Comment Stream

Search and bookmark options Close
Search for:
Search by:
Clear bookmark | How bookmarks work
Note: Bookmarks are ignored for all search results

Total Found: 451 (Showing 1-25)

Next ►Page 1 of 19
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 19, 2019, 8:27am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Colm Meanie
The Trump comment is a clear ad hominem (if you think that Trump is a horrible horrible horrible person) the rest is borderline guilt by association. When I say:"this is shit. Have fun digging around in it" then that is not only an attack on the show but also on the people who like it. (I'm taking this from wikipedia, could be wrong)

@Dom
These three questions seem very reasonable and a good example. Was season 2 about getting them into the future? If so then they were successful... somewhat. And was it worth doing so? eh...

About ad hominem. Let's say we find out that Kurtzman is an evil Hollywood sex pervert. Would it not be ok to say, you shouldn't watch that show because the guy who made it is a monster. I must admit I would be on the fence here. I cannot watch Mel Gibson stuff anymore. I cannot separate the art from the batshit crazy artist. Or Roman Polanski. Should he be shunned and then forgotten. I tend to say yes.
So I would argue that there are instances were ad hominem arguments are valid.

"You're right though, the line between critiques of the show and attacks on fans can perhaps become a bit blurry. Is "the writers must think the audience is stupid" an attack on show or on fans?"

And we have seen this stuff a lot which makes me fly out of the neutral zone with weapons charged. I can totally understand the critique of the show but I also respect people who like it and if somebody attacks them directly or indirectly... then that somebody can ring the bells as much as they want... ;)

To GoT. I wouldn't have believed it but I'm kind of hooked for the last episode. Never expected that. Fingers crossed for a horribly miserable ending! :D
(have you seen these articles. More than 3500 children were named Khalessi hahaha. O M G)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 19, 2019, 2:11am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: Elementary, Dear Data

@ Lizzy
Language. :)
I think overcoming obstacles makes achieving a goal more rewarding. Also you cannot insult Data because he has no emotions. An insult is an attempt to make somebody feel bad which will never work with Data. And doesn't she come around in later episodes?

Plus Moriarty is portrayed as a perfect gentleman. She probably doesn't feel threatened maybe even gets a little kick out of it. You need a good sense of humor when you are hands deep in guts half the day.

And if your love for Data becomes to strong just click on this link: ;)
http://de.web.img3.acsta.net/r_1280_720/pictures/16/05/23/15/17/207405.jpg
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:44am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Omicron
Saying that there are more ad hominem attacks by Discovery fans is kind of a hollow argument. If I go into any fan forum and say stuff like the quotes below I wouldn't be surprised about negative reactions(I quote from stuff people said about Discovery during the last !two weeks! on this forum)

"Absolutely. This show is a farce."
"Who the f cares about 'The Red Angel'? Are we 10 or something?"
"This show is stupid. Period. End of Story. "
"That whole quote sounds like it was said by Donald Trump. No wonder I have a problem with the showrunning."
"I hate hate HATE the stupid, retarded, cartoonishly moronic mirror universe with an all-consuming passion. It's the dumbest, lamest, most idiotic thing Star Trek ever did, and why they keep doing it is a mystery to me. Every episode to feature it has been irredeemably putrid."
"You lot are welcome to pick the peanuts out of this poop, but I'm out."
Again last two weeks.

These are at least ad hominem attacks through the back door. And we had lots and lots AND LOTS of comments like these. So it's kind of understandable when people get defensive. I'm not a fan of Discovery but this stuff makes even me angry.

By the way saying that somebody uses strawman arguments without providing examples is a strawman argument. :D

And because we psychoanalyze each other Omicron, you seem a little rowdy lately. Everything all right? :)

@Dom
Did you mean the vox article? I read it but it was a little meandering as opinion pieces often are. I think there are limits to critique. Look at the stuff I posted above this. These technically are criticizing the franchise (a word I hate by the way) while pretty much also insulting the people who like Discovery.

