WhereWasI takes a puff from a cigarette and stares at just how impressive it was that man had used fire for his own purpose with such relative ease that he could enjoy a cigarette, he stood up and began to speak to any who would listen,

"Mankind is a species intelligent enough to decide to do something rather than follow instincts based purely on providing for basic needs. This ability to decide and think is man's greatest tool, it helped him learn how to make weapons for hunting and how to determine what and where things edible for gathering would be. In this ability, many lose focus to what they really want or need. As society developed, some did things they didn't want to do to impress others, rather than doing what they decided they wanted in an impressive way. Once a person starts changing their actions and ideals because of another, they usually keep doing it. Enough of this makes them a being living in an attempt to be what others think they should be, rather than being what they think they should be. I believe there is no real happiness and nothing but regret in living this way. I call these people mirrors or park benches, because they live to reflect what others want and are just a tool for what others want in the end; and I couldn't stomach calling a creature that doesn't think a human being. Humans have mastered fire, the ocean, magnetism, language and other resources to match their whims, not just their basic survival needs. The phrase 'I'm only human' is a disgusting slap in the face to the great men and women who formulated enough thought to make it possible for them to say that."

"Every society determines a set of rules, both enforced and not enforced. Both are often found to be deemed something close to the word sin. For the purpose of saving time, I choose to use this similar term. Sin is choosing to do something wrong, but we focus on the wrong thing accepted to be wrong. If you believe in the ideas driving the rules, such as no one should be killed for no reason at all, you're gaining something from it. You now won't be killed for no reason without punishment for the other individual. When we start to accept rules for any other purpose, we give way to rules that are destructive to ourselves. What happens when society asks you to sacrifice yourself or your chance at happiness for the good of everyone else? Those living to impress others will probably walk into the suicide chamber or bear the burden of providing happiness for others at the expense of their own. Those with any wits about them will say no, the contract between society and the man has been broken as they aren't offering him anything he should be willing to accept in return. Whether that means death or leaving society, it is better to live without compromise than to be a slave doing things not of your own volition, living life to pursue happiness rather than living to avoid fear and punishment."

"Integrity is the force that drives a man to say no when a society makes the price of his existence too high. Integrity is the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. The way I define this is determining a value for every idea and belief, and then keeping to them at the price you've deemed without compromise. I would never regularly pay a million dollars for a can of soda, so why should I overpay for my belief that I and I alone should represent my ideas? I personally set the bar for that on par with existence, meaning I would choose to die before letting another have the right to openly speak of my ideals and my mind without my permission because of my attempts to reach out to other thinking minds. If a single one of them is misled because I failed to correct someone improperly displaying my ideas, then I have allowed my name to be used for an evil purpose. Giving in would cause nothing but regrets and I won't live that way... I am me and there is no compromising. Society must take me and the things I truly believe in as a whole without compromise because I have integrity or I shall refuse to accept the terms of existing."

"Now that you have access to some of the system I use for valuing, let's introduce a real problem that these values will have to stand against. The mafia community is shrinking, in my opinion. There have been far too many comatose patients and not nearly enough active mobsters lately. I remember a time when the streets were filled with mobsters, a time when the heated discussions were common place. I have an opinion of how, who caused, and why these streets took a barren shape, but I don't need to discuss that to show the line of thinking behind my solution so I won't speak on the subject. My solution was to test if there was a correlating factor between energy, activity, and confrontational street discussions. I unfortunately didn't write numbers down, but I believe many of you can and will agree there has been more activity as of lat, so we have some benefit of being able to look back at short term results. I'm certain by now many of you have an opinion on those results and this means you can pass judgement now, but I encourage you to finish listening to the thinking behind the forced speaking. I will also warn you now that there will be a bit at the very end to convince those who didn't read and just glanced through for words they're expecting to believe that I'm simply out hear preaching about my greatness or something stupid. The following before that is the thinking behind the forced speaking crusade I've started and I hope for criticism and comments on that part."

"My first thoughts on handling the issue of the reduced number of active mobsters were asking myself, 'How do I increase street activity in a way that won't just fade away quickly?' and 'if there is a correlation that I'm basing this off of, what is causing that correlation?'. To study what made the streets active, I looked through the journals for the discussions most paid attention to by our society (I clicked the views thread and reread a lot of the most viewed threads. This is flawed because views only go back so far, but it would be impossible for me to go through every thread by myself in a realistic amount of time worth spending for this problem) and checked each for the general back and forth topic that was driving the attention. They were mostly war related. Obviously I can't just go around killing people endlessly because that wouldn't suffice for solving the problem at hand, it would likely kill the community all together if they were just killed immediately and pointlessly. So I tried to describe the similarities between the comments that provoked such heated discussions. They were riddled with not just conflict; but logic being thrown back and forth, some emotional breakdowns, and lots of angry name calling. I obviously couldn't just keep having or provoking emotional breakdowns or tossing insults because I believe Kuklinski has demonstrated how ineffective it is for long term results. So all that left me with was logic bashing and logical back and forth."

"Before continuing, I put thought into what would rationally explain the correlating factor. The answer I found was bonding over common enemies. The personal ties between bloodlines drove some to act in a way that would be highly unlikely to prove beneficial, but would defend those they'd made a connection with. This is what I believe is the driving force of all the back and forth, which is obvious to many of you, but it's hard to explain its lack of influence in today's day and age. My belief is that the intermingling of bloodlines has reduced natural conflict. The number of accepted enemies is shrinking or dying because they're all starting to have multiple allies on both sides that cause opinions to be left reserved. My belief is that the community needs a mutual enemy, someone to force others to bond in working against them in some way shape or form. I had other theories that would involve the Gods, but they have shown they don't care for my bloodline's opinion or many others' before so I didn't bother discussing this with them and decided to find an answer on my own. I decided to force logical back and forth, but not at the cost of intentionally harboring the hate of others. I would need to force a dividing line, without being the only one on one side of it."

"The question now was how to not get people to hate me, but to pit them against me. I wasn't even thinking of this on the fateful day where Godfather Cantona determined he would tell the TeQ bloodline his point was invalid because his is TeQ. The anger and logic that spilled out there became my inspiration for how to act. From there and a few other choice interactions I decided I would degrade people who didn't think, made petty insults, or dodged questions. This is something I actually enjoy, something that comes naturally to me while causing conflict and forcing people to take sides. So I ask you, based on the challenge I defined and attempted to conquer, have I gotten results? There may be better ways, but I believe with the tools at my disposal this was and is the best thing I could do to get the community into the shape that I wanted it in."

"This is the very end, now that you're done reading I am glad you understand why I'm better than you, all of you. I see the big picture... and you don't."

"I'm fairly certain I kept in character for this entire piece, though I could be wrong, I just don't know where it would be."

WhereWasI shudders,

"I will meet all hugs with wrenches and I hate that day, though I know at this point I can't stop you people. I also agree that his bloodline may have vulgar words, but has more often had a driving point he put thought into and dismissing it for that nature sickened me."

Kilgore waited out the man's speech as patiently as he could. Though he tried not to let it bother him, he couldn't help but silently lament the fact that in the time he'd spent listening to this piece of white toast blathering on the street corner his ice cream had melted, the cows had come home, his kids had graduated from college and his dog had died of starvation.

Well that was certainly a well thought out bit of filler. I'll start from the top.

You credit mankind for their free will and ability to determine the course of their own life. The only problem you see is that most people choose to actually exercise this freedom of choice by not living within the narrow guidelines of acceptability as you see fit. That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? To so blatantly condemn others for what you perceive as living to suit the expectations of others because it doesn't fit your expectations. That sort of no-frills contradiction is usually reserved for ancient riddles.

