Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Trek, personal philosophy, Earth, the Federation, & other assorted random bits

This is topic Trek, personal philosophy, Earth, the Federation, & other assorted random bits in forum General Trek at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/1917.html

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

I've been having some perosnal problems lately...for my whole life, actually but more advanced for the past 5 years or so. While walking that road of self exploration, I wrote a small essay & posted it to my LJ. I rather think I'd like to share it here as well.

*****************

Everything is interconnected. Let me show you how.

I love Star Trek. Most people know this. I watched it in syndicated reruns as a kid with my dad. When you're a young boy, you get interested in mechanical things. I loved cars. Planes. Boats. Not so much on trains or bikes. I cut my teeth on Star Wars & Transformers & the like. So of course I liked the ships & the stuff. And then one day, my dad gave me his old copy of Franz Joseph's Star Fleet Technical Manual--the old original copy, with the binder & the like. I still have it, although it's been split apart into 2 sections by age & the binder is lost to the sands of time. And there was a transformative element.

There were more ship designs in there than just the venerable Constitution-class that Enetrprise herself was part of . And all these ships had NAMES. You don't understand what that DID to me. NAMES. I looked more into a couple books about navies I could find, & all THOSE ships had names. I cannot emphasize what that meant. With a car or a plane or a train, they don't have names. Sometimes they do, but not like ships. I still can't explain it. It drew me in. It still does, as evidenced by my 2-decade naming project.

As I watched more of the shows & the movies, got more reference material. I learned not just about Enterprise but Starfleet. Not just Starfleet but the Federation. Not just the Federation, but the Klingons, Romulans, Tholians, Orions. I learned about all the races that made up the Federation, all the non-aligned races. I knew & understood the message of the show, but it was sort of incidental. The older I got (by now in middle & high school) I understood the nature of how the Federation worked & the ideals behind it.

Although I didn't know it at the time, I've never really been into sci-fi. I would try stuff then & find I didn't like it & wondered what the matter was. Wasn't I supposed to like sci-fi? A lot of authors bored me, a lot of shows & movies didn't hold anything for me. Later on, Babylon 5 & its associated elements, & Firefly would gladly be accepted. But I would try & read some of the things my father (the sci-fi & fantasy fan) had & in general didn't much like them (there were always exceptions--Arthur C. Clarke & the like). My mother, however, read mysteries, true crime novels, Stephen King. I learned to like those more, dropping King many years later & never really liking the true crime stuff. What I liked about the mysteries & such were the puzzles & figure people out.

Many years later, I was in my early twenties, about 7 or 8 years ago. I was at the Danbury Public Library checking out...I don't know, probably the new Cussler novel. I happened to look over & saw something on a shelf. It was big. It was thick. It was the new hardcover copy of the uncut version of Robert Heinlein's Stranger In A Strange Land. I knew who Heinlein was, remembered noting to someone at camp that he'd died a few month earlier when I was 13. I'd never read anything of his before; the closest I'd come to was finding my father's hardcover copy of The Cat Who Walked Through Walls & being intrigued enough by the cover illustration & the back blurb to try & read it. I didn't get far, though, because it made mention of all these names that I was obviously supposed to know & I tossed it aside. (Many years later, I would buy it & enjoy it immensely, as I now knew who 95% of the characters were.)

At any rate, I don't know what made me decided to check out that book. But I did. And it changed my life. I checked it out for something like 3 months straight, reading & re-reading every bit of it. Eventually, I just went out & bought my own trade paper copy & I started looking into everything Heinlein had read. This was also when I picked up 2 other books that stuck with me: Martin Cruz Smith's Gorky Park & Peter H�eg's Smilla's Sense Of Snow. All of these books & authors had something in common...& I couldn't piece it together. It wasn't until Kim Podowlski (from the AOL music chats, the same place I met many others including Lindsey) mentioned the name of a novel to me that she though I might like. It was Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

So off I went to the library & got their copy, got home & started reading. I returned it the next day & went out to by my own copy; I knew this was a novel that I NEEDED to own. I bought it along with The Story Of B & My Ishmael all at once. As I read it, I realized 3 things:

That this book spoke to everything I had felt my entire life;

That it showed me the common element in my authors;

That there was a specific interest I had that I had not ever known.

