Are you going to pay to watch Sony's movie? - 3

Also, if Sony really intended not to show the movie in theaters and was ready to sacrifice the money it can make from that but now is proud of itself for supporting freedom of speech it should be relatively easier for it to decide to do a better job for that by releasing the movie for free directly through sites like YouTube and spread the free speech world wide instead of making money on it in the theaters. But, of course, what is being started for the money would more probably be completed for the money.

Are you going to pay to watch Sony's movie? - 2

That dictatorship in North Korea seems so sever that people there may breath fresh air in countries like Russia or China. However, from the beginning the claim that it syber attacked Sony was far from sounding like a real thing.

Yesterday, someone on the CBS news stated that it appears that the attack was related to someone inside and the reference to North Korea was a "decoy". That could be better completed by the view I held from the beginning that it was something faked by Sony itself in participation with others. In addition, the "reversal" of its decision by Sony also fits that and gives it ,at least, an additional purpose.

Why did I think So? While it could suffice to say that the whole thing sounded like a childish game, based on the news, I still would point out these things .

First, the level of knowledge and advancement of North Korea in that field didn't fit. Second, the exaggerated attempt to make this sound like coming from foreign entity using broken English. Third, the desperate need to use any argument that may convince that  the attack really happened. I even saw someone on TV saying that Sony was saving passwords in a file called password. Fifth, the exaggerated attempt to show the thing as real with filing suits against Sony this early. Sixth, the exaggerated action by Sony to show the thing as real by asking services like Twitter to suspend accounts of those who spread the hacked information. Seventh, The exaggerated reaction by fast preventing the movie in big theaters chain. Even without this fast reaction, the fear to closing theaters was in itself an exaggeration and/or did not make much sense for.It did not make much sense for movie theaters to be selectively chosen for issuing a threat or selectively chosen in protection from general threat. If the dictator wants to react that way to the movie then he may apply that reaction to anywhere and because of any medium showing the movie. Movie theaters can actually be better protected than many other more venerable areas against such attacks if feared. So, as you can see, there was not much sense to close the theaters to begin with except, of course, to benefit from the reaction when they opened back.  

Finally, why would the dictator in North Korea react this way to a movie to begin with? How about the news? Are they saying good things about him? If it worry him, then saying things like: They speak about terrorism but look who encourage terrorism, would sound a more probable reaction.      

  

  

Are you going to pay to watch Sony's movie?

Anyone thinking about paying to watch the Sony's movie should consider the possibility that this was all faked. Although I am not inclined to believe that this was done mainly to make more people pay to see the movie, it, nevertheless, sufficient to be the reason by itself.

To me that this is all fake and game played by ,among others, Sony itself is much more than just a possibility but I have been postponing talking about it until I have more time for it. I made an exception for this post to fight back against trying to make money using corruption and dirty games.

In addition, I think that I still have some time to add that the FBI being also corrupt here is also much more than just a possibility to me. 

That verdict in Ferguson -2

Reading the account of that officer it sounds as if he was close to describing to us how the bullets were bouncing off the guy being shot.

Anyway,  to tell me that someone, let alone a police officer,  capable of moving, with a gun , additional bullets in his belt, pepper spray and a baton couldn't stop unarmed person coming toward him in straight line during daylight except by fatal shots doesn't generate even a level of suspicion to proceed to a trial seems to be a joke.

That is the question that should be answered regardless of whether the guy being shot was a good guy or someone who had just robbed a bank before that encounter. 

You are the one with the gun and all these other capabilities and you want me to counter all that beyond the level of sufficient doubt to go to a trial because of things like the fierce or demonic look or behavior and assume some super powers because of that?

Six shots were fired . Why they were not fired at the legs? And more could have been also fired. How much more can one take while continue to walk toward a moving target? Even if he really reaches his target after all that, how much power is still left in him to cause a real danger?  

In addition to all that, given what the officer experienced at the initial struggle while he was inside his car, shouldn't he have a better estimate of how he will be affected and the danger that could follow from chasing the guy and as a result be seen with more responsibility to make better choices in  that final encounter?His duty is to uphold the law and letting the guy go to be caught later is much more closer to that than killing him if there is another alternative. After all it is not like the guy was wanted for murder or even robbing a bank.

Again, remember, that all this is not required to prove guilt but, at this stage, simply just to indicate that there is sufficient cause to conduct a trial.  You have got to be kidding me if you say it doesn't.

 

That verdict in Ferguson

While this is not the same story as that of the young man in Florida who was harassed then shot dead by someone with no authority over him, unless I am missing something here, I still don't see how the verdict of the grand jury make any sense here. You got an unarmed person walking toward you in straight line during the middle of the day and you are a trained police officer with your gun and without having your back to the wall or anything like that preventing you from continuing to move back temporarily, yet you are still unable to stop him except by fatal shot to the head?  How is that, not only convincing, but apparently so to the level of seeing that no trial is needed? What happened to shooting at the legs? He is a person not a tank. In addition, you have your pepper spray and baton in case he gets closer. 

I had no intention to write about this because I was under the impression that the shooting happened during the close struggle and just knew otherwise a while ago.

Again, unless I am missing some important detail here, I see that the verdict of the grand jury here is very unconvincing . 

On the issue of the two girls I spoke about earlier I want to point out that I shouldn't need to express my view regarding how highly parents should be regarded and treated. But when you allow what happened there then you are breaking the unbreakable. However, even with that, I was not speaking about understanding the actions of the mothers in a way that sufficiently reflects on the mothers to make the daughters respond back. Instead, my intention was for those daughters to sufficiently count for their own existence. Leaving the question of sufficiently seeing the guilt and guilty here is a way for not sufficiently accounting for what happened and it is hard to see how could that mean other than the failure to sufficiently acknowledge their own existence.   

There was recently an episode of Dr. Phil show in which he brought a girl that was accused of being a liar and who also did deceptive things like changing the value of a check and also lying to her brother that their father has died. However, haven to earth sounded to me closer than that girl to the mothers of the two girls I spoke about earlier. That seems very clear considering that what she did cannot be in any way compared to a parent accepting living with the repetitive molestation of the daughter. But I was not only speaking from that side of comparison. I was also comparing the behavior of this girl to that of the mothers there. Unlike the behavior of the two mothers there, the behavior of this girl sounded to me as being very far from what I may describe as psychotic deception. Why? Simple, look at how she put the inside psychology of her for the discussion. In contrast the behavior of the two mothers was almost entirely outwardly intended to influence the outer world and away from their own psychology inside. In my view, the girl showed a personality that, although may do bad deceptive things, her deception ,while seems to be neurotic, is not a the kind I may describe as psychotic deception because it seems to be a deception IN the world in contrast to how the behavior of those two mothers sounded to me as a deception ON the world.

Also, a little harsh or rude behavior , while bad in itself , could be a good sign that suggest more than an attempt just to display what fits the outside world while avoiding going through the self as much as possible inside.

By the way, the connection between her failed relationship and her telling her brother that their father has died could suggest that her case could be easy to an analyst following the original Freudian path (because Freud allowed any analysis that depends on the phenomena of resistance and transference to be called Psychoanalysis so I sometimes try to be more specific) and could be even more so if one knows what happened to the mother's place in the family.      

"without makeup" -2

Notice that I was not criticizing or responding to those who show such pictures as this is how the person looked at some time and during which she was not wearing makeup. My post was about using these pictures to insinuate how that person would generally look without makeup and in turn making the claim that her good look in general belongs externally to applying the makeup and not her own existence. It is troubling because it shows that the problem in dealing with the existence of women has even reached the level of denying physical attributes. 

These insinuations many times make sense like that of someone showing pictures of good tennis players miss using their hands and dropping things in order to suggest that their good tennis playing belong to the rackets they hold instead of the racket being an extension that depended on the capabilities of the player. That is in addition to the difference that a tennis player cant play without a racket while makeup may be applied just as an addition instead of for the purpose of correcting anything. But you wont see such insinuation applied there not just because it is a far fetched idea or the difficulty in executing it but also because tennis players are not the target of common habit of having their existence fought as the other target here.   

"without makeup"

I don't like this war on the existence of a person I see that generally attributes the difference between how a woman look to the makeup. It is really puzzling how much some humans can deny clear facts in front of them making such claims and how much others choose to follow blindly. As if men's look do not vary. And if the reason is the makeup why don't those making such claims try to color the without makeup pictures and see if they will look as good as the one with? 

The evidences against such claims are overwhelming if one chooses to really see. And to demolish this dilution even further

let me tell those making such claims that many of those who are classified to have a high degree of good looks can appear, without any change in makeup or hear cut or facial hair, in a way that would make you think that they should win a big look contest and also they can appear looking in a way that would make you think they shouldn't be allowed to participate in any. I wouldn't be surprised if many of those people know that about themselves but they don't speak about it (Although that "can" here actually reflects a disability that came from the loss of the self). 

Yes there are some makeup experts who can do things similar to those we see in the games that deceive our senses but that is very seldomly the case with those claims. 

     

Those who preferred the sewer- 7

It is funny for me to see how this hedge fund guy sank here when in serving my first complaint I thought that he wont lower himself or let those with him lower themselves to the level of  running away and hiding themselves to avoid service like some common thugs and was surprised when he did.

It also appears that he follows his desire to be overpowering and in control, with others often being used or sacrificed for the satisfaction of this desire in disguise, and may confuse that with dignity and self respect.   

Those who preferred the sewer- 6

Notice that like how a doctor deal with low level issues for a real purpose, my talking and analysis for the reactions and behavior here does not mean that I lowered myself to the level of these actions. That is true to the level that this behavior affirmed a theory I had and thought I am just pleasing myself at the time then even went beyond my expectations in doing that and/or into other domains.

It might also be good to mention that my analysis and reaction to the behavior I saw here wont be affected by how much you try to do what you may think as balancing to what I am talking about here by pointing out or revealing bad things in yourself ,or even worse, in others. So don't do that for that purpose because it is not needed and wont make any difference.   

Those who preferred the sewer- 5

If this is the kind of reaction I face for this but I was still brought to the forefront instead of the victims for my talking about the guns issue then that shows to what level the victims and the issue are far from being taken seriously here. In other words, if this how the balancing of the self goes with  an issue like this, how much is it probable that the reaction to me for my talking about that was sufficiently balanced by real attention and concern for the victims and issue itself and was not itself an attempt to run away from the issue? It is this realization that ended my already very little hope that I myself was not being used as an excuse for avoiding the issue I talk about and made me write those posts on that board not because I suddenly decided to embarrass myself and be rude for no reason.  

(continuing from the post below)

I think that I failed to see or at least come close enough to expressing another clear reason why I think there is a separate question of existence here. That reason is simply because what the girls suffered was itself also in a significant way directly attacking their existence. What they suffered is different from being molested one time by a stranger without the knowledge of a parent. While there could also be an existence related question there in addition to the significance of the event itself it doesn't seem to be  as clear and/or in the forefront as it is in the cases of these girls. The molestation of these girls ,at least according to their claims, happened in such frequency and careless and/or very far from being sufficient reactions from their mother that it became an attack on the existence of those daughters carrying the meaning that their existence doesn't count. So, an additional task here that seems to come at the starting stage is to reverse that cancellation of existence. One thing on which achieving that is dependent is to understand the actions of those who participated in that process, especially the mothers, in a way to sufficiently reflect on their characters as it related to their relations with those daughters.  

    

(continuing from the post below)

It seems that those girls were treated as if they do not exist. It is very bad to see those who treated them that way inside take the world with them and continue their success outside through anything that directly or indirectly represents toleration for their toleration to what happened to those girls including their toleration now of their toleration then.

Part of such more sufficient reaction include helping to enable those girls to be able to live where it is seeing the facts and better understanding to what happened to them is not as hard as it is while they continue active relationships with those to whom that understanding relates. 

I hope the show shows the people how they can help to make that achieved.  

(continuing from the post below)

Except for a little reading and watching the main videos in the two links below, I depended on my memory when I watched the two episodes. But reading and watching a little more in the second link, one may argue that the mother also made an implied admission or came close to that there. For example, how much things could come closer to admitting a knowledge then ( which is the main thing I care about not whether she remember now or not) than her saying that she cant take the polygraph test because she fears she could have "suppressed" something that would appear there? 
Anyway, regardless of how much that can be considered as an admission of knowledge then, things in that episode seems to make the mother's claim in denying the knowledge then, or even her claim of being unable to remember it now, sound like a joke.

The victim woman in the first link seems like the prognosis for not dealing correctly with the situation that the girl in the second link will find  herself in or even worse if she try to ignore the matter. In other words, she may spend decades trying to get away from dealing with that past but still return with failure later.

A much better path for dealing with the situation in both links below is for both victims to, first, be empowered with the capability of living away from those who are connected to what they had suffered. Second ,they should be helped to have an understanding for what happened to them  that include the correct understanding of the reality of those mothers in relation to them.

Until this happens, any "forgiveness" can hardly be seen to come from any other path except that of ignoring their own existence.  

Remember that after all that there is the role of deep analysis or  psychoanalysis to understand internal connections and emotions. However, my position is that even if you want to temporarily jump understanding your position in the internal world of the mind,you may still not have as much wiggle room for understanding your position in the external world because it is about your existence. Although that later requirement is often easily attainable, that is not always the case.Some people may do bad things to you and also enable you to easily see their true position toward you. Others may do you even worse but still wouldn't give you that knowledge through some kind of out of this world deception especially when there is an opportunity to do that like when raising a child.

Hearing the victim in the first link for example, I can hardly avoid how it conveys that what is adding to the pain of the past is that she is unable to reach a necessary conclusions about characters around her despite all that painful past because of the deception and needed help in thoroughly understanding her world rather than a reconciliation with it first.    

(continuing from the post below)


I was referring to this episode
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/2039

There is also this case here

http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/2156 

except that the mother's talk in the first one contained or came closer to contain an admission or implied admission about the truth in the daughter's allegations.

(continuing from the post below)

Every time I think about how the sexual abuse to that girl as a child seems to have been allowed and accepted as part of normal life for years and years I become more puzzled by the very far from being sufficient reaction to the case and the way it was dealt with.

(continuing from the post below)

But, again, it would be very hard to imagine any of that would work unless the girl ( actually a woman in her thirties) empowered to be capable of living away and financially independent from where she was abused.

(continuing from the post below)

The understanding of the mother's intention I think is needed for the daughter should be of quality sufficient to show the real character of the mother in relation to her daughter. I think that understanding is needed for the daughter to find her existence.
In other words, it seems that we have two main issues here. On one hand we have the issue related to the events themselves and dealing with that may involve deeper psychoanalysis related issues in the background. The other issue, on the other hand, seems to be at the forefront and is related to how these events, and what they imply, truly define the character of the mother in relation to her daughter. Understanding that relationship correctly is necessary for the daughter to be in true existence in that necessary relationship. 

While understanding the events and what they imply about the character of the mother in relation to her daughter may seem easy to an external person, it is probably far from being so to one who was abused as a child after the perpetrator found an opportunity to play psychotic games related to his true position in reality because of his actions like that of what raising a child empowers him to do.

(continuing from the post below)
Imagine how being victimized in this way can affect a person's life. Moreover looking at this through the original Freudian Psychoanalysis, which seems to fit more directly here, and taking into account the significance of the psychosexual development of a child it is an achievement that girl can even still walk and talk after all what happened to her.

So while I was not trying to apply psychoanalysis when I spoke about why I think the girl came to the show, an analyst may see that as part of the work to reach the unconscious and establish needed connections which doesn't seem like a damaging addition. However, my point was that the psychological help for the girl should start in helping her understands what happened to here starting from the point of the intention of her mother and that should have preceded any reconciliation effort.

If I was the host I probably ,after giving an opportunity to the other side to respond and seeing the level of its response, would have scheduled another show for the victim only.

On an episode of Dr. Phil's he brought a girl who spoke about being sexually molested by her step dad for years and years while she kept complaining to her mother who appears to not have cared enough about the complaints coming from her daughter. I think the showing of denouncement for the mother's actions was not even close to what it should have. There are others who spend years in prison for one action of what was allowed to continue for years here on a child dependent on his parent protection. If I was the host I probably would have brought a water hose and washed the chair that mother sat on after she leaves.

I think that helping that girl to be financially independent and capable of living away from her mother was the good path to follow. 

The host spoke about forgiveness. But how can forgiveness work on someone who does not admit his guilt or at least state that he would change the path of action he took if the situation repeats itself? Nevertheless I don't think that is the biggest hurdle against forgiveness here.

I think that probably neither the host nor the girl herself had an idea about very important and essential reason for why she came to the show. That reason in my view was that the girl herself despite her complaining has an internal conflict related to how she should understand the intentions of her mother and came to the show to resolve that for here. Even her screaming on her mother probably fits better as being coming from someone trying to reach an understanding to something than that of reacting based on an understanding he already had. So, how can forgiveness precede realization of the guilt?

Why would that girl find difficulty in how to understand the actions of her mother despite the clearly outrageous things the mother allowed to happen to her? I think that if you know enough about the psychotic way with which some fight reality and assume a convincing character contrary to their evil actions you wouldn't wonder much about that. There were even two examples related to that in the same show. The first one gave a hint about the skill in doing that and was shown in how the mother succeeded in using the financial excuse to get softer reaction from the host. The other one seems to show the level of contrast in the characters they assume when the step father from his prison started talking about a psychological help they were advising the girl to take. 