You then go on to praise the human race for their fantastic achievements of ingenuity. Well, as their official representative, I'd like to thank you for your support. However, in all fairness, we must point out that what you refer to as mastery (fire, oceans, etc.) is in fact only a workable level of understanding. While we may be able to utilize these things and put them to work for us, but we're still largely at their mercy. Hardly anybody ever dies while tying their shoes in the morning. Shoelaces are well mastered. However, countless people are still cooked alive in tenement fires, or lost for eternity to the depths of the Atlantic because the ocean was a lil' bit cranky that day. Again, we appreciate the enthusiasm, but let's not get carried away.

One tremendous and, quite frankly, amazing ability of mankind that you completely overlooked (and one might even say railed against) is our ability to recognize our own faults and shortcomings. Yes, we're incredible creatures with powerful brains and an unrivaled vastness of possibilities before us. But we're far from a perfect machine. The best among us realize and acknowledge that. After all, one of the basic tenets of greatness is being able to realize your own inherent fallibility. This promotes betterment through trial and error, and keeps us from endlessly butting our heads against the brick walls we (amazingly) created through our (mind-blowing) resourcefulness. So I'd say that the candid statement of "I'm only human" is far from the slap in the face you interpret it to be. Rather, it is yet another great milestone of man's insight, and a testament to evolution.

The next several paragraphs were nothing but grandiose jaw stretching of negligible import, so let's jump straight to the money shot:

You set out to martyr yourself so that the streets may live. Well, I'm not sure what others might think, but you seem reasonably well adjusted to me. Just don't forget that Jesus died in the end. It really helped to nail his point home. But in actuality, you're just the good girl gone bad. Long outgrown her childish charm of frilly ankle socks and songs about rainbows, she whores herself out in the grubby hands of hyper-sexualization and scandal, desperately hoping to cling to a half remembered image, sweetly humping the fringes of relevance into unfair adulthood.

As much as you so surely want to set yourself above him, claiming that you learned and adjusted from his (perceived) utter failure... You, my friend, are Kuklinski. The only difference is your given propensity for aggrandization. You are the same theory and the same tactics as your own foil. Only you think everyone else is too stupid to realize that you're merely throwing around shallow insults to gain our attentions. You think because you've read a few books and took some courses in grammar that it sets your brain apart, on a pedestal high above the rest of the miserable swine that deface these gutters on a daily basis. 

No, my friend. Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Nor aptitude, nor skill. Another thing about human beings that you've so blindly failed to realize is that most of us can tell a phony when we see it. No amount of high shine will distract people from the cold nothingness that lies beneath the surface. We know when the emperor is naked, and we know that straw men will burn at the strike of a match.

You pride yourself on loudly announcing how little you care for public opinion. Yes, it's important to not follow blindly into the unforgiving darkness. A little bit of that is good. But just a bit of friendly advice: In our line of work, public opinion digs graves. It's time to wake up, dust yourself off, and realize that no amount of brow-beating and restless blabbing is going to reshape our world into your miserably bland and deeply flawed utopia. The rest of the world isn't going to play by your rules.

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. Just come with a collection of counterpoints, and not a contradictory smattering of insulting fucking questions to skip around the point.

Kilgore's eyes drifted to the sky. He let his thoughts wander for a moment, over the laughter of children playing on a nearby street corner. He let out a short but heavy sigh as his eyes fell level and a genuine smile crept along his lips.

Beautiful day, don't you think so?

WhereWasI stares awkwardly,

"Quite odd of you to forget to feed your dog and choose to attend this rather than attend your child's graduation seeing as it took me 30 minutes to come up with so I'm assuming it should've taken the same amount of time to listen to at most. Oh well, can't say it isn't flattering that you'd choose to let your dog die and miss your children's graduation to attend."

You credit mankind for their free will and ability to determine the course of their own life. The only problem you see is that most people choose to actually exercise this freedom of choice by not living within the narrow guidelines of acceptability as you see fit. That's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? To so blatantly condemn others for what you perceive as living to suit the expectations of others because it doesn't fit your expectations. That sort of no-frills contradiction is usually reserved for ancient riddles.

"The only guideline of acceptability I laid was that you have to think for me to consider you an actual human. Which means to fit a term you have to have certain qualities so no it isn't hypocritical at all. The belief is that anyone who does things to impress others rather than doing things you want to do in an impressive manner is choosing to put the opinions of others before their own. If you act on the opinions of others, are you truly making the decision? What if they thought you should wear black slacks instead of blue jeans? I also love your choice not to show which lines say that, it adds a bit of spice to your comments for those who didn't read, good show bud. You scored some awesome points with those incapable of listening."

You then go on to praise the human race for their fantastic achievements of ingenuity. Well, as their official representative, I'd like to thank you for your support. However, in all fairness, we must point out that what you refer to as mastery (fire, oceans, etc.) is in fact only a workable level of understanding. While we may be able to utilize these things and put them to work for us, but we're still largely at their mercy. Hardly anybody ever dies while tying their shoes in the morning. Shoelaces are well mastered. However, countless people are still cooked alive in tenement fires, or lost for eternity to the depths of the Atlantic because the ocean was a lil' bit cranky that day. Again, we appreciate the enthusiasm, but let's not get carried away.

"Why are you choosing to represent someone other than yourself? I'm a human being and you don't represent me so I'll answer you and I won't pretend you're a representative of anyone but yourself because I'm not stupid enough to think you're even capable of representing an entire species' opinions and thoughts. You're not."

"I choose the word mastery because I think it means comprehensive knowledge or skill in a subject or accomplishment. You claim we're at their mercy, I claim they don't act on their own and therefor disasters are predictable and can be counteracted. Are shoelaces mastered? Under your perceived definition my inability to travel through time using just shoelaces means I'm yet to master them. I've mastered tying my shoes with shoe laces, but I'd hate to think you're misusing your own definition of a word so I must admit the fact I can't use them to travel through time means that I am yet to master them in your terms. If we use my definition, then yes I have mastered shoe laces. Nitpicking at words does what exactly? This could've been worded with one short, precise question but it wasn't. You chose to focus on the choice of word rather than the meaning behind it so I have to ask you why?"

One tremendous and, quite frankly, amazing ability of mankind that you completely overlooked (and one might even say railed against) is our ability to recognize our own faults and shortcomings. Yes, we're incredible creatures with powerful brains and an unrivaled vastness of possibilities before us. But we're far from a perfect machine. The best among us realize and acknowledge that. After all, one of the basic tenets of greatness is being able to realize your own inherent fallibility. This promotes betterment through trial and error, and keeps us from endlessly butting our heads against the brick walls we (amazingly) created through our (mind-blowing) resourcefulness. So I'd say that the candid statement of "I'm only human" is far from the slap in the face you interpret it to be. Rather, it is yet another great milestone of man's insight, and a testament to evolution.

"I don't recall making my list exclusive. Is understanding what one can and can't do not a mastering the resource of thought? Check your premises because limiting your definition of what you can and can't use greatly limits your capabilities. That's why I included language, to show the use of the mind on non-material sources. You call us far from perfect, I dare you to define perfection. I'm perfectly me in the fact that I am everything I'm capable of being. That's what I call being human. You claim the best among us realize that, I claim those who cower at the elements never would've made it out of the caves long enough to discover fire. That basic tenet of greatness is in your basic tenets of greatness, if a man doesn't understand why he's a terrible poet and puts poetry out for the public to see on a regular basis doesn't mean I'm going to ignore his mathematical skills. Greatness isn't tied to anything else. Don't pass on the thoughts of a homeless man reaching great heights in philosophy because he's homeless, for all you know he may have discovered one of the best views on life and the universe. Trial and error is seeing an error in the effort you've given and expecting a better result with your next, that's not weakness, that's strengthening oneself. You have such a pessimistic view on life, are you scared of greatness or do you just hate it so much you choose to link it and the things that cause it to weakness? I'll ask you here and now since you aren't impressed. How would you build a house without the work of others? How would you go about building that house without the thoughts of others that went into designing how to make a house? How can you live in a society that caters to your needs and deface the greatness of the works around you? If it's not that great, then prove it by making a better society without using the thoughts or tools provided for you by others."

