| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"THE BORG" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2008 01:51:15 PM |
| Object: |
Nice inside |
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like - it is what is inside
that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the choice between two men
who are both very nice people or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good looking one.
Thus it is preferable to be nice on the inside AND good looking on the
outside.
Obvious eh?
Those of you here who are already questioning matter - the state of matter -
the mind - the illusion and this kind of thing - must also surely see and
realize that the human body is also matter.
Thus how is appearance formed?
The baby is formed according to the negative and positive thoughts of the
parents - mother in particular - and the thoughts - manifestations thereof -
will form and shape the baby.
You can tell from any person - if they are short - ugly - blind - deaf -
deformed - beautiful - tall - intelligent - whatever - this is due entirely
to how negative or positive the parents were at the very early formative
stages - including pre-birth while still in the womb.
If you meet a very ugly short man who is deaf - you will know immediately
that his parents - his mother in particular - had very negative thoughts
concerning him during the formative stages.
Now this is one interpretation of appearance.
Naturally there are magic words we could give a short man that could induce
magical growth!
But this is another story.
THE BORG
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 02:44:30 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 11:51=A0am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like - it is what is insi=
de
that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the choice between two me=
n
who are both very nice people or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one=
is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good looking one.
Thus it is preferable to be nice on the inside AND good looking on the
outside.
Obvious eh?
Those of you here who are already questioning matter - the state of matter=
-
the mind - the illusion and this kind of thing - must also surely see and
realize that the human body is also matter.
Thus how is appearance formed?
The baby is formed according to the negative and positive thoughts of the
parents - mother in particular - and the thoughts - manifestations thereof=
-
will form and shape the baby.
You can tell from any person - if they are short - ugly - blind - deaf -
deformed - beautiful - tall - intelligent - whatever - this is due entirel=
y
to how negative or positive the parents were at the very early formative
stages - including pre-birth while still in the womb.
Below is just some evidence that all these ideas of beauty are not
just something learned alone.
Nigel Barber, and many others believe that we are instinctively
attracted towards symmetry in others because it is an indicater of
"health" in a potential mate. Maybe this bleeds over into the
appreciation of symmetry in nature and art?
<quote>
Symmetry, or the exact match of the left and right sides of the body,
is important to the attractiveness of both sexes. Both sides of the
face should be exact mirror images of each other. Kevin Costner has a
far more symmetrical face than Lyie Lovett and thus Costner is
considered better looking. Careful investigations by biologist Randy
Thornhill and his colleagues at the University of New Mexico at
Albuquerque have shown that people with symmetrical faces generally
have symmetrical bodies.
Bodily symmetry is an esthetic cue used to assess the biological
fitness of potential mates among other species. For example, research
on swallows, which have forked tails, has shown that females prefer to
mate with males having symmetrical tails. Asymmetry is caused by
interference with normal development, which might be due to poor
nutrition early in development or might reflect the impact of viruses.
Symmetrical animals have superior biological qualities either because
they experienced a favorable early environment or because their immune
systems were effective at warding off viruses and other pathogens.
Swallows and people attracted to mates with symmetrical bodies acquire
a superior immune system for their offspring.
This explains why women should be attracted to highly symmetrical men.
Thomhill and his colleagues have discovered that symmetrical men have
more sex partners, and even that women get more excited during
intercourse with these physically attractive men. Symmetrical men
produce a pheromone (or airborne hormone) that is more attractive to
women than the secretions of less symmetrical men, suggesting that
women's attraction to men is based on assessment of biological fitness
through different sensory channels. Men's biological quality declines
with age, which is reflected in declining facial symmetry, for
example. This may have important implications for off- spring. Thus,
declining sperm quality of older men increases the risk of Down
syndrome and other chromosomal disorders...
=2E..Just as peahens are attracted to an extremely colorful mate, so
extremely attractive women are at an extreme of the range for
curvaceousness. Beauty contest winners cluster at the curvaceous
extreme of 0.67 compared to the normal range for women of 0.67-0.80.
Perhaps the most important and compelling point of similarity is that
curvaceous women, like showy peacocks, have superior immune systems.
