Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Genetics. Contrary to the feel-good ideal of "all men created equal",
the reality is that is anything but the truth.

Pete C. wrote:
Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Genetics. Contrary to the feel-good ideal of "all men created equal",
the reality is that is anything but the truth.

I have to suggest that life experience (IE:how did your parents handle
this sort of "occurence" ?) and training may play as big or bigger role
than genetics . If Mom melted down because the centerpiece for her "big
dinner" wasn't quite perfect , chances are that the kids will learn the same
type of behavior . Parents who exhibit a "we can handle it" attitude are
also likely to have children who do too ...
Training can also play an important part of how we react . If your first
reaction to hearing shots is to take cover , determine source and , decide
whether to return fire - that's training . If you fall to the ground
blubbering in fear ...
My choices in recon teammates would likely have been Boy Scouts -Life or
Eagle - because they've proven they will stick with it . Other factors would
also apply , including training and having been under fire at some time . Ya
don't know what man's gonna do until he's been in that situation .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

Snag wrote:

Pete C. wrote:
Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Genetics. Contrary to the feel-good ideal of "all men created equal",
the reality is that is anything but the truth.

I have to suggest that life experience (IE:how did your parents handle
this sort of "occurence" ?) and training may play as big or bigger role
than genetics . If Mom melted down because the centerpiece for her "big
dinner" wasn't quite perfect , chances are that the kids will learn the same
type of behavior . Parents who exhibit a "we can handle it" attitude are
also likely to have children who do too ...
Training can also play an important part of how we react . If your first
reaction to hearing shots is to take cover , determine source and , decide
whether to return fire - that's training . If you fall to the ground
blubbering in fear ...
My choices in recon teammates would likely have been Boy Scouts -Life or
Eagle - because they've proven they will stick with it . Other factors would
also apply , including training and having been under fire at some time . Ya
don't know what man's gonna do until he's been in that situation .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

Certainly experience has some role, but we all have seen folks who are
polar opposites of at least one of their parents.

As for reaction to hearing shots, I'd suggest that the "fall to the
ground blubbering in fear" is just as much a learned action as "taking
cover, determining the source, and deciding whether to return fire". The
instinctive reaction to an unexpected loud noise is to startle, what you
do after that is learned.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:42:06 -0600, Ignoramus30509
wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Those I would take with me on a recon mission would have significant
training, skills and applicable experience. Those who break easily
would not have successfully completed such training.

Those who handle stress well are usually those who are confident that
they can even when they don't know exactly how they will. Training
and comparable experience definitely develop confidence, but other
life experiences do also.

On Jan 6, 10:42*am, Ignoramus30509 ignoramus30...@NOSPAM.
30509.invalid wrote:
Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Maturity?

Which is independent of intelligence.

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Jan 6, 10:42 am, Ignoramus30509ignoramus30...@NOSPAM.
30509.invalid wrote:
Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Maturity?

Which is independent of intelligence.

"Life Is like a Box of Chocolates.
You Never Know What You're Gonna Get."

-- Winston Gump

On Jan 6, 12:21*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
...
Those I would take with me on a recon mission would have significant
training, skills and applicable experience. *Those who break easily
would not have successfully completed such training. *

I've been surprised by who jumps in to help me in a sudden emergency,
and who stands by with a blank stare. One such was a former Navy diver
who had told everyone what a hero he was.

Some women including my ex respond very well in a crisis despite
having no training. In general I'd pick former submarine crew who are
fairly plentiful in high tech, unlike SpecOps vets.

jsw

"Ignoramus30509" wrote in message
...
Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

It's getting hard enough to just find someone with whom you can have an
intelligent conversation. After that, it is refreshing to start a new
friendship.

Steve

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:00:34 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Genetics.

You don't think that upbringing has anything to do with that?
If so, I strongly disagree. Both count heavily.


Contrary to the feel-good ideal of "all men created equal",
the reality is that is anything but the truth.

C'mon, Pete. That concept is supposed to be about freedom, not brain
comparison. It means that all people should be given the same
chances, not that anyone in the world can teach a quantum dynamic
course at college or engineer a new version of space shuttle.

--
A smile is the shortest distance between two people.
-- Victor Borge

Pete C. wrote:
Snag wrote:
Certainly experience has some role, but we all have seen folks who are
polar opposites of at least one of their parents.

And even siblings that are opposite in that regard also. But
remember only half the DNA is form one parent and then
there is the "dominant vs recesive" characteristics. etc.
So it's still a big guessing game.
...lew...

