realibrad: You are avoiding the question.
M: My opinion was that I was dealing with the more important aspects of your question, that understanding the nature of the question and the hopelessness of solution is more important than my answering the question. Why you ask is as important as the answer, that hope lies in seeing the hopelessness of our needs.
r: That is what you said.
M: It was actually what I said by way of suggestion, with emphasis on the suggesting rather than the saying.
r: How would you make something like that happen.
M: I made a suggestion as to what I thought should be The only way that I can see it happening is if others do to, enough others to make it happen.
r: You are purposing something there, and all I wanted was for you to flesh that out, because, from what I can understand what you want would be prone to abuse.
M: I proposed a suggestion of what I think should happen. I can try to flesh it out in a second, but first, what do humans do that isn't prone to abuse?
r: How do you get the right people to decide who is the other opinion? What opinions need to be rebutted? I presume you don't think that someone saying murder is bad and then needing someone to say its good, so explain.
M: My suggestion was made in regard to the bottom rung of the OP graph that refers to intentionally misleading and falsified information destructive of public discourse. Clearly that would need rebuttal by people in organizations toward the top of the list. I believe it doesn't happen because humanity is asleep. But the awareness is there sufficient to create the graph. It would just be a matter of legalizing its use prevent cult isolation on publicly owned and licensed frequencies.
M: My opinion was that I was dealing with the more important aspects of your question, that understanding the nature of the question and the hopelessness of solution is more important than my answering the question. Why you ask is as important as the answer, that hope lies in seeing the hopelessness of our needs.
r: That is what you said.
M: It was actually what I said by way of suggestion, with emphasis on the suggesting rather than the saying.
r: How would you make something like that happen.
M: I made a suggestion as to what I thought should be The only way that I can see it happening is if others do to, enough others to make it happen.
r: You are purposing something there, and all I wanted was for you to flesh that out, because, from what I can understand what you want would be prone to abuse.
M: I proposed a suggestion of what I think should happen. I can try to flesh it out in a second, but first, what do humans do that isn't prone to abuse?
r: How do you get the right people to decide who is the other opinion? What opinions need to be rebutted? I presume you don't think that someone saying murder is bad and then needing someone to say its good, so explain.
M: My suggestion was made in regard to the bottom rung of the OP graph that refers to intentionally misleading and falsified information destructive of public discourse. Clearly that would need rebuttal by people in organizations toward the top of the list. I believe it doesn't happen because humanity is asleep. But the awareness is there sufficient to create the graph. It would just be a matter of legalizing its use prevent cult isolation on publicly owned and licensed frequencies.