According to recent research ot'Devendra Singh, an evolutionary
psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, college-aged women
and men agree that curvaceous women (whether of normal weight,
underweight, or overweight) are more attractive, healthier, and more
capable of producing children than less curvaceous women. What makes
these findings really interesting is that they are borne out by
medical data. Women with low waist/hip ratio (i.e., with a curvaceous
build) not only have less difficulty becoming pregnant, they are also
healthier in terms of a lower incidence of many illnesses. Women with
relatively noncurvaceous bodies are at a higher risk for gall bladder
disease, some cancers, diseases of the heart and circulatory system,
and for diabetes. (It is important to realize that a curvaceous body
is different from an obese one: curvaceous women store fat away from
the abdomen whereas obese women usually have thick fat deposits around
their middle which pose major health risks.) Noncurvaceous women are
also more prone to behavioral disorders such as anxiety and drug
abuse. (It is true that some drug addictions can cause people to lose
weight, which might make them less curvaceous, but the finding applies
equally for alcoholism, which can have the opposite effect.) Less
curvaceous women are more likely to be admitted to psychiatric
hospitals for depression and other psychopathologies. They also have
higher mortality rates. The health consequences of body shape in men
have received less attention because the waist/hip ratio is not
routinely measured for medical records and is thus unavailable to
researchers. Women are at their most curvaceous in early maturity, and
one reason that men are attracted to women with sexy bodies is that
this is a cue to youthfulness. Exceptionally attractive women have
youthful facial dimensions that make them seem more attractive than
they really are...
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
If you meet a very ugly short man who is deaf - you will know immediately
that his parents - his mother in particular - had very negative thoughts
concerning him during the formative stages.
Now this is one interpretation of appearance.
Naturally there are magic words we could give a short man that could induc=
e
magical growth!
But this is another story.
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 02:57:13 PM |
|
|
Yes but it is all down really to a matter of taste.
I could never understand how anyone could prefer Paul Mcartney to John
Lennon. I felt nothing for Paul but I really loved John.
If any other girl said she preferred Paul to John - I used to think she was
crazy.
THE BORG
"Immortalist" <reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f0d7778-f854-471b-b47c-84221c10003a@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 30, 11:51 am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like - it is what is
inside
that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the choice between two men
who are both very nice people or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one
is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good looking one.
Thus it is preferable to be nice on the inside AND good looking on the
outside.
Obvious eh?
Those of you here who are already questioning matter - the state of
matter -
the mind - the illusion and this kind of thing - must also surely see and
realize that the human body is also matter.
Thus how is appearance formed?
The baby is formed according to the negative and positive thoughts of the
parents - mother in particular - and the thoughts - manifestations
thereof -
will form and shape the baby.
You can tell from any person - if they are short - ugly - blind - deaf -
deformed - beautiful - tall - intelligent - whatever - this is due entirely
to how negative or positive the parents were at the very early formative
stages - including pre-birth while still in the womb.
Below is just some evidence that all these ideas of beauty are not
just something learned alone.
Nigel Barber, and many others believe that we are instinctively
attracted towards symmetry in others because it is an indicater of
"health" in a potential mate. Maybe this bleeds over into the
appreciation of symmetry in nature and art?
<quote>
Symmetry, or the exact match of the left and right sides of the body,
is important to the attractiveness of both sexes. Both sides of the
face should be exact mirror images of each other. Kevin Costner has a
far more symmetrical face than Lyie Lovett and thus Costner is
considered better looking. Careful investigations by biologist Randy
Thornhill and his colleagues at the University of New Mexico at
Albuquerque have shown that people with symmetrical faces generally
have symmetrical bodies.
Bodily symmetry is an esthetic cue used to assess the biological
fitness of potential mates among other species. For example, research
on swallows, which have forked tails, has shown that females prefer to
mate with males having symmetrical tails. Asymmetry is caused by
interference with normal development, which might be due to poor
nutrition early in development or might reflect the impact of viruses.
Symmetrical animals have superior biological qualities either because
they experienced a favorable early environment or because their immune
systems were effective at warding off viruses and other pathogens.
Swallows and people attracted to mates with symmetrical bodies acquire
a superior immune system for their offspring.
This explains why women should be attracted to highly symmetrical men.
Thomhill and his colleagues have discovered that symmetrical men have
more sex partners, and even that women get more excited during
intercourse with these physically attractive men. Symmetrical men
produce a pheromone (or airborne hormone) that is more attractive to
women than the secretions of less symmetrical men, suggesting that
women's attraction to men is based on assessment of biological fitness
through different sensory channels. Men's biological quality declines
with age, which is reflected in declining facial symmetry, for
example. This may have important implications for off- spring. Thus,
declining sperm quality of older men increases the risk of Down
syndrome and other chromosomal disorders...