Steve B wrote:
It's getting hard enough to just find someone with whom you can have an
intelligent conversation.
Steve


Boy is that ever the truth, especially on the internet. :-)
...lew...

Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Some people are barely getting though life. They cover it by hystericsa and finger
pointing. This is magnified by personal feelings of insecurity.

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

Very few and those would tend to be game hunters.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

I think that this resilience can be improved by training.

Ergo, if one can be taught that it is possible to jump through fire,
then other things also seem doable. But it has to be something beyond
just being exposed to stress, as some people break down every time
they have a stress. I think that the key is to have stress and win
over something.

Myself, I do not freak out in emergencies, ever, but some people I
know, do.

i

On 2011-01-06, Wes wrote:
Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

Very few and those would tend to be game hunters.

Oddly enough, the friend who I had in mind as someone I would go to a
recon mission, happens to be a game hunter. Interesting observation Wes.

i

"Ignoramus30509"
wrote in
message
...
I think that this resilience can be improved by
training.

Ergo, if one can be taught that it is possible
to jump through fire,
then other things also seem doable. But it has
to be something beyond
just being exposed to stress, as some people
break down every time
they have a stress. I think that the key is to
have stress and win
over something.

Myself, I do not freak out in emergencies, ever,
but some people I
know, do.

i

Here's my nomination for an answer to this mental
thing....

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by
Robert M. Pirsig

On 01/06/2011 07:42 AM, Ignoramus30509 wrote:
Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

I do that eventually, but not at the _first_ sign of trouble.

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

Given how inexperienced I am (and the chances of my knees giving out), I
wouldn't want to take anyone unless the situation were dire. Tag along
behind someone who knows their s**t, even if they're 20 years younger
than me, yes. Lead, well, things would have to be pretty well down the
tubes before it made sense.

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

"Ignoramus30509" wrote in message
...
I think that this resilience can be improved by training.

Ergo, if one can be taught that it is possible to jump through fire,
then other things also seem doable. But it has to be something beyond
just being exposed to stress, as some people break down every time
they have a stress. I think that the key is to have stress and win
over something.

Myself, I do not freak out in emergencies, ever, but some people I
know, do.

i

I went to commercial diver's training. My instructor was an ex-Navy SEAL.
His name was Bob Mackey. He pushed me until I found out that I had more
inside of me than I knew was there. It would serve me well in the next six
years of commercial diving, and all the thrills and spills and adventures
involved with that. And many times I called on that knowledge that I had a
lot inside when I was up against it.

And sometimes, people who would pull you out of a fire crack under the every
day stress of a relationship. It's hard to know which way anyone is going
to fly on any particular day. Or incident.

Steve

On 2011-01-06, Snag wrote:

[ ... ]

Training can also play an important part of how we react . If your first
reaction to hearing shots is to take cover , determine source and , decide
whether to return fire - that's training . If you fall to the ground
blubbering in fear ...

Of course, if you don't *have* the means for returning fire,
just taking cover may help.

And -- if there is no cover (flat terrain) and there are other
people (targets) around, falling flat may suggest that you have already
been hit, and that others are beter targets. :-)

The blugbering, of course, does no good. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On Thu, 6 Jan 2011 10:29:32 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Jan 6, 12:21*pm, Don Foreman wrote:
...
Those I would take with me on a recon mission would have significant
training, skills and applicable experience. *Those who break easily
would not have successfully completed such training. *

I've been surprised by who jumps in to help me in a sudden emergency,
and who stands by with a blank stare. One such was a former Navy diver
who had told everyone what a hero he was.

Some women including my ex respond very well in a crisis despite
having no training. In general I'd pick former submarine crew who are
fairly plentiful in high tech, unlike SpecOps vets.

jsw
I mentioned skills and training because Ig specifically mentioned a
recon mission.

Some women are indeed very good under stress. My neighbor Nikki is a
ICU nurse and has worked in the ER. She is absolutely unflappable.

DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2011-01-06, Snag wrote:

[ ... ]

Training can also play an important part of how we react . If your
first reaction to hearing shots is to take cover , determine source
and , decide whether to return fire - that's training . If you fall
to the ground blubbering in fear ...

Of course, if you don't *have* the means for returning fire,
just taking cover may help.

And -- if there is no cover (flat terrain) and there are other
people (targets) around, falling flat may suggest that you have
already been hit, and that others are beter targets. :-)

The blugbering, of course, does no good. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

All good points !

I dunno , the way our world is changing I'm becoming more and more into
the survivalist mindset . And giving thought to who I want around me if/when
a collapse occurs . And I've come to realize just how much we depend on the
utility infrastructure . Cut off the gas and 'lectrons , and lots of people
ain't gonna know what to do .
--
Snag
Learning keeps
you young !

