Can We Call This Progress?
 

Can We Call This Progress?

Rugged individualism might be an appropriate expression for all the creatures in the world, with one exception. Humans have, in the last few hundred years, moved from being rugged individuals to our present state in which we have fashioned an alien environment in which we have become chess pieces or ciphers. We have invented the Artificial Kingdom where, as Simone Weil once noted, “it is the thing that thinks and the man who is reduced to the state of the thing”.

I think that we, women and men, have become chess pieces. We have become objects to be manipulated by the market and the corporation. We spend our days like the chess piece; we have a quantified value and are placed on the board and used as desired by some one who may be a real person. The real person has still the human characteristics of creativity, spontaneity, improvisation, spontaneously reactive, discontinuous, a mosaic more than syntax or cipher. Just what we find is missing when using the telephone to contact someone out there.

In an effort to understand where we are now it might help to start back in time and move forward. In frontier days each person was very much an individual. Rugged individualism was a popular expression. Each man and woman was a jack-of-all-trades and master of none. Each husband and wife was a team that together could and had to do everything that was needed.

In early America we were an agricultural economy. Most families were farm families we were all rugged individualist. The farmer was very much the jack-of-all-trades and the master of his or her domain.

As we move forward in time we see this team become a man working in a factory or office and the woman was at home raising the children and maintaining the day to day necessities for all family members. She washed, cleaned, shopped, sewed, and was still much of a rugged individual. Slowly the man became a specialized worker in a clockwork factory or office.

Moving forward in history we arrive at the present moment where not only is the man working in the factory or office but the woman joins him there also.

When we examine the factory or office workspace we find a very different occupation for the man and woman than the rugged individualism of emerging history of human evolution. We no longer are masters of our own domain but are ciphers in a clockwork that functions upon modern economic principles.

A pertinent example of this mode of commodification is how we have converted what was political economics into the modern economics. Political economy is the study of social relations. It is the study of culture. Political economy focuses upon the problem of how to regulate industrialization within the context of a healthy society, it worries about the problems of labor within a context of the laborer as an end and not a commodity—an object of commerce.

Economics, however, in its modern form, has replaced political economics. Economics has removed the pesky concern about labor as being human and has replaced labor as being a commodity—an object of commerce. Modern economics is now the study of scarcity, prices, and resource allocation. Economics has legislated that labor, as an end, is no longer a legitimate domain of knowledge for economic consideration. In doing so, over time, society has become ignorant of such concerns. Our culture has replaced concern about humans as ends with humans as means to some other end.

In the rugged individualist mode of living the individual was creative and master even though the domain of mastery was small. An individual’s personality is dramatically affected. Labor has become an abstract quantity and calculated into the commodity produced. We are the only creatures who have completely removed our self from what we were evolved to be. We are the only creatures removed from our grounding in an organic world. We came from a long ancestry of rugged individualist and now reside in the Artificial Kingdom. To what end only time will tell.

Do you feel like a cipher in our culture?

Only found on one other forum.

Welcome to the Cellar coberst. I'm not a rugged individualist myself -- I'm a wimpy individualist. I sort of like my alien environment where, instead of breaking my back farming, I get to sit on a very comfortable chair in a very comfortable air-conditioned office, with free coffee and all the spring water I can drink, and type things for a living. If I want a bit of farming, I can tend my garden, but it actually costs more in supplies than the price of the food it returns.

This is a stark rewriting of history. The long ancestry of human beings is tribal, not ruggedly individualistic. In only a few, isolated, idealized instances (the American West, as you say) were people truly self-contained units of individual determination.

Well, so far, to the end of universal education, vastly extended life-expectancy, a 40-hour work week (instead of every daylight hour of every day), and an embarrassing richness of cultural expression. It turns out, specialization and market economics do good things for human beings.

Speaking as someone who loves their job, there's no possible way I could do what I do unless I trade it at a high value, and then pay other people to do their own specialized work, such as building my transportation, growing my food, providing my medical care, and delivering piping hot DSL service to my house.

Am I a cog in the machine? Fine. It's a beautiful, powerful, progressing and evolving machine that has released us from the burden of subsistence living and has allowed us the possibility of freedom, art, and the flourishing life. It has allowed us these things in spite of race, rank, sex, or class. It has allowed us these things by the very means you revile, by turning labor into a commodity that can be ascribed value in trade for other things.