With which I mean, that if you say ad hominem not ok, everything else ok then people will always find a way to get around that barrier. You censoring people too you just draw the line at a different place. At what place? At a place you think is right.

What if somebody thinks that ad hominem attacks are important to have a worthwhile discussion about something? What is your argument against that? and even if you have good arguments should you be allowed to enforce your anti ad hominem stance?
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sat, May 18, 2019, 10:47am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Dom
Well, if art can be separated from the artist is a question art schools wrestle with since ... since art schools came into existence.
There is often a huge grey area.

To clarify my GoT comment. I enjoyed it first and foremost because I didn't think that they had the guts to do what they did (We both know what I'm talking about). And about my enjoyment of the crazy reactions that is mostly because I find this extreme fandom we see today (or maybe it was always there but the internet made it visible) totally pathetic. For me it is a product, sometimes an enjoyable product, very rarely even great art but I don't go nuts because of it. Like when people come dressed as Star Wars characters to some Disney event and then cry and hug or faint after watching a 2 minute trailer for the new Star Wars movie. It is almost like a cult. There is actually a petition to remake season 8 of GoT which is completely delusional and it has already almost a million signatories. I find this all very amusing. :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sat, May 18, 2019, 9:51am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Dom
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought that the creators of Discovery attacked critical ST fans.

As you say online harassment isn't ok. I know people who work for politicians and they get so much crazy shit in the mail alone. Most people wouldn't believe it.
Artists are sensitive beings and you don't need to be sensitive to be hurt by an avalanche of negative garbage.
Critique on the other hand is of course ok but what is legit and what isn't, sensitive artist or not (companies of course always look for ways to shut down negative reviews)?

By the way. I LOVED THE EPSIODE 5 OF GOT! Especially because I knew that people would go crazy. I was awesome :D

@The Gorn
I don't follow??? What is the problem here?
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sat, May 18, 2019, 7:46am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

Who trashed the fans or the critical fans to be precise??

We should keep in mind that criticism is far more direct today. In the 90s you could only right letters. Today, people can spam twitter, Instagram, Facebook and so on. Back then you got 20 vile letters a day. Today you get 1000 horrible messages an hour.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:22pm (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

@ Omicron
Do we actually know each other that well already. Troubling. It is true. I'm stressed out again. Decisions. I feel like being on the Hindenburg and Lakehurst is in sight.

No, I don't think Data is a soulless machine. Apart from the actual discussion, he is clearly written as being alive. Just playing devils advocate.

Seriously though two important signs of life are procreation and constant patterns like cells metabolizing. But there is no real fixed definition laid out by some council in Switzerland which means that anything can be defined as being alive.

People here often start discussing stuff without clearly defining the words they are talking about which bothers me.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:38am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

@ Omicron
HA! You walked right into my trap. Muahaha. Lal wasn't like Data and more importantly Lal wasn't from Data.

There are three ways to procreate: Mitosis, meiosis and parasitic lifeforms.

Only because this talking tricorder walked into a tool shed and made another machine doesn't mean that he procreates.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 16, 2019, 7:32am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

If you are a machine then I would have called you it from the moment of your activation! Are you a machine?

Alives first!
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:52am (UTC -5)
Re: TNG S2: The Child

To throw a wrench into this little machine love fest.

Data is not alive.

He misses two main aspects of life.
- He or should I say IT doesn't procreate
- His or should I say ... ehh the right English word... ehh its?... processes can be inactive for an infinite amount of time. You can switch him off for a million years and then switch him on and he will be as good as new.

Also Pulaski had some spunk while Crusher was just a humanoid care bear. She was absolutely right to question the green emotionless machine!
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 16, 2019, 4:01am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Omicron

I was pointing out that what you consider universal truth is just your personal truth. The mistake you make is to think that your personal truth is more valid than the personal truth other people hold and in addition that your personal truth will prevail. By the way, there were prominent female Nazis (Riefenstahl) and gay Nazis (Röhm). Who decides which group can be discriminated? You?