On 2011-01-07, Snag wrote:
I dunno , the way our world is changing I'm becoming more and more into
the survivalist mindset . And giving thought to who I want around me if/when
a collapse occurs . And I've come to realize just how much we depend on the
utility infrastructure . Cut off the gas and 'lectrons , and lots of people
ain't gonna know what to do .

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 09:42:06 -0600, Ignoramus30509
wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Just this week a physician told Mary he'd never had a patient with
issues like she has that was quite as upbeat as she is. Unlike recon
missions which eventually end, there's no safe return from an
incurable disease. It's a less urgent form of stress, but perhaps
more telling because it is relentlessly ever-present -- and it does
get urgent now and then as when BP drops to levels that should not
support consciousness but she flat refuses to give in and faint.

I have great respect for our spec ops warriors, force recon marines
and LRRP soldiers having known a few, but they ain't the only
exemplars of courage.

We did a down-and-back-same-day run to Mayo today for a triple chemo
session. Mar was cheering up the others around her with her plucky
attitude.

The road we see ahead is a low crawl up a hill of sharp rocks, but
eventual improvement and abatement is possible and an objective. Her
team of professionals at Mayo are committed to maximizing her quality
of life. We are far from done enjoying life and each other.

Mayo is not treating her this way because we're rich or elite. We're
seniors on medicare with good supplementary insurance, responsible but
ordinary people. Mayo is far from elitist. The folks next to Mary
today were from Fort Dodge, Iowa, nice folks and clean-cut. A
discussion about wigs revealed value-consciousness. Her wig was very
becoming (faked us out), we got a good tip there.

We're going to Mayo because they are world-class in understanding how
to manage Mary's very rare (8 per million) incurable disease. Doctors
learn how to treat disease by treating disease. We all eventually die,
mercifully so I think, but it's worthwhile to make whatever
contributions we can to prolong good lives for our collective progeny.

On Thu, 06 Jan 2011 10:00:34 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:


Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

i

Genetics. Contrary to the feel-good ideal of "all men created equal",
the reality is that is anything but the truth.

Genetics..and/or training.

Ive found that teaching people who have never had Real Stress
before..subjecting them to increasing amounts of it...and they suddenly
find "themselves" and the ability to either shut off the stress
component or simply tuck it away for later.
The younger you can teach them..the better of course.

Ive seen 18 yr old kids snap all the rubber bands in their skulls..and
old farts and fartesses simply keep on doing whatever the task
takes..and oddly enough..vise versa in about equal numbers.

But Ive found few people that couldnt handle far far more stress than
they believed possible, if you prime them, train them properly.

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.

Thanks,
Rich

On Fri, 7 Jan 2011 07:49:08 -0600, "Snag" wrote:

DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2011-01-06, Snag wrote:

[ ... ]

Training can also play an important part of how we react . If your
first reaction to hearing shots is to take cover , determine source
and , decide whether to return fire - that's training . If you fall
to the ground blubbering in fear ...

Of course, if you don't *have* the means for returning fire,
just taking cover may help.

And -- if there is no cover (flat terrain) and there are other
people (targets) around, falling flat may suggest that you have
already been hit, and that others are beter targets. :-)

The blugbering, of course, does no good. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

All good points !

I dunno , the way our world is changing I'm becoming more and more into
the survivalist mindset . And giving thought to who I want around me if/when
a collapse occurs . And I've come to realize just how much we depend on the
utility infrastructure . Cut off the gas and 'lectrons , and lots of people
ain't gonna know what to do .

As a one time child of Unca Sam, and a street cop..and a survivalist for
35 yrs...its not a bad life safety art to be learned..and one keeps on
learning until life goes away.

There are two mindsets among survivalists..the "loner" and the "crew".

The loner believes that he/she will survive bad stuff better if he is
alone, able to hide better, skulk around, sneak in and out..then does a
crowd. And there certainly is some truth to that. And its a good
technique that really should be learned for lifes little emergencies of
shor duration.

But as I get older..Ive found that "crew" is better for most things
other than sneak and peek military tasks.

You gotta sleep sometime..best to have someone standing watch while you
are snotted off. Someone to stitch up a wound, put bug spray on your
back and help do the laundry.

Which is why the smallest norma military formation is a squad..up to 12
people all able to watch each others backs, and do tasks in tandum. If
only one person can read a compass..and he gets hurt..suddenly yall are
lost.

Ancient family/clan groups found this out thousands of years ago. 12 can
sneak around nearly as well as 1..and there is far greater safety in
numbers than going it alone, and so forth.

