Good Website for Free Books

[PepperFritz]

My statement about 'heading in an STO direction' referred to the idea that, when the Earth transitions to 4th density, it will do so as STO, ie the ultimate direction, not the proximate one.

The physical earth itself will transition to 4th density, but only a small percentage of its inhabitants will as well. I recall both Ra and the C's mentioning that the number of those expected to be "harvestable" for 4th density to be around 10% of the population, while the Cass Glossary states that "There are no estimates but all sources agree that the numbers are very small in relation to the size of the population." And therein lies the misconception in your thinking: While the earth itself is moving into 4th-density, only a small number of its population will be doing the same as STO candidates. Therefore, it is inaccurate to think in terms of "society" as a whole moving towards being STO or STO-candidates. The vast majority of humanity is currently either firmly STS or "sitting on the fence".

The C's referred to networking as a 4th density STO concept that was being expressed due to the proximity of the Wave, if I remember correctly.

Yes, what they said, specifically, was "Networking is 4th Density STO concept seeping into 3rd density with upcoming realm border crossing". But, again, it is a concept that is that is not "seeping into" society as a whole, but only a small portion of the population, i.e. those who are able to properly grasp and utilize it as a tool for accessing and sharing knowledge and being of service to others.

I then thought that, perhaps mistakenly, file-sharing networks might be an example of this.

Well, one could call all kinds of avtivities shared by a group of people as "networking". However, utimately it is the purpose and behaviour of the individuals within such groups that will tell the tale. It's not just a question of "working together towards a common benefit" or else we could also call what criminal gangs and child pornographers do "networking".

The C's have told us over and over again that STO does not violate another's free will; they have also stated that "networking is not making assumptions". Those who take an artist's work free of charge without his/her express permission on the "assumption" that the artist won't mind are violating the artists's free will and behaving in an STS manner. While they are "sharing" the work of artists among themselves, they are doing so primarily for their own benefit. To argue that an artist doesn't get very much money ANYWAYS from their publisher, label, etc. is to simply rationalize self-serving behaviour. The artist has chosen to sell their work via that publisher, label, etc., and will clearly earn more money if one buys a copy of the work via that source than if one does not. It is equally pointless to go on and on about the self-serving behaviour of publishers, labels, record-companies, etc, which simply functions to deflect attention away from the self-serving behaviour of the "downloaders".

I'm not "judging" or trying to tell anyone what to do or what not to do. Lord knows I'm guilty of a hell of a lot of self-serving behaviour in my own life, and have also spent a lot of time and energy "glossing" over it. I guess it takes one to know one. I'm just trying to underline an essential aspect of the Work that we are all trying to master -- which is to, at the very least, stop lying to ourselves. The very worst lie one can tell oneself is that self-serving behaviour is in fact a virtue in disguise. Not only do you rationalize away your behaviour, but you also get to pat yourself on the back for being so "spiritual"....

 

[christx11]

My statement about 'heading in an STO direction' referred to the idea that, when the Earth transitions to 4th density, it will do so as STO, ie the ultimate direction, not the proximate one.

I do not recall a specific that the earth will transition to 4th density STO??

From what I recall, the Wave will be a Realm border crossing. I think there was a session statement that our entire sector of spacetime per se would go to 4th density. (Not to 4th density STO).

In 4th density there is STO and STS. The few that transition to 4th density, some will become STO candidates, some will transition as STS. It is also probable that there will be a 3rd density earth also and many will just recycle into 3rd density earth and the choice of alignment there will be open I hope.

The C's referred to networking as a 4th density STO concept that was being expressed due to the proximity of the Wave, if I remember correctly.

Yes, I recall that also, but that does not mean our concept and practice of networking meets with the 4th level concept just because we call it networking. I am not sure but I am guessing that 3rd level has a lot of refining to figure it out, especially the energy imbalances. I think a lot of what we call networking just plane isn't.

I then thought that, perhaps mistakenly, file-sharing networks might be an example of this.

I think just because something is called sharing and networking on our 3rd level does not mean it is balanced. Once again I think most examples of networking on 3rd level here are ponerized as most things are. It is kind of like, yeah, we have somewhere between 1% and 10% of the concept down, but that would mean we need at least 40-50 percent more balance just to tip the scales toward true networking. Then again the 4th level understanding we probably cannot really comprehend until and if some of us get there.

 

[PepperFritz]

I do not recall a specific that the earth will transition to 4th density STO??.... From what I recall, the Wave will be a Realm border crossing. I think there was a session statement that our entire sector of spacetime per se would go to 4th density. (Not to 4th density STO).

