Post by dan on Mar 1, 2012 7:49:09 GMT -7
This topic is a diversion from the Grace and Green topic......
Yes, there have been some developments in what I used to refer to as the 'R&D' show......
At 8pm on Sunday I received a seemingly facetious, yet very emphatic email concerning the disclosure of personal information wrt R,A&K, threatening that I would have to 'walk the plank' unless I changed my protocol.
Yes, I did briefly post unnecessary, inessential information, but it was clear that R&D was no longer on track. And, as of a few hours ago, I'm no longer partaking of the alleged sea cruise. This post is by way of attempting an explanation.....
On Tuesday afternoon, Sam, who had been copied on Sunday's missive, got a call from Ron, allegedly the first in 20 years that they had known each other, although, there had been private emails, to my understanding. A 40 min conversation ensued.....
Ron was partially apologetic for the strident tone of the email, and hoped that I would still partake of the cruise. But, he was very emphatic with Sam about the sensitivities of his situation, although it had nothing to do with me personally.
Ron had no difficulty convincing Sam about these two items. Sam expressed to Ron and me that it would have been very helpful had he known this 20 years ago.
For my part, I have a more than academic interest in wondering what, over the years, was Ron given to know, and approx when...... Up to now, IMHO, this has been about insulation. Where, if anywhere, things might go from here is a legitimate personal concern of mine, and in which process I probably have some input.
It was Ron, who, many years ago, instructed me..... 'come hell or high water, Dan, you must maintain your protocol.' Ok, Ron, this one's for you.......
Oldies, but goodies, the first two of which are from the BPW timeline......
1.) 1995.... Three meetings with Chris S of the SSCI, after his personally being briefed,..... re R&D.... I cannot say anything ad hominem, but you may rest assured that you are dealing with some very competent people.
2.) R&D interactions surrounding 9/11.
3.) 2006-09...... There is a 'repositioning' within the intel community. Ron is assigned to the EOB for the first few months of the new admin. His marriage dissolves.
4.) 2010-...... There is the rumble at the Hut, and Aliyah makes the scene, as the new neighbor, across the street. There is talk of their moving to a more secure location, due to political ramifications from far away. There is an acrimonious settlement, involving significant sums. The move is rescinded. CB reports lengthy interviews by both the FBI and the CIA. There is the clown incident.
On day-one, 1991, there was a facetious reference to an impending communication with the visitors, to which I responded on Compuserve. Since then, Ron has always taken a skeptical stance toward all things ufological, especially wrt his fellow 'Avians', who reciprocate in their disregard.
And, I've always wondered how much of this alleged skepticism was for the benefit of my continued insulation.
Only now, at this latest turn of events, am I willing to concede that this skepticism was probably genuine, on his part, from day-one. Leaving open the possibility, of course, that he was being deliberately misguided, for the above stated reason.
Only since the advent of Aliyah, has security ever been an explicit issue, ostensibly due to those foreign concerns. I should wonder that he is making this up, by way of compensation for his loss of job status wrt to the above 'marital' problem. But, considering this latest development, I'm more inclined to believe that he is being sincere.
But does this make any sense?
If there truly were concerns about a seemingly unrelated security issue, why would he not have been instructed to drop the Chicken Little nonsense, as soon as this other, genuinely urgent issue arose? Well, it would seem that this 'dropping' has now been accomplished, belatedly though it may be.
So, ok, he was, very reasonably, always given to understand that not only was ufology a joke, aside from its internal security issues, but so, most definitely, was the Chicken Little gambit, aside from any possible and obscure counter-intelligence matters. Yes, this is the most reasonable thing to suppose, particularly for an intelligent atheist, that he truly seems to be.
But, still, what about the horse and cart problem? Now that he had a new horse, why was he still bothering with the old cart, so to speak? If we are to believe him, this has been totally out of a sincere and personal regard for my own sensibilities and possible hurt feelings.
Hmmm.......
He must have been given some pretty good reason for keeping this dead chicken tied around his neck, for the last three years, or so. I don't doubt that a believable rationale could have been constructed.
