resident25yearsED

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There seems to be a lot of pseudo-Buddhist > nonsense creeping into this thread. > > Reality Check - success is not a simple matter of > following your own path. This is meaningless > drivel. Success is what others agree it to be. It > is external of your efforts. An independent > universal. > > I might think I'm successful because of X, but if > others don't agree then I'm deluding myself. > > Sucess is measureable, depending how others > measure it. > > If I turned up at some ashram in India/Nepal with > no money/US Dollars, a kick up the ass as they > turn me away would give me all the enlightment I > need to know. > > > Edited for spelling But aren't we always told to not be self conscious about other peoples thoughts of us Silver Fox? - do you go around looking for other peoples affirmation of your success? I don't agree with you here.. it is important to judge your success by measurement of your own achievements alongside your own ability, intention and effort made. Your assertion about following your own path as meaningless drivel, is a personal one and not a universal truth.. personal happiness and aligned success, is a personal one ultimately and must always remain so.. never give over to another that responsibility of judgement (it can be full of the other persons life stuff, be it good or bad) ..it could lead to unhappiness. Silverfox, you have given to others the job of measuring your success?

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Huguenot Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > WTC 7. > > > > For New Nexus and LD, all these people are > liars, > > and there's massive conspiracy. That's because > > they're deluded. > > > > The final report is the only plausible one: > > > > "NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play > an > > important role, nor did the structural damage > from > > the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the > > transfer elements (trusses, girders, and > > cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to > > fight the fire was an important factor. The > fires > > burned out of control during the afternoon, > > causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand > and > > push a key girder off its seat, triggering the > > floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to > 14. > > With a loss of lateral support across nine > floors, > > Column 79 soon buckled - pulling the East > > penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With > > the buckling of these critical columns, the > > collapse then progressed east-to-west across > the > > core, ultimately overloading the perimeter > > support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, > > causing the entire building above to fall > downward > > as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office > > contents, along with the lack of water, were > the > > key reasons for the collapse." > > Are the New York Fire Service liars as well, when > they talk about WTC7 and explosions prior to the > collapse. > > Are over a thousand architects and engineers > liars, when they have investigated WTC7 and have > concluded that a proper investigation should be > started to explore the demolition of WTC7. > > Demolition firms all over the world ? your out of > business, because all you need to bring down a 47 > storey building into it?s own foot-print is start > a little office fire. > > There has been many examples of steel frame > building that have been burning > ferociously for 10, 12 and 18 hours without > collapsing > > Ho yes, and lets not forget the BBC announced WTC7 > collapse 20 minutes before the collapse. God the > BBC have a great crystal ball, or was the script a > bit early. dam that continuity department. > > ?Never let a crisis go to waste? I have been doing some research (lahdeedah) and it does appear that the experts donot believe that a fire brought down WTC7. Why would Hugo not find this even curious, the experts opinion here? Have we not been hoodwinked enough by governments and the (fallible) human beings that run them, to not take what they say at face value?

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The guy who had a hissy fit about the Russia Today > 9/11 questions is a Torygraph journalist whose > blog has a distinct anti-islamic feel to it. > > Hugo you are quoting opinion. Just because this > guy didn't like the questions, does not mean that > they should not have been asked, or that facts > that don't appear to correlate with the official > version shouldn't be examined. > > I have no idea whether 9/11 was as a result of > Islamic extremists or the US government, but I > don't trust the government because they have lied > so much to their own people to do things that they > would not get popular support for. So it wouldn't > shock me if they did either allow it to happen or > facilitate it in some way. I don't think the > evidence is clear either way, so my mind is still > open on that issue. > > Screaming that people are loonies and trying to > shut down debate on an issue by calling it a > conspiracy theory is not helpful and adds nothing > to the debate. > > If someone is making false claims, you have the > intelligence to look at the alleged facts and > disprove those facts, so why don't you do that > instead of making sweeping dismissals based on > some kind of superiority complex. I agree Lady D..to conspire to do something is not such an unusual thing..and it wouldn't suprise me at all to learn that governments manipulate situations to occur, even if it means carrying out attrocities or taking out others!..power corrupts and lose of power for the powerful can be like giving up narcotics

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > All great examples of other people setting their > objectives in terms of their own set of values. > > None of them any more valid than the next, despite > how prosaically or romantically they are stated. > > Even just trying to do something can be a goal in > itself. > > I quite like the ones that define success as > following your own path - the statement is > unwittingly an oxymoron: in order to accept that > philosophy you would need to embrace someone > else's guidance... ;-) yes honesty is a measure of true greatness perhaps hugo and maybe then to follow your own path is a truthful one

