The conflicting info I was talking about was when Peter joseph says that it isn't corruption to act in the manner that society lays out, but Jaque Fresco says it is corruption. when I've seen zeigeist info say that they are a "political movement" in written text. That had been the reason I answered the same way for a while and I couldn't change it because I didn't know what answers I got wrong.

Hi. You are rather confused here. First of all, the test exists to create a higher quality of dialogue and to also stop agitators from freely wheeling in and bothering/posting disinfo/creating un-needed conflict. Also, I never said it "isn't corruption" in a pure form as you stated above. The fact is, society welcomes/reinforced various levels of corruption and passes it off as "normal". This is Jacque's point as well.

As far as not seeing "what you got wrong" we deliberately did it this way. You want to join/help? Do your homework. It's very simple and it is, in effect, an open book test. It simply takes the initiative. Once the test is passed, you don't have to take it again.

And domakato:
lol, a test? Looks kinda cultish
I suggest you be careful with your rhetoric. I have examined your posts in dialogue in other threads and I, along with other mods, have begun to wonder why you are here at all. As you obviously know, the easiest, most thoughtless and hence moronic excuse to put down TZM at this time is to refer to the group as a whole as "cultish". Please be more clear in your communication. If it is "cultish" to you, why don't you do what all the others don't do and describe WHY.

> If we are going to lose newbies

This is why I'm for the test


> so they send people to complain and to persuade moderators to remove the test

No keep the test!


> and to also stop agitators from freely wheeling in and bothering/posting
> disinfo/creating un-needed conflict.

I have to say, it does a good job at that.

It does concern me though that many people who would be here, who would be most welcomed, can't be here.


FX [ notices his last post here a few hours ago has vanished... guess I said something I wasn't supposed to, guess I should be thanking whoever the mod was that deleted it to avoid me putting my foot in it. I shall endeavour to next time simply ignore answering that particular question. ]

peterjoseph wrote:
And domakato:
lol, a test? Looks kinda cultish
I suggest you be careful with your rhetoric. I have examined your posts in dialogue in other threads and I, along with other mods, have begun to wonder why you are here at all. As you obviously know, the easiest, most thoughtless and hence moronic excuse to put down TZM at this time is to refer to the group as a whole as "cultish". Please be more clear in your communication. If it is "cultish" to you, why don't you do what all the others don't do and describe WHY.
Okay, I mean, I figured people could figure it out for themselves as to why it looks cultish. It resembles brainwashing; some of the questions are asking objectively what the material or the ideology of the movement is, but many other questions ask direct, loaded questions and expect to be answered as if the answer is fact. For example:

True security comes from:
1. Shared values
2. Police and prisons
3. Solving social problems
4. Economic balance

This is subjective and open to debate, but the question implies that the answer is objectively true. This, and other questions, resemble brainwashing. Not only are you throwing a lot of material at people, you're expecting them to repeat what you want them to believe, and cognitive science tells us that this makes them believe it more, regardless of whether or not it's actually true.

As to why I'm here, I've been here for a while, mainly debating the finer points of philosophy and science, and have only recently gotten into debating the central tenets of the movement now that I have learned more about the subject matter from your and other sources. I'm here to promote rational discussion and critical thinking about the movement. I'm sure you wouldn't mind the presence of an occasionally dissenting voice? Or are you too exclusive (aka cultish) for that, too?

Vixi wrote:
Awww, poor Baldershymn...here's a ZG Hug just for your ego!


Gracias bonita!

CAAD: I wanted to be part of TZM and discuss here in the forum. Had to pass the test in order to post msgs.

What happened to my post asking Thunder to reread his comments because in my opinion they were comming off as condesending?

