100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: ugly classism | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Knowledge, wisdom and information is a great gift indeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sun 11/17/13 07:43 AM
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day. When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts. I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum. My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poverty of the mind is the simple cause of poverty
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who we really are.....
One has to understand that the search for reality, or God, or Guru and the search for the self are the same; when one is found, all are found. When 'I am' and 'God is' become in your mind indistinguishable, then something will happen and you will know without a trace of doubt that God is because you are, you are because God is. The two are one. ~Nisargadatta Maharaj |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Sun 11/17/13 08:13 AM
|
|
Who we really are..... One has to understand that the search for reality, or God, or Guru and the search for the self are the same; when one is found, all are found. When 'I am' and 'God is' become in your mind indistinguishable, then something will happen and you will know without a trace of doubt that God is because you are, you are because God is. The two are one. ~Nisargadatta Maharaj BINGO!!...You win the kewpie doll! Everybody makes a trinity of mind, body and soul. a mature and wise mind can be considered the "Father" of the man (Son) and the loving and empathic heart makes a great "Holy Ghost" eh? Submitted for your consideration: Those who have not yet grown up are called "Children of God"... so what does the child who grows up become?...either a man, or a God, or Both (in a Holy Trinity). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who we really are..... One has to understand that the search for reality, or God, or Guru and the search for the self are the same; when one is found, all are found. When 'I am' and 'God is' become in your mind indistinguishable, then something will happen and you will know without a trace of doubt that God is because you are, you are because God is. The two are one. ~Nisargadatta Maharaj BINGO!!...You win the kewpie doll! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day. When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts. I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum. My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy. Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day. When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts. I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum. My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy. Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... I don't think it cost anyone to get their free opinion, so I don't see how it was at anyone's expense. As far as what Jesus would think, I think he'd be pleased that someone else was trying to teach a moral lesson about the things people should really value and how we should all feel (and act on) our empathic duty to care for others who are less fortunate than ourselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day. When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts. I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum. My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy. Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... I don't think it cost anyone to get their free opinion, so I don't see how it was at anyone's expense. As far as what Jesus would think, I think he'd be pleased that someone else was trying to teach a moral lesson about the things people should really value and how we should all feel (and act on) our empathic duty to care for others who are less fortunate than ourselves. How nice, but you are way  Duck...When I want a lesson, I'll enroll in college...When I want a sermon, I'll attend church...If you want to teach, teach...This is a particular area of a public forum that has been designated to debate and discussion about politics and current events, not moral fiber and religion...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day. When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts. I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum. My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy. Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... I don't think it cost anyone to get their free opinion, so I don't see how it was at anyone's expense. As far as what Jesus would think, I think he'd be pleased that someone else was trying to teach a moral lesson about the things people should really value and how we should all feel (and act on) our empathic duty to care for others who are less fortunate than ourselves. How nice, but you are way Duck...When I want a lesson, I'll enroll in college...When I want a sermon, I'll attend church...If you want to teach, teach...This is a particular area of a public forum that has been designated to debate and discussion about politics and current events, not moral fiber and religion... The topic of the thread is poor people and what serves to motivate/demotivate them (i.e. what makes them poor and can they get out of poverty) in the context of the society in which they live. This strikes to the heart of the values generally held by that society, so the moral lesson in my posts is entirely pertinent to the thread and not really off-topic at all. The lesson wasn't specifically for you (so don't take it personally); it was for everyone, and it WAS a discussion that included current events (the tragedy of poverty in a wealthy nation) and it WAS "political" in that it was sly, cunning and deceptive (such is the nature of politics). The moral story was therefore relevant to the discussion, and aside from one allusion to a book of scripture (for its moral value), was not in the least "religious" (I made no suggestion that a man named Jesus ever really existed beyond the stories, and those stories may only be a mythical morality tale that I find most scripture to be.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/17/13 09:35 AM
|
|
Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... The Bible has been telling stories to make a point for thousands of years... none of them are true either. and Jesus, if he is a real person, doesn't think anymore, he died a long time ago. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 11/17/13 09:39 AM
|
|
But the main reason I suspected the story was not true is that it did not seem true. Too many things did not add up.
