If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I used the term "total destruction" to denote the potential for any given opponent not to surrender. It likewise serves to imply the hazardous nature of the tool.
If an opponent does not surrender, the only option is to totally destroy them. If this outcome is unacceptable, the opponent should not be engaged. Furthermore, with rare exception, the swiftest path to victory will be achieved by proceeding as if the opponent will not surrender.
To put it another way, "total destruction" is a statement of intent.
I would argue this is what occurred. The tool was used with the intent of total destruction. They laid siege upon a jailhouse and blew all the doors off with dynamite. The outcome wasn't total destruction by virtue of the opponent surrendering, not because the tool was used with lesser intent.
The opponent surrendered because the only alternative was to face total destruction.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I don't think any of these details were clear to me by inference alone, and I'm sure there are still many more that you're implying but I'm not inferring.
Let's skip the analogy and jump straight to specifics (please?). What are you suggesting will be destroyed, if the second amendment is used to address our current justice hiatus? And also please clue me in to whether they are good or bad (because I'm still getting the sense that you see the analogy's outcome as bad where I see the same facts as good).
Otherwise, you think that just because Obama IS black, that you expected him to give hand-outs to blacks (so much so that it makes your face hurt when he didn't)?
This was to counter a comment OAW made a while back (regarding how Obama was "the greatest president for black people"), not directly addressed to you, sunshine. What an ego. Oh, and this:
So, cinch it up, Buttercup. Not everything is for you to defend, or was even cast in you general area. This has been a "perfect storm" of shit that's caused what we're seeing on US streets. It's just very sad that a black president is what caused some of the most damage.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I'm arguing no government entity would face destruction, hence the tool will fail to work.
The opponent would not lay down their arms and surrender because they do not face destruction.
The police would (successfully) petition for arms to be confiscated long before the system would be repaired.
The flexibility with which you are applying the term makes it meaningless; it could be applied to anything. Example: the government entity facing destruction is the over-use of force (see the recent post contrasting it with UK police's use of force), or the lenient punishment of police for mistakes, or the individual officers who commit mistakes, or the individual officers who didn't commit any mistakes but just didn't stop them, or the individual precincts who fail to discipline, or their commanders, or the courts, or the elected officials, or the office of those officials, or their county governments, state governments, or even the federal government at large if they unwisely escalate the conflict and double-down on their outrageous errors in judgement (for example the one you suggested; if there is one way to make a minor problem into a catastrophic one, it is to try to take Americans' guns away without their approval).
Individual actors in the established system, who currently shirk their responsibilities because they don't acknowledge the importance, could easily be shocked back into compliance by the "destruction" of their brother officers. Power (sometimes) corrupts, and the use of force (sometimes) reminds the corrupted that they're not the only ones with power; it can bring the powerful back down to earth.
ditto if you care whether people know what you're replying to, quotes are a nice way to make that happen
Your pointed anger towards me, despite the fact I've done nothing to you personally, IS puzzling. Why lash out like you did? That makes no sense. Did I take a dump in your Rice Krispies back in 2011?
Yeah, except for the "cause" part. "Didn't completely fix" is a far sight from "cause."
He didn't fix ANY of it, he made it worse playing his identity politics games and making minorities even more dependent on entitlements.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The flexibility with which you are applying the term makes it meaningless; it could be applied to anything. Example: the government entity facing destruction is the over-use of force (see the recent post contrasting it with UK police's use of force), or the lenient punishment of police for mistakes, or the individual officers who commit mistakes, or the individual officers who didn't commit any mistakes but just didn't stop them, or the individual precincts who fail to discipline, or their commanders, or the courts, or the elected officials, or the office of those officials, or their county governments, state governments, or even the federal government at large if they unwisely escalate the conflict and double-down on their outrageous errors in judgement (for example the one you suggested; if there is one way to make a minor problem into a catastrophic one, it is to try to take Americans' guns away without their approval).
Individual actors in the established system, who currently shirk their responsibilities because they don't acknowledge the importance, could easily be shocked back into compliance by the "destruction" of their brother officers. Power (sometimes) corrupts, and the use of force (sometimes) reminds the corrupted that they're not the only ones with power; it can bring the powerful back down to earth.
