Interesting dreams (including two numerologicals) I've had lately

In one dream I had a court case. I won 26K dollars. The courtroom was lit by daylight but indoors, not too bright, cool, uncrowded, the judge was friendly, I think my dad and one or two other people appeared in court in front of the judge with me.

In another dream I was on a soccer team that beat the opposing soccer team 8-1. In the game I scored 4 goals. I scored one of the goals from near the left sideline, I kicked the ball right after it bounced as it bounced at me, the shot went towards the goal post to the left of the goal, a long, arching shot, it snuck right inside the goalpost for a goal. There was a defender only about two or three yards in front of me when I kicked the ball, but somehow I got the shot over him.

In another dream there was what looked like some room in a college library, quiet like a library room, there was carpeting on the floor, there were table with computers on them, tables with papers on them, the carpeting was a blue gray color,the room was cool, not too well lit, but there were lights on the desks to provide additional light, it looked like a common work area. The room was like a rectangle, about 15 yardslong, about 7 yards wide. In the wall of the room there were these little indentations about 2 or 3 yards deep and about 2 or 3 yards wide, that were rectangular shaped. People could also sit in these little indentations. I was sitting in one of these indentations, and Bill Gates was sitting next to me. We each had little tables in front of us, informal type tables such as of the type you might rest a coffee cup on, about knee high. Neither of us was working. We were both sort of relaxing, we both seemed tired. The light in the indentation was not bright enough to do any kind of work in. We, Gates and I, were sort of soaking in the relaxing atmosphere of the common work area. We did not say anything to each other, but I felt as if the fact that we had both chosen to sit in one of the indentations in the wall, showed that we had certan personality characteristics in common.

In another dream, I was talking to this guy who looked like a typical middle aged USA white male, except for the fact that he was short. He wore shirt jacket tie etc., he had dark brown straight hair, typical length and style, he seemed nice and friendly. In the dream this guy, who looked like a typical American, was a hun, a member of the hunas tribe. Off in the distance I could see snowy mountains that were the homeland of this Hunas tribe. These mountains were to the north of India.

Am I worth $100K per year?

I went over to my brother's apartment this evening. "Sal" short for Salvador was there. "Sal" has been getting job off these temp agencies, working for people like Computer Sciences Corporation, doing computerized book-keeping. Sal is a "certified book-keeper". The temp agencies have been getting him jobs paying $20 per hour.

Off the cuff without my reference materials at hand, I cooked up for Sal, a program that combines HTML CSS and Javascript to create a gambling program. Sal said that I was very good at this HTML/CSS/Javascript, he said I should be making $100 K per year. He also said I was a "very fast" typist. He said my doing the program for him was a great introduction to programming.

I tried to explain to Sal some of the fine points of the program I created off the cuff for him. The program returns a random number between 0 and 100. The user inputs a number between 0 and 100. The program keeps track of how off the user input is from the random number returned.

I was having difficulty explaining to Sal, that with the program, an adjuster number will eventually be required, because the closer to 50 the user input, the smaller the difference between the user input and the random number returned will be.

This is because, for example, if the random numbers returned are 25 and 75, if the user input is 50, the difference is (50-25=25) + (75-50=25) = 50, whereas if the user input is 0 and the random numbers returned are 25 and 75, the difference is (25-0=25) + (75-0=75) = 100.

I had some difficulty convinving Sal of this fine point, that with the random number being returned being between 0 and 100, the user will be closer to what is randomly returned, the closer he is to 50.

Sal had some trouble understanding. Maybe that is why he makes $20 per hour and says I should be making $50 per hour, after seeing the program I cooked up for him off the cuff.

Unbelievable, but the most I have ever made is $8 per hour. Chalk it up to the high number of ways in which Massachusetts types are prejudiced, and the intensity with which they hold such prejudices.





@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Promoting National Addiction To, & Enforcing Use of the Dollar to Buy, an Obsolete Foreign Resource: Sound Geostrategic Policy, or Protestant Folly?

First, I was astounded to hear Nixon proclaim, in one of his post-presidency books, that the government of the USA, should get the USA hooked on, or addicted to, middle eastern oil, so as to ensure that the USA does not become apathetic and isolationist with regards to the middle east.

