Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 48
  1. #21  
    Originally posted by yardie
    I got another mail in my inbox that Nostradamus predicted that the bombing was going to happen. Anyone else saw this chain message and what are your thoughts?
    I did get this from a couple of people, and I will just paste my e-mail response below:
    ---------------------------------------------
    I have been searching keywords among the REAL 'prophecies' of Nostradomus (I am using the web site http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/nosearch.htm). They are arranged in ten books of "Centuries" with 100 4 line poems called quatrains. There is also an epistle to Henry II, and two almanacs. There is simply NO instance of the word "york". "Brothers" and "fortress" return a few results, but nothing like these made-up verses. "Degrees" had an interesting result, and I include the quatrains before and after it, from Century 6:

    96
    Great city abandoned to the soldiers,
    Never was mortal tumult so close to it:
    Oh, what a hideous calamity draws near,
    Except one offense nothing will be spared it.

    97
    At forty-five degrees the sky will burn,
    Fire to approach the great new city:
    In an instant a great scattered flame will leap up,
    When one will want to demand proof of the Normans.

    98
    Ruin for the Volcae so very terrible with fear,
    Their great city stained, pestilential deed:
    To plunder Sun and Moon and to violate their temples:
    And to redden the two rivers flowing with blood.


    As you can see, quatrains really don't have anything to do with one another. The very fact that eight lines are listed in this made-up verse makes it suspect. "King of Terror" is actually in there, in Century 10:

    72
    The year 1999, seventh month,
    From the sky will come a great King of Terror:
    To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols,
    Before and after Mars to reign by good luck.

    Even the exact month and year are mentioned..........over two years ago. I'll keep searching, but this should be enough to prove that someone is having a joke at everyone's expense.
    -------------------------------------------------
    For what it's worth, I don't often believe web pages more than chain-letters, but this page has been around longer than a week, so I give it a little more credibility than this particular e-mail.
    Soul Raven - "Små hjerne, stor glæde"
    Wherever you go, there you are.
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by yardie
    You are right BadMOjo (BTW Your posts are a pleasure to read!)..But..No one is saying that the American government is evil. I strongly believe that America is trying to do good with their actions and policies. However, America needs to realuize that what is good for America is not necessarily a good thing for Uganda and China. They also should make every effort not to look like a bully. America was targetted by these terrorists not because of their leadership position in the world..particularly the west, but because they are seen or perceived as a big bully that wants to dominate and change the world.
    I completely agree with you that forcing our way of life on others is the wrong way to do things. Every society should be able to live as how their culture allows them (coming from an ethnic family, I'm familiar with this). Hey, even Americans can't stand it when the government tries to tell them how to live! And while American foreign policy often hinges on some aspect of "human rights" or something that validates/violates our beliefs, I tend to think that it's not so much the political figures acting out on how they personally believe the target country should act, but on how other countries and organizations expect the United States to act. Do I really think George Bush & Colin Powell care about how China treats its citizens, or that African tribes are killing each other (which they still are, but no one hears about it)? As compassionate human beings, yes, I'm sure they do. However (and this sounds cynical), as political figures, unless it becomes an issue for the global society or for human rights organizations, I think they'd rather leave it be to avoid embroiling the nation into something that it would regret later.

    To put it in perspective, do everyday American citizens really concern themselves with the refugees in Bosnia and Kosovo who are still trying to settle in their homes without worrying about having their throats cut in their sleep? When it was on the news, sure they did. To say you didn't care would brand you as heartless. Nowadays, it's not such a big issue and below people's laundry list in priorities. In general, Americans like to leave other people's business as other people's business (you can see that in our day-to-day lives). This is a result of our society that treasures independence and individuality. It doesn't mean we're not compassionate, but when the issue arises and others are looking, as other countries do, our government responds as our values dictate. As for politically self-serving or "national security" reasons for why we get involved, all I can say is that America plays the game, and sometimes the only ammunition we have to use is some iconic platform. I think there's a big difference between the rhetorics of what we believe and how governments implement them. Furthermore, politics is a device created by humans that's complicated and often defies logic. Sorry, I don't mean to go on a diatribe, but I like discussing these things.