What I found was that all my favorite authors, the ones I went truly nuts for, all wrote about the human condition. They explored not just the psyche but the nature of relations, of sociologies, or philosophies. That was something that had always fascinated me yet I'd never had a name for it or concrete example . Now I did. And something else happened: I'd begun to form a philosophy.

Let me say it again, because it bears repeating. I began to form...a philosophy.

Most people think they have one, but they really dont. You ask any random person, "what is your philosophy?" & what you get is a string of disconnected beliefs, absorbed statements, & contradictory terms. That's not a philosophy, that's a hodge-podge mess. That sort of mess is the crayon scribbles of a toddler; a philosophy is art. It might be Manet, it might be Malevich, Vermeer, Schiele, Pollock, Warhol, Whistler, or Raphael, but it's art nonetheless. A philosopy tells. A philosophy grows and builds, it inspires.

By now you're wondering the relations. Fret not. I'm about to connect the two.

A castoff line in Ishmael referenced Star Trek. It's a nothing element, not even a plot point, but when you know as much as I do about the show & its universe, you can't ignore it. The line stated that on Star Trek, every planet has a single culture. And it's true. There's no differences. Klingons are run by honor & conquest; they all speak Klingon. Vulcans are run by logic; they all speak Vulcan. Cardassians are run by devotion to the state above all; they all speak Cardassian. Bajorans are all guided by the belief in the Prophets; they all speak Bajoran. There are no (or if there are, extremely few & rare) dissenting elements. There are no dialect differences. Yet humans have thousands of languages &....?

Well. What Ishmael taught me about single unified cultures shocked me. And I began to look at the Federation. The ideal is "strength through diversity, unity out of many." It's the literal vision of e pluribus, unum. And yet...ther were few differences once you got past the other races. Indeed, one S7 TNG episode touched on that issue, with a planet of 2 cultures; one occupied 75% of the planet & asked for Federation associate membership, while the other 25% were xenophobic & preferred to be left alone. But other than that, there was the assumption & even the necessary requirement for admission that all Federation members had to have a unified world government.

For the past 2 years or so, I've been thinking about this. Lately, I've started figuring it out, that Earth stopped the single-culture destruction that is discussed in Quinn's books & so many cultures were able to flourish. The unified world government came about, but it didn't override any of the cultural laws or elements. There's actually precedent for this among the Native Americans, specifically the Hodenosaunee League, what we know as the Iroquois Confederacy. Each tribe had different laws & customs (or else they wouldn't be different) but they worked together & for the better of their peoples. But each people was understood to have their own ways. I think Earth & the Federation both have to work on that level or else everything would clash far too much.

This has become part of my philosophy, & it lies at the heart of all my recent problems & troubles. I don't want to get "better" or think I can because whose standards would I be "better" be? Certainly not mine. This slow decline I've been having has precedent as well, in the Plains Indians, in the Inuit, in the Inca, in any place where any culture has been wiped out by this one. If they're not destroyed outright, they're slowly co-opted & the people become listless, uncaring, & begin to pray for death. Eventually the members are either fully absorbed & become Takers or they're killed off by despair. And that's what's happening to me. I'm dying.

That's why I believe in Star Trek now, because it gives me a hope that things CAN be different. Not BETTER, but DIFFERENT. That there can be that diversity that is necessary for life to survive.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Oh, all right, I'll bite - now what?!

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Hm?

Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :

The issue as I see it is actually....Harmony. Multiple cultures can form a beautiful symphony of life in its fullest provided they play together to the main tune of "joy of life". When one "instrument" starts playing out of tune or off beat is when the breakdown occurs and you get dischord. People today are all about playing their own tune with little regard for others or the dischord they sow and quite often berate those who ARE trying to play in harmony.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Wiz, I see it differently. Out of the cacaphony comes the harmony, for the base level of life. It isn't till you get politics and religion involved saying you have to behave in this way or that to be in tune with everyone else that problems occur.

