Posts by briansmall

Time will heal your pain.

What does it feel like to be so full of yourself?

Go away, leave me alone, or not. You are useless to me.

>and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts
And what point are you trying to make here?

I am sorry you do not understand, but I won't try to help you any further. Perhaps if you ask someone to explain it to you that would help.

I am done with you, you have wasted my time.

I truly hope someone has benefited by your being here. From what I've seen, it won't have been you.

There is life outside your bubble.

Added comment:

That said, oh, sheesh ... I get it .. this, from your web site:

[So what's this confuzzled stuff anyway? Confuzzlement is a glorious state of being that involves a lot of confusion, frustration, and maybe a little bit of raving lunacy. In a good way, of course. Confuzzled people celebrate their ignorance openly and strive to reach a higher level of ignorance by learning from other confuzzled people. A confuzzled person is proud to be ignorant, but the unwashed masses are often incapable of seeing the subtle difference between being brilliantly clever, pretending to be stupid because you can't be bothered to think, and being genuinely stupid. They key to being confuzzled is having fun with it.]

Just funnin me, eh? I can see you are much smarter than your posts to me would indicate. You cannot be as obtuse as you act. (can you??)

Well, I'll say this for you, …

> Maybe we should define morality first
That seems logical, how would you define that then Brian?

Ouch. I was hoping someone else would try that first. Let's agree that the dictionary is only of marginal help, and that we may feel a need to add to or otherwise modify what we see there, shall we?

That asked, here's a quick take from Dictionary.com on "morality"

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

But this list doesn't quite give me my starting point.

But this, from the same page: "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" does give me a starting point.

The word "ideas" in the phrase "ideas of right and wrong" is crucial, the phrase must not be confused with "right and wrong."

Jumping from there, I'll now offer this starting point: Moral behavior is that which is supportive of life and well being.

I'll add that if there were just one person alive, moral behavior would extend only towards him or herself, but given that there are many, it extends to all behavior that affects (at least) the lives and well being of humanity in general. Thus killing your neighbor, or any wanton destruction of any thing or …

She does it to everyone. You seem like a smart person and you are able to articulate yourself well, just ignore it.

I think morals have declined. Why, I'll need a little longer to think about that :P

Maybe the morals have always been about what they are, but they're just a LOT more visible?

I still see a lot of really great people about, going on about their lives much as people have for as long as I've been around. Yes, life is much busier and more complex than when I was young but people haven't changed much as I see it. There's always been good and bad, kind and cruel, pleasant and gross.

But where you used to have only a few, now you have many. There are 3 times as many people on this planet today as there were when I was born. And most of them are in the heavy population centers. And, they can all hear (about) each other, and see what each other is up to. Familiarity with behavior breeds apathy towards it as well as a tendency to pick it up. That's a normal human response. That said, the fact that there certainly is more (of everything) going on does not indicate to me that there is more or less morality.

Maybe we should define morality first?

She does it to everyone. You seem like a smart person and you are able to articulate yourself well, just ignore it.

Oh, okay, thanks. I haven't been around long enough to see her before. I always try to reason with people before I give up.

Yes I agree, playing ego games, are dull at best.

Calling it ego games is not accurate. Insulting is never a good thing, and Narue has resorted to that. I am interested in seeing if she will ultimately take a look at her behavior and yield to common sense / reason.

It's not that I expect everyone, or even anyone to like what I hve to say, but I'm always ready to supply the reasoning and logic behind it.

If all she wants to do is insult, fine, I'll quit when that's patently clear. But please, don't blame me for trying, or reduce my efforts (or hers) to the lable of ego games. That is in itself another insult to the both of us.

I wouldn't mind getting back to discussing the topic and putting our personal differences aside.

Perhaps I have to learn to not respond to personal attacks. But I keep trying, because those who insult rather than discuss (including myself if I do it) could benefit from some reason.

By all means, lead on.

>I have better things to do with my time than to fill it with "the news". (period)
Perhaps closed-minded is too tactful on my part. You strike me more as willfully ignorant.

>I challenge you to prove <snip challenges that require omniscience>
You can use irrelevant objections and edjumucated talk to deflect my pointed question, but in the end you still haven't explained what the difference is between biased news broadcasts and biased people.

