User talk:Moonwalkerwiz

Welcome!

Hello, Moonwalkerwiz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Happy editing! Dominant One 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naruto[edit]

Sorry I don't know where to contact you exactly other than this, but Google for "dattebayo" and take the first link or hit the I'm feeling lucky button. Just ignore their YHBT stuff, they like to joke around. Feel free to erase this comment after you see what I mean :-) Appologies if you already know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.162.77.63 (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pupil[edit]

Magasin 10:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Kamikazee men band of the year... song of the year narda yata... album of the year itchyworms noon time show... :D[reply]

Sinong nanalong band of the year, song of the year, at album of the year? Malamang Sandwich isa diyan no? Moonwalkerwiz 05:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tinugtog nila yung Nasaan Ka na may ibang intro... ganda ng pag-tanggap ng crowd... pati si Asia Agcaoili napasigaw ng "Ely I love You, ever!"

nominated sila sa:

BASSIST OF THE YEAR
SONG OF THE YEAR "NASAAN KA"
ARTIST / BAND OF THE YEAR
ALBUM OF THE YEAR
PRODUCER OF THE YEAR (with Patrick Tirano)

bawi nalang sila next time =)

Talaga? Hindi ko napanood eh. Bad trip naman yun. Saan-saan ba sila na-nominate tsaka sinong mga nakalaban? Ang alam ko tutugtog sila don di ba? Moonwalkerwiz 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magasin to pre, dehins ko matanggap yung nangyari sa NU Rock Awards kanina... sa dami ng nominations nila, walang nauwi ni-isa patimpalak mga idol natin :(

hindi ko alam kung tama itong paraan ko pag-send ng message sa mga users din... anyways, salamat po sa patuloy na pagsuporta sa Pupil! ang ganda na nung page ng Pupil :)

Sino 'to? Sign ka naman ng username mo, 'tol. Anyway, project talaga natin yan. Aayusin pa natin para mas lalong gumanda. (: Moonwalkerwiz 22:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

Hi. I’ve been noticing your recent posts to the Reference Desk. First there was this:

Sam Clark's right. The question is definitely pointing towards the relationship between madness and historical views of it in history. ... I wonder if they'll admit that their label "abnormality" is a tool of social control, capitalist social control? And that schizophrenics are the people who are most free? I wonder. Moonwalkerwiz 23:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there was this:

Well, honestly, I agree with you that society is "getting crasser every day." ... MTV takes hold of people's minds, minds produce material for MTV, and the vicious cyle continues. More "subtle," trained, mastered forms of artistic expression are pushed into the background, as overly stimulating (one can even say "nervous") acts become the people's way of life. Finally, every girl becomes Britney Spears, every man a Tom Cruise, and everyone dances crotch grabbing. It is our way of life. Moonwalkerwiz 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Then there was this:

How about friends - like you? A psychotherapist would just mess her mind even more ... A caring friend is always better than a professional psychotherapist. Moonwalkerwiz 05:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, in amongst these utterances, there was this:

Or, you can take your assignment and your studies seriously, research on these works, read secondary materials to understand them better, and really learn rather than going for unsubstantiated rhetoric. Moonwalkerwiz 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I’m left wondering how the first 3 examples are any different from "unsubstantiated rhetoric". Cheers. JackofOz 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. Thanks for sending a message, it's only the second one and I'm beginning to get bored of my talk page. All that I say in the reference desk may seem "unsubstantiated rhetoric" (thanks for using my term), but actually they are not. The first one about the label "abnormality" as a tool of capitalist social control and schizophrenics the people who are most free are from Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's work, "Capitalism and Schizophrenia." In these works, the authors explained that humans are desiring machines, whose desire flows are diverted by capitalism towards consumerism, thereby propagating the system. Schizophrenics are treated as the shadow of reasoned individuals, therefore, they are labelled abnormal, sick, and put into institutions where they are corrected. However, it is clear that mad people are free from capitalist control of desires, because they do not have reason exploited by the system. The authors argue that they are the most free people, and in fact, rebels in their own right.

