A4E

There is a virus called Saddam. Disk validator virus. I had experience with that virus. But my bad, I mixed things up. I finally found the person I was thinking of. It is John Draper AKA Captain Crunch. I read in the comments of a youtube video where he is interviewed by Alex Jones, that he was probably/is behind the virus. Which makes sense because he was working with Apple at the time, which was in competition with Commodore/Amiga. I remembered that he was talking about working with an encryption prog, but it might have been Thunder Cloud. So not Tor. Started with the same letter, so my brain messed up. I am sorry for causing you distress.

What I know is that the guy working on it created viruses on assignment to attack and help bring down the Amiga home computer. Which is like twisting a knife into my past, so I did not trust Tor after I read that.

I did not read the article, and did not understand what you ment with this sentence. Could you elaborate? I assume you are referring to Tor the anonymity network. Why should we not use it? (If that is what you ment to say.)

I have not seen anything about phones being confiscated, have you? If it was the case, there should at least be some report of all phones being confiscated, and then a couple of people who are really pissed off about it, but being reassured that it is for the investigation, and they have to be without their phone for days, weeks, months. I have seen how people can not live without their phone within just hours, and also they are going to call all their friends, and go online to talk about what happened to them, (which I guess no one really did much of because this event has not been proven yet), so no, that is just too far fetched to even contemplate. Would you agree? Security cameras inside is new information to me. But not surprising. In a state of panic and complete shock, not knowing if they will die or live another day, they are ok with typing away on their phone to share their feelings in the moment. BUT can not point the camera on the phone in any general direction of what is happening. Written fictional storytelling has been around for thousands of years. Written language is not something to be trusted by itself. Maybe just me, but I would try to find any means of survival first. I see these non evidence events as giant nation, and international, adds for more government power and regulations. Sure we have effect talking rationally to already rationally open people, but by accepting horror stories without evidence, I believe we are inadvertently making the case that we need protection from a big daddy, which now means governments. I don't believe for a second that no one is able to fight back in such a situation. When adrenaline is flowing in humans, they can become very powerful, bold, smart, and fast. Sure, that is having effect. I just don't like the premise of accepting fiction in order to do this.

This video appeared on my youtube feed. It is about how the same scare tactics were used in Norway before we voted no.

This is absolutely incredible. I hate to say it, but the thumbnail does not give this video justice. You should definitely make a more magnetized thumbnail, like a big picture of his face smiling, that you can find on google im sure, and then write in more contrasted colors "IF I SAID WHAT I AM THINKING" or something like that. You would have more random traffic from within youtube for sure. I can make one for you if you want. The title is ok I guess.

These days I try to focus on the future, trying to tell people to be more critical. In an ideal world where everyone are critical, the recent Pulse nightclub thing would not spur thousands of videos on youtube, or thousands of discussions everywhere, because people would first demand evidence, or just dismiss it out of hand as it imo should have been because of no evidence. I know that I am risking getting banned here because such non evidence events are packed with lots of emotions, creating a lot of emotional waves and division online, which is the goal. And the oh so predictable gun control plugs. How about those claiming it is real, prove it, and then we can talk about it. Here are a few things to note: 300 people magically not making any video recordings with their cellphone and posting online of what happened inside. Apparently no ambulances have been caught on tape outside the nightclub. People accepting non evidence events like these has done a lot for building towards tyranny and loss of freedoms, and just about nothing to stop violent muslims, so I don't really see any reason to go along with these non evidence events, but each to their own I guess. I don't even live in the USA, but I seem to care more about it than most Americans because I understand that it is some of the only beacons of real freedom in the world.

Wow, I checked out his standup videos. Rare that I enjoy standup that much. Recommended!

Adolf Hitler wants a european state. What Adolf Hitler wants is in your best interest.

I wonder how it is to see people on the other side of the planet celebrating your birthday.

Just trying to make you see it from their perspective. Maybe it was a poor example. My first thought was to use the example of knitting. I guess that might have gotten some point across better because it should be sufficiently uninteresting for men. Perhaps you would be curious about the procedure of making bread after she fairly unexpectedly asked you about it, but how many men do you think would continue the conversation in that path? I can remake the example with knitting: Imagine this. You meet and start talking to a lady. You tell her that you just bought a nice sweater. Then she asks you if you know the procedure of which to knit a sweater. You know there is such a thing as knitting, but you do not know the procedure of it. What do you do? I don't know how you try to bring up the subjects you like, to ladies, and my examples are probably a bit extreme, but I would think that they get a bit overwhelmed and want to escape the uncomfortable situation, just like most men would want if a lady starts asking them about the procedure of knitting (or making bread). I have come to conclude and understand that most deep conversations usually need to start out shallow for people to get comfortable of what is happening. This means that you can theoretically talk about any subject to any person, as long as you start out shallow and then incrementally go deeper, and playing on the other persons curiosity. There are of course people who will never even want to wade out more than up to their shoes or perhaps knees, for various reasons, so I am talking about fairly upstanding healthy people. The reason you might have more success with men, is that men are generally more open to cut to the chase, especially when dealing with other men. (I don't know about women to women) If I have misunderstood the whole setting of this thread, then you can ignore my posts.

