The word and the voice of God

[~greg]

Allah, schmallah.

But before I say another word, I have to say that I do not dislike Casey Butler.
Or john.m.lake. Although I will have to disembowel them.

But it's on account of their sins -

Matthew Ch 7
15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
...
20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And not on account of their sinning selves.

Moreover, as sins go, John's and Casey's, - or at least the ones
they've been parading here before us, (- at least under those names,)
--aren't so bad. The main one being simple glossolalia
(clinically: 'regressive babbling')
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia
which is one of the many kinds of oral auto erotic perversions
that result from premature weaning.
(Chain-smoking being another.)

Nor should anyone worry about John and Casey's fantasy
of being, or becoming, charismatic fundamentalists leaders.

You can wager than people who get such obvious satisfaction
out of this kind of role-playing on the internet do not have what it takes
to play it out in real life. While the motivating drives, in real life, and
on the internet, are same: - to dominate people, - real life charismatics
are never satisfied short of a near physical domination of the totality
of other people's souls -- people who are bodily present in front of them.

Moreover, real life charismatics are on a continuum that ends
in the Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer types, -not the Fred McFeely Rogers types -

Dahmer served his time at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portage,
Wisconsin, where he ultimately declared himself a born-again Christian.
This conversion occurred after viewing Evangelical material sent to him by his father.
--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

It's a beautiful day in this neighborhood,
A beautiful day for a neighbor.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...

It's a neighborly day in this beauty wood,
A neighborly day for a beauty.
Would you be mine?
Could you be mine?...
...
- Mister Rogers' Neighborhood
- http://pbskids.org/rogers/songlist/song1_ra.html

The very mild mannered domination games that John and Casey
have been playing here stand out most clearly when contrasted
with what "pbshel67" has been doing.

Because whatever it is that pbshel67 has been doing,
it isn't trying to dominate or recruit anybody.

And whatever it is that pbshel67 has been working on, in himself,
it isn't the blatant envy of cult leaders that is driving Casey crazy -

Like those FLDS Saints in Texas are enjoying theirs,
as the fire burns their men, women, and children.
When did separating children from their mother and father become less abusive
than respecting the freedom of religion we espouse?
Who is next? "Burn them!", right Eliezar? Everybody knows they have to burn.
She didn't bend to your longing.

"FLDS" means
"Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints",
which is a Mormon fundamentalist sect.

Note which words were chosen for the acronym -
Fundamentalist, and Latter Day Saints,
--skipping "Church" and "Jesus Christ")

I have often heard people say that it's not important to them
what religion other people subscribe to, just so long as everybody
subscribes to a religion (or to pantheism.)

But Casey has taken that in an interesting new direction.

For Casey it's not so important what religion a person subscribes to,
just so long as it's a fundamentalist one!
And just so long as everybody plays by his hail Mary pass
strategy to get around the evil "scholars and theologians".

That is to say, around the particular "scholars and theologians"
that Casey happens to disapprove of. Because actually
Casey has himself been parroting a very specific line
of scholars and theologians that goes back to a very specific
time and place. (Archibald Alexander, Princeton, ~1812.)

None of the attitudes that Casey has been pushing here is at all original.

[~greg]

Again, I have nothing against Casey Butler, or john.m.lake.

However, were I to not point out the things that I am pointing out,
then that would be like looking the other way.

And woe to him who looks the other way one time too many!
For he is like that driver you heard about who glided obliviously
into a pothole and broke his axle. And then he saw!
- Me

Moreover, Cassey got a bit of immunity in my eyes when he wrote ...

Answer: it is hard for most Americans
to think of a name of a country that begins with u

That's not true. If you asked them, most Americans would immediately reply "Utah".

That's one of those GDA (God Damn America) thingys of which I am very fond.

And here's another -
(True story.)

I used to be into cheeses. (Fondues, Gorgonzolas, etc.)
(But not anymore. (Except of course for parmigiano,- irreplaceable.)
It's all soy shit pour poor moi now.)

So anyway, one day in the grocery store in which I happened to be hunting,
I found myself in the vicinity of a mother and daughter duo, who were
standing in front of the American Cheese section. The mother had
proudly picking out a fine White American Cheese Product,
aged no less than 3 days, and yet as biodegradable as any
polyhydroxyalkanoate biopolymer Manna can name.

But the daughter seemed visibly upset by it.
"Why can't we ever get the yellow kind?" she scolded.
To which the wise mother replied: "Because they're the same thing.
The yellow cheese just has some yellow coloring added to it."

But you would have to know what "American cheese" is to appreciate that.
And there is no way it can be explained in words. Much easier
to explain what they meant by "success in Iraq".