It wasn't clear to me that you were simply reporting what these authors had said. It seemed to be your own personal views. On re-reading, that still seems to be the case. All I can say is that it is manifestly untrue that schizophrenics are generally "put into institutions where they are corrected". Most sufferers are treated with medication and continue leading "normal" lives (as much as any life can be normal). JackofOz 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many people in the reference desk talk as if what they are saying are their own views. However, whenever I feel like it's important, I provide a link with the authors who informed my views. For example, that bit about schizophrenics followed after I suggested books by Michel Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari. I said it as a reference to what these authors are saying about schizophrenia and capitalism. If you didn't get it, then that's just because you haven't read them yet. Also, I never said that "generally" schizophrenics are put into mental institutions. I stated the fact that they are being put into mental institutions. I'm not talking about the "frequency" of the phenomena happening. Rather, I (and the authors) am talking about the simple fact that it is happening. Moonwalkerwiz 03:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The next one about society getting crasser is a Nietzschean aristocratic point of view. Nietzsche writes, "Higher education" and huge numbers—that is a contradiction to start with. All higher education belongs only to the exception: one must be privileged to have a right to so high a privilege. All great, all beautiful things can never be common property: pulchrum est paucorum hominum ["Beauty is for the few." Horace: Satires, I, 9, 44.].— What contributes to the decline of German culture? That "higher education" is no longer a privilege—the democratism of "Bildung," which has become "common"—too common [der Demokratismus der "allgemein," der gemein geworden "Bildung"] ... " This means that at least in the Nietzschean analysis, democracy and state affairs are harmful to "culture." Even the word that I used "nervous" is Nietzschean, and not my innovation. Secondly, it is quite well known throughout the discipline of Sociology that media is a powerful institution. Primarily, my view that everyone becomes Britney Spears and Tom Cruise and everyone dances crotch grabbing is informed by Theodor Adorno's and Max Horkheimer's analysis of culture industries, which manipulate people's definition of genuine content and happiness, standardize them, and forever give them the illusion that their desires are satisfied within capitalism.

Well, I don't give a hoot what Adorno or Horkheimer may have written. Again, it is manifestly untrue that "everyone becomes Britney Spears and Tom Cruise and everyone dances crotch grabbing". It may be your way of life; it certainly is not mine. JackofOz 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't give a hoot what Adorno and Horkheimer says, it's a pity, because they really have very enlightening ways of looking at society. Furthermore, it is clear that my tone is of exaggeration and the statement is meant to be a hyperbole, so that the argument becomes more persuasive and forceful. I don't know why you took it literally, though. But then, that may already be a question for psychoanalysts.

The third one clearly follows from my view of mental institutions as tools of capitalism and social control. Psychoanalysis doesn't cure people. It makes them slaves. The reference to friends being better than professional psychotherapists is as much a criticism of the system as much as it is the expression of the common knowledge that friends have the potential to know us better than mental peepers.

I respect your right to have such a view of psychoanalysis and mental institutions. But that's a far cry from asserting that these make people slaves, or that a psychotherapist would just mess her mind even more. Yes, you could find examples where these statements are true (just as you could find examples of any so-called professional doing more harm than good) but saying this is true for the entire profession is not on. I think you could at least couch this sort of view as your opinion, not as if it were an undisputed fact. This really is a crackerjack example of unsubstantiated rhetoric. But it's worse than that: saying that a caring friend is "always better" than a professional psychotherapist is dangerous. A caring friend is a great starting point for any trouble, and in many cases a good long chat will indeed resolve the problem or point the way ahead. But in many other cases, the most well-meaning friend in the world simply cannot do what a skilled psychologist, psychiatrist, psychotherapist, general practitioner or other health professional can do, because they are hopelessly out of their depth in dealing with the sorts of issues and conditions that take years of training and study to understand, let alone treat. Compassion does not get turned off when a lay person becomes a health professional; compassion is what usually inspired them to become a health professional in the first place. JackofOz 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the error of reading the statement literally. Of course, I'm not talking about the frequency of it happening in the "entire profession," I'm talking about the fact that it is happening in the profession. "Psychoanalysis doesn't cure people. It makes them slaves." The statement is clearly a hyperbole. Wikipedia: "It (hyperbole) may be used due to strong feelings or is used to create a strong impression and is not meant to be taken literally. It gives greater emphasis. It is often used in poetry and is a literary device."