Do you realize that black or gay are socially defined categories? Especially skin color. Separating people because of skin pigmentation. Makes no sense. And the gay culture mostly exists because society defined being attracted to ones own sex as deviant. You can say that about many categories we people use.

How about ultra orthodox Jews or Quaker, religious fundamentalists in general? How about people who are against abortion or for the death penalty or anti vaxxer ? Is it ok to discriminate these people?

As most people, you want simple answers which are also in line with what you already believe to be true.
Or in other words.
https://www.bingeclock.com/memes/frasier___yanking_my_giggle_chain.png
Set Bookmark
Booming
Wed, May 15, 2019, 1:08pm (UTC -5)
Re: DS9 S4: Broken Link

Wasn't Garak the one who could be seen as a gay character?

- He is a tailor.
- He has never had any sexual relationship.
- He is interested in oddballs
- He has a certain way of talking.
I always thought that you could read him as gay (maybe a little cliched).

And about Odo. We once or twice saw him "sexing" with Kira. You talk about genitals.Pah! I always thought that he went far faaaaar beyond that. Crazy stuff.
(He also had a sexual relationship with that one agent who was undercover)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Wed, May 15, 2019, 7:38am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Omicron
"You need to brush up on your science history."
I don't think that I do.
Psychology and sociology directly evolved from philosophy. Philosophy is about questioning/finding the meaning of life. This question is still debated because we don't know, which is going to end when we fully understand the brain and then use that understanding.

"I see. So having a society that brain-washes the masses with scientific accuacy (sic), is not "as awful as it sounds"?"
That is not what I said. I only said that it is going to happen. Could be good, could be bad. Looking back on human history there is potential for both. I am certainly worried, though but in a very relaxed way. I cannot change humanities desire for new knowledge nor would I.

"The scary thing is that we're already 80% there."
I would say more like 30% maybe even less. All the stuff that is done today is still mostly shots in the dark or simple A will often lead to B kind of experiments. The problem so to speak is that the brain is still basically a black box.

For example Candy Crush was developed with lots (and I mean lots) of psychological input but most of it boils down to very simply poking the reward system. It is not very sophisticated.

The problem with absolute ethical norms is not that they exist but who defines them, and I know nobody I would trust with that. We humans are dominated by so many illogical impulses... eh no thanks.

"Murder is wrong." Murder is defined as intentionally killing another person. What about a bomber pilot dropping bombs on a village. He/She isn't threatened directly. Is that person not a murderer? But that kind of murder is ok (at least for the one who owns the bomber)

"Slavery is wrong" I'll think about that when I walk past a clothing store. Then there is compulsory military service during times of war (real wars, not like bombing third world countries).

"Prejudice is wrong." But I can still hate Nazis, can I?

"Trampling over other people's basic rights to sustain our own greed ... ." Isn't that a nice definition of the economic model we are following right now as far as I know almost everywhere with no change in sight.

"And I must admit, that I find it odd that you - of all people - would reject the idea of absolute ethical truth."
I would say that my point is pretty clear. I think aggregates of individual truth are fine. In other words people finding personal truth and then banding together to fight more efficiently. I have strong convictions and are ready to fight for them.

Maybe you should clearer define what you mean with universal truth. Or is that just what you define as morally and ethically right?

"Imagine a world with no more petty misunderstandings. A world where the knowledge of how to break habits and overcoming personal flaws makes everyone happier, better people"
That would be the good outcome of really understanding our lovely little meatball :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Tue, May 14, 2019, 5:07pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Omicron
I always feel a little guilty writing about this stuff because it is barely a tangent to the show now. To be perfectly honest I'm not big on religious discussions and I think that philosophy already has it's head on the chopping block.
And neurology, psychology and sociology are swinging the axe. It is comparable to alchemy. At some point chemistry, physics and biology came around.

Sooner or later we will really understand that brain thingy and after that it is only about achieving the desired effect through means that are deemed appropriate.
Most if not all these philosophical questions will be meaningless in the not so far future. That may sound crazy now but I guarantee you it will happen. But don't worry it won't be as awful as it sounds.... or maybe it will like advertisements or propaganda that really messes with your brain. Maybe we are lucky and climate change gets us sooner. :)

Oh and no I don't think that there are universal truth. (more or less) Universal cultural patterns yes, like banning incest and cannibalism for example. For the time being there is only personal truth for which one can of course argue and other people may voluntarily change their views. Everything else can become dangerous pretty quickly.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 12, 2019, 12:38pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

I'm happy for you Orvellistas :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Sun, May 12, 2019, 12:16pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S2: The Road Not Taken

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW68goC4_es
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 10, 2019, 1:01pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@Omicron
"After all, the story of humanity is OUR story. We can CHOOSE to treat ourselves as unimportant specks of dusts. Or we can CHOOSE to view ourselves as a part of something bigger."

I wouldn't say that we treat ourselves as unimportant just that there is no higher purpose and we have to come up with our own reasons and purposes without knowing that it makes any sense simply put existential nihilism.

If you feel more comfortable with the belief that there is some guiding superhuman entity. Ok. As long as you do not accept the orders of a human organization that claims to speak the truth in the name of that entity then that's fine with me. Not that you need my permission. ;)


@ Peter G.
I think many people even back then could fathom that for example when a ship sailed away from a landmass that the ship was moving and not the landmass. It was also known to many astronomers far earlier than Copernicus that the Ptolemaic model was incorrect. The math didn't work out.

This was also not only about being right or wrong but about life or death for many scientists of the period. The catholic church needed 200 years to stop banning books with the heliocentric model and another 100 years (1822) to allow reading/printing Copernicus and Galileo books.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 10, 2019, 1:17am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Jason R.
I think all the words: purpose, matter and whatnot are human concepts which we come up with to understand patterns or to perceive our own existence as meaningful.

If there is purpose to us then who gave us that purpose because purpose can only exist if there is will.

Do we matter? Well, we matter to us but that is where it ends.

Could we be some link in a greater purpose. Sure. But stars and life does exist because of gravity/physics. Imbalances create greater imbalances. Particles lump together. The gravitational pull catches more and more particles which then creates a star. Smaller particle clouds cannot escape the pull of that star and start to become planets. The heat energizes the surface of these planets. Energized Amino acids lump together until the very early forms of life start to develop.
Were you see purpose I see physical laws.

You also use other words that are value judgements like meaningless or random fluke. As I wrote above to me live is just another consequence of imbalance and if human existence shouts one thing then that is imbalance.

@Trent
I know you are joking but there is a sad side to all of this. The most ardent supporters of early Christianity were women and slaves. So where was the bible we know today created? In an imperialistic slave state (ERE) by an all male group.

@ Omicron
I could basically write the same I wrote Jason but to give you a different take.

If there is a higher being doing all of this and if we believe the monotheistic interpretation of an omnipotent god then this being either went to great length to put us somewhere really average or we aren't special to this being. There is nothing special about our place in the galaxy, our galaxy even our supercluster isn't that special. We are at the complete opposite of where religions see us: in the absolute center.

To me Jason and Omicron it just seems far more likely that we Humans come up with all these concepts like purpose or great saga to feel better about our relatively short existence.

So what gives me solace in the darkest hours of the night? Well, there is alcohol... I love nature. When the trees get their new leaves in spring and the animals brim with life. Wonderful. The thought that yes my conscious may end but the matter that I am now will just become something else. To quote the very misunderstood founder from DS9:"The drop becomes the ocean again." ;)
Even though it kind of bugs me that I will miss the time when Humanity flies to the stars if we ever do.

And against all rationality I have a real soft spot for Humans.

Meaning, purpose. If I'm right then we will never know. If you are right then I'm looking forward to seeing you all in Purgatory. :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 9, 2019, 3:56am (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

@ Omicron
Thanks. :)
I, of course, see the problem that a lot of people who are not affected by intolerance use these issues to boost their own self esteem without the actual will to change something. You haven't really lived until a person tells you how great you are just for being LGBT.