    BTW, thanks for the compliment. I'm a pretty new poster, but discussion throughout the boards are great. I'm glad we all have a common interest in technology but can still talk about broader issues.
    "A Noble Spirit Embiggens the Smallest Man."
    —Jeremiah Springfield's Epitaph
    on The Simpsons
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon

    I just now saw your response to mine and I will admit that I typed that out without thinking of the European response to the contents. For my lack of consideration of non-Americans on this board, whose posts of sympathy and even normal-pre-9/11/01 posts I very much appreciate, I truly apologize.
    Appologie accepted. I understand why people would post such a thing...
    I just felt the need to put things in perspective...

    I feel sad for all people involved in this bad thing (can't even find the right words for such a desaster...)

    all over the world people held a 3 minutes of silence cermony:
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #24  
    I got another mail in my inbox that Nostradamus predicted that the bombing was going to happen. Anyone else saw this chain message and what are your thoughts?
    Mu thoughts on chain messages are that they are sent from ingnorant people. Ignorant is perhaps too strong of a word. Perhaps gullible is the better word for it. Maybe ingorant people ARE gullible.

    BTW, has anyone ever figured out how many of Nostradamus' predictions DIDN'T come true? I figure if you put out a few thousand 'predictions' you're bound to get lucky and hit a couple of dozen.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by ToolkiT

    all over the world people held a 3 minutes of silence cermony:
    Wow, that picture really touched me. I had no idea that there was an internation moment of silence, much less that is lasted 3 minutes long. Because the one my school (along with the rest of the nation) observed was one minute long. Thanks for posting that.

    This whole event has really opened my eyes about how much I really love my country, and how much my country does for the whole world, and now they have a chance to repay that. Which I believe most have and will do all they can to help us in our time of need.

    As my pastor told us today this is the first time in years that god has been allowed back into the government, and I think that is woderful. Good will come out of this yet
    God bless the USA! The country I love, and will support at all costs.
  6. #26  
    D ev R ay 4Real is right, Toolkit...that was an awesome image you posted. The whole world was hurt by this act.
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by homer
    Mu thoughts on chain messages are that they are sent from ingnorant people. Ignorant is perhaps too strong of a word. Perhaps gullible is the better word for it. Maybe ingorant people ARE gullible.
    I don't think there's any causal relation there necessarily.
    BTW, has anyone ever figured out how many of Nostradamus' predictions DIDN'T come true? I figure if you put out a few thousand 'predictions' you're bound to get lucky and hit a couple of dozen.
    Oh come now. You should know better than that. Very few of Nostradamus's predictions were specific and clear. Like any good prophecies, nearly all of the ones that haven't come true yet can just be claimed to yet be fulfilled. OTOH, there are probably tons of 'prophecies' accredited to Nostradamus that he never wrote (like the current one going 'round).
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #28  
    This whole event has really opened my eyes about how much I really love my country, and how much my country does for the whole world,
    We are a good country. We do help a lot of others. Also remember that we do a lot of bad things, too, both on our soil and on others.

    and now they have a chance to repay that. Which I believe most have and will do all they can to help us in our time of need.
    That's an arrogant attitude. We can't go around helping everyone and then saying "OK. Now it's time for pay-back." While the canadian reporters rant from 1973 had many valid points, he didn't point out that much of what we did to 'help' was really to protect our own interests. It's not always just the goodness of our hearts that leads us to assist other countries.

