Apech

Hey leave them Buddhist alone ....

"fuck around with the goetia" ... really? Thanks for sharing.

he practiced Tummo ... hence the shirtless look.

I have not had this exact experience but I think I understand what you mean about experiencing someone else's hurt. I think this shows a number a things .... a basis for developing genuine compassion ... that memories are stored not by logical arrangement but by emotional content (as in dreams) ... that we know more than we think we know from a strictly conscious logical point of view.

Thank you, thank you ....

I love to listen to David Icke ... especially when he does that 'wake up people' thing ....

Damn you I wanted to be one

Oh please don't turn this into anther Vmarco thread.

From google the same happens to me on Mac OSX with Google Chrome.

There's been times when I wished I had a gun. And increasingly criminal gangs in the UK have them. I think generally though I still prefer laws against carrying guns ... but I can see that wouldn't work in the States because of the history/culture etc.

Ok but how do people know that concealed carry is going on? Is it ok in the US to walk around packing a handgun all the time?

'concealed carry' - that's pistols in holsters is it? How does any one know that people have guns if they are concealed (serious question)??? ...and yes I can see as in Game Theory solutions some kind of general population armed to the teeth would discourage some kinds of crime ... however I would think that it would also encourage the criminals to carry even bigger weapons.

Am I one of those three ... I sincerely hope so. “I bear the wounds of all the battles I avoided.” ― Fernando Pessoa

A couple of interesting things from this discussion I think. Why is it so compelling for many people to follow conspiracy theories? Because there is a general sense in people that they are being lied to and manipulated AND a fundamental feeling that 'things are not as they seem' - which is probably based on the truth that our senses are 'liars' in that like Descartes we should doubt what they tell us about reality. So starting with this general sense and feeling as soon as someone presents 'evidence' or questions about 'what is really going on' people latch on to it. I am not saying this is bad or good in itself but just a source of energy which drives the whole conspiracy theory thing. Investigative journalism, asking the right questions, looking into anomalies in the official story .... these are not conspiracy theory this is what the journalist should be doing to inform its readership. Many wrongs have been righted in this way. On top of this we have the whole US 'right to bear arms' issue ... which as I have found out is highly emotive. It seems to me that people on both sides of this argument are willing to play the emotion card as a driving force instead of rational analysis. So the first issue of personal safety and measures to prevent killings/shootings is mixed together with the political view that bearing arms has something to do with personal freedoms and the anti big government agenda. The idea that you, an individual armed with a rifle is holding back the tide of governmental interference in your life. This doesn't seem to be very realistic so I would suggest it is more of a psychological freedom, a mind-set that is being protected. While the government is prepared to use tragic events to push the alternate agenda... instead of waiting for the dust to settle ... and possibly colluding with the media to do this. All this seems to add up to ... well nothing ... because you have shooting after shooting and nothing seems to change ... and the obvious outrage at hearing about innocents mown down by bullets sickens everyone.

How long is a piece of string? eh?

Sinfest your name should be Horstancia ...

I liked the way he dispensed with shirts on every possible occasion. A topless guru ... great.

Watched it all now ... what a lovely person he was ...

Thanks ... yes. This is the equivalent of what used to exist in the jolly old middle ages in England. Every man had a long bow and was obliged to train in using it. We won the battle of Agincourt and Crecy against the French on this basis. So I see the idea. This was a regulated in the sense that the expectation was that people became proficient in the use of the bow and so on. And some degree of regulation is exactly what I am reading into the 2nd amendment in the case of the interpretation of 'well regulated' which according to the link provided by K above means 'trained an disciplined'. I think the facts of the story should be challenged. After all if the facts are never revealed how will lessons be learned? the press sadly today are only interested in 'shock horror' and headlines that sell. Investigative reporting seems to be dead as an art. I think you are more likely to get the truth through the internet but then you get all the rubbish as well. And I agree for what its worth that digging for the facts is not disrespectful to the dead or their families ... in fact it is kind of tribute to them ... provided its not crazy or tasteless.

Obviously this has nothing to do with me in the sense that I am not American. But it does interest me, particularly as there are very real cultural differences between US and Europe on this kind of thing. I think I understand and agree that the government should not rush to make new legislation (especially anything that amends the constitution as a knee jerk reaction to a tragic event. That they were willing to try to do so does suggest that they were waiting on the best moment to move on this. I would have thought inconsistencies in reporting of the event are almost inevitable as people are more likely to be running around to care for injured people and comfort the families etc. than write up detailed accounts. Presumably there will be some kind of inquiry which will allow the collection of eye witness accounts and so on. I don't buy the argument that a well regulated militia = everyone bearing arms ... it what sense is 'everyone' a militia (and I do know what a militia is). I am not suggesting this means the armed forces only ... it means an organised group of ordinary citizens surely. Anyway I am trying to understand why this means so much to soe americans ... but I have to say it comes across as a bit hysterical on both sides of the argument.

Is there any actual evidence of government involvement? I mean evidence not just speculation. On second bolded point ... when I last looked at this it was obvious to me that the 2nd amendment is about a 'well regulated militia' and I can't see any objection to that ... but well regulated means I think responsible people trained and keeping guns to protect the local community organised a sa miltiia... not just anybody ... and not everybody.

I realise I'm treading on eggshells with this subject of Sandy Hook and gun control but is it really being suggested that those people (kids) were not shot? And is everybody of the mind that the way to stop violent gun crime si to arm everybody? Just checking.

You are right ... I didn't mean to say they were some other thing called sunyata I meant to say they are both empty.