Tidus44

Not the crew working at your place I take it? perculsion - An extreme shock

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ffa1mf/Stuff/COX8E_zpscc401e4c.jpg eisegesis: an interpretation that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, rather than the meaning of the text.

Well, my day was pretty much preterpluperfect (more than perfect). In fact, it was entirely awesome. Got a new rescue boat motor and had to go mount it on the boat and then test it today. The lake/river runs through a park and it's a pretty popular spot for people, especially on nice, warm sunny days like today. The water rescue trainer and I pull up in the apparatus with the boat in tow and launch it, and just as we are getting dressed in our gear, 28 young ladies in bikinis show up to see what is going on. They are the local football teams cheerleaders, out in the park practicing their routines and doing yoga exercises. The crew that was supposed to show up about a 1/2 hour after we got on site got called to a hazmat call, so I spent most of today surrounded by absolutely gorgeous ladies in bikinis as I showed them what we do in water rescue and all the gear we use. I love being a fire fighter.

Not sure which one I'd prefer; strumpetocracy - A government formed of prostitutes or paedocracy - A government formed of children

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ffa1mf/Stuff/20140609_140605_zpsfef25f3a.jpg deliciate - To indulge or to make oneself happy. 67, 68 & 71 Triumph Daytona Bobber 650.

Thankfully I am not on the "mop and glow" (hazardous materials spill response) team tomorrow. 2 days was sufficient for opportunity to fiddle around with a diversion as actual hazmat responses are extremely rare so I spent 2 days doing nothing other than satisfying a curiosity. http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ffa1mf/Stuff/demotivational-poster-60662_zpsede2f19e.jpg

Dabbling a bit as I contemplate egression while exercising a bit of dissipation (mental distraction; amusement; diversion). Although it took a bit of effort, I managed to get Barnum and Bailey's trick of placing a sign "This way to the egress" in venues they wanted people to move through out of my head and concentrate on a forum discussion. A rather sad and rather disappointing experiment that reminded me of something I had read a while back and I have finally found it. The rules for posting to a forum. It is extremely important that you do not fully read other's posts. Nor is it critical to understand what others have posted. It is perfectly acceptable to read a part or misunderstand a post and jump right in with your own comments. It is bad form to ask a polite question if unsure of a post or its meaning, so again, jump right in with your comments, especially if you can be adversarial in doing so. Everything posted is a personal attack on you, be it your beliefs or life style or opinion. So be sure to take all postings as being as personal to you as possible and reply with an equally appropriate response. Additionally, once you have posted your opinion in the most controversial manner possible, immediately retreat from the discussion by indicating you have had enough or are unable to continue in the discussion for some reason that cannot be explained. It is critical to post comments or replies that demonstrate your ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical information, lack of respect for others opinions and/or inability to comprehend scientific reasoning or logic. The use of puerile platitudes is an accepted form, especially where banality will serve in place of originality, intellectual or thought provoking response. If possible, repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation to irrelevant, off topic discussions as this will be appreciated and focuses the discussion on your opinions. Be sure to create straw men, argue against things neither said nor implied and most importantly, take single or partial statements out of context and subjectively interpret them in order to point out all faults, especially and particularly in a manner that supports your opinion. Lastly, forgo all civility; you are, after all, on a forum, anonymous and safe from any retribution. Seems to be rather applicable to forum discussions.

No one gets to pick who the good guy is and who the bad guy is, each individual makes that decision for themself when they decide whether to be either a productive or destructive member of society. How do you pick out the good guys from the bad guys? Insanely easily. The good guy isn't point his gun at anyone. "The good guy isn't point(ing) his gun at anyone" makes no sense as an answer because the statement was, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." If the good guy isn't pointing his gun at anyone, then exactly how does he stop the bad guy with a gun and what is the purpose of the good guys gun? I'd appreciate you clarifying exactly how you see the good guy stopping the bad guy and what the statement, "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." means to you or how you interpret it. My initial thought though is that this didn't particularly work well in the recent Vegas shooting. The armed good guy died when he tried to shoot the bad guy. My next thought is that suppose I am a good guy with a gun and I hear a gun shot. I turn around to see a guy shooting. Is he a good guy stopping a bad guy or a bad guy shooting at someone? As I said, I don't disagree, I'd just like an explanation of how this works so the good guys with guns stop the bad guys with guns.

Do not disagree with the opinion, but I do find one part somewhat confusing. "The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." So, who picks the good guy and how is he (or she) identified as "good" or "bad" and how long does the designation remain valid?

The original post identified two choices or alternatives – justice or revenge - and asked what separates them and what guidelines could be used to address wrong doings but not breach the morals and ethics set by society. No other alternatives were identified, thus justice or revenge were the only choices as a means to address wrong doings within the limitations identified. Justice is legal revenge, thus they are not separate issues, cannot be separated and are not alternatives society accepts as a means to achieve “justice”. I do wonder though that on one hand the thought that justice and the concepts of morality and ethics in society are corrupt is viewed as ideological, but then on the other hand, that wealth and power have corrupted everything, everywhere in the world is an accepted fact. However, it is no surprise, as the wealthy and powerful were once held as something everyone should emulate, but within the life time of these inspirations they have become something to be reviled. Society is fickle and self destructive and generally stupid with a herd mentality. The means to achieve a just, moral and ethical society are known and could be implemented, but only if there was a will to do so. Sadly there is no motivation to do so as most individuals are blind to what they may gain by being concerned only with what they might lose in the measurement of materialistic wealth. Those who die with the most toys…. are dead anyway, so what did they win?

To identify justice or revenge as the only two possible choices to address what some see as “wrongs” identifies that one segment of society has successfully instilled onto other segments of society the belief (or perhaps the fear) in what is immoral, unethical and unjust to justify the enforcement of unrealistic, unfair and prejudicial laws in order to further their own interests. Justice is an act of revenge performed in a manner that a segment of society finds acceptable and as a means to control and oppress another segment of society. Anyone who examines the morale and ethical guidelines that supposedly keep society from turning on itself realizes that the whole system is corrupted and one sided and has nothing to do with establishing a just, moral or ethical society, it is a means to punish and to control others by fear of punishment.

Perspicacious: having keen mental perception and understanding. I have to stop drinking coffee when I read those posters. http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l511/ffa1mf/Stuff/the-pilot-well-now-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-demotivational-poster-1264261160_zps6e2b7744.jpg

I simply made the statement that the premise of debate is flawed as no opposing position is entertained. The premise is that the only acceptable means of addressing “wrongs” (again, what does that mean) is by punishment or revenge which are seen as separate issues. Justice and revenge are not separate issues but synonymous within a flawed and corrupt legal system that is supported by a morally bankrupt society. By definition; Revenge; to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, especially in a resentful or vindictive spirit; to take vengeance for; inflict punishment for; an opportunity to retaliate or gain satisfaction. While the definition does not eliminate the possibility of revenge being a personal act, it does not limit it to a personal act either. Justice; moral rightness; equity; conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; the administering of deserved punishment or reward. Not everyone agrees with laws, and certainly do not agree that laws guide society to live in peace, to be moral or just or to be ethical. None of those concepts have any basis other than opinion within a period of time. What one sees as moral, just or ethical was immoral, unjust and unethical in the past and likely will be in the future. Nor is there agreement that laws achieve justice by bringing equality to a society. Legal systems are established solely to punish and exact retribution because someone did something a segment of society says is unacceptable. Laws are made for the benefit of that segment of society that places materialistic values above moral ones. The necessity for a society to make laws identifies a corrupt and morally bereft society. If a society was ethical, moral and just there would be no need for laws. A society that places punishment and revenge above compassion, prudence and benevolence is animalistic with the pathological need to use violence against those deemed undesirable because they do not conform to an opinion. A couple of other commentaries on justice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hyph_DZa_GQ

accidia; feeling of being unable to think or act due to excessive sadness.

Justice and revenge are not opposites, thus the premise of the debate is flawed. Justice does not exist except as a social concept. It is simply a belief or worse, an opinion, of acceptable ethics or mores during a period of time. Justice does not address the wrong doings within a society. It is an acceptable form of revenge. Revenge is an act of punishment, expiation or retaliation. Thus justice and revenge are synonymous. The idea that "wrongs" (whatever the heck that means) are addressed by justice or revenge is flawed and identifies a corrupt and pathological society that has no ability to rise above the most basic of animalistic instinct and lacks any capacity of munificence, prudence or compassion. To believe that there is a system of justice is to fool oneself into thinking a society has moral values. There is only a legal system where it is more important to serve the rules than the individual.

tramontane; Pertaining to something foreign or strange, also a strong polar wind from the north. Friday saw 80kph winds and the temperature drop from the mid 20s to just above freezing. Saturday the wind slowed and there was some rain and a small amount of snowfall last night. At 6 am Sunday it was 1C. Retiring to Belize looks better every day.

I used to visit quite often a man that I had known as a fire fighter who had led his platoon ashore at Juno Beach. He passed away two years ago at the age of 96. His story - as well as the story of others - is in a book published by the Legion and every year after he retired he would gather donations to have the book printed and distributed to schools across Canada. Each year I pay to have 100 of the books printed and another veteran I know on the department pays to have another 100 printed. It seems like such a small price in comparison.

opisthenar; back of the hand. The best place for an IV on a collision victim.

Just a speculative guess but it may be that a remontado is just a Misanthrope - someone who dislikes other people Had to think about it for a while, but nope, not a misanthrope. I don't think I could have done my career for as long as I have if I didn't like people for one thing. I was thinking more recluse; a person who lives away from society voluntarily as a means to get away from whatever it is they find unpleasant or unacceptable. Sort of feeling weary of the current zeitgeist (the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of a period of time). There is a decommissioned GATR site along the old McGill Fence that the current owner is looking to sell. It has 5 stories underground. I'm thinking that has piqued my imagination more than anything. Easy to dream, hard to put into reality.

remontado; one who has renounced civilization and gone to live in the wild. After reading through a few news sites and a couple of web forums, becoming a remontado is becoming more and more appealing.

fartlek; training system to improve speed and distance in running.

mascaron; a face, usually human and sometimes grotesque, on a door-knocker or decoration on a building.

But somethimes nicknames are a charientism - an artfully veiled insult.

I have to disagree that the Eye of Magnus was erroneously given to the object found in Saarthal. After Hitting the Books is completed, everyone from Tolfdir to the Psijic Monks refer to the orb as "The Eye of Magnus", thus suggesting it has been positively identified as a specific object, ie: The Eye of Magnus. The Augur of Dunlain also identifies it as the Eye of Magnus (To see through Magnus' Eye without being blinded, you require his staff.) and that the Staff of Magnus is required to avert the disaster the Eye will bring. If the orb is not the Eye of Magnus, then why would everyone refer to it in that way? I can't think they all got together at a meeting and agreed upon a name. I would think at least one of the various groups would still call the orb, "the orb" even if one group called it "The Eye of Magnus or the "Sphere of Unknown Power" if it had not been positively identified. I also cannot envision the usefulness of a "battery" by first using it for target practice for various destruction spells and then dissecting those that are killed. My initial thought is that if you are keeping vampires in the lowest and darkest levels of a fort away from the energy they presumably absorb and using a variety of spells to kill them and then dissecting the body of those that are killed, you are looking to see why or how the specific spell killed them, not looking for what power they may have absorbed from the sun. If the purpose was to determine the Aetherial energy vampires hold, why are they not in cages on top of a tower out in the sun? If the sun destroys the vampires, and in doing so the vampires absorb and store this energy, why kill them with spells in a dark basement and then dissect them? It doesn't add up in my mind. I think Niinti has hit a much more plausible theory. Vampires are magical in that they are alive with no soul by virtue of Molag Bal's magic. The mages are trying to discover something that will lead to more power and it is most probably associated with the Eye of Magnus and with destroying vampires entirely.

I don’t recall hearing a reference to a summoner previously such as the "hail summoner, conjure me up a warm bed, would you ?", so when Urag used the term I think I saw it as “Summoner”meaning something specific rather than “summoner” as a generic term and figured it meant something more than what it does. Given the randomness of such conversations, it isn’t any surprise. The Caller knowing about Saarthal makes sense as the College has been involved with it for sometime, especially on seeing how much excavation has taken place when the player visits it. The vampire/Magnus/sun connection is a good theory. The power of the Eye of Magnus is not actually explained, other than it is exceedingly dangerous as well as its discovery and Ancano’s attempt to draw power from it has opened rifts or ruptures that allow magic anomalies to enter the world. No one, other than the Psijic monks, appears to have any idea what the Eye is or is capable of, they just know it is a source of great (magical) power and I would think any mage would want to get their hands on it and use that power for whatever purpose it is that motivates them. Got to think this over some more to think why would The Caller want to work with or destroy vampires as you suggest? What power would the vampires have to offer to the Caller that wouldn’t be exceeded greatly by the Eye is one question that comes to mind.