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LD, it IS a conspiracy theory - one of many. > > If you check my posts I've persistently come back > with evidence that the assertions being made are > unsubtantiated rubbish. All we've had from New > Nexus are fabricated quotes, fabricated > photographs, sweeping abuse, misunderstood > concepts. Read the thread again and start counting > them. > > The Editor of Russia Today (not the journo, the > Editor) says that she doesn't believe the news > they peddle. Yet you use it to cite support for > this rubbish that New Nexus trots out. > > Your long term objective is to bring down society, > based on a delusional conviction that this will > benefit humankind. Your willingness to believe > this rubbish is directly affected by this. > > I'm disappointed that you continually claim that I > haven't back up my assertions - yet it has been > myself and others who are the only ones to provide > plausible references through this thread. you really are becoming silly in your assertions Hugo. is something wrong?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Corbett Report isn't news, they've got faked > pictures of George Bush snogging a male member of > the House of Saud as their headline. Corbett's > book is called "Essays on the New World Order". > You don't get more mental conspiracy theory than > that. > > If I want to get similar material I'd go to the > Daily Mash, but I wouldn't be stupid enough to > call it news. > > As for Russia Today - the government owned Russian > overseas propaganda station? If you've reached the > point where you feel that the Kremlin is more > honest than, for example, the BBC you've truly > lost the plot. > > But then we've got 20 pages of evidence for that > already, so I wouldn't be surprised. I think the question was "where do you get your news from?" from Lady Del..is it a secret Hugo?

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yay, Next Nexus is really on a roll here - now > revealing himself to believe that the 9/11 attacks > were fakes! > > You go, tiger. > > What next? Apollo moon landings? if i was taken in by your dogmatism .... please at least go and do some research before being so confident..it's makeing you look foolish, which you're not full of really! i like your contributions.

i don't follow politics too closely, but what i do see, is people feeling that the lib dems have lost integrity as a result of the coalition and nick clegg seems to patronise the public. so from a novice perspective this is what i see

silverfox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The example of cars is a good one. Sometimes we > confuse 'the trappings of success' with the real > thing. > > If I see someone driving an expensive Porsche or > Rolls Royce or wearing a Rolex I assume they are > successful. However, they may not have those > desirable items through their own efforts and may > have inherited money or the item or have been > given them by successful(ie rich)parents. > > On the other hand, some people who can be > generally viewed as 'failures' in their lifetime > become recognised for their success after their > death. For example, Vincent van Gogh or some of > the great writers of the 19th Century who nearly > starved in garrets writing what are now recognised > as great works of art. The pity here is that their > talent and creative genius did nothing for them > while they were alive. > > 'Success' has many forms. There have been many > 'succesful' ruling tyrants and drug dealers who > brought misery to millions as well as many > successful people who have brought enjoyment to > millions (eg, Walt Disney, J k Rowling). > > Some successful businessmen, for example, have > excelled in stripping companies of assets and > laying off staff to make the company leaner, > fitter and more profitable. While a small to > medium sized-businessman who builds up a company > that employs a few hundred workers may not be seen > to be as successsful but may have made a more > valuable contribution to the local community. > > To misquote Shakespeare: > Some are born successful, some achieve success, > and some have success thrust upon them. --------------------------------------------------------------- An intention achieved, seems like a good description of success then? similiar to what Hugu said "I'd say that 'success' is simply hitting a set of goals or objectives". So success can be described as being good or bad all depending on the good or bad intention. thanks for that.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://ih3.redbubble.net/work.6970071.1.flat,550x5 > 50,075,f.flies-and-shit.jpg i guess it gets a need met!

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > pepsi Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Nice friendly approach there Jeremy. Give the > poor guy a chance! > > I'm sure he won't mind. being thick skinned comes with the drive behind being a politician - doesn't it?

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > http://brunosbille.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/ > non.jpg impressive selection of artwork you have collected, give you that much spotlight man

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi, > > My name is James Barber and I am one of the three > East Dulwich ward councillors. My two colleagues > are cllrs Rosie Shimell and Jonathan Mitchell. > We're Liberal Democrats and part of Southwark > Liberal Democrats. > > If you have any issues or concerns related to East > Dulwich or Southwark Council then please let me or > one of my colleagues know. I guarantee we will > listen and answer all ideas and issues raised and > hopefully help you solve them. Normally I will > look in two or three times a week to see any new > postings. Alternatively you can email me directly > on [email protected]. > > I look forward to hearing from you, James Barber Another self serving politician trying to look good

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I always stay for the closing credits... > http://www.newgre.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/F > in.jpg always needing to be the last in the spotlight?

New Nexus Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How quick could you spend $400 billion? > 100 years > 1000 years > > US can spend it in just over a month, looks like > IOU?s until November. i can live for today too..an easy trap really. i was never taught to live in a careful manner..we'll apart from getting a good job.. but i see all sorts spending spending spending without much thought for conserving. its a bit addictive spending and having and feeding on things. not surprised the USA is addicted to having, yet is unsympathetic to those that dont have.. as i said live for today way of living