glenstein

forgot to check up on this. Then that's game, set, match. discussion over. Atheism isn't responsible for deaths. Please don't try to have it both ways where you say you don't believe it is Atheism with a capital "A" that caused such violence and death, but still say... "hey look! atheists did this! wink wink, nudge nudge, hint hint. No! I don't mean anything by this, but still, consider this as if I am implying something about atheists and how destructive they are." Because that's cheating You probably didn't intend to do this, so I can respect that. But that's what it looked like. as for Watermonkey, it is flabbergasting how beside the point every argument he ever makes continues to be... as if a defender of atheism has some sort of burden upon themself to defend Marxism and Stalinism in the same breath! They don't, and anyone who has at least taken a class on some marginally relevant topic that covered either marxism or atheism (or logic) would know that by common sense. I hate Marxism and think that Stalin was a horrible person and communism has never achieved anything good in the world. I was never defending any of that from the start. When someone in the discussion starts refuting a position that no one actually holds, it's a pretty good indication that they've already lost the argument. There is nothing atheistic about advocating the control, suppression, and elimination of religion, regardless of whether an institution such as communism purports to endorse it. Stalinism was wrong because it was Stalinism, and believed that there was a fundamental right to murder, starve, deport, and brutalize people into submission to its policies. This has nothing to do with atheism. No one can make any kind of logical link between the tenets of atheism, wherever they may be said to exist in writing in any authoritative form, and some supposed advocacy of murdering those who disagree with policy. If you believe Atheism deserves responsibility for any of the deaths of Stalinism/Leninism, you would have to also believe that the government would have entirely, totally halted its murderous and brutalizing ways if only the little part about religion were dropped from the Marxist doctrine (which certainly has plenty of other objectives to carry out without focusing on religion). But you've got the forced famines of non-cooperative peasants in the ukraine and around the nation. You've still got murdering of political dissidents. For pete's sake you've still got the murdering of religious leaders who could threaten the political stability of the state. The belief in overwhelming, crushing power of the state for any and all its objectives remains fully intact regardless what it thinks of atheism. Moreover, the inevitable collapse of the marxist economic structure and the suffering/death it caused alone, in isolation from political deaths, was independently to blame for a huge amount of death and failure of the economy. Getting back to the original point (again, its kind of amazing how powerfully determined internet discussions are to forget what their own purpose is), it was this: A criticism of religion for perpetrating and expanding, advocating war throughout history. The response was that atheism just the same has caused these things, so the concern doesn't matter. ok. stop. repeat. This was the point. the. original. point. That atheism and religion alike had been the cause of deaths. That was the point. (I am being very deliberate in repeating all this in hopes that it doesn't get sidetracked or confused). The point was that atheism and religion alike were the cause of mass deaths. But as it stands in this conversation, atheism can only shoulder direct responsibility for deaths caused by Marxism/Stalinism by absurdly illogical stretches that ignore what marxism actually is and what stalinism actually is, and that the means for achieving such policies as atheism and not atheism itself, were the cause of brutality. The belief that certain means could be used was a political philosophy totally apart from atheism. In contrast, religion obviously and indisputably stands convicted of perpetrating war (one need only reference the Crusades). There is not even a slight doubt about this. Even IF atheism were to blame, religion would still stand convicted of worse, and there would be no getting out of admitting that whatsoever. Religion does this, atheism doesn't. It is a true, full-blown, important, legitimate knock against religion. One more thing- we are speaking as if religious persecution accounts for the entirety of the mass deaths under the rule of Stalin. Now. There were roughly 60+ million dead because of Stalinism. There were X amount dead because of suppression of religious entities. THESE TWO ARE NOT THE SAME. I will say it again. THESE TWO THINGS.. the 60+ million dead, and the fact that X number were murdered because of religion ARE NOT THE SAME. They are TWO DIFFERENT sets of facts. Two different sets of facts. Understand? That religious leaders were murdered under Stalin, and that 60+ million died... DOES NOT MEAN that all 60+ million who died were dead because they were religious. Two different things. Surely they were alot, but it is a shame that yet another logical fallacy weedles its way in and corrupts the discussion. lastly- I think sophistry more purely means, at least modernly, to use whatever facts or considerations available to further an argument, irrespective of how the closely argumentative arrangement of facts follows the actual reality. That might full well include deliberate intention to deceive, and I don't know how else to describe a wrongheaded interpretation of history, where someone runs with an argument, gets ahead of themself and assumes facts about history which simply are untrue, but doesn't stop to check because they are tripping over themselves to appear clever and prove a point. It is perfectly healthy to identify this the moment it occurs, to IMPROVE the health of debate by setting things where they belong. But then again, when the majority of your disagreement is just various complaints about civility and not on substance, it is probably another sign that you've already lost the argument.

I never did either. Former Brewers owner Bud Selig became the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, and it was his idea, either to kick-start the team's finances or something like that.

I just wanted to update you on the affairs of my Baseball Mogul 2006 team with the Milwaukee Brewers. It is a great game, and if you search for the 2k6 version, you can get the ENTIRE game totally free, legally, to download, because the Sports Mogul people felt like giving that version away. Of course, now they are on version 2008, which you would have to pay for. But my mission here is to show you that your team can achieve greatness even if you don't pay for the full version. A lot has happened with my team, and I have spent countless hours on this game, and I wanted to give a small history of my team. 1988 We dump a ton of guys, including star LF Robin Yount but also many overpaid and not very good players, and tons of nobodies in the minors. We trade for 3B Edgar Martinez, CF Gerald Young, LF Mike Greenwell. We also get young SP Chuck Finley, 2B Mark McLemore, and LF/1B Kal Daniels. In May we trade for RP Steve Ontiveros who does a good job. And then I round up the last of my sub-par prospects and trade them to LA for SP prospect Ramon Martinez. At the deadline, we trade our ace SP Teddy Higeura to the Phillies for Bob Sebra, who is cheap and having a great year. Worst trade in the history of the Brewers. Then we trade Billy Wegman to the Orioles, where he is to this day, for SP Pete Harnisch. We get some decent OBP permance from our hitters, not a ton of power. And the pitching is sub-par with a few bright spots like Ramon Martinez, but we survive more or less until injuries down us and we finish 67-95, for last place. Edgar Martinez wins the Rookie of the Year award. 1989 We lose Chuck Finely because he wants too much in arbitration, he goes on to become a top of the line, ace starter on various teams around the NL, most notably Atlanta and Cincinatti. On salary concerns we trade 30 HR hitting Kal Daniels and Closer RP Dan Pleasac to Toronto for 2B Jeff Kent. Pleasac still closes there to this day. We sign 1B FA Cecil Fielder to the team for a little more than $2 million a year for 4 years. It is one of our greatest singings ever. We signed SP Dave Stieb, who blew up in Toronto. He revives his career with the Brewers and is a great bargain. We signed 28 year old John Franco to a long term contract to be our closer. After a rough year or so he settles down and does great. At the deadline, we trade away LF Greenwell for Cris Carpenter. Soon Greenwell queitly retires. The Stieb, Bosio, Harnisch, Martinez rotation turns out to be great, and we have enough offense. Solid pitching and lots of offense from Fielder and 1B Ken Phelps plus others, land us a cool 87-75 record for secon place, but we are FAR behind the Yankees. 1990 Facing arbitration, we trade away our C B.J. Surhoff and 2B Mark McLemore to the Padres for 2B Roberto Alomar. To replace Surhoff we sign cheap C Mike Lavalierre. We trade 2B Jeff Kent to Seattle for SS Omar Vizquel. Ending up with this lineup.. 2B Alomar 77/99 SS Vizquel 78/82 LF Molitor 84/84 RF Sheffield 92/92 1B Fielder 90/90 3B Martinez 90/90 DH Vaughn 84/84 C LaValliere 78/78 CF Young 77/83 and this rotation... SP1 Stieb 90/90 SP2 Martinez 88/90 SP3 Bosio 90/90 SP4 Harnisch 85/85 SP5 Eldred 69/88 By May, we dump Paul Molitor's salary in LA for terrible pitcher SP Ted Powers. We use the spare cash to sign RF Paul O'Neil and 3B/LF Kevin Mitchell. In a tough trade deadline with many contracts facing arbitration, we trade 3B Edgar Martinez to LA for C prospect Mike Piazza. We started off really well, but tailed a bit toward the end, finishing with a 85-77 record, good for fourth place in a competitive year. Good enough hitting (monster year from Fielder and a breakout season by Sheffield) plus above average starting pitching did it for us again. Robbie Alomar, our 2B, wins Rookie of the Year. 1991 We signed SP Ramon Martinez and SP Pete Harnisch long term. We traded for Indians closer Doug Jones to set up for CL John Franco. At the start of June, we trade a small collection of prospects and cash for RF Dave Justice. We also sell dissapointment Kevin Mitchell to the Mets. At the deadline, we trade CF Gerald Young to LA for prospects, and convert David Justice to CF. Ramon Martinez tosses a no-hitter. An epic year by Greg Vaughn were he busts out to hit 62 HR setting the new record, and a great season by Ramon Martinez lead us to a 107-55 season. But we don't make the playoffs because the Yankees finish at 127-35. 1992 We dump Dave Stieb for a prospect, because of budget issues. We knew the golden years couldn't last forever on such a small budget team, so we stocked up on wins before the trade deadline, then were forced to deal with Arbitration eligable players. It is a great team, but we must dump much of it at the deadline. This includes 1B Cecil Fielder. Then, we trade SS Omar Vizquel, and give the SS job to our own draftee Rich Aurilia. Then we trade superstar 2B Roberto Alomar to the Dodgers for 2B Eric Young and prospects. And most painfully, we trade 3B/OF Gary Sheffield, who hates Milwaukee and has been dissapointing, to the Mariners for 1B Tino Martinez. Then, we traded C Make Lavalierre to Toronto for 3B Quinlan, to fill in for Sheffield. Piazza was promoted to the starting role. We hold on, with an 87-75 record which was really a half awesome, half terrible year. 1993 We were devastated by the new expansion draft, as the Rockies and Marlins just zeroed in on everything we had. At least 14 of our best guys were taken, and since I run a lean system that is narrowed to only what is usefull, this was most painful. But we reach a new frontier, transferred to the AL Central division! Free from the tyranny of the Yankees. We signed lots of vet starters and relievers to help us out, but they were all awful and gone by the end of the season. We signed SP Cal Eldred long term. At the deadline, it is tough, but I trade longtime favorite SP Chris Bosio to the Marlins for prospects (new prospects, not my old ones). And SP Ramon Martinez, whose skills were sagging, goes to the Phillies for prospects. Then we trade CL John Franco to someone, anyone.. the Yankees. In addition to dumping the salary, we get SP/RP Miguel Batista, who later on turns out to be a fantastic grab. We end a tough season 67-95, but it ends on a high note with the emergence of prospects SP Soderstrom, and 3B Paquette. 1994 A great year. We traded for CF Kenny Lofton, traded away David Justice for RF/LF Albert Belle who was fiddling away on the Indians bench. We put together the best offense we've ever had, and Batista goes 18-7 to help Cal Eldred hold the rotation together. We finish at 104-58, and get to our first ever playoffs. We beat the Orioles, but get beaten by the Yankees who win another WS. And... here we are.

Not going to bite. But I'll gladly address other concerns from posters I can take seriously (truefusion, others in this thread, etc)

The Marxism citation I've been reading about, and atheists supposedly killing many people, is a really deeply misguided and devious point. I had some disorganized thoughts that I reordered into bullet points.. - Being that atheism has nothing to it, besides its position on the existence of god, it is only by a phony overstretch that you can say any wide spread deaths are the cause of it, unless you can point to some major institution which claimed itself, before anything else, to be foremostly atheist, following the cause of atheism before anything else. No such significant and historical institution that I'm aware of actually exists (whilst there definitely have been such religious institutions), and moreover, there certainly wasn't any such institution that both existed and was capable of causing death on such a massive scale as has happened in the major wars in history with which everyone is familiar. - Marxism (which Misanthrope mentioned), as everyone should be aware, was concerned with economics and politics, and it is with those concerns that one should associate the consequences of marxism, not atheism. - From some admittedly brief reading it looks like Stalin was suppressing religion out of an interest in furthering the power of the state, not because of any atheistic zeal. It's not like he was compelled by some overwhelming moral impulse to rid the state of the church in the name of atheism and independent of anything else. This is reinforced by considering that patriotic, pro-government religion was allowed to re-emerge during WWII. Suggesting the deaths were somehow in the name of, or representative of, atheism is just overstretched sophistry bent on proving a point. All these things considered, there is no obvious and honest example of widespread death that can be conclusively blamed on atheism or atheist zealotry, unless you try twisting and straining things beyond common sense because you are really interested in proving a point. On the other hand, with Christians we have the Crusades, a series of wars over a couple of centuries that were intimately, undeniably intertwined with religious zealotry- the kind of conviction that brings one to believe that death can be wrought in the name of some higher purpose and suggests an inherent senselessness and insensitivity to the real world. It's a legitimate point against religion, though it would obviously be simple minded to say that religion and all religious people are therefore bad. But let's be serious, religion has caused senseless, real death (as well as destruction of progress in the sciences, etc.) and nothing that has ever happened in atheism is remotely comparable on any scale. If you want to be a serious religious scholar or thinker, you have to be able to acknowledge this and not minimize it or brush it away or equivocate. Also, atheism simply isn't as widespread or influential as religion, hasn't forcefully existed as long as religion has. There are no major historical epochs or movements from art to politics to culture... for which we can point to atheism as a source of influence (maybe the Renaissance? But atheism was just a background sentiment or consequence of it, it seems, still trumped by the power of the church). But there are tons of events throughout history where the influence of religion has been fantastically massive. Even if atheism drove people to the same kinds of extremes, we wouldn't have seen them (yet) because atheism hasn't enjoyed as much influence. Tell me the date, and the circumstances which define the "rapture", and I would (most likely) accept a wager on your terms. Something internet-based, like, the winner gets to write anything in the "signature" space belonging to the loser. But this is all unfair, because instead of losing to you, if the rapture really happened, you wouldn't be able to collect and I'd be going straight to hell, while you get paradise in heaven and have much better things to think about than the bet you won. But if I'm right, everything pretty much continues as normal and I get to write something in your signature space. I'm not expecting you would accept, but if you do, great. My point is that I don't think any rapture will happen, ever, and I bet that if you say anything specific at all about how and when you think it will occur, you will be wrong, and I could win a bet and embarrass you. I'm confident enough that I would accept most any terms on any kind of occurrence of something that could reasonably be considered a rapture- so many false predictions have come and gone that I doubt yours would be any different. Do you really believe yourself? Than what would a friendly dare to commit to it hurt? Maybe it's blasphemous to bet on such an important thing, I don't know. But if you are confident (and it's not blasphemous), bring it on, give me a date. You will lose.

Well, the latest Newsweek poll I heard of stated that only 3% of Americans are positively atheist. The rest are said to at least believe something religious. Even though that number seems low, I think it's going a bit too far to say religion is "dying out" today, even if we are presently doubting and criticizing it more than ever.

No, not just taken at an extreme, but taken in any sense, it is a totally destructive piece of advice that reaches way too far. Saying that on certain levels literally nothing can be known, besides being logically broken (how is it true if it applies to itself?), would simply apply to whatever subject happened to be difficult, without discrimination and without reason. You would have to say it to the early Greek scientists: they were always coming up with new ideas and they were always getting proven wrong But in the same breath you would be condemning the very imaginative effort needed to comprehend and think about the universe, which inspired every next effort and made every next victory possible. You would see that people were always getting proven wrong, and would throw up your hands saying science was "unknowable". God forbid anyone in authority held to such a doctrine, because they would have believed it was useless and destroyed all progress thinking it was useless, even though we now have many well fleshed out sciences today. The only meaningful effect of the doctrine, used against science, would have been to shatter any possible progress. Just the same, if there is truth to be discovered in high minded questions of philosophy and religion, there is nothing "live and let live" can do but inspire indifference and destroy any possible progress that could have been made. It has a certain pop-wisdom to it, but it is very limited in use, and utterly trumped in significance by other considerations, like real truth. Maybe it is comforting to absolve yourself of any responsibility to think critically (perhaps that is what is meant by "inner peace"), but there is no wisdom in it. Saying "The truth you know now will be proven wrong later" throws the baby out with the bathwater (which is a logical fallacy) and itself requires some logical burden for legitimacy. 2+2=4 will never stop being true. Even truths that need to change, like Newtonian Physics, are critically, incredibly important to that which they apply to, and there is no reason to reject what is presently established as truth if the only reason for doing so is that it will be rejected in favor of an as-yet undiscovered (thus non-existent, thus non true) fact of reality. Even when one truth is proven wrong, its being proven wrong itself is an advancement in understanding. It's all just a disgusting, hopeless, dead end that throws any thoughts about anything out the window, and not just on practical matters like using a toaster, but on matters difficult to prove but nonetheless important to think about. Do you think you passionately love someone? No, do not subscribe with such confidence to that view! You will be proven wrong later. Do you think you will help a quadriplegic achieve meaning in their life by helping them with their everyday activities, telling them your stories and looking after them? Even if it seems true now, surely that will be proven wrong as well so there is no point! Taking the "doubt everything" doctrine to anything of a meaningful level of application is just poisonous and ruinous to thought. You don't have to take it to an extreme when it already fundamentally IS an extreme. Wouldn't it be important to you to know whether the five decades of your life you committed to preisthood were wasted? Every one of these things has very very very important rights and wrongs that encase them, our life is engulfed in rights and wrongs at every turn. Fundamentally, understanding this is SO much more important than the legitimate wisdom at the other end of the spectrum- knowing the peace of voluntary restraint. And the one leads to way more progress than the other. If you say "restraint" is in itself depth and personal exploration, then you again validate the need for specific definite truth. No, no, no, no. no. no. no. ........... no. This division is phony. Those groups aren't mutually exclusive, they are the same, unless one goes to artificial extremes that don't meaningfully represent actual people. They don't contradict and therefore the construction of this gulf is not a meaningful or applicable criticism. There is no good reason, ever, for curbing your interest in reasoning. If it's because a pursuit in reasoning is hopeless, it would be because it is known to hopeless, again, because of reasons. Everything ends in reasons. Lastly, to come full circle and apply this to the conversation: We are talking about how to define an agnostic. For all the things that are beyond knowledge, this subject clearly isn't. Every element of it is tangible and it is easy to talk about without leaning too much on the actual "is god real" debate. At the worst, we could at least positively know which opinions are wrong. Sorry, sorry, sorry. I profusely apologize on this. I meant the Sceptics. I am reading "History of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell and the Stoics come right after the Sceptics, and I left my book at work and made a guess. I meant the Sceptics, sorry for that little bit of incorrect corruption. But now that I have my book, a quote from Sextus Empiricus, the only Sceptic whose works survive: Then your definition of an atheist: Clearly these two stand in contradiction. Before you call them Atheist, know that, still, you are being way too blunt with the terms, and you never responded to the flesh and blood of my post (that there are subletites in belief escaping the atheist/theist classification). A person can be deeply informed on this question but still not commit to atheism or to any form of religion. See the part in capitals that I put in bold? That is where you proactively force a title on people who haven't declared that to be their title. That, your own personal declaration that they have to be an atheist, is where you are saying that a set of circumstances compels a person to be a part of a certain group. Or that they have to be "committed" to a certain group or that they "already are" in a certain, group, whatever you want to call it. With your rigidity, you would be forced to call millions of people a theist for one belief or action, and an atheist for another. If you are calling them both at the same time, and you would have to, your definition is broken. Unless you want to say that this crowd of agnostics is each made up of a hundred little inner atheists and inner theists depending on what question they are answering. Which is equally un-useful. Being an atheist is a full-scale declaration, an all encompassing systemization of questions and also a declaration of confidence in this belief. If you believe you can't see any proof that there is a god, sorry, that alone is not enough. It takes more to be an atheist and if you don't think so, you are fundamentally misunderstanding these terms. It would be like cutting up people's economic beliefs and saying that they are communist or all out laissez-faire capitalist, but NEVER anything in between. Given the diversity of particular stances on economics, such a classification system is ridiculous.

Sorry, but this doesn't work. One of the worst things you can do is cop out, pretend you are taking the "high road" by saying everything is just personal decision and we should leave it alone. That's saying that we are so helplessly powerlessly incapable of discerning the truth that it's not worth bothering with. Relegating the entire question to "all is equal, nothing matters because it depends on what you personally believe" is one of the weakest most unsatisfying and easiest answers possible because it gets you out of the burden of thinking critically about the subject. Also, it's not true. Facts about reality exist independent of our opinions on them. They are definitely not decided by whatever happens to be your personal belief. There most certainly IS a correct answer, even if we can never get to it, and the last thing anyone should do is sigh and groan at people trying to think about it. Also, I'm not sure where this atheist vs. religious person battle is coming from. I'm an atheist and it looks like I disagree with another atheist, so I'm not really trying to defend religion, just trying to tell this other guy that he is being way too strict with his terms.