Plus, I have seen massive goodness, compassioin and generosity in people when it comes to helping others. I'm glad my Bull chit meter is still working. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But the main reason I suspected the story was not true is that it did not seem true. Too many things did not add up. Plus, I have seen massive goodness, compassioin and generosity in people when it comes to helping others. I'm glad my Bull chit meter is still working. Thanks. Working like a charm, which is good...If I can't fool ya, nobody can.  I should say that it's not in my nature to lie, so if I do, I'll always come clean about it in the end. I really don't like conning people the way governments & banksters do. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... Jesus, if he is a real person, doesn't think anymore, he died a long time ago. Tell it to the Duck...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... Jesus, if he is a real person, doesn't think anymore, he died a long time ago. Tell it to the Duck... The duck already knows...! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After he got laid off, he wouldn't beg for unemployment, pension, or welfare. He tried to beg for his family's sake, but was told if they needed money they would have to "apply" themselves. Consequently, it was costing his family money to pay for the food he ate, so they kicked him out of the house he originally bought for them (He had long ago transferred title to his wife). This story sounds like it has another side to it. I would wonder if his family really did "kick him out" so they would not have to feed him. If he got laid off and had a family, he should have gotten unemployment for their sake. That is what it is for. One does not "beg" for unemployment. You just sign up for it. Of course Canada might be different from U.S. If Welfare told him that his family would have to apply themselves, then why didn't they apply? They are a family and normally a family applies TOGETHER. Perhaps he was not legally married to them... Anyway, its a sad story, but it just does not sound right. Oh well. He was lawfully married and still is. His family couldn't apply for welfare because they made too much money to qualify. In technical terms, his wife (according to the wedding vows) was REQUIRED to support him (in sickness & in health, etc.) but she didn't like him any more, wanted a divorce and wanted him out, so rather than fight his own family over the issue (they were all starting to hate him for not "pulling up his own socks" and getting a job. (he was still trying to at the time, but not having much luck) Of course, after he left, he determined to not bother looking for a paying job and to conduct his "social experiment." In Canada, there are NO claim forms for people, only for corporations that employ people. A human being has to fill in an application form. An application form is an ASKING (pleading, entreating, begging) for something. His position was that no one should have to beg or ask for anything that is theirs by right; doing so gives COMPLETE control of the contract to the "askee." Since he considered himself an honourable man who would never beg for anything (especially from an uncaring government holding his property in "trust"), he could not bring himself to beg on his own behalf, and was quite disappointed that nobody in his family bothered to beg for him, as he would happily do (as he TRIED) to do for them. As I said before, he was a very intelligent man who knew all this stuff, and could probably claim whatever he needed or wanted from government, but it was his position that getting your human rights shouldn't be a matter of an "IQ test" in law. How many people would even know where to begin? Since you don't seem to have any reservations about sharing the details of this man's life, care to share with us exactly how (and how much) you "helped him out" ...I'm curious... I used to give him some food and cigarettes, and ask him quaestions, simply because I was curious about how such an intelligent man had fallen to such an apparently low estate. He'd tell me all I needed to know about the "system" and how it works. He gave his knowledge freely and would have given it to anyone who asked. Apparently I was the only one who ever bothered to ask, and in the process of questioning him, I learned a great deal about the law and how the commercial system works. He reminded me of a professor I knew that I used to drink with many years ago at the university. Bertrand Russell had always been one of my idols and it turned out in the course of our beer-laden talks in the university pub, that when my prof was a young man, he stayed with Russell while studying in England. I never would have known this if the "scruffy" old prof and I hadn't gotten into a discussion about the book "Godel, Escher, and Bach" and started talking about Russell. I Idolized that very "oddball" old prof that the other students used to laugh at because of his unorthodox ways. I used to chortle to myself "If they only knew." They never did of course, because like this other guy, I seemed to be the only one that ever bothered to talk to him, or wanted to. I learned a world of knowledge from him, and I learned things about Russell that probably nobody else knows, to the extent that I felt like I'd known him (at least a little bit) myself. I used to see the old prof perched on a post in the parking lot reading a book, and knew he'd been there for hours doing that. One day I didn't see him anymore, and found out later that he fell over on his bicycle, bashed his head on a curb in the parking lot and died. To say I grieved his loss would be an understatement, but I felt honoured to have known him at all. I also felt sorry for everyone who didn't know him as I did. I feel the same for this other man, who taught me so much about the law. Once again, a