Psycho Killer
Qu’est-ce que c’est
fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa far better
Run run run run run run run away

Christopher Harper-Mercer was withdrawn and quiet as he grew up in southern California…

The problem is, this topic is just to difficult, intellectually, for Americans.  It’s a sad state of affairs, but even those American who have had an excellent education, have been systematically deprived of the training in logic and rhetorical analysis to maintain focus in an argument from beginning to end.  And that is what is needed, from everyone.  This problem will not get solved until critical thinking is re-introduced into our laughable “curriculum”.

When I do my analysis, it is non-partisan.  I intend to find the correct answer. I am equally shocked at the flawed reasoning presented by both sides.  While I would like to chide the Liberals because they should know better (because they claim to), and malign the Right, because they “must be” consciously manipulating their arguments, motivated to achieve the goals prescribed by their self-titled “Right-ness”, I can see (can you?) that this kind of underlying pettiness is NOT GETTING US ANYWHERE.  In fact, this underlying juvenile bickering is sorely to blame for the deaths of innocent people, and we ALL should be ashamed for not looking at this problem like ADULTS.

Here is one way to reason  it:

1. The argument that mental illness, not guns, is the problem, is muddled on both sides.  Liberals cite statistics like, “Fewer than 6 percent of the 120,000 gun-related killings in the United States between 2001 and 2010 were perpetrated by people diagnosed with mental illness.”  
   • In rhetorical logic, this is called a false dilemma: when a problem is presented as having only two causes, when, in reality as we know it, this is rarely the case.  This argument is chock full of false dilemma.
   • First, must it be either mental illness, OR, proliferation of guns? Can’t it be both?  Really.  What a poor excuse for reasoning.  Of course it can be, and clearly is, both mental illness and the availability of guns, than contribute to mass killings.
   • Second, does one have to be completely mentally ill, or nothing?  Certainly there exist many layers of psycho-emotional disturbance that could lead, very quickly, to such rash actions, without first reaching the level of clinically discernible pathology.

   The other flaw with this argument, from the Liberal side, is the use of misleading statistics – this statistic from Vanderbilt U. does NOT give us the number of psycho-killers who were mentally ill; rather, we get the number of psycho-killer who were both apprehended, and then diagnosed.  Please. If you don’t see this, then return to Plato, and do not collect $200.

   So, what’s the answer, Mr. Know-it-All? Well, that’s the deal – it’s not so easy to just get an answer that fits into the Twitter block, and that you can consume along with your Starbucks.

2. The second major problem in a hard one to swallow: it is a long-standing sociological truth that law does NOT function as a deterrent to crime.  Repeat: does not.  Thus, making every single gun in the world illegal will have marginal, if any, effect.  In short, there is no such thing as gun control. But don’t believe me!  You should walk to Powell’s books, and select three Sociology 101 textbooks, and turn to chapter 5.  Am being serious. You can look at a summary here : http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx

Here is a deeper analayis, from and Oxford paper, which claims:

But available social science research suggests that manipulating criminal law rules within that system to achieve heightened deterrence effects generally will be ineffective. (Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Volume 24, Issue 2, Pp. 173-205)

In case you don’t have the time, consider these ideas:

In States with the death penalty, the murder rate is markedly higher than in States where there is no capital punishment. This could be taken as an argument against capital punishment, rather than one against making laws against guns.  However, if you actually do your research, you will see that there has already been a large degree of strong gun control legislation, often obfuscated by those who feel that obfuscation serves the common good, and this legislation has had no effect.

What about this?  Does making murder illegal stop people from murdering?  Isn’t there already a law against murder? This hearkens back to the capital punishment example.  Does making the enforcment against and punishment for murder have any effect?  Seriously.  The United States has, on the contrary, become the center of violent murder in the World.

So, is time, finally time, to abandon this path.  This is not to say remove all gun control, nor is it to say that we should not seek stricter enforcement of licensing. It is only to say that this it not the solution, and further debate on the 2nd Amendment, further criticism of the “gun coalition” , further plying of gun toters against tree huggers, is A WASTE OF LIVES.

You wanted the answer, right?  And I mentioned that it is not such an easy one.

It begins with understanding something like what Pope John Paul the II described in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, which is often referred to as “the culture of death”.