I'll make an entire post without using the term.
My argument is if an entity has the means to successfully retaliate with violence, attacking them with violence is far more likely to earn retaliation over compliance.
If this proposition is correct, the obvious conclusion is violence should not be instigated unless an achievable outcome is the entity in question being stripped of the means to retaliate.
So, yes... the tool can be applied to everything on your list. The question before us is whether the amount of force which can be brought to bear is capable of stripping the means to retaliate from any of those opponents?
Currently? No. It would be most capable of this with some narrowly defined opponent, such as "murderous cops", but that reveals a flaw with the tool. It's a blunt instrument. I feel it's almost guaranteed non-murderous cops would consider themselves the opponent as well. This would be true for those non-murderous cops charged with apprehending the attackers.
Your pointed anger towards me, despite the fact I've done nothing to you personally, IS puzzling. Why lash out like you did? That makes no sense. Did I take a dump in your Rice Krispies back in 2011?
Racism puts me on edge. I'm not ashamed of that in the least. You gave no indication that you were suddenly reviving a three-month old dialog with someone who was not active in the last several pages. Absent any clues about what you're responding to, it's not unreasonable to assume it has something to do with the only topics of the last several days/pages, especially since you have been participating, and you have been replying directly to posts without using quotes, so why wouldn't this have been one of them? Some comments come across as distinctly racist when they lack context, and you didn't provide any context.
I'm sorry if all those context cues lead me to the wrong conclusion. You have my apologies, friend. As a peace offering, a friendly bit of advice: the quote system would make your intentions known. You know, next time.
He didn't fix ANY of it, he made it worse playing his identity politics games and making minorities even more dependent on entitlements.
No, I don't think he fixed it. His priorities were clearly elsewhere. But to claim he made it worse is the sort of claim I would expect evidence of. I think you're reaching there.
My argument is if an entity has the means to successfully retaliate with violence, attacking them with violence is far more likely to earn retaliation over compliance.
If this proposition is correct, the obvious conclusion is violence should not be instigated unless an achievable outcome is the entity in question being stripped of the means to retaliate.
So, yes... the tool can be applied to everything on your list. The question before us is whether the amount of force which can be brought to bear is capable of stripping the means to retaliate from any of those opponents?
Currently? No. It would be most capable of this with some narrowly defined opponent, such as "murderous cops", but that reveals a flaw with the tool. It's a blunt instrument. I feel it's almost guaranteed non-murderous cops would consider themselves the opponent as well. This would be true for those non-murderous cops charged with apprehending the attackers.
The way I see it, the second amendment provides a last resort. You seem to be describing it as quite a different beast, something to only use if assured of victory. A last resort is never going to be assured of victory. It's going to fail without the benefit of luck and sympathy, otherwise it wouldn't have been left to last. Were the colonists favored to win against the redcoats at the start of the revolution? I don't think they were, not until they secured an alliance with France. Were the GI's in Cap'n Tighpants' link assured that the federal or TN government wouldn't retaliate? I don't think they were. They depended on a sympathetic reception. Other uprisings were not so lucky. They didn't proceed because of an overwhelming tactical advantage, they proceeded because they believed it was their only path left open.
Racism puts me on edge. I'm not ashamed of that in the least.
I'm not racist, and OAW and I have been going back and forth on Obama's effectiveness for years. But you know what? I don't have to justify myself to you.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
The way I see it, the second amendment provides a last resort. You seem to be describing it as quite a different beast, something to only use if assured of victory. A last resort is never going to be assured of victory. It's going to fail without the benefit of luck and sympathy, otherwise it wouldn't have been left to last. Were the colonists favored to win against the redcoats at the start of the revolution? I don't think they were, not until they secured an alliance with France. Were the GI's in Cap'n Tighpants' link assured that the federal or TN government wouldn't retaliate? I don't think they were. They depended on a sympathetic reception. Other uprisings were not so lucky. They didn't proceed because of an overwhelming tactical advantage, they proceeded because they believed it was their only path left open.
I struggled with what qualifier to use. I settled on "achievable", which is far less absolute then "assured". Will you accept "plausible"? I considered "possible", but I think that's too weak a term. Pooping out a unicorn is possible.
