical engineer and the architect, the sculptor and the composer, provide me with the actualizations of skills and talents that I cannot call my own. There is in fact a rather lengthy list of people whom I regard as smarter and more knowledgeable about a great number of things that I am significantly ignorant and misinformed about. Are these people the "elites" you're referring to?
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,867
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
May 6th, 2008, 07:33 AM
There is in fact a rather lengthy list of people whom I regard as smarter and more knowledgeable about a great number of things that I am significantly ignorant and misinformed about.
-----------------------------------MikeyDB-------------------------------------------------
That's the mark of a smart man. Good point. It describes many of us.
There's a thing called Division of Labor.
It has created far more benefits of civilization for us than having everyone spend most of the day growing their own food or hunting it. That takes time away from other things.
And so Division of Labor is a concept used in Representative Democracy with our parliaments and congresses.
This causes the creation of elites for the very practical purpose of division of labor.
For this reason, the vote is the least important thing about a democracy and often it is the most misleading and damaging notion.
There is in fact a rather lengthy list of people whom I regard as smarter and more knowledgeable about a great number of things that I am significantly ignorant and misinformed about.
-----------------------------------MikeyDB-------------------------------------------------
That's the mark of a smart man. Good point. It describes many of us.
There's a thing called Division of Labor.
It has created far more benefits of civilization for us than having everyone spend most of the day growing their own food or hunting it. That takes time away from other things.
And so Division of Labor is a concept used in Representative Democracy with our parliaments and congresses.
This causes the creation of elites for the very practical purpose of division of labor.
For this reason, the vote is the least important thing about a democracy and often it is the most misleading and damaging notion.
Knows No Bounds
Posts: 2,912
Location: USA
Location: USA
May 6th, 2008, 10:18 AM
It seems as if the Dems lose the White House it was rigged. But if they win "the people have spoken!". Just like in the last Congressional elections the Dems swept the GOP. No talk of rigged elections there now was there.
If Obama is elected it will all be on the level...if McCaine is elected it will be rigged. I can hear it already.
Quoting Praxius
C'mon Prax. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he rigged the election. He was in no power to rig them...especially in the first one. The people were tired of the Clinton crowd and he defeated Gore. In the second election the Dems sent the weakest candidate to face Bush. If anyone could have goofed up that 2nd Term election it was a lefty elite liberal like Kerry. He walloped Kerry.
For example, the US government, where most in the country hate Bush, his approval ratings are crap, the last two elections he won, he rigged
It seems as if the Dems lose the White House it was rigged. But if they win "the people have spoken!". Just like in the last Congressional elections the Dems swept the GOP. No talk of rigged elections there now was there.
If Obama is elected it will all be on the level...if McCaine is elected it will be rigged. I can hear it already.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,889
Location: Saint John, N.B.
Location: Saint John, N.B.
May 6th, 2008, 10:32 AM
Quoting darkbeaver
With apologies to Winston: Democracy is the worst possible form of government; except for all the others.
It's strong democracy allows it to have an even stronger dictatorship than Canada, money buys strong government for someone but it ain't the taxpayers.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,867
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
May 6th, 2008, 10:52 AM
Power to the People ?
Any of youse guys ever look around at what "the people" look like ?
Be afraid.
Tyranny of the Majority.
The really important parts of democracy safeguard against the will of the majority.
The really important parts of democracy rig competing power centers so that no one division of the government has all the power.
The really important parts of democracy are against majority rule.
The really important parts of democracy are NOT about the vote.
That's the least important part of democracy.
Amen.
Power to the People ?
Any of youse guys ever look around at what "the people" look like ?
Be afraid.
Tyranny of the Majority.
The really important parts of democracy safeguard against the will of the majority.
The really important parts of democracy rig competing power centers so that no one division of the government has all the power.
The really important parts of democracy are against majority rule.
The really important parts of democracy are NOT about the vote.
That's the least important part of democracy.
Amen.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,442
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
May 6th, 2008, 11:03 AM
If the electorate have become an informed and educated body thier council will more often than not select a correct course of action. The council of wise elder statesmen/women has been superceeded by capital and inherited wealth to form an extrasocietal permanent overseer class. This is more a function of crime than it is any inherant problem with democracy or natural superiority of those elites.Is naturally superior elite crime socially acceptable? The problems of the contemporary world are because of the absence of democracy at all levels of society and accross all cultures. When wealth is allowed to dominate society this is what we get, everytime that wealth will nurture itself and nothing else.IMO
Quoting jimmoyer
Here we are though, spring of 2008 trying to spend all day growing food or hunting it. We also have to gather BTU's. Many elites had and will have thier origins in the land and the necessities it can provide. The elite hunter, the elite farmer, the elite plumber the simply elite are simply useless.