And Jack, the fact that you sympathize with the tools of social control and see the "reason" and the significance of what they are doing, is in fact, a proof of subjection in the first place. And I never said anything about compassion getting "turned off" in psychotherapy. I will actually agree with you that these professionals have compassion and maybe even love for their patients! But Jack, social control is never manifest, conscious, full of obvious malice. Its tendency is to make itself seem natural and eternal. Ideology, social control, the superstructure is "proposed to all members of that society in order to make the ruling class' interests appear to be the interests of all. György Lukács describes this as a projection of the class consciousness of the ruling class" - Wikipedia. Moonwalkerwiz 03:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last one is just a reply to the user who posted before me saying that the inquirer does not have to read the appropriate books for his assignment, and just have to go for simple, empty, "unsubstantiated rhetoric." I think we, in the reference desk, should no better.

So, Jack, if I wrote all this on the RD, it would consumer all my time, as it did now. Also, a long explanation is boring to almost everyone. You see, I believe that one should write informatively while keeping in mind that forceful metaphors are always more beautiful than cobwebs of concepts. "For one cannot subtract dancing in every form from a noble education—to be able to dance with one's feet, with concepts, with words: need I still add that one must be able to dance with the pen too—that one must learn to write?—" says Nietzsche.

Again, thank for the message. I hope you find my explanation plentiful in substance. Moonwalkerwiz 01:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your responses. My comments appear above. JackofOz 02:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your criticism, Jack. My responses are above. And please be more understanding and tolerant next time. Moonwalkerwiz 03:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if I came across as intolerant. That was never my intention. I hope my comments below don't put the lie to that. I am indeed trying to understand your world view, which is why I contacted you in the first place. Maybe my challenge was a little robust, but that should be well-matched by your now-acknowledged propensity for hyperbole. I think it's a manifestation of my stubbornness, a quality you're on record as admiring. If so, admire on. I will, of course, be assuming hyperbole in all of your subsequent comments, and de-hyperbolising then before I respond to them. :)
You've explained that hyperbole may be used "to create a strong impression and is not meant to be taken literally." That's fine if the reader has some clue that it's hyperbole at work here rather than what the writer actually believes. But readers of the Ref Desks don't know the writers personally, and have only their words to go on. It's a bit hard to interpret a sentence such as "A caring friend is always better than a professional psychotherapist" in any way other than literally, particularly when it followed "A psychotherapist would just mess her mind even more". Your statements seemed to leave no room for exceptions whatsoever. So, ok, I accept it was hyperbole. What did you actually mean by "always"? Did you mean "mostly", "sometimes", "occasionally", "in extreme cases"? And remember this was not just some abstruse academic discussion at a university; it was a response to a real-live person with a serious personal issue they wanted help about. With the best will in the world, I can't see that your response was anything other than unhelpful. (It may have been more damaging than that, but we'll probably never know.) Our policy is not to give medical or legal advice; rather we advise people to see a doctor or a lawyer or whomever else is most appropriate. Dissuading a person from contacting the very kind of health professional who may have had the best answer to their problem runs counter to that policy - not to mention confusing a person who was looking for clarity. That's my main concern here.

Yes, you're right. I admit that I crossed a few policies there. And I also admit that I was giving my own unprofessional advice. "A caring friend is always better than a professional psychotherapist" is actually my conviction. Unfortunately, convictions don't have any value in them whatsoever besides the faith one puts into them. So, if the statement is proven scientifically wrong, it cannot make me believe otherwise. Next time, perhaps I'll be more cautious about my convictions. Moonwalkerwiz 06:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. :) JackofOz 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the fact that [I] sympathize with the tools of social control and see the "reason" and the significance of what they are doing, is in fact, a proof of subjection in the first place - pish, tosh, etc. The very fact that you choose to use the letters and words that form part of the English language with which to communicate your ideas places you in exactly the same position. If I stand in a different place in the social-intellectual spectrum than you does not make me "subject" to anything that you are not also subject to. Like it or not, we are all governed by the social constructs that others have created. It's just a question of degree. JackofOz 06:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I applaud for you, Jack. I thought you wouldn't get the answer to that one. You're right, it's just a matter of degrees. The very fact that I'm talking with this language is already a proof of my lacerated body. Anggaling mo! Nakuha mo! But you don't understand that, do you? Thanks for the comments, Jack. I really appreciate you filling up my talk page. :) Moonwalkerwiz 06:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My very great pleasure. Or, as the Russians say, "Не за что". :) JackofOz 06:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Pleased to see someone who has a clue here. Theavatar3 06:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to meet a cynicist. You can always trust that they have serious depth in them. Moonwalkerwiz 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm! Theavatar3

Psychology etc.[edit]