Narue, with all respect for the warm, thoughtful and caring person you may be, you strike me as being set on insulting rather than understanding.

It's creepy: that you would choose to call me "closed minded", and then suggest that the lable is "too tactful", and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts.

Because, you apparently do not understand what I have written. And, it would seem that you have a point of view that is challenged by my opposing one, and can only insult me rather than try to comprehend my reasoning.

However, "willfully ignorant" is literally correct. That I choose to be ignorant of something that you consider to be concerned about sets us apart, yes, but not in the ways you find it convenient to state.

There is nothing irrelevant about my challenges to you, in fact, your answer makes my point, which is that you cannot ferret out the truth from the news, and thus, one is not stupid for …

I opened it up, there was a lot of dust around the fans, but I didn't see much else wrong. Anything special to look for?

-CEJ

Well, it's open, so blow out the dust.

Listening for the fan, or feeling where the air exits is the way to tell that it is working. Also, placing your hand on the case in the general area of the cpu will tell you a lot. If it's pretty darned hot it probably has a problem. Then again, the case won't get all that hot if the machine isn't on long enough. But the cpu can overheat in as little as a few seconds, or take as long as a few minutes depending on the heat sink.

If you hear the fan and feel its flow, then that's probably not your problem.

It could also be a bad memory chip heating up and failing. If you have two of them in the machine, try them one at a time (being aware that if you use one chip it probably needs to be in the "A" slot) .. If you do not have a second chip, it would be good if you could find a known-good one to swap out with yours in order to test it. Any size would be okay, but it has to be of the same family and at least as fast as the one you now have. (Faster is generally okay, slower generally is not.)

Back to the topic, if you watch convulsed news presented by the likes of Nancy Grace, or Rita Cosby, your morals and your brains get damaged.

Ah, well there we go. I have no idea who those people are. Sounds like "lucky me" to me.

Hey, maybe you could sue them for brain damage. Maybe a class action thing?

Okay, okay.

>I learn what I need to know from the people around me.
How is that any different? You're still learning things as another person or persons choose to present them to you. You might feel morally superior, but the end result is likely going to be the same. If you want to learn the truth, accept as many possible sources as possible, but with a grain of salt. Then form your own opinion. Cutting out a source because you don't agree with it is closed-minded and stupid in my opinion.

The only people who are damaged by biased news are the ones who couldn't think for themselves in the first place.

Morally superior? Don't project on me, please. You don't know me at all.

Our lives are filled with meaningless input from myriad sources. I have better things to do with my time than to fill it with "the news". (period)

Everyone is damaged by biased news, and calling them (or me) stupid does you no good.

We have too much to sift through to find the truth. It's been buried for very real reasons. I challenge you to prove what Bush did or did not know, and to provide unbiased, immutable, conclusive evidence of it. I challenge you to prove who killed Bhutto. I challenge you to prove that Al Queda acted alone in 911, or that they did not. I challenge you to show me who is benefitting from any one of the immense …

>> I learn what I need to know from the people around me.
Do these people watch "the news"? What's even worse is that this 'news' will be passed to you through another source, which will mean it will become even more inaccurate, distorted and yet you're "marginally better off for it"?!

If you want the truth don't limit yourself to one source, as Naure said.

"What I need to know" (from the people around me) with the emphasis in "need" .. which as far as news goes, is very little.

But in the simplest sense, sometimes I just enter a conversation where "the news" is the current topic, and, to converse with these people, I need to know the subject at hand. So I hear from them what I need to know to have the conversation. That is, assuming I want to have it at all, which for the most part, I don't.

But if, for example, they are talking about the latest police shooting in our town, I will probably want to know "what went down" and whether it was appropriate. (Our police are pretty trigger happy). This matters to me, as I have a son who is "out there" where he could get shot by them based on some of the things he does, and some of the people he knows. So, upon hearing from people that yet another person got shot in a situation that might not have warranted it, I am interested, …

My morals have declined since I mostly watch the news on TV. I need to take a vacation from all that biased news journalism.

My mother watches the news like some people go to church. I, on the other hand, never watch it. I don't watch more than a few minutes of it, I don't read more than a few paragraphs a week. I don't care to fill my mind with the pap that passes for news, but is little more than entertainment comprised of bias, disinformation, propaganda and big-buck interests.

