In the darkness they see you, the truth is hidden in lies.
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/wikileak ... ern-ocean/
sorry for the cryptic language, but these are the type info, words and things that will come back too hang you...
When They Come For You...
-
Rabbi Dali Rick
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:28 am
- Location: Red Rock City, California
- Contact:
-
Simon of the Playa
- Posts: 22823
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
- Location: BRC, Nevada.
The CO wrote:Personally, I'll prefer the Weekly World News for my sillyness intake.
i prefer the New York Times...
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/18/us/18 ... rmann.html
Frida Be You & Me
Re: When They Come For You...
Rabbi Dali Rick wrote:In the darkness they see you, the truth is hidden in lies.
http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/wikileak ... ern-ocean/
sorry for the cryptic language, but these are the type info, words and things that will come back too hang you...
well, actually, the truth is, I'M COMING FOR THEM.
god is in the data.
-
Jerome Templaugh
- Posts: 83
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:34 pm
- Location: Bethlehem, N.H.
-
ZeroandOne
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 8:04 pm
- Location: everywhere and nowhere
me chinese, me play joke.
they counted on their fingers and toes.
-
H.G.Crosby
- Posts: 1918
- Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 4:47 pm
- Location: Boston, New York, Paris, Tangiers
-
Roberto Dobbisano
- Posts: 2973
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:54 pm
- Location: Dobbidossola, Italy.
According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public.
The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.
[edit] Reaction by Lyndon Johnson
U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.[2]
[edit] Hoax or real?
In 1996, Jon Elliston wrote that the book is generally believed to be a hoax authored by one man, Leonard Lewin,[3] and the book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax." Some people claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax as a means of damage control. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt. (Kifner, 1999)
In the March 19, 1972 edition of the New York Times Book Review, Lewin took credit for writing the book.
Consistent with the belief that the book is a satire, the idea for the Report came from Victor Navasky. In 1966, Navasky, then editor of the satiric magazine Monocle, read an article in the New York Times about a sell-off in the stock market due to a "peace scare". This gave him an idea: a report that would get people thinking about a peacetime economy and the futility of the arms race. Lewin wrote the book with these aims in mind.
[edit] Statements made by John Kenneth Galbraith in support of authenticity
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith wrote that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.
He wrote: 'As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.'[4]
Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was a member of the conspiracy. [5] The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his 'conspiracy' statement, he replied: 'For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation... Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce. '[6]
The original reporter reported the following six days later: 'Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: 'Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr. Lewin[7]
Those who state that the book is really the report of a government panel state that on at least three occasions -- including one tape-recorded exchange -- Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the report, but denied that he wrote it.
Galbraith, a Keynesian, was aware of the irony of his mis-statements considering his quotation on a late edition of J. M. Keynes 1919 book The Economic Consequences of the Peace [8]. "The most important economic document relating to World War I and its aftermath" -John Kenneth Galbriath.
The book set out the inevitable "rapid depression of the standard of life of the European populations to a point which will mean actual starvation for some (a point already reached in Russia and approximately reached in Austria). Men will not always die quietly. For starvation, which brings to some lethargy and a helpless despair, drives other temperaments to the nervous instability of hysteria and to a mad despair." [9]
The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out-of-control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery.
[edit] Reaction by Lyndon Johnson
U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy.[2]
[edit] Hoax or real?
In 1996, Jon Elliston wrote that the book is generally believed to be a hoax authored by one man, Leonard Lewin,[3] and the book was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records as the "Most Successful Literary Hoax." Some people claim that the book is genuine and has only been called a hoax as a means of damage control. Trans-Action devoted an issue to the debate over the book. Esquire magazine published a 28,000-word excerpt. (Kifner, 1999)
In the March 19, 1972 edition of the New York Times Book Review, Lewin took credit for writing the book.
Consistent with the belief that the book is a satire, the idea for the Report came from Victor Navasky. In 1966, Navasky, then editor of the satiric magazine Monocle, read an article in the New York Times about a sell-off in the stock market due to a "peace scare". This gave him an idea: a report that would get people thinking about a peacetime economy and the futility of the arms race. Lewin wrote the book with these aims in mind.
[edit] Statements made by John Kenneth Galbraith in support of authenticity
On November 26, 1976, the report was reviewed in the book section of The Washington Post by Herschel McLandress, the pen name for Harvard professor John Kenneth Galbraith. Galbraith wrote that he knew firsthand of the report's authenticity because he had been invited to participate in its creation; that although he was unable to be part of the official group, he was consulted from time to time and had been asked to keep the project secret; and that while he doubted the wisdom of letting the public know about the report, he agreed totally with its conclusions.
