Thread: different point of view

Hi, I collect old books. Mostly old books dealing with education, economics, and Germany. This gives me a very unusual point of view, kind of like I were a time traveler coming from the past into the present.

I am also into string theory and the rising interest of if God is the universe, or the membrane in which we exist, as string theory phrases it.

Rita is an ancient word from India, meaning pretty much the same thing as the Greek word logos. The Beatles did a song about Rita the meter maid. Rita or logos is tied an understanding of morality and democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5JLYKQfDU

Oops, no OP.

I completely disagree with you. Though subtlety can accomplish much.

Well you would!
And welcome back.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

I completely disagree with you. Though subtlety can accomplish much.

That is a very creative argument. Perhaps I should explain, I collect very old books, and can validate what I say. Most of my books are about education. Many are about Germany written during the war years, because the US adopted the German model of education for military and industrial reasons. I expect disagreement because what I know is not part of present day consciousness.

Originally Posted by Rita

because the US adopted the German model of education for military and industrial reasons.

Huh?
After elementary school the German school system differs enormously from the American education.
Okay, that's the post-war system of each country.

Are you suggesting that the US has "adopted" the German pre and intra-war system?
This one: During the Hitler era (1933-45), the national government reversed the tradition of provincial and local control of education and sought centralized control as part of the regime's aim to impose its political and racist ideology on society. Despite an agreement with the Vatican that theoretically guaranteed the independence of Roman Catholic schools, during the 1930s the regime considerably reduced church control of the parochial school system. Universities also lost their independence. By 1936 approximately 14 percent of all professors had been dismissed because of their political views or ethnic background. The introduction of two years of military service and six months of required labor led to a rapid decline in university enrollment. By 1939 all but six universities had closed.

Please explain.

You are talking about administrative control.Rita may be referencing curriculum or methodology.

yes and one should never underestimate Dr. Sheldon Cooper either. He has plans for world domination. And if he has it his way, most of us will be sterilized.

For the record: I have no idea what Rita or anyone is talking about. Not sure how my argument in post two was so creative and can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things. What did I miss?

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Not sure how my argument in post two was so creative and can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things. What did I miss?]

apparently you missed the fact that there was an OP.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Not sure how my argument in post two was so creative and can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things. What did I miss?]

apparently you missed the fact that there was an OP.

There was? When? I had actually seen this thread before i was reinstated, the day it was first posted, and all it said was "oops no op" like it does now. is this a clip from another thread? Are you guys seeing something on your screen that I am not?

Originally Posted by John Galt

apparently you missed the fact that there was an OP.

Then so did I. All I get is a blank - even when accessing this thread through Rita's posting history.

You are talking about administrative control.Rita may be referencing curriculum or methodology.

There is that, although the Hitlerian curriculum included a great deal of indoctrination wrt Nazi ideology.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things.

Moi non plus...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by John Galt

apparently you missed the fact that there was an OP.

Then so did I. All I get is a blank - even when accessing this thread through Rita's posting history.

You are talking about administrative control.Rita may be referencing curriculum or methodology.

There is that, although the Hitlerian curriculum included a great deal of indoctrination wrt Nazi ideology.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things.

Moi non plus...

Oh thank goodness, I thought i had gone completely nuts.

ok seems the op has reappeared some how. when i read this thread originally, dywyddyr's post stating "oops no op" was post number 1. Now it is post number 2. What happened there. Seems some technical glitch went screwy.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

ok seems the op has reappeared some how. when i read this thread originally, dywyddyr's post stating "oops no op" was post number 1. Now it is post number 2. What happened there. Seems some technical glitch went screwy.

Danged CIA interference again.
At least now we have an idea of how the topic "got onto" Germany.

Rita, sorry for the confusion, it seems you were unaware that your OP wasn't visible. My post which is post #3 now was not directed at you so it isn't really an argument for or against your OP. it was directed at dywyddyr, who at the time I posted appeared to have been the person who started the thread with "oops no op". My remarks thus far can be completely ignored in regards to the subject you are trying to discuss.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Oh thank goodness, I thought i had gone completely nuts.

Meaning to imply partially is already established? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Oh thank goodness, I thought i had gone completely nuts.

Meaning to imply partially is already established? jocular

Well yeah, that's kind of a given. I am not completely delusional. But being human makes me predisposed to delusion and sanity deficiencies. As long as I am operating within tolerable levels of insanity I am happy with that.


Rita, sorry for inadvertently derailing your thread.

Let's get back on topic folks (now that we know what it is)

Originally Posted by Rita (the op)

Hi, I collect old books. Mostly old books dealing with education, economics, and Germany. This gives me a very unusual point of view, kind of like I were a time traveler coming from the past into the present.

I am also into string theory and the rising interest of if God is the universe, or the membrane in which we exist, as string theory phrases it.