I used to opine that, at some point, I would have to be cut loose..... from the Mothership, so to speak. But, of late, I've been getting the impression that it's more like..... Hey, guys, let's cut bait, and switch...... to God knows what..... anything but CL, it would seem.
So that's pretty much where we are, on this fine day in March..... High and dry, and twisting in the wind. Not that I haven't had plenty of practice......
WWGD? WWJD? Beats the heck out of me!
12:49-----------
I believe that my flight just left, four minutes ago. Coffee, tea..... or me?
Does God believe that we are going to be able to muddle through the impending tribulation, to some sort of light on the other side?
What about the MoAPS? Will it be allowed to unfold 'spontaneously', without any input from R&D?
It is being reported that, under new management, NK is relenting on its nukes. Does that offset the growing mess in the Mideast?
99,
I'm trying to grok on the metaphor of your message. Ron was emphatic that Naval aviation was a joke in the age of smart-bomblets, etc. You do seem to suggest the same.
And this is one reason why we have to take the B&E show with a large grain of salt.
----------
A couple of days ago, I was speculating that B&E might simply be concocting a rationale for divine intervention prior to the population/resource crunch. Where does that stand now?
Will my buddy, ahMadhi, relent, as is Kim (not quite so ill) Jong?
Is it back, then, to greed as usual? Speaking of which, what are we to make of this, sports fans.......?
Is this a fatal challenge? Will the mathematicians save the day for reductionism, or is the new bio-math going the (organic) way of the Mandelbrot and the Monster?
Something or someone is going to seriously need to goose the MoAPS. Can that happen without recourse to the phenomenological problem, the Visitors and to the disturbing message? In the age of google and twitter, etc? I seriously doubt it. Yes, the PtB can take down OMF, just for the fun of it. And, yes, you can fool all of the people most of the time, but can you fool all of the people all of the time? I seriously doubt it.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot.......
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/business/energy-environment/tensions-raise-specter-of-gas-at-5-a-gallon.html?hp
To many of us, this is a minor annoyance, but, to the billions of have-nots, it may mean the difference between malnutrition and starvation. WWGD? Is God going to sit on her thumbs, while the Mercantilists make hay, and everyone else starves? What do you think, pray tell?
There was a Pope who was wont to refer to the Banquet of Life.
Hmmm.......
At some point, without divine intervention, within the next decade, life will become much less of a banquet, even than it is now, unless there is a quantum leap of external influence...... unless there is a global rebooting of our understanding of the meaning of life.
Can this possibly occur in other than an eschatological context? Without our awakening from our Slumber of Materialism? Can anyone possibly doubt this eventuality?
Which is the cart, and which is the horse, pray tell? Someone thinks he's got a brand new pair of skates. But, darn it, who's got the key......?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p02DgHeGdyI
4:10------- www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1JGPKujw9U
(cont.)
Yes, there have been some developments in what I used to refer to as the 'R&D' show......
At 8pm on Sunday I received a seemingly facetious, yet very emphatic email concerning the disclosure of personal information wrt R,A&K, threatening that I would have to 'walk the plank' unless I changed my protocol.
Yes, I did briefly post unnecessary, inessential information, but it was clear that R&D was no longer on track. And, as of a few hours ago, I'm no longer partaking of the alleged sea cruise. This post is by way of attempting an explanation.....
On Tuesday afternoon, Sam, who had been copied on Sunday's missive, got a call from Ron, allegedly the first in 20 years that they had known each other, although, there had been private emails, to my understanding. A 40 min conversation ensued.....
Ron was partially apologetic for the strident tone of the email, and hoped that I would still partake of the cruise. But, he was very emphatic with Sam about the sensitivities of his situation, although it had nothing to do with me personally.
Ron had no difficulty convincing Sam about these two items. Sam expressed to Ron and me that it would have been very helpful had he known this 20 years ago.
For my part, I have a more than academic interest in wondering what, over the years, was Ron given to know, and approx when...... Up to now, IMHO, this has been about insulation. Where, if anywhere, things might go from here is a legitimate personal concern of mine, and in which process I probably have some input.
It was Ron, who, many years ago, instructed me..... 'come hell or high water, Dan, you must maintain your protocol.' Ok, Ron, this one's for you.......