Secondly, I was surprised to hear about the suppression, in the USA, of new technologies (neo-teks) able to provide domestically produced energy for things oil is used for, at a much lower financial and environmental cost than oil.

Thirdly, given the existence of these new alternatives to oil, it has been mind-boggling for me to hear, USA "leaders" talk about how control of foreign oil is vital to the USA national security, and how the war in Iraq was all about securing USA access to the vital resource, oil.

Even if the new alternatives to oil cost as much or a little more than oil, the promotion of US addiction to foreign oil so as to avoid US apathy and isolationism, the promotion of crusades to secure US access to foreign oil, would not seem to me, to be obviously good policy moves. Given the new info that these new suppressed alternatives to oil are cheaper than oil, the promotion of US addiction to oil and Crusades to secure US access to foreign oil, makes little sense to me.

Crusades to secure access to an obsolete resource, promoting addiction to an obsolete foreign resource so as to avoid isolationism and apathy in the US, what's the sense in it?

The USA might be able to suppress new alternatives to oil at home; that does not mean it will be able to suppress such new alternatives to oil in every place on earth.

Imagine Russian and Chinese cars and aeroplanes running on water, whilst the USA cars and aeroplanes run on oil. Is that what is called a "geo-strategic" victory? Imagine the USA enforcing dollars as the medium used to buy oil, when the world's cars boats and planes run on water. Again, "geo-strategic" victory?

Promoting USA addiction to an obsolete foreign energy resource, does not seem to me to be sound geostrategic policy. Rather, it seems to be a way of promoting the selfish financial interests of a small clique of unethical persons.

As usual what is missing in the arguments is a sense of cost-benefit, which is replaced with a laundry list of the positive outcomes of a given policy. There might be some advantages, advantages X Y and Z, to getting the USA hooked on an obsolete foreign resource; but that is not the point. The point is, looking at the cost of getting the USA hooked on an obsolete foreign resource compared to the benefit of such, and then looking at the cost of developing the new technologies that replace the foreign resource, compared to the benefits of such, how does one policy compare to another?

This has nothing to do with any maliciousness with regards to the foreign oil producing nations. If I was king, I would do what was in my power to promote health wealth and happiness in such nations. As a matter of fact, the obsession with oil could end up doing more harm to such nations than the develpment of alternatives to oil. For example, if oil were to be replaced with water, these nations would have a cheap energy resource to take advantage of, and so would nations that they trade with.

We hear alot about the "geo-strategic" cleverness of forcing the world to prop up the value of the dollar, by forcing the world to use dollars when it buys oil. What about all the examples of nations that have succeeded economically, even though their currency was not required in order to buy oil? One would think the only path to national prosperity, is a nation's currency being the medium of exchange used to buy oil.

It is hard for me to see the sanity in pursuing prosperity, by forcing nations to use the dollar to buy an obsolete resource, when the alternative could be, the USA and other nations using new less expensive, more efficient resources. As opposed to a laundry list of the advantages of a given policy such as enforcing the use of the dollar when an obsolete foreign resource is purchased, the real issue, is the advantages/disadvantages of such forced use of a currency, compared to the advantages/disadvantages of alternatives such as using new technologies.

On the one hand, you have the crusade to force nations to use the dollar to buy oil, a crusade that seems doomed to fail. We hear talk about forcing Iran, to abandon its plan to create an exchange where oil is bought and sold using currencies other than the dollar. Then we hear about Russia planning to create an exchange where currencies other than the dollar are used to buy and sell oil. What are we going to do, attack Russia to force Russia to abandon its planned new non-dollar oil exchange? What if China decides to set up an exchange where oil is bought and sold using some currency other than the dollar? What are they planning on doing, attacking every nation that decides to use some currency other than the dollar to buy oil? Where is the proof that the cost/benefit of such attempts to force nations to use the dollar to buy oil, outweigh the cost/benefit of alternatives such as developing the new technologies? All the billions of dollars that are put into wars, could be put into something else instead.