Rita is an ancient word from India, meaning pretty much the same thing as the Greek word logos. The Beatles did a song about Rita the meter maid. Rita or logos is tied an understanding of morality and democracy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5JLYKQfDU

Weird things are happening. I thought I had posted an explanation about my interest, and when I checked the replies there was no opening post, explaining such interest. Now there is an opening post.

Originally Posted by seagypsy
Not sure how my argument in post two was so creative and can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things. What did I miss?]

I thought your post was very funny considering there was nothing to disagree with, so I said your argument was creative, and then I began my argument. Like from my point of view, what is happening is something to laugh about. Kind of like a saying on a key chain I once had. "I smile, because I don't have a clue what is happening".

My grandmother was a teacher. Her generation defended democracy in the classroom starting with the first world war. When she died I realized she couldn't continue defending our democracy as a teacher and I was curious about what that meant. I knew education had been radically changed, because I was in school when the 1958 National Defense Education Act was passed. I knew we adopted the German model of education because of things I had read. So went I went to second book store looking for books that explain what it means to defend democracy in the classroom, and also explain Germany. I was blown away by what I found, and would really like to share this information. I would like to share it by quoting from the books, and you all can tell me what you make of it.

To me, my finds are like a great archeological dig. This is lost information. William James 1899 book "Talks to Teachers" has been reprinted and I think anyone can buy a copy of it, but the 1917 National Education Association book of all the speeches made that year, may be one of the few copies in existence today. Anyone who loves history would love this book. The National Education Association appears to have been created for the soul purpose of mobilizing the US for war. The Charles Sarolea's 1915 book "The Anglo-German Problem" adds important information to understanding the change made in public education in 1917 and the more radical change made in 1958. This information is incomplete without a 1934 book about Europe's economy and some knowledge of what developing technology had to do the struggle for world dominance. As I said, to me these books are like an archeological find. It is so exciting to learn of history through these old books. I had to move into a two bedroom apartment because once I got started, my book collection grew and grew.

I also have access to a university library and in that library besides more old books, there are also government documents, and that too is like an archeological dig. I learned of things Eisenhower did to establish the Military Industrial Complex, by checking our government documents, and this information goes with the information about Germany, because Germany was the first military industrial complex and this is explained in the words of a Prussian General in the 1915 book. The US adopted both Germany's model for education and also the model for bureaucracy. They go together and shift power from the individual to the state.

Whatever, I seriously want to avoid unpleasantness, and if people aren't sincerely interested, I don't want to start dumping this stuff on everyone. I have had very unpleasant experiences in other forums, and just do not want a repeat of that! Some of the questions seem sincere, so I will try to answer them in the morning, when I am rested. But seriously if the questions are not sincere, I am gone. However, if they are sincere, there is sooo much we can talk about, and I will be very happy! Again, like an archeology dig, your sincere questions and contributions of information help in the discovery process. There is far to more to discover than I know. Like is education for a technological society adequate for our needs now? I seriously doubt this. Can we use education to reduce crime? I absolutely believe we can, and think our liberty depends on it.

Education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the pupils are the genii.

Originally Posted by John Galt

You are talking about administrative control.Rita may be referencing curriculum or methodology.

This is an easy question to answer. It is about purpose and methodology. Most important is purpose! Oh, I have a few books explaining the history of education, and there are many different purposes for education. religious, social, military etc.. Eduation begins with telling stories around camp fires, and improves with mythology about the gods, then stories of a tribe and one god, then national mythologies, then WW1 and education for technology for military and industrial purpose, but still maintaining education for citizenship, because until the technology of WWII, national defense depends on patriotic citizens. The mentality and organization of the Military Industrial Complex is a whole new ball game. As a teacher announced when the purpose of education was radically changed, we are educating for a technological society with unknown values. Unfortunately that is devastating to democracy, but we do have the most powerful military force on earth, and instead of it taking us a year to mobilize for war, we be mobilized in 4 hours. Our military doesn't need your sons, just your tax dollars.

As Dr. Friedrich Naumann said, "The war of the future is a problem of economic organization of the most difficult nature and the highest technological achievement, such as has never been hitherto demanded from any army. The old military qualities must give way to the organizing qualities...." That is a different purpose for education than the domestic education (liberal education) we had when Eisenhower was made president.

Originally Posted by Rita

Weird things are happening. I thought I had posted an explanation about my interest, and when I checked the replies there was no opening post, explaining such interest. Now there is an opening post.

Originally Posted by seagypsy
Not sure how my argument in post two was so creative and can't for the life of me figure out how a blank op and a humorous reaction to it can turn into a discussion of how germans do things vs how the us does things. What did I miss?]

I thought your post was very funny considering there was nothing to disagree with, so I said your argument was creative, and then I began my argument. Like from my point of view, what is happening is something to laugh about. Kind of like a saying on a key chain I once had. "I smile, because I don't have a clue what is happening".

lol I had that same key chain when I was about 12 or 13. I think it was bought at Spencer's in the mall or some place like that. It still applies today. we bought in the same trip a pin that said "51% sweetheart 49% b!tch"... don't push it. lol.

