What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[Godfree]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

Cheers Arising , I just joined squido , no surprise there was no Atheist Charities, I have not noticed many Atheist Charities anywhere in the world,
there was a long list of charities most of which were not religious , but no charities for Atheism , the charitable trust scam was set up for religion, so the last thing they want is Atheism cashing in on it,
when I applied here in NZ I was told by the NZ government "unlawful"
they do not see Atheism as good for the people or educational ,
we really do live in a religious dictatorship disguised as a democracy ,

[chaz wyman]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

None of which are based on a system, of belief that relies on the proof of the nonexistence of god.
They all support my view that you don't need to god to provide help and do charitable works.
For them Atheism is simply a marker which says that they are not bound to any sect.
What Godfree offers is a new sect based on a "system of belief" that demands that he can prove a negative.

[chaz wyman]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

Cheers Arising , I just joined squido , no surprise there was no Atheist Charities, I have not noticed many Atheist Charities anywhere in the world,
there was a long list of charities most of which were not religious , but no charities for Atheism , the charitable trust scam was set up for religion, so the last thing they want is Atheism cashing in on it,
when I applied here in NZ I was told by the NZ government "unlawful"
they do not see Atheism as good for the people or educational ,
we really do live in a religious dictatorship disguised as a democracy ,

None of which are based on a system, of belief that relies on the proof of the nonexistence of god.
They all support my view that you don't need to god to provide help and do charitable works.
For them Atheism is simply a marker which says that they are not bound to any sect.
What YOU offer is a new sect based on a "system of belief" that demands that he can prove a negative.

Your own experience and your account of it is just shooting yourself in the foot.
The fact is that ALL of those so-called "atheist" charities have charitable status.
If you were not so stupid and re-worded your charitable application as something like the promotion of "Free thinking" you would have your charity.
This whole situation simply supports my idea that you have no system of belief worth a shit.

[lancek4]

http://www.squidoo.com/Atheist-Charities

Even if there being atheist charities, that this is a helping, that is, from the 'haves' to the 'have nots', and is a good and noble effort, I look from the other side; is monetary systemic success, or at least a 'hand up',sufficient to achieve a contributing individual?
This is to say, part of helping such indegents, it seems typically, is appealing to a very human element, which is a 'reaching beyond' this 'world' and the immidiate situation of being a human in society. Indeed, many people have feirce resentments against such a system in that their whole life has been resistence to it, leading to the need for charity.
For those so knocked by circumstance despite their earnest and consistent effort, such as, say, a home foreclosure, charity, sure, can do without this element of which I speak.
But for those of my point,
A systematic approach for helping these people which forecloses possibility to the systemic munadane world located and manifest only as money and objects, as these are the symbols of the 'good and better sucessful' humanity, merely begs the question of how such indigent would come about, and opens the possibility to the fact that such atheist effort is merely riding on the coattails of a religious ideological maxim - but without the potential allowed for the full human experience that somehow may come upon itself as going beyond the system. Since atheism appears in response, not As a 'real' situation, as if "really, there Is no god", but exactly to religion, which can only effect such an institution as an institution itself. May we then ask why anyone would need charity? How could something with no content effect something with content? How can charity be effective without the element which mayy be absent of the indegent, namely, a sympathy for the human systemic: free markets and such.?
And /or. How could a position, such as atheism, which has 'no content but is simply a negation' effect the content of those whom have a susbstantial resistance to such system ?

The christian charity institution, such as the Salvy who gives you a dose of salvation when you take their charity from shelters, seems then to be offering a very human help, but merely clothed in particular terms.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

It only makes your point if we survive it, which is yet to be seen!

Obviously I'm here to rally people in sacrificing their selfish needs thus helping to potentially bring about the change required to save the day and make your point. Sitting on ones ass and believing, "everything's OK, man shall fix it," is the lethargy that has brought us to the brink.