Seems as if various special interest groups, have over the years gotten all invested in and geared up to acquire control of oil, to force the use of the dollar for oil transactions, and now that new technologies (which these special interest groups foolishly failed to anticipate) have been devised which can replace oil, these special interest groups are pretending that this obsession with oil serves the national and the international interest, when in fact it serves only the narrow selfish interests of certain immoral/amoral/unethical special interest groups.

By way of contrast to the situation in the Protestant United States, look at Catholic Brazil, which is on its way to energy independence, based on the use of fuel derived from domestically produced sugar cane.

Seems all over the world, nations that are not protestant, are forging ahead, bringing justice to their peoples, managing their economies wisely, while protestant nations like the UK and the USA sink themselves. Seems protestantism, in combination with a few other factors ends up up destroying the nation that it infects.

But what do you expect? Protestants manage to twist their religious scriptures (scriptures intentionally obfuscated in a climate of persecution) into doctrines such as, what a man does or says has no effect on the man's fate in the afterlife; where a person goes after death, is predestined for all, regardless of what individuals may say or do. By way of contrast, even the adherents of many non-Christian belief systems, do not believe in universal predestination, and do believe a man's fate in the afterlife, and a man's spiritual condition in this life, is effected by his words and by his actions. I remember as a child, looking at a museum exhibit in Chicago, which showed all the tortures Chinese religion expected to be visited upon Chinese sinners in the afterlife.

But what do you expect from nations that adhere to such irresponsibility-promoting doctrines? Have these Satanism-infected Protestant nations forgotten all about conscience? They glibly, smugly, think of themselves as wisely selfish. I have news for them: there is nothing wise or selfish, about ending up being fried alive, like a fish in a fish fry, forever, which is the fate, it now seems to me, that awaits so many of them. Nor is there anything wise or selfish about ending up being tortured for a few hundred or a few thousand years in purgatory.

Those who believe in the possibility of temporary punishments in the afterlife, tend to be careful about their conduct. But irresponsible Protestants, carefree and footloose, deny that there is anything in scripture that points to a purgatory. In answer to them, I say, does the fact something is not mentioned in scripture, mean it does not exist? The Bible itself, declares in at least three different places, that most of God's thoughts words and actions are not recorded in the Bible. Furthermore, note the following scriptures:

"Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him" -- Mt 18:32-34.

"Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire" -- 1 Co 3:12-15.

My feeling now is, that amongst that minority of Americans lucky enough to escape eternal damnation, alot of them in the afterlife will nevertheless spend alot of time being tortured. If these Americans were truly as wisely selfish as they arrogantly pretend to be, they would start putting their nose to the grindstone, start putting some real time energy and money into good deeds. Yet all we hear, is faith without works, faith without works.

Americans should come to realize what is meant by faith without works. What is meant, is that no man is able to to perfectly keep the Old Testament laws (works), yet despite this, through faith, men are able to find salvation. The faith without works stuff does not mean that men can forget about conscience, forget about doing good deeds, and expect to waltz into heaven.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Foolish Blind Machismo in American Men

The problem with the American men, is that they are like some kind punch drunk wrestler, who is an imbecile, who is only capable of taking on what seems to be an obvious enemy without, at the command of others, like some kind of pit bull. I suppose these American men think such is an admirable imitation of their heroes, but is it? What kind of classy football or basketball player is like that? The winning ball teams, are savvy, not brutish, they can comprehend things like enemies within.

Masculinity consists of being able to identify the Satan that pretends to be an angel of light, or the Satan that thinks it is an angel of light but is not. Looking at American men, you would think masculinity consists of being an idiot who worships any rich non Christian man in a three piece suit who proclaims himself to be a deity, an angel of light.

Real masculinity, real being someone who is headed for heaven not hell, consists of being wise enough to discern the folly of drooling over temporary advantages that hide long term disaster.

Real masculinity, real sainthood or shall we say heavenhood--what the nation and the world needs is not sainthood in everyone just everyone being a little bit better--consists of being able to see through the deceits of enemies within, it consists of working with the mind until such are understood.
Deceit, is a form of warfare. Warfare in an inappropriate context is criminal and sinful, harmful to what is of high quality in terms of voice personality appearance and intelligence in society. King Solomon said, that a man who deceives his neighbor and then says ha ha I was only joking, is as dangerous as a man swinging a baseball bat. Those who habitually deceive, are at war; when their deceit/war is in an inappropriate context, it becomes criminal and sinful.

I am pessimistic regarding the future prospects of a society filled with men, who individually or banded together in groups, put money, family and career above all else. Such hubris it seems, can only lead to devolution in the sense of the human racing growing progressively lower and lower in terms of voice personality and appearance, and also in terms of its overall physiological, psychological, social, economic, political and spiritual state. I consider it to be a myopic perversion of Christianity, this idea that a real man, a saint, obdurately in all situations puts himself, his career, his family, and his pocketbook above all other considerations. I do not see how the ancient Israel of David and Solomon that eventually produced Christ, could have survived had its men been like this, selfish like American men.

Aside from picking out this or that scripture while ignoring this or that scripture, lets get down to brass tacks. How important, really, to the welfare of the nation and of the world, are these men and their families? Are they all really so important compared to the millions of people they are not close relatives of, whom they screw up through their misbehavior?



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Christians of the US democracy like sheep oblivious to existence of natural predators

Amazing the way Christians, in a democratic nation, remind you of some kind of animal that is eaten in large amounts by predators, because it is a foolish type of animal.

Christianity, follows a prophet who was a friend of the poor and a harsh critic of the rich. Democracy, with the sharing of resources it enforces, is a relatively new thing in the world compared to monarchy, compared to plutocracy. Even after voting rights were introduced, they were restricted for a long time to men of substantial property.

Thus Christians in democracies have enemies, such as those who prospered under monarchy, and see democracy, liberalism and populism as threats. I would say the correct answer is that both democracies and monarchies can be either poor or good choices depending on time and place, nevertheless there are fanatics on both sides of the issues including democracy-haters. Yet despite the fact that it is obvious that Christians who believe in democracy, and Christians who live in democracies, have reason to be cautious, what we have in the USA is Christians who are childish, irresponsible, ignorant, mentally inactive, foolish, like sheep who do not fear and are unaware of the existence of wolves.

Such Christians look on the Satanism being practiced amongst them as campily humorous. Whereas the reality is, that Satanism is something to be approached with serious caution. Satanism has to do with the rejection of the moral codes found in religions that glorify God. It goes hand in hand with criminalism.

Persons who are seriously criminal, see the moral codes of the religions, which are moral codes that are like twins of legal codes, as an enemy, and they see persons committed to live by such moral codes as threats.

Once a person becomes guilty of theft, murder, slander, fraud, deceit, lies etc., that person can begin to see the mainstream moral codes as a mortal enemy. Satanism, can be a criminalist threat to the security of persons and their property, insofar as it rejects moral and legal codes that serve the purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.

Although God revering religious societies have featured slaves, what is forgotten is that generation after generation they have also featured the presence of large numbers of persons who were NOT slaves.

Foolish as it may be to get hung up on the faults of one particular ethnic group, whilst forgetting the real and serious faults of other ethnic groups, foolish as it may be to forget the good qualities of a given ethnic group or the members of an ethnic group who are atypical, unlike typical members of that group, nevertheless it would also be foolish to ignore how the Jewish ethnic group, has been a significant element in the groups featuring contempt for Christianity and democracy, criminalism,
and Satanism.

Yet what we see nowadays even in circles opposed to this element amongst the Jews, is an almost fanatic bending over backwards to be polite with Jews. The harshest critics of the Jews are ever eager to be polite to Jews, to sponsor Jews who find fault with Jews, and to find fault with those who find fault with Jews.

An example of this is the debate regarding the "Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" a pamphlet or tract which originated in the eighteenth or nineteenth century. The tract features the thoughts of someone who is supposed to be a Jewish leader, the Jewish leader basically advocates a stealthy, no-holds-barred war on the Gentiles.

The debate rages on and on regarding whether the tract was authored by Jewish leaders or authored by
impostors pretending to be Jewish leaders. Though it is almost impossible to be certain regarding whether such tracts that appeared long ago were produced by impostors, you have true believers on both sides, some convinced the tract was written by impostors others convinced it was written by Jewish leaders.