Okay, I mean, I figured people could figure it out for themselves as to why it looks cultish. It resembles brainwashing; some of the questions are asking objectively what the material or the ideology of the movement is, but many other questions ask direct, loaded questions and expect to be answered as if the answer is fact. For example:

True security comes from:
1. Shared values
2. Police and prisons
3. Solving social problems
4. Economic balance

This is subjective and open to debate, but the question implies that the answer is objectively true. This, and other questions, resemble brainwashing. Not only are you throwing a lot of material at people, you're expecting them to repeat what you want them to believe, and cognitive science tells us that this makes them believe it more, regardless of whether or not it's actually true.

Only to those who can't read or comprehend the introductory statement that describes the test, is this a viable complaint.
As it states:
"The following test is to gauge your understanding about The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project. This test is not about your agreement with The Movement but rather to prove that you have actually taken the time read the freely available materials on the subject matter."


I'm sure you wouldn't mind the presence of an occasionally dissenting voice? Or are you too exclusive (aka cultish) for that, too?
Our rules make it very clear. It is an advanced forum for discussion with Members, assuming that each person has reviewed our materials and has a basic agreement. Basic Agreement means they support the direction overall- it doesn't not mean they agree with "everything". If such a person wants to debate the above question regarding security- we welcome it. However, if you are not interested in the Movement, are ignorant of the movement, or feel it is too "cultish" for you, then you likely shouldn't be here. Anyone who has questions can read our vast materials, totally 10 hours in video alone. If someone is cynical/negative after all that, then, again, they shouldn't be here at all.

duram wrote:
Thunder, are you kidding me? I come here with a concern and THAT"S the response you come up with?I think you need to relax, my friend...it was just a little banter, nothing personal.

First of all when you are reading a response READ THE WHOLE THING.I did.

You shouldn't be trying to quash people's concerns with poltician tactics.I wasn't...again, I think you're over-reacting a bit. If there's anything I'm definitely not, it's a politician, nor do I use such distasteful tactics.

Any dummy can see that of coarse it wasn't a "million" tries, it's stunning that I even have to address this with you.Again, it was friendly banter...relax. Of course I knew it wasn't actually a million times.../facepalm.

You don't have the right to try to put yourself in the same light so you can belittle me and use that to quash my concerns,That's not at all what happened. Again, I think you're making a false projection.

you don't have dyslexia, you have politicianitis.Actually I do have dyslexia and there's no need to be insulting. Please re-read the rules/guidelines about being respectful to other members.

The conflicting info I was talking about was when Peter joseph says that it isn't corruption to act in the manner that society lays out, but Jaque Fresco says it is corruption. when I've seen zeigeist info say that they are a "political movement" in written text. That had been the reason I answered the same way for a while and I couldn't change it because I didn't know what answers I got wrong.I believe Peter already addressed this (above).

The fact, alone that you responded with such a belittling and dismissive post is PROOF that elitism IS starting.I disagree. What is the basis for such a claim? Belittling? Dismissive? Again, I think you are making a false projection/assumption or, at the very least, have misinterpreted my reply.

You do not see your own elitism because you feel that you are right to defend a just cause.I disagree.

At first I said that it would be a knee-jerk reaction to get offended at the word tyrantThat's another false projection. I wasn't offended, I was merely addressing your concern(s). Apologies if it was misunderstood.

so I will clarify, then wnet on to say that I DON`T think that there are any tyrants here but they will emerge if we don`t remember what we are fighting for.Yes, I read that part. Yes, that's possible, but I still think you may be projecting/speculating based on a false assumption.

Your post makes me rethink the notion that there aren`t any tyrants here. And you being a moderator in this site makes me rethink the whole zeitgeist notion.Sorry you feel that way, but I think you are being a bit unfair and having a bit of a knee-jerk reaction yourself.

But of coarse, I`m new here, and experienced enough to know that one person does not make the movement.Yes, and being new, I think it's only fair that you give yourself some time to get to know/understand me a little better before going off like you did. I am not your enemy so there's no need to view me as such.

Take care.

