Pro 8mm and Yale - Death Valley

[crimsonson]

Extortion?

I strongly disagree Roger. I think you are confusing the meaning. Extortion by defintion is illegal. Yale is not doing anything illegal under US laws and so are those organizing, in fact it is a right. What people decided to do is nothing different from sit-ins, street protest on front of an abortion clinic, KKK march down Main street, Million Men March, Burk and Hootie, etc, etc.

We are not pointing guns, breaking any laws, no violence, government is not involved... just private citizens. It's like the locals decided to protest the local strip club. the strip club has the right to be there and so are local citizens to be on the front of the club with signs.


"If you don't work on our film, then we're going to a public forum and encourage others not to work with you on anything else and deprive you of your ability to make a living. "

And? You just described American Democracy.
If it was not for your so called "extortion" I am sure many of us will still be sitting in the back of the bus, eating at seperate dinners, etc, etc.

[digvid]

By "not winning" I meant that Yale is not going to change its policy, and the government is not going to do anything to them.

[MovieStuff]

Extortion?I strongly disagree Roger. I think you are confusing the meaning. Extortion by defintion is illegal.

Oh sure, and as someone that went through a very messy divorce, I can tell you that there are many forms of extortion that are completely legal. But, in my view, anytime you try and force someone to do something they don't want to do by threatening their livelihood, that's extortion. A personal boycott because you independently made up your mind to not use them is always your right. But encouraging others that otherwise have no beef with Yale to boycott them because of you OWN personal differences crosses the line, IMHO.

And? You just described American Democracy.
If it was not for your so called "extortion" I am sure many of us will still be sitting in the back of the bus, eating at seperate dinners, etc, etc.

Oh, come on. That's totally different and you know it. Making people eat in separate diners and sitting in the back of the bus are violations of basic human rights and are humiliating. There is nothing even remotely similar with Yale not wanting to handle all projects and using their own guidelines as to who to say no to that even begins to justify forcing them to alter their personal ethics through intimidation or loss of livelihood.

Look at it like this: Let's say that they are the ONLY lab in the world left to process Ektachrome but they have other services as well. If they decide not to process Ektachrome any longer and you have quite an investment in Ektachrome stock, do you organize a boycott to force Yale to handle Ektachrome? Of course not. It is their choice what services they offer and to whom.

As you correctly pointed out, Yale is not breaking the law and, as I pointed out, they are not violating basic human rights nor are they humiliating anyone by making them sit in the back of the bus, etc. They are simply making business choices that are the right of all businesses to make and should be allowed to make without fear of intimidation or extortion from a group with different values.

Along those same lines, if people decide for themselves to not use Yale without undue influence from people with an agenda, then that's totally different. I refuse to handle negative, even though I can technically do it. Am I in for a boycott? Aren't there jobs that you've ever said no to? People have universal rights to freedom of choice, both personally and professionally. Taking that choice away just to satisfy your own personal needs and threating loss livelihood in the process is, to me, extortion whether it passes under the "legal" radar or not.

Roger

[crimsonson]

"But, in my view, anytime you try and force someone to do something they don't want to do by threatening their livelihood"


Exactly - your view, but according to the Supreme Court, Consititution, 300+ years of American history, evey scholar in this land its a RIGHT and commonly exercised right I might add.


"But encouraging others that otherwise have no beef with Yale to boycott them because of you OWN personal differences crosses the line, IMHO. "

What line? Not legal lines. Not historical lines. No line except your personal line. For the same reason you have that line and ability to post about it, is the same reason people have the right and should organize. People have the right NOT to join. There is no force here except financial one. Last time I checked this is one, if not the most, powerful tool of American democracy and capitalism.


"That's totally different and you know it. "


Really?

Ektachrome analogy is misleading. The fact that Yale's decision is based on moral standards has more in common with mine than your Ekta analogy. Race, ethnic, religious and gender discriminitatin are based on moral standards.

BTW - The Ektachrome analogy? Sure why not?


"It is their choice what services they offer and to whom. "

And they must live with the ECONOMIC decisions of that, like a KKK owner has the right to have a club for WASP only.


The simple fact you must apply your arguement to Anti Abortion protestors, your local citizens on front of a strip club, women's right to protest legal prostitution, etc.etc
I doubt you will or you can.


"intimidation or extortion from a group with different values"

Fear of what? Violence? Extortion?
Sorry Roger, everyday people here organize to voice their opinion to companies - from trivial like New Coke to political as Nike sweatshop workers. This is nothing new. Plain and simple.

