Pioneer1

53 minutes ago, Delano said:

You are calling yourself a maron?

History and Etymology for maroon

Noun (1)

 

probably from French maron, marron feral, fugitive, modification of American Spanish cimarrón wild, savage

If you're VISUALLY impaired, allow me to repeat my EXACT statement but with larger print:

Actually I'm more like a Maroon......and far from the plantation


Now if you're MENTALLY impaired, I don't think I can help you much there.

Mel

You brought up Bear Sterns.
I may be mistaken but wasn't Bear Sterns the firm that Chris Gardner (the man the movie Pursuit of Happiness was based on) worked for and eventually made him a success?

Perhaps they chose people based more on raw talent than academic record.

What Epstein, Weinstein, and Spacy were accused of doing is certainly nothing new but what I believe happened is the same thing that probably happened in the college admissions scandal and why so many wealthy and famous people ended up getting caught up in that......somebody got PISSED OFF because they didn't get PAID OFF and decided to blow the whistle on them.

As soon as they "rectify" the situation the charges will likely drop or be severely reduced.
They're not going to do them like OJ, Cosby, or Kelly.

 

Troy

You can correct me if I'm wrong but I remember you saying in one post that you didn't pledge a Fraternity.

If you had YOU TOO would have had the connections to either escape an audit or atleast they would have eased any financial penalties incurred and give you a slap on the wrist.

The Federal and even many of the State governments up and down the Eastcoast are FULL of well connected "Black Greeks" with the power to help eachother out.

8 minutes ago, Delano said:

Front Office Middle Office and Back Office is the plantation system. 

Troy Mel and myself are house Negroes. Pioneer is a field Negro. 

Actually I'm more like a Maroon......and far from the plantation, lol.

Chev

I see you're learning....lol.

 

Man....

I heard about this the other day and could barely believe it.
He was so young.

May our beloved brother have peace and tranquility.

Thanks for posting this Chev.

So, Cynique can view the forums, without logging in, and all you will see is "guest."

Which is what I suspect she's been doing.....lol.

But since you brought up her age, I know a person can die at 20 or 30 if if you're in your 80s it would be nice to let people know that you're still around and doing alright from time to time.

But if she's gone FOR REAL for real (which I never wanted because I liked bantering with her) then I say we should nominate Chevdove or....as long as she keeps agreeing with me and leave them white menz alone, lol....Mel as the new "1st Lady" of AALBC !

Mel

I believe Harvey Weinstein and Jeffery Epstein are both RED HERRINGS.

The media is overplaying and highly publicizing their prosecution to give the impression that the justice system is blind and are going after all men accused of sexual misconduct regardless of their race. But if you follow it closely you'll notice that...unlike Cosby or OJ Simpson...very few  most famous and wealthy White men rarely serve any prison time.

Chev

Your belief too about the term 'Jew' means a White person, but this is not true in ancient times.

There are so many terms today that we believe define White people but this kind of history is deceptive.

"Jews" are just one ethnic group within the Caucasian race and for the most part Jews have pretty much always been predominately Caucasian.  You've have a few African and dark Arab Jews here and there but for the most part Jews are just one branch of the Caucasian race....like Slavs, Celts, Iberians, Aryans, ect...

I told you before the that Children of Israel or the Israelites represent the Caucasian race, and just like the Bible says that Judah is just one tribe out of 12 Israelites......
Jews are just one ethnic group out of many tribes or ethnicities of Caucasians.

By the way the word "Jew" isn't the original correct name.
It's just an Anglicanized version of the original word "Yahoodi" which is the actual and original name.

Chev and Del

We all appreciated Cynique's presence here, including myself.
But like Troy said about the site's future....that's life.

I'm sure you've had loved ones in the off-line world that have literally died.....passed away.
You don't like it but life goes on and you continue to evolve because you don't have much of a choice.
It's a similar concept with an "online" family or friendship.
People stop posting or sites shut down for various reasons and people you've kicked it with for years disappear on you.

I remember one site I had been kicking it on for 7 or 8 years and then one day the owner came on and announced he would be shutting down it in a few weeks...and I almost cried, lol.
Some of them said they were going to facebook too, but I refused.
I still wonder where some of the characters I used to build with are.

On ‎7‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 4:55 PM, Troy said:

I agree @Pioneer1.  

 

Pioneer what is your motivation for participating here?  

Good question.

