No not every job is like that. People don’t leave their jobs, they leave their managers. And at the moment my managers are Congress and Security, no matter what my supervisor says. So you could have a job in which you don’t know if you will be paid and when you are, whether you will get a full paycheck or one that is only 80% (though deductions are calculated at 100%). And every day you lose a new privilege for security reasons, like using the command prompt two days ago. Technical web sites were blocked a year ago and even some of the other military web sites in the same branch of the military are blocked. Your problem is typical, none or intentionally wrong documentation, management that won’t read past the verb in the first sentence, illogical and conflicting policies, political backstabbing, budgets that cut training first in a highly dynamic and changing industry. All signs that those that can, do. While those that can’t are promoted into management. Find the folks that keep their head down and keep the business working notwithstanding what management does. It’s a skill that will keep you out of management. If you want the money, learn to be a politician. But given your reaction, you probably don’t want to go into management. Management acts this way in all fields, more in others. The problem in the IS field is that computers can’t deal with the mistakes of management and that magnifies the problem. Welcome to the interface between the real world and the world of logic.

Four points: 1: you have asked me this question five times (assuming he comes back so you can deliver this) and failed to understand the concept. The definition of crazy is to do something over and over and expect different results. 2: You may consider talking to me like talking to a child but maybe the problem is that explaining something to you that others have no problem with is like explaining something to a moron. 3: Given your inability to understand what others have no problem with and the inability of myself to get you to understand, why don’t you try reading the fine manual. 4: Insulting someone you are dependent on, like biting the hand that feeds you, is a quick way to get yourself cut off. Leave until you can correct your attitude and demonstrate a contrite and humble mind-set. An arrogant mind is a closed mind, incapable of considering itself missing core concepts from which to build understanding.

I like either a big rock moving really fast, as in: A big rock moving really fast took out the dinosaurs. Or a thousand monkeys as in: The US elected a thousand monkeys to run their government for the benefit of foreign squatters and they got a great depression death spiral. The utility of these is that you can be far enough away that the target doesn’t know where it came from. And it sets up conditions in which the death takes a while. Great entertainment. Your big muscled kung fu is no match for my big rock and thousand monkeys. Ha Ha

Tom Cruise aye? ROTFL. No, I have read one of the novels by the guy that created scientology, well part of one, Blaaaaaaa, put it down and never went back. You clearly consider religion to be a noun signifying categories for the partitioning of humanity, thereby creating an opening for the confuser to keep you from learning from the wisdom of others. Whereas, as I explained it, in its original meaning it is a verb indicating a process to rebind man to man’s creator. Though I admit this is consistent with your concept of “no one comes to God except through me” whereas I consider him only one of many instances of an archetype. (Think instantiations of a class that is necessary and sufficient) And if you look closely I did address one of your quotes from the bible, I just put it into a form that removes the “mystery” from it. (Though, it seems to still be mysterious to you given the effectiveness of my efforts. LOL I beg your pardon given the shortness of my free time.) I consider that some of the text of the bible is the word of God, given that Jesus was a Christ. Something you would have noticed if you had of followed my terms in the afore mentioned biblical quote. But not all of it. When Jesus prays to The God he is expressing his personal context, and there are other instances. The “crumbs from the masters table” incident for one. It is not an all or nothing binary valuation, red letter bible or not., Now if: a: you believe the whole bible is God’s word and b: Jesus is God then I can understand you believing all the stuff written about Jesus by the unknown authors of the various books being Jesus saying something about himself as you have turned the whole bloody thing into a tautology, including the two different genealogies of Jesus. I also use your context as that is required under communication theory, also explained in my post. I note you have significant difficulty with my context given the brevity of my posts. Given the objectivity and rigor of your interpretations of the bible and assuming you are typical of Christians, which I assume is your contention, then you justify my original post. Lets us end this discussion with a summary for those that may read this. I consider that which created this “universe” (though I reserve that term for the outer most container, including the one that the energy of this verse came from) to be supremely intelligent and that that intelligence overlays the outermost verse, aka the continuum or the “universe” in my context. Everything contained within that verse