Domokato,

I think what Peter is trying to say is that this site is for members to communicate with members. A member is someone who agrees with the general values and objectives that are presented in our texts, videos and other media. If you review the material and find that you don't jive with it, then please go elsewhere. It has to be like this to avoid clutter. It's not a personal shot at you. I'm sure you're a decent human being (as far as any of us can be decent in this sick society) Sure, a voice of decent is great as long as it is constructive. The movement, like science, is constantly evolving as newer information arrives. BUT we must all agree that two plus two equals four. If you are here to say that it equals something else then your take on society would be better addressed somewhere else. You get an audience, we get less clutter... everyone wins. If you want to come back when you are at a different place in life we will be here with open arms. You dig?

> This, and other questions, resemble brainwashing.

Agreed.


> I'm sure you wouldn't mind the presence of an occasionally dissenting voice?

I thought that was my job

Though if you want it..

I would advise that there are many things you can't dissent about.


> I'm here to promote rational discussion and critical thinking about the movement.

Likewise, but you might begin to notice that isn't as easy in practice as one might imagine.


> What happened to my post

It got deleted along with mine!


> misinterpreted my reply

I guess I also misinterpreted it too..


> I think it's only fair that you give yourself some time to get to know/understand
> me a little better

Yeah, like me, and I agree with the other guy..


> I'm sure you're a decent human being

Having seen them on other forums, I reckon they are.


> then please go elsewhere.

Best to leave as a volunteer than to be banned I'd say.


> If you review the material and find that you don't jive with it

Translates into, we aren't going to change our mind, don't bother trying. (As someone whose been here just ages trying to do that and generally failing, I have to say for perhaps all the wrong reasons, thats actually good advice.)


As I'm always keen to follow good advice myself...

peterjoseph wrote:
Okay, I mean, I figured people could figure it out for themselves as to why it looks cultish. It resembles brainwashing; some of the questions are asking objectively what the material or the ideology of the movement is, but many other questions ask direct, loaded questions and expect to be answered as if the answer is fact. For example:

True security comes from:
1. Shared values
2. Police and prisons
3. Solving social problems
4. Economic balance

This is subjective and open to debate, but the question implies that the answer is objectively true. This, and other questions, resemble brainwashing. Not only are you throwing a lot of material at people, you're expecting them to repeat what you want them to believe, and cognitive science tells us that this makes them believe it more, regardless of whether or not it's actually true.

Only to those who can't read or comprehend the introductory statement that describes the test, is this a viable complaint.
As it states:
"The following test is to gauge your understanding about The Zeitgeist Movement and The Venus Project. This test is not about your agreement with The Movement but rather to prove that you have actually taken the time read the freely available materials on the subject matter."
That doesn't excuse the wording of the questions. Just because the test isn't about "your agreement with the material" and that it's about whether or not you have "taken the time to read the material", doesn't mean it's okay for your questions to be worded that way. Maybe if you start off with something like, "The movement material finds that...", and then start asking questions, you could get away with the way some questions are currently worded.


I'm sure you wouldn't mind the presence of an occasionally dissenting voice? Or are you too exclusive (aka cultish) for that, too?
Our rules make it very clear. It is an advanced forum for discussion with Members, assuming that each person has reviewed our materials and has a basic agreement. Basic Agreement means they support the direction overall- it doesn't not mean they agree with "everything". If such a person wants to debate the above question regarding security- we welcome it. However, if you are not interested in the Movement, are ignorant of the movement, or feel it is too "cultish" for you, then you likely shouldn't be here. Anyone who has questions can read our vast materials, totally 10 hours in video alone. If someone is cynical/negative after all that, then, again, they shouldn't be here at all.
I support the vague direction towards humanitarianism and egalitarianism, but not necessarily the specific direction towards an RBE, but that depends on the transition plan. If it is gradual enough I might support it. But it sounds like you're trying to squash dissenting voices by saying this forum is for members only. One of the movements' tenets is openness and transparency, am I right? In my mind, that includes debate about the ideology of the movement itself. I just think it would add to the movement's legitimacy to be open to debate.