Yes, I wasn't clear on that, trying to keep it "simple" for the point I was making. Apologies.

In 4th density there is STO and STS. The few that transition to 4th density, some will become STO candidates, some will transition as STS. It is also probable that there will be a 3rd density earth also and many will just recycle into 3rd density earth and the choice of alignment there will be open I hope.

Yes, there is both STO and STS in 4th density, though not at the same ratio. According to Ra and the C's, one must be 50%+ STO in order to transition to 4th-density via the STO path, but 98%+ to transition via the STS path. It requires such intense dedication and discipline to build up that percentage of STS, that very very few will transition via that path.

My point to Psychegram (and please correct me if I am wrong) is that the vast majority of people on earth at this time are neither candidates for 50%+ STO nor 98%+ STS, and therefore will NOT transition to 4th-density. So it is not accurate to speak of our society as a whole "moving towards being STO".

 

[psychegram]

My statement about 'heading in an STO direction' referred to the idea that, when the Earth transitions to 4th density, it will do so as STO, ie the ultimate direction, not the proximate one.

The physical earth itself will transition to 4th density, but only a small percentage of its inhabitants will as well. I recall both Ra and the C's mentioning that the number of those expected to be "harvestable" for 4th density to be around 10% of the population, while the Cass Glossary states that "There are no estimates but all sources agree that the numbers are very small in relation to the size of the population." And therein lies the misconception in your thinking: While the earth itself is moving into 4th-density, only a small number of its population will be doing the same as STO candidates. Therefore, it is inaccurate to think in terms of "society" as a whole moving towards being STO or STO-candidates. The vast majority of humanity is currently either firmly STS or "sitting on the fence".

It's certainly true that society as a whole is pretty firmly STS ... and relatively few seem to be able to wake up enough to see that, and try to move beyond it. Perhaps I'm guilty of confirmation bias here: on the one hand, from a theoretical standpoint I'm very aware of just how bad the situation is. On the other, the people I meet and interact with in day to day life are often those who are trying to move in an STO direction (albeit without using that terminology, of course.) I know the world is full of evil, and yet encounter it so rarely myself in a direct sense that it's easy to forget the corruption isn't just at the top, but extends throughout all levels of society.

The C's referred to networking as a 4th density STO concept that was being expressed due to the proximity of the Wave, if I remember correctly.

Yes, what they said, specifically, was "Networking is 4th Density STO concept seeping into 3rd density with upcoming realm border crossing". But, again, it is a concept that is that is not "seeping into" society as a whole, but only a small portion of the population, i.e. those who are able to properly grasp and utilize it as a tool for accessing and sharing knowledge and being of service to others.

Good point.

I then thought that, perhaps mistakenly, file-sharing networks might be an example of this.

Well, one could call all kinds of activities shared by a group of people as "networking". However, ultimately it is the purpose and behaviour of the individuals within such groups that will tell the tale. It's not just a question of "working together towards a common benefit" or else we could also call what criminal gangs and child pornographers do "networking".

Well, the media does constantly go on about pedophile networks spreading child pornography (as an excuse to push for laws that will place limits on the internet, of course.)

The C's have told us over and over again that STO does not violate another's free will; they have also stated that "networking is not making assumptions". Those who take an artist's work free of charge without his/her express permission on the "assumption" that the artist won't mind are violating the artists's free will and behaving in an STS manner. While they are "sharing" the work of artists among themselves, they are doing so primarily for their own benefit. To argue that an artist doesn't get very much money ANYWAYS from their publisher, label, etc. is to simply rationalize self-serving behaviour. The artist has chosen to sell their work via that publisher, label, etc., and will clearly earn more money if one buys a copy of the work via that source than if one does not. It is equally pointless to go on and on about the self-serving behaviour of publishers, labels, record-companies, etc, which simply functions to deflect attention away from the self-serving behaviour of the "downloaders".

I'm not "judging" or trying to tell anyone what to do or what not to do. Lord knows I'm guilty of a hell of a lot of self-serving behaviour in my own life, and have also spent a lot of time and energy "glossing" over it. I guess it takes one to know one. I'm just trying to underline an essential aspect of the Work that we are all trying to master -- which is to, at the very least, stop lying to ourselves. The very worst lie one can tell oneself is that self-serving behaviour is in fact a virtue in disguise. Not only do you rationalize away your behaviour, but you also get to pat yourself on the back for being so "spiritual"....