My conclusion is that news is like avacados. You like them or you don't, and no one suffers overt consequences from indulging or avoiding them.

I can make a case against watching the news, but I won't in this post.

What I'm saying, is good for you, if you take the vacation. I have rarely indulged in watching or reading "the news", and I feel I'm marginally better off for it. I learn what I need to know from the people around me.

For that matter, psychology is a lot like rap. There's a lot of crap being spouted, and some insightful stuff as well, and the many of those spouting it get paid huge amounts whether it's good or bad, insightful or bunk.

Like so many other things, psychology is a tool, but it is not "the answer" (duh) .. as a means for looking for answers it's exactly no more than that. As for the answers it provides, well, all too often they are over simplified, as we so often are inclined to do.

I'm sorry, I didn't re-read all of this thread, but that sounds like a simpleton trying to "dumb things down".

Dave, exactly "what" - "sounds" "like a simpleton trying to "dumb things down""?

The word, "that" does not give a clue as to what you are taking exception to. If you have a point of view that contrasts, it would be nice to hear it, instead of a vague insult.

If indeed you are referring to my post, all I can see is that you have taken exception in a passing moment. There is ample reference to the depth from which I make my statement. If you don't see it, perhaps it's because you don't want to.

There's nothing simple in the time I've spent pursuing my knowlege, opinions and philosophy. I'm ready to back up my position; to go the full distance. Are you willing to do so, or is this just another vague, unsupported insult tossed at someone saying something you don't want to hear?

We know that the government WILL get involved if there is excess violence, no matter what we call it .. spanking, street fight, spousal abuse ... all of these things can result in anything from turning a blind eye to a jail term.

There's no news in the fact that some unknown person did some unknown thing and was punished for it.

Why not talk about something / someone real? Such as:

Who among us has been spanked? How do we feel about it?

Who among us actually knows someone who spanks?

Who among us knows someone who takes it / has taken it too far?

Who among us has done spanking? (Does anyone dare admit it?)

DID IT WORK?

Did you ever over-do it out of frustration?

Did you ever feel remorse for doing it?

Will you keep doing it?

Will you suggest to your children that they do it?

Nobody is looking for anyone to blame. It just irritates (yes, burns/stings/scratches my bum) me that there are so many parents today who aren't doing their jobs and still get so confused when their kids don't turn out the way they want them to. Like what the hell do they expect?

While parents do comprise a small part of a child's input, do you choose not see that they are potentially the most important and influential (again, depends on how the child was raised)?

I say before parents pass blame they need to take a good look at themselves.

I would also like to correct you on something you said (life is not simple). Sir, life is very simple if you want it to be. In fact, it can be as black and white as a zebra if that's what you really want. It's left up to the individual man whether he wants to overcomplicate a simple problem and throw his hands up in despair, or breeze off a problem that requires more efficiency in its dealing. Totally different subject alogether.

Do you really care to get in to this?

If so, do you have children? If so, how many and how old?
You can't speak for everybody (Nobody is looking for anyone to blame) .. I see it all over the posts. Any "one" or any "thing" .. it's the same.. It's a "place" to assign fault.

I have no problem with suggesting that parents take …

So they leave it as granted and let somebody else tell their kid that they have to stomp the clutch.

Brilliant.

It's a parent's job to sit with their kids and tell them what they see on T.V. is wrong (whenever they see their child watching something that is indeed wrong). If a parent does this with his/her child, that child will not replicate what he sees on T.V. (provided that the child was raised to listen to his/her parents).

Blaming the parents is lazy as well. Parents can only do so much. 50 years ago parents and school comprised the majority of what kids were influenced by, but in a given family there were still good and bad kids, regardless of how the parents felt about their behavior. The thing is, kids had a lot less input .. they could look around and emulate the good kids or the bad kids they saw, but that was about it. Whatever they could dream up from the input they had, they could do regardless of the parents input.

I think it's hugely irrelevant to factor the parents in today.

Today, parents comprise only a small part of the input that kids have. They see every type of behavior imaginable acted out in front of them, everywhere. TV, movies, magazines, games, newspapers, radio, you name it. The entire world is on display. Every deviant behavior is broadcast and published in every corner. Every day they are inundated with thousands of …

I'm saying, in a gross oversimplification, that they (some of them) (essentially) "hand off" responsibility to God.