"'I'm only human' is the creed of those who think man can't reach for the stars. I hear there are those who dream of one day making it to the moon. Who knows... maybe they will?"

The next several paragraphs were nothing but grandiose jaw stretching of negligible import, so let's jump straight to the money shot:

"Or being that this was forced criticism for the sake of criticism you just don't have any complaints. You call it as you wish, I'll call it as I shall."

You set out to martyr yourself so that the streets may live. Well, I'm not sure what others might think, but you seem reasonably well adjusted to me. Just don't forget that Jesus died in the end. It really helped to nail his point home. But in actuality, you're just the good girl gone bad. Long outgrown her childish charm of frilly ankle socks and songs about rainbows, she whores herself out in the grubby hands of hyper-sexualization and scandal, desperately hoping to cling to a half remembered image, sweetly humping the fringes of relevance into unfair adulthood.

"Do I? Do I agree to be killed for the streets? Is that the only meaning behind a statement of the sorts? Do tell good sir, I thought it was an open ended comment that meant I could end my street presence once it struck at my happiness, but what would I know. Maybe it was in that section you decided not to skip on."

"I'm no martyr, and you should watch bringing Jesus into a conversation because those who believe in him will tell you he rose from the dead. I'm nothing like him, I'm a self-centered man reaching out to manipulate the streets in a way that makes them what I want. I will also ask you to get your eyes checked because you should be able to tell I'm a male member of our species. Did I whore myself out? I could've sworn I did everything on my own terms. Seeing as you're comparing this to sex, what would that make you? The one who comes out and speaks in spite would be the one who sleeps with someone to spite another. Isn't that much worse than a slut? A vindictive bitch is much worse than a slut in my eyes. Oh but I haven't proven you're out here for the purpose of spite, despite your choice of words you could have a positive intention. What's your intention for this criticism? To downplay the greatness of man's accomplishments or is it what I assume and you're here to go after the speaker and not his thoughts? If you are here for revenge, hello park bench, nice to meet you. I hear people think you should go at someone like me for speaking against your joke so you appear tough, what are you looking to gain out here? You'll never beat me if you're a park bench because you don't understand what you really want, I do. That's why I don't let insults affect me and that's why I choose to act the way I do. I'm doing what will accomplish my set goals and bring me happiness, not what others think makes me tough, impressive, smart, or whatever it is you're trying to convince people you are by coming at the speaker and not his thoughts."

As much as you so surely want to set yourself above him, claiming that you learned and adjusted from his (perceived) utter failure... You, my friend, are Kuklinski. The only difference is your given propensity for aggrandization. You are the same theory and the same tactics as your own foil. Only you think everyone else is too stupid to realize that you're merely throwing around shallow insults to gain our attentions. You think because you've read a few books and took some courses in grammar that it sets your brain apart, on a pedestal high above the rest of the miserable swine that deface these gutters on a daily basis. 

"Is there nothing to be learned from the world's first opium addict either? Studying the resources incapable of doing a job can help you understand what to look for in the substances you think will be able to do it. As for throwing my ability aggrandize the works of men in my face, I'm sorry I don't take having a house or food for granted and that bothers you... but I don't care. My theory is similar to his in intention of bolstering the streets for his own purpose, my method is greatly different. Seeing as you're out here claiming that all have seen my ploy, tell me. Does that hinder my results? Am I not seeing the greatly increased activity I sought? Did you really choose to ignore the part about forcing back and forth while making this statement? My choice of words has never been what put me ahead, it was my ability to think in a way that stands to face criticism and questioning. Something I doubt we'll see in this criticism."

No, my friend. Knowledge does not equal intelligence. Nor aptitude, nor skill. Another thing about human beings that you've so blindly failed to realize is that most of us can tell a phony when we see it. No amount of high shine will distract people from the cold nothingness that lies beneath the surface. We know when the emperor is naked, and we know that straw men will burn at the strike of a match.

"I don't remember saying the word knowledge once... nor comparing it to intelligence... which I also don't remember speaking of... so what the hell is this first line talking about?"

"Most can tell a phony when they see it? Oh that's grand, because I've faced that accusation so many times... and when I asked what made me phony none had an answer, I can't wait for your answer that likely doesn't exist because you didn't think that criticism through. What makes me a phony?"

You pride yourself on loudly announcing how little you care for public opinion. Yes, it's important to not follow blindly into the unforgiving darkness. A little bit of that is good. But just a bit of friendly advice: In our line of work, public opinion digs graves. It's time to wake up, dust yourself off, and realize that no amount of brow-beating and restless blabbing is going to reshape our world into your miserably bland and deeply flawed utopia. The rest of the world isn't going to play by your rules.

"I pride myself on the logic that backs individual opinions because trusting mass opinion is failing to think on a subject. A little bit of not thinking is bad, understanding and using the lack of thought by others is a tool many speakers use. That doesn't mean they haven't put thought into the matter, it means they know how to trick a crowd. The rest of the world probably sees what I'm talking about, many of them like the energy in the streets even if they hate my ways, so speak for yourself. I know a great many who want this change as well but didn't realize it could be done. I've proved for a short period of time... one person can do it by themselves. Imagine 5 or 6 people? The burden greatly reduced and even more paving the way for others to say what they wish. This is the tool I choose to use to shape the world around me, don't cry to me because I choose to shape the world with it. I never claimed I would set rules with it either, so please stop inserting incorrect thoughts into my logic or prove that I held that position."

If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to. Just come with a collection of counterpoints, and not a contradictory smattering of insulting fucking questions to skip around the point.

"Are your points not good enough to stand up to questions? That's always my choice of weapon because it only works on those who can't think. Dodge if you'd like, but it just proves that you can't answer questions about your thoughts because you didn't put as much thought into the criticism as you believed you did."

"It's always calm just before the storm. So it might be a beautiful day now but you never know when it's just leading your thoughts the wrong way."

I've heard you say time and time again that people don't answer your questions or choose not to. Proof?

You choose to not answer my questions because you can't, or you don't like the answer.

So here I am, finally someone to answer your questions. Maybe you're the one that won't like the answers. I realize I'm not Kilgore, I smell much worse than he does. I'm not answering these questions as if I were Kilgore. I'm answer these questions however I want to answer them because I can.

If you act on the opinions of others, are you truly making the decision?

Yes. 

 What if they thought you should wear black slacks instead of blue jeans?

If you really want to wear black slacks, wear black slacks.

Why are you choosing to represent someone other than yourself? I'm a human being and you don't represent me so I'll answer you and I won't pretend you're a representative of anyone but yourself because I'm not stupid enough to think you're even capable of representing an entire species' opinions and thoughts. You're not."

Thanks for just answering your first question. One cannot represent another. Which means you cannot act on another's opinion. You are only inspired by another's opinion and act upon your own opinion...making the decision truly yours.

Are shoelaces mastered?

I mastered shoelaces when I was living, now I just run around barefoot.

Nitpicking at words does what exactly? 

Words are fun to explore.

You chose to focus on the choice of word rather than the meaning behind it so I have to ask you why?

Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

Is understanding what one can and can't do not a mastering the resource of thought?

I think you may have fell down the rabbit hole on that one. I don't know what you are asking here, if you'd like to clear up the question for me I would absolutely love to answer it.

You have such a pessimistic view on life, are you scared of greatness or do you just hate it so much you choose to link it and the things that cause it to weakness?

I'm not pessimistic. I'd like to turn this question back on you. Please answer below.

How would you build a house without the work of others? 

 

 

 

The same way I would build a house with the work of others. Sure, it may take much longer and be much more laborious, but that doesn't mean it cannot be done. But heck, after "sleeping" in a coffin for so long, I'd take a grass hut as a house. That would be a very easy for one person to build.

How can you live in a society that caters to your needs and deface the greatness of the works around you?

This society doesn't cater to me. Between the eating of human flesh and the walking around moaning "braiiiins" I think they are rather appalled by me.

