First 2 comments (not mine) under Part 2 apparently about it:
"@oojai
4 months ago
@33 minutes into this discussion- after more than two hours of presentation and q&a we have an 'honorary member' effectively suggesting the censorship of this discussion. To further Jim’s point - scientific progress moves ahead one funeral at a time."
---
"@tonka5
4 months ago
Anitra Thorhaug sounds like a censorship coach."
---
And a first comment for the hell of it from under Part 2:
---
"@Mac-ku3xu
3 months ago
Thanks for warning us about Jim's habit of challenging authority - I wouldn't want to be exposed to any independent thought that hasn't been pre-approved by govt censors for my own safety."
How about we throw the chair back in the cafe and I stop hamming around at your expense and get back to work myself?
---
Seriously, though, I was listening again at the linked video I just posted with Jim and Club Of Rome Canada Chapter panel discussion from 5 months ago and, at the end, the woman who labeled Jim a 'disruptor' suggested, if recalled (as I have yet to view it to the end again), that the video be entitled something that warns people of that fact...
What's interesting is that it seems they went in and changed the 'controversial' title since last time to one that doesn't reflect her recommendations!
And to support my recollection, it appears they forgot to remove the part in their description that mentions that...
Here it is:
"After much consideration, with the agreement of the speaker, CACOR is publishing this presentation under the title A Disturbing and Provocative Viewpoint on Breaking through the Fog of Unreality."
As you can see at the link below, that's not the title (anymore)...
Lol, no way i'm doing those nasty washrooms :-). Doesn't a touch of drama kinda lift the moods anyway.
I found this in the vid description [[This second recording contains more of our question and answer period. Viewers are reminded that Mr. Kunstler's views are controversial. Further, the speaker's views may not reflect those of CACOR. Ed.]]
You know, it could be that she was doing him a favor. I mean as we were talking earlier about sales. Everyone wants controversy. Even if quietly where others don't know. So that is likely to draw people in. And for those it scares away. Well honestly i'm not certain if those types can be helped anyway. Thanks for bringing this up. I'll listen to the discussion this evening. Sounds interesting! I thought my therapy ranch idea was good. It would at least preserve the property and may be like social work to help nerdowells. That theme is closer to WMBH narrative.
Fine. I'll get on the chair. You're a real piece of work SB you know that.
First 2 comments (not mine) under Part 2 apparently about it:
"@oojai
4 months ago
@33 minutes into this discussion- after more than two hours of presentation and q&a we have an 'honorary member' effectively suggesting the censorship of this discussion. To further Jim’s point - scientific progress moves ahead one funeral at a time."
---
"@tonka5
4 months ago
Anitra Thorhaug sounds like a censorship coach."
---
And a first comment for the hell of it from under Part 2:
---
"@Mac-ku3xu
3 months ago
Thanks for warning us about Jim's habit of challenging authority - I wouldn't want to be exposed to any independent thought that hasn't been pre-approved by govt censors for my own safety."
~ CACOR Live - James Kunstler (Part One) ~
LOL You're too cute. ^u^
How about we throw the chair back in the cafe and I stop hamming around at your expense and get back to work myself?
---
Seriously, though, I was listening again at the linked video I just posted with Jim and Club Of Rome Canada Chapter panel discussion from 5 months ago and, at the end, the woman who labeled Jim a 'disruptor' suggested, if recalled (as I have yet to view it to the end again), that the video be entitled something that warns people of that fact...
What's interesting is that it seems they went in and changed the 'controversial' title since last time to one that doesn't reflect her recommendations!
And to support my recollection, it appears they forgot to remove the part in their description that mentions that...
Here it is:
"After much consideration, with the agreement of the speaker, CACOR is publishing this presentation under the title A Disturbing and Provocative Viewpoint on Breaking through the Fog of Unreality."
As you can see at the link below, that's not the title (anymore)...
youtu.be/-4AMnViQv9A?si=GHCkqxMl4wojroew
Lol, no way i'm doing those nasty washrooms :-). Doesn't a touch of drama kinda lift the moods anyway.
I found this in the vid description [[This second recording contains more of our question and answer period. Viewers are reminded that Mr. Kunstler's views are controversial. Further, the speaker's views may not reflect those of CACOR. Ed.]]
You know, it could be that she was doing him a favor. I mean as we were talking earlier about sales. Everyone wants controversy. Even if quietly where others don't know. So that is likely to draw people in. And for those it scares away. Well honestly i'm not certain if those types can be helped anyway. Thanks for bringing this up. I'll listen to the discussion this evening. Sounds interesting! I thought my therapy ranch idea was good. It would at least preserve the property and may be like social work to help nerdowells. That theme is closer to WMBH narrative.
Dreamy, Zazzy jumped the tracks back up around the "envelope" comment.
I didn't catch your therapy ranch, sounds intringuing. And yes, good point-- 'controversy sells' as they say. Have to log off. Goodnight!
Zazzy - go back upthread to Dreamy's comment about her (excellent) idea for a therapy ranch on Elysianfield's property.
PS - if you want to see a really intriguing idea, see my suggestion for E's property. ;-)