Showing posts sorted by relevance for query time wasters making. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query time wasters making. Sort by date Show all posts

May 1, 2012

Liars, Accusers and Other Sycophants

Revised 19 May 2013.

I have written about this before, but it's time to have another go at it and make it better. It's about accusations of "liar".

Some other people and I took someone to task in a forum for using the pathetically obtuse and detestable accusation, "liar for Jesus", something that people like this probably picked up from Dawkins. I have yet to see that garbage used by someone who was not simply attempting to provoke a negative reaction. Here are some reasons that this libelous phrase is agonizingly stupid:
  • It implies that the accuser knows the motives of the person, including a desire to deceive
  • The accuser does not stop to consider that God does not condone lying
  • How it is inconsistent to accuse someone of lying to get someone to believe in a holy God
Judging from my own observations and experience, other accusations of "liar" come from people who are unable to differentiate between lies and a difference of opinion. This is painfully obvious among the so-called "New Atheists" (the only things "new" are the noise level and the ridicule), such as the vituperative P.Z. Myers and his sycophants with their name-calling of creationists and accusations of "liar". I wonder if types like this even know the real definition of a lie.

Guess what, Buttercup — "Deceit" and "a difference of opinion about the interpretation of scientific evidence" are not the same thing. It is also contrary to the spirit of scientific inquiry to dismiss alternative explanations as "lies" instead of examining the evidence.

Further, this foolishness of calling someone a liar out of hand commits several fallacious things at once: Poisoning the well, appeal to ridicule, commit an abusive ad hominem and others. This trick conveniently dodges any truths that the other person may be saying that the attacker finds inconvenient; it's a kind of preemptive strike.

The accusation itself is not the same as a conviction, despite what some people pretend.

A fact is a fact. The interpretations of facts cause the friction. When a creationist says that the scientific evidence, the observed facts, refute evolution and affirm that there is a Creator, the intelligent response is not, "You're liars! All creationists are liars!" Of course, these people are crying from behind the safety of their computer keyboards and not making their absurd accusations face-to-face. 

Can you imagine this happening in other situations?

At the restaurant, f'rinstance:
"I have had four Dell computers. Three of them lasted a short time before meeting the scrap heap, the fourth is the worst computer I have ever had the misfortune of owning. My eMachine computer has outlasted and outperformed all of them. I will never go back to Dell."

"You're a liar! You hate Dells, that's all! Everyone knows that eMachines are junk! Why don't you submit your material to a scientific peer-reviewed journal and get a Nobel Prize for proving that a big-name computer company is bad? You Dell haters are all the same, a bunch of liars!"

"I'm speaking from my own experience, Poindexter. Now, are you going to serve my breakfast or shall I go to your competitor?"
Absurd, right? So is the accusation without evidence. Yet, it happens frequently online when evidence is presented that threatens evolution and an atheistic worldview, or people just don't like it. No need to examine, just use the presuppostion that evolution is true and work from there (circular reasoning based on a faulty premise).

Why would atheists care if we were actually lying? Since they have no consistent moral standard, no objective moral truth, why can't we just act like so many of them and say whatever we want? By pretending that they think something we do is "wrong", they are affirming our ultimate moral standard, which comes from God! How can there be a "good" atheist? Compared to what standard

I'm going to put this to those people: When making such an accusation, you must give evidence (as well as motive) that the other person is actually lying. Back it up, Bertram. Not that you disagree, not that they are mistaken, not that they are using hyperbole to make a point, not that they are making a joke, but genuinely lying. Otherwise, I fully believe it is reasonable to accuse you of being the liar, attempting to manipulate the opinions of non-thinkers in your favor. And you being a liar would disappoint Sam Harris.

November 22, 2010

Stupid People

No, Nicky. I'm saying that you should go to The Organ Stop for pizza the next time you're in Mesa. The Wurlitzer organ is a classic — oh, company's here.

Buon giorno. Stupid people get on my nerves. You too, huh? That's not surprising. But — what exactly are "stupid" people?