Hi, and thanks for your thoughtful remarks on my user page. What I was getting at was that we need to distinguish between real (mental) illnesses, and 'illnesses' which are actually socially-constructed ways of marginalising and controlling people. I'm pretty convinced that depression is one of the former, caused at least partly by imbalances in the neurotransmitter economy of the brain. Of course, our responses to depression, as to anything else, have to be 'socially constructed' - but pointing that out doesn't really help us in any way. There's still suffering. Cheers, Sam Clark 15:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know Sam, whenever I get to this point of reflection, I remember my old Sociology professor in the university. He used to say that when it comes to actual, practical life, you will indeed have some problems if you applied some critical theorists (so I bow a little to alteripse). When it comes to curing people's suffering, physical suffering, what can Nietzsche do? What can Foucault do? They will say that the fault, the "accountability" is traced deeper so that social order could be maintained. What is really the improvement when before we blamed it on deformed skulls and now on genes or abnormal hormonal levels? What is really the improvement when before they had the gallows and now we have compulsory education? We can talk of degrees forever, but the same logic of accountability and punishment is going on. And yet, my professor was right. You cannot apply Nietzche's idea that we are in a unity, and no one is responsible for anything. Social control as it is, the only way to live is to have some form of education, and as you said, "suffering" has to be "cured." Sometimes, I feel like it's always best to be a pragmatist. Moonwalkerwiz 01:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotherapy assessment[edit]

Maybe The Cochrane Collaboration will give you some hard facts about what really works, and what does not. Search for psychotherapy on the whole site. The persons doing the research and stats are as (appropriately) sceptical as needed, but the definition of illnesses and results is not their work. Psychology is but one of the ways in which the powers that be could manipulate society and individuals to suit themselves. Have you studies the goings-on in the Bilderberg Group? Regards, Seejyb 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation of RD discussion[edit]

I'm a little confused as to what a "non-practicing Catholic" is. Really, a person either follows Jesus or they don't. But Jesus certainly would not agree with either Marx or Neitzsche. I don't know of any miracles that either Marx or Neitzsche performed. I don't think that anyone would try to argue that Marx or Nietzsche had more insight into life than did Jesus. Marx's ideas especially have brought oppression to millions of people around the world. Is this a person whose ideals you want to ascribe to? BenC7 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"a person either follows Jesus or they don't" - That is very tolerant of you, BenC7. Some Marxists I know follow Jesus' teachings more although they are agnostics than some self-proclaimed Christians who go to Church every Sunday. You are right. Jesus would not agree with either Marx or Nietzsche, but neither would these two agree with Jesus. "I don't think that anyone would try to argue that Marx or Nietzsche had more insight into life than did Jesus." - again, that's so tolerant and impartial of you, BenC7. However, I would argue anytime that these two had more insight into life than did Jesus. As for Marx's ideas bringing oppression to millions of people around the world, Marx never meant it to be that way. His intentions were saintly. Jesus' ideas, on the other hand, have made people around the world passive, romantic and complacent. How can Jesus' people sincerely change this world when they believe that another, truer life is waiting for them beyond the grave? To me, it's hypocritical. And a non-practicing Catholic is a person who was born a Catholic but lived as someone better. Moonwalkerwiz 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Marxist follows Jesus' teachings; the primary two of which were to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself. Which Marxist loves God with all his being? Christianity is not just about having good morals - it is primarily about a relationship with God. In spite of Marx's 'intentions', his theory for the way a nation/people should be governed was and is hellish. Look at the results of it! It has been one of the most oppressive, freedom-annihilating governmental systems/ways of thinking the modern world has ever known.

As for Christianity making people passive, romantic and complacent; you need to see Christianity from a more global perspective. True, there may be many Western Christians who, for whatever reason (perhaps because they call themselves Catholic and are really not) are passive, romantic and complacent. Many other Christians, however - especially those who are persecuted for their faith - are the opposite: active, sensible, and engaged. They - we - do not believe that the life to come is any more "real" than the one we live now, and that what we do on this life is actually of crucial importance. And so they live to show it.

I wonder, how many hospitals have been built in honour of Karl Marx? How many schools were built in the name of Frederick Nietzsche? How many orphanages, disabled care and aged care facilities? And, by contrast, how many Christian schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc. are there? An awful lot! If these people had such great insight into life, they don't seem to value it very much. BenC7 05:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as possible, I avoid arguing with a Christian regarding relevant people like Nietzsche and Marx, because there's just not any intellectual gain from it at all. But since this is the first time that a Christian has engaged me in a debate here in Wikipedia, I would oblige, to make it the first and final one.

You say, "to love God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength." First refutation - to love such an indefinable being as "God" speaks of something else, something that is an objection to the one who loves. I say indefinable because God (I capitalize his name not because I believe in him, but to make it clear I am referring to the Christian God) is outside the realm of reason. Again, I refer you to Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. "What we cannot speak of, we must pass over in silence." One cannot derive any reasonable proposition from God without subjecting him to the same reasonable questions for things here on earth. For example, if I say that God exists, then there must be a purpose for his existence. Then I have to ask what that purpose is and how it is manifested. But then a Christian like you would say, "There is a God. But he is beyond human understanding," or more revoltingly, "He has a plan, but it cannot be deducted by human reason." Therefore, God exists, but his reason, his purpose for existing is beyond the human capacity to question. It is nothing but Russell's teapot.

One can of course, believe that God's plans manifest on earth. One can believe there are miracles. One can believe some people's lives are saved. But why are there not miracles for everyone? Why are millions of people dying under poverty, war, disease, etcetera, etcetera, and God is not doing anything about it? Is God unfair? No? Is his power limited then? These are old, ancient philosophical questions.

But if God cannot be subject to human reasoning, and therefore cannot be described without making his picture "unfair" and his powers "limited," how can a person love God? Well, the only answer to this, as far as I am concerned, is that the person is either lying to himself about the truth that he sees around him, or that he hasn't seen enough truth and therefore is stupid.

When a person is painting or tiling a floor, they can sometimes inadvertently paint/tile themselves into a corner. You've reached a conclusion based on flawed premises. God is not outside the realm of reason; I don't know anyone who has ever claimed that, and I would not myself. The old, ancient philosophical questions like the question of suffering also have answers. Possibly you have heard of this one, with regards to the question of suffering (C.S. Lewis):

We can perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of abuse of this free will...; a wooden beam would become as soft as grass when it became a weapon, and the air would refuse to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry insults. But such a world would become one in which wrong actions would be impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void... All matter in the neighbourhood of an evil man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce miracles is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a... stable world demands that these occasions should be extremely rare. BenC7 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "In spite of Marx's 'intentions', his theory for the way a nation/people should be governed was and is hellish." Second refutation - your reading of Marx (if you have read him at all, which I highly doubt) is ridiculous. Marx was not theorizing on how people "should be governed" at all. Communism is the end of government. The perfected communist society doesn't need government because by their own nature, people will take care of each other as social beings. The government only exists because it is a guarantee that private property is protected, and that the present state of things goes on.

Righteously and indignantly you say, "Look at the results of it! It has been one of the most oppressive, freedom-annihilating governmental systems/ways of thinking the modern world has ever known." Since you like talking about "noble" ideas turning into bloodshed, I would just like to quote quite a lengthy piece from Voltaire's Dictionnaire philosophique:

"He transported me into a desert all covered with piled up bones; and between these heaps of dead men there were walks of ever-green trees, and at the end of each walk a tall man of august mien, who regarded these sad remains with pity.

"Alas! my archangel," said I, "where have you brought me?"

"To desolation," he answered.

"And who are these fine patriarchs whom I see sad and motionless at the end of these green walks? they seem to be weeping over this countless crowd of dead."

"You shall know, poor human creature," answered the genius from the intermundane spaces; "but first of all you must weep."

He began with the first pile. "These," he said, "are the twenty-three thousand Jews who danced before a calf, with the twenty-four thousand who were killed while lying with Midianitish women. The number of those massacred for such errors and offences amounts to nearly three hundred thousand.

"In the other walks are the bones of the Christians slaughtered by each other for metaphysical disputes. They are divided into several heaps of four centuries each. One heap would have mounted right to the sky; they had to be divided."

"What!" I cried, "brothers have treated their brothers like this, and I have the misfortune to be of this brotherhood!"

"Here," said the spirit, "are the twelve million Americans killed in their fatherland because they had not been baptized."

"My God! why did you not leave these frightful bones to dry in the hemisphere where their bodies were born, and where they were consigned to so many different deaths? Why assemble here all these abominable monuments to barbarism and fanaticism?"

"To instruct you.""