I'd be shocked if Washington et. al. thought victory wasn't plausible.
With the Battle of Athens, it appears as if the combatants assumed there would be retaliation, so they needed to achieve their victory condition as soon as possible. I would argue their victory condition wasn't the close to impossible "survive an assault by the Feds", but was instead the achievable condition of "secure the ballots".
I struggled with what qualifier to use. I settled on "achievable", which is far less absolute then "assured". Will you accept "plausible"? I considered "possible", but I think that's too weak a term. Pooping out a unicorn is possible.
I think I get it. Now our unknowns can focus on a new question:
I would argue their victory condition wasn't the close to impossible _____(a)______, but was instead the achievable condition of ______(b)________.
This seems like a pretty good mad-lib for testing the concept. For example, for George Washington I would put
(a) defeating the british army and navy on the field of battle
(b) making it more costly to continue than to go home
It also works for those we all hope will fail as soon as possible. For ISIS, I find their minds inscrutable, but it might be something like
(a) defeating the american military even in guerrilla warfare or any other context
(b) optics that make them look like the victims and send them more recruits in secret
Finally, if I feel that police have been granted a hunting license for the race I belong to, I would be looking at
(a) cleanse the earth and start again
(b) demonstrate the seriousness of the issue; jog bad actors out of the haze of complacency and make them realize that they have a choice between doing what they signed up to do (justice), or start a shooting war with the citizenry.
I argue that the difference between the righteous and the wicked in this issue is that the wicked are too lazy to stop themselves or others from "accidentally" killing the innocent. If forced to choose, most would choose righteous, and even those who would not on their own could easily be swayed if the costs of laziness were higher than they are (which is currently jack shit). I think an achievable goal (per your post) is to force that choice. Do you?
Let's assume for the sake of argument your analysis of ISIS is correct.
The analysis contains a summary of the terrorism model. A terrorist attack means to trick the opponent into retaliating in ways so extreme the opponent loses support.
In other words, its express purpose is to generate grievances, not redress them. To be retaliated against is the goal. The more excessive the retaliation the better.
Why would it function differently in the police scenario?
(
Last edited by subego; Jul 31, 2016 at 01:46 PM.
)
Why would it function differently in the police scenario?
Excellent point.
I can stand behind a number of meaningful differences.
1. Terrorists aren't responding in-kind, to precisely the same nature and degree of affront which the victim group itself is guilty of. In the police model it is in-kind, apples to apples, like for like.
2. Terrorists (the ones we all refer to as such) are making demands that aren't reasonable (or even identified). The demand at issue here is perfectly reasonable (and evident). We generally avoid placating terrorists because they're impossible to placate, not just because of animosity.
3. To the extent that terrorism is a tool to get the attention of its victims, I will point out that it is effective. One reason to get attention is, as you said, trolling. But there are also legitimate needs for attention, and the main roadblock to solutions is a lack of attention. Police could easily not shoot black men, the same way they are already not shooting white men, asian men, and women of all shapes and colors. They just refuse to pay attention enough to the issue to make the effort. Relevantly, one of the various things drawing the nation's attention away from important issues like the one at hand is .... terrorism (my point is that it is effective at that thing we need).
I would argue the differences in the first two examples reflect the tool being used most effectively
Terrorism is a bad tool for controlling the narrative. The opponent has a much firmer grasp on the media. The model described in my previous post not only assumes the opponent will control the narrative in the most self-serving way possible, should that be what comes to pass the tool is all the more effective for it.
Similarly, the lack of reasonable demands befits the purpose of generating grievance rather than addressing it.
A quick aside with regards to apples to apples. As an effective terrorist wishes no less than the destruction of the opponent, one has to assume they consider the crimes of the opponent to be severe enough to warrant their destruction.
The conclusion I would draw from this is the terrorist considers their attacks to be fleas to elephants. Nothing they do could be more than a ghost of what they're retaliating for.
Rereading the above, I feel it could benefit from a summation of my point.
Using terrorism in scenarios which don't fit the grievance generator model are going to have the tool fight against them. Objective justifications for the attack will be the first thing the opponent's media campaign will strike at.