Coming upon a burning house one can do one of three things with respect to it's existence:
1) throw fuel on it so your hotdog can cook to completion
2) pass on by without a blink of an eye
3) throw water on it to put it out

I am of option 3. Most of the people on the planet are of either 1 or 2 which is why we're here, at the brink in the first place.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What are you talking about bill? I can see the absolute truth and no one can argue that I can't, well at least not effectively.

Here are three absolute truths:

1) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, were born (are alive).

2) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, shall die!

3) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning this nanosecond, were born of the symbiosis that is this planet and all those that counter it's nature in any way, shape or form, are ever so slowly denying their own life.

[lancek4]

Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

It only makes your point if we survive it, which is yet to be seen!

Obviously I'm here to rally people in sacrificing their selfish needs thus helping to potentially bring about the change required to save the day and make your point. Sitting on ones ass and believing, "everything's OK, man shall fix it," is the lethargy that has brought us to the brink.

Coming upon a burning house one can do one of three things with respect to it's existence:
1) throw fuel on it so your hotdog can cook to completion
2) pass on by without a blink of an eye
3) throw water on it to put it out

I am of option 3. Most of the people on the planet are of either 1 or 2 which is why we're here, at the brink in the first place.

I do not think most are of the opt 1or 2. Many are just naïve and ignorant, but that does not mean they are contributing to our demise.

Indeed, you are a part of our species. You are that adaptive element. But there is no total ethic, you yourself have said that we cannot know what is actually true, we can only act on what we think is true. Everyone is doing this. The respective manifestations of ethics together reveal the actual ethical situation of our species. It is not either/or, it is not 'do this or we all die', it is 'we do what we do and think what we think because that is the nature of our adapted consciousness as an organism that has been selected naturally.

That is, if you believe in natural selection then there is no room for a choice that is gained from a segregate, priviledged position upon the actual universe. There cannot be an organism of the universe that is sufficiently separate from the universe to know what is actually going on as the universe. Only if we are separate from the universe can we know we are destroying ourselves as an actual fact. This is to say, the fact that we think we may destroy ourselves if that ethical component of our being human which arrives due to the situation of existance that includes what is not ethical. There is no 'actual' ethics occurring here, only what is innate as humans are naturally selected to behave in such a way as to allow a consciousness of ethics that posits we may destroy ourselves as part of our existential position which ironically evidences our situation that we will not destory ourselves, but we may destory that which we consider 'civilized'. But this has happened at least a few times.

And, in that I may be asserting that you are part of a much larger ethics than you care to admit evidences that indeed we are separate from the universe, or at least are capable of behaving as if we are separate and have no further reprecussions that an internal debate on the matter which really amounts to a discussion about what Kind of world do we want to live in; the 'we are going to die' rhetoric is a strategy of one voice of the former debate.

[Godfree]

What are you talking about bill? I can see the absolute truth and no one can argue that I can't, well at least not effectively.

Here are three absolute truths:

1) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, were born (are alive).

2) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, shall die!

3) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning this nanosecond, were born of the symbiosis that is this planet and all those that counter it's nature in any way, shape or form, are ever so slowly denying their own life.

Interesting , but you would have to qualify your"DIE"
those who imagine life after death , may say nobody "dies"
we all just float of to some nice fantasy , or burn in HELL for the likes of ME
but are you saying SOB , that you see death as the end .
or are you leaving that as a separate subject,,???
are you saying that your absolute truth has no life after death ,,????

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

It only makes your point if we survive it, which is yet to be seen!

Obviously I'm here to rally people in sacrificing their selfish needs thus helping to potentially bring about the change required to save the day and make your point. Sitting on ones ass and believing, "everything's OK, man shall fix it," is the lethargy that has brought us to the brink.

Coming upon a burning house one can do one of three things with respect to it's existence:
1) throw fuel on it so your hotdog can cook to completion
2) pass on by without a blink of an eye
3) throw water on it to put it out

I am of option 3. Most of the people on the planet are of either 1 or 2 which is why we're here, at the brink in the first place.

