The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Correcting the record. (7 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..13~14~15 [Next]
balducci
View Profile
Loyal user
Canada
230 Posts

Profile of balducci
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
I woke up to the news of another 50 dead, plus hundreds wounded, in the latest mass shooting.

Always a silver lining:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-mak......17-10-02

Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
I woke up to the news of another 50 dead, plus hundreds wounded, in the latest mass shooting.

I woke up to a Drudge Report headline just a few days ago, something (seriously) like "Massacre in Canada!"

Massacre! Of course, I feared the worst.

It was sad, a man in Edmonton drove into some pedestrians and also a police officer. He then got out of the van and stabbed the officer. But the officer has since been released and is doing fine and is said to be in good spirits. I'm not sure how the pedestrians are doing, but there have been no reports of death or serious injuries that I've heard. Hopefully they are all okay. The evil doer was captured.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/j.......4315545

I wonder whether many of you even heard about that incident up north?
Make America Great Again! - Trump in 2020 ... "We're a capitalistic society. I go into business, I don't make it, I go bankrupt. They're not going to bail me out. I've been on welfare and food stamps. Did anyone help me? No." - Craig T. Nelson, actor.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
19124 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
I reject the premise of your idiotic straw man argument. I never said that a citizen "needed" a firearm of ANY sort, much less an automatic assault rifle. Don't ask me to explain things I never asserted.


I already admitted that, but that doesn't prevent you from giving YOUR opinion about what YOU didn't assert.

Again - do YOU think an "ordinary citizen" needs an assault rifle, and if so, WHY?

You're dodging the question Danny. You don't have to answer. Just say you don't want to answer it and we'll be done, but don't blame the question.

And don't use words like idiotic. People might think you're aggressive.


I do not have a "need" therefore I do not own one.

I will go further than that. I can carry a firearm legally in 50 states. At this point in my life I do not even own one. That is my choice driven by my life and experiences.

Does another person have a "need"? I am not certain. While I can not think of one, this in no way means that there is not one. As the VAST majority of citizens with these weapons do NOT commit crimes, it seems to me that by definition you seek to punish the huge majority of those for the actions of a few. Not a good thing is it?

And let's just retract the word idiotic. Very poor word for me to use.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1168 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Why does an ordinary citizen need a blue shirt?
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
19124 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Why does an ordinary citizen need a blue shirt?


This is exactly my point. While "I" may not "need" one those two words can really mean the difference. Another may have mileage that varies.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1168 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Well, I mean seriously, you're going to start a thread called "Correcting the record" then just make up numbers? Yes, when the gun death rate is, say, LESS THAN THREE TIMES Finland's, or less than four times France's, or less tjan fove times Canada's, and you assert that is 25 times...that's hardly nit-picking. If I exaggerated half as much in the other direction, we could almost say that the US has the lowest gun death rate.

Then on top of that, when most of those deaths are self-inflicted..the numbers look very different, indeed.


I didn't make it up. I got it from a few articles, but I didn't fully vet those articles, so...my bad.

Still, you accept three, four, or five times as acceptable?
I think more should be expected from the greatest country that has ever existed or will exist.


I think when you're measuring "acceptability," the relative numbers aren't nearly as important as the absolute numbers. Would you rather the USA have, say, 10 per hundred thousand and everyone else have 15, or the USA have 2 and everyone else have 1? So a list of cherry-picked countries doesn't really impress me, particularly when those countries have some obvious differences with the USA in some ways that to my mind make them pretty bad comparisons.

Articles like this are written largely for polemic purposes - to make it seem like your odds of being murdered by someone without a gun in the USA are really high, and Hereford, we should get rid of guns, so we start with the biggest number we can find - all gun deaths. And often, that figure is treated as though it represents gun *murders," (sometimes explicitly claimed to be such, in news stories; I've seen it as recently as this year) when in reality, it doesn't even represent the number of homicides. But it's got to be as big as possible, because it's the boogeyman (to quote another thread) number, THIS is your chance of getting killed by a bad person with a gun. Ok, but then we find out right off the bat that it's exaggerated by almost 3x, because over 60% of those people killed themselves (answer if you want to talk suicides, all of a sudden the same people who write these articles decide that gunless, industrialized Japan's not such a good comparison country after all).

So now our number is down to not much more than a third of what it was. And oh yeah, not all homicides are *murders," so that number includes self-defense killings, justified homicides, etc.