You don't agree don't join. In fact, organize a counter boycott. Its a right.

[calgodot]

You're probably right, Jeff. I probably won't "win." I'mnot even sure what I would concsider a "win." I certainly don't suffer under the illusion that Yale will voluntarily change it's policy. I also don't think that the California AG office will pursue it - the climate in America is not one that inspires anyone, especially those in elected positions, to take a controversial stand for individual liberty. (And I am a very happy person, Jeff. I appreciate the concern, but some of us enjoy fighting for our rights. Anger and happiness are not mutually exclusive.)

I'll say this, Roger: at least I have the courage of my convictions. And at least I have convictions. Your own protests that you don't agree with Yale ring hollow and stink of hypocrisy. If you do not support religious bigotry, then you cannot support those who practice and promote religious bigotry. Like most Americans, you want it both ways: you want to say you are in favor of freedom and liberty, but you don't want anyone taking any actions that defend or promote liberty.

Basically, you don't want the boat rocked. Understandable. As a white male business owner, you occupy a position of privilege, which in this society entitles you to a broader range of freedoms than someone of a lesser station in life. People of privilege have the most to lose if those of us with less privilege start demanding a fair share of freedom! So it does not surprise me that you are in favor of the right to refuse business to anyone based on your own personal prejudices. It would take a business owner of great conviction and courage to think otherwise.

I have said nothing of shutting down Yale. (That you feel the need to distort my position speaks highly of you, I must say.) In fact, I said earlier that I would hesitate to file a complaint because it may result in the S8 community suffering. After goading from you and others, and some thinking on my own, I decided it would be wrong of me to take the cowardly response of letting what I view to be an injustice take place with no action of my own. So I filed the complaint, with trepidation, but with conviction as well.

In my complaint to the AG, I did not ask that Yale be shut down, nor would I support that action. However, I do think Yale's policies and practices are discriminatory and a violation of California law. They should be forced to comply with law. If they choose not to comply, then whatever remedy the law offers should be applied. If they choose to drop Super8 transfers altogether rather than deal with the bother of treating people equally, then that is their business choice. They are free to make this choice, but they are not free to discriminate against people on the basis of religion.

As for whether the S8 community will suffer, wake up: it is already suffering. Several local filmmakers cannot use a film processing and transfer service that is mere miles away because the people who run that business are bigots. This reduces our choices and, choice being a physical manifestation of freedom, takes away some of our freedom. We have other choices, of course, but none that offer the convenience (both physical and financial) of a "one-stop" service like Yale. Additionally, if Yale's policy is legal, then there is little to stop other businesses from having such a policy. (Don't think it will happen? I'll bet you thought you'd always have the right to an attorney if you were arrested, too, or that the government couldn't serach your house without a warrant.)

Roger, you say you find my actions - that is, exercising my democratic right to contact an elected representative with a complaint - "despicable." What you find despicable, Roger, is freedom. You say I am free to boycott Yale, complain about Yale, and take my business elsewhere. You say you support these freedoms, yet then compare a boycott to blackmail and violence. Once more, you want it both ways. You are not alone. Many of your fellow citizens pay lip service to liberty. Your fellow Texan George is probably the CEO of Liberty Lip Service Inc. Few people hate freedom and democracy more than the current administration, as they are currently demonstrating to anyone who has eyes to see.

My support of the S8 community is this: every filmmaker should have the right to make his/her films about whatever he/she wants. The filmmaker should then be able to choose services from the business community, based on pricing and other appropriate concerns. One should not be in the position of trying to discern the tastes of the company, or trying to figure out exactly what Yale means by "religiously blasphemous." Just as you should be able to take your car to the shop without worrying whether the mechanic will object to that copy of THE SATANIC BIBLE in your glove compartment.

Saying that we have the right to free expression but not the right to access the means of expression is intellectual chicanery. It is also a typical response of the enemies of free expression.

Free expression is worthless without access to facilities. Your type of thinking, Roger, is what has led us to a world where four companies - all of them politically aligned with the Republican Party - control the entirety of television broadcasting. It has led to a situation where television news is owned by defense contractors, so that fair and balanced war reportage on American TV is as common as a dinosaur in Manhattan. It has led to radio being dominated by one company, which will soon have the right to own every outlet in a particular market. It has led to consolidation in the print media to the extent that once competing newspapers are owned by the same company.