I do not think most are of the opt 1or 2. Many are just naïve and ignorant, but that does not mean they are contributing to our demise.

Indeed, you are a part of our species. You are that adaptive element. But there is no total ethic, you yourself have said that we cannot know what is actually true, we can only act on what we think is true. Everyone is doing this. The respective manifestations of ethics together reveal the actual ethical situation of our species. It is not either/or, it is not 'do this or we all die', it is 'we do what we do and think what we think because that is the nature of our adapted consciousness as an organism that has been selected naturally.

That is, if you believe in natural selection then there is no room for a choice that is gained from a segregate, priviledged position upon the actual universe. There cannot be an organism of the universe that is sufficiently separate from the universe to know what is actually going on as the universe. Only if we are separate from the universe can we know we are destroying ourselves as an actual fact. This is to say, the fact that we think we may destroy ourselves if that ethical component of our being human which arrives due to the situation of existance that includes what is not ethical. There is no 'actual' ethics occurring here, only what is innate as humans are naturally selected to behave in such a way as to allow a consciousness of ethics that posits we may destroy ourselves as part of our existential position which ironically evidences our situation that we will not destory ourselves, but we may destory that which we consider 'civilized'. But this has happened at least a few times.

And, in that I may be asserting that you are part of a much larger ethics than you care to admit evidences that indeed we are separate from the universe, or at least are capable of behaving as if we are separate and have no further reprecussions that an internal debate on the matter which really amounts to a discussion about what Kind of world do we want to live in; the 'we are going to die' rhetoric is a strategy of one voice of the former debate.

First, speak for yourself as you are the only one you can actually speak for. Second, "much larger" is ambiguous, whereas "most" indicates 51% or higher, so were you thinking "much larger" than 49%?

In 2 years I have only filled up my automobiles gas tank 3 times and I have done no partial fills, it gets 35 MPG highway and 30 MPG city, how about you? My bike gets 40 MPG and I drive it as much as I can, funny how you can fit 3 individual bikes on the same footprint as one car, some bikes get 60+ MPG, unfortunately mine's been down for repairs. I recycle all man made's, compost organic and feed animal remains to neighborhood scavengers. I'm working on becoming a vegetarian, my wife already has. Finances permitting, my next auto will be at least a hybrid but preferably all electric. The southern facade of my roof will be adorned completely with photovoltaic panels and a solar water heater. A radiant floor heating system connected to geothermal will replace the forced air gas furnace. Rain barrels will collect roof gutter water for the garden. I plan on increasing my attics insulation to at least r37. What's your carbon footprint?

[SpheresOfBalance]

What are you talking about bill? I can see the absolute truth and no one can argue that I can't, well at least not effectively.

Here are three absolute truths:

1) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, were born (are alive).

2) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, shall die!

3) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning this nanosecond, were born of the symbiosis that is this planet and all those that counter it's nature in any way, shape or form, are ever so slowly denying their own life.

Interesting , but you would have to qualify your"DIE"
Everyone agrees what 'die' is! You've failed to be literal

those who imagine life after death , may say nobody "dies"
we all just float of to some nice fantasy , or burn in HELL for the likes of ME
but are you saying SOB , that you see death as the end .
or are you leaving that as a separate subject,,???
are you saying that your absolute truth has no life after death ,,????

[Godfree]

Here are three absolute truths:

1) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, were born (are alive).

2) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, shall die!

3) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning this nanosecond, were born of the symbiosis that is this planet and all those that counter it's nature in any way, shape or form, are ever so slowly denying their own life.[/quote]
Interesting , but you would have to qualify your"DIE"
Everyone agrees what 'die' is! You've failed to be literal

those who imagine life after death , may say nobody "dies"
we all just float of to some nice fantasy , or burn in HELL for the likes of ME
but are you saying SOB , that you see death as the end .
or are you leaving that as a separate subject,,???
are you saying that your absolute truth has no life after death ,,????[/quote][/quote]
I understand what die means ,
I was trying to get a bit more from you ,
to get you to go beyond die and also refer to what may or may not happen after death , because when we are talking about truth ,
surely, is there life after death ?, is one of the big questions ,
one of the main issues for people trying to decide what is true,,!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here are three absolute truths:

1) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, were born (are alive).

2) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning, this nanosecond, shall die!

3) All that could possibly see these characters and ponder their meaning this nanosecond, were born of the symbiosis that is this planet and all those that counter it's nature in any way, shape or form, are ever so slowly denying their own life.

Interesting , but you would have to qualify your"DIE"
Everyone agrees what 'die' is! You've failed to be literal

those who imagine life after death , may say nobody "dies"
we all just float of to some nice fantasy , or burn in HELL for the likes of ME
but are you saying SOB , that you see death as the end .
or are you leaving that as a separate subject,,???
are you saying that your absolute truth has no life after death ,,????[/quote][/quote]
I understand what die means ,
I was trying to get a bit more from you ,
to get you to go beyond die and also refer to what may or may not happen after death , because when we are talking about truth ,
surely, is there life after death ?, is one of the big questions ,
one of the main issues for people trying to decide what is true,,!!![/quote]
To die, the act of dieing is the same for everyone, what does that have to do with thoughts of an afterlife? One has to DIE before any afterlife can take place why do you think they call it "AFTER" "LIFE?"

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance quote="lancek4"]Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

It only makes your point if we survive it, which is yet to be seen!

Obviously I'm here to rally people in sacrificing their selfish needs thus helping to potentially bring about the change required to save the day and make your point. Sitting on ones ass and believing, "everything's OK, man shall fix it," is the lethargy that has brought us to the brink.

Coming upon a burning house one can do one of three things with respect to it's existence:
1) throw fuel on it so your hotdog can cook to completion
2) pass on by without a blink of an eye
3) throw water on it to put it out

I am of option 3. Most of the people on the planet are of either 1 or 2 which is why we're here, at the brink in the first place.

I do not think most are of the opt 1or 2. Many are just naïve and ignorant, but that does not mean they are contributing to our demise.

Indeed, you are a part of our species. You are that adaptive element. But there is no total ethic, you yourself have said that we cannot know what is actually true, we can only act on what we think is true. Everyone is doing this. The respective manifestations of ethics together reveal the actual ethical situation of our species. It is not either/or, it is not 'do this or we all die', it is 'we do what we do and think what we think because that is the nature of our adapted consciousness as an organism that has been selected naturally.

That is, if you believe in natural selection then there is no room for a choice that is gained from a segregate, priviledged position upon the actual universe. There cannot be an organism of the universe that is sufficiently separate from the universe to know what is actually going on as the universe. Only if we are separate from the universe can we know we are destroying ourselves as an actual fact. This is to say, the fact that we think we may destroy ourselves if that ethical component of our being human which arrives due to the situation of existance that includes what is not ethical. There is no 'actual' ethics occurring here, only what is innate as humans are naturally selected to behave in such a way as to allow a consciousness of ethics that posits we may destroy ourselves as part of our existential position which ironically evidences our situation that we will not destory ourselves, but we may destory that which we consider 'civilized'. But this has happened at least a few times.

And, in that I may be asserting that you are part of a much larger ethics than you care to admit evidences that indeed we are separate from the universe, or at least are capable of behaving as if we are separate and have no further reprecussions that an internal debate on the matter which really amounts to a discussion about what Kind of world do we want to live in; the 'we are going to die' rhetoric is a strategy of one voice of the former debate.[/quote]
First, speak for yourself as you are the only one you can actually speak for. Second, "much larger" is ambiguous, whereas "most" indicates 51% or higher, so were you thinking "much larger" than 49%?