And it also includes gang members killing each other and other occupational hazards of a life of violent crime. And when it's all said and done, your odds as a law-abiding citizen of getting murdered by a person (let alone a stranger) with a gun aren't better than 1 in 10,000; they're maybe more like 1 in 40,000 or 50,000. Is that a high number? Maybe so...let's compare ourselves to Finland.

Or we could compare ourselves to Brasil, and come away with a totally different perspective.

That raises the question of what's "acceptable" means. Is any nonzero number "acceptable"? "Acceptable" in the sense that we should try to take some steps to change things, or in the sense that we have to do everything possible to make the number as close to zero a state possible, regardless of anything else? People's mileage varies. I've known two people who were murdered with guns, and yeah...it sucks. Some people have known a lot more than two. OTOH, we live in a country of well over 300 million people. In the recent Tennessee church shooting, the gunman was held at gunpoint and partially (he was also wounded; I'm not sure to what degree that incapacitated him) by a law-abiding citizen with a gun. If guns were illegal, I expect the shooter would have still managed to get one; the usher who stopped him would have been unarmed.

But I agree strongly with at least part of the OP - I think it's time we were honest and took a look.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4584 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Quote:
On Oct 2, 2017, landmark wrote:
Domestic violence homicide rate drops with stricter gun law, study finds

http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno......ory.html

Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati......1969227/



It's interesting that they flat-out tell you that study is correlational and establishes no causal connection, yet that doesn't stop the lead investigator from alleging one.

"Our research gives clear evidence that laws have a role in preventing firearms deaths," said Eric Fleegler"


How would you determine cause in either direction? I don't believe it's possible. There are correlations and then hypotheses for the correlation. Too many confounding variables in such a complex issue to ever determine cause and effect either way.



If it is possible, I'd say you'd have to check homicide rates before and after major gun control legislation in a given statement, regressed against the nation's trend in other states at the time.

However, I'd hope that you'd agree that the lead researcher in a scientific study shouldn't mischaracterize the results of that study. Particularly by charachterizing the study as having done something that you don't believe is possible. And people wonder why science deniers exist.


As you are fond of saying, evidence is not proof--but it is evidence. That's what the researcher presented and claimed. I think it's pretty strong evidence, but I would not be foolish enough to says it proves cause and effect. I was simply pointing out that your argument against the study was something of a straw man, because the same could be said about any study pointing in any direction.
"I use my five illusions to create the sense I'm useful to six."



You can read my daily blog at Musings, Memories, and Magic
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
4584 Posts

Profile of landmark
@Lobo I won't quote your whole most recent post, but I think that your selective discounting of the effects of gun violence (it's gang-related, not high absolutely, it's media-hype, the social and economic costs of controlling it are too high, social benefits of self-defense are ignored) are arguments that you don't use in other areas, for example, when discussing illegal immigration. There, any social and economic cost seems to be okay, the violence numbers are accounted for as if a large part were not gang related, media hype is ignored, the social benefits are ignored, and so on.

Which is to say, that I think as NYC Twister has been trying to say, that both sides come at the issue with pre-conceived notions, and then look at the data in a biased way. I would have to admit I do the same. So what's the solution for how to find an honest answer to violence in the US?
"I use my five illusions to create the sense I'm useful to six."



You can read my daily blog at Musings, Memories, and Magic
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
I'm not buying the parsing of the data because the fact is that less guns equal less gun violence, as countries with strict laws have shown. People still die but it's not because they had a gun.
Would I would live in Japan for that reason? No. Living in such a structured society, which suppresses individuality would kill my spirit. But that doesn't mean that the way they deal with certain aspects of society aren't effective.

I'm also not buying the blue shirt comparison, since blue shirts aren't designed to kill.
So, since no one has told me why anyone could need an assault rifle it seems to be a question of whether they want to own one. If that's the case I don't think it's unreasonable to ask why.

Most cite self-defense, and I'm all for people to have the right to defend themselves. But in the case of high powered weapons I don't think that is a reasonable argument.
Who are you getting one to defend against? A mugger? A home invasion? Unless you're going to carry it at all times, and have it ready it's pretty useless. That's a trade off I wouldn't make since I don't want to live in a constant state of fear. Also, since I would need to have it near me at all times there would be the very real possibility of injury or death to those I was intending to protect, as certain studies have shown.
Are you going to consistently point it at your front door every time someone is there just in case there's a criminal on the other side?