Who knows... maybe they will?

I'm living, unliving, proof that the impossible is possible. 

Do I?

I don't know, do you?

Do I agree to be killed for the streets?

Do you?

Is that the only meaning behind a statement of the sorts?

Probably not, but I also wasn't paying attention to what you just quoted so who knows.

Did I whore myself out?

Possible, but I'd need more facts to come to an engaging conclusion.

Seeing as you're comparing this to sex, what would that make you?

You compared things to sin, sex to some is a sin. What would that make you?

Isn't that much worse than a slut?

Whore and slut in the same paragraph. Classy.

To downplay the greatness of man's accomplishments or is it what I assume and you're here to go after the speaker and not his thoughts?

Well, you know what they say about assuming...

what are you looking to gain out here?

This is another I'd like to turn back on you. Please answer below.

Is there nothing to be learned from the world's first opium addict either?

There is plenty to learn. 

Does that hinder my results? Am I not seeing the greatly increased activity I sought? Did you really choose to ignore the part about forcing back and forth while making this statement? 

You got your results and answers to your questions. Debatable if they were the results or answers you were specifically looking for. Good thing I have individual thought. 

I don't remember saying the word knowledge once... nor comparing it to intelligence... which I also don't remember speaking of... so what the hell is this first line talking about?

It's was a comment, not a quote. But you did say knowledge, several times actually.

With full knowledge of some of these subjects, I was honestly left confused to whether or not the responder knew anything of the subject at all and I think I actually lost some of my knowledge of the subject from merely reading about their words and the fact those words took up space in my brain that could've been better used as memory of being struck in the face, despite the fact some of the words looked familiar from other topics I had researched.

Over there, in that other street speech you were conducting the other day. 

Most can tell a phony when they see it?

Yes.

What makes me a phony?

Tokyo robs a purse as an old lady walks by.

Are your points not good enough to stand up to questions?

His points are good enough to stand up to question, though he specified that he does not want to answer questions you ask to skip around the points you are trying to make.

I'm sorry if some of my answers (independent thought) doesn't follow suit with the way you think. Or if you think my answers come off as me just twisting your words or the questions you ask. Remember, you can't represent me and I can't represent you so the chance of us perceiving things differently is high. All I'm doing is being a simple zombie and answering the questions you asked. 

If you act on the opinions of others, are you truly making the decision?

Yes. 

"The original purpose of that question was based on the intent you made the choice solely based on the opinion(s) or others."

"Why do you believe this? If you're simply doing what the public expects of you instead of that which you truly want to do, will it truly make you happy?"

What if they thought you should wear black slacks instead of blue jeans?

If you really want to wear black slacks, wear black slacks.

"Based on your previous answer if it still holds, no you won't."

Why are you choosing to represent someone other than yourself? I'm a human being and you don't represent me so I'll answer you and I won't pretend you're a representative of anyone but yourself because I'm not stupid enough to think you're even capable of representing an entire species' opinions and thoughts. You're not."

Thanks for just answering your first question. One cannot represent another. Which means you cannot act on another's opinion. You are only inspired by another's opinion and act upon your own opinion...making the decision truly yours.

"Correct and incorrect, one can act based upon what one believes is what others want, but they can never truly act that way because it is impossible to represent everyone. This is the massive flaw behind living in that way. When one switches to living based upon what they believe are the opinions of others, they take the thinking out of it. Once they do that, is it really a decision? They've consistently chosen to do what society thinks they should do regardless of their own wants or desires, the only other being in history like this is the slave."

Are shoelaces mastered?

I mastered shoelaces when I was living, now I just run around barefoot.

"Nice of you to skip over his belief that one has to be capable of perfectly controlling everything possible (which we don't even know everything possible with anything so the definition is hilariously wrong) about the subject or matter. So is his definition of mastering something correct or not? He chose it to nitpick at an argument... so now you're going to clarify if their was a point to his nitpicking with our following responses."

Nitpicking at words does what exactly? 

Words are fun to explore.

"I agree but he based an argument around that and I'm sure you'll agree that nitpicking isn't a valid counterpoint and is pointless on a logical level of estimating the value of a point or counterpoint."

You chose to focus on the choice of word rather than the meaning behind it so I have to ask you why?

Sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it.

"Fair point but it doesn't explain his purpose of choosing to focus on something other than the obvious meaning."

Is understanding what one can and can't do not a mastering the resource of thought?

I think you may have fell down the rabbit hole on that one. I don't know what you are asking here, if you'd like to clear up the question for me I would absolutely love to answer it.

"He claimed that one of man's greatest feats was being able to admit they weren't great. I claimed that being able to admit what you're not great at is a facet of thought."

You have such a pessimistic view on life, are you scared of greatness or do you just hate it so much you choose to link it and the things that cause it to weakness?

I'm not pessimistic. I'd like to turn this question back on you. Please answer below.\

"The question was meant for the man who decided man and his accomplishments weren't so great. You chose to answer for him, explain why man and his accomplishments aren't great. This is the flaw in your obvious system, the questions are intended for the one who had the thoughts. I'm clearly not a pessimist if you read the works, I'm one who stands in awe of mastering the elements and enjoy our control over them."

How would you build a house without the work of others? 

 

 

 

The same way I would build a house with the work of others. Sure, it may take much longer and be much more laborious, but that doesn't mean it cannot be done. But heck, after "sleeping" in a coffin for so long, I'd take a grass hut as a house. That would be a very easy for one person to build.

"Oh so you came up with the idea of how to form bricks into a wall and hold them together with mortar? You thought of the formulas needed to calculate how many support systems are needed to hold the house up? No you haven't, you're standing on the shoulders of giants and you'd likely have no idea how to build a house without their thoughts and accomplishments. The same ones your associate chose to downplay."

How can you live in a society that caters to your needs and deface the greatness of the works around you?

This society doesn't cater to me. Between the eating of human flesh and the walking around moaning "braiiiins" I think they are rather appalled by me.

"And yet they continue to provide a food source for you."

Who knows... maybe they will?

I'm living, unliving, proof that the impossible is possible.

"Quite... I don't believe you're actually a zombie so the impossible isn't possible by definition. Rigamortis would've rendered your muscles useless if you were truly dead."

Do I?

I don't know, do you?

"I don't know, you took a question out of context."

Do I agree to be killed for the streets?

Do you?

"I don't. I'm not a martyr and that's a mistake your companion made in assuming I was one."

Is that the only meaning behind a statement of the sorts?

Probably not, but I also wasn't paying attention to what you just quoted so who knows.

"It was his claim that I'm a martyr because I choose to put myself in an awkward position to liven the streets."

Did I whore myself out?

Possible, but I'd need more facts to come to an engaging conclusion.

"I'm waiting to hear of those facts from your friend himself."

Seeing as you're comparing this to sex, what would that make you?

You compared things to sin, sex to some is a sin. What would that make you?

"I guess that would make me a sinner in their eyes, not mine."

Isn't that much worse than a slut?

Whore and slut in the same paragraph. Classy.

"Quite, I also wish your associate would've refrained from bringing sex into this unnecessarily the same way I wish your Left Hand had avoided it in another conversation. Your hands are quite perverted."

To downplay the greatness of man's accomplishments or is it what I assume and you're here to go after the speaker and not his thoughts?

Well, you know what they say about assuming...

"That it makes society work? You're assuming English is still a usable language, my dear. How embarrassing to use something you claim is embarrassing to use."

what are you looking to gain out here?

This is another I'd like to turn back on you. Please answer below.

"Life back in the streets, I believe life in the streets is tied to total active bloodlines. I don't want the community to die or keep shrinking so this is my approach to a problem I believe needs to be dealt with."

Is there nothing to be learned from the world's first opium addict either?

There is plenty to learn. 

"I agree, that's why I use Kuklinski as a proof of what not to do, but your associate believes speaking of him makes me the same as him."

Does that hinder my results? Am I not seeing the greatly increased activity I sought? Did you really choose to ignore the part about forcing back and forth while making this statement? 