We all know some people who do inexplicable things that a reasonable person would not say or do. "What did you do that for? That was stupid!" Some people seem to lack simple common sense. But quite often, it's not that cut and dried. Sometimes, there are reasons for what we consider "stupid" things.
  • Uninformed. If someone did not know better, it is unfair to find fault with him. "I've never seen one of those before, and didn't know that it would do that. Sorry."
  • Differences of opinion. You believe this is true, I believe that is true. Disagreement itself does not equal stupidity.
  • Fatigue, stress, medications acting up, distractions. Don't give me that smug look, you know it's happened to you, too. One of my best examples was on September 11, 2001. I was driving and missed my turn. So I went back, tried again, missed it again. Terrorist attacks two hours south of me are quite a distraction. Another thing that comes to mind is my own writing. I have re-read and almost cringed at bad wordings because I wrote at less than optimal times, giving the readers less that they deserve. So, I try to fix some of those.
  • Different understandings. Whether it is culture, upbringing, social conditioning, simple ignorance or whatever, it is often best to define our terms.
  • Just not thinking. Pay attention, Percival. Focus, Frankie.
  • Laziness. Let's face it, some people do not want to be bothered to actually think, but want others to do the work for them. We all have those times, but it should not be a lifestyle.
  • Prejudice and bias. The assumption that people of (insert persuasion here) are stupid in the first place. How can someone of (that persuasion) explain to you about Concepts B through Z, when you say flat out that his Concept A, the foundation of it all, is a lie? Not only is his listener unable to understand the rest of the points, he thinks that the speaker is stupid. The listener probably seems stupid to the speaker as well because of his refusal to try to understand.
  • Anger and hate. No, I am not going to repeat that article. But I have seen many times when people are so obsessed with hate, or become so angry, they "stupidify" themselves. Sometimes, I believe people are being deliberately stupid because they refuse to understand the point that the other person is making, believe that the other person is incapable of making a valid point, or they have their own bias and just don't like what the other person is saying. Similarly, declaring something to be true or untrue does not make it so, no matter how much you may disapprove. Something that is both sad and frustrating is when hateful, biased people agree that they are intelligent and their opponents are the stupid ones.
  • Deceived. Sometimes, it's rooted in hate and people are jumping on a bandwagon. There are some very intelligent people I know that are deceived into hating. They are not stupid, but they are not thinking for themselves.
It's easy to be judgmental because someone does not know what you're talking about. What is it that we do to sabotage our own efforts at being understood, receiving blank stares, wrong replies or just, "Huh?"

I want to add that I do not quite go along with the old adage, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." Yes, I believe that there are stupid questions — under certain conditions. If someone is simply not bothering to think, not paying attention, has already given the answer several times &c. It seems that the most productive thing to do is to make the best of that situation, and perhaps avoid wasting time with that person, or getting into that situation with that person, in the future. Capice?

So, we can mess things up ourselves: 
  • Using "lingo" that is peculiar to our knowledge, experience and occupation. "Jesus is the propitiation for our sins." "The sling lift is malfunctioning." "The trajectory compensated for the apogee of Mars." Sure, this makes sense to your associates, but other people get lost in your terminology.
  • Incompleteness. We expect people to understand us, but we did not lay a foundation for their understanding. It's like opening a book in the middle and trying to understand the story.
  • Great expectations. The dickens of this is that we can assume and expect people to know what we are saying without doing a "check point" to make sure that everyone is on the same wavelength. Bonus: You can demonstrate this yourself by saying or writing something back: "If I understand you correctly, your belief is..." when you're trying to understand someone.
  • Joe Thesaurus. Some people like to put on airs by filling up their sentences with expensive words instead of communicating plainly.
  • Consider your audience. This ties into several points above, I know. When I was in a class on speechifying, I was told to talk as if I had an audience of twelve-year-olds. This helps in many ways. There were times I had to talk to uneducated people in one part of my job, and then report to the business-oriented supervisors on the other end. Speaking plainly helped in both areas. Caution: Do not "dumb down" your words, or act like you are above people and doing them a favor. Instead of communicating, you'll be insulting. "Do you understand this, or shall I say it again slower and use one syllable words?" That example is blatant, but sometimes, we can appear that way to our hearers or readers.
  • Creating an emotional situation. Just try to talk reasonably with an angry crowd. Worse, get people worked up seven ways 'till sundown and then try to make sense to them. There's a difference between stirring up emotions and giving a motivational talk.
  • Bad timing. Sometimes, you should just clam up and wait because now is not a good time.
  • Limited understanding. You try to explain something, but someone does not have the background (and possibly the intellect) to grasp what you are doing. Are they "stupid"? Possibly, but more likely, you are being unfair by expecting too much. Then, you are on the receiving end. Even though you have the superior knowledge, you are considered stupid or even a liar because they cannot (or will not) grasp your point. For instance, God says, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" (Isaiah 55.8-9). Also, spiritual things are not understood by unbelievers (I Cor. 2.14). So, explaining a deep biblical concept to an unbeliever is usually frustrating because he cannot receive it. Therefore, you are the stupid one for believing in something he cannot understand. Agonizing. It's a good thing that we have Jesus to explain God to us (John 1.18).
In summary, we all have stupid moments. And yes, some people really are stupid. But more often than not, they could be having a "moment", and if you knew what was going on, their "stupidity" would actually be understandable. If someone called you stupid, you would probably bristle and respond, yes? Then try this: Cut them some slack, and think about some of the ways you may have fouled up, even though you fully believe that you are not really stupid. Matthew 7.12.

