I just took the test.

Score: 14/20
You did not pass. Pease try again.

I don't know what I am supposed to think or feel about this. Interesting however.

I just thought we were about inclusion. But now there is a test that doesn’t let you join if you don’t pass. So we are not including those that don’t pass. Yes they can keep retaking the test but if they don’t pass they cant talk. True or false? So these people are excluded from posting until they pass. Fact or not?

Also let’s say that I disagree that poverty causes crime, I don’t but it’s just an example. Perhaps I think it’s because of the Smurfs stealing everyone’s left sock. I would get points wrong for not agreeing and thus can’t join. In this way people that don’t agree are kept out of the movement. Isn’t that a form of exclusion? And it is an academic test, open book or not, so could you not argue its academic elitism too?

Perhaps I am taking it a bit too far, but I want to highlight this as an issue. What way is it not? We don’t seem to be practicing what we preach.

Consider realistically how many trolls have we had? Who decides what is a troll? I have had heated religious debates because I am not a fan of Acha S. People may say I am a troll, despite the fact I was always polite and scholarly in debate, because I didn’t agree. So perhaps in future I would be thrown out? I don’t really like where this is going.

Please use scientific method to critic my current thinking.
Facts over opinions please.

1. =

There is a test, it test based on factual knowledge retention and comprehension. Academic skills.

If you fail you cannot talk. If you cannot talk you are disadvantaged.
If you pass you can talk and are so advantaged.

Thus you would get a hierarchy where by academic intellectuals are advantaged.

2. =

All new members must take this test. This makes it the foundation of how Zeitgeist conducts itself with new members.

Could you not say that Zeitgeist then promotes the advantage of some, those that can post, and the disadvantage of others, those that cant?

(I know most members don’t think that way, which is why I think everyone should be able to post, and so that brings me to my next point.)

3. =

I didn’t want this test. I wasn’t asked about it. I didn’t even know there was one until someone complained about it.

If the leaders/founders (that’s the name game) of the movement installed it without consulting the members what style of governance would that be? Monarchy, dictatorship?

No open debate about it first, I thought Zeitgeist advocated governance that would be open to everyone.

Also no one was asked or apart of the decision making process. Not so much as a pole!

How could you run a fair world, or city, when you can’t run a democratic or fair website?

I just thought we were about inclusion. But now there is a test that doesn’t let you join if you don’t pass. So we are not including those that don’t pass. Yes they can keep retaking the test but if they don’t pass they cant talk. True or false? So these people are excluded from posting until they pass. Fact or not?

Also let’s say that I disagree that poverty causes crime, I don’t but it’s just an example. Perhaps I think it’s because of the Smurfs stealing everyone’s left sock. I would get points wrong for not agreeing and thus can’t join. In this way people that don’t agree are kept out of the movement. Isn’t that a form of exclusion? And it is an academic test, open book or not, so could you not argue its academic elitism too?

Perhaps I am taking it a bit too far, but I want to highlight this as an issue. What way is it not? We don’t seem to be practicing what we preach.

Consider realistically how many trolls have we had? Who decides what is a troll? I have had heated religious debates because I am not a fan of Acha S. People may say I am a troll, despite the fact I was always polite and scholarly in debate, because I didn’t agree. So perhaps in future I would be thrown out? I don’t really like where this is going.

1) The Qs have nothing to do with agreement. They have to do with showing you actually have reviewed the material. Period. It states that on the test itself.
2) The only ones who are "excluded" are those who do not feel they should spend the time to pass the test and therefore they "exclude" themselves.
Your argument is illogical, for it is a matter of degree, subjectively. Maybe we shouldn't even have "accounts"? Isn't that a form of technical exclusion? Perhaps the request to submit your email and then completing account authorization through checking your email is also exclusionary in some technical form... Look- this is a serious environment. This forum is not an open forum where anyone can come regardless of there level of understanding. That would be like letting people into physics when they have only learned basic elementary arithmetic- it creates noise, confusion and often unneeded conflict. I have busted my ass to create the 85 page PDF, the orientation video, 3 two hour lectures and now the knowledge database. People damn well better read these things if they expect to have a chance in what are often complex discussions. Once again, people can disagree points and that is great - disagreement is what creates change - but our problem is people come here too often with zero understanding and that creates problems/wastes time. I wont even talk about the trolling issue...
3) The only two things that will get you or anyone else suspended is if they/you break the conduct rules or show a near complete disagreement with the direction and do nothing but agitate and undermine. Positive contribution and general support is required. This forum is not for those who just "dont like it". There are plenty of anti-zm sites they can go to make themselves feel better becuase they feel the need to voice their disagreement. This isn't the place for such people. This forum is for members who actively work towards the direction, with contextually relevant/positively motivated debates and discussions.

I did a second post to more clearly explain my thoughts but i will reply about what I said before.

1, But its a comprahension test. This an academic test? It gives perks to some and not to those that dont pass.

2, I dont think the concepts are so huge as to be too difficult to understand. And actually I think thats a good idea, how about creating a public forum too just for new people? In that way that would still be included to some degree.

3, You said, Positive contribution and general support is required. But that could be subjective. I think questioning is good, but some may see me as trying to be problamatic to the movement.


(Sorry about spelling.)

I didn’t want this test. I wasn’t asked about it. I didn’t even know there was one until someone complained about it.

If the leaders/founders (that’s the name game) of the movement installed it without consulting the members what style of governance would that be? Monarchy, dictatorship?

No open debate about it first, I thought Zeitgeist advocated governance that would be open to everyone.

Also no one was asked or apart of the decision making process. Not so much as a pole!

How could you run a fair world, or city, when you can’t run a democratic or fair website?

You have no position/experience to request or demand anything from this site, myself or the mods. This is a free service offered and its methods are logically based on the internet environment and some traditional norms of forum activity/administration. This forum is not some example of what life in a RBE would be like and it is truly bizarre that such an issue would seem relevant to you. You are not the one who deals with the trolls. You are not the one who has to intervene with the various ignorant complaints that occur over and over again becuase a person has not read our materials. So, to say this test is "undemocratic" and that you should have been consulted about it is beyond irrational. Why don't we vote/poll on the color of the site? Why dont we poll/vote on each word I am typing here since I am the "founder" of the movement? Why don't we vote on the font style and color?

The test exists to make sure people do some homework before interacting. Thta's it. As of now, it has been great. We have less trolls/more quality discussion. If you can't get that - I don't know what to tell you.

1, But its a comprahension test. This an academic test? It gives perks to some and not to those that dont pass.

All tests are comprehension tests. This test, however, is not about agreement- it is about understanding(rote) the material only. The Qs are also not that hard.

2, I dont think the concepts are so huge as to be too difficult to understand. And actually I think thats a good idea, how about creating a public forum too just for new people? In that way that would still be included to some degree.

Well, I have been here from the start- I know how poor the average understanding has been. As far as a beginner forum, I feel that would be wasteful, for the data/direction is in the materials. Why ask basic questions in a forum when the answers already exist?

3, You said, Positive contribution and general support is required. But that could be subjective. I think questioning is good, but some may see me as trying to be problamatic to the movement.

Yes it is subjective - such is life in the human thought arena- and we have processes for reinstatement is an error occurs. However, it is usually pretty obvious who is for the movement and who is against it.

I have a better understanding of how I should feel and think about the test. I failed the test even though I received a score of 14/20. 70%. I'm a C student of TZM and TVM LOL.

All that aside, both sides have valid points. I do think that there is too much CONTROL.(hope I don't get tanked for this)
I agree however with Peter as far as conduct is concerned. But, even that is measured by whom? I think perception of negative conduct is a relative issue, which we can curb with our discourse. What I mean by this is, if anyone, including myself, Peter or any other moderators were to "step out of line" or say something that is questionable and deemed disrespectful, I think board members can and should be able to weigh in on such a thing, aiding the accused in understanding that he or she was out of line and their diatribe was an ad hominem, insult or disrespectful. Using logic and reason to point out the "short-coming." There is no need for banning, and castigation. Only for those OBVIOUS "cerebral insufficient(s)" that clearly oppose the movement. An example would be Members and Boarders of Prison Planet. There's no need to ostracize and victimize those who are followers, promoters of TZP, TZM and the RBE, who may not agree with a particular ideology or point. My perception of the RBE is that when or if someone does not "get the point" or falls short; he or she is rehabilitated. Not lynched and chastised. It's like what Jacques said in relation to the Religious people in an RBE. If they are to be suppressed, they would only go underground. The more effective thing to do is to get them to realize their mistakes and misconceptions. And the same measure should be meted out on this forum. We really need to "Practice what we preach", so to speak. Be what we are about. Instead of pontificating and being separatist - using cognitive dissonance as an aid, conveniently.

(Boy I hope I don't get banned for this.)

If the purpose of the test is to ensure that people read and have read Peter's work, to familiarize themselves with the purpose and agenda of TZM or TVP, great. But, again, Most of the people that join the forum are moved by either the Zeitgeist movie, or Jacques Fresco and want to know more and are exposed to a plethora of informations, when they join the forum. And most importantly join because they feel a part of something big. Something that they always knew was right, but couldn't express it for fear of being categorized as a loony or a dreamer. Let the test run its course, and watch the growth of membership. Maybe it'll increase maybe in won't.

Peter you and Jacques have influenced many and have moved thousands. Something to remember.

But you should add that they are shown witch question they had made a mistake on.

Moving toward an RBE is no small step for humanity, it is serious business and people must comprehend the basic tenants of this movement and have an understanding of what is really being proposed here, before getting on the forums- the only way to do that, is to have seen Addendum, you should watch it on a regular basis actually, the Activation Orientation guide and be familiar with Jacques ideas and proposals, for further understanding watch the lectures by both Peter and Jacque and listen to the radio broadcast. I will not name names but I don't understand why people on chapter sites are borderline accusing Peter of being some sort of dictator. I have been in this movement almost three years now and it just pisses me off.
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: dictatorship

Top Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Form of government in which one person or an oligarchy possesses absolute power without effective constitutional checks. With constitutional democracy, it is one of the two chief forms of government in use today. Modern dictators usually use force or fraud to gain power and then keep it through intimidation, terror, suppression of civil liberties, and control of the mass media.
Sounds more like the Bush or Obama administration to me..I have even heard someone say that he/she was afraid that pj was part of the new world order! C'mon people grow up and do your homework!!