I forgot exactly HOW I found this site but I was looking for some Black sites to kick it on and back in 2012 I was also running for local office at that time and wanted to get some support online.
But as for now.......

I like the vibe here.
I think you're a good moderator because you pretty much gives people their space to say what they want and you also participate.
I like being around intelligent AfroAmericans, not sites with crazy negroes cussing at and threatening eachother or swapping pornography in every other post.

Not that I'm AGAINST pornography, but like I tell some cats on another site....I'm not a teenager anymore I'm a grown ass man and it'll take more than looking at a big greasy ass or pair of titties to get me going....lol.
I'm at the age where I want INTELLECTUAL stimulation.

18 minutes ago, Delano said:

I agree

Man......

Troy
 

Pioneer, if that were true why do I reject every word that emerges from Zuckerberg's pie hole.

Because you see him and his opinions as highly important enough TO consider and then reject and argue against.

If you didn't you wouldn't waste energy concerning yourself with what he has to say.
Lol....like I don't.


 

Mel

I’m in agreement with you

Well it's about time....lol.

 

The person said you have to pay auction.com $100 to see the property. Well, that’s not exactly "fact" Now it is a fact that auction dot com charges a fee BUT that’s not the whole story. You can see the house for free - if the former homeowner , the one going through foreclosure let’s you in.

What that person said was not a fact because as you pointed out they didn't specify the particular method in which one could view the said property which would lead one to believe that the ONLY way a person can view it is by going through "auction.com" and giving them money.
But your example is just one illustration of the point I've been making about much of the so-called "facts" and science in Western society in general.
Much of it is based on deception by OMISSION.

Instead of outright lying they often times tell half-truths and omit certain key details to mislead and misguide the public and sway their beliefs.
 

But it’s also fact that you could save yourself aggravation and wait until the bank takes possession. You can buy it from them with financing and for less than you’d pay at auction.

The problem with buying seized property from banks is that many of them have brokers who have already made deals with realtors and investors they're connected with whom they routinely give a heads up to which properties are about to be foreclosed on and so there is usually already an investor or realtor waiting lined up for that particular property before the ink finishes drying on the county's paperwork.

Mel

Sadly, Pioneer’s comment up there - reminded of those times.

Lol...now what does THAT mean?


Troy owns the website but he works for us, the visitors, members and contributors. In fact, I bet there are more women signed up than men. So why would anyone (but alt-reicht) be turned off by a black man owning a website?

Your argument is based upon not properly understanding where my focus and criticism is.

OFCOURSE AfroAmerican women (and men) will support an AfroAmerican man who is HELPING THEM OUT.....whether it's Troy helping them to sell their books or Obama giving them jobs.
They aren't stupid, they know how to be nice, who to be nice too, and WHEN to be nice and respectful.

But if they have a CHOICE.....they would rather cater to and do business with another Black woman or even a White man. And the evidence of this is when it comes to "fun" and less formal things like daily social interactions or social engagements like informal chatting they typically form cliques with eachother that exclude AfroAmerican males except for gay ones.

More evidence of this is as you say there are a ton of Black women on this site promoting thier books but when it comes to having discussions about the community on the message board if this same site they may lurk every now and then but are far from interested in participating.

Why?
No one is harassing them or calling them bitches and ho's....but they still don't feel the "urge" to participate in discussions with their male counterparts.....and I know why.



Anyway, I think we are socially conditioned to support black men.

Lol, really?
Can you provide examples where this is evident?

Tell me the city where the women are "conditioned" to support Black men so I can HURRY UP and go there.




Troy

I hope you are right about my gender not getting in the way.

Not for the site in general, because as I told Mel most people will take help from whoever can help them despite their prejudices and hang ups. You have a major platform and you're helping to push their product so ofcourse they'll patronize your site as long as you're helping them to make money.

However where your gender (and sex) probably IS getting in the way as well as any other male who participates is when it comes to the MESSAGE BOARD part where we are free to interact and discuss with eachother.  Again, many don't like being in social environments where AfroAmerican men are in control.


Look Cynique's opening and closing comments:

"All of my sistas here have really done themselves proud in offering explanations about their approaches to interacting with other women - as well as men.

To my girls, i love you all. It's been "real". "


This constant shout out to the females of the site certainly isn't without meaning.

And Cynique in my opinion is one of the LEAST feminist women I've ran into on the internet and if SHE had "us sisters against the world" mentality you can imagine what some of the other women may be thinking.