There is in fact a rather lengthy list of people whom I regard as smarter and more knowledgeable about a great number of things that I am significantly ignorant and misinformed about.
-----------------------------------MikeyDB-------------------------------------------------
That's the mark of a smart man. Good point. It describes many of us.
There's a thing called Division of Labor.
It has created far more benefits of civilization for us than having everyone spend most of the day growing their own food or hunting it. That takes time away from other things.
And so Division of Labor is a concept used in Representative Democracy with our parliaments and congresses.
This causes the creation of elites for the very practical purpose of division of labor.
For this reason, the vote is the least important thing about a democracy and often it is the most misleading and damaging notion.
-----------------------------------MikeyDB-------------------------------------------------
That's the mark of a smart man. Good point. It describes many of us.
There's a thing called Division of Labor.
It has created far more benefits of civilization for us than having everyone spend most of the day growing their own food or hunting it. That takes time away from other things.
And so Division of Labor is a concept used in Representative Democracy with our parliaments and congresses.
This causes the creation of elites for the very practical purpose of division of labor.
For this reason, the vote is the least important thing about a democracy and often it is the most misleading and damaging notion.
If the electorate have become an informed and educated body thier council will more often than not select a correct course of action. The council of wise elder statesmen/women has been superceeded by capital and inherited wealth to form an extrasocietal permanent overseer class. This is more a function of crime than it is any inherant problem with democracy or natural superiority of those elites.Is naturally superior elite crime socially acceptable? The problems of the contemporary world are because of the absence of democracy at all levels of society and accross all cultures. When wealth is allowed to dominate society this is what we get, everytime that wealth will nurture itself and nothing else.IMO
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,867
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
May 6th, 2008, 11:12 AM
When wealth is allowed to dominate society this is what we get, everytime that wealth will nurture itself and nothing else.IMO
---------------------------------------Darkbeaver----------------------------------------------------------
Wealth dominating is the culprit ?
How can that happen, unless you squelch the natural tendency of the spirit of mankind ?
If you accumulate wealth, you will seek to protect it. And only you will want to be the final arbiter of what you do with that wealth. Maybe you want it for the kids ? Or for your favorite charity, or to build or acquire another company to expand ?
Unless you come up with a formula to change the psychology of humans, you are going to see always a bell curve in any society where there are haves, medium haves and have-nots.
Demographics.
Amortization tables.
Bell Curves.
Median, averages
Each one of comprises just one part of the aggregate that is predictable.
So many of us will accomplish great things, so many of us will accomplish less. Some of us will be paupers, others kings, writers, artists.
Statistics.
That's what you molecules are.
In the meantime, enjoy !!
When wealth is allowed to dominate society this is what we get, everytime that wealth will nurture itself and nothing else.IMO
---------------------------------------Darkbeaver----------------------------------------------------------
Wealth dominating is the culprit ?
How can that happen, unless you squelch the natural tendency of the spirit of mankind ?
If you accumulate wealth, you will seek to protect it. And only you will want to be the final arbiter of what you do with that wealth. Maybe you want it for the kids ? Or for your favorite charity, or to build or acquire another company to expand ?
Unless you come up with a formula to change the psychology of humans, you are going to see always a bell curve in any society where there are haves, medium haves and have-nots.
Demographics.
Amortization tables.
Bell Curves.
Median, averages
Each one of comprises just one part of the aggregate that is predictable.
So many of us will accomplish great things, so many of us will accomplish less. Some of us will be paupers, others kings, writers, artists.
Statistics.
That's what you molecules are.
In the meantime, enjoy !!
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,867
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
May 7th, 2008, 08:37 AM
As I originally posted: people are comfortable with their slavery. Freedom is scary and most people have no stomach for it.
----------------------------------------------Scott Free ------------------------------------------------
This is true. But the posts in this thread have nothing to do with that fear.
.
.
.
.
As I originally posted: people are comfortable with their slavery. Freedom is scary and most people have no stomach for it.
----------------------------------------------Scott Free ------------------------------------------------
This is true. But the posts in this thread have nothing to do with that fear.
.
.
.
.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,774
Location: in town
Location: in town
May 7th, 2008, 12:18 PM
sorry, I overlooked your apology. I find calling me Loonie not endearing, but rather a put-down, belittling! I am a Lady loon, Nuggler! Now, there I just gave you a hint quite unintentionally!!
Certainly I want peace with you and a friendly relationship!
too bad you have no wall!!
Quoting Nuggler 
............sorry.
peace.
Hi, Nuggler;............sorry.peace.
sorry, I overlooked your apology. I find calling me Loonie not endearing, but rather a put-down, belittling! I am a Lady loon, Nuggler! Now, there I just gave you a hint quite unintentionally!!
Certainly I want peace with you and a friendly relationship!
too bad you have no wall!! 