However...you cant simply pull 12 off the street of Belaire California
and expect to have a team, yet you might very well do that in Alpine
Texas and have it run sucessfully.

What I and MOST survivalists do..is plan on a group of up to 25 or so.
Everyone learns 2 basic skills above personal survival..and works, plays
and trains together as often as possible.

I believe that the least number of able bodied souls that will work
good as a team is 5...under no combat situations. 2-3 in task specific
functions.

Id be happy to expound on request..shrug..but I believe that you
understand what Im roughing out.

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 08:07:14 -0600, Ignoramus29524
wrote:

On 2011-01-07, Snag wrote:
I dunno , the way our world is changing I'm becoming more and more into
the survivalist mindset . And giving thought to who I want around me if/when
a collapse occurs . And I've come to realize just how much we depend on the
utility infrastructure . Cut off the gas and 'lectrons , and lots of people
ain't gonna know what to do .

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

Blink blink...Iggy..I strongly suggest you review history before the
1990s inside the US. Its a very big and very nasty world outside our
borders.

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:56:37 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.

Thanks,
Rich

Then you agree we have to kill those addicted to war?

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

wrote:

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That is where there is a huge
threat, and the minds of the general public simply cannot handle it, so they
just go off and play Nintendo or go get laid or high or get their nails done
or whatever. We're coming up to some pretty drastic things in the way of
fuel prices, shortage of good water, failure of money and the financial
system, moral decay, camel jockeys getting nukes, and several other areas.

It's good to be a Boy Scout.

Steve

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:56:37 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.

The Democrap party wants YOU!

I'd much rather know sharp-end people.

--
If you're looking for the key to the Universe,
I've got some good news and some bad news.

The bad news: There is no key to the Universe.

The good news: It was never locked.
--Swami Beyondananda

On 2011-01-08, Steve B wrote:

wrote:

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That is where there is a huge
threat, and the minds of the general public simply cannot handle it, so they
just go off and play Nintendo or go get laid or high or get their nails done
or whatever. We're coming up to some pretty drastic things in the way of
fuel prices, shortage of good water, failure of money and the financial
system, moral decay, camel jockeys getting nukes, and several other areas.

It's good to be a Boy Scout.


Steve, think about New Orleans. It was rather bad in many ways, flood,
bad evacuation, looting, racial issues, etc, but only 1,500 people
died out of 336,000 people.

i

"Ignoramus12953" wrote in message
...
On 2011-01-08, Steve B wrote:

wrote:

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That is where there is a
huge
threat, and the minds of the general public simply cannot handle it, so
they
just go off and play Nintendo or go get laid or high or get their nails
done
or whatever. We're coming up to some pretty drastic things in the way of
fuel prices, shortage of good water, failure of money and the financial
system, moral decay, camel jockeys getting nukes, and several other
areas.

It's good to be a Boy Scout.


Steve, think about New Orleans. It was rather bad in many ways, flood,
bad evacuation, looting, racial issues, etc, but only 1,500 people
died out of 336,000 people.

i

Yes, and contrary to rumors, there was little long term harm.

Right?

Steve

Ignoramus12953 wrote:

On 2011-01-08, Steve B wrote:

wrote:

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That is where there is a huge
threat, and the minds of the general public simply cannot handle it, so they
just go off and play Nintendo or go get laid or high or get their nails done
or whatever. We're coming up to some pretty drastic things in the way of
fuel prices, shortage of good water, failure of money and the financial
system, moral decay, camel jockeys getting nukes, and several other areas.

It's good to be a Boy Scout.


Steve, think about New Orleans. It was rather bad in many ways, flood,
bad evacuation, looting, racial issues, etc, but only 1,500 people
died out of 336,000 people.

i

Only 1,500 people died out of 336,000 people, however this was due to
the very localized nature of the incident and the fact that the other
334,500 people were able to evacuate a relatively short distance to
areas where infrastructure was intact. Had this not been the case, the
bulk of those 334,500 other people would not have survived.

I don't think any real collapse of civilization is likely in any of our
lifetimes, however I do think that the Great Global Tidy Bowl Swirl (tm)
is going to continue and overall conditions will continue to
deteriorate. I'm not so much into the "survivalist" thing, but I do
think it is a reasonable goal to become as self reliant and self
sufficient as practical so as to minimize the impact of the continued
decline on yourself and your family.

On Jan 8, 6:56*am, Rich Grise wrote:
...
I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.
Rich

Keep thinking those comfortable thoughts and learn to say YESSIR!