“Choices once unanimously considered criminal and rejected by the common moral sense are gradually becoming socially acceptable,”

Unfortunately for all of those who have died, this valuable document with great insight from a true logician, and empathetic person, has been muddled by extremist Right, and blithering Left, as being an “abortion” document. It does use the idea of abortion in a critical way, by saying that abortion is one of the ways that our society has become desensitized to death. Forget your ego for a second, and try to follow the idea: the more cases in which we say “it’s ok to kill; it is justified in this case”, the more opportunities we provide for people like Christopher  Harper to conclude, with legal and social precedence, that it is justifiable to kill someone. The point the Pope was trying to make was that if we add up the ways in which we “allow” death in our society, including abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, assassination of threats to the United States, warfare of any kind, if we add up all the movies, TV Series, books, social media, that focus on a rich portrayal of violence which leads to murder, IT ADDS UP to a society that is more aligned with DEATH than with LIFE.

The answer is, possibly, to take fundamental steps to unbuild this culture of death. Wow!  It seems insurmountable! It would be so much nicer to fight for gun control.  But unfortunately, a sick society, like a sick person, is a burden to which we must devote our hearts, despite our feelings of futility.

No one like that word, “ego” in polite company.  Even in the company of big fat egos, no one is going to admit to it.  It has a bad ring to it, because of it’s surface form “egotistical”, which actually means something more like “arrogant.”

An ego, says Freud, is the mediator between you “gut” (your id), and “reality”. Nothing much to do with “egotistical”.

The ego (Latin “I”)^[18] acts according to the reality principle; i.e. it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bring grief.^[19] At the same time, Freud concedes that as the ego “attempts to mediate between id and reality, it is often obliged to cloak the Ucs. [Unconscious] commands of the id with its own Pcs. [ Preconscious ] rationalizations, to conceal the id’s conflicts with reality, to profess … to be taking notice of reality even when the id has remained rigid and unyielding.”^[20] The reality principle that operates the ego is a regulating mechanism that enables the individual to delay gratifying immediate needs and function effectively in the real world. An example would be to resist the urge to grab other people’s belongings, but instead to purchase those items.^[21]

What makes a leader, and really the only thing that makes a leader, is the ability to make decisions.  I differentiate between “choices” and “decisions”: you make a choice between Prada and Louie V; you make a decision to drop the Atomic Bomb on Japan.  Of course, there is a sens of “choices” in each case, and it’s not just the gravity of the choice that makes it different in my mind.  Maybe I would concede to calling decisions “hard choices”.

But that what a leader has to do.  Because nobody else wants to.  Because the masses want to have what they want, without seeing the guts of the thing slaughtered to bring it to them. Everybody wanted George W. Bush to make a decision after 9/11.  Nobody wanted to be the one, however, to make that decision.  Now, no one wants to take credit for the negative fallout from that decision.  Nobody, but a leader, wants to make decisions.

Adults – ha, ha – are supposed to make decisions.  The kid wants candy. You have money for candy, candy is available, you love your kid.  You also know that fat kids without their teeth exists. You know about entitled generations of kids who expect to get everything they want.  This is more like Hiroshima, than Prada – unless you want something more substantial.  Your teenager wants to smoke pot.  You smoked pot when you were their age (and you still do, you hypocrite!).  But, it falls to you to make a decision.  You may have to lie, which may teach lying, if you are caught. Pot may not be bad for you, according to results.  But you know a lot of people who kind of stumbled through high school. dazed and confused, because the power (not so much wisdom, just power) to decide when to be very stoned was not with them.  So, you really do have to make a decision with your kid, in this case.  It involves some truth that they can’t really handle – as with many decisions.

Abraham Lincoln have been an egoist. He sent 620,000 men to their deaths. In relative terms, that ouwld be 6,000,000 men, today. The disease and destruction was widespread. The country was destoyed, along the lines of Afghanistan.

What would his popularity ranking be today?

More important, what exactly was that decision?  Did those 620,000 men die, leave 3 times that number of wives and children homeless and vulnerable, for emancipation?  The Emancipation Proclamation, actually.  Do you think that anyone got emancipated?  If you saw that the KKK was still free to burn and rape one hundred years later, would you say that anyone got emancipated?  Would Martin Luther King, Jr. have been assassinated if those 650,000 lives had really bought his race freedom?