I didn't say it resulted in bloodshed. Oppression and the degradation of freedom was the issue I raised with Marxism/communism. But to address the point you made, that Christians - or rather, people who have called themselves Christians - at times killed others because they thought that they were heretics etc., are examples of things that were done in the name of Christ, but were not in keeping with the Scriptures. That people who have called themselves followers of Christ do the wrong thing does not change who God is or what his expectations of our lives are. BenC7 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "Many other Christians, however - especially those who are persecuted for their faith - are the opposite: active, sensible, and engaged." Third refutation (which is not really a refutation but a concurrence, but an intelectual objection nonetheless) - Christians do engage the world - and in the process homogenizes it. I heard one political expert say that it tends to lessen the differences in public opinion, which is so crucial in democracy. But I say, "to lessen" is the present state of things, "to erase," now, that's the true mission of Christianity. It makes the people nothing but herd animals, swaying with their mouths open under what the scriptures say about this or about that. They lose their flexibility. They lose the courage to think through every question, every problem sincerely. Yes, they help the world. They show the world their good deeds. But in the process, they make mankind their mirror image. Consequently, mankind, the homo sapien or "wise man," "knowing man" becomes nothing but that righteously indignant "follower".

Christians are more than capable of thinking for themselves. Look at the church in any country, anywhere in the world. You will not see uniformity, or a homogeneous group of people who all think exactly the same way. This is part of the reason that there are so many Christian denominations. There is a difference between worshipping one God and all being the same. Homogeneity in the church does not occur in reality, nor is it approved by the Bible, which makes it clear that different people in the body of Christ have different functions, and that "not everyone is an eye... not everyone is a hand". BenC7 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say, "I wonder, how many hospitals have been built in honour of Karl Marx? How many schools were built in the name of Frederick Nietzsche? And, by contrast, how many Christian schools and hospitals are there? An awful lot!" Final refutation - the number of schools and hospitals built in the name of a person is not the measure of that person's goodwill. There are many people who greatly love humanity, but with no hospitals and schools built in their name, obviously because that kind of "benevolence" requires a kind of power manifested through money.

But as for Nietzsche and Marx, they wouldn't have expected (for Nietzsche, nor even wanted) schools and hospitals built in their name in the first place. Nietzsche for his part, thinks that modern schooling is harmful to the mastery of true education. "All higher education belongs only to the exception: one must be privileged to have a right to so high a privilege. All great, all beautiful things can never be common property: pulchrum est paucorum hominum," he writes. And as for Marx, how could society build hospitals and schools for him when he is trying to show that social institutions breed false consciousness? That capitalism is protecting itself through ideological manipulation of what is considered true by the people? So let there be millions of schools and hospitals and other institutions built on Jesus' name - it doesn't in any way lessen the significance of Nietzsche and Marx's ideas.' People who believe in these two great men in fact, may forever walk underground, beneath what society thinks is "normal," "good," "true," for they are the refutation of this society, they are eternal rebels.

So you suggest that we get rid of schools, hospitals, orphanages, aged and disabled care facilities etc.? That would be taking society back quite a lot - many developing nations are in desperate need of such things; I don't think that telling them that such things are no good because they 'breed false consciousness' would appease them much. BenC7 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the lengthy argument. But this is necessary since I mostly poured everything in here. And as I've said, this is the final one. I will not engage a Christian in a debate in Wikipedia over Nietzsche and Marx ever again. It is unhealthy for me. It is a waste of time. I feel ridiculous writing each sentence. As a final word, I quote Nietzsche:

"To put up with people, to keep open house with one's heart—that is liberal, but that is merely liberal. One recognizes those hearts which are capable of noble hospitality by the many draped windows and closed shutters: they keep their best rooms empty. Why?— Because they expect guests with whom one does not "put up" ..." -- The Twilight of the Idols --Moonwalkerwiz 07:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you only ever listen to people who appease you, you will stunt your own growth, because your thinking will never be challenged. You should feel ridiculous writing each sentence! Trying to defend things that history has shown to be of no benefit whatsoever - Marxism and communism no less - is ridiculous. Your desire to withdraw when challenged is evidence that the foundation you are building your life on is not a solid one. Otherwise you would not be so reluctant to expose it to scrutiny. BenC7 04:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moonwalkerwiz, I'm interested in why you still call yourself a "Catholic", however qualified. My history seems to be the same as yours. I was raised as a Catholic, but at around 18 my theological objections became too great and I severed myself from the Church. I still practise many of their teachings, but these are teachings the Catholic Church does not have a monopoly on. I've never sent a letter of resignation, so the Church may well still count me among their numbers. But as far as I'm concerned, I ceased to be a Catholic at 18 and have never so described myself since. JackofOz 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...I guess the term "non-practicing Catholic" is unique here in the Philippines then. On official documents, I write that I am Catholic, but these are all trivialities. I call myself a Catholic because it's still kind of taboo here in my country to be an atheist. My mother thinks that I still believe in God, and I intend to keep it that way. People we love don't have to suffer for our convictions. So I am an atheist, but my family knows me as a Catholic, and I tell them that I am a Catholic. It is only in the university that I am known to be an atheist. Moonwalkerwiz 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "non-practicing Catholic" (we spell it non-practising here) is well known wherever there are Catholics. To me, it means a person who still believes in the central tenets of the Church and wants to be associated with the Church, but for whatever reason does not generally go to Mass or the sacraments, pray, fast during Lent, abide by church teaching on contraception etc. Even though you don't even believe in God any more, I can understand why you'd want your family to think of you as a Catholic. I chose to make my position quite clear to my family - and it wasn't easy - because I would have felt like a fraud otherwise, but other people have different and perfectly valid ways of handling such matters. That's one thing. But since you've now told us here on Wikipedia that you're actually an atheist, why not continue to describe yourself here as such? Saying you're a non-practicing Catholic who is actually an atheist seems to be having 2 bites at the theological cherry. JackofOz 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ely[edit]

ah yung iniwan daw siya ng banda niya? tas nagwala sa bar? si cristy permin naglabas nung balita na yun sa the buzz... tapos after 1 week ininterview si Ely sa S files ata yun... basta yung kalaban ng the buzz... sabi niya hindi totoo lahat... pati may interview din sa manila bulletin tungkol dun tol:

"We've been wondering ourselves. The story they cooked up is rather lame pero embarassing just the same. Dami nga nag-text sa'kin. It's pretty aanoying" - ely.

ito naman yung text ni Ely:

"I am flattered by the sudden media attention. It's nice to know they still make such an effort just to talk about me. Great story, guys. Pero next time, kung magpa-fabricate rin lang, gawin nang action packed. "I'd love to meet the source of this news though. I want to know exactly what i said ot to whom i said it. Curious ako. Wala kasi akong alam, huli yata ako sa balita. Rest assured, i'm fine. "I've never been happier. No negative issue could ever dampen my spirits. I have a beautiful family, a great band,a booming career, what more could i ask for? Hmmmm, maybe more media hype, mukhang 'eto na yun. As the saying goes, good or bad, publicity pa rin yun. Kaya thanks, Tita Cristy. More power. To all my detractors,God bless. Sorry to disappoint but it's not true"

Haha. Ulol talaga yung Cristy Permin na yun, walang magawa sa buhay. Anyway, tama si Ely, at least pinag-uusapan na ulit siya ngayon. Hehe, thanks sa update, 'tol. Moonwalkerwiz 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Tol, nabalitaan mo ba yung nagwala daw si Ely sa bar? Anong nangyari don? Hindi ko kasi naabutan sa balita eh. Moonwalkerwiz 03:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamusta Kababayan[edit]

Hello fellow Filipino Wikipedian! I would just like to let you know that we have a tambayan for Filipino Wikipedians. You can collaborate on Philippine articles or ask for collaboration on an article you like there. See you on WP:TAMBAY or WP:PINOY. =) Berserkerz Crit 17:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ely's health[edit]

okay na daw siya tol. isang operation nalang para gumaling siya ng lubusan. kaso hindi rin ako mapalagay dahil delikado yung ganun. pagdasal nalang natin na sana gumaling na ng tuluyan si master ely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magasin (talk • contribs) 09:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reference[edit]

napanood ko sa unang hirit at 24oras... nagpost din sa yahoo groups si ms. day cabuhat...

ito post niya:

hi! buddy and earnest visited around 8am the morning after the surgery, ely was asleep, he was given a sedative post-op eh. marcus, as we heard, is on his way from la union. =)

d.