October 20, 2010

Atheistic Disunderstanding


"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."
— Sir Francis Bacon

I have to admit that I'm stumped about something. And I do not like writing an article of this nature, where I am responding to something said about me in the comments section of another Weblog. But I feel that I should.

There was a comment about me at "Atheist Central", but I am reluctant to name the source. I'm thinking that he (?) may not want to be named outright, here. Well, if he (?) wants to leave a comment and claim it, then fine, I'll acknowledge it. But he will not, since he said (among other hateful things), "Thankfully, my atheistic morality prevents me from visiting the blogs of hate-filled, angry, bigoted, and racist people such as yourself." (Racist? Where did that come from? Everyone annoys me equally.) It is indeed unfortunate the this craven little coward cannot back up his (?) accusations, preferring to live in a neurotic, self-created world. Atheistic morality? Uh, yeah, seen it in action, it's situational convenience, nothing more.

The quote goes as follows, and I quote, "Stormbringer, for example, would rather see atheists burn in hell than show or tell them of God's love for them." Not only did this do nothing to advance an argument, but the paragraph to which it was attached was in reference to Hitler. Horrible use of logic, or even of writing itself; such an accusation deserved to be in a separate paragraph, with supporting sentences.

In the comments section of Atheist Central, there are one or two Christians that I consider embarrassing. They remind me of a guy in a video clip who was waving a "Jesus (heart) You!" sign and dancing around on Hollywood Boulevard. I'm not into being a cheerleader, or inviting everyone over to sing "Kumbaya" and serve ice cream sandwiches. That's not God's love, that's sappiness. One guy in particular blows so much smoke, I'd be afraid of getting TB if he was nearby.

This is the problem that I have with the aforementioned antagonist and to many other "new" atheists who claim to love "reason" and "science" is that they have their preconceptions and cannot be shaken by contrary evidence. In fact, contrary evidence is disallowed by default: If it is not offered by an atheist scientist, then it is not science and it is bad reasoning. Rubbish. As I have pointed out before, atheists are demanding proof for the existence of God, but refuse to look at apologetics links or other arguments that are offered because "I know what it's going to say, and it's dumb". Really scientific and logical, Poindexter.

If one of the few intellectually honest and courageous (or curious) atheists wants to examine evidence for the existence of God, or for the validity of the Bible, I have apologetics links available near the top of the page, just below that introduction box thingie. Hopefully, you won't be like that coward and dismiss things out of hand just because you're afraid of being proven wrong. Follow where the evidence leads — I dare you.

I try to get these people to think. When I catch them in errors of logic, naturally, I get excuses and the equivalent of a rude gesture to prove that they are my intellectual superiors simply because they said so and xtians are big dumb stupidheads. So they get offended because I show them flaws in their logic — that thing they claim to admire so much. The problem is, and perhaps they know this intuitively, that if they see cracks in their armor, then they may have to admit that there is more to reality than they originally thought.

As for the charges that I do not show or tell of God's love — waitaminnit! Why should he (?) care? God, Hell and everything else do not exist in this worldview. Is it self pity, or just lashing out in hate? This guy (?) has problems.

Before I interrupted myself, I wanted to prove my point, that there are articles in this Weblog that belie the notion that I want them in Hell. (And remember, I had not recommitted my life to Christ until April, 2010.) Here are some of the more blatant examples:
  • May 7 article
  • May 17 article, with a rock song about Hell. It doesn't have to end that way!
  • May 24 article, part 2 of "Why I Cannot Trust Atheists" has a strong appeal near the end
  • June 30 article, another good rock tune and a message afterward
  • July 1 article was a flat-out appeal, plus a five minute audio message attached
  • October 2 article was an appeal to use reason and not biases
  • October 11 article was a springboard from a quote by Aldous Huxley
  • October 19 article, published the morning before his (?) attack had a strong message
I've lost count of the number of times I've advised people to dump the hate because it clouds reasoning ability. Too bad this intellectually dishonest coward will not see where he (?) is proven wrong.

Note that this is a multi-purpose Weblog, not just for the entertainment and education of atheists. Also, it is not a "ministry", but I do have spiritual values that I insert in some of my articles. If you don't like them, read around them. If you care to browse, you'll see all sorts of fun things. And since it's multi-purpose, plus the fact that I'm very, very, very tired of banging my head against the brick wall of anti-theism, I'm going do deal with other things for a while.

October 2, 2010

Time Wasters: Making Your Own Rules

"What Naaman did was childish. It was foolish. It was an insult to his intellectual dignity. But what he did cured his leprosy. He was cured because of his faith, his humility and his obedience. God was the one who healed him, but the way to his healing came through the very low door of humility."  
Ray Comfort


Buon giorno. I thought I could take the week off because I had five days' postings all lined up on Sunday, but no, another inspiration hit me. And yes, I said that philosophical debates become a waste of time. I'm going to give you some of my philosophy. You can sit there and look pretty. Nicky, you can just sit there.

When it comes to presenting evidence for the existence of God, the validity of the Bible &c., I have observed several "brick walls" constructed to disallow contrary viewpoints. As far as I'm concerned, this comes down to "making your own rules".  This tactic is used when a mind is made up and does not want to be confused by contrary evidences and facts.

"Uh oh. Are you going to use another bullet list again, Cowboy Bob?"

Yes indeed. Here are the kinds of dodges that I have noticed, some of which are variations on "classic" errors of logic:
  • Ridiculous demands. "Prove that God exists. Right here, right now!" Sure, Shirley. You are obviously seeking the truth and have an open mind (snicker, guffaw), and someone else's comment section about an unrelated topic is the right place, yah, shew-er, you bet-cha. Another ridiculous demand is allowing all comments so that anything stupid or obscene is available to all (especially when this demand is made by people who delete comments on their own Weblogs).
  • Foreknowledge. "I know what your sources are going to say, so I'm not going to pay attention". I have been hit with, "I know what your links are going to say, so I won't look at them." Pretending to be God, Gordon?
  • Rejection of correction. "You've shown me this, that and the other thing. But you're still wrong." You're being a pest, Percy.
  • Limited world view. Sure, we all do it to some extent, but I'm thinking of, "Naturalism is the only explanation and I refuse to consider any evidence for the supernatural. There is only the material, and there is no soul or spirit. Therefore, all of your arguments suck!" That's preposterous, Poindexter. I've said it before, and it's worth repeating: Everyone has biases. But not everyone insists on narrow, materialistic explanations only; follow where the evidence leads.
  • Absurd validation. "Christians cannot reference other Christians because  they have something to prove." Or, "Even though the Bible is not just one book written by just one author, and even though there is textual validation, it cannot be trusted unless we use less reliable sources from outside." Just listen, Leroy. From the way your reasoning goes, if anyone has anything to prove, they cannot cite supporting references and have to just shut up. Except naturalists, of course.
  • False declaration. "Presuppositional apologetics is junk". Not so fast, Ferdinand! Maybe you reject it (or do not understand it), but it's an established and respected method. I was listening to a podcast debate between an atheist and a Christian and thought, "This guy is really stumping this atheist". While searching for his site, I saw a comment posted in an atheist forum that said, in essence, "The atheist sure destroyed that Xtian, haw haw haw!" Ummmm...no. Declaring doesn't make something magically become true.
  • Appeal to authority, argumentum ad verecundiam. "The Transcendental Argument using logical absolutes is dead, Dawson Bethrick and Michael Martin said so". Really, Rowena? Wow, I have to move on to something else on that guy's say-so. Glad you set me straight. (I see this established fallacy all too frequently.)
  • Rejecting the source out of hand. "I won't listen to you because you're stupid", or, "All creationists are not scientists". Relax, drop the Genetic Fallacies and deal with the argument, Artie.
  • Motive. While it's not a "logic fallacy" in and of itself, it can "color" or "taint" your approach; in my opinion, if you're more interested in destroying the other person than in reaching an understanding of the topic under discussion, you're more likely to be willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish your goal. If you're presenting the truth in a good manner, you are more likely to catch yourself before you blunder into errors.
  • Then there's the classic of "piling on" (populum stercus velocitus); rational discussion can happen one-on-one, but when everyone is chiming in with ridicule, forget it, Flossie. People wonder why I drop out of "discussions" on Twitter, and this is one reason.
There are other problems, but you get the idea; do whatever it takes to dodge arguments and insult the intelligence of contrary viewpoints. If you open up your mind, you may wind up changing it and your walls will come down.

I'll tell you what this comes down to: Pride. You want it your way, and that's not exactly smart or reasonable. Take a look at this:
So Naaman came with his horses and chariots and stood in the doorway of Elisha's house. Elisha sent out a messenger who told him, "Go and wash seven times in the Jordan; your skin will be restored and you will be healed."

Naaman went away angry. He said, "Look, I thought for sure he would come out, stand there, invoke the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the area, and cure the skin disease. The rivers of Damascus, the Abana and Pharpar, are better than any of the waters of Israel! Could I not wash in them and be healed?" So he turned around and went away angry.

His servants approached and said to him, "O master, if the prophet had told you to do some difficult task, you would have been willing to do it. It seems you should be happy that he simply said, "Wash and you will be healed." So he went down and dipped in the Jordan seven times, as the prophet had instructed. His skin became as smooth as a young child's and he was healed (2 Kings 9-14 NET Bible).
Naaman was a captain of the Syrian guard. It was difficult enough for him to seek out a prophet of Israel, but to be told to do something that he considered silly was almost too much. It took a kind of, "Well, as long as we're here, you have nothing to lose by trying" approach to get him to humble himself and get healed.

If you want to learn something about God, you'll never succeed if your pride is in the way and you put up barriers, capice? Someone who simply wants to argue instead of learning truth is simply wasting the time of those who try to reason with him (1 Timothy 6.20). Tear down the walls.
By the way, did anyone catch on that populum stercus velocitus is not a "real" logic fallacy? Sorta made that up.

September 30, 2010

Time Wasters: Lying Part 1

“I'm not upset that you lied to me,
I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
Buon giorno. Yours truly is a bit wired today, and ready to give you a couple of lessons on lying. Yes, two: First, some explanation on what lying really means (and doesn't mean), and second, why it's counterproductive.


"Why do people lie, Uncle Bob?"

Some are compulsive liars and cannot help themselves. It may be that the truth is unflattering to them, so they have to make themselves look better than they really are. Sometimes it's because they are selfish and greedy, so if lying is a means to an end, that's fine with them. Further, people who are consumed with hate will say anything to hurt the object of their ire.


The intent to deceive is an integral part of lying. Lying has several aspects:
  • The obvious, flat-out lie. "Did you come in a half an hour late to work?"..."No..." Also, there was a "scientist", obviously a fraud, who posted a comment about my article on evolutionary fakes. In one part, he said that he examined the fraudulent Piltdown Man. Either he did it behind the ropes in a museum, or he is about 130 years old!
  • Deliberately skewing information and leaving out pertinent data that would give a more complete, or even different, result.
  • Selective citing of quotes. Be careful with this one, because sometimes quotations are appended to give a more complete picture and you can be accused of "quote mining". (This is common with evolutionists who abhor having their heroes showing doubt about their belief system.) Quoting from the middle of a paragraph or taking only a few sentences from an article out of context is typical of yellow journalism; it's disingenuous at best, and can often be dishonest. (Note that saying something like, "This sentence caught my attention. It seemed at odds with the rest of the story" seems safe enough.) The principle applies to changing quotes as well — if you're deliberately changing a quotation or tampering with it, you're a liar.
  • Implying. Closely related to the above. You can simply not bother to check out information that is readily available. For instance, "The author claims that he wrote about steam engines, but I could find no such article". Well, sure, if you only looked at the current page of the Weblog, or did not bother to do a search under the author's name and the topic. Did you ignore the link that was provided? A more honest remark would be, "...I did not find the article in my brief search." If you are implying that the author or speaker is a liar and you "support" your claim with implication (and incomplete research), you are the liar, Lawrence.
  • Assigning a motive. You don't know what is in someone's heart or mind "on the fly". For instance, I heard a Bible teacher that said he was not going to give the background support for the doctrine of the Trinity. This was because he was going to discuss a different topic, and the Trinity had to be a "given". If you say, "He skipped the proof for the Trinity 'cause he can't prove it at all!" If you pull a stunt like that, you're a liar, not him.
  • Leaving out important information. "Hey, I didn't lie!" When omitting facts to mislead someone, yes you did lie. This often includes "half truths".
  • Withholding the truth. If you know the truth and it makes a difference, you're essentially lying.
  • Playing word games. Messing with the meanings, deliberately misunderstanding what someone is saying, "typo pouncing" &c. It's an attempt to give an errant perception.
  • Putting words into someone's mouth. This can be tricky, too. One one hand, there is the "Ray is a homophobe", a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of the contents of the article. The other way is to quote a line in question and saying, "This seems homophobic to me".
  • Establishing arbitrary rules. This one was brought home to me when I was "informed" that Weblog comments are indeed a place for lengthy dissertations and off-topic discussions. However, it was not the "owner" of the Weblog that made this statement, it was from a troll looking to find an excuse for an argument. Sorry, Princess, making up your own rules, especially when you do not have any authority, is dishonest.
Lying is also disrespectful to the hearer or reader because you are saying, in effect, "I do not trust you to make your own decisions, so I will manipulate you into thinking what I want you to think."

Some things that lying is not:

No, I lied, I'm not going to continue right now. Tune in tomorrow for the rest of this. (OK, it's tomorrow now. Part 2 is here, if it's not on the same page as Part 1.)

April 16, 2010

Time Wasters: Accumulating

Look, I can't make them put a quality product in the dispensers. If they want to take the cheap way out, people will just use more. Then, the cheapskates will actually wind up paying more.

Oh, hi. Glad you're here. I was discussing cheapness with Nicky. I'm not going to talk about that with you. At least, not today. But I am going to talk about wasting money and time.

"Is this going to be a GTD thing, Cowboy Bob"?

I think it qualifies, yes.

Thinking back on my past lives and how much I have changed, I realized how much I felt that I had to accumulate. Years ago, it was difficult to get a decent audio recording from a television broadcast. Technology was different, and I was poor. I had to rig up something, splicing into the TV's speaker wires and using an input on the cassette deck. I just had to have the sermons by certain TV preachers, and built up a sizable collection.

This ran into money for tapes, stick-on labels, cassette storage albums (they were like notebooks, each side would hold eight tapes) and so on.

Similarly, there were some radio preachers that I liked. For some reason, I did not feel compelled to record all of their stuff, just special occasions. But some offered study materials as companions to their lectures, and I had to have those, too. Fortunately, they were free, even though I donated money on occasion.

Most of the cassettes were not played again. The study guides and other materials? Never touched. If I remember correctly, I wanted to have them "just in case" I was going to lead a Bible study group or something. Looking back, I know that it was just an excuse and there was some deeper neurosis at work.

I would get fond of a music group, and have to have the entire set, everything that was available. Some albums were downright crummy, with maybe one or two good songs, but at least I had the set!

Amazing.

I hope other people can see themselves in this. If so, my message is that you're wasting your time and money. You don't have to be obsessed with completing a set and "having all of them", whatever "they" are.

You don't need to get stuff "in case you might need it later". That is a clutter trap of the first order. I had my materials in storage containers of one kind or another, and then trashed it or gave it away. Time, money, energy could all have been put to better use. Granted, downloads, podcasts and the like only clutter up your online storage, but still, do you really need them all?

Just get what you like and need. Think before doing; that will help prevent you from getting irrational about accumulating stuff.

But I have to add that it is truly liberating when you realize that you do not need to love stuff, and that accumulating actually becomes a prison of your own making.

Subscribe in a reader