You got your results and answers to your questions. Debatable if they were the results or answers you were specifically looking for. Good thing I have individual thought. 

"My intended results were for increased street activity and we might be approaching an all time high for the past 3 weeks. So let's debate if it's debatable."

I don't remember saying the word knowledge once... nor comparing it to intelligence... which I also don't remember speaking of... so what the hell is this first line talking about?

It's was a comment, not a quote. But you did say knowledge, several times actually.

With full knowledge of some of these subjects, I was honestly left confused to whether or not the responder knew anything of the subject at all and I think I actually lost some of my knowledge of the subject from merely reading about their words and the fact those words took up space in my brain that could've been better used as memory of being struck in the face, despite the fact some of the words looked familiar from other topics I had researched.

Over there, in that other street speech you were conducting the other day. 

"Quite, I was focused on this discussion so you have me at fault."

Most can tell a phony when they see it?

Yes.

"And what makes it so easy to spot a phony?"

What makes me a phony?

WhereWasI noticed Tokyo rob a purse as an old lady walks by.

"That doesn't answer my question. Your friend called me a phony, what makes me a phony?"

Are your points not good enough to stand up to questions?

His points are good enough to stand up to question, though he specified that he does not want to answer questions you ask to skip around the points you are trying to make.

"If he's choosing to skip around the points I'm trying to make then he's a terrible critic."

I'm sorry if some of my answers (independent thought) doesn't follow suit with the way you think. Or if you think my answers come off as me just twisting your words or the questions you ask. Remember, you can't represent me and I can't represent you so the chance of us perceiving things differently is high. All I'm doing is being a simple zombie and answering the questions you asked. 

"Never apologize for independent thought my dear, it's an embarrassment on his part for letting another beat him to the punch of responding. I believe this whole thing was sarcastic, but of course that would require your admittance and it's not a fact I care to learn about."

"Good day."

C'mon, baby. Let's do the twist.

The belief is that anyone who does things to impress others rather than doing things you want to do in an impressive manner is choosing to put the opinions of others before their own. If you act on the opinions of others, are you truly making the decision? What if they thought you should wear black slacks instead of blue jeans?

Consider it. Maybe your ass does look fat.

That's exactly how all the human progressions you admire came about. No incredible advancements took place with one person flying in the face of "the Man", telling the rest of the species to fuck off. Our achievements have been a compounding of successive ideas. You listen, you co-conspire, you build upon what came before you and, together, you can make something great.

 I also love your choice not to show which lines say that, it adds a bit of spice to your comments for those who didn't read, good show bud.

Kilgore shrugs.

You should talk in a way that makes more people want to listen.

I don't generally walk around parroting everything everyone says back to them, so no special choice was made in that matter. My doing so now, however, was a special choice. One that's going to make for an annoying little chat. But hey, it'll look pretty impressive to passers-by, right?

"Why are you choosing to represent someone other than yourself? I'm a human being and you don't represent me so I'll answer you and I won't pretend you're a representative of anyone but yourself because I'm not stupid enough to think you're even capable of representing an entire species' opinions and thoughts. You're not."

It was a decision of the High Order at the last  union meeting. Trust me, I wanted nothing to do with it, but they talked me into it. If you wish to take exception to their decision, that's an argument you'll have to take up with them at the next meeting. But you know how stubborn those guys can be. They'll probably make you renounce your membership in the human race and turn in your card. They can be real dicks sometimes.

Are shoelaces mastered? Under your perceived definition my inability to travel through time using just shoelaces means I'm yet to master them. I've mastered tying my shoes with shoe laces, but I'd hate to think you're misusing your own definition of a word so I must admit the fact I can't use them to travel through time means that I am yet to master them in your terms.

 You're reaching. I thought such fallacious arguments were beneath you, my friend. It seems your straw man is slowly crumbling.

How many accidental shoelace related deaths have you read about in your lifetime? Yes, we've mastered them. Don't claim superior intelligence then act like a petulant child.

You call us far from perfect, I dare you to define perfection. I'm perfectly me in the fact that I am everything I'm capable of being.

Well, that's a bit of a letdown. Buck up, kiddo. Build that self esteem back, you'll do better someday.

You claim the best among us realize that, I claim those who cower at the elements never would've made it out of the caves long enough to discover fire. That basic tenet of greatness is in your basic tenets of greatness, if a man doesn't understand why he's a terrible poet and puts poetry out for the public to see on a regular basis doesn't mean I'm going to ignore his mathematical skills. Greatness isn't tied to anything else. Don't pass on the thoughts of a homeless man reaching great heights in philosophy because he's homeless, for all you know he may have discovered one of the best views on life and the universe. Trial and error is seeing an error in the effort you've given and expecting a better result with your next, that's not weakness, that's strengthening oneself. You have such a pessimistic view on life, are you scared of greatness or do you just hate it so much you choose to link it and the things that cause it to weakness? I'll ask you here and now since you aren't impressed. How would you build a house without the work of others? How would you go about building that house without the thoughts of others that went into designing how to make a house? How can you live in a society that caters to your needs and deface the greatness of the works around you? If it's not that great, then prove it by making a better society without using the thoughts or tools provided for you by others."

 The bulk of that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I mentioned nothing about discounting a person in total because of a single shortcoming, and I didn't say recognizing your own failures was a weakness. I said exactly the opposite, actually. I thank you for stating my own point back to me with less precision and clarity than I could have ever done myself. That takes skill.

"'I'm only human' is the creed of those who think man can't reach for the stars. I hear there are those who dream of one day making it to the moon. Who knows... maybe they will?"

You call me a pessimist, but you choose to only see that phrase as a mantra of defeat. I instead choose to also see the optimistic application-- a statement of self-awareness and accountability.

Or being that this was forced criticism for the sake of criticism you just don't have any complaints. You call it as you wish, I'll call it as I shall.

It was irrelevant masturbation. Learn to get to the point without constant stops along the way to pat yourself on the back.

 I'm no martyr, and you should watch bringing Jesus into a conversation because those who believe in him will tell you he rose from the dead.

...And then promptly disappeared again, not to be seen since.

 I will also ask you to get your eyes checked because you should be able to tell I'm a male member of our species.

Eh. I suppose you could pass in a pinch.

What's your intention for this criticism? To downplay the greatness of man's accomplishments or is it what I assume and you're here to go after the speaker and not his thoughts?

My intention is airing my opinions. I heard you out, I thought about what you said, and I happened to disagree with your statements and the ideals behind them, so I'm speaking my mind.

I'm not downplaying man's accomplishments. I actually agreed with you several times that the things our kind have done are really quite amazing. I just don't think we need to spend the majority of our time standing around, jaws slack, in paralytic awe of everything. We need to stand atop the platform that our predecessors built and reach higher. If everyone else doesn't want to come along, then fuck 'em.

I am addressing the thoughts. I'm also addressing the thought process that created them. That hits pretty close-to-home for the person, which is quite regrettable for those of lesser constitution.

If you are here for revenge, hello park bench, nice to meet you. I hear people think you should go at someone like me for speaking against your joke so you appear tough, what are you looking to gain out here? You'll never beat me if you're a park bench because you don't understand what you really want, I do. That's why I don't let insults affect me and that's why I choose to act the way I do. I'm doing what will accomplish my set goals and bring me happiness, not what others think makes me tough, impressive, smart, or whatever it is you're trying to convince people you are by coming at the speaker and not his thoughts.

 Hello, wagon wheel.

Revenge for what, exactly? I'm not looking to gain anything per se, I'm just casting my line into the free market of thought. This has nothing to do with any joke I made. In fact, neither did most of our conversation at that time. If I had anything further to say on that matter, I would have said it then.

If anything, we're actually after much the same thing. Back is useless without the forth. And hasn't it been fun?

 As for throwing my ability aggrandize the works of men in my face, I'm sorry I don't take having a house or food for granted and that bothers you...