Amongst those who are critics of the Jewish influence in society, you find men who eagerly find the Jews innocent on the grounds that the "Protocols" tract supposedly was written by impostors.

By way of contrast, the reasonable thing would be to give some weight to the fact that this tract, "Protocols", has been said to have been very popular with Jewish households in pre World War Two europe. It has been said that it would be hard to find a Jewish household in europe of those days, that did not keep a revered copy of the Protocols.

So the point is, what difference does it make whether the tract was written by impostors or not, especially seeing it is so hard to tell if it was written by impostors or not, if so many Jewish households were in possession of treasured copies of the tract?


@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Soccer air dribbling diary page two link

Here is the URL of page two of my soccer air dribbling diary:

http://www.angelfire.com/ma/vincemoon/Soccairtwo.htm

pidgin code snippet for keeping two changing values apart

Here is a pidgin code snippet I wrote useful for keeping two constantly changing values from getting to close to each other. Brings to mind things like keeping two airplanes away from each other.

initialization

blah=docval/2
//docval shows user input limit of closeness of gb and gt when gb, gt changing

Program segment

indik=mathAbs(gt=gb)/2
duk=mathAbs(blah-indik);
if(indik<blah)&&(gt<gb)
{gtduplicate=gt;gbduplicate=gb;gt=gt-duk;gb=gb+duk}
if(indik<blah)&&(gt>=gb)
{gtduplicate=gt;gbduplicate=gb;gt=gt+duk;gb=gb-duk}

//gt and gb values are now used for some thing

gt=gtduplicate
gb=gbduplicate
/*here after use the two object values are returned to what they would have been except for the exception resulting from desire to keep a distance between the two objects;
then again it might be interesting to let the veering away from each other also change the subsequent number positions of the two objects
*/

Brothers and Lovers of Men who lack Riches

Younger brothers are more naturally social than the ones born first.
The ones born first, spend the first few years of their lives alone.
And then they "prey" on the beautiful female classmates of their younger brothers.

The rich underestimate, what brothers and wives of men who are not rich,
do not underestimate, in their estimation of the men who are not rich;
they underestimate the feelings persons can have for the notrich,
they understimate the relative high quality of humanity,
that can be found amongst the notrich.

Then you have the some might say dykey wife, who was some think,
dykey enough to compete with her man, for her man's ladies,
by for example stuffing herself while depriving him of food...
but at least she was able to love him like a brother.

Able To get infected, with that exuberant feeling
a little brother can have for his big brother.

And so the girl and the brother forgot about the faults of the nation's allies,
and forgot about the virtues of the nation's enemies,
because they had gotten absorbed in the superiority
of their esteemed friend compared to the world,
absorbed in appreciating something
the rich and the foreigners do'nt always appreciate.

So what good did it do that the some might say dykey one
should betray her almost-worshipped one
to be a hyper-conservative, when hyper-conservativism,
doth not serve the roots of the semi-worshipped?

Yet she boasteth, that through her hyper-conservative what some might call betrayal,
she hath the wherewithal to fund philanthropies such as betrayed "first loves"?

Yet say I, how can it be, that a girl of fourteen and a boy of seventeen,should be kept apart whilst the girl is forced to associate with boys of her own age,when the entire world of science well knows, that girls attain puberty about three years before boys do?




@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Right or Wrong, VD Hanson's mideast war arguments don't make sense

VD Hanson in my estimation, is the leading intellectual spokesman for the US war machine that has been the US administration for the past five or so years.

Problem is, Hanson's verbose arguments do not make sense, regardless of whether the administration is right or wrong.

At least half of Hanson's verbosity is mere assertion, the same assertion made over and over again in different words, with no evidence or even argument provided to support the assertion.