"It Is Gods Will" is an easier position to take than, "Damn, look at the mess I've made of things."

Asking God to help at any given turn, while acknowledging one's limitations, puts the responsibility for success (or failure, or ones situation in total) in Gods hands.

This has far reaching implications in my opinion. It does not teach people to look deeply into themselves and to know the depths of their being.

The first amendment prohibits government from restricting the free exercise of religion.

Should government have the right to inflict the politically correct religion's belief that all violence is wrong upon the rest of us.

I contend that all violence is NOT wrong:
- It is not wrong to use self defense.
- It is not wrong to use violence to enforce the law. Police do it all the time.
- Violence is necessary to defend a country from invasion.
- Violence is the only way to stop terrorism.
- Spanking is a necessary part of discipline for children. Those silly timeouts and other methods don't work.

Violence is wrong only when it is used against other people for wrong purposes.

Indeed, and of course, but only insofar as the social contract goes. Violence is integral to all of nature, including the nature of man. How a man exerts his violence is between him and how (well) he wants to fit with his culture. If he feels himself to be an island, then any degree of violence will do, he can live or die by his choice.

The question of whether violence is acceptable or not is a question of concurrence within a social group, or the collective belief of that group. Violence is much bigger than religion, and religion cannot claim any right to it, whether pro or con.

I suggest that you actually READ the Bible with an open mind before you condemn it.

You would be talking to whom?

You make an assumption that because one condemns the bible, or more precisely, does not take it to heart and is willing to say why, they have not read it?

Perhaps YOU should ASK before assuming one has not read it?

One only has to listen to those who have read it, and evaluate what they get from it to know whether they want to "go there" .. I don't have to go to prison to know I don't want to.

I cannot see that religion (the bible) is any more than a crutch for those who cannot face the unknown without help. Well, maybe it's also part of a pattern of how one handles personal responsibility.

That would depend on the 'useful data' in question, wouldn't it? What if, for example, the 'useful data' on a particular brand name of, oh, minivan showed that it was solidly in the middle of the pack as far as performance, while a competitor's was at the peak? You're not going to want buyers to see that; it'd act as a negative influence in their decision making.

So instead, we have bobbing heads, irrelevant activity, flashes of skin and highly improbable - ludricrous scenarious played out ... all with the idea of somehow creating a bond between the viewer and the brand while avoiding the fact that your product isn't really what they'd choose if they were truly informed.

If it is working, it's insanity in consumerism. So the question remains, is it working?

Pretty much, all ads had, well, content, when I was growing up. Even if it was visually absurd and emotionally manipulative, still, they gave reasons why you should purchase the product, based on it's qualities. They told you what it would do for you, and to some degree, they were believable.

I have to wonder, who is driving the ad campaigns, buyers or marketing? Where are they getting the idea that these zany / absurd, and for that matter, insane, ads are actually selling their product more effectively than would the imparting of useful data?

Do we really make purchase decisions because we've been influenced by them? Or do we just buy product in spite of the psychotic pap that passes for (some) ads?

Or worse.

It also could be considered assault if they did wish to make it illegal. Killing is against the law and is also prohibited by the ten commandments. I don't think anyone ever challenged that on the basis of separation of church and state.

Assuming anything that is mentioned in any religion is off limits to legislate is just myopic. Whether you can admit it or not, morality and ethics are still applicable outside the bounds of religion.

So which is it with you, spanking good, spanking bad? Spanking with intent to kill bad?

The question at hand was "Should kids be spanked?" .. My interpretation would be that the question asks if it does any good, if it appropriate, regardless of religion or the law.

Obviously there is a crossover between spanking and abuse which really does not need to be discussed if all you want to know is whether spanking yields desired results.

Most of us over 40 have been spanked. We have a right to an opinion, we have a perspective that incorporates personal experience of cause and effect.. Those of us over 30 who are parents have an even greater body of experience. We have, perhaps, a more complete view, we can see a bigger picture than the child.

Bias plays in to how this question generally gets answered. Your bias may be a religious belief, or a belief in social attitude, or regarding pain and the causing of it.

And it …

What OS?

