New Mars Forums

Yes I understand that the failure to acquire a Higher Education (and the personal economic security it affords), at some point it is "too late".

I read somewhere on this forum about how someone said the the Republicans are going about methodically dismanteling every "safety net" that protects the lower class from destitution, and as soon I as I read it I completely agreed.  It summed up a wide variety of concerns and observations that had been accumulating for years.

My previous point was, if the Republicans take everything else, but put in place the opportunity for the economically disadvanteaged to gain access to Higher Education, most of what they have done to the "old system" could be mitigated, and in some ways improved.

I really DON'T know the history of Iran, but am interested.

Never mentioned the idea of "war" in the formal sense, nor did I think the occupation of Iran would be easy or even desirable.  In fact, I think I read somewhere here on this forum the difference in geographical area between Iran & Iraq.

My point was simply that it is not just the US and Israel that has an interest in preventing Iran from acquiring Nuclear Weapons; their Arab "brethren" have an equal or greater interest than we do, as they are on the Nuclear front lines.

I appreciate Lao Tsu, paraphrased.  Seems to me that it might be possible to "unlearn" some of the cultural animosity with a few decades of a stable & peaceful democracy next door.  But I don't think the rest of the planet should trust Iran to acquire Nuclear Capability only because WMD was used on them in the past.

It is my understanding that the Iranians are isolated in a wide variety of levels, as is Korea.

I think the long-term strategy here is to keep the threat of a nuclear holocaust suppressed long enough for the homogenizing influence of mass-media communications to moderate and temper these extreme states.

When the Iranian Morality Police are spending and inordinate amount of their resources prosecuting members of the Iranian middle and upper class for downloading porn on the Internet, they will be forced to re-evaluate their cultural (and national) priorities.

I don't mind the sword-rattling and the penis-waving so much, but I still think that the issue with regard to societies reaction to crime has to be one of proportion.

One problem I have with the discussion/debate is that the most rabid participants are crime victims.  Understandable.  But the problem is that they don't speak on behalf of all crime victims, only for themselves and those that also participate.

Most crime doesn't even get reported.  Most criminals get away with what they do almost all the time.   Only the most extreme and lurid examples of crime are being discussed, and the debate is being driven by the angry minority.

The end result is that the whole discussions spirals endlessly, and to no constructive purpose.

I like alternatives to crime, such as requiring pregnant drug addicts to have abortions and/or sterilization in order to qualify for reduced sentences.

I like that Sherrif in Arizona that puts petty criminals in a tent camp surrounded by barbed wire out in the desert, and feeds them baloney and water.

I also like "COPS" (and similar) TV shows, and think they should be broadcast in Public Schools so as to prevent any delusional ideas among young people from "taking seed" as to how much sympathy the "underprivleged" deserve.  Furthermore, I think the timelines of the featured criminals should be required study and a pre-requisite for graduation.

I think that, for the most part, most crime comes about as an indirect result of illegal narcotics trade, and would support mandatory and fast-tracked executions for anyone caught with more than a certain amount.  This would also include assasinating the inhabitants of foreign countries, and their leaders.

I think that the gangs that traffic in narcotics here in the United States should be immediately classified as "Terrorist Organizations" than become subject to whatever Law Enforement options that would entail, to include imprisonment with limited constitutional protections.

I think that it should be a Capitol Crime (meaning punishable by death) for any governmental official or employee (to include the dog catcher and the garbage man) to participate in the drug trade.

I think the Matrix. It echos something that I feel like I have always known, ever since I understood the concept of "infinity" as it applies to time.

In an infinate universe with infinate time, EVERTHING is a statistical certainty.

Lately I've been watching more of the Matrix than I even choose to.  (Frequently it's the only thing on.)

To the point that it bothers me about how much didn't get mentioned in the movie(s) that COULD have.

Such as the possiblity that the human race could have volunteered to become incorporated.

The idea that the machines wanted the human race as a "battery" was WEAK, and a rather stupid pretext to put in an ad for Duracell.

With thousands of years of human development being oriented toward immortality, and current advances in artificial intelligence and data storage being what they are, it is obvious to me that the end-point of this trend is the ability to permanently store the data "identity" of every human being for all eternity.

And if you can do that, you can also create an electronic environment in which to allow it to "execute".