Hanson complains that Afghanistan supported Bin Laden, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. His complaint is staggering, seeing that Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda, were set up and supported by the USA as a way of containing the Soviet Union, which the USA opposed not because it hated Russians but because it disliked the militant atheism of the Soviet Union. The fact is, that it is simple nature, especially in parts of the world such as Afghanistan, that organizations the US sets up and supports, such as Taliban and Al Qaeda, will continue to do mischief, after they have been officially disbanded. For example the murder rate in the USA is something like 10/100,000. Over ten years that is 100/100,000. Thus you would expect an organization even an ally of the USA, that had a million persons in it, to murder 1000 people over ten years, if their murder rate was the same as the US murder rate. If the million person organization had been a violent organization dedicated to expelling dreaded Soviet atheists from Afghanistan, one would expect ten thousand murders out of them over ten years without blinking an eye.

Hanson condemns Iraq for associating with Al Qaeda in the 1990s. Again, Al Qaeda was set up by the USA itself as a way of containing Soivet expansion so how can Hanson reasonably complain about Iraq associating with Al Qaeda? Insane.

Hanson complains that Pakistan supported Taliban and Al Qaeda. Again, insane. When a nation like the US gets behind organizations such as Al Qaeda and Taliban as a way of containing the once-dreaded Soviets who have become the admired Russian Christians, this creates an inexorable momentum that cannot come to a halt the minute the USA blows the stop whistle.

Hanson celebrates things in a vague crazy way as if he had no understanding of impermanence, no understanding of quantification. He celebrates things like, the Saudis cleaning up their financial offices (what is that supposed to mean?), Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being ever-more sensitive to dangers of islamic radicalism (meaningless); iran being more closely "scrutinized" (what intelligence agency worth its salt would scrutinize iran significantly less if we had not invaded Iraq?); the US attempting to pressure the Saudis to reform (attempts dont mean anything) and etc.

Hanson asserts that oil and Saddam were a danger. Meaningless. There are many dangers in the world, and the fact something is a danger does not justify whatever is done with regards to that danger.

Hanson comes up with the weird accounting math, that if you spend less reacting against something that causes you damage than the amount of loss the damage caused, you are a winner. Such does not compute. If someone causes $5000 damage to my car, does that mean that I have done something wise, if I burn down the guilty party's house, because it cost me only $4000 to burn the guilty party's house down, whereas the guilty party caused $5000 in damage? It might be wiser to spend that $4K in some other way.


Hanson concludes that we have done wisely because there have been no further attacks. Does not compute. Joe Schmo pissed in the wind after 911 while reciting Hindu scriptures, that does not mean that what Joe Schmo did prevented further attacks. The fact there have been no further attacks, says nothing to prove that the attacks were dealt with in a wise and efficient manner.

What is missing with Hanson is a sense of balance. A laundry list of achievements does nothing to prove that the time energy and money spent on those achievements, was spent in a wise way, compared to the available alternatives.

By his own admission, after five years of the USA dressing up as a militant crusader for democracy and shooting up the middle east and the eastern-middle-east, we now have the economic dominance of Chinese trade, Arab oil (which Hanson admits has gotten rich through rises in the price of oil caused by the US shenanigans in the middle east), and the europeans being the moderate alternative to us (Hanson neglects to mention, if international trade was a basketball game the score would be something like europe 117 USA 66, year after year after year now.

Great. So the USA is getting its butt kicked in trade and becoming poor compared to China europe and the oil trading Arabs. Such is supposed to prove that the USA has been spending its time energy and money wisely over the past five years? Gimme a break.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Twisted Thoughts of Abnormal Wealthy & Powerful who Betray

Seems like everyone who has more than five hundred nickels in their Piggy Bank, is proclaiming themselves Illuminati. I hear them blurting out between the lines and under their breath, that they are Illuminati, whatever that may be, they are (condescendingly not threateningly) the Devil, and so forth.

Seems a significant element amongst the wealthy has become criminal, heretical, anti-ethical, pro-corruption, anti-good, anti-religion. Apparently this is because they feel threatened by the masses, they feel that the status and position of themselves and their family is now and in the future endangered, and so they have become the rebels that they are, putting their trust in the Devil Criminality and Amorality, as opposed to putting their trust in God.

By way of contrast, there have been golden ages during the history of humanity, times when the rich were religious, ethical, philanthropic, defenders of good faiths.

There is no iron law of logic that produces the result, that the only reasonable way for the rich to behave and to think is the way this significant element of the rich behaves and thinks nowadays.