Around a hundred years ago, we had a black exchange student from South Africa and at the end of his stay a teacher asked him who treated him best and he named 5-6 people and included me which baffled me back then because we weren't that close. I just treated him normally. Now, sadly, I know that most people either treat you shitty or are fake nice and only a pretty small group just treats you like a normal human being.

And there are moments were I almost prefer the shitty ones because with them you at least know what they believe. The fake nice people often are a little intolerant but don't want to be so they overcompensate. I have a hard time trusting them. So from my viewpoint real allies are few and far between.

Be that as it may. That is no excuse for my behavior.
I often battle with my strong emotions.
Thanks again!
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 9, 2019, 2:52am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

"If that is true then our senses deceive us and bear witness to the absence of God - and to existence in a nihilistic, cruel and massive universe where life is meaningless and death is certain."
Said the pope to Galileo. :) I actually hope that Christians don't believe that, the pope included. Because that all boils down to: "Science is just the devils way to deceive us." Sounds pretty medieval to me.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Thu, May 9, 2019, 1:37am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Demosthenes
True. We started discussing a question without first agreeing what the question "means". When I said "no religion holds up to scrutiny" I meant that because the existence of god or whatever higher state is the core of a religion isn't scientifically verifiable then that means that no religion can, with absolute certainty, claim to be true or valid. And because no religion has that claim imposing rules based on a religion is non justifiable.
To be clear though I'm agnostic not an atheist. Even though Richard Dawkins would call me an atheist.

From a sociological standpoint religions/believe systems are also clearly influenced by the time and place they came into existence. That's why there are clear justifications for slavery in the old testament because slavery was the unquestioned norm 2500 years ago or why Mormonism is so very compatible with capitalism.

"apologetics" I did not now what that word meant. I like to learn new meanings of words. Thanks.

"The circumstances of the author do not enter into it (his work)." I cannot agree here. First of all we all grow up in a culture that forms us to a high degree. All these theologians you name would have been Muslims or Confucians or something else if they were born somewhere else. They only wrote about Christianity because they were born in predominantly Christian countries during times when religious debate was omnipresent.

Second. Here we will obviously disagree. From a pure logical standpoint justifying a believe system or as you call it theologians "making their case" makes no sense to me because when stuff is uncertain they cannot go to god and ask: "Hey, is it ok to have a slave? or "should we pray on Sunday or Saturday? or "Pork or no pork?" As Dave in MN pointed out all these debates start at a great premise that is unproven.

All these crazy debates (again from my viewpoint) about religion in "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" made me stop reading it. I was bored out of my mind.

And to you argument that the fact that half of them were actually prosecuted by their own religion does prove that they wrote what they thought was right. Maybe they just thought:" Ok, this is as much as I can push this or that topic without getting burned at the stake even though I actually believe far more radical things."

Luther for example was probably influenced by the fact that his life depended on the goodwill of a few people from the high nobility which, when the peasants war came around, probably effected his infamous piece "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants." We don't know how much this piece was influenced by the dangerous situation Luther was in but it is certainly possible that he was thinking of his powerful benefactors when he wrote: "anyone who is killed fighting on the side of the rulers may be a true martyr in the eyes of God"

"But if you hold to your own argument, you should think their work more valuable, rather than less. " Again, this is were we certainly disagree but for me these are all just different interpretations of a fairy tale. Disagreeing with the dominant interpretation of that fairy tale can certainly be courageous if it puts you in harms way but it is not more "valuable" whatever that means.

I doubt that we will ever really agree here but as long as I do not send you to the Gulag and you do not burn me at the stake we should be fine. :)

@ Jason R.
For me it actually goes in the opposite direction. Knowing that the universe is so immensely old and gigantic definitely leaves me in awe but that doesn't lead to religion but to nihilism. I think we can be fairly certain that humanity will be gone in 500 million years but the universe will probably still do it's thing. If humanity isn't a constant development until the end of time then what is the point of anything?

