We humans have excellent mental capabilities thanks to our small but efficient brains. The brain has evolved over the millenias but its ultimate purpose has remained the same: to control our ancient bodies. The brain has also evolved in order to answer the gradual changes in man´s life and developed cognitive capabilities to ensure its protection and continuation.

The brain, despite all its complexity is merely a closed-circuit thinking machine. It cannot derive any conclusions unless those conclusions already exist as tangible concepts in its registry. The brain is also not very comfortable with facing its own limitations. There must always be a canned thought, a belief or a symbol to fill in for the missing parts in the said registry.

The brain tends to reject the idea of total-destruction. This self-driven thinking machine, does its magic by producing aliases to avoid dead-ends. Those dead-ends are the triggers of primeval fears. To suppress them we need a substitute the presence of which bridges the unknown with the known. This way the brain protects itself from unproductive vicious circles.

Must refers to a legal or personal requirement. It either means the speaker thinks you have the obligation or that there is a legal requirement. If you exceed the speed limit you must pay a fine because that is a legal requirement.

Someone might think, you must act more responsibly after evaluating your actions. She thinks you acted irresponsibly therefore according to her own judgement, she might invite you to be more responsible by using "must" in her sentence. Let´s put aside the "probability" aspect of must and switch to "have to".

We use "have to" to talk about third party requirements. Consider this sentence:

We have to show up very early tomorrow, the boss will be waiting for us.

In this sentence, have to refers to a requirement placed by a third party.

This makes sense only when you don´t take into account the fact that 10 years ago they were alredy in the 300´s and dropped from the list thanks to the mastery of our government.

They barely qualify for the first 500 now and this is great news for our independent media.

This is yet another proof that deceit has entered all spheres of our lives.

Double-think,

Double-talk,

and serve time in the jail

if you commit the thought-crime

I have suspended a message by a member on account that it contains vulgar statements, unsubstantiated accusations and personal attack directed at another member.

This is not a place where you can display your personal conflicts in your private affairs. Use e-mails or PM´s for that purpose.

It is a book written by Washington Irwing and it depicts the life of early Dutch settlers in New York. The chief character is Rip and his wife is Dame Van Winkle. Dame Van Winkle is an angry woman and Rip is a henpecked man. When I read it, I laughed a lot. Suggested but the language might be a bit old fashioned.

OK I´ve learned my lesson today. Somehow, it felt like reading Rip Van Winkle for a moment 

To put it in a nutshell:

-I may have underestimated Holland but what about the other smaller countries like Belgium, Switzerland etc? Aren´t they regarded as one of Europe? Can´t a great deal of their economic success be attributed to their being members of the family?

-Returning to Holland and Turkey, in any tug of war between nations or regions, one has to take into account several parameters, I admit GDP is one of them. Still, there are also other significant parameters such as population, economic depth, foreign trade, gold and foreign exchange reserves and ultimately military power.

-Your GDP example is meaningful for countries experiencing an apex status in their economic performances. If one country´s economy performs in close range to theoratical maximum and if nearly all that performance is registered using the legal avenues, then we can conclude that country has reached its practical maximum and we can barely talkabout a substantial potential for further growth. Holland with its limited land, a well-established tax system and welfare society is one such example.

Turkey on the other hand gets reflected in key economic parameters perhaps as one thirds of what it actually is. Tax dodging is rampant in Turkey, joblesness is artificially higher because of abuses in legal statements. Turkey´s current GDP is actually still a bit higher than that of Holland. In reality, however, if all the trade activity could be truthfully indicated, it could (as many say) would increase substantially. What is more Turkey resembles a fast train with all its economic dynamism, it is in the process of reaching its apex. When this is done, it will be a very formidable economic power in Europe. I may not live to see that but the way it looks, it will certainly happen in the near future.

Add to that the fact that, at the end of the day what really counts is purchasing power. In Turkey, we have always been able to buy our friends dinners and lunches whenever we wished and in Holland are you still doing it by Dutch treat? What do you think about your grossly expensive lives? Why is even water so expensive in your country, do you realize this situation creates an artificial aura of welfare which doesn´t translate into practical benefit. In fact, the only reason why Turkey is expensive in certain items such as energy and say automotive is the government´s desire to balance budget deficit. This forces us to drive lesser cars and do fewer miles on account of sky-rocketing prices.

Barba, refering to your last paragraph, in what context are you making these statements? History tells us there is a table in the middle and Europe is on one side and Turkey is on the other. (Turkey as the leader of the ME).

Do you realize, if it weren´t for an almost tangible union in Europe (not necessarily the EU),for example the Netherlands would hold no significance in terms of East-West relations at all with its tiny population and smallish economy. All European countries act in perfect unity regarding matters outside Europe. There are occasional problems that concern Europe only but those are completely outside the context here.

We could even say, if it weren´t for the European tradition and its intrinsic balances and dynamics, countries like Holland would not even exist and would have long been seized by Russia.

Contrary to what you say, Europe has a unity although it is made up of smaller elements. Everyone regards them like that and they regard everyone like that.

As for us, despite all our convergence and millenia long interaction that includes a massive mix up of bloods, we are still seen a non-European element. Everybody knows what is what, the rest is just void talk and hypocracy.

Catwoman, I am just refering to a huge paradox here. This paradox stems from the proto-culture the entire European civilization embraces as the true basis of their culture: the Hellenic civilization. Rennaisance and Reformation movements set the clock back to the Hellenic times regarding it a new inspiration for its new democratic foundation. This new movement prioritized reason over faith and opened up new avenues for science to flourish as a result of a series catalysts that caused a chain reaction. We can confidently call this a step forward for humanity but unfortunately, we often disregard one obvious flaw of it: the European world just like the Hellenic one did before, closed their doors to other cultures and collectively defied them often satanizing, belittling and fearing them. In other words, it is a closed community with a xenophobic outlook.

Remember Narcissus who falls in love with her own reflection in water, Europe is in an endless love with itself. Amid all this boasting, it hides a monster that occasionally rears its ugly face. We don´t observe it in the political statements but racism still lingers on very strongly, in the streets, stadiums, rituals and possibly in the privacy of family life.

I´d expressly attest, racism of the kind found in Europe does not exist in my country. People don´t throw bananas to black players and they don´t discriminate people according to their skin colors. This is often done openly and blatantly in the US and usually in a hypocratical manner in Europe and manifests itself with all its kaboom fired by the group psychology present in the stadiums of Europe.

Women must do something about these beauty contests and the similar classification stuff.

We do not organize painting or sculpture contests because we attribute some value to the artistry behind them. Human beauty must be regarded similarly. In the end, appreciation of beauty is a highly subjective matter. 

For example, I find Bar Rafaeli quite attractive as a woman but I don´t like the way her eyes communicate; I think I don´t find her genuine. That means, I wouldn´t fall for her at first sight if I were young enough since I am quite allergic to coquetish behaviour. Still, she has the beauty icon status in the eyes of almost a whole young generation. In short, the phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder" makes a lot of sense.