In 2 years I have only filled up my automobiles gas tank 3 times and I have done no partial fills, it gets 35 MPG highway and 30 MPG city, how about you? My bike gets 40 MPG and I drive it as much as I can, funny how you can fit 3 individual bikes on the same footprint as one car, some bikes get 60+ MPG, unfortunately mine's been down for repairs. I recycle all man made's, compost organic and feed animal remains to neighborhood scavengers. I'm working on becoming a vegetarian, my wife already has. Finances permitting, my next auto will be at least a hybrid but preferably all electric. The southern facade of my roof will be adorned completely with photovoltaic panels and a solar water heater. A radiant floor heating system connected to geothermal will replace the forced air gas furnace. Rain barrels will collect roof gutter water for the garden. I plan on increasing my attics insulation to at least r37. What's your carbon footprint?[/quote]

Somehow I knew you'd go there. I do what I can, what I am able; I agree with such sustainable practices, but my life and my self is not situated to be able to do Everything that I would. That is what we should expect from everyone. Yes I recycle and compost and what is actually trash is minimal. But I drive a 77 lebaron. It is a perfect engine. It passes emission way below the standard but it gets maybe 10mi/ gal. But fortunately I only have to drive about 20 mi a week. Now if you are saying that somehow I am unethical or willfully contributing to our human demise I would have to call you a fanatic. We (humans) do what we can. If you want to buy me another more fuel efficient car then thank you. To say the fact that I cannot afford to get a nnew car is unethical is rediculous (besides that 'they say' that it now is more ecologically sound to keep whatever car you have than it is to buy a new one).

It is smallminded to think that everyone should be aware of our human demise and do what they Should for the planet. Everyone doesd what they can where they can and This is what you see the problem as - a general complaint about the human situation. As if 'someone' has to take responsibilty.
I live in one of the most liberal and ecologically conscious communities in the world (probably). And it is only those who are in a financial position to haver to great fuel cars and the biking to work and the great schools so their kids can be educated and etc. It is smnall minded to think everone Must; it is real to see that everyone just does what they can. Great for being the activist. I commend you.

But I love my car. .

Further, I do not agree with sustsinable practices because I think we are going to kill humanity, but that I am making a choice of how I want to live.
Perhaps I am making a claim on continuing to live in a clean environment has more to do with not living in 19th century industrial england conditions.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Yet, if we stick to the evolutionary science, it would seem that such a denial of symbiosis that would detroy us is that element of fear that will make us excel as an adapted specie. Whatever the general idea of fear is present for the era, I am not speaking of individual cultures. Or the individual. It seems contrary to the evidence of history that we would detroy ourselves. No entire group of humans has ever died, but their susrvivors have contributed to the adaptive attibutes which allow for the survival of the specie. To posit that now we have come to a pivotal point in history for our ultimate survival merely makes my point.

It only makes your point if we survive it, which is yet to be seen!

Obviously I'm here to rally people in sacrificing their selfish needs thus helping to potentially bring about the change required to save the day and make your point. Sitting on ones ass and believing, "everything's OK, man shall fix it," is the lethargy that has brought us to the brink.

Coming upon a burning house one can do one of three things with respect to it's existence:
1) throw fuel on it so your hotdog can cook to completion
2) pass on by without a blink of an eye
3) throw water on it to put it out

I am of option 3. Most of the people on the planet are of either 1 or 2 which is why we're here, at the brink in the first place.

I do not think most are of the opt 1or 2. Many are just naïve and ignorant, but that does not mean they are contributing to our demise.

Indeed, you are a part of our species. You are that adaptive element. But there is no total ethic, you yourself have said that we cannot know what is actually true, we can only act on what we think is true. Everyone is doing this. The respective manifestations of ethics together reveal the actual ethical situation of our species. It is not either/or, it is not 'do this or we all die', it is 'we do what we do and think what we think because that is the nature of our adapted consciousness as an organism that has been selected naturally.