Nobody knows. And frankly, it doesn’t seem like anybody cares.  All those Civil War dead, are dead. But the issue here is, no one knew then, either.  And then was the time the decision had to be made, or not. But somebody, this leader, had to wake up with such a sense of self importance in the morning, to get out of bed and say “650,000 people must die horrific deaths, and the country must suffer greatly, for some big reason.” And we don’t really know if his reason was Emancipation, or economic, or, whether he was just an egoist, at the level of megalomaniac. Hitler killed 600,000 Jews – about the same number – for some crazy reason, and everyone left that decision to him.

Because creating and destroying human life must feel, to these guys, like God.  If you believe in God, then you may have asked God, “why did you kill all those people on the plane from Malaysia?”  Like you were expecting an answer – or an apology.  And you were expecting the answer to make sense to you.  But instead, God is silent about those things.  You probably wouldn’t understand.

I feel like the current sense is that saying the word “sorry” is the complete and finished reckoning for an injustice committed. I mean, you run over someone’s cat, and you look up and say “I’m sorry.”  Then they smile and you feel okay and they feel okay.  And if they victim just doesn’t get it, you say “Hey!  I said I’m sorry already!”

Now my friend Dave, who used to get beat p and thrown into jail for being homeless, says,”sorry is just the entry point to reconciliation.”  you see, there has to be reconciliation, in my mind.  not recompense.  definitely not reciprocity (you know the old joke about and eye for an eye.  well, it’s NOT a joke!)

no.  you start with I’m sorry, as in indication that you seek reconciliation.  it’s a signal to your victim that you are ready to engage, that you are not only remorseful fro your abuse of their innocence, but that you really want to insure that if there is damage to the relationship, they will let you try to mend it.

I mean, I look at this culture and I think of Monty Python:

“Charles Manson, you are accused by the State of California for the orchestration of 9 heinous brutal murders.  Do have anything to say for yourself.”

“I’m sorry.”

“Okay. No sentencing necessary.”

You can imagine a long line (“queue” for you Britons reading this) with like one-eyed psycho killers and monsers all with bowed heads marhicn past a sleeping baif, muttering “sorry”. FORGIVEN “sorry”. FORGIVEN “‘m sorry.”

you know, kids use “sorry” a lot, but they NEVER accept it.  how many adults have you heard talked about how they were wronged as a child – their mother gave the rcoking horse to their brother, not them – and now they suffer insomnia and Romania from lack of reconciliation.

I have to refer to the AA Book again: one of the Steps is reconciliation with every single person you have ever wronged.  It’s absurd!  And the book admits as much, but then says you have to do it any way.  It says that some wrongs can not be righted, but you must at least approach the person.  And it doesn’t even have to do with alcohol.  You are responsible for fixing all of your fuck ups!

I Florida, on the freeway there are signs everywhere that say “You MUST get your disabled vehicle off the freeway!” Like, I can see people in Massachusetts with tear-stained faces, looking out at the passing cars, narrowly avoiding 90 car pile ups because their Volvo 250 DL is blocking the exit lane, and whining “But my big car is broken!  Give me a break!  Jeez!”

You stabbed me. Can you put some pressure on the wound, until it stops bleeding?

so bored, aren’t we, with that old saw: “do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”  what makes this so tiring is that – it’s too easy, because all the power is in the doers hands.  in other words, it’s just an admonition, like, “don’t smoke” or “sit up straight.”  we all know that it’s right and true – but who wants to lead a life of truth and righteousness in this generation?  I mean, what do I get from treating people right?  satisfaction i the knowledge that I will go to heaven?
I’m being cynical.  I’ve decided to say “cynical” from now on – I used to try to avoid that, although many people accused me of it.  I’m good with cynicism right now.  people are full of shit, have no integrity, fail at any kind of sincerity.  good reason for cynicism.
but the problem with the Jesus quote is that it needs turning around, so that it is understandable by the current generations.  it needs to read, “others will do unto you just like you did unto them.” and then add a generational tag like, “right?”

the subtle difference is probably best illustrated by a parable: this girl abandoned this guy and he got angry at her. (it is a short parable).  now, this may not make sense to you.  you have to have experienced the surprise that a lot of people show now when, after they do their deeds and spout their shit, the other person actually reacts negatively. maybe the old “you can dish it out but you can’t take it” is a better paraphrase.

the end result is that when you break many peoples’ trust, no one trusts you.  seems too obvious, I know, but I hear people say all the time, “jeez. I wonder why he doesn’t call me?”  or, “I wonder why my kids don’t want to communicate with me?”  nothing to wonder.  no mystery.  you are reaping what you have sown.