9/11 and me

While the overwhelming majority of Arab Muslims do not want to be like those who committed the attack of 9/11, it is a fact that the later were Arabs and Muslims. Nevertheless, you saw and may continue to see me intentionally remind others of being an Arab and Muslim when I talk about 9/11 or other crimes committed by similar groups. Why would I do that? Because I want to support a basic rule of justice that everybody should be held responsible for only what he did which seems to be more ignored here because of the desire to create a shared group . But although not holding a person responsible for things done by others should be applied, it should be applied only through the implementation of that basic rule of justice not through disregarding the encroachments on the rights of the victims. That is why I bring both together to emphasize the necessity of that required and indispensable balance.      

Those who preferred the sewer- 4

This showed that you cant bring the bottom of a door low enough for this hedge fund guy to mind passing under it.

I also described this guy more than four years ago on a Viking Systems message board as being a psycho and spoke about how  psychos could be very convincing through the personality they show despite clear signs pointing to the contrary. We see here an example of that in how he lowered himself with this matter but  still managed not to be judged by his action.. 

In addition, he may be proud of his ability to create a relation regardless of whom on the other end. But he might not realize that capability comes from willingness to do that  facilitated by his inability to establish relationships with others beyond that for the use of a physical object .That is why he may not mind what others may mind about whatever human qualities lacking in the other end and that comes from being a psycho.        

What messed things in Iraq

I have had a view since shortly after the removal of Saddam about how things in Iraq could have proceeded much better . I did not state that view because I was afraid I could incorrectly express something and there could be many how would take a word and implement it incorrectly even with things like these related to life and death. I may comeback to that later. But for now I want to state in a very concise way a part from that view related more closely to present time.

I think that what is messing things in Iraq is that those in the position of power try to fit the forms expected from them here rather than depending on their honest and careful judgment about what is just and fair in acting or restricting their actions. Otherwise, I think, that group currently in the news, would have been able to occupy and maintain even one foot of land in Iraq only in their dreams.   

With the remembrance of 9/11, being an Arab and Muslim, I want to point out how it felt as an insult not to show the pictures of Bin Laden being shot. It was as if I would see some throwing themselves from the buildings and later those buildings crumble on others but I would still be offended for seeing how Bin Laden was shot and say poor guy. I think that was a projection for the desire of the grouping for creation of identity that I found only here.

Those who preferred the sewer- 3

This continues from this sears

http://varioustopicblog.blogspot.com/2014/08/those-who-preferred-sewer-2.html

Although, I showed for close to  a year that I can disregard this low level nonsense ,  I choose to go back to it now in order to show what kind of sinking some chose for themselves. 

I have been restricting my diet, more at the beginning,  in order to make the running exercise easier in addition to drinking too much water at night. This combination, in addition to being in a laying position at night, was causing internal sounds inside the body that was magnified through the house transferring the sound like a stethoscope transfers the sound of  heartbeat to those in the other house who kept a level of paying attention equal to their level of inferiority feelings. 
In any case , trying to infer a character trait from the actions of a person in a private place is not correct if the privacy itself was taken into account in order to achieve some purpose. As for those in the other house, I also could have bought the house with some cockroaches and other insects hidden in the bathroom. Should I assume that I do not have privacy to take a bath because of that? However,  like I mentioned above, generally things did not reach this level when judged without following a child playing with applying words unreasonably. 

After showing how you were wrong in the risk you took in addition to showing how you were not supposed to sink the way you did based on the available knowledge you had  to begin with earlier, I want now to direct attention to facts you don't know combining both aims (moral sinking by allowing the issue  in addition to   being also wrong at the end). Because had I wanted being in a place where someone sink himself morally and also intelligently by being associated with it, I couldn't have chosen anything better or even close to my current position.

Let me give you an example. The kid conveying things to you used to drive or push more gas to the engine of his car while idling and pretend that he scared or affected me by the high engine sounds he makes. Others in the same neighborhood spent three years trying to prove same thing on me. Why that? because some others chose a psychotic way of playfully understanding my actions by severing the connections and conveyed that to them. It was similar to, for example, if you convey that someone laughed on a joke he read as laughing because of the image of the fonts he saw. So those here spent all these years trying to see that truly fits me. 

I can go much more in depth and width to show you how deep down you dragged yourselves expecting things to be like they are in your environment.