He wrote: 'As I would put my personal repute behind the authenticity of this document, so would I testify to the validity of its conclusions. My reservation relates only to the wisdom of releasing it to an obviously unconditioned public.'[4]
Six weeks later, in an Associated Press dispatch from London, Galbraith went even further and jokingly admitted that he was a member of the conspiracy. [5] The following day, Galbraith backed off. When asked about his 'conspiracy' statement, he replied: 'For the first time since Charles II The Times has been guilty of a misquotation... Nothing shakes my conviction that it was written by either Dean Rusk or Mrs. Clare Booth Luce. '[6]
The original reporter reported the following six days later: 'Misquoting seems to be a hazard to which Professor Galbraith is prone. The latest edition of the Cambridge newspaper Varsity quotes the following (tape recorded) interchange: 'Interviewer: 'Are you aware of the identity of the author of Report from Iron Mountain?' Galbraith: 'I was in general a member of the conspiracy, but I was not the author. I have always assumed that it was the man who wrote the foreword - Mr. Lewin[7]
Those who state that the book is really the report of a government panel state that on at least three occasions -- including one tape-recorded exchange -- Galbraith publicly endorsed the authenticity of the report, but denied that he wrote it.
Galbraith, a Keynesian, was aware of the irony of his mis-statements considering his quotation on a late edition of J. M. Keynes 1919 book The Economic Consequences of the Peace [8]. "The most important economic document relating to World War I and its aftermath" -John Kenneth Galbriath.
The book set out the inevitable "rapid depression of the standard of life of the European populations to a point which will mean actual starvation for some (a point already reached in Russia and approximately reached in Austria). Men will not always die quietly. For starvation, which brings to some lethargy and a helpless despair, drives other temperaments to the nervous instability of hysteria and to a mad despair." [9]
"10 principles? you cant HANDLE the 10 principles..."
-
Rabbi Dali Rick
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:28 am
- Location: Red Rock City, California
- Contact:
Now That's Just Plain Creepy...
I told you they were watching us...
Holy Shit! Did I just wake up the Legion of the Damned?...
the rebbi
Holy Shit! Did I just wake up the Legion of the Damned?...
the rebbi
-
theCryptofishist
- Posts: 40312
- Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 9:28 am
- Burning Since: 2017
- Location: In Exile
-
Rabbi Dali Rick
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:28 am
- Location: Red Rock City, California
- Contact:
-
The CO
- Posts: 1670
- Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:56 am
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: M*A*S*H 4207th/404://Village Not Found
- Location: I-CORPS, M*A*S*H HQ, Van Nuts, CA
This is a quick summarized version, full version http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/baloney.html
This is NOT Carl Sagans bit on baloney detection, which is an equally good read.
Well worth reading the full version, it's a couple pages, well written, and helps explain peer review and scientific method. I just don't want to clog up the thread.
---
Baloney Detection
How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience
By Micheal Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine
10 questions to ask when encountering any claim.
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does this source often make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only
supportive evidence been sought?
6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's conclusion or to a different one?
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?
9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?
10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
This is NOT Carl Sagans bit on baloney detection, which is an equally good read.
Well worth reading the full version, it's a couple pages, well written, and helps explain peer review and scientific method. I just don't want to clog up the thread.
---
Baloney Detection
How to draw boundaries between science and pseudoscience
By Micheal Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine
10 questions to ask when encountering any claim.
1. How reliable is the source of the claim?
2. Does this source often make similar claims?
3. Have the claims been verified by another source?
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works?
5. Has anyone gone out of the way to disprove the claim, or has only
supportive evidence been sought?
6. Does the preponderance of evidence point to the claimant's conclusion or to a different one?
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion?
8. Is the claimant providing an explanation for the observed phenomena or merely denying the existing explanation?
9. If the claimant proffers a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the old explanation did?
10. Do the claimant's personal beliefs and biases drive the conclusions, or vice versa?
M*A*S*H 4207th: An army of fun.
I don't care what the borg says: feather-wearers will NOT be served in Rosie's Bar.
When I ask how many burns, I mean at BRC.
I don't care what the borg says: feather-wearers will NOT be served in Rosie's Bar.
When I ask how many burns, I mean at BRC.
-
Roberto Dobbisano
- Posts: 2973
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:54 pm
- Location: Dobbidossola, Italy.
-
Simon of the Playa
- Posts: 22823
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
- Location: BRC, Nevada.
-
Rabbi Dali Rick
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:28 am
- Location: Red Rock City, California
- Contact:
-
Roberto Dobbisano
- Posts: 2973
- Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 5:54 pm
- Location: Dobbidossola, Italy.
Are you going to bet against the Dark Horse?
you'll lose your money.
"10 principles? you cant HANDLE the 10 principles..."
-
Rabbi Dali Rick
- Posts: 1848
- Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:28 am
- Location: Red Rock City, California
- Contact:
It's started...
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/sto ... &catid=250
Don't worry your safe now...
But from who?...
the rebbi
http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/sto ... &catid=250
Don't worry your safe now...
But from who?...
the rebbi
-
Simon of the Playa
- Posts: 22823
- Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm
- Burning Since: 1996
- Camp Name: La Guilde des Hashischins
- Location: BRC, Nevada.