what Jesus was saying is, “it’s not them, stupid.  it’s you. you engender the emotions around you.” it’s not that people suck.  it’s that you suck. but our culture is so engrained with the American modus of “as long as you don’t get caught…it never happened.” what’s funny is, as the culture has become more and more abdicative, believing that they are getting away with murder, simultaneously, the same society has gotten very perceptive. so, the end result is, we are are all naked, and everybody knows it but we, ourselves.

you have to have integrity, and you have to have tested yourself.  it’s not subtle: if you come into a Ju-Jitsu match and you’ve never tried Ju-Jitsu, you will be hurt.  Likewise, if you abdicate in every relationship, you will be generally distrusted, and that feeling is a clammy one. Think before doing things.  Think it through. Only if you have never done that thing successfully before, or have some proof that you have the wherewithal to carry yourself through. Because if you continue to leave bloody messes, people will notice.

No matter how high they climb, all these Rick bands did not contribute. Rock ‘n’ Roll was imbibed with “badass” by the low brow. ACDC put the badass in. The Stones put the “ass shake” and the “fuck” into Rock and Roll.

Kings of Leon? Just beneficiaries. Fags of Leon, Kings of Fagdom.

Here is the common wisdom, from the internet, about alcoholism versus addiction:

As Dr. John Sharp, an addiction-focused psychiatrist who specializes in the integration of mood disorders and addictions, says, “Alcoholism is an addiction—it’s just one type of addiction. When you break out the specific things that someone who is suffering from alcoholism contends with—impaired control, preoccupation with a drug, using despite adverse consequences, distortions in thinking, most notably along the lines of denial—they are no different from any other type of addict.”(cf. http://www.thefix.com/content/alcoholic-versus-addict5555)

What conviction Dr. John Sharp has.  His argument, however, would not hold up to rhetorical scrutiny: if I replace the words alcoholism and drug above, with word love, he would have just a sound argument that the lover is “no different from any other type of addict.”

There is, however, one important, medical difference:

Alcoholism is a long-term (chronic) disease. It’s not a weakness or a lack of willpower. Like many other diseases, it has a course that can be predicted, has known symptoms, and is influenced by your genes and your life situation. (cf.  Alcoholism | Alcohol Dependence |Alcohol Abuse | Alcohol Addiction.)

I have never heard anyone call addiction of another kind a chronic disease.  Can I check into a detox or rehab clinic with a chronic disease, say, asthma, and check out later, free of my chronic disease?  There is no medical literature that i have read that claims heroin addiction, for example, as a chronic disease.

What am i trying to prove?  Nothing.  I am an alcoholic, not an addict.  I have nothing to prove, and noting to gain by my proofs.  In deed, my alcoholism has aided me the many years in being a superior debater!  Anyone who knows me will tell you: I always win the argument.  I will tell you, I always lose the ones I argue with.

The fact is, you never recover from alcoholism: you learn to live with it – or not, as in the case of Hemingway. has there ever been a crack-head who blows his head off, after years and years of sobriety?  No.  Even in “the book” from AA, there is no promise of recovery.  On the contrary:

The delusion that we are like other people, or presently may be, has to be smashed.

We alcoholics are men and women who have lost the ability to control our drinking. We know that no real alcoholic ever recovers control. All of us felt at times that we were regaining control, but such intervals – usually brief – were inevitably followed by still less control, which led in time to pitiful and incomprehensible demoralization. We are convinced to a man that alcoholics of our type are in the grip of a progressive illness. Over any considerable period we get worse, never better.

We are like men who have lost their legs; they never grow new ones. Neither does there appear to be any kind of treatment which will make alcoholics of our kind like other men. (cf. http://anonpress.org/bb)

Chronic alcoholism is a unique psycho-bioligical interaction, unlike any other. Here is something from the Doctor’s Opinion section of “the book”:

We believe, and so suggested a few years ago, that the action of alcohol on these chronic alcoholics is a manifestation of an allergy; that the phenomenon of craving is limited to this class and never occurs in the average temperate drinker. These allergic types can never safely use alcohol in any form at all; and once having formed the habit and found they cannot break it, once having lost their self-confidence, their reliance upon things human, their problems pile up on them and become astonishingly difficult to solve. The classification of alcoholics seems most difficult, and in much detail is outside the scope of this book. There are, of course, the psychopaths who are emotionally unstable. We are all familiar with this type. They are always “going on the wagon for keeps.” They are over-remorseful and make many resolutions, but never a decision. All these, and many others, have one symptom in common: they cannot start drinking without developing the phenomenon of craving. This phenomenon, as we have suggested, may be the manifestation of an allergy which differentiates these people, and sets them apart as a distinct entity. It has never been, by any treatment with which we are familiar, permanently eradicated. The only relief we have to suggest is entire abstinence.
This immediately precipitates us into a seething caldron of debate. Much has been written pro and con, but among physicians, the general opinion seems to be that most chronic alcoholics are doomed.(cf. http://anonpress.org/bb/docsopin.htm)

It can only happen in a person with extremely low self-esteem, and an extremely large ego.  Sounds impossible?  You should try it!  Luckily, it’s not for everyone.  How many Bukowskis do we want running around, anyway? And the manifestation is a world of lies, the biggest of which is that we are not alcoholics – because to admit that truth is to admit a chronic illness – right: an illness that you never get over.  Bummer.  What’s worse is, it’s an illness that results from some inner psychological structure that makes you into an asshole, just like allergies make you sneeze.  Not like any other asshole – those people just need to get their asses kicked.  No.  This is a disease, with no recovery.  Only wearing a prosthetic psychological mask.

Charles Henry Bukowski

good morning. you have found me, Kameron Cole, at my most vulnerable. I have made the choice to expose my thoughts and opinions to the public, and here they are – my ideas, my babies, my frustrations, my creations?

now, who are you? friend or foe? this is not for me to choose, per our agreement – the agreement mentioned above, that you are the public, and I have chosen to expose. I here now extend our agreement: I choose to share my ideas and my thoughts. sharing is tacit caring. it means I have something of value – of course, I have made the valuation: you may not like my lutefisk – but I open my container, and make a gesture of offering.

I’m getting at the nature of my view on putting it out there: I think that unwittingly applying the rules (or absolute lack thereof) of consumerism to the presentation of one’s own ideas has devalued the quality of contemplation: think before you respond. maybe, don’t respond, at least outwardly! when you view a painting of Van Gogh, do you call him? do you write your immediate impressions on the surface of his painting? or, do you write your impressions in a song? or, do you carry your impressions with, as part of a newly painted visual template, which you apply the next time you see something, anything, when in your mind you say, “that reminds me of that Van Gogh painting.”

because I am exposed. because I am sharing. these set the stage for your decorum. I am not Van Gogh. perhaps there is a cut off point, based on your valuation of a person’s level of artistry, and hence, worth, that gives you the right to use this as a forum, instead of a chapel.

remember that social networking is actually a scheme, a marketing ploy, to drive visitors to pages, and get them to link to those pages! because more links makes better analytics (usage trending), and better analytics, presented to advertisers, cuts bigger checks. don’t be a consumer index!

because you do want to give your opinion. you want to be heard. your voice rise above the madding crowd. of course you do. everyone does. why do you see the destitute people on the street talking out loud? sometimes yelling! yelling at you, or shking their fists to the heavens?!?! because no one will listen.

this is a powerful marketing tool. goes beyond Mark Zuckerberg’s original intention of getting people to publicly rate girls’ pictures against each other, thereby publicly ridiculing them (Face Mesh: watch the movie!), or his later idea of webifying the college social scene. but, not much farther.

First, I want to say how pleasant and genial the Deputy Clerk was, when I finally got to see her. She was kind, helpful, and full of grace. Yo a Ti far gracia, mi serra.

there’s so much to do.  I don’t understand how anyone gets it all done.  I might have ADHD, I don’t know.  My job is intense.  Requires a kind of weirdly sustained focus – ok, it’s computational linguistics.  you can’t look up from your computational linguistics desk. and when you do, you get lights shooting out of your optic nerve.

and then comes the Alltag (day-to-day). sure, everyone has the picture of the housewife, who goes to the grocery store 30 times a day, in a van filled with three kids, all of whom have appointments for their futures in different parts of Miami.  and this is no myth.  these are the women (and men, to some extent…not as much as NPR would have us believe) who fund NPR (because they are in the car driving 6 hours per day, and so they have to listen to something…).  it fuels an economy based upon gas consumption, and consumer spending.  truly, I am baffled – I make a great salary, but there is not way I could afford those trips to the grocery store, or the car maintenance.

add to that the garbage, the recycling, the constant pick up – I’m just re-iterating the 50’s housewife blues, which was only first alleviated by “mother’s little helper” (I am referring to the Rolling Stones version, here: barbiturates!)

