Rocky

Your link seems to lead to background information about the subject of the Hulu documentary. THIS LINK is to the Hulu documentary (trailer). Hulu says The Deep End premiers on May 19.

Thanks Monte, I'll take door number two.

Ah, but it was an observation of a phenomenon that was easily and often scientifically repeated ...

Broadcast from Flagstaff, AZ

A former rocket scientist reveals the habits, ideas, and strategies that will empower you to turn the seemingly impossible into the possible. Rocket science is often celebrated as the ultimate triumph of technology. But it's not. Rather, it's the apex of a certain thought process -- a way to imagine the unimaginable and solve the unsolvable. It's the same thought process that enabled Neil Armstrong to take his giant leap for mankind, that allows spacecraft to travel millions of miles through outer space and land on a precise spot, and that brings us closer to colonizing other planets. Fortunately, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to think like one. In this accessible and practical book, Ozan Varol reveals nine simple strategies from rocket science that you can use to make your own giant leaps in work and life -- whether it's landing your dream job, accelerating your business, learning a new skill, or creating the next breakthrough product. Today, thinking like a rocket scientist is a necessity. We all encounter complex and unfamiliar problems in our lives. Those who can tackle these problems -- without clear guidelines and with the clock ticking -- enjoy an extraordinary advantage. Think Like a Rocket Scientist will inspire you to take your own moonshot and enable you to achieve liftoff. ----- Maybe someone in R&R will explore ways to think outside the incredibly small box that they "grew up" (spiritually) in and realize it couldn't hurt to actually try new things.

That's a remarkably remarkable remark.

And what I presented was/is an alternative perspective.

Somehow, I doubt that. Denial is a very powerful emotional defense mechanism.

no big deal.

If he WOULD? Would he if he still could... btw, he demeaned a LOT of people... anyone who disagreed with him or disobeyed or disappointed him in anyway, as I recall.

Ask Mike. (j/k)

Back in the day (1990s?) I would go into a Borders bookstore and imagined it as an encyclopedia on steroids... Then there was Amazon. And of course, the interwebs. I'm not so sure it will make human brains shrink but it has made possible massively accelerated innovation.

In the opinion of the writer. Frankly, it's not worth my time to verify his "biblical research" but I both find -- the notion of the "gathering together" aka the Rapture, AND his claim that it was introduced as an excuse not to have to obey God -- dubious (i.e. magical thinking). However, I agree with this sentiment. It's natural for humans to contemplate the meaning of their lives. Memento Mori is good to keep in mind.

Memento Mori The philosopher Democritus trained himself by going into solitude and frequenting tombs.[5] Plato's Phaedo, where the death of Socrates is recounted, introduces the idea that the proper practice of philosophy is "about nothing else but dying and being dead".[6] The Stoics of classical antiquity were particularly prominent in their use of this discipline, and Seneca's letters are full of injunctions to meditate on death.[7] The Stoic Epictetus told his students that when kissing their child, brother, or friend, they should remind themselves that they are mortal, curbing their pleasure, as do "those who stand behind men in their triumphs and remind them that they are mortal".[8] The Stoic Marcus Aurelius invited the reader to "consider how ephemeral and mean all mortal things are" in his Meditations.[9][10] In some accounts of the Roman triumph, a companion or public slave would stand behind or near the triumphant general during the procession and remind him from time to time of his own mortality or prompt him to "look behind".[11] A version of this warning is often rendered into English as "Remember, Caesar, thou art mortal", for example in Fahrenheit 451.

I tried. But it's a non-sequitur. Oh, and btw, I had some things to say about Mike's nonsense, but after reading everyone's comments from today, I can't remember what they were... either than or it really doesn't matter anymore.

Again, we come to Mike suggesting we need to cater to his direction on how discussion is to be conducted at gsc. Take a hint. If no one is interested in your point or your question, oh well.

Professor Frankfurt understood well. And I think you do pretty well too.

Do you even realize that to be a violation of Jesus' admonition to "Judge not...?" Who the F are you to tell whether or under what conditions anyone else might be at peace (or agree to any degree) with what you wrote?

IOW, (put more simply) it means "this is what I've decided it means."

Have any of you wondered why modern society is so anti-woman? Could it be related to the origin stories in the bible? MEN of God wrote it. Eve was the villain? The entire society we live in revolves around a dogma that subtly demeans women as less than equal. The more I think about it, the more I challenge the idea that the scriptures were inspired by God. And I agree w/Twinky, though I only watched half that video. Those first two white guys were just speaking memorized words with a modicum of expression... but without genuine authenticity in their presentation... IMO.

Where does it say GSC threads are logical discussions? Presumptuous properly applied and still properly applies. Including that you presume to set the framework for logical discussions. Of course, Old School is correct. We've known about you in that regard for years.

Great catch. If WE can do so properly, I suppose we wouldn't need Wierwille's or his lackeys to do it for us. Hence, they were able to keep the REAL underlying purpose of the cult, human need for belonging, obscured so they didn't have to disclose it up front.

My father used to tell me: it's not what you know, it's who you know.