In my travels for the Army I talked to people from various nations where I did duty, and one thing came out of it all. All of these people just want to go about their daily lives as best that they can, no undue influence from the government or religions.

Not a one said that a government was not needed, just less of a pain in the ass on butting in to their lives. The idea of police & fire protection, and medical/dental coverage, was a concern for the government. Not pushing that a person can not smoke in their own home or car, not making it illegal for 18 to 20 year olds to get tattoos, and the other things that the government shouldn't worry too much, if at all, about.

For those that want to sow discord there are ways to deal with them, social shunning to over throwing their government, that will correct the probelm, eventually. Unfortunately their will always be people that want, or just do, sow discord, which is the major problem, since most end up in political office it seems. The others end up in prison, if the rest of the people are lucky.

Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :

Ritten has a point. I strongly believe that most want to just live their lives with little interference from authority.

If I can get political for a moment...

I think one of great tragedies of 9/11 besides the loss of life and the destruction was America's response to the event. Since that day in 2001 I've seen our freedoms slowly being stripped away at both the federal and state level, all supposedly for our protection. And there in lies the issue. I don't think the human race generally suffers from intolerance I just think those that do want to "sow discord" will find the means to do so, like using the institutions of government and religion to generate hatred among groups.

Posted by tech85 (Member # 2006) on :

Mars need women Iagree with you completely that the 9/11 fiasco has change our live to the point tnat it is being compare to the fire in germany which allowed Hitlers people to declare " marshall law" and basically take over and dikrect the govt.unoppposed. THIS began the downfall of germany and it's allies. Bush isn't that smart so I wonder who is pulling the strings. Our VP who is rarely seen, is he some robot or simply a sick old man who shuns the limelight.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Y'all are kind of missing the point here. Things like "politics" & "religion" are staples of THIS culture & none other.

Posted by tech85 (Member # 2006) on :

Shik are you sure you are not a borg ? they do have a one track mind. LOL

Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :

Apologies to sidetrack for a moment, but Shik's point about how in Start Trek (And a lot of Sci-Fi for that matter) each race appears to have a single unified world government is something that has bugged me more and more as I have grown older and learnt more about the world. Sometimes I indulge myself and dream about what the far future will be like, if and when (It's a big if) we work out to colonise space. Will it be like ST, all of us working together as one? Or will it be like Europe's colonisation of the Americas, with many failed attempts, major wars and bloodshed, followed by rebellion and independence? With history as my guide I'm betting firmly on the latter.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

You're not sidetracking, they are. I think it's possible to HAVE that unified world governement without having it be the single pervasive culture that we've been doing for 10 millennia & that they show on the show. The example of the Hodensaunee League shows that.

Posted by Pensive's Wetness (Member # 1203) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
You're not sidetracking, they are. I think it's possible to HAVE that unified world governement without having it be the single pervasive culture that we've been doing for 10 millennia & that they show on the show. The example of the Hodensaunee League shows that.

That's not side tracking... this is:

One wonders if, in the ST universe, how easy it is to get a rim-job on Risa? or do Betazeds do ATM?

/me listens to the thread crash into oncoming traffic....

Now, Shik? what exactly did you get into this line of thought? (AND LINK TO those pics! [Big Grin]

or tell me a general day when you posted them?). It seems you put a shit tonne of effort but what for, exactly? hmm? /me listens curiously

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

I think it's unavoidable to have a planetary government - well, it's either that or a technological, sociological, and cultural regression. I wonder if anyone else is familiar with Dr. Michio Kaku's contention that we're feeling the birth pangs of the transition to a Type I civilization? Forerunners of global government (NATO, EU, UN), a more and more globalized economy, forerunners of global culture, and most of all major scientific breakthroughs occurring in every field from theoretical physics to marine biology. (Of course there's the Singularity idea as well, which is 'scheduled' a bit sooner than Kaku thinks our Type I transition will be...but they're probably one and the same event).

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Define "Type I civilization," pliss.

quote:
Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
Now, Shik? what exactly did you get into this line of thought?