wealth of knowledge coming from what appeared on the surface to be such an unlikely source. It only drives home the lesson that we should never judge a book by it's cover. Hummm, interesting stories...The professor is dead, nothing you can do there...I have to wonder though, don't you think, in view of the high esteem you hold for your friend, you should be moving heaven and earth to find out where he is, and if it's not already to late, instead of spending your energy talking about him to strangers, try to do something to ensure his well being?...Possibly even help facilitate his re-entry into society?... Beyond making the appropriate inquiries (which I've done) and looking for him on his "stomping grounds", there isn't much more I can do. since there doesn't appear to be a record of his dying, I can only assume he moved on to greener pastures. Maybe he thought He'd told me all I needed to know and that I was hindering him in his sacred work of saving souls from the society he rejected. I don't think anyone stands a chance of reintegrating him into the society he rejected, as his work seemed to consist of recruiting people into his non-commercial society that he called "the people who know who they really are." (whatever that means) About all I can do at this point is thank him quietly and wish him well...wherever he is. Yes, thank him quietly and carry on....What caught my attention when you started this whole story was the arrogant and condescending "flavor" of your introduction of this man and his story to certain people who, at the time, were posting in a way that you did not necessarily agree with or approve of...If that is/was the case, it would make you one hell of a big hypocrite in my book.... Actually, I lied quite a bit in these posts. It was a little experiment I was conducting. I was wondering how Jesus Christ would be received by modern society if he ever came back incognito in advance of his predicted second appearance to judge souls before pronouncing the sentences on Judgment Day. When I was young, I knew a guy who did a paper on what would happen if the Christ turned up today. His thesis was that he would be locked up for insanity, so he wouldn't upset the commercial moneylender's applecart (again...they crucified him for it last time). Since his inherent goodness, knowledge of law and his ability to speak it would have made him invulnerable to anything they could possibly throw at him in a courtroom, the apparently insane disdain for the Whore of Babylon's "wine" (money) would have been the only thing they could use against him that would make the vast brainwashed masses believe He was nuts. I always wanted to test my friend's thesis out to see if he was correct. It appears he was, except that this time around, Christ would have been too smart to get mad & kick over the tables at the Temple (once burned, twice shy), and probably smart enough to not talk to masses of people (which got him hated by the orthodoxy of the day), so he probably would avoid even being locked up for insanity by "moving on" from time to time, before his "helpers" in officialdom could shut him up with a chemical straitjacket in an asylum. My mentioning "I walked among ye, yet ye knew me not." (a paraphrasing of John 1:10) in my first post should have been the tipoff, but it appears no one picked up on it. Sorry I ran a bit of a game on you all. If it's any consolation, my story about the professor was 100% true, and decades later, I still miss the guy. Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... I don't think it cost anyone to get their free opinion, so I don't see how it was at anyone's expense. As far as what Jesus would think, I think he'd be pleased that someone else was trying to teach a moral lesson about the things people should really value and how we should all feel (and act on) our empathic duty to care for others who are less fortunate than ourselves. How nice, but you are way Duck...When I want a lesson, I'll enroll in college...When I want a sermon, I'll attend church...If you want to teach, teach...This is a particular area of a public forum that has been designated to debate and discussion about politics and current events, not moral fiber and religion... The topic of the thread is poor people and what serves to motivate/demotivate them (i.e. what makes them poor and can they get out of poverty) in the context of the society in which they live. This strikes to the heart of the values generally held by that society, so the moral lesson in my posts is entirely pertinent to the thread and not really off-topic at all. The lesson wasn't specifically for you (so don't take it personally); it was for everyone, and it WAS a discussion that included current events (the tragedy of poverty in a wealthy nation) and it WAS "political" in that it was sly, cunning and deceptive (such is the nature of politics). The moral story was therefore relevant to the discussion, and aside from one allusion to a book of scripture (for its moral value), was not in the least "religious" (I made no suggestion that a man named Jesus ever really existed beyond the stories, and those stories may only be a mythical morality tale that I find most scripture to be.) But I thought your objective WAS for people (in general) to take it personally .... Make up you mind Ollie... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Sun 11/17/13 10:30 AM
|
|
Oh I see, just a little experiment at the expense of others with whom you pretend to be having a nice friendly conversation...Right now I am asking myself what Jesus Christ would think of your lame attempt at discovery through the use of deception..Your first post was a tipoff WAY BEFORE you quoted the New Testament ... Jesus, if he is a real person, doesn't think anymore, he died a long time ago. Tell it to the Duck... The duck already knows...! Don't bet the farm JB... |
|
|
|
|
