Probably on some democrat's payroll. "Post all kinds of propoganda on
websites to get people to hate republicans". Gets like 25 per site he
posts this stuff, (that is written by some propoganda team somewhere).


I'm in the freelance writing biz, and you see stuff like that. Usually
it's done by big companies hoping to "subtly" advertise, by paying
people to blog positively whatever they're trying to sell. I don't see
why politics wouldn't use the method, too.

I love politics. "If you can't beat 'em, smear their names until you
can". Oh well, another annoying attack with no real substance.


No doubt, they'll investigate, and if anything substantial shows up,
the democrats will exploit it to the hilt.

The only one of those you can fairly blame on Bush is the Katrina
disaster. That was a pathetic disaster responce, no denying that.

9/11 was too soon to blame on Bush. Or anyone. We got caught with our
pants down. The "changing of the guard" period between administrations
is a blind point. Plus, it wouldn't have mattered if it were Clinton or
Bush, they still would have succeded.

Clinton did nothing about the Cole bombing.

Clinton did nothing about 3 seperate embassy bombings.

Clinton didn't investigate the connections between McVey and organized
terrorism.

Clinton cut our military budget apart.

Clinton cut our defence budget.

Clinton crippled our investigative forces, like the FBI and CIA.


Enough said.

You could also look at it as a method to "protect" us from the deluge
of data. And it a deluge. Our eyes alone absorb and transmit more
information than we can actually truly calculate. We make our "best
guesses" in the billions of pixels per second worth. AND unlike a
computer, which only has to process a pixel once, until it changes- we
CONSTANTLY process to each and every one. And some scientists believe
our sence of smell gives us even more information. To say nothing of
touch and hearing.


Look at autistic, idiot/savant, or other "specialized gifted"
individuals in the world. Arguably, they absorb and process more data,
faster, than the rest of us.


Our "animal" self is a barrier because our higher functioning mind
can't operate like that. After all, said animal part can sumarily
process in nice, messy swabs of information- happily throwing out scores
of processes and doing them with "habits" and muscle memory.


To give you a good idea- try walking. Without using instinct. Pay
close, focused attention to each muscle movement, and try to walk.
Answer is- you can't. If you do it "right", it will be impossible to
walk. Our frontal brain simply can't process that much information at
one time.


Fortunately, we don't have to. Our animal selves can do it for us.
While our higher brain handles stuff like communication and planning. It
isn't that it doesn't process data with about the same efficiency. It's
that it has to be *VERY* fine-tuned. An industrial laser is more
advanced than a nuke- and can do more damage to a singular object- it
just isn't meant to handle vast things all at once. Of course, we HAVE
our animal brains, too- so we get the best of both worlds. Fine-tuned
control and "intuitive" rapid responce.


It's amazing how complicated our design is.

Yep. I like people here, for the most part.

You know, it doesn't always have to be like that. Many people can
engage a form of "pure" thought. That lacks visual or audible
imaginations. Stick 'em in a CAT scan and they're capable of answering,
with accuracy, without using the front part of their brain at all. It's
a great memory tool- you learn something in that state and it'll stick
forever.


And so what if we're "meaning making" machines. The very fact that we
understand the CONCEPT of meaning puts us in a whole other league,
compared to most other creatures. Although most primate brains are built
just like ours- less developed, but still very real. Any monkey, and
most other mammals, have the same design. Especially the confirmed
language-users. Like gorillas, chimps, dolphins, whales, and elephants.


So this "meaning making" machinery isn't unique to us. We're just the
most talented users of it.

Actually, "drug" is an acceptable tense. It's rather archaic, but it's
still considered a viable word in modern english for the context it was
used in.

And yet, once again, you dismiss valid questions. Come on, abra, I've
asked repeatedly- how would wings evolve? Don't give large vagueries.

Give specific points as to how nonfunctional biological features, which
by all evidence in modern observation tend to atropy and eventually
vanish. Might instead grow larger?


Consider this an attempt to educate people. Because I've been looking
for an answer to that question since highschool. There may very well be
a good natural explanation- no one's given it, to my knowlege.

Hell, even Darwin himself acknowleged "irreducibly complex" systems.
Aka- things that could not evolve, because if you take away one thing
from them, they are useless. Examples include eyes, ears, and the
circulatory system.

A direct, confirmable quote from Darwin himself- go ahead, look around.

"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for
adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different
amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic
aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely
confess, absurd in the highest degree."

What's fun is how that gap supposedly causes deja-vu. Where we recieve
the information partially out of order and it makes us feel weird.

It might be more accurate to compare it to the internet access- our
perception of the world around us, of course, being the internet.
Recieve, interpret, compute, respond, transmit, interact. But yes, that
sounds like what I've come to understand.

I still don't get what, exactly, this has to do with our relative
superiority, or lack thereof.

I don't start this crap. I just don't back down.

Wow. Beautiful. Flawless. Nothing can be said to add to this.

Q. Why are blonde jokes always so short?

A. So men can remember them


(I hang around way too many lesbians, people)

Yeah, sorry, that one was pretty weak. Better luck next time.

And I've said repeatedly, that other than a few points in the beginning
(which really, only you've tried to challenge on any level)- I haven't
been using my spiritual beliefs at all.

I said my *spiritual* views were faith based. As yours are. That's part
of the definitional function of the spiritual world- we lack enough
information to draw any conclusions with scientific accuracy.


But my *pragmatic* views are, well, pragmatism. No more or less
"biased" than my opinion that being able to do things better, easier, or
faster makes something "superior" to a less capable model or design. If
you produced a car that was cheaper, more durable, safer and/or better
fuel efficiency- but was otherwise identical in every way to another
car. Your design would be the superior one.

I did it via the email, out of respect for everyone else- because I've
let us drag this on in public for way too long.

I don't believe you for a second, but if you wish.