Finally, I think I have unleashed enough of my word-horde on this matter. It is clear where I stand. I stand for individual liberty and the enforcement of the laws of the state of California. I stand for the old fashioned notion that people are more important than business. I stand for freedom, justice, and democracy.

[Guest]

Just For Curiosity,

Does Kodak have any content/subject matter restrictions on the Kodachrome stuff they process in Europe?

[flatwood not logged in]

wait!!! how does he know that roger is a white male??? maybe he's using a fake picture too!!!???
flatwood

[MovieStuff]

Exactly - your view, but according to the Supreme Court, Consititution, 300+ years of American history, evey scholar in this land its a RIGHT and commonly exercised right I might add.

I never said you didn't have the right. I said I didn't think it was right and that, in my opinion, it was tantamount to extortion. There are many, many legal avenues available to people that want to make life hell for someone else. Don't confuse the "right" to do it with actually "being right". Big difference. You think it's okay to threaten Yale's livelihood because they have different moral and religious beliefs that you? Go ahead, but I don't think it's right and encouraging others that aren't even affected by Yale's views to join in is lynch mob mentality, in my opinion.

Race, ethnic, religious and gender discrimination are based on moral standards.

Yale has a right to be different without fear of facing retribution for being different. What you are proposing is the same as if they were Jewish and, because you only wanted to deal with a Catholic business, insisted that Yale switch over to Catholicism and it's entire value system and beliefs or you'll organize a boycott of their business; not just YOU refusing to use them but asking non-Catholics to not use them as well, based on principle alone and not on any actual conflicts with Yale.

Personal beliefs and values are not something that should be forced on someone else. Yale does not force their views on other people because going to Yale is a totally voluntary act and is not related to any inalienable human rights. Again, if the individual doesn't like Yale for what ever reason, then don't use them. But I feel that encouraging other people to not like Yale based on your own personal conflicts with their values and religious beliefs is going too far, ethically, even if what you do is legal according to the Supreme Court. Are the people you solicit to boycott Yale free to not join the boycott? Of course! But, as we have seen time and again in this country, people are often like cattle and will join a cause without thinking about the final impact of their decision. I know you feel strongly about this but Yale is no threat to anyone, so why threaten them just because you have the legal right to do so? Seems like a petty abuse of power to me.

Roger

[Guest]

Of course Roger is defending himself by defending Yale because he relates to them as business owners and the same type of business is also his livlihood. Furthermore, This Forum puts him at more risk than Yale of having conflicting views with people because of the many opinions that are circulated here. However, Yale will bring this boycott on itself for refusing to do business because of a profane word. I think that they are in the wrong state and city for that kind of attitude. When is the last time that they opened their eyes? They are practically in the movie making capital of the world. If they can't handle profanity then they are either in the wrong business or operating in the wrong location and perhaps should be catering to clients that make Christian based films that show in Christian theaters. And what about the content of the film that they handle. I am not suggesting that people make pornaography, or worse, child pornography, but this is the twenty first century and maybe someone will have a scene in their film that shows minimal dress like if a guy gets up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom in just his underwear. Mybe they would be better off operating in Salt Lake city and catering to filmakers who focus on Mormon themes instead of everday life.
Because the last time that I checked, Fuck has become a watered down word as more people have been using it lately and just about every major motion picture with at least a PG rating uses it. I remember when Suck was one the worst thing that could come of persons mouth when I was growing up and now it is used so lightly by many people including television newscasters and radio DJ's. So what the FUCK is up with all this fretting about a word that, in the grand scheme of things, is really no big deal at all?

[MovieStuff]

Of course Roger is defending himself by defending Yale because he relates to them as business owners and the same type of business is also his livlihood.

Actually, you make a good point but I am actually defending YOU as well! Even though I don't even know your name, you also have the right to decide what projects you will be involved in and what projects you choose to pass on. People in this argument are trying to make a distinction where there is none by pointing out Yale's religious beliefs. The reason that they pass on a project is irrelevant. They can say no to anyone the wish as long as they do not violate the law by doing so and, in fact, are not violating the law. The fact that they incorporate their religious and moral views into their everyday work life and decision making process is academic. If they didn't post their conditions publicly and simply told people that they were too busy, no one would even know the difference here. The fact that they are up front with their views and stand by their convictions (which I don't personally agree with) is actually admirable, in my book.

Maybe they would be better off operating in Salt Lake city and catering to filmmakers who focus on Mormon themes instead of everyday life.