All excellent points. The warm'n'fuzzies I get from expounding on the benefits on filesharing ... the righteous anger against the corporations and lobbies who oppose it ... all signs that I'm engaging in a form of ego-masturbation.

The ironic thing is that it's been quite some time since I've used the filesharing networks: my musical tastes have been tending more and more towards independent artists who freely choose to give away their music. My defense of filesharing was an unconscious response, arising out of beliefs that had gone far too long without re-examination. I've been finding that happening more and more, lately: for instance, telling a joke that I used to find hilarious, only to realize after it was told that I didn't think it funny any more.

Yes, I recall that also, but that does not mean our concept and practice of networking meets with the 4th level concept just because we call it networking. I am not sure but I am guessing that 3rd level has a lot of refining to figure it out, especially the energy imbalances. I think a lot of what we call networking just plane isn't.

This concept of energetic balance ... it's something I'll have to ponder for a while. I'm not at all sure I quite get it - despite (or perhaps because of?) - a background in theoretical physics, I'm having a hard time reconciling a continuous flow with balance.

 

[PepperFritz]

It's not just a question of "working together towards a common benefit" or else we could also call what criminal gangs and child pornographers do "networking".

[quote author=psychegram]
Well, the media does constantly go on about pedophile networks spreading child pornography (as an excuse to push for laws that will place limits on the internet, of course.)[/quote]

I'm completely perplexed by the above statement, and how it relates to the previous sentence from my post. Its disconnected "out-of-left-field" quality makes me think that it's another mechanical response that just automatically kicks in whenever you hear certain "buzz words" related to your "cause" of "internet freedom". Before it was "copyright", and now its "child pornography".

Do you really believe that child pornography networks do not exist and are just an invention of "the media"? If so, what kind of data do you base that on? While I know that there are probably plenty of government types who use them as "an excuse to push for laws that will place limits on the internet", there is nonetheless overwhelming evidence that such networks do exist on a very large-scale international level and do considerable harm. There are many very decent people who work in law enforcement, and have to deal with the very stressful reality of child pornography on the web, and wish they didn't have to. I talked to a couple of people who work in that area when doing background research for a book I edited, and it's not pretty; they have a lot of trouble sleeping at night because of what they have to deal with.

I'm not trying to "pick on" you. It's just seems like there are a lot of broad assumptions that you express that you may need to re-examine, or at least consider in less than black-and-white terms.

 

[gwb1995]

HI Anart, Pepperfirtz, All,

I went back and reread the thread and this is what I have learned about myself. I still respond to things in a mechanical way, without being truly objective. I was on board with what was happening with PG, but not aware of how my emotions were taking over my thoughts. I have identified a protection program I am running, in which I try to protect someone who can't live up to others expectations. When it kicked in, I was looking for anything that I could do to protect this person. This is not the first time I have allowed this to happen.

After a lot of thought, looking back into my past life, I have done this many times before.
This is something I had noted in my recapitulations on myself as a problem. I had noted that I am usually aware of this problem after the fact. Now, I can see that I made the same mistake again, and did not see it in this case until I went back tonight and reviewed all that had happened. I just don't seem to be able to identify it up front and stop myself once my emotions and/or this program kicks in. I can see that my level of awareness is far less than I ‘imagine’ it to be, or I would not be making these same kinds of mistakes. I have a lot of work to do in this area and know that this is something I must deal with and correct, if I am going to move forward in this life.

This has been a valuable lesson for me, and I will do what is necessary to move forward with what I have learned from this lesson. I would appreciate any and all suggestions on how I can move forward.
I know understand how my actions can adversely affect others in this forum. This is a lesson that I will never forget and use to further my learning.

Gwb

 

[Pierre]

That's why I think they might not care about downloads as much as they want us to believe, they are quite happy if you keep swallowing the same dose of propaganda either way.

It's more about control and power (and making money out of it of course.).
They cannot control all the information on the internet, hence the need to criminalize it for our safety and to keep the economy (the one that is swallowing itself raw) going...
You might risk to download something that might open your mind a bit too much for them osit.

Exactly. And this point explains the recent copyright law enacted by the French government. Now if an Internet user infringes copyrights he can be banned from the Internet (forbiding to open/have an Internet connection from a provider).

Users' association proposed more progressive measures like fines but this proposition was rejected.

Thus the PTB now have the power to choose who will be allowed to have access to the Internet. That's quite a convenient way to prevent some specific people from publishing and/or reading "touchy" material.