Imagine this. You meet and start talking to a lady. You tell her that you just ate lunch. Then she asks you if you know the correct way to make bread. You know there is such a thing as making bread, but you do not know the procedure of it. What do you do?

The Norway shooting was located on an isolated island with mostly children and teenagers, being tricked by a person pretending to be a police officer. Also children will generally not be inclined to rush and attack a person who is threatening them or others, which would be the case in a nightclub with 300 people, at any available opportunity. And the children on the island did not have any obvious tools to fight back with, like a vodka bottle, drinking glasses, chairs... The response to the situation on the island was completely retarded, and even hampered, giving him lots of time to do what he wanted. And there is video evidence of the Norway shooting, and evidence of dead bodies. So I don't see much similarity other than having lots of time.

We are interested in the truth, so I'd like to know what is happening in this video.

Are you consuming, or have been consuming any pharmaceuticals? Where you given anything when you were in the state psychiatry system?

That is an interesting perspective. I disagree that any perceived social rules can be a result of instinct. An instinct for me is things like getting very scared when you see a snake or a spider, and getting aroused if you see someone appealing of the opposite gender, and reacting if something is touching you unexpectedly. My position is that, just like in human societies, the monkeys will learn over time what they are not allowed to do within the society. And what position they see themselves having in the society. So I would say that I also disagree with you that they can not see the big picture view of their situation. In a group of monkeys like that, I am certain that everyone knows everyone and have made a big picture view of the group, and are relating to one another based on that. Just like humans do. And just about every other social animal.

This should not even have been anything more than a local story, with no one going to jail, except perhaps the robbers accomplice. Sorry criminals, that is the risk you take by being a criminal. "The victim should have used the knife in a less lethal way" - Yes court, everyone knows that you would be more careful towards a person with a gun if you know that your life is in danger and your adrenaline is sky high. Yes yes...

Generally everything I said to my father would be used against me. Never any meaningful or productive conversations. Thankfully I learned pretty early that it is not a person worth trying to relate to. Somewhat recently I brought up the issue of him poisoning the dinner table almost every day in the home. which amounts to something like 6500 days. He said he did not remember anything like that, and also trying to deny my experience of those days. And yes it was a test and he failed miserably.

Does he by any chance also, when cornered in one topic, usually bring up another topic barely related, just to be able to throw the ball back in your face. To make you the villain? And on and on to the next barely related topic, to attack you again, after you deflected the last one, making it into a desperate endless struggle to avoid any liability? This might be too advanced for an alcoholic though, but I am curious.

I heard about this today. And I immediately knew that the gorilla would not hurt the child, without knowing any details. More likely is that he was contemplating getting a reward or gain favours with the caretakers by protecting and returning the child. They are way too smart to even consider killing the child, just like we see in the other examples in history.

These paragraphs, but bold in particular, remind me of the not giving the video justice. I am afraid of not giving the video justice, thus perhaps repelling potential viewers. I have chronic fears of turning people away from enlightenment that still have power over me. Worst case example would be something like writing "Here is a video about making cattle productive" and then linking to The story of your enslavement. It might be a humorous wording that go well with your own thinking and others in certain communities, but it is very inaccurate and implants a bias into any outside viewer straight away which can turn them away from the same general path we have traversed. My main point is that people who share can have many reasons why they don't want to write anything. We are all very different. I don't think lazyness is that prevalent. I've had moments where I write an introduction to a video, and then just erase it because of my fears. I understand your point, but what turns one person away might just as well make another click. Due to curiosity if there is a lack of blurb for instance.

I get the impression that your father might be of the opinion that he is always right, Is this the case? Is he also blaming others for situations that generally arise from himself? Did he ever admit fault?

You are standing outside a cinema and see a picture of a movie showing at the moment. It looks damn exciting and you are ready to go inside and buy a ticket. Then your companion says he looked up a review on internet on his phone and tells you its boring. (more information). That's a distorted example though. I don't know about other people, but if someone writes something before linking to a video, I know that I have decided to not watch it sometimes based on what they write. What do you guys think about curiosity? I would think it is a powerful force that should not be ignored, and a lot of websites know this. ie "This guy was just going down to his basement, and then this happened!" is going to get a lot of hits, but more information revealed on the clickbait would obviously remove a lot of incentive to click it. How would you feel if stefs videos were presented with a 10 second introduction trying to summarize everything in it?

Do you have any evidence for this claim (in bold)?

My mantra has been that I should not implant a bias into the viewer before he watches the video. But rather let the viewer decide for himself. I generally do not like speaking on others behalf, which would be the case if I gave a (biased) introduction to a video. Also I can feel like I would not give the video justice, and so afraid that people might get bored even before deciding to click on play. Also I suffer from perfectionism. So I might try to avoid writing anything at all, because I would feel like I had to perfect it. Which takes time I would rather spend on other things. Not sure if any of my reasons have any merit.