Being a rugged individualist is still a viable choice. I know people that have an occupation to provide income, and still do most everything that needs to be done to make their lives as comfortable as they desire.
They repair their own cars, remodel their own houses, grow some of their own food, make some of their own clothes, etc.

The choice is still there, for those that are up to the challenge, but it's also nice to have the option to be a specialist. A choice out forefathers didn't have, for the most part. I'd call that progress.


Oh, and welcome to the Cellar, coberst.:D

Thanks for the welcome. The following is a quote from one of my favorite authors.


“The great characteristic of our time is that we know everything important about human nature that there is to know. Yet never has there been an age in which so little knowledge is securely possessed, so little a part of common understanding. The reason is precisely the advance of specialization, the impossibility of making safe general statements, which has led to a general imbecility.” Ernest Becker, Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction “Denial of Death”

It is my opinion that Americans lack the intellectual sophistication required to comprehend the problems we face let alone to solve them.

What problems do we face, that can be solved, without an intense education in very specific sciences?

Wow, coberst, you really threw down the gauntlet there.

Since I'm an American, I lack the intellectual sophistication required to comprehend your statement that Americans lack the intellectual sophistication required to comprehend the problems we face let alone to solve them.

Please help to educate a stupid American.

What is meant by "everything important about human nature"?

Exactly what knowledge is not securely possessed? How does this knowledge differ from "common understanding"? How does this differ from, say, early scientific research during the end of the Dark Ages when such research was seen as heresy by the Church and ruling authorities?

Why is it impossible to make safe general statements. In general, statements about what? What exactly do you mean by general imbecility?

Is it possible for you to participate in this discussion without quoting someone other then yourself?

I think that if more Americans became self-actualizing self-learners we could slowly overcome the negative legacy of our educational system that has left us unprepared for solving todays problems.

I would like to introduce a concept that perhaps many have not given consideration. I would like to introduce post-schooling scholarship.

I think we have placed scholarship on a too lofty pedestal and in doing so we have placed it beyond reach or consideration. I want to suggest that middle class scholarship is reality that we all should consider as a friend to be embraced as our own.

It appears to me that we give this description, scholar, to the young student in an aristocratic English Academy and to the pipe smoking, dressed in tweeds, English professor or American equivalent.

The development of an economic middle class is the hallmark of success in any mature nation. I think it is possible that the development of a scholarly middle class could represent a similar development in the life of democracy of a nation.

I think that schooling in America has been given the assignment to prepare our young people to enter the work place. Our schools and colleges are required by society to prepare young people as efficiently as possibly to become troopers in the drive to maximize production and consumption. This assignment gives our teachers and professors little time to prepare individuals to become critical thinking mature intellects prepared to understand a rapidly developing reality driven by the technology these graduates are capable of producing.

I am a retired engineer with a good bit of formal education and twenty-five years of self-actuated learning. I began the self-learning experience while in my mid-forties. I had no goal in mind; I was just following my intellectual curiosity in whatever direction it led me. This hobby, self-learning, has become very important to me. I have bounced around from one hobby to another but have always been enticed back by the excitement I have discovered in this learning process. Carl Sagan is quoted as having written; “Understanding is a kind of ecstasy.”

I label myself as a September Scholar because I began the process at mid-life and because my quest is disinterested knowledge. I think of myself as a middle class scholar.

Disinterested knowledge is an intrinsic value. Disinterested knowledge is not a means but an end. It is knowledge I seek because I desire to know it. I mean the term ‘disinterested knowledge’ as similar to ‘pure research’, as compared to ‘applied research’. Pure research seeks to know truth unconnected to any specific application.

I think of the self-actualized learner of disinterested knowledge as driven by curiosity and imagination to understand. The September Scholar seeks to ‘see’ and then to ‘grasp’ through intellection directed at understanding the self as well as the world. The knowledge and understanding that is sought by the middle class scholar are determined only by personal motivations. It is noteworthy that disinterested knowledge is knowledge I am driven to acquire because it is of dominating interest to me. Because I have such an interest in this disinterested knowledge my adrenaline level rises in anticipation of my voyage of discovery.

I hope this is interesting to you.