This is an example of the model's painfully ironic efficacy. The opponent, in an attempt to maintain support, comes to the conclusion the best course of action is one which erodes support, namely denial of any legitimate responsibility.
This was to counter a comment OAW made a while back (regarding how Obama was "the greatest president for black people"), not directly addressed to you, sunshine. What an ego. Oh, and this:
This is pure, unadulterated BS on so many levels.
1. First of all, you weren't countering anything that I've said considering the fact that this is my first post in this thread since July 24. Why? Because I've been chilling on a beach in the Caribbean for a week with the Mrs.
2. The last time I even mentioned Obama in this thread was way back on March 31. And it had nothing to do with the discussion you mentioned.
3. I've never said Obama was "the greatest president for black people". Ever. You can't produce a quote of me saying that anywhere in this thread.
4. I've long said that the black community prospered under the Clinton Administration more than any other. By far. Hence, Hillary Clinton's popularity among older black voters who remember the income, wealth, homeownership, and employment gains made during the 1990s.
I don't know what you and Uncle Skeleton are debating because I haven't reviewed all the posts made in the last week or so. But just man up and own your own sh*t for once.
Using terrorism in scenarios which don't fit the grievance generator model are going to have the tool fight against them.
I'm confused, because I thought you were asking me why this use of force was different from terrorism, and I was trying to provide reasons it was different from terrorism (well, I had 2 it was different, and the last one was more of a "why shouldn't" instead of a "why not"). Force yes (i.e. second amendment), terrorism no.
I value the rest of your post and I want to consider it with more nuance, but I think I need the context of this question before that's possible.
One way to put it is whether an attack is considered terrorism is semantics.
Don't get me wrong, I love semantics. The question is whether the tool reinforces the desired semantics or works against them.
The grievance generation model succeeds where others don't because control of the semantic argument is not pivotal to its success.
If killing police indiscriminately is terrorism then the police killing black men indiscriminately is also terrorism. I don't agree that either are terrorism.
You're begging the question of whether this is warfare. This brings up another reason that should be in my list above (if I had thought of it in time), both sides of this conflict are innately "us." The police are killing us, but the police are also an instantiation of us. If we cede this fact, if the police no longer represent us and if this actually is a case uf "us vs them" not "us vs us", all is lost (not for the debate, for the country).
If the opponent decides to consider it warfare. If they decide to spin it as terrorism, what tools do you have in your arsenal to redirect the narrative?
Certainly killing more people won't serve to do so.
4. I've long said that the black community prospered under the Clinton Administration more than any other. By far. Hence, Hillary Clinton's popularity among older black voters who remember the income, wealth, homeownership, and employment gains made during the 1990s.
All those gains they lost during Obama?
But just man up and own your own sh*t for once.
As soon as you admit Obama has been a disaster for blacks, the worst in over half a century, and has led the country to the fixation on identity politics that's causing the race war we're seeing now.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Hence my claim it makes a poor tool to directly fix a problem.
Ironically, I'd say the situation isn't hopeless, it's taking a different approach. If the police start engaging in warfare on the entire populace, rational people, elites among them, start eying their rifles.
Just as planned.
More important to our discussion however is the agonizing journey down that road, one I argue the non-grievance generating... we'll call them rebels, will get dragged kicking and screaming once the horse is let out of the barn.
The first thing the opponent will do in an attempt to contain the fallout from retaliating is drive a wedge between their supporters and the rebels.
If the rebels can be made out to be black, then the war is waged on black people. If the rebels can be made out to be poor, then that's who the war is against. This wedge will drive people from the disaffected group towards the rebels, which makes the opponent's claims of it being "us vs. them" true regardless of whether it was true in the first place.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I got quizzed by a policeman the other day. He hopped out of his car and asked me if I was insured to be driving mine. Pretty sure he was armed too. I survived though.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I got quizzed by a policeman the other day. He hopped out of his car and asked me if I was insured to be driving mine. Pretty sure he was armed too. I survived though.