I was talking about you, bossman. Why tell everyone how great you are when your work should speak for you? 

I don't remember saying the word knowledge once... nor comparing it to intelligence... which I also don't remember speaking of... so what the hell is this first line talking about?

You have to be doing this on purpose. There's no way a person capable of the powerful levels of thought that you claim would so consistently trip over their own feet. That was my note to you, not a quotation of your words. 

Most can tell a phony when they see it? Oh that's grand, because I've faced that accusation so many times... and when I asked what made me phony none had an answer, I can't wait for your answer that likely doesn't exist because you didn't think that criticism through. What makes me a phony?

Simple. The posturing of brilliance and superiority while consistently proving yourself to be sorely lacking in the depths of thought that you yourself are endlessly championing. You set yourself on a higher plane, but continue to build arguments atop fallacies ("If I didn't use the exact words, your commentary is invalid"), utilize willful misunderstanding as a defensive measure (see several points above), and  demonstrating a total inability to understand even common rhetorical devices.

The rest of the world probably sees what I'm talking about, many of them like the energy in the streets even if they hate my ways, so speak for yourself. I know a great many who want this change as well but didn't realize it could be done. I've proved for a short period of time... one person can do it by themselves. Imagine 5 or 6 people? The burden greatly reduced and even more paving the way for others to say what they wish. This is the tool I choose to use to shape the world around me, don't cry to me because I choose to shape the world with it. I never claimed I would set rules with it either, so please stop inserting incorrect thoughts into my logic or prove that I held that position.

"They said Oil didn't belong to any one person either, but it took quite the effort by the US government to keep Rockefeller from owning it. So until a massive force I can't stop comes... I'll try my best to force it to follow my will."

Yes, you've put some activity in the street. And well done on that point. But in the process of bulking, are you actually building muscle or just padding with fat? You've got a few people arguing with you, myself included, and like I said, it's been a blast. But how will this improve the streets overall? In the instances of you introducing original topics for discussion, the response as of late seems a little flimsy. When you come out to deliver a new speech, how many people do you think pay attention from start to finish? How many well thought and meaningful responses do you typically get on the subject? Seems less than you'd expect, or you wouldn't be making statements that the general public is undeserving of your thoughts.

But I have listened to everything you said here. Then I took the time to sort out my thoughts and decide how I felt about it, and aired my opinion. Granted, it may not have been to your liking. It is something, though. I sounding board to bounce your thoughts off of. Deep inside you somewhere is a desire, however large or small, to be appreciated for your efforts. Otherwise, there'd be no point in coming out here to speak. You're playing to the public opinion.

That's why I'm here. Because I think you could do better.

Are your points not good enough to stand up to questions? That's always my choice of weapon because it only works on those who can't think. Dodge if you'd like, but it just proves that you can't answer questions about your thoughts because you didn't put as much thought into the criticism as you believed you did.

You ask questions like an outgunned toddler. 

Consider it. Maybe your ass does look fat.

"Then you've given in to the need to impress others."

That's exactly how all the human progressions you admire came about. No incredible advancements took place with one person flying in the face of "the Man", telling the rest of the species to fuck off. Our achievements have been a compounding of successive ideas. You listen, you co-conspire, you build upon what came before you and, together, you can make something great.

"Pasteur, Socrates, Darwin, and Galileo would disagree considering they were actually hated for their works as many great thinkers because they challenged the norms."

You should talk in a way that makes more people want to listen.

I don't generally walk around parroting everything everyone says back to them, so no special choice was made in that matter. My doing so now, however, was a special choice. One that's going to make for an annoying little chat. But hey, it'll look pretty impressive to passers-by, right?

"I should speak in a way that will get my selected audience to listen, if the words are too difficult for you or any others then you weren't chosen, sorry."

It was a decision of the High Order at the last  union meeting. Trust me, I wanted nothing to do with it, but they talked me into it. If you wish to take exception to their decision, that's an argument you'll have to take up with them at the next meeting. But you know how stubborn those guys can be. They'll probably make you renounce your membership in the human race and turn in your card. They can be real dicks sometimes.

"Cut the crap. You chose to assume the title of a representative of others, you're not capable so speak as yourself, the only thing you're truly capable of."

 You're reaching. I thought such fallacious arguments were beneath you, my friend. It seems your straw man is slowly crumbling.

How many accidental shoelace related deaths have you read about in your lifetime? Yes, we've mastered them. Don't claim superior intelligence then act like a petulant child.

"It's only reaching if you had any point at all. You applied a false definition, dear child, how else should I respond? You made a new definition for the word mastery so you could nitpick and avoid the main points, how pathetic is it that you had to make up a new definition to nitpick. I've never once claimed superiority, but since you're calling me a petulant child for proving me wrong answer this..."

"How many people have died in bath tub related incidents? Are you going to tell me we haven't mastered the bath tub because people accidentally die using it or trying to use something else when they slip into it?"

Well, that's a bit of a letdown. Buck up, kiddo. Build that self esteem back, you'll do better someday.

"You failed to define perfection, why the sarcastic remark and the need to dodge defining human perfection? I have an answer, why don't you?"

 The bulk of that has nothing to do with anything I said.

I mentioned nothing about discounting a person in total because of a single shortcoming, and I didn't say recognizing your own failures was a weakness. I said exactly the opposite, actually. I thank you for stating my own point back to me with less precision and clarity than I could have ever done myself. That takes skill.

"The bulk of that was on point poor boy, you merely chose to ignore the fact understanding what you can and can't do is a resource itself and that you were lumping all of a man's acts together. If one can do something great that makes everyone else's lives easier and him rich, is the act no longer great because he likes to wear women's clothing or play the guitar terribly? Acts of greatness are acts of greatness no matter who or what caused them."

You call me a pessimist, but you choose to only see that phrase as a mantra of defeat. I instead choose to also see the optimistic application-- a statement of self-awareness and accountability.

"You are a pessimist, you feel the need to drag down the greatness of others so I ask for what purpose? Why shouldn't I see a great accomplishment as great? Why should I put self-awareness and accountability above great ideas when they can be performed by a toddler?"

It was irrelevant masturbation. Learn to get to the point without constant stops along the way to pat yourself on the back.

"No, it was important set up material for my valuation standards and how it relates to conquering an apparent problem in our community. You just chose to skip it for the same purpose you skipped every main point I covered and nitpicked, you're not here to offer constructive criticism you're here to force criticism and strike at me not my words. Pathetic."

...And then promptly disappeared again, not to be seen since.

"Point was don't bring religious figures into a debate, because all it will do is anger some people pointlessly, and especially when they don't even apply. I never claimed to be a martyr I claimed to be the opposite, if you would've listened you would've known,"

 I will also ask you to get your eyes checked because you should be able to tell I'm a male member of our species.

Eh. I suppose you could pass in a pinch.

"This was pointless masturbation."

My intention is airing my opinions. I heard you out, I thought about what you said, and I happened to disagree with your statements and the ideals behind them, so I'm speaking my mind.

I'm not downplaying man's accomplishments. I actually agreed with you several times that the things our kind have done are really quite amazing. I just don't think we need to spend the majority of our time standing around, jaws slack, in paralytic awe of everything. We need to stand atop the platform that our predecessors built and reach higher. If everyone else doesn't want to come along, then fuck 'em.

I am addressing the thoughts. I'm also addressing the thought process that created them. That hits pretty close-to-home for the person, which is quite regrettable for those of lesser constitution.

"So you had no thought past, 'I feel I should air my opinions on these things but not the main points'. I believe you did it in spite, and I'd be correct. You skipped all my main points, you didn't hear jack shit."

"You are by diminishing the term greatness when applied to man's accomplishments and insulting any who would value them and try to understand them. You don't understand the effects of your words because you don't understand just how much thought went into making a toaster, you're a self-absorbed moron who takes things for granted and will therefor likely never contribute much to society."