I guess that brings me back to Do (pronounced “doe”).  I mean,

• these women are stressed, just like me!
• but they have dope
• the modern barbie is Ritalin
• Ritalin is now called Mother’s Little Helper (cf. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,999209,00.html)
• Ritalin is also prescribed for ADHD

There’s where it falls apart, though.  Barbie was a depressant, to be mixed with gin at 5 o’clock.

This made us all chilled, not stirred.  And you know what?  We just didn’t really get everything done!  Like parenting!  Or home made dinner! Ritalin is a stimulant: you get everything done, and more.  Overclock. Uber-parenting. Uber-dinner.

I just noticed that the real tension comes from expectations, mostly the tacit ones – from someone.  I mean, the essence of all of this is the need to be loved, or considered worthy of love, in a society whose only notion of love is based on tangible exchange:  barter, reciprocity.  Perhaps the one who takes the Ritalin is the one who feels in debt.

Who is the “someone else”? Who is the debtor?

forgiveusourdebtsasweforgiveourdebtors.

The domestic partner is an obvious object of the (index) finger; but, obvious is generally misleading.  Certainly in my case, there is no such expectation from my domestic partner. In fact, I generally do not find among my friends or lovers people who “deal love”. But the fear of not completing my task for my taskmaster is great in me. So, whence comes?

Our world is full of agents of operant conditioning (B.F Skinner) – too numerous to count.  Most are unwitting, having neither the predilection nor ability in many cases to read Skinnerian soul-thievery. And there’s more to the picture: at some point, people like me get set up.  This is the key, the set up.  You must feel the pain of the” guy who goes home without the girl.” (cf. Vanilla Sky).  you must feel rejection, and be fully cognizant that it is rejection. At that point, you gain an Achilles heel for life.  You must please.  You must get affection.

That’s when you link affection with completion; that’s when love becomes a commodity.

The bad news is that there is no operant de-conditioning, at least nothing as clean and efficient at un-training the dog to de-salivate.  I mean, that’s the point: it’s conditioning, not just training. In the end, I believe, you will never know how to just take love for free, when you’ve been conditioned to pay for it with your very worth. You can learn compensatory behavior – you can learn to respond correctly, to pat yourself on the back, and, presumably hug yourself and kiss yourself.  You can repeat, “I know you love me and that your love is not bound to an expectation that I please you by quietly removing all barriers to your happiness and assuming that everything that needs to be done is on my list.” yes, say that. but the truth must be felt, else it is not the truth.

it all started as a test – to see if I could post from an email. but it’s gone beyond that, now.

this is one of those days when I wake up an realize that I have a lot to offer, and I do offer it. I suffered some self-esteem hits in the past, oh, lifetime. and it always gets set up in the same way.

1) people with their own ego issues encounter me; they feel threatened.

2) they advise me to scale back, tone down; they tell me that I have a tendency to be overbearing, to interrupt people, and to press the point than I am smarter than everyone else

3) I believe them. this is where it breaks down. I fail myself, because I know myself. I am very easily willing to concede that I can be arrogant, stubborn, etc.

but guess what. I’m not arrogant. that’s a misinterpretation. I am a servant of knowledge and the empirical method, as catalysts for positive change. no bullshit. really.

my “attitude”, then, comes from people that block that change, or take too long. therein lies my personality issue. because I am impatient – too impatient – YES! A flaw! if I have something worked out, and I hear you going down the SAME path – don’t worry – I can and gladly will distinguish between that, and a similar path, with may lead both me and you to new insights. Intolerant, yes another flaw. But only to a degree, and, not your mother’s intolerance.

there is a point in every logical progression, whereat the conclusion is inevitable. if I see that point, I’m going to cut you off right away, if the point you are trying to make has already been made. same goes for the case where you begin your path with an erroneous assumption about me,or about something which has a substantial body of evidence in contradiction – and start a long winded treatise on a “truth” you will arrive at from that erroneous starting point. at which point you will say, “See?” A lot of work and time for everyone who is hanging off the cliff.

there is a time for sharing, a time for caring, a time for learning, and a time for daring. please look up at the clock, and find out what time it is.