(When they said "sucess in Iraq",
I wondered what they meant. And if it wasn't just another wisecrack.
And if they weren't all strung out on smack.

GDA )

[~greg]

hypothesis - Poking fun at Casey and acting like an ass in general
would be more fun than simply asking for clarification.

But that's not an hypothesis.
That's a fact.

It's a fact that poking fun and acting like an ass in general
are more fun than anything else.

And especially more fun (and justifiable) than
trying to get clarification from inveterate obfuscators like Casey.

observations - based on self evaluation (I'm not very scientific am I?)
Although initially amusing to myself I soon after just felt like a jerk.

What's not scientific about that
is the conflating of "evaluation" with "observation".

Evaluation (except as the objective objective of the medical sense of the word)
is never objective. By definition.

Observations, on the other hand, can be objective.
But it requires the scientific method.

The "scientific method" is the accumulation of objective observations
concerning the sorts of things that tend to contaminate objective observations
and make them less objective. Namely things like evaluations, expectations,
prejudices, parochialisms, nepotisms, laziness, love, hope, and charity,
and payola, and polenta, and putang, and pernod, etc, etc, etc, period.
And then taking whatever steps are necessary, such as double-blind
experiments, in order to avoid that kind of contamination.

In this case Myra's initial observation, that she was amusing to herself,
was an objective one. And it was good -

In the beginning God and Myra and the whole Heavenly Host poked fun at Casey,
and acted like magnificent asses in general.

Because Casey's writing was without form, and void.
And because Casey put darkness upon the face of one inch shallow thoughts
in a pathetic attempt to make them look really deep.

(God in particular being pissed at the effrontery of people
who declare His words to be as simple minded and transparent as they are.)

And thus the spirit of fun moved upon Casey's wetness.
And there was light. For something like a second.

And Myra saw the light. That it was good.
And everything went swimmingly at first.

But then Myra had to go and spoil it all by dividing the light into photons,
using long division, which she was never very good at in school.

In other words Myra had second thoughts. And then she felt like a fool.
And that was that.

The end of another glorious tiny little universe of light out of darkness.

And the darkness returned.
Stronger and meaner, and even dumber than before.

Myra had to go and spoil her objective observation
with some kind of politically correct self-evaluation,
which made her reach the absurdly internally contradictory
conclusion that she was a jerk.

If only she'd kept her objectivity about her, then she would have realized
that "being amusing to oneself" and "feeling like a jerk"
are one and the same thing. Or perhaps two sides of the same coin.
The face side saying "happy camper" and "snug as a bug in a rug",
and lots of happy thoughts like that all-the-day-long.
Whereas the tail side just says: "buyer's remorse".

And you can't split a coin like that along its edge and expect to double your money.
You wind up in jail for defacing (or detailing) common currency.

conclusion - my hypothesis was incorrect
and I am sorry if I offended - although I suspect
you have an interesting sense of humor and that I did not.

"An interesting sense of humor",
- meaning the exact opposite of "a sense of humor"
- means that Myra is here again poking fun at Cassey!

Oh happy day!
(From my objective-point-of-view's
point of view.)

~~

That whole hypothesis-observations-conclusion business is, by the way,
just the normal smart way to react when you come across a snake in the grass.
(Whether the snake has a sense of humor or not.)

Just back away ... slowly.

~~

Smart going, Myra!

[~greg]

But Myra, I am not entirely convinced that you ought to be calling Casey
"a snake in the grass" like that. Or not yet.

After all, he only just recently joined this forum, just a little over 2 months ago.
And, so far, has confined his preaching to just this one thread.

At least under the name "Casey Butler."

~~

True, there are some ill-omens afoot.

But first, it is probably not at all as curious as I thought it was at first
that, even though even long time frequenters of this forum have a hard time groping
their way around in here, and finding each other, yet the ostensibly brand-newbie
dynamic duo "john.m.lake" and "Casey Butler" - spectacularly complementary characters,
- so quickly found each other in this perfectly tailored thread for them, and then,
simultaneously, as if in response to an off-stage cue, both of them,
after just one page, dropped all pretense at it being in any way about
Leonard Cohen, in order to get on with the real business they came about.

But that's not really very curious.
And there'd be no harm in it anyway.

~~

"seb", on the other hand, is a more curious thing.

Seb "joined" about a week ago. on Sat Mar 29,
and then immediately started his own thread -

Leonard Cohen positions on zionism/Israel

Which might have been an amusing (if hackneyed) a title
if seb had said instead "Cohen's various positions".
And dropped "zionism" from it.