While there have been many instances of armed citizens thwarting armed criminals - such as Lobo's example in the church, I think you'd find that far more innocents are hurt and killed, than are saved. In the case of high powered automatic weapons, I have never heard of one being used by someone who happened to be carrying one to stop someone else with one.
Most of the time it seems that it's a simple handgun that's used.

Some say they need it in case they have to defend against an out of control government, which was a major concern of the founders. Again, I don't think this is reasonable now.

First, living a life of trying to defend against every possible eventuality is not living.
Second, the founders lived at a time when we had no standing military of any real kind, and provided for the possibility that one might be needed. I think we have enough of a military now, and I don't see it being turned against the citizenry any time soon.
Third, anyone who thinks that any amount of weapons would be effective against the military we have is delusional. A government that would attack it's own citizens would take out any threat from a distance.
Everyone thinks that they would morph into Rambo in such situations and stand untouched while they cut down the enemy. Reality would put and end to that delusion. If you were deemed a threat by such a government you'd never get off a single shot.

I also don't buy the "if guns are outlawed only outlaws would have guns." argument. I'm not saying that all guns should be outlawed, just high powered automatic weapons. There would be a period of adjustment and some people might get hurt or killed, but we'd quickly locate and eliminate those increasingly fewer weapons.
I'm not generally in favor of mandatory minimums but this case I'd make an exception. Say fifteen years with no possibility of early release for simple possession, and fifty years for using one would make people think more than twice before taking the chance.
Criminals in Japan could get guns but for the most part they don't. Even criminals know that they need to be part of the society they operate in. They are affected by the stigma associated with owning a gun there.

So, since there doesn't seem to be a reasonable argument for needing one it comes down to desire and legality.
If the argument is "I want one and it's legal so I'm getting some" then you have to weigh that desire against the well being of the rest of us; and the rest of us are getting killed by them far more than we're being saved by them.

As far as what's an acceptable number it's not a matter getting to zero. It's matter of having policies that consistently lessen the danger and we don't have anything remotely like that now.
What we have is the opposite. Lawmakers, bought, paid for, and owned by the NRA lobbyists have consistently voted to make the selling of more, and more powerful, weapons legal.
There was a ban on assault weapons which was lifted as soon as a sympathetic administration was in power, so this could have all been avoided if that perfectly reasonable law was still applied.

This week, in the middle of this tragedy, they'll probably vote to make the selling of silencers legal to a great extent. I wish someone would tell me why a law abiding citizen needs a silencer for self defense. It's a money grab pure and simple - made possible by those who are supposed to have our well being in mind.
If the law passes, and I'm betting it will, in a very short time we'll have mass shootings that are done with weapons that are practically silent.
If the law passes someday in the near future some one will walk into a school and kill many people before anyone even realizes that a gun is being fired. The person will be harder to locate and people will die in the meanwhile.

Where is the concern for the innocents that will be hurt, not too mention the increased danger to law enforcement, that all the talking heads pretend to be so concerned about?

We have all these guns because there's money to be made selling them - consequences be dammned, if they're even considered at all. That's the real bottom line which brings me to Landmarks very good question.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, landmark wrote:
So what's the solution for how to find an honest answer to violence in the US?


A very good question.

A good starting point would be to determine the reasons people resort to violence.

I think a great deal can be traced back to the increasing sense of frustration we're generally experiencing. A frustration that, to a large extent, is caused by the feeling that they have less and less say about things that affect their life. For the most part they don't understand the intricacies of the system that they live in, but they feel the effects of the decisions being made, supposedly on their behalf.
They see our government spending money on wars they are against, money they can plainly see other ways it could be used to make everyone's life better.
They see them making trade deals which drain jobs from this country so that their owners can make a few billion more.
They say that this is what capitalism does, but that's not true. It's what crony capitalism does

On and on and on.

Mostly though they're feeling the effects of a system that's doing little to address the inequality of opportunity that exists.

Even though it seems far from the topic of conversation I think a lot of our problems, guns included, could be dealt with by getting money out of politics. As long as that's a problem there will always be those who renege on their responsibility to act on the behalf of all, in favor of those who pay them.

If the incentive of money were not a possibility I think we'd see a much more responsible and balanced discharging of their duties.

If the system worked the way it was designed to work, the welfare of the people of this country would be the paramount factor in the decisions made. The partisan squabbling would be lessened if the influencers were taken out of the equation.