Unfortunately you absolutely, totally, completely are saying people have to make up their mind. You are saying that people who consider religion have no right to treat it as an open ended question, and if they have any atheist inkling (which every agnostic does) then they HAVE to commit full force to atheism. You are being way way way too strict with these terms. One might have religious and then atheistic thoughts together. What then? What if a person thinks the harmony of the universe absolutely unquestionably points to some higher author of reality, but still insists they need proof to subscribe to it and that for them, these views are irreconcilable after much consideration? What if they have heard a thousand arguments both for and against a god but find them equally persuasive? Honestly, don't you think people like that exist? You can be exposed to worlds of information and have tons of opinions on different religious subjects and still remain uncommitted. To put it simply, I just think you aren't defining the terms correctly, but rather being very strict with them, and shoving people into categories before those people are actually in them. example... That's not what an agnostic is. Have you heard of the Stoics? They practiced all kinds of religious custom and some of them were even priests, but none of them actually believed a god was legitimately provable. They followed religious customs because they were the folkways of the time and they preached that they might as well, because, doubting everything, they believed one path was just as good as any other path. So clearly there can be people who doubt theism but participate in religion and you should be a bit more careful with your definitions.

I will respectfully submit a thing or two: 1. Once you've made up your mind, yes, you would probably be compelled to believe in one or the other. But you'd be amazed at the different variations and gradations of belief people have on this subject. It's very sensitive and so are people's ideas. There actually is some strange space between atheism and theism, and there are many to be found in that space. 2. You are assuming that everyone has to have their mind made up on the subject, which they don't. I really like the idea of agnosticism, and I think it is an amazingly honest and thoughtful position for a subject. If only people were careful and thoughtful enough to employ such a position in politics or science! We wouldn't have all these arguments between people so dead sure of their position that it forces all manner of clashes through culture and politics to occur. It's fine to have agnostics, and there is plenty of logical, scientific, and argumentative room for them to be standing on firm ground, perhaps the firmest ground of all.

I recommend Ubuntu Linux. I got it and installed it out of curiosity, so I have a dual boot Windows/Linux system, but it just so happens that Linux is all I ever use. It is awesome and uncorrupted by your (interesting) horror stories of all these bundled applications and games that try to force you to pay for them. Totally free, and better, which equals awesome!!

I think I've answered a problem (pretentious). It's always said in politics that every vote counts. But it's a hard sell because no one believes their *particular* vote counts. Even if an election is won a by single vote (say 50,0001 to 50,000), credit for that vote ends up going to the amorphous whole, so any individual feeling of credit is, at best, hard to pinpoint. That should be reversed. If you voted for someone YOUR vote was the one single particular vote that everything hinged upon. Not the whole. Of course, you have to say this to every single one of the 50,001 people who voted, each of their vote was the "single particular one that decided everything". It's not logical, but it's as logical an answer as you can possibly give to the question "why does MY vote matter". A real concern that does discourage people in the real world. It's probably the best answer available for dispatching that concern. You should think it completed and produced the victory in its entirety. It is logical in the sense that, if your vote were to change I think anything that takes a long time, that you have to do a lot of, imagine that the action you are doing right then and there is the final, capping one that makes unleashes/realizes the fullness of the total achievement. This works for anything that has several long slogging components. For example, I was wondering how many situps I would have to do in a day in order to get 5000 a month (166.67). But why should the very last one, the last final #5000 get all the credit for everything that came before it? I thought of this because supposing I were to actually do this situp thing consistently into infinity, any particular 30 day span wouldn't matter. Why start at one month? Why not March 15th to April 14th? That's 30 days. Why not April 20th to May 20th? Eventually after several months, every single day, every single situp would be completing a set of 5000, while it continues to be the first in a new set of 5000, the second in another set, the third in another.... No achievement as a whole should be focused on. you attempt to create the whole behemoth in its entirety all at once which is a ruinous, gaping feeling that has nothing to do with anything. It's discouraging and misguided because it leaves you grasping for the whole of it long before it actually comes. But such a feeling, of achievement the actual effort necessary to complete it. There is no sense in trying to achieve 5000 situps in a single motion of effort because that doesn't even have anything to do with the actual situps. Your immediate, unconnected effort, isolated of anything else, IS the achievement. It's exactly the substance the achievement is made of. You are spinning the gold, beautiful as it will be upon completion.

sorry sorry sorry. I just want my next update to sufficiently answer concerns here. I've been pouring over the philosophy lately, and I will be sure to set aside time for a good response, which will involve as much of the discussion as possible. Just wanted to update so it is known that I haven't disappeared.

brag brag brag! Well I would say donate blood. It's a surefire way to lose weight. But right after that, it probably won't be enough so after you get up form your blood donation you should jog a mile and then drink a gallon of milk to rehydrate- then you'll be on your way!