Chuck

Now on three other forums

I too would consider myself to be a self-actualized self-learner, but you have now made me skeptical about using the prefix self in everything. It's nice you are interested in things - "the unexamined life not worth living" and all that.

But we do notice that you are fully concerned with self and not so concerned with other. For example, in the above post you wrote an essay about what you are concerned about, but failed to actually answer Bruce's question. Those posters whom I have seen doing this sort of thing seem to be smart but not wise.

You go to all sorts of forums with no interest in the people there, only looking to poot your essay around. That's fine, and if it's written well we like it, but you're missing the perspective of hundreds of people, available free for the asking, who have seen so much of the world that you haven't. Wouldn't you like to see how rugged individualists can use an ancient tractor and saw to cut up a load of wood in the back country? Wouldn't that be a nice addition to your understanding of the world?

I'm an individualist....I'm also a collectivist. Certain aspects of life foster individualism and, in my opinion that can be a good thing. Some aspects of life benefit from, and therefore foster, a collectivist approach. 'Rugged individualism' is nice and catchy but overly simplistic in the answers it provides to life's questions. We cannot all be expert at everything, unless the range of things that one can be expert in, and the extent of expertise that's possible, is awfully small. We can all gain expertise in general herbcraft....but we cannot all be experts in brain surgery. Even in the most individualist societies (such as frontier America) not all knowledge is held by everyone: indeed, such universality of knowledge would require far more in the way of collectivism than it would in the way of individualism.

A jack-of-all-[subsistence]trades and a master of none. Those husband and wife teams would no doubt have found it comforting to know that there was a trained doctor nearby should they fall ill with something that cannot be treated with local herbs. I would imagine very few of them were self-sufficient to the point that they never had to engage in purchasing goods or services.


So it has always been and so it will always be. The chess players vary, but ordinary people have ever been at the mercy of those who shape the laws and economy in which they live. Look at the origins of your ruggedly individual colonists and you will see many for whom their presence in the New World was a consequence of the chess games of mighty men. At every point in America's history there have been chess players and chess pieces, just as there have been in my country's history. All that differs is the degree to which people are vulnerable to such games: the degree to which their individuality protects them.


No. I feel like an individual, an individual whose relationship to the culture she lives in is uniquely hers. I feel valued in my individuality; but more importantly, I feel valued as a part of the collective whole. It is my place within that collective whole which means that my individuality is respected, valued and protected.

That is a nice smart essay, but to me the rugged individualist is nothing if not a problem solver. I'm going to hazard a guess that you're talking about global warming and population bombs. It occurs to me that heavy fossil fuel usage is more a result of mass society and collective decision making than individual choice. If you travel rural America you would note that people are beginning to choose wind power and would do so more readily if the collective stopped subsidizing fossil fuels. If population is your bugaboo just consider that without immigration US Americans ;) would have little population growth. As individuals we've decided to have fewer children.

A middle class MENSA, in tweed jackets with leather elbow patches, that discuss what's wrong with the world at length, but never actually DO anything. :eyebrow:

Specialized knowledge is useful when developing the means to reach goals. General knwledge and the ability to dialogue are necssary for determining goals.

Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.

I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.

Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

How does a young person who has finished their schooling develop their own value system?

How does a young person develop a sound intellectual foundation upon which to build a life?

What is a sound intellectual foundation?

How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?

Joe

The knowledge about human nature that is available but remains virtually unknown to most Americans is that knowledge that will allow one to answer the question "Why do humans do the things they do that are so harmful to all humans?"

Becker gives us a good look at such knowledge in his books.

I seek to make my readers conscious of important ideas. Consciousness of ideas is the first step toward gaining the knowledge and understanding required to comprehend those problems and possibly in dialogue with others to solve the problems discovered.

“In Mexico, farmers who noticed velvetbean growing wild in their fields used it to increase soil fertility and improve maize yields. In Northern Ethiopia, farmers reclaimed farmland from a river by constructing walls in the river bed and diverting the water flow. In India, an innovative farmer designed a tree plantation that successfully survived a severe three-year drought. Farmers' innovations have stood the test of time and hold the potential to meet the challenges of increasing production and managing the natural resource base.