Originally Posted by Rita

My grandmother was a teacher. Her generation defended democracy in the classroom starting with the first world war. When she died I realized she couldn't continue defending our democracy as a teacher and I was curious about what that meant. I knew education had been radically changed, because I was in school when the 1958 National Defense Education Act was passed. I knew we adopted the German model of education because of things I had read. So went I went to second book store looking for books that explain what it means to defend democracy in the classroom, and also explain Germany. I was blown away by what I found, and would really like to share this information. I would like to share it by quoting from the books, and you all can tell me what you make of it.

To me, my finds are like a great archeological dig. This is lost information. William James 1899 book "Talks to Teachers" has been reprinted and I think anyone can buy a copy of it, but the 1917 National Education Association book of all the speeches made that year, may be one of the few copies in existence today. Anyone who loves history would love this book. The National Education Association appears to have been created for the soul purpose of mobilizing the US for war. The Charles Sarolea's 1915 book "The Anglo-German Problem" adds important information to understanding the change made in public education in 1917 and the more radical change made in 1958. This information is incomplete without a 1934 book about Europe's economy and some knowledge of what developing technology had to do the struggle for world dominance. As I said, to me these books are like an archeological find. It is so exciting to learn of history through these old books. I had to move into a two bedroom apartment because once I got started, my book collection grew and grew.

I also have access to a university library and in that library besides more old books, there are also government documents, and that too is like an archeological dig. I learned of things Eisenhower did to establish the Military Industrial Complex, by checking our government documents, and this information goes with the information about Germany, because Germany was the first military industrial complex and this is explained in the words of a Prussian General in the 1915 book. The US adopted both Germany's model for education and also the model for bureaucracy. They go together and shift power from the individual to the state.

Whatever, I seriously want to avoid unpleasantness, and if people aren't sincerely interested, I don't want to start dumping this stuff on everyone. I have had very unpleasant experiences in other forums, and just do not want a repeat of that! Some of the questions seem sincere, so I will try to answer them in the morning, when I am rested. But seriously if the questions are not sincere, I am gone. However, if they are sincere, there is sooo much we can talk about, and I will be very happy! Again, like an archeology dig, your sincere questions and contributions of information help in the discovery process. There is far to more to discover than I know. Like is education for a technological society adequate for our needs now? I seriously doubt this. Can we use education to reduce crime? I absolutely believe we can, and think our liberty depends on it.

Education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the pupils are the genii.

I say, post what you can. It is up to us to take from it what we will. I don't have the background to know what questions to ask. I am not very informed in politics or military stuff. I am also not a history buff, or a .... what would you call it... a present or future buff? My world is small. It consists of me and my immediate surroundings. But I am curious to see what you have dug up. You provide the data and I will do my best to come to some sort of analysis, even if it isn't very qualified.

I am sure there are plenty here that, even if they disagree with you, will be able to discuss things with you in a civilized manner.

Hi Rita.
Nice topic (now that I can see the OP and understand what the thread is about).
I certainly have some (more than peripheral, certainly) interest in the subject since it ties into my "hobby". ¹
I'd definitely like to see more information, although I can foresee times when I'll dispute points with some vehemence (since, generally speaking, I'll be coming at it from the other side of the equation: the "Military-Industrial Complex" POV).
I've only just (last few months) finished Correlli Barnett's The Audit of War: The Illusion and Reality of Britain as a Great Nation which at least mentions the educational system in this context.


1 More of a vocation/ obsession really.

Hi Rita, may I also wish you welcome to the forum and say that I also still share an interest in Germany having used to have lived there for a while.

Oh my, I can hardly believe I am in the same reality I was in, where everyone only wanted to attack what I was saying, and I was told by a mod in another forum I can not post about education. Perhaps I have slipped into another dimension where humans actually have intelligence? Do I dare believe you all for real? Where should we begin? Should all the issues be in this thread or different ones?

Do you want to start with Athens and Sparta, because we could discuss just these two city states and basically say almost everything that needs to be said, without getting into an emotional stew such as happens when people start talking about present times. Effectively, Germany was the modern day Sparta and the US was the modern day Athens. That changed when the Eisenhower administration established they Military Industrial Complex. Now we could throw every weapon into the ocean and we would still be a military state, not the democracy we were, because we are now organized by Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens, not by family order.

Please, I am not saying this is good and that is bad. I don't want to play God and hold responsibility for such judgments. I just want people to know what is behind our reality, so with knowledge they make those judgments.