Pete C. wrote:
Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

Genetics. Contrary to the feel-good ideal of "all men created equal",
the reality is that is anything but the truth.

Oh, were _created_ equal. What you do with that from that point on is
up to you.

Hope This Helps!
Rich

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:56:37 -0800, Rich Grise
Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.

Then you agree we have to kill those addicted to war?

No, just stop electing them; maybe get the country into rehab.

Say, where's that computer you were going to donate? I've lost your
phone #, but you can email me at , but without
the "ard." (i.e., just concatenate "rich" and "grise".) Is it safe
to post a phone # here?

Thanks,
Rich

On 2011-01-08, Steve B wrote:

"Ignoramus12953" wrote in message
...
On 2011-01-08, Steve B wrote:

wrote:

Snag, look into history. These kinds of disruptions happened many
times, and nothing major happened. No massive die offs, people
recovered and life moved on. I am still into survivalist mindset, but
mostly because I like guns, tools and generators.I did realize,
though, that survivalist fears are overdone.

i

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? That is where there is a
huge
threat, and the minds of the general public simply cannot handle it, so
they
just go off and play Nintendo or go get laid or high or get their nails
done
or whatever. We're coming up to some pretty drastic things in the way of
fuel prices, shortage of good water, failure of money and the financial
system, moral decay, camel jockeys getting nukes, and several other
areas.

It's good to be a Boy Scout.


Steve, think about New Orleans. It was rather bad in many ways, flood,
bad evacuation, looting, racial issues, etc, but only 1,500 people
died out of 336,000 people.

i

Yes, and contrary to rumors, there was little long term harm.

Right?

There was a lot of harm, as far as I could tell.

i

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:51:26 -0800, Rich Grise
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:56:37 -0800, Rich Grise
Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.

Then you agree we have to kill those addicted to war?

No, just stop electing them; maybe get the country into rehab.

Say, where's that computer you were going to donate? I've lost your
phone #, but you can email me at , but without
the "ard." (i.e., just concatenate "rich" and "grise".) Is it safe
to post a phone # here?

Thanks,
Rich

Im working on that. I just got a call from a buddy down in Redondo
Beach...asking for help to clean out his Dads home so they can be back
in Arizona Monday morning.

Now Ive got to get in the shower, dress, fuel up the ****ing truck and
go right back down to LA for a day or two and help him.

Shrug.

Ill get your puter when I get the time.

Gunner

--

"You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once."
Robert A. Heinlein

On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 11:22:01 -0600, "Pete C."
wrote:

Only 1,500 people died out of 336,000 people, however this was due to
the very localized nature of the incident and the fact that the other
334,500 people were able to evacuate a relatively short distance to
areas where infrastructure was intact. Had this not been the case, the
bulk of those 334,500 other people would not have survived.

I don't think any real collapse of civilization is likely in any of our
lifetimes, however I do think that the Great Global Tidy Bowl Swirl (tm)
is going to continue and overall conditions will continue to
deteriorate. I'm not so much into the "survivalist" thing, but I do
think it is a reasonable goal to become as self reliant and self
sufficient as practical so as to minimize the impact of the continued
decline on yourself and your family.

What amazes me is that the insurance company and gov't both allowed
them to rebuild in the same sinkhole after it dried out. Amazing.
Head-up-their-asses Dumb, too.

--
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will
preserve for our children this, the last best hope
of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take
the last step into a thousand years of darkness.?
-- Ronald Reagan

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 09:51:26 -0800, Rich Grise
Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jan 2011 03:56:37 -0800, Rich Grise
Ignoramus30509 wrote:

Why is it, that some people are more resilient to stress and keep
acting rationally, whereas some others, at the first trouble, break
down completely, start getting hysterical, blame others instead of
being constructive, etc?

Think about people you would take with you to a recon mission, and
those you would not.

I'd rather ally myself with those who aren't addicted to war, making
"recon missions" moot.

Then you agree we have to kill those addicted to war?

No, just stop electing them; maybe get the country into rehab.

Say, where's that computer you were going to donate? I've lost your
phone #, but you can email me at , but without
the "ard." (i.e., just concatenate "rich" and "grise".) Is it safe
to post a phone # here?

Im working on that. I just got a call from a buddy down in Redondo
Beach...asking for help to clean out his Dads home so they can be back
in Arizona Monday morning.

Now Ive got to get in the shower, dress, fuel up the ****ing truck and
go right back down to LA for a day or two and help him.

Shrug.

Ill get your puter when I get the time.

Thanks! Sorry for being all "gimme gimme gimme" - beggars can't be choosers,
after all. :-)

Thanks!
Rich