Oh...lots of things.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Shik, I don't think that any side tracking has happened, with the point that people want to live in the fashion that they want to live, without interference from government, religion, or zealot. The one world culture has annoyed me about Trek. It could just as easily been made to be a ship crashed on a planet and they visted the various nations really. Your opening post touched on the diversity issue, as did my post. The diversity comes from the people, not the government, and not too much from the religion, but some.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

(While we are speaking out, I think neo-tribalism is so much bullshit.)

Posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot (Member # 239) on :

I think we are all overlooking the fact that Shik is dying.

We can band together to provide comfort and care during these troubling times.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Not physically dying...although if I could just stop, I would. But that's not the point.

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous statement: now what? As in, what's going on now? With you?

Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ventriloquists Got Shot:
I think we are all overlooking the fact that Shik is dying.

We can band together to provide comfort and care during these troubling times.

Explain to me these concepts of comfort and caring.

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

Shik: Kardashev's scale of civilizations.

Type I: Uses the power of their entire planet. I don't just mean 'builds wind generators,' I mean controls the weather, earthquakes, ocean currents. Actually uses the *entire* power output of the planet - geothermal, hydrological, etc.

Type II: Uses the power of their entire star. I'm talking playing around with solar flares and coronal mass ejections like we play around with burning oil and coal. *Creating* their own stars from large planets or nebulae. Possibly even causing stars to destabilize and explode. They would actually use the *entire* power output of the sun - EM, heat, magnetic, acoustic.

Type III: Uses the power of an entire galaxy. Can create black holes and baby universes in the lab. Black holes would in fact probably be their primary power source. These would be the builders of Dyson spheres, Klemperer Rosettes of stars, time machines. They'd use the power output of every star in the galaxy and have godlike powers � la the Q.

We....are Type 0. We burn dead plants and animals.

For your edification.

Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
You're not sidetracking, they are. I think it's possible to HAVE that unified world governement without having it be the single pervasive culture that we've been doing for 10 millennia & that they show on the show. The example of the Hodensaunee League shows that.

Admittedly I am going by a 5-minute glance at the Wikipedia page on the Iroquois Confedaration, but I hardly think that you can extrapolate from them to a World government. Mainly because apparently they had a population of about 30,000, living in a sustainable manner in an area so large that they would never be driven in direct competition for food or resources. Plus it sounds like they had quite a lot of common culture to start with.

Contrast this to what a current world government would have to deal with. 6,000,000,000 people plus, many of whom (city dwellers) are completely dependant on others (farmers) for their food supply, plus are in direct competition for resources (Particularly money, which in terms of International Development money can be thought of as a resource). Not to mention the HUGE differences in culture just within Europe, let alone the rest of the world. I don't think the two compare very well. The real crunch point is the huge inequalities that exist between and within nations - it doesn't sound like the Iroquois had to deal with half of their people living in comparative poverty. Working together is easy to do when everyone is in roughly the same size boat and no-one is sinking.

However, this is not to say that international co-operation cannot occur in the Science and Engineering arena. The ISS and CERN I think are much better examples of different groups working together. But these are isolated projects with a narrow remit, and if you look even slightly into the bickering that goes on behind them you'd be amazed anything ever happens, and that's with 60 years of (kinda) peace between most major powers.

(FYI - I currently work in the European Space Industry so know a little bit about the politics behind these projects. Luckily I escape in a week to go do something else!)

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shik:
Y'all are kind of missing the point here. Things like "politics" & "religion" are staples of THIS culture & none other.

On the contrary, politics and religion are at the very heart of any culture. They are the fundamental beliefs and attitudes from which the rest of societies and cultures grow.

I've likewise been fascinated by what Shik describes. First by starships, then Starfleet as an organization, then the Earth and the Federation as a whole.

I have long meant (and in a recent bout of sort-of-insomnia, begun) to write out a whole treatise on the Star Trek utopian ideal - what it is or might be exactly and how it might be achieved. I am a liberal progressive - I believe this world (and country) has problems, but that these problems are solvable and are capable of being solved. That is humanity's success; it's enormous success at problem solving.