7 hours ago, Delano said:

We have different approaches and motivation in our interactions @Troy

I don't think you even HAVE a motivation for your interactions.....lol.
Atleast I haven't seen much evidence of one.

 

Ofcourse religion was designed to control people.

But is that NECESSARILY a bad thing?

Some people lack discipline and need more "control" from outside themselves than others.

7 hours ago, Delano said:

How do you measure : consciousness ; love; beauty or poetry ?

 

They all can be measured, but like most abstract concepts they have to be measured by the INDIVIDUAL.

A person knows when they are more conscious NOW than when they 3 years ago.
A person can definitely tell if a red dress on their spouse makes them more beautiful TO THEM than a green dress.

 

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 7:01 AM, Delano said:

Or more like the male posts

I've said this time and time again, many AfroAmerican women DO NOT LIKE being in an environment where an AfroAmerican man is incharge!

Some people don't think I'm serious or take me seriously when I say this.
They don't want to believe it.

But I've seen evidence of this far too often to simply dismiss it or push it off on other reasons.

Many don't feel comfortable or don't think it's "right" for an AfroAmerican or ANY African man to tell them what to do and would rather have a Caucasian man, Arab, or even a Caucasian woman tell them what to do and GLADLY do it with no complaints.
But an AfroAmerican man can give them free rein to say whatever they want and do what they like as long as they get the job done and show up on time and no matter what he allows them to do they just don't like the fact that HE is incharge!


 

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 10:21 AM, Troy said:

Now don't be sexist. 

 

I'm serious about the social media comment. Why elevate social media when the harm it has caused is well known and documented? 

Probably to irk you......lol.

Knowing how you feel about Twitter, facebook, and Google.....if I wanted to push your buttons (or test our friendship....lol), hyping them up would be a good way to do it.

Troy and Del

I think you know by now that I don't put the same trust in or value on the opinions and observations of Caucasians that you two do, so what he has to say or his explaination for why some people do this or that isn't even important enough for me to read.

I'm addressing the statement Del made in the title of this thread as a matter of concept regardless as to his intentions.

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 10:04 PM, Troy said:

 

 

I think they should cane people here in the US.  Ariana should get at least 5 smacks on her butt. I bet she won't do it again.

.....and I'm sure there'd be a LINE of guys just waiting and eager to mete out her punishment BARE HANDED.
I know I'd be one of them, lol.
 

Troy

Thanks, I'll check it out.


I don't think the ORIGINAL astrology as taught and practiced by ancient cultures was bullshit.
It probably started off as a legitimate and effective science back then similar to psychology and psychiatry in Western culture today. But as is often the case, after Caucasians get ahold of it and corrupt it to the point that it loses it's original meaning and purpose......THEN it becomes a mass of confusion and lies that is almost unrecognizable to it's original form.

Just look at Yoga........
Originally it was designed as a way for people to become spiritually enlightened and open up certain chakra points, but after Caucasians got ahold of it and brought it to the West.....now it's a way for middle aged White women to maintain their flexibility for sexual activity, lol.

You're probably right.
I remember during a spat on a radio program with a sista from Michigan Steve Harvey's retort was for her to enjoy a nice BROWN glass of water...and he emphasized the word brown.
Despite numerous calls for him to I don't recall him ever apologizing for that snap either.
 
What made me think that someone who is that insensitive to the attempted environmental genocide that was being inflicted upon an entire city would be burdened by emotions like shame and embarrassment?

On ‎7‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 9:25 AM, Troy said:

 @Pioneer1 you've demonstrated your support for the site, in ways others can never know, beyond just engaging here. 

 

I would not be surpirised if @Cynique posted here again nor would I think less of her for doing  so. 

 

My kids, like most people their generation, express liite interest in what I do here. That does not mean that they don't love me. It just means that they will not be taking over the site. If I were to keel over today, unfortunately, the site would die with me. Unfortunately, as Pioneer wrote, this is how we do.

 

 

Because of the different emotions this post has generated in me (for numerous reasons) every time I've read it for the past couple nights...I'm really not sure how to respond.

 

Troy may be inclined to agree with most of these statements (found in the title as well as the 1st post) made but I disagree with key aspects of them.


1. Perception isn't necessarily a "hallucination".
Traditionally speaking, a "hallucination" is an image or sound that a person can perceive that no others around him can.
If most of the people in your environment can also observe it then it's not a hallucination.