Have you tried booting to safe mode? Just doing so fixes a lot of problems.

Very possibly a bad fan or cooling system. circuity is warming up and causing the failure. You will have (or have someone) get into the insides to find this problem.

When the power button is pressed the computer seems to be running fine. The power and activity lights both come on, the fans start and the hard drive and cd roms both start up. After that there is nothing, doesn't even come close to loading the OS. There is no beep and the floppy drive doesn't flash. The computer just seems to stall there for an eternity. The monitor doesn't show anything, just stays blank and receives no signal. Nothing internally was touched. It was working one night and the next morning it was goosed. It has booted very rarely, after countless attempts, but always shuts down randomly.

Is there anything worth trying or should it be launched into the nearest skip?

Cheers

What do you mean by nothing?
Does that mean the lights go back off?
And, that the drives and fans stop spinning?

If so, you might have a bad power switch. It happens all the time. To check it, you have to open the box and find where the switch (just the switch) connects to the motherboard. When you find this, you remove the connector from the mbd and momentarily short the contacts. If the system fires up, you have found your problem.

I've seen this several times. Of course it could be something else, but try the simple things first.

Alternatively you can "jab" at the switch randomly and possibly be able to determine that it is the problem.

Everything I need to know that I think I will forget I put in Outlook notes.

For years I carried a Palm or Ipaq for the same purpose, but they are tedious.

Long ago I used a product called Info Select by Micro Logic, I think they are still around.

I date the note and (generally at the top) I include (a lot of) key words, phrases and concepts which I believe I will be likely to search for later. Then I write my note, be it an explanation, a fix, or just important data.

Days, weeks, months, years later, when I am trying to solve an issue or remember the information, whether I remember taking the note or not, I first search my notes to see if I've run across it before. This resolves a meaningful percentage of the things I need to find daily.

I do this when I am researching, studying, or have just determined a solution I am not likely to remember later.

Searching on key words and concepts brings up a lot of information, and is a great way of storing, researching and studying notes.

As I come back to the notes later, I expand on them if I have new information, so my notes are a living thing.

People who hijack threads with their overly passionate beliefs.

Being annoyed by that is akin to being annoyed by the weather.

And on the assumption that human activity has played any significant role in the warming, and that changes in human activity can play a significant role in reducing said warming.

Who here can remember when a decade or so ago the big fear was the coming Ice Age?

It would interesting to see how this period will be reported in history books a hundred years from now. What will be the economic impact of trying to cure the warming as opposed to adapting to the changing conditions?

It will be more interesting to see if man is even around a hundred years from now to read history books. In my lifetime we have nearly tripled world population. It took millions of years to achieve a 2 billion, only another 50 years to hit 6 billion.

Does anyone really believe we can sustain this for another 100 years?

Humanity has become a lumbering beast, tied to his technology, unable to respond to his environment. If anything "does us in" it will be our inability to respond to the whims of nature with a "technology fix."

No no...I'm not :cool: enough :P

Is there any content to your Mac notion? I'm going to treat it as some sort of joke I just don't get. Have a laugh if you like, whether I get it or not, no matter. On the other hand, if you have something to say, please do.

Point in fact. I like Macs just fine for the people that need to use them. I've been building for, and supporting the business PC crowd for 30 years. Well, okay, the early years were a mish-mash of CP/M. I'm a hands on guy who likes to know how things work, and isn't impressed with smooth scrolling, proprietary architechtures or artificiallly high prices. But don't get me started.

My "attitude" was influenced by my misreading a challenge; and an exaggerated reflex to the challenge and it's (perceived) tone.
If you or anyone else wishes, I will leave.

Nah, it's good you're back.

My first posts here drew a LOT of flak. What I quickly learned is: don't insult while disagreeing, and, when seemingly attacked, answer the challenge within the attack but don't respond to the sense of being attacked. Most such challenges are just the difficulty of the medium.

I personally engage in quite a bit of verbal shorthand, I'm sure others do too. Such is bound to be misinterpreted.

Dude come on, you sure ur not a Mac guy?

Yeh, I'm sure. You should be able to see it in how I write, the clues are everywhere, but we'd have to go private for me to explain that statement.

Are you one?

I hate it when people in some forums seem to know everything and think they're always right.