Just like humans sometimes need psycho analyses a whole nation can need psycho analyses. Every culture has a consciousness and a subconsciousness, just like individuals. Psycho analyses is becoming aware of what is in the subconscious. The world needs that analyses. The bankers and political players, are playing a very different game, from common folks just trying to get ahead and take care of their children. We really do not know what they are doing and why, and it would be great if we didn't need to know. But we are threatened by our ignorance and their control.

Charles Sarolea bemoans what the Prussians did to Germany. He lived in a neighboring nation and really liked the Germans. He was totally distressed by the fact they let Prussians control everything. Well, the same thing has happened to the US, and we are not aware of this. Eisenhower sincerely meant well when his administration established the Military Industrial Complex. When he left office he explained why this was done and warned us things could spin out of control. Well things have spun out of control. We are nation that has gone crazy and needs psycho analyses. Fascinatingly, we can discuss this by discussing Sparta and Athens, because the US is repeating the history of Athens, including its fall. Athens also changed its education to meet technological needs. Amazing isn't it!

Hmm, okay.
A couple of things (and, for me, lets keep it "modern" - that's more my area of interest) Eisenhower established the MIC? (US politics/ history isn't my forte, since I'm a Brit and don't have time for uppity colonials )
And I'm not sure how you're not a democracy any more. Surely you all have the vote?

Perhaps I have slipped into another dimension where humans actually have intelligence?

Don't believe that for one second - that way lies madness!
And we might as well keep it in this thread - maybe the mods will move the entire thing.

Rita, I believe the problem you may have experienced on other forums is a consequence of the certainty you assign to your assertions. Let me take a single example.

You say this: " That changed when the Eisenhower administration established the Military Industrial Complex."

Intersting, but from my point of view arrant nonsense. Eisenhower warned about the danger of vesting powers in the Military Industrial Complex. He did not, in my understanding, establish it. If you had stated "It is my view that the Eisenhower administration was key in establishing the MIC and I shall provide evidence to support this assertion", then I can't imagine anyone reasonably objecting. They would, or at least should, wait to see the evidence.

I think if you continue to make bland assertions without recognising the possibility you are mistaken, or at least recognising up front that you are arguing an unusual position, then you will be attacked. You will then conclude that the members of this forum are not as intelligent as currently suspect they are. And you would probably be wrong. I hope you will consider this as well intended advice.

Edit: I see the duck has also picked up on the MIC while I was composing my post, thus confirming that your view - while it may be correct - is not current consensus thinking. In which case you need to justify the assertion.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Rita, I believe the problem you may have experienced on other forums is a consequence of the certainty you assign to your assertions. Let me take a single example.

You say this: " That changed when the Eisenhower administration established the Military Industrial Complex."

Intersting, but from my point of view arrant nonsense. Eisenhower warned about the danger of vesting powers in the Military Industrial Complex. He did not, in my understanding, establish it. If you had stated "It is my view that the Eisenhower administration was key in establishing the MIC and I shall provide evidence to support this assertion", then I can't imagine anyone reasonably objecting. They would, or at least should, wait to see the evidence.

I think if you continue to make bland assertions without recognising the possibility you are mistaken, or at least recognising up front that you are arguing an unusual position, then you will be attacked. You will then conclude that the members of this forum are not as intelligent as currently suspect they are. And you would probably be wrong. I hope you will consider this as well intended advice.

Edit: I see the duck has also picked up on the MIC while I was composing my post, thus confirming that your view - while it may be correct - is not current consensus thinking. In which case you need to justify the assertion.

I like this saying "Do not argue with ignorance". You are not only ignorant but also very disrespectful. Exactly what I want to avoid.

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by John Galt

Rita, I believe the problem you may have experienced on other forums is a consequence of the certainty you assign to your assertions. Let me take a single example.

You say this: " That changed when the Eisenhower administration established the Military Industrial Complex."

Intersting, but from my point of view arrant nonsense. Eisenhower warned about the danger of vesting powers in the Military Industrial Complex. He did not, in my understanding, establish it. If you had stated "It is my view that the Eisenhower administration was key in establishing the MIC and I shall provide evidence to support this assertion", then I can't imagine anyone reasonably objecting. They would, or at least should, wait to see the evidence.

I think if you continue to make bland assertions without recognising the possibility you are mistaken, or at least recognising up front that you are arguing an unusual position, then you will be attacked. You will then conclude that the members of this forum are not as intelligent as currently suspect they are. And you would probably be wrong. I hope you will consider this as well intended advice.

Edit: I see the duck has also picked up on the MIC while I was composing my post, thus confirming that your view - while it may be correct - is not current consensus thinking. In which case you need to justify the assertion.

I like this saying "Do not argue with ignorance". You are not only ignorant but also very disrespectful. Exactly what I want to avoid.