    As my pastor told us today this is the first time in years that god has been allowed back into the government, and I think that is woderful. Good will come out of this yet
    I thought one of the major points of our government was a clear seperation of church and state. Our country was founded on freedoms, including the freedom of religion. Bringing religion into our policy making decisions is a really scary idea. Your pastor should do everything he can to bring god into the lives of his congregation. He should stay far away from trying to bring it into politics.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by homer
    That's an arrogant attitude. We can't go around helping everyone and then saying "OK. Now it's time for pay-back." While the canadian reporters rant from 1973 had many valid points, he didn't point out that much of what we did to 'help' was really to protect our own interests. It's not always just the goodness of our hearts that leads us to assist other countries.
    I don't think that Sinclair was necessarily talking about the _government_ helping others in need (which would be where the "protect our own interests" argument would lie). There are generally more "grass roots" types of these efforts anyway.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by homer
    It's not always just the goodness of our hearts that leads us to assist other countries.
    Why does motivation matter when evaluating a result?
  11. #31  
    Why does motivation matter when evaluating a result?
    Sincerity. Purpose. Reasoning. Morality. etc...
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by homer
    Sincerity. Purpose. Reasoning. Morality. etc...
    None of which should matter if the recipient gets when they want/need.
    For example, if I am thirsting to death, I don't care that my friend gives me water b/c she is making room in her refrigerator for beer.
    (Okay, a kindof silly example, but I hope you get my point.)
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    None of which should matter if the recipient gets when they want/need.
    For example, if I am thirsting to death, I don't care that my friend gives me water b/c she is making room in her refrigerator for beer.
    (Okay, a kindof silly example, but I hope you get my point.)
    How about if a friend provides you with that glass of water because they think it entitles them to get into your pants/take ownership of your house/whatever?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by Toby
    How about if a friend provides you with that glass of water because they think it entitles them to get into your pants/take ownership of your house/whatever?
    Then it is my choice on whether they get to do those things...but their perceived entitlement when giving the water does not dimish the effect of the H2O on my thirsty self.
  15. #35  
    KC: Understanding the motivation behind an action means that you are simply more knowlegable than if you just accepted the action for face value. Understanding the motivation will help you better understand the person. Understanding the person can help you find ways to remedy future conflicts with said person.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by homer
    KC: Understanding the motivation behind an action means that you are simply more knowlegable than if you just accepted the action for face value. Understanding the motivation will help you better understand the person. Understanding the person can help you find ways to remedy future conflicts with said person.
    Agreed. And in this instance, any understanding that can help prevent future acts like this is beneficial.

    But understanding to prevent future conflicts and dealing with the previous acts are two different things, in my book. And I think in yours as well, based on some other postings you have had.

    My point is that the motiviation of an act by one player doesn't necessary effect the end result of that act on another player. (And actually the motivation discussion began with discussion of US motivation in other countries, but my theory also seems applicable to Terrorists motivation in US.)
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    Then it is my choice on whether they get to do those things...
    Unless they decide to try and take them by force
    but their perceived entitlement when giving the water does not dimish the effect of the H2O on my thirsty self.
    The point is that the result might not be so attractive if the motivation and potential follow-up actions are undesirable. Maybe the 'cure' will exact a higher price than the 'disease'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  18. #38  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Unless they decide to try and take them by force
    That would be a totally different action and would have a separate effect. (The original statement in this thread "It's not always the goodness of our hearts that lead us to aid other countries." My point simply was that the other countries were aided, regardless of our motivation.)

    The point is that the result might not be so attractive if the motivation and potential follow-up actions are undesirable.
    The result remains the same. The result of other, separate actions would be different.

    I no longer want to bog down in this minute point--too much parsing of everyone's responses leads to the bastardization of the original thread idea...
  19. #39  
    Originally posted by K. Cannon
    That would be a totally different action and would have a separate effect. (The original statement in this thread "It's not always the goodness of our hearts that lead us to aid other countries." My point simply was that the other countries were aided, regardless of our motivation.)
    And my point was that if there are expected 'paybacks' for this 'aid', then there is no separation of them. That's like saying that one tradtionally didn't get pregnant from having sex. Really now. It's totally separate. One gets pregnant from having a sperm fertilize an egg. How that sperm got there has no relation to anything else.
    The result remains the same. The result of other, separate actions would be different.
    I have a hard time believing that you seriously believe this.
    I no longer want to bog down in this minute point--too much parsing of everyone's responses leads to the bastardization of the original thread idea...
    Or maybe the minute point was invalid in the first place and shouldn't have been belabored? ;Þ~~~
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #40  
    Originally posted by Toby
    I have a hard time believing that you seriously believe this.
    I believe that there can be a result from one parties' action to/for another party that is unaltered by the motivation of the first party. Yep, I do.
    Or maybe the minute point was invalid in the first place and shouldn't have been belabored? ;Þ~~~
    I still think it's valid, but most likely shouldn't have belabored it. Of course, it takes two to tango, Toby. ; )
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions