Kimmo

the obvious inconsistencies in g-spotter's logic: many "non-vaccinated kids" get vaccinated later in life; many (most?) vaccinated kids don't get their boosters when adults (especially relevant with the pertussis booster), meaning they are then non-vaccinated adults (at least partially). regarding the california pertussis outbreak, all ten deaths directly attributable to pertussis were in children under 3 months, with 9 of 10 being under 8 weeks old (younger than the minimum age for vaccination!!!). Also, the CDC estimates 50% of all kids contracted pertussis from their parents or caregivers (I betcha it was higher). which means it is important for the adults of new-borns to be vaccinated (also, don't take you new-born to crowded places, or day-cares, perhaps).

Very unconscious people experience their own ego through its reflection in others. When you realize that what you react to in others is also in you (and sometimes only in you), you begin to become aware of your own ego. At that stage, you may also realize that you were doing to others what you thought others were doing to you. You cease seeing yourself as a victim.

The more limited, the more narrowly egoic the view of yourself, the more you will see, focus on, and react to the egoic limitations, the unconsciousness in others. Their "faults" or what you perceive as their faults become to you their identity. This means you will see only the ego in them and thus strengthen the ego in yourself. Instead of looking "through" the ego in others, you are looking "at" the ego. Who is looking at the ego? The ego in you.

are you trying to say tvashtarkatena is not "influenced" by events? events? which "events"? as an entirely impartial observer of events in this here spray forum, i'd say he has a rather tenacious bite on his own perspective, strengthened with a healthy dose of....perspicuity and writing skills. oh, and the sociopathy needed to post some 10,000+ times! did i say impartial? yes, that's right.

single syllable non-sequiters cut to the chase much quicker than all the verbiage one needs to contend with when dealing with, say, robbi.

i am happy that you have mastered the mono-syllabic non-sequiter. and for your next trick?

btw, as a side-note, your statement is incorrect, both from a real-world perspective, AND a straight-up logic perspective. if you care.

sounds like you have had all your booster shots, including pertussis?

and, the cali pertussis outbreak was mentioned earlier.... seems that non-vaccinated adults might have more to do with it than kids, maybe?

firstly, studies inre tv and impact on kids are inconclusive. i've read studies showing a full 20% lower "developmental rate" (don't ask for specifics! can't remember where and what) amongst =<2 yr olds who watched >2 hours of tv per day, vs same aged kids who watched none. certainly one possibility is that parents who are ok plopping their kids in front of a tv just might be a wee bit less inclined to read/interact with their kids as much as the no-tv parents.... inre vaccines: "free ride on the vaccines of others"? i thought vaccines were perfectly safe and innocuous? if so, why would the vaccinated get worked up about this?

is "chi running" making it complex? i read somewhere that the ethiopeans and kenyans etc run barefoot for a long time initially, thereby developing perfect running form. meaning, no heavy heel strike, therefore no injuries (or less at least). some tarahumara indians were convinced to enter the leadville ultramarathon back in the '90's, and won two years in a row, the first year by a 56 year old. in huaraches. fascinating culture. Really fun read for those interested: Born To Run, by Christopher McDougall.

she made a statement, in public! saying violence is BAD!

clearly they were crosshairs. Even still, do you really think that sarah palin intentionally intended them to mean that these people should be shot? is that really the point here, robbi? i mean, really ? i heard she did come out and say that wasn't her point, though.... I mean, she said it publicly, stating that violence is bad.

ask him to meow.

proof positive.... of what, exactly?

I'm sure you'll have a comeback for that. i think the point rob is the degree to which one political party has implicitly embodied violence as a means to an end. i'm sure you can find a mennonite who espouses violence, but does that really say a thing about mennonites as a whole? meow.

waddaya mean "2nd amendment solutions"? not sure what yer talking about here.

if you would have said so in the first place, you might have avoided outing your naivety to like, 3 or 6 people. sorry, that wasn't nice, getting all ad hominem and stuff. i love you robbi. even if you are a republican.

if you would have said so in the first place, you might have avoided outing your naivety to like, 3 or 6 people.

you are missing the point. i don't try to step on ants when i'm hiking, but a consequence of me hiking is stepping on ants. and yet i continue hiking. even though i might apologize to an ant. ok? meow.

duuuude. did you read your link? you're as off as the rabid anti-vaccine crowd. meow.

ummmm i don't recall anyone asking that.... and if they did, perhaps examples other than tree spiking might better bolster your position? perhaps the tone of the responses to your equivocation and conflation seemed to you to be "left-wing" violence apologetics or dismissal?

would you really argue that "the right" has equally non-violent tendencies as "the left"? you know, in general , from foreign policy, to capital punishment, to corporal punishment for children. please reconsider your apologetics for "the right". although give us more humorous anecdotes about the dangers of tree-spiking being equal to shots from a gun, and how many lives have been lost.

he understands better if you speak like a cat.

meow