I could not agree more. Yale is really in the wrong town for the business they are in and if enough people stop using them, then they will close. I would just hate to see their demise be hastened artificially due to the inconsiderate actions of a smaller group with a selfish agenda.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

I'll say this, Roger: at least I have the courage of my convictions.

Not that I can see, Cal. You hide behind the stolen copyrighted picture of a dead rock star and use the very govenment you hate to try and punish a lab that has never done a thing to you over a non-issue that doesn't even affect you just to try and win an unwinnable argument. Yeah, your convictions are impressive.

So it does not surprise me that you are in favor of the right to refuse business to anyone based on your own personal prejudices.

Well, of course, that's not what I said at all, Cal. What you re-define as "prejudices" most would refer to correctly as "freedom of choice". There is a huge difference.

It would take a business owner of great conviction and courage to think otherwise.

And it takes only a shallow minded hypocrit to claim that freedom of choice is exclusive to you and no one else.

I stand for freedom, justice, and democracy.

If you really stand for freedom, then leave Yale alone to make their own choices about the projects they want to accept. Or is freedom of choice reserved only for Cal Godot?

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

I know there are plenty of people out there who can think for themselves. Is there anyone, anyone at all who can actually make sense of the ramblings of Cal Godot and Crimsonson? It is very evident to anyone who can read, that Yale labs did not break any laws, no matter what Cal may think the laws say. Don't agree with their policies? Hell, I don't agree with the way I was treated by mormons when I spent some time in Ogden Utah. So what? What a lame argument that you will have to send your films out to a lab not in your neighborhood if Yale can not be forced to take your shit. How many on this site send their films out of their country to get developed?

To Cal Godot:

Roger is an upfront and fair man who shares his experience and thoughts with this group on a regular basis. I for one, find your personal attacks on him tasteless and more of a mirror onto the worth of your own arguments. Your attacks on me where pretty funny. I know you can not conceive the meaning of my remarks, not because I am so smart, but because you are blinded by your brainwashed prejudices. Why you live in the United States is clear to me. It is the only place you can live where you are tolerated.

To Chas:

I was cordial with my remarks to you, giving you the benefit of a doubt and accepting your apology. Your further remarks showed the shallowness of your apology and your true mean spirited disrespect for others. No working man is called "boy" other than to disrespect him. Albinos have special medical problems, and their appearance will always be a disadvantage to them (they probably face more discrimination than any other minority) at the very least. It was unnecessary to discribe the man as an albino any more than to call him fat, ugly, retarded, or some racial identifier and was again a way to demean the individual. Who believes he actually was whimpering and even crying? Your twisted tale of your rejection has set this all in motion. You should be ashamed.

As always, not hiding behind some fake ID or "guest" login,
David M. Leugers

[ericMartinJarvies]

freedom of speech? hehe ... get real. you live in the US, there is no freedom of speech in the US ... the people that truly speak free are shot in the back. go to brazil, mexico, hell, even france or spain ... you have more freedom of speech on their small pinky then on the entire fat belly of the US. and that is the truth. i am a US citizen, i was raised in america. i beleive alot of great people, great minds, great spirits are from america. but for pete's sake, you cant even socialize with your local police officer without getting harrased, or have your ID run through one system or another. you cant live without crdit of one form or another ... you always gotta be paying someone something. you have to disclaim everything so you dont get sued. common sense plays no role in the US legal system, and the enforement of the legal system. ask the dixie chicks how free the united states is regarding freedom of speech. as that documentary guy at the awards ... what's his name? freedom of speach is ruined by both the politicol power of the time, and all the non-thinking sideliners that populate the majority of the planet buying into all that propoganda bullshit. the top is feeding and fueling the bottom feeders. and those inbetween are either getting stepped on from those at the tp, or shot in the back from those feeding on the bottom.

so the next time you think you are truly free to speak, go in front a 1000 of your closest friends, place a number of network/cable cameras in front of you, and tell us how you really feel. i promise you, you will come out the other end of that meat grinder a much wiser and stronger person, and you will NOT think you live in a country that lives by the freedom of speech. or better yet, the next time you think you are free t speak, post those words on this forum ... you'll learn better.

the point? we have not matured as a species, much less a culture, to the point that we cna be confident in our own thoughts, to accept freely the thoughts f another. we must confirm our thoughts, and what better way t do so then through public opinion? the more people on your bandwagon, the better you feel about you, and your own decisions in life. but it is temperal ... the trend will change, the tides will turn, the opinion will shift, and in the end, you will wipe your own ass, blow your own nose, and go to sleep with your own thoughts. and as you sleep of the day's battle, you will wake up the next morning ready to g and fight it all over again.