....Just as peahens are attracted to an extremely colorful mate, so
extremely attractive women are at an extreme of the range for
curvaceousness. Beauty contest winners cluster at the curvaceous
extreme of 0.67 compared to the normal range for women of 0.67-0.80.
Perhaps the most important and compelling point of similarity is that
curvaceous women, like showy peacocks, have superior immune systems.
According to recent research ot'Devendra Singh, an evolutionary
psychologist at the University of Texas at Austin, college-aged women
and men agree that curvaceous women (whether of normal weight,
underweight, or overweight) are more attractive, healthier, and more
capable of producing children than less curvaceous women. What makes
these findings really interesting is that they are borne out by
medical data. Women with low waist/hip ratio (i.e., with a curvaceous
build) not only have less difficulty becoming pregnant, they are also
healthier in terms of a lower incidence of many illnesses. Women with
relatively noncurvaceous bodies are at a higher risk for gall bladder
disease, some cancers, diseases of the heart and circulatory system,
and for diabetes. (It is important to realize that a curvaceous body
is different from an obese one: curvaceous women store fat away from
the abdomen whereas obese women usually have thick fat deposits around
their middle which pose major health risks.) Noncurvaceous women are
also more prone to behavioral disorders such as anxiety and drug
abuse. (It is true that some drug addictions can cause people to lose
weight, which might make them less curvaceous, but the finding applies
equally for alcoholism, which can have the opposite effect.) Less
curvaceous women are more likely to be admitted to psychiatric
hospitals for depression and other psychopathologies. They also have
higher mortality rates. The health consequences of body shape in men
have received less attention because the waist/hip ratio is not
routinely measured for medical records and is thus unavailable to
researchers. Women are at their most curvaceous in early maturity, and
one reason that men are attracted to women with sexy bodies is that
this is a cue to youthfulness. Exceptionally attractive women have
youthful facial dimensions that make them seem more attractive than
they really are...
The Science of Romance - by Nigel Barber
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
If you meet a very ugly short man who is deaf - you will know immediately
that his parents - his mother in particular - had very negative thoughts
concerning him during the formative stages.
Now this is one interpretation of appearance.
Naturally there are magic words we could give a short man that could induce
magical growth!
But this is another story.
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "casey" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 02:29:48 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 6:51=A0am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like - it is what is insi=
de
that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the choice between two me=
n
who are both very nice people or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one=
is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good looking one.
It is called reproductive success. Liking someone and breeding
with someone are two different things.
Women have conflicting needs when it comes to a male partner.
--
jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 02:40:22 PM |
|
|
"casey" <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:79f1dd66-9a0f-4759-92b7-0a6635390aa7@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 31, 6:51 am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like - it is what is
inside
that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the choice between two men
who are both very nice people or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one
is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good looking one.
It is called reproductive success. Liking someone and breeding
with someone are two different things.
Women have conflicting needs when it comes to a male partner.
--
jc
Surely love is the only criteria?
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "casey" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 03:58:35 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 7:40=A0am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like -
it is what is inside that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the
choice between two men who are both very nice people
or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good
looking one.
It is called reproductive success. Liking someone and breeding
with someone are two different things.
Women have conflicting needs when it comes to a male partner.
Surely love is the only criteria?
The cold hard reality is that for whatever reason you choose a
partner the reproductive success of that union determines to
what extent that criteria will exist in future generations.
Those that use a criteria that increases reproductive success
will produce more people who use that criteria.
That is why men and women are different. They have conflicting
needs when it comes to reproductive success.
--
jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 10:05:05 AM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 4:58 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:40 am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like -
it is what is inside that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the
choice between two men who are both very nice people
or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good
looking one.
It is called reproductive success. Liking someone and breeding
with someone are two different things.
Women have conflicting needs when it comes to a male partner.
Surely love is the only criteria?
The cold hard reality is that for whatever reason you choose a
partner the reproductive success of that union determines to
what extent that criteria will exist in future generations.
Those that use a criteria that increases reproductive success
will produce more people who use that criteria.
That is why men and women are different. They have conflicting
needs when it comes to reproductive success.
--
jc
"Reproductive" choices (and the criteria that drives them) are more a
factor of age and maturity level then any set fixed criteria.