Rita, with all do respect, you seem to be jumping to a conclusion as I also did in my first few days on this forum. I had recently been banned from another forum where a mod had a personal vendetta against my husband, also a member here (and was there as well) and she took it out on me. She was and is psychotic. When a mod on this forum responded to me using similar verbiage as the other mod in the other forum, not to mention they were both of the same gender and located in the same country, possibly even city, I thought I had met the same mod under a new nickname. But the reason for the same verbiage is that they both speak English are are from the same culture, same economic strata. I lashed out at the mod on this forum almost instantly. Luckily she was patient and did not react to me as the other mod would have. That in itself was a clue that I had made a mistake. The mod i speak of on this forum, happens to be one of the most understanding and patient mods I have ever encountered. And she is so without compromising integrity or coddling those who need a firm hand. She is insightful and intelligent. She knows when to be stern, she knows when to be gentle, and she knows when to take off all kid gloves and get nasty.

The mods on this forum, like any one of the other members, are merely human and as Neverfly pointed out, susceptible to emotional compromise of their judgement from time to time. But I have not seen anything here like what was the norm at the other forum that I and my husband were ousted from. Neither of us miss that place. I was recently banned from this forum when I had an emotional outburst and using my skill at psychological manipulation, took a few people to the brink of sanity with me. It was not nice of me. and during my ban I missed this place. Something I never experienced having been removed from the others.

John Galt is a mod that sometimes I adore and others I loath. I am sure it is probably mutual. That's life. But I think you are misjudging his intentions here. He was merely trying to explain to you how to better present your ideas. This was a very kind gesture on his part and it shows patience as well. it isn't often that people will go out of their way to help you understand how to reach out on a forum. Usually, they will just say, something like "you're a grown up, deal with it and get over it". You have to understand your audience before you know how to present your ideas effectively. There are certain trigger words in any culture that will cause psychological walls to be thrown up, red flags so to speak. Things that will cause people to not trust you and see you as a potential threat. In this case, not a threat to intelligence or a threat to appearance of power. I mean that just like I misjudged the mod I first met here because she used similar language to one who had abused her power. I assumed that she also would abuse hers. So now John Galt is pointing out to you that you used similar language to those who this forum has had bad experiences with. It sets a tone. Give the forum a chance. They are being far more polite than you would likely receive on other forums and from what you have stated here, it seems you have already been rejected viciously elsewhere.

Now I haven't exactly read their posts intently. I haven't had a chance to read through the entire thread without interruption. But being willing to hear you out and be respectful, does not necessarily mean that we will all agree with you. I likely will never agree or disagree with you. I don't have the background to make an informed decision about anything you have posted. But there are many who have put as much effort into learning about the same topics you wish to discuss as you have. But they may have been presented the information from a different perspective and so reached a different conclusion.

A fruitful discussion does not always result in agreement. But a willfulness to consider the other person's point of view. As much as you want them to hear you out, you must be willing to hear them out as well.

I assure you John Galt was not being ignorant. He was trying to be helpful to you.

edit: sorry for being confusing. I had read a post Neverfly made in the "censorship" thread and got it confused with this thread. Perhaps you can check that thread and see what Neverfly said there. it is relevant to what you are feeling now.

Originally Posted by Rita

I like this saying "Do not argue with ignorance". You are not only ignorant but also very disrespectful. Exactly what I want to avoid.

Seagypsy, who accurately describes our past mutual hostility, has perfectly captured the intent of my post to you. You are free to misinterpret it if you wish. That would, however, be disappointing.

I would welcome a discussion of the points you raise, but it would helpful if this is conducted on the basis of the facts and not of preceived personalities. In that regard, I would appreciate you removing my ignorance in relation to the origin of the MIC. In what regard do you believe my understanding to be faulty? What evidence would you bring to the table to substantiate your view that Eisenhower's adminsitration created it, rather than my understanding that Eisenhower identified it as a potential problem?

John Galt, perhaps the Military Industrial Complex thread will answer your question. I just found a copy of "The Anglo-German Problem" on line. It is very different from my copy of the book, but it does quote Dr. Friedrich Naumann and that is the beginning of the Military Industrial Complex. This is a concept that can be used in any country. Discussion of how it was used during the Eisenhower administration and continues to be a principle organizing factor of the US will continue in the Military Industrial thread, as long as discussion remains respectful.

Say whatever you all will, about "knowing" the intent, personage, or relative stability of any poster, be they Member, or Admin, I cannot yet begin to believe anything more concrete exists in a forum other than presumption, regarding those being addressed therein. jocular

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Rita

Originally Posted by John Galt

Rita, I believe the problem you may have experienced on other forums is a consequence of the certainty you assign to your assertions. Let me take a single example.

You say this: " That changed when the Eisenhower administration established the Military Industrial Complex."

Intersting, but from my point of view arrant nonsense. Eisenhower warned about the danger of vesting powers in the Military Industrial Complex. He did not, in my understanding, establish it. If you had stated "It is my view that the Eisenhower administration was key in establishing the MIC and I shall provide evidence to support this assertion", then I can't imagine anyone reasonably objecting. They would, or at least should, wait to see the evidence.