The word "Zionism" does have meaning. Mostly historical.
But today it's almost exclusively used as a pejorative catch-phrase:

Certain individuals and groups have used the term "Zionism"
as a pejorative to justify attacks on Jews. According to historians
Walter Laqueur, Howard Sachar and Jack Fischel among others,
the label "Zionist" is in some cases also used as a euphemism
for Jews in general by apologists for antisemitism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

(--The only ones pretending otherwise
are the same ones who think it's very clever to point out
that the swastika is an ancient Buddhist symbol.)

In any case, the pegorative meaning of "zionism"
is the meaning that "seb" meant for it, as is clear from his post.

Now, so far, seb has contributed 4 posts to this forum.
All in his own thread.

And someone named "COLIN-MOORE",
--who curiously actually "joined" a couple of days before "seb",
--has posted only 1 post to this forum, - his "response" to seb's post,
- wherein he takes, naurally enough, the opposite "point of view" to seb's.

Which makes "seb" and "COLIN-MOORE"
a sort of miniature version of "Casy Butler" and "john.m.lake".

[john.m.lake]

Greg: Allah, schmallah.

But before I say another word, I have to say that I do not dislike Casey Butler.
Or john.m.lake. Although I will have to disembowel them.

But it's on account of their sins -

Matthew Ch 7
15: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
...
20: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

And not on account of their sinning selves.

Moreover, as sins go, John's and Casey's, - or at least the ones
they've been parading here before us, (- at least under those names,)
--aren't so bad. The main one being simple glossolalia
(clinically: 'regressive babbling')
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia
which is one of the many kinds of oral auto erotic perversions
that result from premature weaning.
(Chain-smoking being another.)

Nor should anyone worry about John and Casey's fantasy
of being, or becoming, charismatic fundamentalists leaders.

You can wager than people who get such obvious satisfaction
out of this kind of role-playing on the internet do not have what it takes
to play it out in real life. While the motivating drives, in real life, and
on the internet, are same: - to dominate people, - real life charismatics
are never satisfied short of a near physical domination of the totality
of other people's souls -- people who are bodily present in front of them.

Moreover, real life charismatics are on a continuum that ends
in the Jeffrey Lionel Dahmer types, -not the Fred McFeely Rogers types -

Hi Greg… you are one interesting fellow…

Fundamentalism means holding the bible to be the sole historical and prophetic authority. My posts clearly state that that is not my belief – so your claim is a false one.

I also have no wish for domination or for anyone to follow me – I have only been discussing my views on God, Religion, Birth, Life and Death. My belief system is open ended as I have already stated – “I truly enjoy the great diversity... of different religions or (non-religion like I speak of).. or the thoughts of Atheists and agnostics - because - the 'truth' is a combination of 'EVERYTHING' “.

I enjoy debating topics I am passionate about – with debating comes attacks on your beliefs – this is to be expected. But Greg… Your posts go towards attacking the posters more so than the ideas being discussed. That is a flawed and childish strategy.

Enjoy your journey as you see fit my friend - and always enjoy the ride.

[~greg]

There is nothing wrong with discussing anything, whatsoever. Ever.

And it will probably always be inevitable human nature
to be leaning to one side or the other, even alternately,
whenever we watch any sports event, such as the democratic primaries.
Or the Middle East situation.

But what "seb" and "COLIN-MOORE" and "Casey Butler" and "john.m.lake"
are doing here is not, fortunately, normal human behavior.
(It may seem to be more common than it is, but only because the sample-space,
- people who post in internet forums, and the de-torsoed talking head on tv
- is narrow and peculiar.)

These people are not interested in Leonard Cohen's ideas or feelings.
Or in anybody else's. Or in much of anything, really. .

They are quick and transparent in dropping all such pretexts
in order to get on with what they really came to do.
Which is to hear themselves rant, or to preach
and fantasize that they're recruiting.

Fortunately DBCohen and BlizzardofIce answered
(- actually snuffed) seb's thread in the bud,
in a very sensible, - and actually interesting way.

Which only goes to show that it's never the subject per-se that's uncomfortable.
What's uncomfortable is having to watch the "stirrers" (as Michael calls them)
contorting in their mental constipation.

"BlizzardofIce" is also interesting for having contributed only 2 posts so far.
Which only goes to show that just because somebody's posted only a couple
of posts doesn't necessarily mean that he's a troll or anything like that.
(A cautionary note to myself.)

But "seb" and "COLIN-MOORE" are curiosities.
Taking the trouble to join a forum.
And then starting a controversially-titled thread.
And then posting a few posts to it.
And then disappearing completely.

It makes you wonder.

Not that there's any mystery in that, in itself.
There is no mystery in that in itself -

...
Now from his pocket quick he flashes,
The crayon on the wall he slashes,
Deep upon the advertising,
A single worded poem comprised
Of four letters.