Oldies, but goodies, the first two of which are from the BPW timeline......
1.) 1995.... Three meetings with Chris S of the SSCI, after his personally being briefed,..... re R&D.... I cannot say anything ad hominem, but you may rest assured that you are dealing with some very competent people.
2.) R&D interactions surrounding 9/11.
3.) 2006-09...... There is a 'repositioning' within the intel community. Ron is assigned to the EOB for the first few months of the new admin. His marriage dissolves.
4.) 2010-...... There is the rumble at the Hut, and Aliyah makes the scene, as the new neighbor, across the street. There is talk of their moving to a more secure location, due to political ramifications from far away. There is an acrimonious settlement, involving significant sums. The move is rescinded. CB reports lengthy interviews by both the FBI and the CIA. There is the clown incident.
On day-one, 1991, there was a facetious reference to an impending communication with the visitors, to which I responded on Compuserve. Since then, Ron has always taken a skeptical stance toward all things ufological, especially wrt his fellow 'Avians', who reciprocate in their disregard.
And, I've always wondered how much of this alleged skepticism was for the benefit of my continued insulation.
Only now, at this latest turn of events, am I willing to concede that this skepticism was probably genuine, on his part, from day-one. Leaving open the possibility, of course, that he was being deliberately misguided, for the above stated reason.
Only since the advent of Aliyah, has security ever been an explicit issue, ostensibly due to those foreign concerns. I should wonder that he is making this up, by way of compensation for his loss of job status wrt to the above 'marital' problem. But, considering this latest development, I'm more inclined to believe that he is being sincere.
But does this make any sense?
If there truly were concerns about a seemingly unrelated security issue, why would he not have been instructed to drop the Chicken Little nonsense, as soon as this other, genuinely urgent issue arose? Well, it would seem that this 'dropping' has now been accomplished, belatedly though it may be.
So, ok, he was, very reasonably, always given to understand that not only was ufology a joke, aside from its internal security issues, but so, most definitely, was the Chicken Little gambit, aside from any possible and obscure counter-intelligence matters. Yes, this is the most reasonable thing to suppose, particularly for an intelligent atheist, that he truly seems to be.
But, still, what about the horse and cart problem? Now that he had a new horse, why was he still bothering with the old cart, so to speak? If we are to believe him, this has been totally out of a sincere and personal regard for my own sensibilities and possible hurt feelings.
Hmmm.......
He must have been given some pretty good reason for keeping this dead chicken tied around his neck, for the last three years, or so. I don't doubt that a believable rationale could have been constructed.
I used to opine that, at some point, I would have to be cut loose..... from the Mothership, so to speak. But, of late, I've been getting the impression that it's more like..... Hey, guys, let's cut bait, and switch...... to God knows what..... anything but CL, it would seem.
So that's pretty much where we are, on this fine day in March..... High and dry, and twisting in the wind. Not that I haven't had plenty of practice......
WWGD? WWJD? Beats the heck out of me!
12:49-----------
I believe that my flight just left, four minutes ago. Coffee, tea..... or me?
Does God believe that we are going to be able to muddle through the impending tribulation, to some sort of light on the other side?
What about the MoAPS? Will it be allowed to unfold 'spontaneously', without any input from R&D?
It is being reported that, under new management, NK is relenting on its nukes. Does that offset the growing mess in the Mideast?
99,
I'm trying to grok on the metaphor of your message. Ron was emphatic that Naval aviation was a joke in the age of smart-bomblets, etc. You do seem to suggest the same.
And this is one reason why we have to take the B&E show with a large grain of salt.
----------
A couple of days ago, I was speculating that B&E might simply be concocting a rationale for divine intervention prior to the population/resource crunch. Where does that stand now?
Will my buddy, ahMadhi, relent, as is Kim (not quite so ill) Jong?
Is it back, then, to greed as usual? Speaking of which, what are we to make of this, sports fans.......?
ABSTRACT: ANNALS OF SCIENCE about altruism and evolution. Charles Darwin regarded the problem of altruism as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection. After all, if life were such a cruel “struggle for existence,” then how could a selfless individual ever live long enough to reproduce? Why would natural selection favor a behavior that made us less likely to survive? And yet, as Darwin knew, altruism is everywhere, a stubborn anomaly of nature. For a century after Darwin, altruism remained a paradox. The first glimmers of a solution arrived in the nineteen-fifties. According to legend, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane was asked how far he would go to save the life of another person. Haldane thought for a moment, and then started scribbling numbers on the back of a napkin. “I would jump into a river to save two brothers, but not one,” Haldane said. “Or to save eight cousins but not seven.” His answer summarized a powerful scientific idea. Because individuals share much of their genome with close relatives, a trait will also persist if it leads to the survival of their kin. Haldane never expanded his napkin calculations into a formal mathematical theory. That task fell to William Hamilton. In 1964, he submitted a pair of papers to the Journal of Theoretical Biology. The papers hinged on one simple equation: rB > C. Genes for altruism could evolve if the benefit (B) of an action exceeded the cost (C) to the individual once relatedness (r) was taken into account. Hamilton referred to his model as “inclusive fitness theory.” At first, Hamilton’s concept of inclusive fitness was entirely ignored. Many biologists were turned off by the math, and few mathematicians were interested in the problems of biology. The following year, however, an ambitious entomologist named E. O. Wilson read the paper. Wilson wanted to understand the altruism at work in ant colonies, and he became convinced that Hamilton had solved the problem. By the late nineteen-seventies, Hamilton’s work was featured prominently in textbooks; his original papers have become some of the most cited in evolutionary biology. As Wilson realized, the equation allowed naturalists to make sense of animal behavior using genetic models, giving the field a new sense of rigor. In an obituary published after Hamilton’s death, in 2000, the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins referred to Hamilton as “the most distinguished Darwinian since Darwin.” But now, in an abrupt intellectual shift, Wilson says that his embrace of Hamilton’s equation was a serious scientific mistake. Wilson’s apostasy, which he lays out in a forthcoming book, “The Social Conquest of the Earth,” has set off a scientific furor. The vast majority of his academic colleagues are convinced that he was right the first time, and that his recantation has damaged the field. The controversy is fuelled by a larger debate about the evolution of altruism. Can true altruism even exist? Is generosity a sustainable trait? Or are living things inherently selfish, our kindness nothing but a mask? This is science with existential stakes. Tells about Wilson’s recent collaboration with Martin Nowak and Corina Tarnita on the paper “The Evolution of Eusociality” and the criticism it received from the scientific community.
Is this a fatal challenge? Will the mathematicians save the day for reductionism, or is the new bio-math going the (organic) way of the Mandelbrot and the Monster?
Something or someone is going to seriously need to goose the MoAPS. Can that happen without recourse to the phenomenological problem, the Visitors and to the disturbing message? In the age of google and twitter, etc? I seriously doubt it. Yes, the PtB can take down OMF, just for the fun of it. And, yes, you can fool all of the people most of the time, but can you fool all of the people all of the time? I seriously doubt it.
Oh, yes, I almost forgot.......
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/business/energy-environment/tensions-raise-specter-of-gas-at-5-a-gallon.html?hp
To many of us, this is a minor annoyance, but, to the billions of have-nots, it may mean the difference between malnutrition and starvation. WWGD? Is God going to sit on her thumbs, while the Mercantilists make hay, and everyone else starves? What do you think, pray tell?
There was a Pope who was wont to refer to the Banquet of Life.
Hmmm.......
At some point, without divine intervention, within the next decade, life will become much less of a banquet, even than it is now, unless there is a quantum leap of external influence...... unless there is a global rebooting of our understanding of the meaning of life.
Can this possibly occur in other than an eschatological context? Without our awakening from our Slumber of Materialism? Can anyone possibly doubt this eventuality?
Which is the cart, and which is the horse, pray tell? Someone thinks he's got a brand new pair of skates. But, darn it, who's got the key......?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=p02DgHeGdyI
4:10------- www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1JGPKujw9U
(cont.)
That would have been quite the show, I suspect. Please hold a ticket for me next time Dano.