I'm surprised that gun didn't jump off his holster of it's own accord and murder you where you stood
Oh Baltimore - you are my home but some days I am ashamed to call you that. I give 0 ****s about that lady, but have several reserved for the 5 year old . I really hope we're doing enough to break the cycle with that one, though the odds do not look good.
Hence my claim it makes a poor tool to directly fix a problem.
When your conclusion is your premise that is circular reasoning
Ironically, I'd say the situation isn't hopeless, it's taking a different approach. If the police start engaging in warfare on the entire populace, rational people, elites among them, start eying their rifles.
Just as planned.
More important to our discussion however is the agonizing journey down that road, one I argue the non-grievance generating... we'll call them rebels, will get dragged kicking and screaming once the horse is let out of the barn.
The first thing the opponent will do in an attempt to contain the fallout from retaliating is drive a wedge between their supporters and the rebels.
If the rebels can be made out to be black, then the war is waged on black people. If the rebels can be made out to be poor, then that's who the war is against. This wedge will drive people from the disaffected group towards the rebels, which makes the opponent's claims of it being "us vs. them" true regardless of whether it was true in the first place.
I feel like I missed the part of your story where you make it sound like it's not hopeless. Was the end of that story a happy ending? It didn't seem that way to me.
When your conclusion is your premise that is circular reasoning.
I read it more along the lines of subego proving his conclusion sort of in the style of a mathematical proof. He started with a conclusion, then got more granular into the logic behind it, finally arriving back the equation in it's original form. I think his premise (at least the way I read it) is that the problem needs fixing at all, and his conclusion is based on the methods/tools. Just the way I interpreted it - I hope I am being helpful here.
I feel like I missed the part of your story where you make it sound like it's not hopeless. Was the end of that story a happy ending? It didn't seem that way to me.
Define happy ending?
I think subego's "happy ending" in that situation is the citizens and/or black people achieving their aims of eradicating abuse at the hands of government/law enforcement.
I read it more along the lines of subego proving his conclusion sort of in the style of a mathematical proof. He started with a conclusion, then got more granular into the logic behind it, finally arriving back the equation in it's original form. I think his premise (at least the way I read it) is that the problem needs fixing at all, and his conclusion is based on the methods/tools. Just the way I interpreted it - I hope I am being helpful here.
In a mathematical proof you can't start with your conclusion either. One style (indirect proof) starts by assuming the conclusion is false and if it leads to a contradiction then the assumption that it's false must itself be false. But you can't start by assuming the conclusion is true.
Define happy ending?
I think subego's "happy ending" in that situation is the citizens and/or black people achieving their aims of eradicating abuse at the hands of government/law enforcement.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Is the wedge supposed to help or interfere with that outcome?
I'm surprised that gun didn't jump off his holster of it's own accord and murder you where you stood
Only American guns do that. I suppose it could have been American but it was black or dark grey, not painted with the stars and stripes and it didn't have a cowboy hat on. Maybe it was sleeping.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
OMG you are such an INSUFFERABLE FOOL. Either prove points 1-3 to be "garbage" ... or STFU! Case in point. When I said in point #1 that I hadn't posted in this forum since July 24 ... are you actually so self-deluded that you've convinced yourself that anyone with an Internet connection can't really see this to be true for themselves? For the life of me I truly can't fathom the mentality of individuals like you who routinely post demonstrably false things on a public forum.
Oh Baltimore - you are my home but some days I am ashamed to call you that. I give 0 ****s about that lady, but have several reserved for the 5 year old . I really hope we're doing enough to break the cycle with that one, though the odds do not look good.
She used her own son as a shield, holding a gun in one hand and the kid in the other. I can't even imagine that. As a parent my first reaction to any dangerous situation is to be a shield for my child, not the other way around. Then there was all the crap about, "if she was white she'd be alive", largely from Shawn King, super troll extraordinaire, ignoring that police they spent 6 hours trying to defuse the situation, not knowing if she was going to kill her son and then turn the gun on herself. All the while streaming it on Facebook.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
*yawn* I don't finish reading your posts when you start out like that, try again.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
In a mathematical proof you can't start with your conclusion either. One style (indirect proof) starts by assuming the conclusion is false and if it leads to a contradiction then the assumption that it's false must itself be false. But you can't start by assuming the conclusion is true.