"You're addressing the details of the speech, not the thoughts, because you're nitpicking. It doesn't hit close-to-home because you skipped the main points you moron."

 Hello, wagon wheel.

Revenge for what, exactly? I'm not looking to gain anything per se, I'm just casting my line into the free market of thought. This has nothing to do with any joke I made. In fact, neither did most of our conversation at that time. If I had anything further to say on that matter, I would have said it then.

If anything, we're actually after much the same thing. Back is useless without the forth. And hasn't it been fun?

"So what is a wagon wheel? A tool capable of making carrying large amounts of things moveable by one man or beast. How does that apply to me, I explained earlier the point of what a park bench is."

"You're out here because you don't appreciate that I didn't appreciate your joke elsewhere. Spite, revenge, whatever you want to call it I don't care. I truly doubt you had more to say, as you were arguing the same point I informed you I disagreed with repetitively. I explained why and you didn't care or produce a reason why I shouldn't... because you don't put much thought into things."

"It has been fun, you caused this speech to go off the rails and ruined its initial purpose while promoting my main line of thinking. Thank you for playing your role Mr. Park Bench, you're quite the tool when I need to take things easy."

I was talking about you, bossman. Why tell everyone how great you are when your work should speak for you? 

"Did you really fall for that trap? How can you claim you've heard my piece and then believe the bit at the end after I told you it was pointless drivel to anger idiots. Well played."

"The big picture part was meant for anyone dumb enough to believe the line before it, so congratulations on proving that you don't see the bigger picture because you didn't actually listen."

You have to be doing this on purpose. There's no way a person capable of the powerful levels of thought that you claim would so consistently trip over their own feet. That was my note to you, not a quotation of your words. 

"I never once used those words you claimed nor did I even come close to touching on the subject, unless you're speaking of the definition of mastery again... and then you're just simply wrong. I also never claimed to have powerful levels of thought, especially not in this speech where I simplified things and made it easy for anyone to follow, but again you clearly didn't listen so how could you be expected to notice something like that even if it was so painfully obvious?"

Simple. The posturing of brilliance and superiority while consistently proving yourself to be sorely lacking in the depths of thought that you yourself are endlessly championing. You set yourself on a higher plane, but continue to build arguments atop fallacies ("If I didn't use the exact words, your commentary is invalid"), utilize willful misunderstanding as a defensive measure (see several points above), and  demonstrating a total inability to understand even common rhetorical devices.

"That's a definition and a bunch of things that don't apply, poor boy. I never once sincerely claimed superiority or being on a higher plane to anyone but those who come out and make statements without thinking, you're yet to prove a single premise of mine to be false despite the fact you claim to have done it previously, you're yet to prove any willful misunderstandings of a defensive measure, and you merely claim I have an inability to understand common rhetorical devices. I've agreed to answer any and all questions, so if the ones you believe are rhetorical have answers, I will answer them. That's not an inability, that's living up to what I agreed to do."

"They said Oil didn't belong to any one person either, but it took quite the effort by the US government to keep Rockefeller from owning it. So until a massive force I can't stop comes... I'll try my best to force it to follow my will."

Yes, you've put some activity in the street. And well done on that point. But in the process of bulking, are you actually building muscle or just padding with fat? You've got a few people arguing with you, myself included, and like I said, it's been a blast. But how will this improve the streets overall? In the instances of you introducing original topics for discussion, the response as of late seems a little flimsy. When you come out to deliver a new speech, how many people do you think pay attention from start to finish? How many well thought and meaningful responses do you typically get on the subject? Seems less than you'd expect, or you wouldn't be making statements that the general public is undeserving of your thoughts.

But I have listened to everything you said here. Then I took the time to sort out my thoughts and decide how I felt about it, and aired my opinion. Granted, it may not have been to your liking. It is something, though. I sounding board to bounce your thoughts off of. Deep inside you somewhere is a desire, however large or small, to be appreciated for your efforts. Otherwise, there'd be no point in coming out here to speak. You're playing to the public opinion.

That's why I'm here. Because I think you could do better.

"Are you one entitled to pass judgement after showing an inability to even listen to this speech? You failed to listen to this speech you chose to criticize... and now you expect me to trust your opinion of my whole volume of works? Forgive me for failing to see why I should, but I likely never will care for your opinion. I do get people arguing, its purpose was covered in the speech so I won't repeat it upon def ears or an incompetent mind, you take your pick. The responses to my own speeches are low for the same purpose you didn't touch on my main points, many are intimidated by deep thought but I will continue to produce it so that some may become accustomed to being around it. The number who pay attention from start to finish doesn't matter so long as their is still one mind I can reach and communicate with, that's my point in sharing thoughts. I want to be appreciated or argued with by a mind that's willing to listen and has logical reasons for agreeing on disagreeing, not public recognition and if you're incapable of understanding the difference... too bad. There's a large difference between needing the opinion of the majority which consists of many who don't think and needing one logic based opinion..

"You fell for a trap I mentioned would be coming, shut your mouth you didn't listen much at all. You're an incompetent neanderthal whining because I told you I didn't care for your joke, you didn't produce a single thought on the main topics and the closest you came was nitpicking at my choice of the word mastery."

You ask questions like an outgunned toddler. 

"How awkward that you can't speak on the main points of the thoughts of one you believe to be an outgunned toddler."

Hai,

Sorry to disturb. Don't mean to cause a temporary lull in the volume of the number of words being spoken here per person, so I guess I'll speak a couple paragraphs without making a point? Ok,no. 

I am primarily here because I have a question...WWI, forgive me if I am incorrect but the object of this thread was to explain to the world your recent(ok,not so recent) actions? How you sacrificed yourself on the altar of the Streets so that we may live in an age of free speech and bipolar opinions? Sweet.

If that is the case...why have you brought your reasons out here now? Is it because you feel a need to be celebrated as the martyr you supposedly are or is it because you feel the revolution you aspired to cause has arrived and you are simply rubbing it in people's faces that you have outsmarted them?

P.S: I paid attention to just the initial statement. I have too much of a short attention span to attempt to listen to massive arguments and counter arguments.Ooooh! A Beaver! Anyway, if these questions have already been answered, kindly blockquote them for my benefit? 

I don't need to know how the toast is made to know that the sandwich sucks. Just because a good bit of human ingenuity came together to char the underside of your bread, that doesn't draw attention away from the fact that your meats are fatty and cheap, the vegetables rancid, and the "secret sauce" nothing more than thousand island salad dressing.

"Rhetorical" is not a word reserved solely for questions posed without seeking answers. It'd serve you well to invest in a dictionary that isn't found in the back pages of a seventh grade textbook. Once again you demonstrate either a willful misunderstanding, or a failure to grasp general flavors of language. Which is it?

How can you so passionately damn the idea that I discarded parts of your speech as a bunch of self congratulatory gas-bagging, yet still complain that I chose to address other points you made that you claim were not the main focus? Either your speech was largely pretentious filler, or each and every sentence holds value and, therefore, is open to criticism. You can't have both, brother.

I did, in fact, address the overarching plot of your needlessly obtuse rambling. You just didn't like it. But that's no reason to ignore it and hope it goes away. Actually, if you're the great fan of individual thought that you claim to be, that's all the more reason to take it seriously.But I do understand that it's far easier, and much less risky, to attempt to dismiss it as "moronic" or that it's all somehow the spiteful revenge plot of a neanderthal. Hail-mary attempts to discredit your critics is much easier than demonstrating that your ideas can stand on their own merits.

"The bulk of that was on point poor boy, you merely chose to ignore the fact understanding what you can and can't do is a resource itself and that you were lumping all of a man's acts together. If one can do something great that makes everyone else's lives easier and him rich, is the act no longer great because he likes to wear women's clothing or play the guitar terribly? Acts of greatness are acts of greatness no matter who or what caused them."

Again, you're somehow combating me by rewarming the exact point I made myself, and feeding it back to me. An interesting strategy, indeed. You sure showed me, I guess.