So why so nefarious and simple-minded a "plot"?  You "wake" each human every thousand years or so and ask them not only whether they would like to be "real" or not, but also what kind of "illusory" existance they would like to have for the next thousand years or so.

So the whole "Heaven & Hell" concept gets fleshed out a bit.

Do what you are supposed to do for a period of time (say a lifetime or 20, it doesn't matter) and you get to spend the next hundred thousand years romping around in bed with the playmate(s) of your choice.

There's an eternity in which to experience everything, so a few thousand years here and there means nothing.

So yeah, the Matrix for sure.  Best Scene was when Neo meets (what's he called...) "The Architect", I guess.

I think about alternative timelines about this scene.  How about The Architect reveals that the WHOLE POINT had been to "grow" (or identify) his "replacement"?

On the list of things for me to do lately is to re-play the part where the Oracle is talking to Neo in the Basketball Courts; where she says something like "I just LOVE candy".

That scene kind of flashed by me the other day and it occured to me that she was eating some candy at the time.  And it was red or blue, I can't remember.

So I'd like to find out which and what the color might mean.

Also, I noticed the part where the black couple are talking in Zion (he was like the Pilot guy or something).  Anyways, I always tuned out during their conversation, but last time I saw the movie, I noticed that his wife's/girlfriend's hair was done in cornrows.  Noticed that the cornrows had been pulled back so that the hairline looked just like the outline of a marijuana leaf.  So now I wonder what these two are talking about.

Yeah, I guess that's my "favorite" sci-fi movie.  But I like a LOT of them.  Was "Bladerunner" the one where the guy goes around killing "replicants" ?  That really was a great movie.

Also "Rollerball" was a great flick to show the potential power of corporate TV.  Sort of like "Max Headroom", which was also great but I'll always believe that it was cancelled due to Corporate pressure. Old Star was great, but Next Gen fans are idiots and should be ashamed.  I liked Eddie Murphy's take on Kirk always f**** the "Green B****".

Kirk had his priorities straight.  I woulda done Spock's babe in a Vulcan half-second.  (Note to Trekkies: If Vulcans don't measure their time in "seconds", keep it to yourself. 1.  Because I don't care.  2.  Because I want to NOT know and 3.  Because I always try to avoid true freaks and weirdos.)

The "Butterfly Effect" was downright stupid and insulting, and easily wins my Worst Sci-Fi Movie in the last decade.  After the first 30 minutes, I loudly and openly ridiculed the movie in the theater, and threw verbal jabs at anyone that "shushed" me.  A movie so bad that I secretly hope for and wait to read in USA Today how anyone connected to that movie comes to some harm or other.  (The only possible redemption for that movie.)

Well, if the "Philosopher" was also "King", it really wouldn't matter what all the arguing was about, would it ?  Seems to me that Cisero kind of missed the whole definition of the word "King".

Now, George Bush is not a King.  Nor is he a philosopher.  But he does have significant power over America's future space endeavors, as well as America's military endeavors.

Lacking the education and inspirational insight of a philosopher, he has used his king-like powers to invade a foreign country.

Most inhabitants of non-democratic countries fail to see political events in terms of their "inter-relatedness'.  The uneducated young and the mentally retarded also have this condition.

However I assert that, by virtue of America's Democratic nature, the connection between Space Exploration and any other National Endeavor (such as the invasion of Iraq OR Mexico) ARE related.

As an American Citizen, they are related because I say they are.  It's an amazing and wonderful thing to be an American, but it's difficult to truly appreciate exactly how wonderful it is until one encounters the feeble-minded "thinking" from feeble- minded souls from inferior countries and cultures.

Certainly, this is one "positive" I have gained thus far from my experiences here.

This thread was titled to mean exactly what I meant it to mean.  "Uh, I thought ..."'s subject is "me", and what I "thought" about our future hopes of exploring Mars by a manned misssion.  To a certain extent, this question has been answered insofar as I have been "set straight" about what other people think Bush's Space Exploration Policy was and is.

But I still think it is within the parameters of the topic to discuss WHY it might be that Bush and his administration created the impression that the goal of landing a manned mission on the surface of Mars was something that was really going to happen.

The notion of "Weapons of Mass Distraction" is already well-accepted by most people.  I merely assert that the "Mars announcement" was a variation on the same theme.

