08-06-2013, 05:28 PM
While I accept all that Jeff (and btw, I'm never "Mr"... always David, please), I am British. And being British means that the use of harsh, unpleasant or insulting language is almost a hanging offence. Apart from anything else it's very clearly counter-productive.
Modesty in language, even though disagreeing with somebody, anybody, everybody, allows points to be made intelligently and to ensure you are listened to -- even though others may still disagree. That's everyone's right and prerogative and the whole basis of a discussion forum such as ours.
I like intelligent disagreements because I usually am informed by them.
I can talk with considerable insight into international banking because for almost 30 years that's what I did professionally. But my professional field, like most I suspect, was relatively specialist and therefore narrow. Over time I learned more and more about less and less. I certainly cannot claim any great knowledge of all of banking, only some, and there are specialities that remain a mystery to me.
I rarely get involved in JFK, MLK or 911 because I can't be bothered to put the effort into understanding and remembering the minutiae - or much care about it either, to be perfectly frank about it. I am content, based on a reasonable amount of reading, that 911 was either permitted to proceed or was an inside job - and this was probably engineered by a small insider power group within the ruling elite for their own financial, geo-strategic and political benefit. That's all I need to know, as I am much, much more interested in identifying the members of the power group and knowing their motives - the "big picture" if you will.
The detail I'm happy to leave to others to attend to.
The foregoing is just for the record.
No offence is intended to anyone.
Signed,
Modesty Blaise
Modesty in language, even though disagreeing with somebody, anybody, everybody, allows points to be made intelligently and to ensure you are listened to -- even though others may still disagree. That's everyone's right and prerogative and the whole basis of a discussion forum such as ours.
I like intelligent disagreements because I usually am informed by them.
I can talk with considerable insight into international banking because for almost 30 years that's what I did professionally. But my professional field, like most I suspect, was relatively specialist and therefore narrow. Over time I learned more and more about less and less. I certainly cannot claim any great knowledge of all of banking, only some, and there are specialities that remain a mystery to me.
I rarely get involved in JFK, MLK or 911 because I can't be bothered to put the effort into understanding and remembering the minutiae - or much care about it either, to be perfectly frank about it. I am content, based on a reasonable amount of reading, that 911 was either permitted to proceed or was an inside job - and this was probably engineered by a small insider power group within the ruling elite for their own financial, geo-strategic and political benefit. That's all I need to know, as I am much, much more interested in identifying the members of the power group and knowing their motives - the "big picture" if you will.
The detail I'm happy to leave to others to attend to.
The foregoing is just for the record.
No offence is intended to anyone.
Signed,
Modesty Blaise
The shadow is a moral problem that challenges the whole ego-personality, for no one can become conscious of the shadow without considerable moral effort. To become conscious of it involves recognizing the dark aspects of the personality as present and real. This act is the essential condition for any kind of self-knowledge.
Carl Jung - Aion (1951). CW 9, Part II: P.14