HI ALL!!!!!!! > > WOOHOO!!!!! AND YOU ALL KNOW WHY! =) > Thanks from the bottom of our hearts talaga for > bein there for us, me, Diane, Pupil and especially > Ely of course...super appreciate your show of love > and concern and the prayers...GOD BLESS you all!!! > > Many have asked to visit, but due to hospital > restrictions, they requested that it be at a later > time, and to all those who have texted and called > for this...our deepest thanks as well! In addition > to those initially mentioned by Diane (madami pa > kami idadagdag after this post ha), there was an > outpouring from Sony BMG, pupil and circus listers, > Sue Lim, Lou, Amita, MJ, Alan Paul, as well as > friends and supporters from across the country, The > networks, publications, editors, writers and media > people. Thanks to Levis (Monch Martelino, Ronnie > Celestial and Minette Cuison), Pony Footwear (Donna > Santos) Puma (Michelle Borromeo) Animax/AXN Manila > and Singapore, MTV (Twinky, Bebeth, Mundi, Roxy), > Shers of Juicy Fruit, Nickelodeon, Burn Mag, Fudge > Mag, Girlfriend Mag, Love Radio, NU 107, LSFM, Ryan > Agoncillo, Francis Brew, Andy, Annie Medina of > Pinoy, Buddy Zabala and Earnest, Marcus, special > thanks to Japs of Rivermaya for being there the 1st > night and Yael of Spongecola > for being there during the transfer, Cathy of Myx, > Ogie Diaz, the amazing Shirley Pizarro, Bayani San > Diego and Emy Velarde of Inquirer, Mam Emy of NU, > special thanks to Andrew Chiang and Mia Guerrero of > ICorp, KikoMachine and Erl, Gabby of Urbandub, > Richard Tan, Parokya and Kamikazee, Menaya...its a > really long list, more to follow!!! Lhar Santiago, > JP, Mike and Iris of GMA news, you guys rock!..Dr. > Benjie Luna of Asian Hospital for the great medical > care and kindness, all the nurses and staff of Asian > Hospital and the Philippine Heart Center and to the > greatest cardiac surgeon on this planet...DR WILFRED > DEE...to you, our eternal and heartfelt gratitude!!! > YOU ARE ALL BLESSINGS FROM HEAVEN!!! > > Guys ang dami pa, as in...so we shall be posting > more in the days to come! > > sa muli...salamat salamat salamat...may the Lord > shower you with blessings in the years to > come...your kindness overwhelms us......

yung si Japs Sergio, kasama talaga ng Pupil that day sa gig nila tapos si Yael nagbantay nung unang gabi... :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Magasin (talk • contribs) 09:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

PUPIL[edit]

an article related with Pupil, has been labelled with "speedy deletion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyrock

Hmm...masyado kasing maikli yung article ng Everyrock and hindi siya recognized as an established musical genre or subtype ng rock. Tsaka nabanggit na naman siya sa article ng Pupil, kaya ok lang siguro na ma-delete. Moonwalkerwiz 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Pupil (band)[edit]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Moonwalkerwiz! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello![edit]

Hi! Thanks for the invitation. I really believe in the cause (mabuhay ang Eheads!). I'll try my best to purge the Eraserheads article (and all other related articles) of bad grammar. By the way, I love that last sentence (something about causing mass hysteria that will "coax" the Eheads to do a reunion concert). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elenim (talk • contribs) 10:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Help regarding The Lost Tomb of Jesus Article[edit]

If you haven't noticed the article has been invaded by Christian editors, who will obviously lack a NPOV. There is one specific section of the page I have been fighting for and I would like to know if you are willing to help. Talk:The Lost Tomb of Jesus#.22The issue of the names being to common.22 Thegreyanomaly 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did my part. Though I must admit I really hate debating with Christians. Moonwalkerwiz 06:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help Thegreyanomaly 23:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Within a Dream[edit]

Hello! I love the poem on your userpage... I'm assuming you are a fan of Edgar Allan Poe? I'm starting up a Poe Portal and I'm looking for support/feedback. If you're interested, the portal also has a list of high priority Poe projects I'm looking for help on. Many thanks! --Midnightdreary 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject University of the Philippines[edit]

Hello, I noticed you have a UP Student/Alumni User box for University of the Philippines (UP) and thought you might want to support our recent proposal to create the WikiProject University of the Philippines. We've recently revamped the proposal and started a drive to push the approval of this project. We have a lot of articles that may be under this project and we would like assistance and support for its approval. Hope we'll have a very positive response. Go Fighting Maroons!

P.S. You can look at the preliminary drafts of the project in here. Thanks! -- Naraht (talk) ^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 17:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Company_Pantry_2.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Company_Pantry_2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.