During the last 40 or 50 years, however, many farmers have relied less on their own experimentation and innovation, and become more dependent on outside information provided through extension systems. This has had the effect of disempowering many farmers, as they became passive recipients of knowledge and technology.”
http://www.farmradio.org/english/pub...s/v2003sep.asp

The US began as a nation of individuals constantly moving west, moving from civilized areas to a new frontier. Such individuals who were capable of hooking up a wagon to a team of oxen and joining a wagon train going west through a wilderness filled with danger represents not only the myth but the reality of America. And Americans like to think of them self in this way although it is no longer true.

The rugged individual had no grocery store or hardware store close by when the need arose. S/he had to make do with what ever they were able to create to solve he immediate problem.

What am I doing to solve these problems? I am posting important ideas on the Internet forum in the hope that a few of the readers will become curious and interested enough to become self-actualizing self-learners.

Come now, you have answered none of my questions. You've only referred to another person who wrote a book. You are not coming across as very self actualized.

You would have me believe you know something that I don't, come forward and don't be vague. Please answer all of my original questions.

I'm beginning to see how you might feel like a cipher. Maybe you should do something.

In other words: most people are so stupid they didn't know they had problems, but you are looking to A) explain to them what their problems are, and then B) to solve them.

(Your plan might not work here, because as you can see, I have a Bullshit-to-English dictionary.)

Farming is hard work, before dawn, till after dark... every day. Farmers don't have time for dialog, they have to do... right now.

For way more than 50 years, farmers have relied on the State University Extension Systems to answer questions about problems with livestock, and how to make their crop fields more productive, from the collective wisdom of all the farmers, the University contacts.

In the recent past, the increasing cost of chemical fertilizers/pesticides, and the growing awareness of possible health problems, have made a large minority of the farmers, want to switch back to a more natural (organic) method of farming. You know what, the Extension Service has that information too! They don't replace, just continually add to, the collective wisdom.

coberst! Quick, take my hand--I can lead you out of this maze...I'm a friend! You've got to trust me--there's not much time! :::slap::: Pay attention, man! This is vitally important. You have used the term "American" to define an intellectual class. Explain...think fast! . . . Bzzzt! Wrong! . . . Bzzzt! Wrong! . . . Trick question--there is no valid explanation.

And that's why everything else you have to say will be dead-on-arrival. People will think one of two things, #1 you're a self-loathing American who projects the microcosm of your experience upon the canvas which occupies your field of vision, ie.e the surface area inside your own borders (Herman Hesse was raised in the culture that gave us [Godwin deleted] but he didn't obsess on German intellectual inferiority in his novels) ; or #2 you're an America-hating European who uses America as a boogey-man for everything that's wrong with the world.

I don't think that either one of those positions describes where you're coming from--but it doesn't matter, because when you go throwing around "Americans this" and "Americans that" it sets off a red flag. Everybody knows that there are problems in modern society, just as there are problems in every society; and America being one of both of the above, it is going to have problems. Is that due to a magical force-field that renders American people a hive-mind philosophy? I might agree with that, except I'm an American! In order to posit that theory, I have to make the assumption of my own unique qualities.

And the point is that I can't logically attribute to myself a quality which renders me capable of analyzing the culture (global human culture) of which I am a part without admitting that I am a part of it. See? I'm here to make you conscious of important ideas. Oh, wait. Now it seems like I'm a pompous ass, and I'm calling you a fool. Hmmm. Well, I'm sure when you do it, it's different. After all, I'm just a loathesome American.

Coberst, to expand on Flint's point from my own perspective. I live in Britain and most of the people I know are neither anti nor pro American. But if they (I) have an issue it is that Americans sometimes appear to think the rest of the world - savour that phrase - doesn't count.

If you're going to denigrate every single "developed" country for their lifestyle, at least acknowledge them. If your issue is only with Americans then you might find a better audience on a US-only forum. This forum is US-based, but thanks to UT and the intelligence and experience of the American Dwelars it is a welcome home to a small but vocal "foreign" contingent, whose views are appreciated if not always accepted.

Bottom line - do your homework rather then posting a set piece. This is a community, not a soapbox.

Although I admit I did read your post with interest and if you can discuss your views intelligently I don't necessarily need the elusive dialogue to take them on board. Welcome.

My only gripe with the foreign contingent is that you put a u in color and you call the wrong thing football.

