In the News, with Analysis - 'two'-parter

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Fri Aug 16 12:39:29 EST 2002


'Self-flagilation"?

Well, that's NQI.

What it actually is that I 'move away from' 'schmoozing'. You know, the stuff of, "I'll scratch your back, iff you'll scratch mine." - taken to an extreme in 'politics', the net result being that what needs to be done is 'discarded' in the name of 'personal-grativication' within 'politics'.

I always work to 'move away from' such - 'taking-it-on-the-chin', instead.

Because, what good is it to "have one's 'back scratched'", if, as a consequence, one cannot do what needs to be done?

No good, at all.

So, while endeavoring to do what needs to be done, I eschew 'gratuitous-alliance' stuff.

My view has always been that, in Relity, 'personal-gratification' derives solely in there being benefit to all people, everywhere - not in this or that 'interactive-alliance'.

It's a long-term thing.

All of the 'schmoozing' stuff flat-out 'short-circuits' progress - diverts the stuff in which it derives, and from whence it comes.

"Schmoozing' beckons 'just' the opposite of progress.

So, understanding the consequences inherent, I 'grab TSEOTS', and eschew ['move away from'] it.

There's other stuff involved, but this 'moving away from' that which 'sucks the Life out of' Progress is part of why I do, in fact, do what needs to be done.

Most folks're 'repulsed' by absence of 'butt-kissing' - that is, they "take it as an 'offense'".

This's more than 'unfortunate', because there's great-Gift stuff in aynone's willingness to state Truth plainly.

Such allows folks opportunity to perceive most-direct-route stuff.

Telling-it-like-it-is, as I discussed in a prior recent msg, eliminates the strangling burden of "deception's" massively-energy-consuming, artificially-maintained, interactive-infrastructure.

So... I mean no 'offense'.

I mean 'just'-the-opposite stuff.

k. p. collins
    Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
    My prior comments, quoted below, are a prime example of how not to get Difficult stuff across.
     
    The Problem is as I stated it, but my words overwhelmed the message, arrogantly, hurtfully, and stupidly.
     
    So please rewrite my comments in your own cood minds, keeping fore-most Truth with respect to all the Victimhood, inherent [not mine [though it's there], but the Victimhood of those who I'd reach with the understanding - our Leaders. They need broader input to their decision-making process. {Part of my problem is that there's no "good" way of saying such, is there? So I just said it, my aching 'oozing'-out as I did. I dislike 'criticizing', and usually make sure I 'scar' myself worse, when I have to, as an embedded [grabbing-TSEOTS] Apology for doing what's fallen to me to do - what needs to be done. [Why does such have to be so Hard? Why can't folks see the Gift-Stuff in-it, rather than the 'criticism'? It's old, merely-familiar, haphazardly-accumulated, but nevertheless, having great "biological mass" stuff. I long for the day when what needs to be done is just Recognized as what needs to be done, and folks welcome such, because it removes the 'blindness' that 'blocks' progress.]
     
    Anyway, please take the gist of my prior comments, 'delete' my self-flagilation, and run with what's constructive in-there.
     
    k. p. collins
        Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
        Part 1: "Top Republicans Break With Bush on Iraq Strategy", By TODD S. PURDUM and PATRICK E. TYLER
         
        http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/international/middleeast/16IRAQ.html
         
        "Richard N. Perle, a former Reagan administration official and one of the leading hawks who has been orchestrating an urgent approach to attacking Iraq, said today that Mr. Scowcroft's arguments were misguided and naïve.
         
        `I think Brent [Scowcroft] just got it wrong,' he said by telephone from France. `The failure to take on Saddam after what the president said would produce such a collapse of confidence in the president that it would set back the war on terrorism.'
         
        Mr. Perle added, `I think it is naïve to believe that we can produce results in the 50-year-old dispute between the Israelis and the Arabs, and therefore this is an excuse for not taking action.' "
         
        Part 2: "After Criticism, a Top Analyst Quits Salomon", By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
         
        http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/16/business/16BROK.html
         
        "Jack Grubman ignored obvious signs of trouble at WorldCom, including repeated downgrades by credit- rating agencies," said Martin Weiss, chairman at Weiss Ratings Inc., an independent research firm. "He was clearly a leading proponent of WorldCom shares, almost to the bitter end, despite abundant signs of trouble." 
        
         
        [Quotes, above, Copyright 2002, by the New York Times.]
        
        What is naïve is in-bred group-'think' which cannot see beyond the artificial boundaries set-up when folks put 'group-cohesivness' ahead of getting-the-facts.
         
        In other words, the Problem in the 'government' instance is exactly the Same-Stuff as ts the Problem in the 'business' instance.
         
        The Problem is in-bred group-'think': "We know what we're doing here[, and nobody else does]."
         
        Such is a dangerous Illusion born of in-bred group-'think'.
         
        Why not give understanding a chance?
         
        k. p. collins
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/bionet/mm/neur-sci/attachments/20020816/c42b369f/attachment.html


More information about the Neur-sci mailing list