So if the goal is to create a society where there is no hunger, poverty, prejudice, corruption, crime, injustice, disease, want, or greed - a society where everyone receives the help they need and has the opportunity to live their life in a way that will make them fulfilled and happy, my question is then, "How do we get there?" And, "What will it look like?" I intend to spend my life figuring that out.

I've just read an excellent book called, "The First Idea" which puts forth a theory about emotional and intellectual development in children and how this developmental path might relate to the development of society and civilization. Sadly, for those of us who try to model ourselves on the Vulcan ideal, the book postulates that intelligence is an extension or outgrowth of emotions. The authors say our minds progress in a way something akin to, "WANT!" to "Want this!" to "I want this." to "How can I get this?" to "Why do I want this?" to "What is it about this thing that makes it so desirable?" They go on to talk about this process proceeds from a polarized to a graduated thinking, from LOVE/HATE and JOY/DESPAIR to many, many nuanced and layered emotions ranging a gamut that produce introspection and reflection in varying degrees. When applied to groups, the pattern holds, with groups being relatively stable or unstable depending on the emotional development of its members and the group as an entity.

In order to segue back into my original train of thought, I'd kinda have to keep going for awhile, so I'll end there and leave it at just a quick overview. But it's helped me think about these issues, and I can kind of intuit how they relate to each other, though I'm not sure I can put it to words just yet...

Anyway, it's very interesting reading that I recommend, especially if you're looking at getting a better grasp on the nuts and bolts of these bigger issues.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

quote:
Originally posted by OnToMars:
On the contrary, politics and religion are at the very heart of any culture. They are the fundamental beliefs and attitudes from which the rest of societies and cultures grow.

Hardly. But then as Sol pointed out, I'm a tmerped neotribalist of sorts.

quote:
Originally posted by OnToMars:
I believe this world (and country) has problems, but that these problems are solvable and are capable of being solved. That is humanity's success; it's enormous success at problem solving.

So if the goal is to create a society where there is no hunger, poverty, prejudice, corruption, crime, injustice, disease, want, or greed - a society where everyone receives the help they need and has the opportunity to live their life in a way that will make them fulfilled and happy, my question is then, "How do we get there?" And, "What will it look like?" I intend to spend my life figuring that out.

Solveable by every marching foward to the enactmment of vision we've been marching to all this time? Well, you ARE right after a fashion: we'll be dead. That's a solution of sorts.

Those elements you mention...only 4 of them are artificial: povert, prejudice, corruption, & crime. They're products of the way we work. They've got nothing to do with "human nature" because there are plenty of cultures that don't have these things. The rest--hunger, disease, want, & greed--are part of basic human nature & can be found anywhere. But no one exacerbates it like we do.

quote:
Originally posted by Lee:
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous statement: now what? As in, what's going on now? With you?

I'm just going to go the Jimmy Carter route & say "a general sort of malaise." I don't intend to whinge about it here; that's what I've got a blog for.

Daniel: That's pretty interesting. A complete load of shit, but interesting nonetheless.

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :

tmerped?

Also, yes, if one were cynical, one could say that the elimination of those ills can only be achieved by creating a state where no individual freedom or personal liberty remain. A 1984 or Brave New World-esque version of the future where all social ills are removed, but along with it goes all our humanity.

I don't think that's the case though. I believe it's possible to achieve a state where those problems can be eliminated and the population still enjoys something we would recognize as freedom. Granted many of us would argue about the extent of that freedom. "

You mean I can't smoke wherever I want to? I'm not free!"

"No, you cannot damage the health of the people around you, regardless of whatever you may want to do to your own body."

My roommate and I are fond of saying, "Communism/socialism would work if everyone just followed the rules!" Which, of course, holds true for any societal architecture, but it's still what it all largely boils down to. There will be rules, which themselves will boil down to, "Just don't be an asshole to other people" but it will require the maturity of the constituents to follow the rules (and, of course, change them when they are unjust).

And if cultures don't have those things (examples, please?), then it's because they've found solutions for those problems. And for the ones you claim are everywhere (again, citation please), that doesn't mean there's not a solution. If it's a problem, it has a solution, is my philosophy. And just because it's big, or it's everywhere, or it's always been around, or there doesn't look like there's a solution, or you can't possibly in a million years imagine what the solution might be, or nobody on the planet has even conceived that such a massive and overwhelming problem could ever actually be solved doesn't mean that there isn't, in fact, a solution. That is the essense of progressivism.