The point has already been made that (Bush in particular) cannot be held responsible for what I (or anyone else) THOUGHT he said, which I chose to ignore.  But now is a good time to ridicule that notion.  Imagine, a politician that has a population that refuses to hold him accountable for what they THOUGHT he said.

Ha HA HA !  That universe would be called "Policial Heaven".  Imagine trying to hold the politician accountable, and he points to the fine print of the disclaimer of his Political Ad.  And they accept it and go away.

Ha HA!

Of course politicians are held accountable for what we (and/or I) think they say.  The ability to to create these kinds of illusions are the very reason why they are what they are, instead of serving 44 oz. Slurpees at the Neighborhood Diamond Shamrock.

So my point is:  George Bush created this illusion, I believed it and now I discover it was a lie.

So why was it a lie ?  Did he wave "bye-bye" and send Marines off to die, to invade a foreign country and it was all just one big lie?

Hell, I thought we were going to Mars.

Well, I'll just be taking back my faith and trust now.  And re-examining the motives of the Bush administration, and coming up with my own explanations as to why we aren't going to Mars but we ARE going to Iraq.

Hay, did you hear they're talking about Iran as the next big threat ?
Maybe George will be promising us a trip to Venus next.

Finally,

is a completley inadequate definition as it depends entirely on the reader's ability to derive the intentions of the "troller".

And if you can't understand the meaning of the post as it appears right in front of you in black & white, you certainly aren't qualified to determine the intentions of the person that created it.

It has everything to do with Mars.  Humanity can join together in a shared endeavor (space exploration), or we can do everything else.  I merely describe what that "everything else" looks like.

clark is as vain and degenerate an idiot as I have ever encountered, and he knows and has admintted it.  Interesting how selective a person can be about picking and choosing which qualities they choose to believe in.

Furthermore, the explanation as to exactly what "trolling" is, and why it should be considered "bad" by the community was feeble and pointless, and it's level of insight was directly proportionate to the level of ability and efforts of both it's pontificator and his syncophant.  Which is to say nil.

I find it rather amazing that I am castigated for "blindly" stating the "obvious", while the accuser apparantly missing the vast majority of the points made.  The existance of this dynamic here on THIS forum may be one of the primary reasons humanities progress toward space has been retarded.

You can't get to space until you can define "trolling" and adequately explain why (or if) it should be considered "bad", but I won't tell you why.  Think about it, if the capacity exists.

The problem with any Great Endeavor is that it requires the involvement of the unwashed; either their active support, their passive permission or both.

Behold the Unwashed, in all my resplendant Glory.

The Explorer follows Geiger's clicks,
And from that data, a spot he picks

Atom's count-down as they decay,
Of those that died and went away

The water leeched, and frozen rust
Might there be bones beneath the dust ?

Well this is how I would do it, if I were orchestrating the whole thing.  Except I wouldn't waste time with grabbing up some unknown reporter in the "bad place in Bagdad"' I'd grab that annoying chubby Mexican chick Reporter that I watch ever night from right here in my hometown.  She annoys the hell out of me.  Kinda like clark, only smarter and with less Thorazine and Haldol.

In fact, there's a LONG LIST of Possible Terrorist Targets that I think would be MUCH BETTER than the ones they have acquired thus far.  Both for Terror-Inspiring Potential AND Entertainment Value.

Like OJ Simpson, LOL.

Imagine:  "We've just recieved word that Iraqi Insurgents have just kidnapped OJ Simpson.  An Islamic Fundamentalist Group operating in the United States has been reported by Al-Jazeera for taking responsibility for the kidnapping."

Ha-Ha !

Gawd it would be fun to watch the Bush Administration try to sell the Terrifying Notion that threatening to cut-off OJ Simpson's head is a BAD THING.

D'ya think we could get them to do it LIVE and on TV?  During PRIME TIME, maybe ?

No one cares about that chick in Bagdad.  She's another "Person We Don't Know or Care About".  We (like the Isrealis) ought to consider her "already dead".  Cause we didn't know (or care) that she was alive before they got her.  So lets stop sacrificing our security and constitutional protections in order to pretend to do something for people we don't know or even care about.

Instead, lets invade Mexico, pocket the profits from that endeavor and use them to fund a vacation trip to Mars.