I think if you continue to make bland assertions without recognising the possibility you are mistaken, or at least recognising up front that you are arguing an unusual position, then you will be attacked. You will then conclude that the members of this forum are not as intelligent as currently suspect they are. And you would probably be wrong. I hope you will consider this as well intended advice.

Edit: I see the duck has also picked up on the MIC while I was composing my post, thus confirming that your view - while it may be correct - is not current consensus thinking. In which case you need to justify the assertion.

I like this saying "Do not argue with ignorance". You are not only ignorant but also very disrespectful. Exactly what I want to avoid.

Rita, with all do respect, you seem to be jumping to a conclusion as I also did in my first few days on this forum. I had recently been banned from another forum where a mod had a personal vendetta against my husband, also a member here (and was there as well) and she took it out on me. She was and is psychotic. When a mod on this forum responded to me using similar verbiage as the other mod in the other forum, not to mention they were both of the same gender and located in the same country, possibly even city, I thought I had met the same mod under a new nickname. But the reason for the same verbiage is that they both speak English are are from the same culture, same economic strata. I lashed out at the mod on this forum almost instantly. Luckily she was patient and did not react to me as the other mod would have. That in itself was a clue that I had made a mistake. The mod i speak of on this forum, happens to be one of the most understanding and patient mods I have ever encountered. And she is so without compromising integrity or coddling those who need a firm hand. She is insightful and intelligent. She knows when to be stern, she knows when to be gentle, and she knows when to take off all kid gloves and get nasty.

The mods on this forum, like any one of the other members, are merely human and as Neverfly pointed out, susceptible to emotional compromise of their judgement from time to time. But I have not seen anything here like what was the norm at the other forum that I and my husband were ousted from. Neither of us miss that place. I was recently banned from this forum when I had an emotional outburst and using my skill at psychological manipulation, took a few people to the brink of sanity with me. It was not nice of me. and during my ban I missed this place. Something I never experienced having been removed from the others.

John Galt is a mod that sometimes I adore and others I loath. I am sure it is probably mutual. That's life. But I think you are misjudging his intentions here. He was merely trying to explain to you how to better present your ideas. This was a very kind gesture on his part and it shows patience as well. it isn't often that people will go out of their way to help you understand how to reach out on a forum. Usually, they will just say, something like "you're a grown up, deal with it and get over it". You have to understand your audience before you know how to present your ideas effectively. There are certain trigger words in any culture that will cause psychological walls to be thrown up, red flags so to speak. Things that will cause people to not trust you and see you as a potential threat. In this case, not a threat to intelligence or a threat to appearance of power. I mean that just like I misjudged the mod I first met here because she used similar language to one who had abused her power. I assumed that she also would abuse hers. So now John Galt is pointing out to you that you used similar language to those who this forum has had bad experiences with. It sets a tone. Give the forum a chance. They are being far more polite than you would likely receive on other forums and from what you have stated here, it seems you have already been rejected viciously elsewhere.

Now I haven't exactly read their posts intently. I haven't had a chance to read through the entire thread without interruption. But being willing to hear you out and be respectful, does not necessarily mean that we will all agree with you. I likely will never agree or disagree with you. I don't have the background to make an informed decision about anything you have posted. But there are many who have put as much effort into learning about the same topics you wish to discuss as you have. But they may have been presented the information from a different perspective and so reached a different conclusion.

A fruitful discussion does not always result in agreement. But a willfulness to consider the other person's point of view. As much as you want them to hear you out, you must be willing to hear them out as well.

I assure you John Galt was not being ignorant. He was trying to be helpful to you.

edit: sorry for being confusing. I had read a post Neverfly made in the "censorship" thread and got it confused with this thread. Perhaps you can check that thread and see what Neverfly said there. it is relevant to what you are feeling now.

You must be talking about the psychotic mod that drove me out of a forum I had enjoyed for a couple years. You nailed me good. My experience on the internet, trying to discuss the things that are really important to me, have been very bad.

Perhaps I misunderstood the meaning of these words "I think if you continue to make bland assertions without recognising the possibility you are mistaken, or at least recognising up front that you are arguing an unusual position, then you will be attacked." I really don't know what he means by "bland assertions",and assumed that was insult. Now I would not enter a thread on physics, discussing something I nothing about and tell someone who did understand the subject that s/he needs to doubt what s/he is talking about, because I know nothing of the subject, so it must be suspect. I would google for information and add it to the discussion or stay out of the discussion. I don't think I would try to help that person by criticizing the person for how s/he presents the subject? At least not publicly. But then I am human, and fall far way short of being the person I want I to be. However, I did begin with the title "A different point of view" and I think my explanation of why my point is different does fulfill the suggestion that I "at least recognising up front that you are arguing an unusual position." Sorry, the help reminded me years of bad experiences, and I did react badly.