Granted, I don't know what those solutions are. Granted, they may not come up in the next ten years, fifty, hundred, thousand, or ten thousand. But the solutions exist.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Tempered, tmerped, it's all the same.

I can't really have this dialogue over the internet, or at least not on a forum. The need for realtime is too great.

Posted by OnToMars (Member # 621) on :

Agreed. Well, hit me up if you're ever inclined. I think my AIM is in my profile. If not, I'll put it in there.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Shik, you've made another point. The instant gratification problem consuming the world.

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

If you're referring to Generation Y's lack of patience, Ritten, I think it could be a strength. We don't waste our short lives. Or rather, we wouldn't if the things we jammed our lives absolutely full of with no wasted time weren't things like American Idol and cheeseburgers. Or y'know, Big Brother and fish and chips, whatever. Granted it seems rather sick when you see WHAT we fill our lives with, but I still maintain its a good thing that we don't like to sit around waiting, or doing nothing. We don't live long enough to have that luxury.

Posted by Not Invented Here (Member # 1606) on :

Daniel, I couldn't agree less with you. The instant gratification of my generation is leading to problems. I know I'm generalising, perhaps slightly too much, but I see many of my peers who are unwilling to work towards something that might pay off in the future. They want it now, preferably yesterday. Hence the rise in people getting themselves into serious debt problems, and people borrowing 5 times their income to buy a house in their early twenties. What ever happened to saving? For anything? And it's not just money - I know people who make quite a bit of money writing essays for students who either are incapable or unwilling to put in the work to pass their uni course. Finally, to me, the greatest symbol of it all is...Deal or No Deal. I think I could feasibly construct a several page essay on how that programme represents the absolute worst elements of UK society. If I roped in Celebrity Big Brother and Pop Idol I'd fill an entire book.

Posted by Zipacna (Member # 1881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Daniel Butler:
but I still maintain its a good thing that we don't like to sit around waiting, or doing nothing.

You contradict yourself. If your generation is indeed concentrating their time on eating burgers and watching Big Brother, I'd be inclined to say sitting around wasting time is all they are doing! [Wink]

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

Was it Hemingway that said, "If I contradict myself, so be it" or something like that? ;p Anyway, like I said adjacent to that, it would be a good thing if we filled it with good things instead of shitty things. I think you shouldn't waste time learning about topics in school that you won't remember or use once you get into the real world, or putting up with the government jacking you around, or putting off that trip to the doctor, all reasoning that good things come to those who wait, or that nothing lasts and one day it will change on its own... you don't have infinite time slots to fill, and you should fill them with what's important. It's just that what's important to people is utterly unimportant. [Big Grin]

As long as we're talking about the future being bleak and/or great, I found this.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Not has it. People these days have the idea of what they want, and they want it NOW, regardless of any consequenses. They don't think that far ahead, or if they do, they don't give a damn.

I say people, but I think it is only a true problem with net connected people, and not all, but a very good portion of them.

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

Anyway, when you get right down to it, it's utterly pointless to talk about. If we're that bad we'll destroy ourselves; if we're not, we won't. Whether we 'grow' or not is really down to our nature, and not to debates between people who will never agree. As a very wise man(like creature) once said, sod it all and try to be happy.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I forget who said "A good conversation is one that makes you think afterwards." Or close to that.

A debate is nothing more than a conversation, so how could a good debate be pointless. Agree or not, if it makes you think/reflect afterwards it can, possibly, change your point of view.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

And I believe that this conversation is over....

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Daniel Butler is paraphrasing Walt Whitman, btw.

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

Actually, I was paraphrasing Douglas Adams. But that works too [Big Grin]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

This hour I tell things in confidence,
I might not tell everybody, but I will tell you.

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :

Damn you, Walt Whitman!!

Posted by Daniel Butler (Member # 1689) on :

Oh, that. I thought you meant the bit about sodding it all and trying to be happy.