 

[psychegram]

It's not just a question of "working together towards a common benefit" or else we could also call what criminal gangs and child pornographers do "networking".

[quote author=psychegram]
Well, the media does constantly go on about pedophile networks spreading child pornography (as an excuse to push for laws that will place limits on the internet, of course.)

I'm completely perplexed by the above statement, and how it relates to the previous sentence from my post. Its disconnected "out-of-left-field" quality makes me think that it's another mechanical response that just automatically kicks in whenever you hear certain "buzz words" related to your "cause" of "internet freedom". Before it was "copyright", and now its "child pornography".[/quote]

The people who control the media, ultimately, are the same people who run the underground pedophile networks that use kidnapped children to create child porn (and siphon off energy for their 4D STS controllers.) Also the same people who would like nothing more than to shut down the internet. It's a little hard for me to believe that the hysteria over child pornography is being whipped up because the PTB are truly concerned about the welfare of all the missing and abused moppets, so I tend towards the hypothesis that there's a hidden agenda, in this case providing a convenient excuse to push through restrictive net speech laws and put in place filtering software ... not because they hate the internet, per se, but because now that virtually the entire public discourse has migrated online, shutting it down would - at least temporarily - have a huge chilling effect on free speech.

Do you really believe that child pornography networks do not exist and are just an invention of "the media"?

No.

If so, what kind of data do you base that on? While I know that there are probably plenty of government types who use them as "an excuse to push for laws that will place limits on the internet", there is nonetheless overwhelming evidence that such networks do exist on a very large-scale international level and do considerable harm. There are many very decent people who work in law enforcement, and have to deal with the very stressful reality of child pornography on the web, and wish they didn't have to. I talked to a couple of people who work in that area when doing background research for a book I edited, and it's not pretty; they have a lot of trouble sleeping at night because of what they have to deal with.

Coincidentally enough I was (completely unrelated to this) reading some truly sickening stuff from Dave McGowan on this very subject just the other day.

I wasn't at all trying to be dismissive of the child pornography problem (or as McGowan puts it, the pedophocracy.) My comment was unnecessarily flippant, yes, partially because I'm used to people who are otherwise able to think having their brains shut down at the very mention of 'child porn'. I am well aware of the mountains of evidence for underground child molestation networks, insofar as I can stomach reading about them ... my stomach heaves when I read the details, and that tends to keep me from reading as much as I do about other subjects, such as Iraq or the economy. What sickens me even more, however, is that the same monsters that perpetrate these acts, will then use them as an excuse to muzzle everyone else ... whilst continuing unimpeded in their disgusting habits.

 

[PepperFritz]

My comment was unnecessarily flippant, yes, partially I'm used to people who are otherwise able to think having their brains shut down at the very mention of 'child porn'....

It's interesting that you accuse others of responding without thinking "at the very mention of child porn", since that is exactly what you yourself did at the passing reference to "child porn" contained in my previous post.

I have observed that you frequently either ignore or barely touch upon the subject/content of the post you are responding to, and instead become instantly fixated on the most peripheral mention of a subject that you have strong views about -- from which you then proceed to launch into almost entirely unrelated commentary on that subject. There is an unthinking, mechanical quality to this behaviour, as though you have made the same speeches over and over again, and do not stop to think about whether they are relevant or appropriate to the subject/issue being discussed, and/or the person you are addressing. There is no attempt to be "externally considerate" to the actual individual you are responding to, nor to stay on point and address the actual subject at hand; you seem to assume that EVERYONE has failed think about things you have, and to the degree you have, and needs to be set straight. You don't so much talk WITH other posters, as talk AT them.

Perhaps you could respond to this issue of your mechanical responses (raised in this post, and also in my previous post) and lack of external consideration, WITHOUT side-stepping into yet another monologue on an unrelated issue?

 

[Adaryn]

That's why I think they might not care about downloads as much as they want us to believe, they are quite happy if you keep swallowing the same dose of propaganda either way.

It's more about control and power (and making money out of it of course.).
They cannot control all the information on the internet, hence the need to criminalize it for our safety and to keep the economy (the one that is swallowing itself raw) going...
You might risk to download something that might open your mind a bit too much for them osit.

Exactly. And this point explains the recent copyright law enacted by the French government. Now if an Internet user infringes copyrights he can be banned from the Internet (forbiding to open/have an Internet connection from a provider).

Users' association proposed more progressive measures like fines but this proposition was rejected.

Thus the PTB now have the power to choose who will be allowed to have access to the Internet. That's quite a convenient way to prevent some specific people from publishing and/or reading "touchy" material.