It's the rare bird who does not act on the assumption that they are right and state their opinion in that manner. It's how they act in general while doing so, and in particular, how they act upon being confronted with evidence that they are wrong that ultimately defines the experience of dealing with them.

I actually love to find out I am wrong. It means I learned something at that moment. I know, that like most people, I operate under the illusion that what I believe to be true is in fact true. Finding that I was wrong has advanced me much more than believing I was right. There's no advancement in that.

But I will always talk with assumed authority on what I believe I know. And some people take that as offensive.

I find that for the most part, they are the ones who do not want to "go the distance" and support their position. I am always ready to support mine, down to the point where my supposition or my logic falls apart.

I find that most people flee from a "real" discussion .. where you have to get down to the core truths underlying your position.

Logic and reason do not prevail in most discussion. Generally people just have a belief that is very strong, and they want others to yield to it, …

It doesn't matter what science says about spanking.

Both spanking, and the desire to abolish spanking, are religious beliefs. Both are protected by the Constitution, and neither should become part of the law.

Religious beliefs, eh? While I might be getting your drift, I don't know what you mean.

Your statement depends on what you mean by "religious". I do agree that religious beliefs should not become part of law.

I'm don't know how you see spanking as a religious belief. Unless you call whatever anyone holds to be true, or reality, or important, religion. I could go with that if it's what you mean. Certainly not everyone who spanks or is against spanking thinks of their attitude as a religious belief as they think of religion in general.

Please elaborate

Well, you know that Macs are used by creative people. Maybe scru thinks you are creative. I wouldn't try to destroy the possible illusion.

Illusion, while not my first preference, is fine with me, thanks.

You will be roundly missed.

Perhaps your "facts" were not impressive. You certainly did not stand behind them when I pounded on them.

Hmm. A Mac would be great for you. Maybe it's not too late to get one for Christmas?

What on earth (or in your mind) provoked this thought?

You use a Mac, don't you?

No I don't .. and I sure didn't mean for that smiley face to show up either. I entered a simple colon-end parens ..

Allowing oneself to be annoyed by what others do is a waste of energy.

People are different, and it's simply amazing and wonderful that we can associate with each other at all.

If you "let" someone annoy you, (assuming they have not actively targeted you) then you've found yourself in the position of judging their behavior. This is an easy place to end up, but the implications are huge.

What it comes down to is a form of the "If I were king of the world" mentality, where everyone would be just the way you want them to be if you could enforce your will on them.

It isn't necessarily easy (tolerance is not widely or thoroughly promoted or taught) but embracing variety is much healthier than being annoyed. Annoyance is a petty position.

(There, have I annoyed anyone ? :)

None of your data shows any causal relationship to spanking though, so despite all the caps-lock words you want to sprinkle about, it still remains unsupported speculation.

This brings us round again to what I'm saying, that this is a much more complex issue than the question being asked.

But, if you take the question "Should kids be spanked?' as a stand-alone issue, then it would seem that most of us agree that spanking is indeed better than not spanking.. The assumption being made that the spanker is doing it out of love.

Perhaps it doesn't matter if the spanking results in more or less crime, or in more or less trauma to the child. I don't think we can accurately determine the effect of spanking, so, in a perfect world, we should "go" with what "feels right"

There is nothing quite so impressive to a child as immediate pain upon the doing of a harmful thing. Talking to the child is, in a word, (often) stupid. That's because Words imply the ability to reason, and a connection between the reasoning and the desire of the child. A child may not desire what the words impart... (to do the "right" thing) ... the young mind does not necessarily place "doing right" above "immediate desire". (It does not take a PHD to realize this.) But pain is a very real obstacle in the childs mind. This works best for children with a low pain threshold. (I was one.) …

None sounds like a great starting point. When did it become your job, or mine, to protect others? Pain and suffering is, to a sensitive person, always lamentable, and it's a knee-jerk reaction to want to protect others from it, particularly children. But jsut because we have a knee jerk reaction does not mean we should act on it as a mob.

If I see someone beating up someone else I may step in if I think it appropriate. That is my right, as a person, to confront another. Something will happen, and if my instincts are right, it will probably be toward the good.

But the moment I am (just) one of a mob, and acting on the rule of that mob (society acting upon government mandate), it's more likely that less good than harm will come of our actions if we are operating on false principles.