That is, if you believe in natural selection then there is no room for a choice that is gained from a segregate, priviledged position upon the actual universe. There cannot be an organism of the universe that is sufficiently separate from the universe to know what is actually going on as the universe. Only if we are separate from the universe can we know we are destroying ourselves as an actual fact. This is to say, the fact that we think we may destroy ourselves if that ethical component of our being human which arrives due to the situation of existance that includes what is not ethical. There is no 'actual' ethics occurring here, only what is innate as humans are naturally selected to behave in such a way as to allow a consciousness of ethics that posits we may destroy ourselves as part of our existential position which ironically evidences our situation that we will not destory ourselves, but we may destory that which we consider 'civilized'. But this has happened at least a few times.

And, in that I may be asserting that you are part of a much larger ethics than you care to admit evidences that indeed we are separate from the universe, or at least are capable of behaving as if we are separate and have no further reprecussions that an internal debate on the matter which really amounts to a discussion about what Kind of world do we want to live in; the 'we are going to die' rhetoric is a strategy of one voice of the former debate.

First, speak for yourself as you are the only one you can actually speak for. Second, "much larger" is ambiguous, whereas "most" indicates 51% or higher, so were you thinking "much larger" than 49%?

In 2 years I have only filled up my automobiles gas tank 3 times and I have done no partial fills, it gets 35 MPG highway and 30 MPG city, how about you? My bike gets 40 MPG and I drive it as much as I can, funny how you can fit 3 individual bikes on the same footprint as one car, some bikes get 60+ MPG, unfortunately mine's been down for repairs. I recycle all man made's, compost organic and feed animal remains to neighborhood scavengers. I'm working on becoming a vegetarian, my wife already has. Finances permitting, my next auto will be at least a hybrid but preferably all electric. The southern facade of my roof will be adorned completely with photovoltaic panels and a solar water heater. A radiant floor heating system connected to geothermal will replace the forced air gas furnace. Rain barrels will collect roof gutter water for the garden. I plan on increasing my attics insulation to at least r37. What's your carbon footprint?

Somehow I knew you'd go there. I do what I can, what I am able; I agree with such sustainable practices, but my life and my self is not situated to be able to do Everything that I would. That is what we should expect from everyone. Yes I recycle and compost and what is actually trash is minimal. But I drive a 77 lebaron. It is a perfect engine. It passes emission way below the standard but it gets maybe 10mi/ gal. But fortunately I only have to drive about 20 mi a week. Now if you are saying that somehow I am unethical or willfully contributing to our human demise I would have to call you a fanatic. We (humans) do what we can. If you want to buy me another more fuel efficient car then thank you. To say the fact that I cannot afford to get a nnew car is unethical is rediculous (besides that 'they say' that it now is more ecologically sound to keep whatever car you have than it is to buy a new one).

It is smallminded to think that everyone should be aware of our human demise and do what they Should for the planet. Everyone doesd what they can where they can and This is what you see the problem as - a general complaint about the human situation. As if 'someone' has to take responsibilty.
I live in one of the most liberal and ecologically conscious communities in the world (probably). And it is only those who are in a financial position to haver to great fuel cars and the biking to work and the great schools so their kids can be educated and etc. It is smnall minded to think everone Must; it is real to see that everyone just does what they can. Great for being the activist. I commend you.

I never lived where you live, I can't stand that dirty place, only place I've been that makes you feel like you can cut the air with a knife. LA sucks! but I lived where you went to college, well, close by, but I visited good old Santa Cruz, home of the Doobie Brothers many, many times, I lived where Journey was from, well close enough anyway.


Edit: I loved California, It's my home away from home. I was there during the great quake of the 80's that brought down the cypress structure in SF and a section of the Bay bridge. But I loved Cali for the serenity of her Redwood forests; her countryside. In total I lived there for about 10 years.

[lancek4]

I have lived in those places and LA was fun but I don't know why anyone would live there. Now I live in colorado and for the most part its a very eco forward state.

I view LA now as so rediculous in so many ways that it is difficult to consider my self human and those who live there also human. .