redUxum/absurd-0oHMMM../..

key*..<,.A religious order in India
were devout followers of a certain guru..
and..had sworn to adhere to his teachings
[BECAUSE]..of deep respect for intellectual..and rational pursuits.

HE NO DOUBT WOULD have defined as his teaching the differentiation..OF RATIONAL/AS Distinct]..of irrational
[ya get where this is going?]

<<..One day the guru fell gravely ill and his followers gathered at his bedside...>>clearly in a delusional delirium[HENCE WHY/THE Following script

<<..In a moment of lucidity*>>..key,..aLL PRIOR WASNT..
<<..in his otherwise overpowering delirium..he rose on one elbow and commanded all those..who had adorned themselves with the 'Bindi' to leave>>

Traditionally, the area between the eyebrows (where the bindi is placed) is said to be the sixth chakra, ajna, the seat of "concealed wisdom". The bindi is said to retain energy and strengthen concentration. [1] The bindi also represents the third eye.[2] It is also used in festivals such as Holi.[3] According to Jabala upanishad "Avimukta"(i.e the middle of the eye-brows) is the abode of Brahman in all beings.

TO ASK ALL With the red eye..means to tell the married ones to leave
[YOUR WISDOM..LIES in thYne unseen mate]..[YOU IN PAIR-BOND..regain energies..AND STRENGTHEN..YOUR MUTUAL Concentration..[CHI]..THE THIRD EYE [SIGNIFIES THE TRIBUNE]

<<..with the words “All those with the 'red eye' must remove themselves”.>>>

signifies only the singular

then..a strange injection..
after we can presume all under the bindi leave
NOT HAVING TO THUS witness any of the further insanity..SUCH AS

<<.To him>>..in his delirium..<<..their sign of respect
was instead a repudiation of all that he had taught>>IN HIS UN DELIRIUM-ED STATE.

WHAT WAS THE POINT?
30 WERE Remaining?..BUT LETS NOT LOOK AT THE RED EYE?
[NEVER STARE AT the one eyed TROUSER snake?,,dont dot the eyes..nor crosS THE T's..[sorrY WATCHING A WAR MOVIE/WAR DRIVES my guides nuts.]

Dear SteeleRedux,

Those followers were indeed a bunch of idiots and it wasn't their guru's fault.

Anyway, if there were N followers with red eyes, then they would all kill themselves on the N'th night, but if I were in their place then I would have run away from that place much earlier.

Actually, if I saw M others with red eyes, then I would have escaped on the M'th night.

Tragically, running away would not save the others... unless the terms of the first vow allowed the followers to find a secluded cave and kill themselves there where none of the others would find their body.

If that was allowed and a person with red eyes escaped on the (N-1)th night, then everyone will be saved!

However, why would a red-eyed person escape BEFORE their M'th night?

So if there was no other reason to escape (such as the poor food), then all others are still doomed.

Dear spindoc,

Permit me a slight correction.

The sentence “It could mean I did not offer an apology at all, or that it was that of Zuesse whom you did not include.” should of course read “It could mean I did not offer an opinion at all, or that it was that of Zuesse whom you did not include.”

Regards

Dear Yuyutsu,

For me the main conundrum of the puzzle is not the conduct of of the participants (it is after all a fiction) but rather why deaths resulted because of some one imparting information that was already known to the followers. I of course acknowledge it was an outside agent so to speak but I'm not sure why this would make a difference. If you have any clue at all I would be grateful if you could share it with me.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The foreigner DID indeed impart new information:

If there was only one follower with red eyes, then he learned about it for the first time while the others then knew that now everyone knows that some have red eyes.

If there were two followers with red eyes, then those two learned for the first time that everyone else also knows that there are some with red eyes while the others knew that everyone now knows that everyone knows that some have red eyes.

If there were three followers with red eyes, then those three learned for the first time that everyone else knows that everyone knows that some have red eyes while the others knew that everyone now knows that everyone knows that everyone knows that some have red eyes.

... and so on ...

Religions goes by shades of gray..red eyes is a matrter of degree
no mirrors is an absurdity as we each reflect each others expressions

if i got red eyes people dont need say nuthiNG..[IKE l;eprocy..thery will avoid me]

much like its no secrete TO ANYONE ELSE
INSTEAD OF RED EYES THINK OF STINK..WE ALL KNOW WHO STINKS[OUR NOSE KNOWS..JUST AS PEOPLES EYES SEE INEVITABLY..THOSE WITH RED EYES..WHATEVER THAT MEANS..its no surprise to those who can Look around see alL the other red eyes..and surmise..[THE DREADED TRUTH

looks like can be deceiving
like A GENETIC DOG..CAN LOOK LIKE [YET Never be]..a CAT
UNLIKE SAY SIN..WHICH SOMEHOW WE CAN Distance from our own 'sins'..[recall it took jesus to look at leprosy..and say you aint got leprosy

i think of it like that saying''dont tak of the war''

or see no evil
or those who lead you are clearly insane/so ignore theM

‘morning Steelie,

I think we can conclude that you have no intention of answering the question after six postings of it.

<< What is the difference between private, institutional and corporate wealth? >>

Since you have now expended 11 lengthy posts in avoiding any answer, it’s time to examine why this innocuous question is so impossible for you?

You suggest << it is entirely appropriate that we deal with these matters in the order they were raised on the thread>>. I agree.

You started your thread with a puzzle however, by only your second post you had already converted the theme and focus to your “private wealth” targets of “Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive” when you posted;

<< Let's set up the following hierarchy,

1. Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive (GTC)
2. The former Labour government (LAB)
3. The former Liberal opposition (LIB)
4. Australia's middle class (MC)
5. Australia's 'Lower' Class (LC) >>

Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 11:08:35 PM

By changing the purpose and intent you hoisted the piñata to take a swing at your ideological enemies.

So before you get too far into pointing to my “thread derailing, allegations”. Perhaps you need to acknowledge just who introduced that change?

It’s your thread however, try to avoid using your own hypocrisy as a valid defense.

You then tried to justify your case by pointing to the Huffington Post article and the Credit Suisse report.

The difficulty you have with my question is that having changed the purpose and intent, you are now faced with acknowledging that there are many different “types” of wealth which would be counter to your private wealth case, and in fact demolish it.

You selectively allude to the private wealth of such as “Gina, Twiggy and Prince Clive” but you avoid addressing the vast private wealth accrued by superstars in the entertainment industry, the media, sports, trade unions and former politicians.

It is also counter to your case to allow examination of the corporate or institutional wealth, which likewise fund capital investment in our societies.

Cont’d.