The key here is sound principles. It is NOT a sound principle to dictate how the many will live because of the acts of the few. Because that is not a sound principle, once it is in place, it will not yield the right results.

I posit that living by sound principles will yield better results in the aggregate, no matter the goodness of the intent behind "bad" law.

By your charts, things are getting better; crime has been on the decline since '91.

But by your provided chart, I quote: "There may be some under-reporting in the earlier part of the table and graphs below. Although the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program began in 1930, not all law enforcement agences contributed reports from the beginning. So there may be an artificial ramp-up effect going on here. Conversely, a drop in crime is definitely real, and bigger than these figures would indicate. "

... which is my point about the fact that it isn't easily supported. Anyone can make a graph, draw a chart...

But there are always errors, there is always bias, there is always the fact that the means of gathering information changes, social views on whether it should even be reported.

For example, rape shows an almost 4 fold increase between now and the sixties. Yet I'll wager that in the sixties, 75% of what is NOW reported as rape may well have been happening in the 60s... few reported it, few thought it was a "crime", there was no means of dealing with it.

Of course, we cannot say the same for all crime, but ... todays' technology allows us to find murder in what yesterday might have appeared to be suicide, or accident, and the like. We simply could not detect it, thus it was not compiled.

Then there is violent crime in general. In the past, without …

It sells becasue of societies morbid curiosity with those kind of events.

Yes, I get that part, but why has society come to this point? I cannot say if the numbers are up on crime, but I can say with authority that societys' tastes in entertainment have changed, and imho that taste has become infatuated with the crude, vulgar, base & dark side of behavior. Interesting on the one hand, but repulsive to someone of my "sensibilities" .. it seems there are no longer many boundaries. I don't hold myself up as being "right" insofar as my attitude, people can be as they want, I simply need to adjust. But it is difficut to understand what has caused this shift in my short life. Too much going on to reduce it to a one liner.

There is also a lot more people in this period so the ratio may actually be the same. Also the media hypes a lot of things up when before, people would not have heard about it becasue there was no large media network. Also people overlooked things more and they were not spoken about. For instance the person who wrote Alice in Wonderland was a pedophile but it no one did anything about it, they just told their kids not to go near him.

It's certainly true that one cannot easily support data to prove one way or the other that things are really worse than they used to be insofar as crime (and general bad attitude) is concerned... but it sure feels that way.

And yes, media hype makes it seem much worse than it really is. I really do not want to hear about rape and murder (etc.) on the other coast, and all places between. If all I heard about was what was in my town, (like in the old days) it might not feel so bad.

News should be something that is "important" to the people it is being delivered to. What happens on an inter-personal social level 3000 miles away does not matter to me. But for some God-Awful reason, it "sells".

What's that all about, anyway? (I probably know, but I can't put my finger on it right now.)

This is one of those conversations that is perhaps asking the wrong question. Rather than asking if kids should be spanked, perhaps we should be asking if the government (other people) should be dictating the actions of the individual, in this case, dicatating how children will be raised by their parents.

Found on Scroogle.org

CNet talks about it here:
http://www.news.com/2100-1023-249140.html

And refers to this service:
http://www.zixcorp.com/

Weren't you the one who said there was all that evidence? I'm just asking that you show it. Is that so hard?

Perhaps you did not read all of my long-winded post. I explained in the first few lines that the evidence can be seen by observing the behavior of mankind, particularly those who lust for power, now, and historically.

Or perhaps you did read and understand, and want proof by examples.

I give you Cheney as a current example. Perhaps you disagree. I won't make create a list of behaviors and perpetrators for you, you either see this behavior in mankind, or you do not. If not, then no amount of reference to the behavior of individuals (evidence) will convince you.

Man is a constant in his existance. He has learned almost nothing outside of the realm of the physical. He certainly has not modified his behavior other than to extend the effects of it. His feelings and desires, his compassion and disregard are virtually identical to that which his forebearors shared, possibly right back to cave-man days.

You can look at his behavior and know him (in the aggregate). If you don't see the evidence, I cannot show it to you, it'd be like showing a green-color blind person, green.. they just would not see it. But if they are not color blind, they've already seen it, and only have to be directed to the notion that you call it "green" to understand what …