.
|
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 12:10:35 PM |
|
|
<MichaelNJ@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a87c2fad-23e5-4ebb-a131-3e9664583a34@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 30, 4:58 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:40 am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like -
it is what is inside that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the
choice between two men who are both very nice people
or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good
looking one.
It is called reproductive success. Liking someone and breeding
with someone are two different things.
Women have conflicting needs when it comes to a male partner.
Surely love is the only criteria?
The cold hard reality is that for whatever reason you choose a
partner the reproductive success of that union determines to
what extent that criteria will exist in future generations.
Those that use a criteria that increases reproductive success
will produce more people who use that criteria.
That is why men and women are different. They have conflicting
needs when it comes to reproductive success.
--
jc
"Reproductive" choices (and the criteria that drives them) are more a
factor of age and maturity level then any set fixed criteria.
The moment of passion where two people cannot resist each other has little to
do with reproduction success and often results in abortion anyway.
But if you look at Earth and see how many short/ugly/stupid/short
sighted/fat/thin and various other kind of people there are - your idea of a
union based on reproductive success seems to be rather a failure.
Those men who are - tall - good looking - intelligent - unblemished - and
decent men are very few and far between. Very very few and far between.
The majority of humans have obvious flaws of some kind.
In our opinion as regards the mating game as regards women - they would be
more inclined to go for material wealth than any kind of physical or mental
qualities.
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "casey" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 01:17:42 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 4:58 pm, casey <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:40 am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like -
it is what is inside that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the
choice between two men who are both very nice people
or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good
looking one.
It is called reproductive success. Liking someone and breeding
with someone are two different things.
Women have conflicting needs when it comes to a male partner.
Surely love is the only criteria?
The cold hard reality is that for whatever reason you choose a
partner the reproductive success of that union determines to
what extent that criteria will exist in future generations.
Those that use a criteria that increases reproductive success
will produce more people who use that criteria.
That is why men and women are different. They have conflicting
needs when it comes to reproductive success.
--
jc
"Reproductive" choices (and the criteria that drives them)
are more a factor of age and maturity level then any set
fixed criteria.
The moment of passion where two people cannot resist each other
has little to do with reproduction success and often results in
abortion anyway. But if you look at Earth and see how many
short/ugly/stupid/short sighted/fat/thin and various other kind
of people there are - your idea of a union based on reproductive
success seems to be rather a failure.
That doesn't follow at all. Do you understand the theory of evolution?
Those men who are - tall - good looking - intelligent - unblemished
- and decent men are very few and far between. Very very few and
far between.
You don't have to be decent to have reproductive success.
The majority of humans have obvious flaws of some kind. In our
opinion as regards the mating game as regards women - they would
be more inclined to go for material wealth than any kind of
physical or mental qualities.
Certainly wealth is a criteria for women. A wealthy man means
survival of the children. It is suggested that is why women
like diamonds. The bird world is full of such extravagance.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 01:44:10 PM |
|
|
"casey" <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:14da70b9-cb78-4ee9-b23d-9f3af72b9bf4@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That doesn't follow at all. Do you understand the theory of evolution?
Yes - but evolution occurs in the natural world - the world where humans
currently live is very unnatural.
What is occuring now with the advent of woman liberation and feminism seems
to be the weakening of the male. Also the lack of manners - chivalry -
etiquette and a general nastiness in behaviour has occured along with a huge
increase in bad language.
Those men who are - tall - good looking - intelligent - unblemished
- and decent men are very few and far between. Very very few and
far between.
You don't have to be decent to have reproductive success.
Depends on the woman - some go for character and do prefer a man who has good
character qualities - some are more physical and go for the looks - and the
sex aspect. The first kind would have more intelligence - the second kind
would be more animal.
The majority of humans have obvious flaws of some kind. In our
opinion as regards the mating game as regards women - they would
be more inclined to go for material wealth than any kind of
physical or mental qualities.
Certainly wealth is a criteria for women. A wealthy man means
survival of the children. It is suggested that is why women
like diamonds. The bird world is full of such extravagance.
--
The desire for expensive trinkets and materialism is hardly going to progress
mankind on a good path.
How can a woman desire an expensive diamond ring to such an extent? What
makes the woman VALUE a trinket to such an extent?
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
| User: "casey" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 02:38:43 PM |
|
|
On Feb 2, 6:44=A0am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
That doesn't follow at all. Do you understand the
theory of evolution?
Yes - but evolution occurs in the natural world -
the world where humans currently live is very
unnatural.
