| | Let's see, I've only written clearly and repeatedly that you must rely upon your reason. Why you remain confused about that at this late point in the discussion is beyond me. If you want to disagree with what I said, then disagree! It's not that hard. You can do it without knowing anything more than what I've written.
My reason tells me that the faceless nature of Internet forums creates an additional challenge for those who wish to be real, to have others accept our sincerity, our honesty, and our good will, and a great opportunity for those who do not. Which actor among the many inside of us has been pushed (or has jumped) onto the stage? Most of us cannot even sit for a minute without having internal dialogue or associating. My reason also tells me that within the limitations of forum writing, tone is very important and difficult to control, much like it is when playing an instrument.
Unlike what a number of the sob sisters have said, I don't need to win an argument. I take satisfaction in knowing that I have expressed my thoughts well. That's enough for me. If I learn that someone has gotten a benefit from what I've done, that's a bonus. But I can't live for that. I have to live for myself.
Indeed. Yet you come here, which means that on some level, you believe that being part of a community allows us to experience life and do things that we cannot do alone.
Sure, and so I take it you believe in global warming, Keynesian economics, and the food pyramid that the professionals tell us are the way the world works.Ah, there's a New Puritan for you. The dignity of privacy is an evasion. Without public revelation of your life you are a dishonest person.
The three items you mention I do not believe we have ever discussed. For that matter, I do not recall having commented on them here on SOLO, and probably haven't done it anywhere. But, since you asked. I am not a scientist, and have only read a number of debates promoting both sides of the argument, mainly those written by scientists, scientific types, politicians, political types, and various hybrids. I find myself only continuing to look at the data and various analyses. I do believe that the current cycle of planetary conditions, weather, and so forth is often falsely and fully attributed to what is generally referred to as global warming. As to Keynesian economics, I know little of it, because (and perhaps I am not fully informed because of this, but I think not) that when I did come in contact with it, from first blush it appeared diametrically opposed to my capitalism, which is of the laissez-faire variety. I do not often study economics, because I am a businessman and capitalism serves me well. So, no on that one. As to this new food pyramid, it is goofy, complicated, stupid, and I shudder to think about how much money it cost to develop it. Further, it is already being used to sell cereals that are full of white sugar, which, while probably coincidental, just goes to show how well things are working out. The old model got used that way too, but this one has so many pretty flashing lights on it, that it only makes things easier. Nutrition is an area where I have had heavy exposure and experience, and aside from learning about how to use the advantage of herbs and supplements, I find it mostly a matter of Susan Powter's eat/breathe/move. Fortunately, I am blessed with a high metabolism and have never had much struggle with it. So, no, on that one too. So, there is some more public revelatin' of my life for you. Such pathetic narcissism.:) A New Puritan? Heavens, my friend- your reason (and, maybe sometimes how I write) has brought you very far from knowing me (invokes privacy at that point).
Best Regards,
rde
(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/23, 7:59am)
(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/23, 8:05am)
|
|