Why would a higher being place us on an mid sized planet flying around a mid sized sun in one of the smaller arms of a mid sized spiral galaxy which is part of galaxy group which is part of a super cluster which is part of a super cluster complex.

I never understood how a rational person could know that and be religious. (Of course I understand the psychological value of religion. Paradise and all, fear of the end of your own existence, pain of losing people)

@Dave in MN
Somebody has been watching Dawkins. :)
Set Bookmark
Booming
Wed, May 8, 2019, 1:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Peter G.
"operates on models of hypothesis until they can't hold up any more, and then a revolution is needed with a new model."
I would consider this falsification or maybe an improved model of it. I didn't know that we would really get into methodology. I must admit that I was always more practically inclined. There are so many practical problems in sociology but especially political science right now, polls/surveys for example. It's a mess. If you want to do political scientists a solid then keep your landline.

" If you think there is nothing but hard matter then perhaps you might think there that is no use for religion - science and philosophy would be enough"
I guess that is my view right now. I'm kind of swinging between existential nihilism and cosmic nihilism.

"God being non-falsifiable isn't relevant to science because if there is a God he/she/it exists outside the ream of science." How can something be outside of science?

"remain silent on the rest" That is my problem with religion. They barely remain silent. Just think about it even the most powerful man on earth is a victim of a witch hunt.

But seriously. Could there be a god? Sure. But as long as this possible entity isn't ready to be poked in a lab I'm not ready to build my life around the interpretation of that possible entity.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Wed, May 8, 2019, 12:34pm (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Peter G.
I mean it in the sense that you cannot falsify it (Popper). Falsification is the basis of science I would argue. You cannot falsify god. How would you prove that god doesn't exist (falsify)? It is impossible.

That is for example the reason that no climate scientist will ever say: "I know that climate change is definitely man made." even if he/she thinks that it is extremely likely.

So religion doesn't hold up in the sense that it's core, God, cannot be falsified. If religion is useful or harmful is another matter. As a moral philosophy it has certainly it's weaknesses. For example because a few disgruntled Jews in a suburb of Babylon thought that man on man action was something that separated them from the Babylonians so they made it illegal and 3000 years later people in Saudi Arabia and Iran get their heads chopped off because of it (ok ok you get hanged in Iran, not decapitated).

Which means religion certainly exists and it is not important to the existence of religion if God exists . In the sense of the Thomas theorem : "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences."

An example I always found interesting is the famous theologian Bonhoeffer who during his time in a concentration camp was surprised to find out that other inmates who were atheists (mostly socialists and communists) were as good to on another as one could wish which made him question religion and the church in general. If people can be good without any kind of religion what use has religion? This brought him to the so called concept of "religionless Christianity"

Sorry, it is all very disjointed but maybe it answers your question to a certain degree.
Set Bookmark
Booming
Wed, May 8, 2019, 12:45am (UTC -5)
Re: ORV S1: Mad Idolatry

@ Demosthenes
The people you name apart from C.S. Lewis lived during times when not believing in the Christian religion would mean at least losing your job and often far worse. Doesn't that diminish whatever they wrote?

And no religion holds up to scrutiny in a scientific sense. Isn't that kind of the point in Christianity. That you have to believe without knowing?
Set Bookmark
Booming
Fri, May 3, 2019, 3:58pm (UTC -5)
Re: DSC S2: Such Sweet Sorrow, Part 2

PS: I want to add this for anybody who wants to understand the fears and challenges of many of us and why I may sometimes overshoot. This video covers it quite perfectly. We all hope that we go forward to a better future like we see in Star Trek but what if we are wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2W0-z8EnaM
Next ►Page 1 of 19
▲Top of Page | Menu | Copyright © 1994-2019 Jamahl Epsicokhan. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication or distribution of any content is prohibited. This site is an independent publication and is not affiliated with or authorized by any entity or company referenced herein. See site policies.