Surly you don’t believe Psalm 2 refers to Jesus. Is that a time warp or David channeling the unborn Jesus as God talks to the channeled spirit? Get real. You really got to twist both time and logic to accept that kludge. The Buddhist have a concept best translated as “the near evil”. It is the confuser’s job to get you to substitute the near evil for the true value. We have seen this in confusing the human concept of “begotten son of god” for God’s concept of begotten and son. In the spiritual arena it is a simple matter to get someone to confuse the literal interpretation of the spiritual similes. The spiritual dimension is so much different from corporeal creation that communication must all be allegorical. In communication theory you must encode based on the ability and context of the receiver and decode based on the intent of the transmitter. The Greek work “ology” can be variously translated as “discussion” or “word”, note the Socratic method of teaching. To understand the allegory of Jesus you must understand the original meaning of the word “religion”. To do this I must take you on a trip from the old testament to the newest testament. In Judaism “that small still voice” is called the bot quoi. (sp –5). In learning to listen to this small still voice you must learn to still your on voice. That is the original meaning of conscience, con – with, science – knowledge. Your conscience is the knowledge you share with Alaha. As you make that connection stronger you make your religion stronger, re –again, ligio –to bind. In the newest testament Alaha says: “I can not fit within the heavens and the earth but I can fit within the heart of my believing servant.” This is how Jesus became one with Alaha. This is how you become one with Alaha. Jesus’ soul, your soul, is breathed into your body from the essence of God and so is with God in the before, “the discussion”, Jesus’ allegory was with Alaha in the now and, most importantly, as all things pass away, your soul, given any success in religion, with be with Alaha in the after. It can be said that if you know the lamp shade you know the light. And conversely if you know the light you know the lamp shade. (substitute son and father here as you like) Now you could learn about Alaha from creation, though there are few people accomplished enough in all the ologies, biology, ecology, cosmology etc to truly appreciate The Supreme Intelligence that overlays the continuum. Further inanimate objects do not do it the justice a cognizant object can. If you have seen c

Sorry about the lateness of this reply but I work at a secure military facility and posting on sites like this has issues. But given the value of your souls I decided to stick my neck out a bit. You implied I didn’t know much about the Bible so lets review. A: I know that on the Cross Jesus reportedly said “My God, My God, why have you abandoned me”. Odd statement from “The God” but not so odd for a Christ, though I doubt you know what a Christ is, spiritually. Ironic that modern christans don’t teach what the parts of the christ complex are but then they would really have a hard time with their tritheism. B: in John 17 Jesus says “Glorify me that I may glorify you” The translations get a bit confusing with the pronouns but clearly Jesus considered himself separate from and dependent upon his God. C: in Aramaic just before Mathew 19:19 it reads “Thow shalt love the Lord, x” where x is the personal possessive form of Alaha. Not “Me”. So Jesus is telling you to love Alaha. And continuing “have no other God before God” Substitute the word “Alaha” there as well. D: in Aramaic One of the Beatitudes reads “tubrahum lavdae salama deanada d’alaha nitqurume.” The “d’” before the “alaha” is a prepositional prefix indicating the agent of the verb and while it is generally translated as “of” it is better translated as “by” meaning “blessed are the consistent in peace, called(plual) by Alaha children” Implying it is Alaha that calls them children. E: At the second trial of Jesus by the sanhedren he was accused of saying he was an offspring of God, I know his reply and since it wasn’t until the third trial that they pronounced blaspheme on him, Jesus obliviously denied the claim. You look it up, volumous. F: in the Vulgate, Presheta, Tora and even the King James, Psalm 2, 4-8 indicates there was another “begotten son of God”. Given that that person was around 40 at the time of being “begotten” the term means something different to God than it does to humans and human theorists. Many latter versions of the Bible have been redacted to fit which ever of the 3000 of so theologies each denomination champions so get out one of the ones I mentioned. Now, you can follow the teaching of Jesus and worship Alaha or you can follow the teachings of priests and redactors but then you might want to think about why Jesus had such a problem with the priests and such. Your soul, not mine, yet each death diminishes me. I also know proof by contradiction. To prove A assume not A and show that leads to a contradiction. To prove Jesus

One of the interesting things about pagan Christians are that they worship Jesus instead of who Jesus worshiped (hence the pagan thing). Not one in a thousand knows the name of Jesus’ God in Aramaic. Note the “believe in He that sent me” above. It indicates both separation in the mind of Jesus and servitude. The name by the way is Alaha, the Aramaic version of Allah. The result is that while most pagan Christians revile Islam, it is the Muslims that meet the criteria mentioned above. This is the end of the ology for Christians. Won’t they be surprised?