If their interest was really the copyright issues and fairness for artists, there are plenty of solutions for that, like the global license, for example. The fact they refuse to consider it shows that their real concern has nothing to do with copyright issues and all to do with the suppression of liberties.

 

[Tigersoap]

I am following the progress of the Hadopi law in France, and this article is quite interesting because it destroys the credibility of the recent news that "Illegal downloading will put 10.000 persons out of a job for 2012" and that all file sharer should go to jail forver.


It is a bit long and in French only :
_http://fr.readwriteweb.com/2008/11/18/a-la-une/rapport-hadopi/

I tried to make an English summary for English readers (pardon any mistakes) :

The Hadopi law will help the industry to curb illegal sharing by cutting off the internet connection of people who illegaly share on the internet by looking up at their ip addresses (Even if your ip got hijacked you’ll have to rpove your innocence.).
As no objective FACTS have been advanced by the industry that illegal sharing is indeed reducing their economic inflow, a report has been made by two "independant" agencies Equancy and Tera to provide numbers and hard facts.

The result : 10.000 persons will lose their job until 2012 and illegal sharing wreak havoc in business models and destroys the economic model of themusic,movies and so on.

The Hadopi rapport has been scrutinized by a blogger (Fabrice Epelboin) and it reveals that many actors behind the rapport have great interests in pushing this new law, that the numbers used to calculate the loss of illegal sharing (1.2 billions of Euros lost) and the loss of numerous jobs does not hold water.

For example :

- The Hadopi report mentions the lack of studies made in France on the impact of file sharing. Wrong : They excluded the many papers written in English by French Scientists.

- The Hadopi report take his facts of file sharing from an old paper made by the music industry themselves without taking into account the new medias such as mobile phone ring tones, video games, cd/dvd taxes, second-hands trade and so on.

Conclusion : The author of the article looked at many papers about file sharing from a French economist named Patrick Waelbroeck (who hasn’t been asked to participate on the Hadopi report), who in his many scientific papers on the subject found hardly much evidence to substantiate the claims of the music, movies and such industries.

On the contrary, his papers have shown the positive side of file-sharing :

_http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1144313
_http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=829544
_http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=652743

In English (from a linked source of the article)

Felix Oberholzer-Gee interview from Harvard University about the Positive side of file-sharing :

_http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html


So in conclusion, I find it hardly believable to advance any kind fo file sharing as purely STS behavior, this more a mix and match with many shades of grey.

(If too much off topic, please remove my post.)

 

[PepperFritz]

Felix Oberholzer-Gee interview from Harvard University about the Positive side of file-sharing :
_http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4206.html

So in conclusion, I find it hardly believable to advance any kind fo file sharing as purely STS behavior, this more a mix and match with many shades of grey.

First of all, we're all STS in nature, so everything we do is "STS behaviour", since we're not capable of true "STO behaviour". However, let's assume you meant to say that, based on the conclusions of the article/study you linked above, that you believe some file-sharing leans more towards STO behaviour than STS behaviour. So, just to be clear, when I use the term "STO" hereafter, I will be meaning "STO-leaning".

The article/study concludes that

Internet music piracy not only doesn't hurt legitimate CD sales, it may even boost sales of some types of music.... The researchers believe that most downloading is done over peer-to-peer networks by teens and college kids, groups that are "money-poor but time-rich," meaning they wouldn't have bought the songs they downloaded. In that sense, the music industry can't claim those downloads as lost record sales. In fact, illegal downloading may help the industry slightly with another major segment, which Oberholzer and Strumpf call "samplers"—an older crowd who downloads a song or two and then, if they like what they hear, go out and buy the music.

Let's assume the 2002 study's conclusion is accurate and still relevant to today's music market. It is not the END RESULT of an individual's actions that determines whether their behaviour is STO, it is their INTENT and MOTIVATION. One could provide many examples of purely selfish behaviour that inadvertently results in both "positive" and "negative" consequences. In the end, those who take copyrighted material free of charge from the internet without the permission of the artist are doing so primarily to benefit themselves and their fellow "file-sharers", not in order to benefit the artist. So if a downloader tries to justify his behaviour by deeming it "STO behaviour", he is deluding and lying to himself.

I also have to question the argument that since a "money-poor" college kid would never be able to afford to buy from a record store the music he downloads, and that his actions therefore do not affect CD sales, that it is any less a theft of the property of another. The same argument could be made about a "money-poor" college kid who shoplifts CDs from a record store.