What it all comes down to, is that people can imagine that things will turn out the best for them and their families, if they strive to be good, to obey God, to avoid heresies, to be philanthropic, humble and conscientious.

Or on the other hand they can imagine that things will turn out the best for themselves and their families if they are Satanic, wicked, evil.

According to Proverbs of King Solomon, God 'hates the heart that deviseth wicked imaginations', meaning God hates those who dream up excuses for their evil conduct, excuses such as, the little girl across the street is going to grow up into someone who accidentally runs me over with a car, so I am going to do her in.

These "hated by God" types imagine things will go well for them and their families if they follow Satanic, evil, and heretical paths; they forget that finance is but one aspect of prosperity.

Actually there are also aspects of prosperity and well being such as: the physiological, the psychological, the social, the spiritual, the personality, the intelligence.

These "hated by God" types see their own selves and their own family as being as important as mountains, and the rest of humanity as being as important as a mole-hill.

By way of contrast normal reasonable men understand, how there are forces and counter-forces that have enormous good or evil effects, forces that are much more important than issues such as of how much a typical rich guy being a good guy will effect the typical rich guy's family's prosperity a hundred years from now.

Normal reasonable men see how they can individually or combined with others impact these powerful forces, stunting the evil and promoting the good; they see how a conceited hyper-pseudo-biological obsession with family, can result in evils much greater than whatever evil is avoided via the obsession with family.

Then you have these powerful even if not very wealthy types, who work hard, and make sacrifices as public and private sector employees, who combine their hard work and sacrifice with pouting at those in society who they perceive to be less hard working and sacrificing.

Example: the military guy, who does not like it when the waitress who lives in the apartment down the street has the time energy and money to take her despised son-of-a-soccer-mom child to a soccer game, because he does not think this waitress ever put her life on the line like he did, does not think she endured being away from home and loved places and persons like he did.

Thus in pouting at any kind of prosperity for their own country-folk, these pouters become economic enemies of their own nation state.

Yet they like to ignorantly and brainlessly, effeminately burrow themselves into little nooks and crannies of public policy, such as the fine points of second guessing the tactics of a minor battle, while they miss the big picture.

They like to forget the many civilians who make greater sacrifices, endure greater hardships, face greater dangers than they ever intentionally have or will.

By way of contrast normal men, can enjoy serving in the militaries of their nations, because they love their nations. But what do the guys who pout against their nation love about their nation? They don't like the people of their nation to have any money. Do they love the beautiful mountains in their nation, the "purple mountain majesties"? Or is it the trees, or the sunsets, or might it be those amber waves of grain?

Normal men understand that the nation that they love and believe in, the nation that they want to be strong, will not be strong if it is economically weak.

Normal men might be offended by civilians who are inconsiderate regarding for example the war injury they suffered, nevertheless, they understand that they themselves could well be guilty of such lack of consideration with others. They believe in 'judge not that ye be not judged', they believe in forgiveness, they understand how even if only one percent of the population is a superstar, while the rest are rude, that is still millions of superstars; when they think of their own nation and people they have hopes; even if only a minority is of quality, it is that minority that they think of.



@2006 David Virgil Hobbs

Intermediate Essentials of Textrange Methods in Javascript

In answa' to yo queries, yo majestee massah, dig dis:

Collapse(false) collapses de texrange to the end, it be collapsible bod to de end o' to de start.

Alternatives t'movestart, moveEnd, dig dis: be move, movetobookmark, setendpoint. Man! De setendpoint be deceppivly named, massa. It be useable fo settin de beginpoint also. 'S coo', bro.

De 'expand() medod be only returnin some boolean value, massah Dey be no way t''spand de textrange backwards, massah.

De getbookmark be alwez signifyin de start point of de textrange bookmarked, massah.

Dey be a medod dat massah may not ha' dought of in his previous brillian honky code. Dey be, dig dis: setendpoint, which be settin de start o' end uh a textrange t'de start o' end uh anoda' textrange, it be deceptively named;

Dey be a medod dat seem t'be useful but sometimes aint. Man! De findtext be returnin some boolean value, it be movin de range t'de text dat be found in de text. Man!




@2006 David Virgil Hobbs