I'll apologize in advance for the next bit of clutter, but after an emergency teleconference with the High Order, I'm now contractually beholden to affix my official title to all statements made during the course of fulfilling my appointed obligations. Don't pay it any mind.

Kilgore

Senior Director of Public Relations

Human Race

I am primarily here because I have a question...WWI, forgive me if I am incorrect but the object of this thread was to explain to the world your recent(ok,not so recent) actions? How you sacrificed yourself on the altar of the Streets so that we may live in an age of free speech and bipolar opinions? Sweet.

"I see what you mean, but if it isn't an issue I will replace the sentence with the word sacrificed with something similar to strived for or worked towards raising the streets because I don't believe in sacrifice, but that's off topic."

"I have brought my reasons here now in hopes that a few others may lighten my load and take up the act of causing the streets to remain active without my overwhelming amount of support. I'm here to show my logic in hopes another might see the need for someone to try to solve this problem I've found and in hopes to end the previously prolonged states of stagnation in the streets. I have presented my answer with the results we've found, but that doesn't mean someone else can't come in and blow my ideas away after giving it some real thought."

"P.S. I understand not following the following bits, I said half of those things and it's difficult for me to justify their existence past I'm following an ideal many deem to be foolish. By all means, skip the comments of others and only address the original speaker as as is your right and I greatly appreciate a serious question on the actual subject at hand."

Of course, 'sacrificed' might be a tad bit misleading. So, we'll replace that with 'worked toward'.

Moving on, you say you've brought your reasons here so as to inspire others to take up this 'burden' of polarizing the Streets with your opinions. However, the very fact that you have been bashed by quite a few people...not just people with 'Civilian with Big Balls' Syndrome but people like WiggleButt, Kilgore etc...men and women who hold a certain amount of sway in this world of ours with barely a single voice clamoring for your approach might not seem very appealing to most of us? Yes, I realize the poetic and romantic support that 'going against the grain' has but come on,man...we're in a world that is based on relationships with the rest of us. It is more important in our walk of life because...well, you might die cuz you pissed someone off.

As your blood has made a point of stating repeatedly, you do not value the risks that accompany such public appearances highly..but it would be either insanely naive or moronic to believe others share your view of it.

Furthermore, Don't you think your declaration that you did these 'things'...such as creating a common enemy simply because you felt it increases Street speaking will actually lessen your efficiency? Personally, I feel 'Zomg, he is taking runs at people I like. MUST FIGHT!' to be more of a stimulant than 'Oh..this guy is just taking runs to get a rise out of us..we should ignore him.'. Maybe I'm wrong? Guess time will tell but if Don JohnGalt's signs are any indication...once people realize you're doing something SIMPLY to get a rise out of them..they just tend to ignore you.

I believe there is no real happiness and nothing but regret in living this way. I call these people mirrors or park benches, because they live to reflect what others want and are just a tool for what others want in the end; and I couldn't stomach calling a creature that doesn't think a human being.

I want to know in your opinion, who is not a mirror or a park bench. It seems like you don't hold anyone in high regard, which makes it hard for people to believe that you are not being contrary for the sake of being contrary.

What happens when society asks you to sacrifice yourself or your chance at happiness for the good of everyone else?

Every Made person, if they went through a proper ceremony, knows the answer to that. I'm not going to divulge the details, because that would be breaking Omerta, but it is made very clear what is expected of them. This is why I believe that you're not really part of our lifestyle. If I was having this discussion with a friend who was studying at the local University, I could discuss this with them, for my friend wouldn't know of this lifestyle so I would be more open to this sort of thinking.
 

When doing any sort of study, be it qualitative or quantitative, is that one should be clear and concise with information so that everyone can understand what the researcher is studying. It's generally not a good practice to infer that the audience is too stupid to understand something that the researcher has said, because then what would be the point of researching a topic if it's not something to be learned from it?

The topic that is being presented, from what I can make from it, is how to increase the number of active mobsters in the streets. First, one would have to define street activity. What would be deemed too little; what would be a lot? Observations were made, but in the end we are asked to rely on our own observations to conclude that there has been an increase of street activity as of late. When these observations were made, how far back were these observations made, and are they relevant to the present time? I can say that there has been an increase in activity, but when doing a study of this kind there should be a more objective way to see this, so that someone who is not familiar with the topic will be able to see right away what the researcher is referring to.

One issue with this research is that there are no clearly defined independent and dependent variables. We are left to assume that the independent variable would be the confrontational street discussions, and the dependent variables activity and energy. This holds because it is found that in war discussions, both energy and activity tend to be high.

Within this topic, we see a subset question: "How do I increase street activity in a way that won't just fade away quickly?" Basically, the researcher wants to replicate the activity and energy found during war discussions, but in a way that doesn't fade away. First, one would have to establish that street activity does fade away quickly, and to quantify it somehow, through numbers or a number of observations. It was not indicated that this was accounted for during the research of street activity in itself. The researcher described his observations during the highly heated discussions, and concluded that in order to replicate similar levels, that logic bashing and logical back and forth was the way to go.

It was then discussed why there was indeed a correlating factor - the bonding over common enemies. Based on this belief (which could use some historical citations to make this stronger), the researcher then said, “The question now was how to not get people to hate me, but to pit them against me."

"From there and a few other choice interactions I decided I would degrade people who didn't think, made petty insults, or dodged questions. This is something I actually enjoy, something that comes naturally to me while causing conflict and forcing people to take sides. So I ask you, based on the challenge I defined and attempted to conquer, have I gotten results?"

I'm going to have to say, "No," for these reasons:

1. Even though it is true that during times of war and post war, there is a lot of energy and activity on the streets. However, you fail to take into consideration that the reason why the activity and energy is high is due to the emotion of losing their homes and their parents. This sort of energy would be difficult to recreate because there is no loss or injustice, just someone insulting them to no end. Will it make some angry? Perhaps, but in this world if you tend to lose your head over the smallest things, you tend not to live that long.

2. Let's assume that you are correct when it comes to the belief that bonding over common enemies will get the streets flowing as they come out to defend each other over it. In the past, the common enemy was usually the one who had the potential to inflict the most damage or influence the most change. Who does that? Crew leaders do, through their rules and decisions. When our world was more condensed, it was very easy to see who was allied with whom, and people were much more inclined to have a street presence because their enemies would be quick to take them out because of that very fact. We don't have that here now, so the urgency isn't there.

3. "The number of accepted enemies is shrinking or dying because they're all starting to have multiple allies on both sides that cause opinions to be left reserved."

It could also mean that the "accepted enemies"' bloodlines are no longer in this world. The population itself is shrinking as people leave this way of life. So it's not so much that enemies have multiple allies, but more like the controversial people who gave everyone entertainment are no longer here. If certain groups of people never had issues with each other, are they supposed to automatically do so for the sake of keeping the streets lively? Most likely not.

kindly blockquote them for my benefit

I like what you did there, Alex.

"Well that's not what I had expected Mr. Moran. I was hoping someone had finally read into the problem that energy and street life is dying and this needs to be fixed. I guess no one will address it, so you will all get what you're asking for. I will take a permanent leave from these streets."

"I measured every risk, put thought into every word. Blaise cast the first stone and wouldn't be capable of getting a single man who believes the streets serve any purpose as a backer because of that, WiggleButt was never directly insulted purposefully, and the rest are something similar or something in between so that nothing could rationally be brought upon the man who trusted me as his Right Hand."

"I tried to bring people back and rejuvenate this place, but after hearing that comment I've given up on my crusade. I truly hoped you were trying to listen and understand, to see the point of such conflict and understand it before condemning it. I've given up my creed to answer every question in case one was searching for something similar and understood the driving force of my works. Long live the silent, a life devoid of conflict... because how could conflict ever help anything? The price of continuing my crusade is too high for now, I damn you all to your own efforts which will probably be nothing but blatantly ignoring the massive fucking issue at hand you've been ignoring for generations."