We'd all be better off, the level of angst would decrease and so would the violence. Not tomorrow, but sooner than you'd think.
People would feel that what they do matters, and that their hard work was leading to something more than just surviving.

When a government is corrupt the people live with a sense fear that they can't really articulate; but it's there, it's real, and it colors their every thought and action.

I can think of many ways to fix the broken parts of the system without discarding the framework, but one thing is sure and that's that it's broken. It keeps making decisions that are counter productive, and if you look closely you can see the rapidly approaching day when the consequences of those bad decisions will have to be faced.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Enough about guns for now.

What about Columbus? Who here thinks that we should still celebrate this man?

I thought this was interesting -

http://nypost.com/2017/10/03/most-americ......bus-day/

Of course everyone is divided along the lines of their particular bias. What was interesting to me was the 76% who said historical figures should be judged by today's standards, though many of them still wanted to celebrate him.

I wonder what a similar survey done in thirty years would look like, if we started teaching the truth about him today.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
19124 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
You have my answered my question though. Why should you punish the ownners of firearms who have done nothing wrong for the actions of just a very small percentage?

What percentage of owners of high powered weapons use them illegally? I bet it is less than 1%. Why punish those who have committed no crime? Worse yet you now wish to punish three hundred million people for the actions of a few. Just because you think it will make you more safe.

No matter how you couch it this is reactionary. How has reactionary legislation worked out in the past? You want to legislate out if fear and I do not.

As I've said work in the issues that bring puerile to devalue life so much this seems like a viable option.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
19124 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
And no history should but be judged on today's standards.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1168 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, landmark wrote:
@Lobo I won't quote your whole most recent post, but I think that your selective discounting of the effects of gun violence (it's gang-related, not high absolutely, it's media-hype, the social and economic costs of controlling it are too high, social benefits of self-defense are ignored) are arguments that you don't use in other areas, for example, when discussing illegal immigration. There, any social and economic cost seems to be okay, the violence numbers are accounted for as if a large part were not gang related, media hype is ignored, the social benefits are ignored, and so on.

Which is to say, that I think as NYC Twister has been trying to say, that both sides come at the issue with pre-conceived notions, and then look at the data in a biased way. I would have to admit I do the same. So what's the solution for how to find an honest answer to violence in the US?


I think the best starting point in all cases (not just with respect to violence) is to honestly acknowledge all of the evidence and presuppositions.

In my own defense, when my arguments appear most one-sided, it's because there's a generally accepted narrative that strongly favors one side and either ignores contrary evidence or relies on poor argument or specious evidence because it doesn't support the position that is being pushed. With respect to the gun issue, as I mentioned earlier, I recently heard the "gun deaths" figure being cited as the "gun murders" figure on a major news network - a misstatement of 3-4x. But that's ok, because the preferred media narrative is strongly anti-gun. And maybe that's appropriate. But lying about the data isn't appropriate. I was STUNNED to find out that gun suicides strongly outnumber gun homicides. You'll almost never hear that, because the people from whom you might hear it want to keep that number as big as possible.

Ditto numerous specious arguments re: immigration. In my defense, I don't think anyone around here has made stronger arguments against positions s/he ultimately disagrees with - or as often checked bad arguments against positions s/he is in favor of - than I have. And I don't think it's close. But I don't exempt myself; I agree that everyone does it.

In real life, I think many social situations will improve a bit; most won't improve a lot, precisely because the percentage of people willing to honestly address the position - including frankly acknowledging the weaknesses of the position they support - is extremely small. Like, rapidly-approaching-zero small. Evidence is a tool to be grabbed when it suits and discarded when it doesn't. The sides are extremely polarized, and the shrinking middle will go back and forth as each side disappoints them in turn. Look who's running the show in Washington...anyone else remember when Al Angelo was here leading discussions about how the Republican party was dead and would never be relevant again? Not to long ago. And now the Republicans are quite giddy and seem blithely unaware of what the 2018 elections are going to look like.

So it goes.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26811 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
And no history should but be judged on today's standards.


Where did you get that idea?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
26811 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, landmark wrote:
... So what's the solution for how to find an honest answer to violence in the US?


First step is facing it, owning it's good intentions and utility.

There's an interesting commentary on Blade Runner by Sarah Gailey on tor.com posted 10/3/17

Generally Accepted... by those who benefit.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
Quote:
On Oct 3, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote:
You have my answered my question though. Why should you punish the ownners of firearms who have done nothing wrong for the actions of just a very small percentage?