Most Mods & Admins on most sites I have posted on would have either given me the boot or initiated some "disciplinary" measure by now.  Which I have always believed said more about them than it did about me and what I had written.  This forum stands in contrast to them, and it is for this reason that I post my observations here.

So my comments should be taken in a broader context.  I meant to describe most people in general, rather than saying anything specific about anyone here.  Regarding the subject of "trolling", that is.

It appears you folks are smarter than most (except for clark, of course), and I was theorizing that that may be the reason why the proposition of invading Mexico as a means of acquiring (preserving, really) the resources to make the trip to Mars wasn't dealt with by immediate thread closing or deletion.

"Trollling" as I understand it, is a completely subjective decision.  My goal (on other forums) has been to push as far as I can within the subjective "radars" so as to ascertain their limit (and therby their awareness).  During this "journey" (you listening, clark?), I have learned trolling is not "either/or", and there is much to be learned between the shades of grey.

Obviously the proposition "I think parents should be allowed to have sex with their minor children." is an obvious "troll" and should be dealt with for the good of the forum community.  But then, what if your President were about making this notion a part of National Policy ?

It was the accusations of stupidity that caused me to attempt to stand in the shoes of the accuser and "walk a mile in their Dr. Scholl's" that brought me to the question of "What must they think of me, and why?".

Obviously, proposing the invasion of Mexico may seem extreme.  But while you are dwelling upon the certainty of that conclusion and the ridiculous nature of it's proposal, please devote a few moments reflecting upon how reasonable the act actually was (and still is) when perpetrated upon the country of Iraq, with much the same justifications.

And not by some Liberal Facist, bomb-throwing and self-detonating Mars-Kook with a hard-on for space travel.

But your President of the Free World.

YOU KNOW, - the one that was elected by the same Republican Party that made a National Issue with a President that asked what the definition of the word "is" was, and how it related to Oval Office fellatio, but waives a "pass" at a President that ignores the definition of the word "torture" and how it relates to the Geneva Convention.

Not only is Big Brother watching; he also has a 12-volt car battery, and some jumper cables for your testicles.

It bothers me a lot when I read people posting comments about how "bad" trolls are.

Has amyone (but me) every put any effort into deconstructing & thinking-through exactly WHY trolls are so "bad".

Every "serious" forum you go to (practically) you find prohibitions on trolling.  Yet no one bothers to explain exactly why trolling is "bad".

*I* think trolling is "bad" for a couple of reasons.  First, it excludes the stupid from sharing a common awareness by elevating the discourse to a transcendent level.

(You didn't really think "Dune" was about "Arakkis" and the "Bene Gesserit", did you ?)

Second, it provides opportunity to trap the "socially well-positioned" into exposing the true nature of their stupidity by baiting them into falling for the "troll".  (Wouldn't want to do THAT in an endeavor that relies on society's "Best and Brightest".  Better to find out who the idiots are by counting the number of dead astronauts they create.)

Finally, it the exclusive nature of the dialogue provides opportunity to mock the excluded, much in the same way that spanish-speakers make fun of those that do not speak espanol, while standing right in front of them.

People do not like to be made fun of, or to be excluded, or to feel as though they are being excluded and made fun of.  And they do not like to feel like they are stupid either, which is why clark can say anything he likes, and everyone else has to follow the rules as best we can.

Except our President.  He can lie, torture and wiretap all he likes, for the good of the country, the american people and in the name of Freedom.  But it's wrong to assume that he is a role-model and do like he do.  At the very least, THAT mistake might get you wire-tapped.

Or even tortured.

Well duh...

What other "mutt-mixture" gets to use allegations of "racism" ?

Yer working hard to miss the point, Commodore.  Makes me wonder if the secondary effects of exposure to "clark" aren't starting to become manifest.

This definition is a Historian's perspective, and a half-assed Historian at that.

The BEST that the Half-Assed Historian (like Clark) can accomplish is to imagine standing in the shoes of those involved in history, and look forward into their uncertain future and try to imagine what it might have been like to actually have accomplished something.

People that really do accomplish things do not (and can not) do this.  They look forward into the uncertain future and imagine what it is going to be like when they get there.

Then they go there.

The journey of a thousand miles does NOT begin with a single step; the journey begins when one decides to go somewhere.