Why is it unnatural? I see it as a natural result
of how the human brain operates.
What is occurring now with the advent of woman
liberation and feminism seems to be the weakening
of the male. Also the lack of manners - chivalry -
etiquette and a general nastiness in behaviour has
occurred along with a huge increase in bad language.
The kind of employment in the Western world, the
service industry, does tend to suit more women than
men and also women are no longer baby producing
machines and are free to do other things.
My limited knowledge of history doesn't support
your belief in the lack of manners or bad behavior
as being any worse than it ever was.
Those men who are - tall - good looking -
intelligent - unblemished
- and decent men are very few and far between.
Very very few and far between.
You don't have to be decent to have reproductive
success.
Depends on the woman - some go for character and
do prefer a man who has good character qualities -
some are more physical and go for the looks - and
the sex aspect. The first kind would have more
intelligence - the second kind would be more animal.
:)
Most women I know are a mix of intelligence and animal.
The majority of humans have obvious flaws of some
kind. In our opinion as regards the mating game as
regards women - they would be more inclined to go
for material wealth than any kind of physical or
mental qualities.
Certainly wealth is a criteria for women. A wealthy
man means survival of the children. It is suggested
that is why women like diamonds. The bird world is
full of such extravagance.
The desire for expensive trinkets and materialism is
hardly going to progress mankind on a good path.
Why not? Are cheap trinkets and navel gazing going to
progress mankind on a good path. If we didn't desire
things we would still be running around the jungle
with our ape cousins.
How can a woman desire an expensive diamond ring to
such an extent? What makes the woman VALUE a trinket
to such an extent?
The same things that make a female bird value a fancy
but useless tail on a male bird. The same reason the
male bowerbird spends so much time on his bower.
Females attracted to men who give them diamonds are
selecting males who can afford to waste resources and
are thus in very good shape.
I thought you understood evolution?
--
jc
.
|
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 03:23:33 PM |
|
|
"casey" <jgkjcasey@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:e4281046-d498-4930-92bc-42a97985d072@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 6:44 am, "THE BORG" <B...@outthere.com> wrote:
That doesn't follow at all. Do you understand the
theory of evolution?
Yes - but evolution occurs in the natural world -
the world where humans currently live is very
unnatural.
Why is it unnatural? I see it as a natural result
of how the human brain operates.
What is occurring now with the advent of woman
liberation and feminism seems to be the weakening
of the male. Also the lack of manners - chivalry -
etiquette and a general nastiness in behaviour has
occurred along with a huge increase in bad language.
The kind of employment in the Western world, the
service industry, does tend to suit more women than
men and also women are no longer baby producing
machines and are free to do other things.
My limited knowledge of history doesn't support
your belief in the lack of manners or bad behavior
as being any worse than it ever was.
Those men who are - tall - good looking -
intelligent - unblemished
- and decent men are very few and far between.
Very very few and far between.
You don't have to be decent to have reproductive
success.
Depends on the woman - some go for character and
do prefer a man who has good character qualities -
some are more physical and go for the looks - and
the sex aspect. The first kind would have more
intelligence - the second kind would be more animal.
:)
Most women I know are a mix of intelligence and animal.
The majority of humans have obvious flaws of some
kind. In our opinion as regards the mating game as
regards women - they would be more inclined to go
for material wealth than any kind of physical or
mental qualities.
Certainly wealth is a criteria for women. A wealthy
man means survival of the children. It is suggested
that is why women like diamonds. The bird world is
full of such extravagance.
The desire for expensive trinkets and materialism is
hardly going to progress mankind on a good path.
Why not? Are cheap trinkets and navel gazing going to
progress mankind on a good path. If we didn't desire
things we would still be running around the jungle
with our ape cousins.
How can a woman desire an expensive diamond ring to
such an extent? What makes the woman VALUE a trinket
to such an extent?
The same things that make a female bird value a fancy
but useless tail on a male bird. The same reason the
male bowerbird spends so much time on his bower.
Females attracted to men who give them diamonds are
selecting males who can afford to waste resources and
are thus in very good shape.
I thought you understood evolution?
--
jc
Yes - but not the way you do.
You have to have more imagination and creativity to understand evoluion - you
are understanding in a logical scientific way.
If you are scientific - mathematical and logical - thus your answers will be
scientific - mathetmatical and logical.
The Earth today is ugly - contained - boring - you explain your universe with
scientific measurement and distance and time and gravity.
Thus this is how your Earth and your Universe is.
Majority rule. Majority opinion. Majority view.
In days when you explained the universe as deities or stories - then to be
sure - these deities existed - walked among you - talked to you. The stories
were real and at the time - true. As you believed these things - so they
existed. You explain the world scientifically now - you see these things and
thus they exist.
You see human evolution how?
You think you will long and yearn to fly and grow wings?
You think you will long and yearn for a better world and find a magical one?
You think your evolution is all to do with intelligence and the mind?
What is the human quest?
Only if you find the human quest will you find the human direction. And this
is your path as you evolve.
In our world as THE BORG - we do not evolve. We "metamorphose". In other
words we choose maybe a different form - say as an untrue but simple example
from Gods to the BORG. We would over a short period - change in appearance -
character - and in many other ways into our new form - rather like a
caterpillar into a butterfly and our entire Collective would change.
We are currently considering Consulate as an improvement on BORG. We have
been BORG for several billion years now.
As humans in your stage of progress we would recommend "Gods".
THE BORG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 07:33:09 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 19:51:15 GMT, "THE BORG" <Borg@outthere.com> wrote:
Many women say "It does not matter what you look like - it is what is inside
that counts".
But no matter which way you look at this - given the choice between two men
who are both very nice people or beautiful INSIDE - if one is ugly and one is
handsome - the woman would always go for the good looking one.
Thus it is preferable to be nice on the inside AND good looking on the
outside.
Obvious eh?
Those of you here who are already questioning matter - the state of matter -
the mind - the illusion and this kind of thing - must also surely see and
realize that the human body is also matter.
Thus how is appearance formed?
The baby is formed according to the negative and positive thoughts of the
parents - mother in particular - and the thoughts - manifestations thereof -
will form and shape the baby.
You can tell from any person - if they are short - ugly - blind - deaf -
deformed - beautiful - tall - intelligent - whatever - this is due entirely
to how negative or positive the parents were at the very early formative
stages - including pre-birth while still in the womb.
If you meet a very ugly short man who is deaf - you will know immediately
that his parents - his mother in particular - had very negative thoughts
concerning him during the formative stages.
Now this is one interpretation of appearance.
Naturally there are magic words we could give a short man that could induce
magical growth!
But this is another story.
THE BORG
On the other hand, I am ugly on the outside and
inside. I am quite surprised to not be in prison.
.
|
|
|
| User: "THE BORG" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
01 Feb 2008 12:10:34 PM |
|
|
"Sir Frederick" <mmcneill@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:b892q3tch2l9s7prftqf4io1tln6j2sjti@4ax.com...
On the other hand, I am ugly on the outside and
inside. I am quite surprised to not be in prison.
Ah but you are a sweetie pie so it would not matter what you looked like! :)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
30 Jan 2008 08:59:02 PM |
|
|
On Jan 30, 8:33=A0pm, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
On the other hand, I am ugly on the outside and
inside. I am quite surprised to not be in prison.
Smart people don't generally wind up in jail, regardless of looks or
demeanor...(I'm submitting this as the most left-handed compliment
ever)
K e v
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Frederick" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
31 Jan 2008 03:48:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:59:02 -0800 (PST), kevirwin <kevirwin@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:33 pm, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
On the other hand, I am ugly on the outside and
inside. I am quite surprised to not be in prison.
Smart people don't generally wind up in jail, regardless of looks or
demeanor...(I'm submitting this as the most left-handed compliment
ever)
K e v
What is a "left-handed compliment"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Nice inside |
31 Jan 2008 04:23:10 PM |
|
|
On Jan 31, 4:48=A0pm, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:59:02 -0800 (PST), kevirwin <kevir...@comcast.net> =
wrote:
On Jan 30, 8:33=A0pm, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:
On the other hand, I am ugly on the outside and
inside. I am quite surprised to not be in prison.
Smart people don't generally wind up in jail, regardless of looks or
demeanor...(I'm submitting this as the most left-handed compliment
ever)
K e v
What is a "left-handed compliment"?
a superficial kind word that masks a more unpleasant aspect of the
compliment's subject matter. also "back-handed"..In this case, being
"smart" is the compliment, which masks being "ugly" in act & demeanor,
which completely outweighs the positive aspect of the compliment...
btw, it was a joke...I love reading the stuff you come up with....
K e v
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