I am having a very difficult time here, so I want to ask for help.

It has been said I refuse to give evidence to support my arguments, so this is a question of what qualifies as evidence?

Is past President Eisenhower's explanation of the Military Industrial Complex evidence of the reality of the Military Industrial Complex? How about the 1958 Nation Defense Education Act, that replaced our liberal education with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose? What about an explanation of the military industrial complex in a 1915 book about Germany and Prussia, and a link explaining the military industrial complex is a concept that is more less used in several countries? If none of this is evidence of a military industrial complex, how might I provide better evidence?

Originally Posted by Rita

I am having a very difficult time here, so I want to ask for help.

It has been said I refuse to give evidence to support my arguments, so this is a question of what qualifies as evidence?

Is past President Eisenhower's explanation of the Military Industrial Complex evidence of the reality of the Military Industrial Complex? How about the 1958 Nation Defense Education Act, that replaced our liberal education with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose? What about an explanation of the military industrial complex in a 1915 book about Germany and Prussia, and a link explaining the military industrial complex is a concept that is more less used in several countries? If none of this is evidence of a military industrial complex, how might I provide better evidence?

I think what they are wanting is links to the sources that led you to the conclusions you are stating. Maybe if you quote the books you are referencing much the way book and articles reference their sources in the back of a book to validate the claims made in the book. If you look on any wikipedia site( though I realize they still aren't always a reliable source) there is always a list of sources which supposedly support the claims made in the wiki article. I studious researcher would check their sources and verify that the author of the wiki article did reach logical conclusions based on sound evidence.

Imagine it to be like being in court. A lawyer can't just state that the defendant hated the victim. He must present evidence that supports his claim. And he cannot just say," I read in a book that he did" or " I heard a rumor". A claim like that, which is a bit subjective would require some strong evidence. So perhaps letters written by the defendant or a diary written by the defendant where it is written in his own handwriting and the defendant acknowledging that it is his, where the defendant directly states that he hated the victim or where excessive insulting remarks made about the victim were present would be proper evidence. Even a list of witnesses all stating that they believed he hated the victim would not be sufficient to remove reasonable doubt that hate for the victim was present or strong enough to inspire causing harm to the victim.

So basically, always assume you claims will need to hold up in court, be ready to direct the jury's attention to exhibit A, B,C... the more the better. Hearsay is rarely accepted as evidence.

Also take into consideration that there are people like myself in the threads. In this thread in particular, I have absolutely no background on the topic you are discussing. So I haven't read those books and I have no idea what is in them. Quoting them would be very helpful to me in order to even know what exactly you are talking about. For me the only connection I have ever heard or noticed between our educational system and that of Germany is that the first year of primary school is called kindergarten, a German word.

Keep in mind, no one is taken at their word here. No matter how much we like a fellow member, if they make a claim that doesn't ring true with what we have studied, we will ask them to back up that claim. Accuracy rarely (ideally never) takes a back to personal loyalty and bias, without being challenged.

Originally Posted by Rita

Is past President Eisenhower's explanation of the Military Industrial Complex evidence of the reality of the Military Industrial Complex?

You asserted in an earlier post that President Eisenhower's administration initiated the militiary-inudustrial complex. I challenged that statement. You never responded directly to the challenge, but sidestepped the issue and morphed it into saying that Eisenhower had warned about the MIC. That had been my point from the outset.

I have asked you more than once, will you now acknowledge that your original assertion was wrong, that my understanding that Eisenhower was known not for initiating the MIC, but for raising concerns about it, and that the evidence you produced, supposedly to support the original assertion, actually supported my position? If you will not make these acknowledgements will you please explain why?

Now I would not enter a thread on physics, discussing something I nothing about and tell someone who did understand the subject that s/he needs to doubt what s/he is talking about, because I know nothing of the subject, so it must be suspect. I would google for information and add it to the discussion or stay out of the discussion..

I did know something about the subject. I knew enough to know you were talking bollocks. (No, that's not an insult, that's a direct, vigorous, yet objective statement of fact, that is borne out by the evidence you have produced so far.)

I gently suggested that what you had asserted did not accord with my understanding. Rather than recognise this as a polite concern, you chose to interpret it as an admission on my part that I had no knowledge in that area. Hence, I'm now making it clear to you, and I repeat, I have enough knowledge in that area to know that as far as the point I picked you up on you were talking bollocks.

Now, I would like to move on to discuss other aspects of your thinking, but can hardly do so while you still refuse to acknowledge that on that point you were mistaken. Why can't I just let it drop? Because that way I have no assurance that you will not do exactly the same thing with any other point on which you are demonstrably wrong.

I don't think I would try to help that person by criticizing the person for how s/he presents the subject? At least not publicly.

Tough. I would and I do and I frequently receive thanks for it. In science, and this is a science forum, one does not pussy-foot around. If your ego is so fragile you can't even handle gentle, well intentioned criticism then perhaps this is not the place for you.