And his heart is laughing, screaming, pounding
The poem across the tracks rebounding
Shadowed by the exit light
His legs take their ascending flight
To seek the breast of darkness and be suckled by the night.

- Simon and Garfunkel - A Poem On The Underground
...
And the sign said "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls
And tenement halls ...
- Simon & Garfunkel - The Sound of Silence

[Manna]

Fact?
Oh, Greg.

There aren't any facts. Even the one about the Earth being a sphere, or rather, an oblate spheroid. (And it's barely an oblate spheroid. People like to say it's an oblate spheroid because it makes them sound oh-so-smart, but the truth is that the Earth is more perfectly spherical than your average basketball. It's also more perfectly smooth than a basketball, and not by a little.)

Yep, the idea that the Earth is an oblate spheroid is a mere hypothesis. There is an opposing hypothesis that the Earth is the internal surface of an oblate spheroid, and that the universe is contained within that spheroid. This, of course, would mean that what we commonly think we know about speed, acceleration, distance, and everything else that relates to moving thru space, is a bunch of hogwash.

And have you ever washed a hog? I have never had that pleasure.



ps. cellulose acetate-chlorobutyrate pyridinium - will that do?

[~greg]

John,
I am not sure where I'm going with this yet either.

But I am pretty sure that I am much more in harmony with you
than may seem to be the case.

But not now. Not here.

Because the thing of it is, I am honestly violently anti-fundamentalist.
And your mysticism and pantheism are just not strong enough forces
to counter fundamentalism.

You can't fight fire with smoke.

[john.m.lake]

Greg: There is nothing wrong with discussing anything, whatsoever. Ever.

And it will probably always be inevitable human nature
to be leaning to one side or the other, even alternately,
whenever we watch any sports event, such as the democratic primaries.
Or the Middle East situation.

But what "seb" and "COLIN-MOORE" and "Casey Butler" and "john.m.lake"
are doing here is not, fortunately, normal human behavior.
(It may seem to be more common than it is, but only because the sample-space,
- people who post in internet forums, and the de-torsoed talking head on tv
- is narrow and peculiar.)

These people are not interested in Leonard Cohen's ideas or feelings.
Or in anybody else's. Or in much of anything, really. .

They are quick and transparent in dropping all such pretexts
in order to get on with what they really came to do.
Which is to hear themselves rant, or to preach
and fantasize that they're recruiting.

Yet more personal attacks…. : ) and I see you have added a few more names to your hit list during your latest tirade.

Greg – are you sure it is not you that is here to hear yourself rant? You have added nothing to the actual discussion – only condescending self righteous blather. It must be difficult to be right all the time and have to deal with such hacks on these forums. Please continue to enlighten us – I am at the edge of my seat….

[john.m.lake]

Greg: John,
I am not sure where I'm going with this yet either.

But I am pretty sure that I am much more in harmony with you
than may seem to be the case.

But not now. Not here.

Because the thing of it is, I am honestly violently anti-fundamentalist.
And your mysticism and pantheism are just not strong enough forces
to counter fundamentalism.

You can't fight fire with smoke.

You have thrown down the gauntlet and I accept your challenge. You have continuously explained me to me in a negative light and have put yourself up on the tower. I challenge you back – stop the accusations and immature personal attacks and lets discuss the topic at hand – whether that be Leonard’s music or God in general. Or.. are you here only to belittle people and move on?

[Manna]

Greg has not belittled me.

[john.m.lake]

Manna: Greg has not belittled me.

No Manna.. he has not. BUT.. he has in fact belittled two members on this thread that are actually having a challenging discussion (at least for those involved). Of course, any one can chime in at any time – however – if someone’s main purpose is to appear for only personal attacks – then – they are just wasting our time.

Of course if someone chiming in only to offer personal attacks does not bother you – then, by all means You and Greg have fun! : )

[Manna]

I don't mind Greg. I find him highly entertaining. His posts are a joy for me; I laugh all the way through them, though I am glad I am not the one who writes them. I don't think he intends to be taken too seriously, or maybe that is just my hope.

I can laugh at you, therefore you can laugh at yourself. I'm not so special as to be able to do something you cannot.

Thank you for your benevolent wishes.

[john.m.lake]

Manna: I don't mind Greg. I find him highly entertaining. His posts are a joy for me; I laugh all the way through them, though I am glad I am not the one who writes them. I don't think he intends to be taken too seriously, or maybe that is just my hope.

I can laugh at you, therefore you can laugh at yourself. I'm not so special as to be able to do something you cannot.

Thank you for your benevolent wishes.

I hope that is the case – for I took him seriously, and the entertainment value was diminishing by the second.

Laugh away…

Welcome!

[Manna]

btw, Greg, yes you can fight fire with smoke. This is the essence of CO2 fire suppression.