I'm sure there are tons of legitimate arguments to be made as to why music copyright infringement via the internet should not be viewed as harmful to the music industry and to music artists (although those arguments would not apply to the copyright infringement of written works, the original subject of this thread). It is not my intent to refute or debate those arguments. It is simply my intent to refute the idea that such infringements can be justified by viewing them as "STO behaviour" on the part of the individuals doing the downloading -- which, clearly, they are not.

 

[psychegram]

My comment was unnecessarily flippant, yes, partially I'm used to people who are otherwise able to think having their brains shut down at the very mention of 'child porn'....

It's interesting that you accuse others of responding without thinking "at the very mention of child porn", since that is exactly what you yourself did at the passing reference to "child porn" contained in my previous post.

I have observed that you frequently either ignore or barely touch upon the subject/content of the post you are responding to, and instead become instantly fixated on the most peripheral mention of a subject that you have strong views about -- from which you then proceed to launch into almost entirely unrelated commentary on that subject. There is an unthinking, mechanical quality to this behaviour, as though you have made the same speeches over and over again, and do not stop to think about whether they are relevant or appropriate to the subject/issue being discussed, and/or the person you are addressing. There is no attempt to be "externally considerate" to the actual individual you are responding to, nor to stay on point and address the actual subject at hand; you seem to assume that EVERYONE has failed think about things you have, and to the degree you have, and needs to be set straight. You don't so much talk WITH other posters, as talk AT them.

Perhaps you could respond to this issue of your mechanical responses (raised in this post, and also in my previous post) and lack of external consideration, WITHOUT side-stepping into yet another monologue on an unrelated issue?

In the post in question, your passing reference elicited nothing more than a passing reference from me. I didn't go into any detail until you did. The focus of the post - in keeping with the focus of the thread - was on file-sharing. I'll also point out that, in the post that launched this whole sidetrack, I quoted you a few times, and responded to each quote as well as I was able; whereas your own rant was in response to a single toss-off comment. So, you might - just a little - want to consider if you're engaging in projection, yourself.

All that said, your criticism of my posts as being 'mechanical', and of my tendency to talk 'at' rather than 'with' people, is noted and accepted. This is certainly a failing of mine, which I'm well aware of and am working to change. So, thank you for showing me a mirror; it's why I'm here, after all.

 

[PepperFritz]

In the post in question, your passing reference elicited nothing more than a passing reference from me.... The focus of the post - in keeping with the focus of the thread - was on file-sharing.

Yes, it was a "passing reference", but one that was so jarringly disconnected from the sentence it was in response to and so incomprehensible, that it prompted a request for clarification. Are you suggesting that one should only ask for clarification of the meaning of someone's response if it is lengthy? Usually the shorter and more "offhand" the remark, the more clarification is needed in order to prevent misunderstanding.

I didn't go into any detail until you did.

But I did not ask you to provide your detailed views about child pornography and the media. I asked you to explain the connection that your comment had to the sentence of mine it was in response to. You did not provide such an explanation, and still have not. I can only conclude that you are not able to, and that my observation of it being an unthinking, mechanical response is in fact accurate.

I'll also point out that, in the post that launched this whole sidetrack, I quoted you a few times, and responded to each quote as well as I was able.

You replied only peripherally, and side-stepped the main issue that I raised re the mechanical nature of your response -- hence the need for me to restate that issue.

the focus of whereas your own rant was in response to a single toss-off comment.

Which post and/or portion of my post(s) do you consider a "rant", and why do you characterize it as such?

So, you might - just a little - want to consider if you're engaging in projection, yourself.

Sorry, I don't understand. Projection of what, onto who and/or what? Also, I am not aware of having characterized any aspect of your posts as "projection". Can you please point out where I did so?

All that said, your criticism of my posts as being 'mechanical', and of my tendency to talk 'at' rather than 'with' people, is noted and accepted. This is certainly a failing of mine, which I'm well aware of and am working to change. So, thank you for showing me a mirror; it's why I'm here, after all.

Thank you for that response. :)

 

[psychegram]

But I did not ask you to provide your detailed views about child pornography and the media. I asked you to explain the connection that your comment had to the sentence of mine it was in response to. You did not provide such an explanation, and still have not. I can only conclude that you are not able to, and that my observation of it being an unthinking, mechanical response is in fact accurate.

You're right, I didn't. The truth is I was making a bad joke in poor taste and without really thinking.

I would write a longer post right now, but I just found out my father's leukemia came back, and this suddenly seems much less important.

Sorry, that was totally off topic.