What percentage of owners of high powered weapons use them illegally? I bet it is less than 1%. Why punish those who have committed no crime? Worse yet you now wish to punish three hundred million people for the actions of a few. Just because you think it will make you more safe.

No matter how you couch it this is reactionary. How has reactionary legislation worked out in the past? You want to legislate out if fear and I do not.

As I've said work in the issues that bring puerile to devalue life so much this seems like a viable option.


I don't get what you mean by that last sentence, but as to the rest I don't see how anyone is being punished, simply because they won't be able to have an assault rifle.
They're not really used for defense and they'll still have the ability to defend themselves.

If I'd been saying this after one, very rare attack then yes, this would be reactionary. But this is becoming an almost everyday thing. 383 mass shootings last year, admittedly not all with assault weapons, is more than one a day; with 15,000 dead through gun violence which is minus the suicides.

I don't know what your tolerance is for hearing about these things, but I think that fear is a perfectly natural response.

I agree that you shouldn't legislate out of fear, but that's not what this is. Besides, we're NOT legislating in any way except to make it easier for people to get more and more powerful weapons.

I don't think that keeping a few from having some kind of weapons, so that the rest of us will be a little safer, is unreasonable.

We just don't agree, but that's nothing new and it's no big deal. I'm sure the world will keep turning.

Btw, you are right about Mike. I don't know if he's a full blown troll, but he's definitely an idiot.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
NYCTwister
View Profile
Loyal user
267 Posts

Profile of NYCTwister
One good thing is that the silencer bill has been shelved for now. Apparently the powers that be have at least a little decency.

Another weirdly good thing is that it seems Paddock filmed himself, which, if shown, will put an end to the false flag theories that are already beginning to sprout up.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1168 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
I son't think the silencer bill will passed if & when it gets unshelved.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley.

"...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us."
tommy
View Profile
Eternal Order
Devil’s Island
15473 Posts

Profile of tommy
If you want peace then kill all your enemies.
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.

Tommy
gallagher
View Profile
Special user
964 Posts

Profile of gallagher
I think WE can do somethong to create change.

, . . . . . ö . . . . . . ß. . . . . . . . ü. . . . . . .

Today,
German National Holiday.
The Streets are empty,
..no one to play for(!),
we head over to the kino.
What are we offered?
"American Assassin".
"The Hitman's Bodyguard".
"It".
"Dunkirk".
"Wonderwomen".
"War for the Planet of the Apes".
,...

Where was something,
which entertained,
along the lines of,..
our Show?
(in our Show,
only we died,..!
every now and then.)

I believe,
WE,
as Performers.
as Artists.
as 'role-models'.
as 'Visionarys'(!).
,..can show a different picture.

I believe,
WE
can show, display, live,...'walk',
new routes.
Some may call them 'illusions'. (😊),
WE,
as Artists can show them to be Truths.

Starting tomorrow,
in every Show,.
more often,.
we are going to thank the folks for
...watching and enjoying and playing along and feeling good;
...dispite no one being killed.

,..no one needing to be killed.

Power shared.

I believe,
WE
can 'tickle', coax,
stand, walk, talk, and display change.

WE
Performers,
armed with Lota Bowls, Double-lifts, thumb-tips, and Chinesse-underpants;
can show, display, and share,
greater pleasures,
then killing.

WE
can make this 'illusion' real.

I believe this.
I know this.

Tomorrow,
I am going to begin saying,...shouting it.

Gallagher Hayes

p.s.: I realise, my 'words' are not yet 'there'(!).
Any help with rhytoric, text, lines, jokes, thoughts..
will be thuroughly appreciated.
I'm not looking to 'preach',..
I 'merely' want to 'display and,...by-the-way say'.
thanks in advance.

p.s.s.: A 'distant thought':
The idea,...'dream',
of "fast quick easy money",
is robbing us,
the pleasure of 'achieving'.
Dreaming,.planning, Training,..learning.
"Going for it."
The PLEASURE of Work.
The spice of failure.
The satisfaction of determination,..

There are a lot of empty peoples,
..some,
WITH fast easy quick money',..
empty.


i believe THIS is,
at least,..
is one of the hearts, of the monster.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Correcting the record. (7 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5..13~14~15 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2018 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.35 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL