Posts by briansmall

You are entirely correct in this part. The concept of "owing" something is entirely an invention of our society. However, it's also a requisite to be in our society. If you can't live with the burden of owing somebody what society says is their due, then you are not fit to be in our society.

Finally, someone who has an understanding of how things work.

You use the word requisite. I invite you to take a look at that concept as well.

It is a requisite only to the degree that it is enforced.

When the inventions of the social organization no longer serve it, it is time to rethink them.

If you understand what is transpiring, you can address the issue intelligently. If you only look at superficial symptoms, then you cannot.

I meant you guys are simply too smart, seriously. VBScript does not even have a section on DaniWeb. BTW, I did not ask for help, I only looked for it, I'm sure someone would have been glad to help. But finding no quick answer, I worked it out myself.

I am not a decent programmer, I look for help first. Believe me, I know my limits, and coding is not likely to ever be my strong suit. I get seriously confused by the concept of methods and processes. I cannot read a manual. Honestly, my mind will not process paragraphs of esoteric information. Syntax blows my mind, I can't see the logic of it. My mind just doesn't "work that way" and never has.

Frankly, if I had not done it, I would not be able to imagine that I could make a living doing computer support for 30 years. It's all greek to me. But I know how to ask questions, do research, and perservere. I don't even have a workable memory. I have to ask people what I did for them last time, and / or write everything down that I think I'll need to know later.

What I do "get" is people. That figures in prominently, because that's primarily what I'm working with. I enjoy them, I enjoy helping them. Computers are just the tools they use, and I am willing to go where they don't want to go. And, I know I will …

Bob, Narue and I got off to a bad start. I worked hard to curb my frustration, I felt my point was being lost in the flames. I don't know what she experienced.

I have researched her some (she has a blog here, and she is incredibly well spoken and clearly very intelligent. So something "about me" "set her off". Maybe a misinterpretation, maybe my "type" of personality, maybe something I said that she misinterpreted, maybe she has an inclination to agree with someone else who took exception and didn't read too closely, maybe she is just inclined to see things in a way that seems confrontational. Maybe none of the above.

But I know I have done all those things before.

That said, since then we have had some exchanges that were not bad. This forum is too small for me to let it get to me. Differences of opinion, even flame wars need not be the end of things; can be forgotten.

Mankinds innate self-centeredness. In other words, mankind themselves. It is the nature of the majority of mankind to take more than they give, and in particular to show little regard for the repercussion of their actions where others are concerned.

There can be no world peace without a major upheaval of, for lack of a better word, compassion .. call it goodness. Man is not, on the whole, particularly good. Many people are, but, across the board, the behavior is self serving and short sighted without being tempered with concern for others down the line.

Greed. Hate. Desire.

> Maybe we should define morality first
That seems logical, how would you define that then Brian?

Ouch. I was hoping someone else would try that first. Let's agree that the dictionary is only of marginal help, and that we may feel a need to add to or otherwise modify what we see there, shall we?

That asked, here's a quick take from Dictionary.com on "morality"

1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2. moral quality or character.
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4. a doctrine or system of morals.
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance.

But this list doesn't quite give me my starting point.

But this, from the same page: "motivation based on ideas of right and wrong" does give me a starting point.

The word "ideas" in the phrase "ideas of right and wrong" is crucial, the phrase must not be confused with "right and wrong."

Jumping from there, I'll now offer this starting point: Moral behavior is that which is supportive of life and well being.

I'll add that if there were just one person alive, moral behavior would extend only towards him or herself, but given that there are many, it extends to all behavior that affects (at least) the lives and well being of humanity in general. Thus killing your neighbor, or any wanton destruction of any thing or …

>I have better things to do with my time than to fill it with "the news". (period)
Perhaps closed-minded is too tactful on my part. You strike me more as willfully ignorant.

>I challenge you to prove <snip challenges that require omniscience>
You can use irrelevant objections and edjumucated talk to deflect my pointed question, but in the end you still haven't explained what the difference is between biased news broadcasts and biased people.

Narue, with all respect for the warm, thoughtful and caring person you may be, you strike me as being set on insulting rather than understanding.

It's creepy: that you would choose to call me "closed minded", and then suggest that the lable is "too tactful", and that you are a "super mod" of the forum, with almost 5000 posts.

Because, you apparently do not understand what I have written. And, it would seem that you have a point of view that is challenged by my opposing one, and can only insult me rather than try to comprehend my reasoning.

However, "willfully ignorant" is literally correct. That I choose to be ignorant of something that you consider to be concerned about sets us apart, yes, but not in the ways you find it convenient to state.

There is nothing irrelevant about my challenges to you, in fact, your answer makes my point, which is that you cannot ferret out the truth from the news, and thus, one is not stupid for …

I'm saying, in a gross oversimplification, that they (some of them) (essentially) "hand off" responsibility to God.

"It Is Gods Will" is an easier position to take than, "Damn, look at the mess I've made of things."

Asking God to help at any given turn, while acknowledging one's limitations, puts the responsibility for success (or failure, or ones situation in total) in Gods hands.

This has far reaching implications in my opinion. It does not teach people to look deeply into themselves and to know the depths of their being.

It doesn't matter what science says about spanking.

Both spanking, and the desire to abolish spanking, are religious beliefs. Both are protected by the Constitution, and neither should become part of the law.

Religious beliefs, eh? While I might be getting your drift, I don't know what you mean.

Your statement depends on what you mean by "religious". I do agree that religious beliefs should not become part of law.

I'm don't know how you see spanking as a religious belief. Unless you call whatever anyone holds to be true, or reality, or important, religion. I could go with that if it's what you mean. Certainly not everyone who spanks or is against spanking thinks of their attitude as a religious belief as they think of religion in general.

Please elaborate

In general, (as we are using the term here) a lie is that which, in the telling, benefits someone at someone elses expense. Most of us want to know that what we are hearing is the truth, and are dismayed to find we were lied to, because we suffered or are suffering a palpable loss due to it.

You would equate the Santa lie with the WMD lie? With lies that lead to the ravaging of people and the planet? With lies that lead to, perhaps, the destruction of all life as we know it? You would put the Santa Clause lie on a level with that?

Mind explaining that logical jump, please? I'll agree with your second statement, but I don't see business as the logical result of greed, and I'm wondering how you're getting to that point.

Fair enough.

I don't mean that all business is run by greedy people, I mean that business is a natural path for a greedy person to take, the path of least resistance to furthering his ends.

What other choices does he have? In order to accumulate, you need a mechanism. Business, in any form, can be that mechanism. A more direct path would be theft, but that is clearly what it is, and is not generally tolerated.

On the other hand, in business, you can run rampant over others and call it "just business" or capitalism, and the like.

Certainly there may well be a greater number of honest corporate leaders than there are dishonest, I don't know. I simply believe that the bigger a company gets, the more likely that greed is the underlying motive and dishonest, or at least unethical behavior is occuring somewhere in upper management.

I'm just saying that business is the tool of choice for the greedy. Certainly it's not a matter of business being the tool of the greedy, but of the greedy using the tool to their ends.