2. Perception is a PERSPECTIVE.
It's a WAY OF seeing something or someone that other people can see as well.
Other's may have a DIFFERENT perception than you but they and you are still observing the same thing.

You're on the porch and you both SEE and HEAR a man bouncing a basket ball down the street.
Another person inside the house who may not be looking outside the window at the time can HEAR him but not see him.
Another person looking out the window with earplugs in their ears may SEE him bouncing the ball but don't hear it.

None of you are hallucinating because you are all observing the SAME reality but from different perspectives.


Now to the statement that "facts don't change minds".......


This statement isn't entirely correct.
It's true for SOME MINDS and for other minds it's false.

I'm not going to go into James Clear's article but I'll just focus on the statement itself.
It's been my observation that one of the major reasons information offered as "facts" don't change the minds of many people is because what is being called "facts" is often just mere INFORMATION printed up up paper and presented to them by people with an agenda and that mere INFORMATION often times not only goes against their established beliefs but also against their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES AND OBSERVATIONS.

You can present "facts" that Americans are healthier and living longer today than they were in the past all you want, but a 70 year old man who WITNESSED an era where as a child he didn't see nearly the amount of sick people he's seeing today AND he routinely saw people who claimed to be 110 and 120 years old walking up and down the old dusty roads of his home town while the oldest person in America today is said to be only 114  -will not believe these so-called "facts" because they don't agree with his personal observations.

I'm amazed at how many people insist that simply offering others data or information should be enough to just "change their minds" about life.

What if disorders like autism and schizophrenia were far more simple to diagnos than the public were led to believe?

Meaning.......

What if a scan of the entire brain actually DOES whether or not someone has autism quite plainly?


Take a look at these exerpts from various scientific articles:
 

Quote

 

 

 

Scientists believe that both genetics and environment likely play a role in ASD. There is great concern that rates of autism have been increasing in recent decades without full explanation as to why. Researchers have identified a number of genes associated with the disorder. Imaging studies of people with ASD have found differences in the development of several regions of the brain. Studies suggest that ASD could be a result of disruptions in normal brain growth very early in development. These disruptions may be the result of defects in genes that control brain development and regulate how brain cells communicate with each other.

 

 

https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/Patient-Caregiver-Education/Fact-Sheets/Autism-Spectrum-Disorder-Fact-Sheet

Quote

 

 

 

Using task-based functional MRI (fMRI), many studies have shown dysfunctional activation in critical areas of social communication and RRBs. We also describe several data to show abnormal connectivity in the ASD brains.

 

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4688328/

Wait, what is this......................

Quote

 

 

 

New research is challenging the long-held belief that autism affects only those regions of the brain that control social interaction, communication, and reasoning -- suggesting, instead, that the disorder affects the entire brain.

 

 

https://www.webmd.com/brain/autism/news/20060816/autism-affects-childs-entire-brain#1

What do they mean "long held belief" that autism affects certain regions of the brain????
I thought the claim was that autism didn't show up on MRIs and CT scans!

Now they're claiming that there was a LONG HELD belief about it only effecting CERTAIN parts of the brain.  Which obviously means they can SEE the damaged or dysfunctional parts of the brain and determine whether or not a person is autistic.

And by them saying it's "long held" this suggests that they've had this capability for quite some time.

They're probably embarrassed.

Troy

Not in the least
Infact the the shoddy picture this article portrays of how the CDC and other clinicians actually diagnose autism actualy BOLSTERS my skepticism of the reasons given for the rise in the diagnosis of autism.

The main argument this article makes is that autism isn't really on the rise but that professionals are just getting better at diagnosing it.  But that's a bullshit argument.
Let's dig into it..........................


Ok, right off the bat one of the first statements of the article:
 

Quote

"How do clinicians diagnose autism?
There is no blood test, brain scan or any other objective test that can diagnose autism—although researchers are actively trying to develop such tests. Clinicians rely on observations of a person’s behavior to diagnose the condition."

This statement is bogus because autism is a NEUROLOGICAL disorder and like all disorders of the nervous system there are tests that will clearly show damage or dysfunction to that system whether it's in the brain, spinal cord, nerves, or in an imbalance of nuerotransmitters.

Austistic people show clear dysfunction in certain parts of their brains and since MRI and CT scans were developed in the 1970s there is no excuse after this for ONLY relying on behavioral observation to diagnose autism.
If a person indeed is autistic it should show on an MRI or CT scan of their brain.
 

Quote

 

The latest estimate of autism prevalence—1 in 68—is up 30 percent from the 1 in 88 rate reported in 2008, and more than double the 1 in 150 rate in 2000. In fact, the trend has been steeply upward since the early 1990s, not only in the U.S. but globally, says Maureen Durkin, who heads the network site in Wisconsin.

 

So according to the author, she admits that globally reports of autism are rising.
Now if the argument that autism is NOT actually rising but professionals are just getting better at diagnosing it....are we to believe that thousands of professionals in different nations around the planet all shared in the same "mass ignorance" of misdiagnosing and under-diagnosing autism in the past?

What are the chances of professionals all over the planet ALL making the same mistakes?
 

Quote

 

One indication that the method is imperfect is the fact that autism rates vary dramatically between states. The prevalence in Colorado, for instance, is 1 in 93 children, whereas in New Jersey it is 1 in 41. It is unlikely that the rates naturally vary that much between states, Fombonne says. Instead, the difference probably reflects varying levels of autism awareness and of services offered in those states

 

 

The author is making suppositions and speculating on the variation between Colorado and New Jersey instead of offering hard facts to explain this discrepancy of autistic diagnosis.   The fact that she uses the term "probably" is enough to dismiss this excuse as mere speculation.
She also insults the intelligence and abilities of professionals by suggesting that perhaps the professionals in Colorado aren't as good at diagnosing autism as those in New Jersey.....again, another case of mass ignorance.

Quote

 

Has the rising awareness of autism contributed to the prevalence?
Increased awareness of autism has undoubtedly contributed to its rise in prevalence, Durkin says.

Until the 1980s, many people with autism were institutionalized, rendering them effectively invisible. Studies show that parents who are aware of autism’s presentation—by living near someone with the condition, for example—aremore likely to seek a diagnosis for their children than parents with no knowledge of the condition. Living close to urban centers and having access to good medical care also boost the likelihood of diagnosis.

Greater awareness of autism is also likely to boost CDC estimates by increasing the chances that autism traits, such as lack of eye contact, show up in school and medical records, says Fombonne.

Policy changes may have also played a role. In 2006, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommended screening all children for autism during routine pediatrician visits at 18 and 24 months of age. This move may have led to diagnoses for children who would otherwise have slipped under the radar.

　

Autism prevalence has traditionally been highest in white children in the U.S, but this is starting to change. African-American and Hispanic children have lower rates of diagnosis because of a lack of access to services. Widespread screening has improved detection of autism in these groups, and raised overall prevalence.

 

Now if you read the above paragraphs about "greater awareness" being responsible for the rise in reports and diagnosis of autism you that may infact be a valid argument IF we were talking about lay people doing the diagnosing.

But we are talking about PROFESSIONAL psychologists and psychiatrists who went to school for years and have been dealing with these patients for years. These are supposed to be experts in properly diagnosing autistics so they ALREADY HAVE AWARENESS of the disorder as well as it's symptoms.

The disorder itself hasn't changed....autism is autism.
What more information does a professional need to know today that wasn't available to them in 1980 to give a more acurrate disagnosis?

Nothing.

Professionals are disagnosing more people because more people are exhibiting more symptoms.....and people are exhibiting more symptons because more people HAVE AUTISM.
 

Quote

　

 

Is there no real increase in autism rates, then?
Awareness and changing criteria probably account for the bulk of the rise in prevalence, but biological factors might also contribute, says Durkin. For example, having older parents, particularly an older father, may boost the risk of autism. Children born prematurely also are at increased risk of autism, and more premature infants survive now than ever before.

 

Notice how she didn't answer her own question?

Because if she said no there isn't an increase....she knows she would be lying.
But if she said YES there IS an increase....she'd have to offer solid scientific explainations as to why this is instead of putting out more speculation like "premie babies" and older fathers.

My overall point is autism isn't a matter of "opinion" but a matter fact and the evidence of it not only appears in a person's behavior but also shows up as abnormal brain function so there is no room to "play" with the figures each year as the author of this article suggests and mis-diagnose any more than you could mis-diagnose a broken foot.

If trained professionals have been finding a continual increase of autism each year it's because the number of autistic patients ARE GOING UP....not because they're getting better at diagnosing a disorder they're already experts in.