The equations in a proof are all the same thing, just stated differently. It's this aspect I was referring to.
Is the wedge supposed to help or interfere with that outcome?
The wedge as subego has described would be more akin to a call to arms - forcing individuals to take sides as the stakes have been raised. A government who feels it can garner the necessary support to squash the "rebels" may do so if it feels that raising the stakes is a benefit. This may be an effective means of mobilizing support, but could ultimately backfire if the support/mobilization also strengthens the "rebel" cause.
(
Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 3, 2016 at 04:45 PM.
Reason: fixed quote)
*yawn* I don't finish reading your posts when you start out like that, try again.
Yeah you did. You just know that you don't have a leg to stand on and for once you are smart enough to pick your battles wisely. I must say it's quite refreshing to see you choose not to "die on a hill" trying to dispute the obvious or defend the indefensible as is your typical M.O.
*yawn* I don't finish reading your posts when you start out like that, try again.
Originally Posted by OAW
Yeah you did. You just know that you don't have a leg to stand on and for once you are smart enough to pick your battles wisely. I must say it's quite refreshing to see you choose not to "die on a hill" trying to dispute the obvious or defend the indefensible as is your typical M.O.
OAW
I really don't know what it's gonna take, but can ya'll take your lovers quarrel offline to a PM or something? Some of us are actually trying to have a constructive discourse in this thread, and you both are junking it up with petty insults and name calling.
I'll be honest, I haven't read either of your responses since they seem to be nothing more than personal attacks and mindless quibbling. I don't really care who's right, wrong, or justified - it really does not matter. Plz stahp.
We all get that you hate each other, now please either find a way to put your differences aside and join the rest of us in civil debate, or take it to another medium.
Nope, really didn't. As soon as one of you gets abusive I stop reading that post. I won't reward you with my attention if you can't be civil.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I really don't know what it's gonna take, but can ya'll take your lovers quarrel offline to a PM or something? Some of us are actually trying to have a constructive discourse in this thread, and you both are junking it up with petty insults and name calling.
Don't lump me in with him, I'm not the one slinging insults and names.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
So says the individual saying "The rest is garbage ..." in response to provable facts. As I stated earlier ... whatever discussion you were having with Uncle Skeleton didn't have a damned thing to do with me for the reasons I mentioned. Reasons you lamely and insultingly tried to dismiss because you can't possibly refute them. So like I said ... if he called you out on something you posted then just take responsibility for your own shit. Don't try to pretend you were responding to me when I hadn't even posted in over a week because I was on vacation AND I hadn't mentioned Obama in this thread since March 2016. Again, this isn't a difference of opinion. It's a matter of fact.
Why am I restricted to comments within the last month, or even 6 months? Is it somehow time sensitive? Have we or have we not argued about Obama's effectiveness, particularly WRT his impact on the Black community? Don't pretend we haven't, and that the info I posted wasn't relevant, you simply don't like it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Why am I restricted to comments within the last month, or even 6 months? Is it somehow time sensitive? Have we or have we not argued about Obama's effectiveness, particularly WRT his impact on the Black community? Don't pretend we haven't, and that the info I posted wasn't relevant, you simply don't like it.
Memory is time-sensitive, yes. Both yours and his (and the rest of us reading). Citing evidence is the generally accepted way to use technology to mitigate the inherent weaknesses of (biological) memory. You're not restricted to a time frame, but the longer time passes, the more your point degrades without being bolstered by direct citation.
The equations in a proof are all the same thing, just stated differently. It's this aspect I was referring to.
I'm skeptical. Can you give an example of one of these equations in a proof?
The wedge as subego has described would be more akin to a call to arms - forcing individuals to take sides as the stakes have been raised. A government who feels it can garner the necessary support to squash the "rebels" may do so if it feels that raising the stakes is a benefit. This may be an effective means of mobilizing support, but could ultimately backfire if the support/mobilization also strengthens the "rebel" cause.
Oh, and this:
ditto if you care whether people know what you're replying to, quotes are a nice way to make that happen
. I really hope we're doing enough to break the cycle with that one, though the odds do not look good.
I don't finish reading your posts when you start out like that, try again.
Top