Edit:
Seriously, though, it would never occur to me that this is an "American" board (I would think the mere idea of the internet itself would preclude that possibility); if anything, I feel that there is a predominate number of people here from the Philidelphia area (a residual quality of the Cellar's origins).

I mean...let's get down to nuts and bolts here, and attack the intellectual properties of people from the geographic region surrounding Philidelphia.

Edit:
First we have to determine the exact center of Philidelhia, and then measure the distance of each user from that point. A sliding scale of intellectual properties will be applied using an algorithm based on physical proximity to ground zero. Line up now, or be rounded up forcefully by our intellectual jackboots. This is for your own good (the first step toward gaining the knowledge and understanding required to comprehend [your] problems).

Good thing I am not one of your readers--I have yet to read all of, or even a majority of, any of your posts. However, you are now one of my readers. Sucka!

I won't tell you what I seek to make my readers do; that would spoil the surprise.

Shit! Now I'm one of your readers too!

I R her reader and so can U!

I for one, welcome the Clodfobble overlord.... ess.
Beat me, whip me, make me read bad posts.:notworthy

Humans are artifact adoring artisans

Humans are meme (idea) adoring creators.

Humans create symbols (abstract ideas) upon which they place value sufficient for killing and dying.

Americans create a flag (an artifact of cloth) which symbolizes the value they place in a nation (artifact, idea, meme) for which they will really kill and die (nothing artificial here).

Humans require meaningful symbols upon which to give life sufficient purpose for living, dying, and killing.

Because humans can create their own meaningful artifacts why does our species place meaning into such dangerous artifacts (memes, ideologies) as religion, nation, capitalism, communism, etc?

The freedom we have to create that which is meaningful to us is poorly used, why?

Why do we waste such a precious freedom on such dangerous toys?

We do so because we lack the courage (self-reliance) to go against the flow.

Our adaptation to society as infants and children has left us without the courage and confidence required to go against the flow of society. We have the freedom but not the energy and courage to overcome the blind habit of conformity.

We are not determined atoms; we do have the potential to do much better. How can we overcome what we have become and thus become something better?

We can overcome our present predicament by creating a new reality, a new set of meaningful symbols that we choose to give value.

Imagination is the instrument by which we can overcome.

Define 'our', 'we' and 'us'.

Personally I do not see a flag as being worthy of killing or dying for. That said I would take up arms and defend my country were it to be invaded. Does that make me a hopeless conformist? And what of the 'new set' of meaningful symbols? Will they be worth dying and killing for?

I get the impression that you believe humanity to be fundamentally broken. I also get the impression that the very last thing you would look to to fix that break is politics. Imagination is the instrument by which we will overcome is it? Overcome what? Overcome how?

Your posts hint at some deep philosophy but I fear in reality, they point to a lack of understanding.

Coberst, if you take enough LSD all of the symbols and memes disappear. I don't recommend that.

I recommend that you get a job, pay your bills, and vote. Just voting would be against the flow.

Just for the sake of argument, which it seems is why you have graced us with your presence. The world is not fucked up, it is exactly the way it's supposed to be. We won't destroy the earth, and we won't destroy the entire human race. We will change the earth, and we will go on. That's the way it is. Or not.

Relax dude, take that money from mom and dad and buy a coffee.

Humans create accounts (abstract collection of data) upon which they place value sufficient for posting and messaging.

Humans create an username (an artifact of pixels) which symbolizes the account they have on a forum (a collection of accounts) for which they will really argue and annoy (nothing unusual here).

Humans require accounts upon which others can understand what user is being annoying and give admins sufficient purpose for deleting, editing, and banning.

Because humans can create their own accounts why does our forum place meaning into such accounts (usernames, passwords) as coberst, urbane guerilla, radar, etc?

The freedom we have to create accounts is poorly used, why?

Why do we waste such a precious freedom on such ridiculous morons?

We do so because we lack the courage (as moderators) to ban, against the flow.

Our adaptation to the internet as infantile and childish posters has left us without the courage and confidence required to go against the flow of forums. We have the freedom but not the energy and courage to ban the blind posters of nonsense.

We are not determined moderators; we do have the potential to do much better. How can we overcome what we have become and thus become something better?

We can overcome our present predicament by creating a new forum, a new set of meaningful posts that we read to get smarter.

Moderation is the instrument by which we can ban accounts.