You've asked for help. I suggest you recognise that this post is actually a massive helping hand for you. You remain free to be foolish and ignore it.

Originally Posted by seagypsy

Originally Posted by Rita

I am having a very difficult time here, so I want to ask for help.

It has been said I refuse to give evidence to support my arguments, so this is a question of what qualifies as evidence?

Is past President Eisenhower's explanation of the Military Industrial Complex evidence of the reality of the Military Industrial Complex? How about the 1958 Nation Defense Education Act, that replaced our liberal education with the German model of education for technology for military and industrial purpose? What about an explanation of the military industrial complex in a 1915 book about Germany and Prussia, and a link explaining the military industrial complex is a concept that is more less used in several countries? If none of this is evidence of a military industrial complex, how might I provide better evidence?

I think what they are wanting is links to the sources that led you to the conclusions you are stating. Maybe if you quote the books you are referencing much the way book and articles reference their sources in the back of a book to validate the claims made in the book. If you look on any wikipedia site( though I realize they still aren't always a reliable source) there is always a list of sources which supposedly support the claims made in the wiki article. I studious researcher would check their sources and verify that the author of the wiki article did reach logical conclusions based on sound evidence.

Imagine it to be like being in court. A lawyer can't just state that the defendant hated the victim. He must present evidence that supports his claim. And he cannot just say," I read in a book that he did" or " I heard a rumor". A claim like that, which is a bit subjective would require some strong evidence. So perhaps letters written by the defendant or a diary written by the defendant where it is written in his own handwriting and the defendant acknowledging that it is his, where the defendant directly states that he hated the victim or where excessive insulting remarks made about the victim were present would be proper evidence. Even a list of witnesses all stating that they believed he hated the victim would not be sufficient to remove reasonable doubt that hate for the victim was present or strong enough to inspire causing harm to the victim.

So basically, always assume you claims will need to hold up in court, be ready to direct the jury's attention to exhibit A, B,C... the more the better. Hearsay is rarely accepted as evidence.

Also take into consideration that there are people like myself in the threads. In this thread in particular, I have absolutely no background on the topic you are discussing. So I haven't read those books and I have no idea what is in them. Quoting them would be very helpful to me in order to even know what exactly you are talking about. For me the only connection I have ever heard or noticed between our educational system and that of Germany is that the first year of primary school is called kindergarten, a German word.

Keep in mind, no one is taken at their word here. No matter how much we like a fellow member, if they make a claim that doesn't ring true with what we have studied, we will ask them to back up that claim. Accuracy rarely (ideally never) takes a back to personal loyalty and bias, without being challenged.

But I did find the book 1915 book "The Anglo-German Problem", on line and I did link to the Prussian realization of what modern warfare requires. And I am not sure, but I may have also linked to James William 1899 book that explains how Germany had education for military and industrial purpose and was not preparing the young to be independent thinkers as the US did before 1958. The National Education Association Conference is not on line, but I am quite sure I quoted from it, and doing so requires a lot of my time and effort, so it really hurts to all people do is attack me and attack, instead of recognizing my effort. And I referred to the 1958 National Defense Education Act that replaced out liberal education with the German model of education for technology.

I have said the U of O library has a document department and the record of what Eisenhower did, create new links between government and research and government and media, and his letter praising the Germans for their contribution to democracy, and obviously the 1958 National Defense Education Act. I don't know how I can get these documents on line, Any suggestion? This phase of establishing the Military Industrial Complex set up the Reagan stage, which eventually brings us to Cheny and Bush stage, you know the people who could not stop bragging about running the New World Order? And the present debate on the floor of the congress right now, demanding a new law make it very clear drones can not used on US citizens. Obama is being a fool this time, and I like the guy, but he isn't getting, those laws are about limiting every president who follows him. He might be Mr. Nice guy, but we need to think of how our country will change and those who will follow him. Darn I wish more people cared about this matter.

I would walk across hot coals to raise awareness of all this. I would spend the many hours in the library that I would have to spend, to find all the documents, photo copy them and see if Office Depot could get them into my computer file, but only those who want to argue against me and have been blind to the evidence I provided, have participated in the thread, and these folks don't want information. They only want to destroy my argument. If they wanted information they could google for it themselves and contribute to the thread. My gosh, I have already worked very hard to find the links I did offer, and it would be much, much more work to go through the government documents again, and I just am not willing to do this for people who are not sincerely interest and only want to tear apart what I am saying. They are playing a mean game and I won't play with them. Now if sincere and pleasant people showed an interest in knowing what Eisenhower was talking about, I would go to all that work. I would gladly do so if people sincerely cared. I would be one of the happiest people on earth, if people did care. I search the internet for those people and walk away from the subject when they do not appear. There are other things to talk about that don't require so much effort from me.