i cant wait until the day comes where i am part of those who are like me. in other words, i am governed by the laws which i agree and which a make, not the laws which gvern the land /territory i live. its funny ... when you watch people on tv say things like 'i'm proud to be an american' <<< yet they hate their neighboors, they steal from their insurance companies, they treat their family like shit, and all they think about is themselves. ya buddy ... real proud to be an american that takes advantage of the legal system so much, that there are disclaimers for everything, including: drinking hot coffee ... come on, you know all the other stupid, but obviusly and legally accepted behavior that is not only tolerated, but rewarded.

understand that we are all differant. dont be scared of this. dont be jeaulous of this, and most of all ... dont be hateful of this. just learn to understand it. we will all think differantly. and we will agree with some more then others. instead of breaking down those who are not in your camp, embrace those who are in your camp, and thank them every day those other people are not! but dont try to make your camp thier camp. my cup'o soup is for me, and if you like it, have a sip. but i am nt going to force feed down your throught until you choke and die from it. please.

so my advice, stop using your talented, and obviously smart minds writting words in this very thought provoking forum, and go and turn on the tv, and see who is in the high seat, and more interestingly ... who is in the 'hot' seat. point your finger, cast your judgement, and fall alsleep into a good night of additional conditioning. wake up feeling redeemed, and follow the leader, follow your president, and don't you dare tell him how you really feel(not like you do here on this forum), because why blow a good thing ... why should the left hand know what the right hand is doing? live the lie. live the american dream.

(ok folks, this was 'freedom of speech' << now you watch how my fellow, and free americans reply to this. i threw in some judgment and finger pointing at the poor rivitheads of the world(no offense really) to make it more interesting. but really? none of this is real, or none of it matters to you. these are just words, from me, and who am i to you? nobody. so dont take them so seriously ... your words, in the end, are the only right ones anyway. you have to live yourself, and isn't that hard enough?)

peace

[MusicAlly]

I haven't followed a lot of this discussion, but it all seems rather exciting and emotional to me as an Englishman.

ericmartinjarvies is, as has been observed before, extremely prolific in his writing and I kind of don't really know what to make of it all, partly because I don't have enough knowledge (although I believe his assertion that he can become very quickly an expert in any subject he chooses), so to eric I'd like to make just one statement in all sincerity: please can he write a book because I'd be the first one to buy it. I may not understand all of it (like many other philosophical books on my shelves such as the Pullitzer Prize Winner from many years ago Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid) but it would be very interesting nevertheless. I believe he has plenty of words inside him for a very interesting book. eric, what do you think?

[ericMartinJarvies]

i think every day i realize how little i really do know, even though i think and try to convince others that i know alot. perhaps when i am older, but a book at this point would be to self enduldged ... lots of bricks in my bag still. so i will remain focused on my screenplay, wherein i can live vicariously through the charactors, so all the reward (and any such penalty), is placed upon them first. then i will carefully pick and choose only those things that keep me beleiving, and absolutely certain, that i am indeed important, and i am indeed smart. and i am indeed caring. and i am indeed accepted, so that 'i' am able to keep the l'i'fe inside of l'iving in this cruel creul creul world, wherein everyone else is too busy trying to take the attention from me, and place the spotlight upon them own selves, for their own confirmation. just stop fighting me folks, i am all important, and that is that. so the sooner you get it and the sooner you understand it, the sooner you will stop raining on my parade and the same applies to me in retrospect.

but seriously ... it is so hard to break the 'ME' and the 'I' in our life, because when it boils down, and the only things left is yourself, then all you have is yourself. me. I. and for those few folks in history who have been able to make other folks want to be just like them, hats off. cause its hard enough to make me want to be like me. sure, its easy to be content with yourself when you have the 'good' spotlight ... but when the 'bad' spotlight is bearing down upon you, it gets too hot, and you have to run for cover, or get burned ... some even at the stake according to some books i've read.