A user who maybe has decided to stay anonymous did some research and found coberst wearing out his welcome all over the nets

This thread for example is all about him

I say Shit can the spaz

Sometimes you come up with a gem. :lol:



So dosn't everyone make flags? It's boringly obtuse.
What's the finer point?

I just think yer hate'n on 'Ole Betsy Ross.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_flag.svg.png

WTF? Why? Shit can everyone that you don't agree with? Nobody is required to respond, or even read, his posts. :rolleyes:

With respect, this is because you are American.
This is not a criticism of the board - I've already said that it's very welcoming and respectful.

But there are many things I come across here that I would simply not have heard of on a British board. And many thoughts/ attitudes/ beliefs pass without comment, or are as accepted as mainstream that would not be in Britain.

Monster has often stepped in to translate or explain that something I think is exceptional is in fact considered normal.

It is a positive thing - it certainly broadens my mind. But trust me, a majority American board is a very different place for a foreigner. T'internet only aids communication, it doesn't homogenise.

Meaningful artifacts are usually created after an event (such as the American Revolution) to represent the sacrifices made by previous generations which created the opportunity for you to live in the freedom you do today. If you choose to believe you're not free, then that is a choice you've made. If you've chosen to believe you are free, then you will know that the essential part of who you are will always be free, regardless of who or what controls your body or mind. Perhaps you don't need a cultural artifact such as a flag to represent that freedom, but having a culturally identifiable artifact encourages human beings to collectively focus as individuals on a similar goal or belief. This is a demonstration of the tribal nature of human beings. A nature which is almost impossible to escape because society is a self fulfilling ideology.

Individuals will always go against the flow. Everyone has a 'rugged individual' inside them and if and when the time comes, this individual will become apparent. Most of the time it's easier to go with the flow. Why is that? Because that's how society works. If everyone wanted to go against the flow, then it'd just be a different type of society or maybe there'd be anarchy, although there is order in anarchy anyway, so people are still going with the flow.

What you propose (if I understand your point) is impossible, because even if your ideas became reality, everyone would still be going with the flow, because that would be the collective cultural understanding.

What? No, it's because the internet has no physical location. It doesn't have to homogenize; it's all-inclusive.

The internet has no physical location.
However what is considered normal/ mainstream/ acceptable varies from place to place. That's all I'm saying - that what you see and hear and understand day to day is not what I do, or Ali does, or York does. And there's more people here from your country, despite it's widely differing opinions.

A few examples. In Britain:
If you went everywhere armed and objected to turning in your weapon to go to a National Park you would be considered paranoid. And probably dangerous.
If you took your child out of mainstream education and schooled them at home you would be considered at best unusual, and probably unfair to the child.
If you went to church on a regular basis you'd be in the minority and people would probably worry about their language around you.
If you suggested free education should be scrapped you'd be considered as slightly to the right of Atilla the Hun and about as fragrant
If you espoused shooting all CCTV cameras you might raise a few smiles, but seriously - not the done thing old chap.

We have very different baselines. The only impact the internet has is that we get to hear about other people's.

Thank you for those examples SG.

I was just writing a post asking why then,if internet people
don't homogenise,the non americans keep using america as examples yet use none of their own. ( for the most part )

You made that question null. Thanks I like hearing and learning about other places from the people that live there :)

Maybe you could call us a "historically American board," like they call some schools "historically black colleges." :rolleyes:

Flint's just trying to make everyone forget he's from :unsure: texas

And which website are you posting these on?

We're an American Board
We're an American Board
We're comin' to your town
We'll help you party it down
We're an American Board

Oh yeah, all right, take it easy girl, make it last all night. We're on... an American board!

It's only a small step from that to rubbing the lotion on the skin, oe else it gets the hose again...

S.G.

Flint posted other lyric to the song "American Band' xob posted.

I think that's what you're referring to. :confused:

It's also the song the girl is singing in her car before Buffalo Bill grabs her (Slience of the Lambs) ;)

OH! OH! :eek:


sundae .....Your cleverness tickles me :D

...can you help me carry this couch....

Okay, we can get all Bill O'Reilly on his ass: coberst is a bloviator. He claims to be retired and a grandfather -- and his fundamental maturity is far behind his years.

So should mass bloviation be grounds for banning? Well, UT is nothing if not tolerant.