i think truly great writings stand the test of time, as evidenced by scripture/docterin, and great novals/books. but i think those who are able to write such words are either completely convinced of themselves, or have everyone else except themselves completely convinced of themselves. and so you have to wonder, is the writting really good, or does it merely provide something that you long to have yourself. because again, what is the fun of things if i cant get any of you to look at me. i mena, why post? why exist? if you did not reach out to get noticed, then you would not be noticed, correct? so perhaps we cant avoid this. so we work on how to get noticed in healthy ways, wherein others like to pay attention. but as we have seen, this has happened in many ways. for example, people can envy a guy because he is a playboy, and gets all the woman. or they can envy a guy because he has a ton of money, and cna buy anything, and they all want the same thing. but these other people are only taking notice to the things he has placed in front f him, and not him himself. so that is not very healthy, is it? so then you take a guy who is really considerate, and goes out of his way to constantly help you, and care for you, and be atentive to your needs. well, after ahile, you fell like telling this guy to leave you alone and get a life. and the beat goes on ... and the beat goes on. laddy datty dah. ditty ditty doe.

but in the process, we forget about the core self concern, and then we end up jumping on various bandwagons, and fight differant causes, and forgt about what started the whole thing to begin with. I. me. myself. so, until we figure out how to get all the attention each of us obviously needs, and until we figure out how to give the attention everyone else obviously needs, we will keep fighting in frustration and creating conflicts about things that serve not to endulge us, we, me, i. instead, we will serve that greener grass on the other side of the hill, or that next 'something or another tangable monitary' that is sure to make us whole, complete, satisfied.

if there was a magic way that all of us could get the attention we need, which would require we all give the same amount, we would never bother fighting or causing other people pain or harm. it simply would not have the oppertunity to jump in and get in front of our own self serving interests, us, we, me, i. and the funny about where we are in terms of defining self interest, is we consider it a bad thing, wherein all along it has been the best thing about us. the world will have you beleive you should care more about another person, then about yourself. well, how is that really possible? you have to breath first, in order to comprehend second.

if we could all just come to terms with self, we could come to terms with us. and if we could come to terms with us, we could live and truly have the freedom to speak, because at this point, we would not fear retribution from us, because us would be part of we, me , i. so if this takes us a matter of years to understand, so be it. better to understand then to deny and take into dark ages as evidenced in the past. but we al have such conditioned natures, and we all are still having to contribute to a syste, paying bills and using money.

but imagine if i, me, you, we, us, all, would suddenly stop using the current system(it could never happen like this, for many obvious reasons, but if a select group of people, congrigated in a demographical location that is able to self support, by way of water and food supply), and start using the living and being alive system, wherein you are not obligated to have more or less unless you make that decision. instead, you are obligated to take care of the sewage in equal roation. the trash in equal rotation. the planting of seeds in equal rotation. the harvesting and processing in equal rotation. all of the basic work related responsiblities that are only enough to support the number of citizens that are part of this system. thereby making all the other time available to d EXACTLY what you WANT or WISH to do, and NOT what some system MAKES you do.

so if this means that in order for me to belong to the 'truth tribe' for example, with their branch in baja, mexico, i would have to number 1, tell the truth at all times, without fear of retribution. number 2, i would have to work perhaps 1 day per week. this work would include the creation of food, or the disposal of its waste. i would do all jobs, in rotation, as every other citizen would do in order to keep us fueled, healthy, and sanitary. then, every other day of the week i could do as i wished. why? because my truth tribe governemnt would not charge rent or make me buy property. i could have as much as i could manage, and manage respnsiblity. i could belong to a super8 film group, wherein we have the latest in development technology to literally create whatevr we so desire.
why, becasue WE CAN!!

the only thing STOPPING us from doing this, is we, me, i. period. we have such little faith in our own self ability to d things, that we depend on a system that is not even real, it is a manufactured product of confusion that will no doubt serve no purpose when you die, and leave this place. so why let it control you while you are here? why do any of us let systems dictate and control us? for order? sure, i'll bite ... and that is valid. but we can have order and our cake too. cant we? why do we have to work? everything is available on tis planet wether we pay for it or not ... it was born of man's imagination, and imprisoned by man's insecurities/greed/look at me/spot light here.

but this system will ONLY work with those you are of like mind with. and rightly so. and when you need to go into another realm of thought, perhaps i need to jump out of the eric and eric-likes of the world, and jump into the roger and roger-likes of the worl. why? because i can like the roger and roger-likes of the world, just not full time, only part time. and the sideliners and sidliner-likes of the world, perhaps only a partial part of a part time. you know what i am saying? we need the mix, but we need not live with those we need only mix with on occasion. this applies in your love/personal life .... yet NO ONE has applied this to their social/politicol life. why?? i think you are all capable enough t answer that question for youself, and only that answer wll work for you. for me, i know the answer. i only wish i truly lived in a world that supports freedom of speach, because if i did, i could wake up tomorrow and go to the moon, or anywhere i wanted. ya man.