But I have for a while pondered my life, and whether it was worth keeping a diary and one day, writing an autobiography. What would you write about? What would you leave out? So many questions, so little time. Blogs and the internet have sort of brought diaries back in vogue with anyone being able to publish anything to a worldwide audience. At first, I thought blogs were useless, and took too much time but after watching that interview, maybe blogs are the equivalent diary.

Now, I know that most people are not going to reveal their deepest and darkest moments of their lives, for protection of privacy, but without going into detail, Blogs are a way of keeping our identity secret, yet we can voice whatever views we have on anything as a release of bottled up energy that the brain has stored throughout the day. The internet is such a powerful tool, but I believe the power is growing exponentially with it’s use being a source of blogs, to propaganda statements, to debates, to news, to games, to whatever…extrordinary stuff. Our lives have become so dependent on the internet that it’s scary. Ahh well, looks like my journal entry is coming to a close. Take care, and write later….

In this article, he has responded to my earlier response to the previous post that I had made. Now, what I find interesting in escapedmentalpatient comments was that it was  in the author’s best interests to separate some religions to others.

“In such a case you are quite right in separating Buddhism from the other mainstream religions. In fact i don’t see Buddhism as an actual religion more like a lifestyle choice comparable with opting to be a vegetarian. Buddhism is focused on the individual not on some all powerful omnipotent sky daddy.”

Well, can I say that why does escapedmentalpatient and many people who talk about religion on one hand generalise stuff about religion and then separate religions when they find it necessary. Escapedmentalpatient is trying to have his or her own cake and eat it too. He argues that Buddhism is a lifestyle choice and I agree with that statement. But first, escapedmentalpatient has no clue about Hinduism (hence is failure to mention it) and fails to acknowledge the lack of knowledge here. Why do I focus on this? Well, if one person researches anything about Hinduism, they will also come to the realisation that Hinduism is much broader than ‘religion’. One could term it as a ‘lifestyle choice’, or a philosophy. What astounds me with escapedmentalpatient, is that if he or she can classify Buddhism as a ‘lifestyle choice’, then one could easily argue the same point about all religions, and their practice of it. Needless to say, I was not lumping all religions together as escapedmentalpatient does, and make some broad sweeping comments about religion as a whole, all I am saying is that people including myself and escapedmentalpatient should not make generalisations. If escapedmentalpatient has a problem with a specific religion, then that’s fine. I would rather someone talk about personal experiences and explain through personal observations than preach to others about skydaddy and what not. I have been fortunate enough to have met people from around the world, lived in many countries, and if I have learnt anything, it is that we all need to be sensitive about what we are saying, and explain the context in which one has a certain belief.

Escapedmentalpatient is of the view that I am arguing against him or her on their view of religion. That’s bullshit. What I take offence to escapedmentalpatient is the fact that he or she is demonstrating the same ignorance that ‘fundamentalists’ have. Also, escapedmentalpatient tries to use simple analogies to make broad statements look true through a deducing logic. Here’s what he or said in their post:

‘Would you accept a doctors belief that he could cure canser with leaches? or that your first born should be covered in cigarette smoke to purify it? Of course you wouldn’t, the point is you are probably a smart rational person. But look at what happens when i generally comment on how stupid religion is, and voila!‘ 

Here he compares a situation trying to demonstrate that logically, religion is not rational. A smart, rational person according to escapedmentalpatient, would not believe in religion without any proof. [escapedmentalpatient also states that if I can believe in the existence of God, then s/he would change his or her mind ] I can’t prove that God exists. Am I a rational human being? Well, would it not depend on a situation? See, escapedmentalpatient believes that we are rational people all the time which is rubbish. Is love a rational state of mind? Is hate? Humans are emotional who have the opportunity to use logic.

Then the broad, generalised and ridiculous statement.

‘Actually i think this is one of the main reasons for me to hate religion or any other beliefs in some form of god. Because only such belief can turn ordinarily reasonable and intelligent people into people inapproachable in dialog.believing in something without proof is stupid no matter how you angle it, especially when we know how powerful a motivator belief is’

Obviously, according escapedmentalpatient, those who are religious cannot be ‘reasonable and intelligent people’. What a load of shit. Just because escapedmentalpatient may not agree with some of the views of ‘religious’ people, to say that they have a lack of intelligence and reason is an example of why this person is a closed minded fool, like so many of the ‘fundamentalists’ who s/he despises.  Escapedmentalpatient, this is what I mean by being OUTLANDISH!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is what I cannot stand for. People who think they are rational and intelligent yet make these oversimplified statements as if they have watched too much of the O’Reilly Factor. I reckon that Bill O’Reilly would be proud of you escapedmentalpatient, because you are proof that warped logic does exist outside of Fox News.

I do not have a problem with people voicing their opinions. That’s fine by me and most who believe in right to free speech. I will say for the record that I do not consider myself to be a religious person. I am as confused as any lost soul who is not sure for themselves what is the meaning of life. So escapedmentalpatient, go ahead and respond. Make another of your broad and quite frankly, insensitive and ignorant statements. But while I am expecting that, why don’t you do something for a change called research. In fact, do not respond until you understand all religions. If you can’t be bothered doing so, make a disclaimer saying ‘I am posting without bothering to do research’ and stop making posting statements that you try to make sound like the truth when quite frankly, you and I have no idea what ‘truth’ is.

Now we have some intelligence brought to the table. I must congratulate escapedmentalpatient for actually posting a blog that I can understand. Before I could respond, it must be said that I hope everyone reads ‘For the sake of Meaning?’ The author has written a constructive and critical analysis on this issue.

Now escapedmentalpatient, where do I start with you? Ok, let’s see, how about ‘all religions ask you to blindly follow whatever the holy book says without any proof at all…’ Well I can say that escapedmentalpatient clearly speaks without any authority or research on ‘world religions’. This is what I mean by outlandish. You argue this ridiculous point yet by posting it, it proves that you have no idea about many religions. I do not think I am an expert in this field but I can guarantee you that if you look at the principles of Hinduism in the Bhagavad Gita or the principles laid forth in Buddhism, anyone can see that your statements about blind faith are completely flawed. I can not speak about Christianity, Juddaism, and Islam because quite simply, I do not know enough to talk about them, but I can say, that religions and religious texts in the 21st Century are no longer being referred to as doctrines of truth. They are more like guidelines, and it is within each individual to find their inner beliefs. I think if you do your homework escapedmentalpatient, you will find people who are religious (as defined by themselves) and yet will demonstrate to you and all those who really have a misunderstanding of religions today.

Mind you, I admire athiests, as I admire anyone who has the courage to be proud in what their beliefs are. I do not have a problem with that. I have a problem when you think that you are all-knowing about religion when you are clearly not.

Fundamentalists on the other hand, perhaps have tendencies to literally practice every thing written down in each of the holy books from whatever faiths. But again, look at the context in which these people practice in, and do not hold it against them. If you look at Islam throughout the Gulf region of the Middle East, you will see that it is practiced in accordance to Sharia’h Law. They are intertwined with each other. Morality comes about within this social and religious structure Yet within this hierarchy, you will see some practicing Muslims differ with one another. There is always an exception, and always uniqueness exists within society. One cannot make comment about blind faith of religion for all people. Escapedmentalpatient, you make an exaggerated generalisation about shit that you have no idea about. Have you ever travelled and lived these people that you talk about with so much authority.

I am not questioning your personal experiences with religion or lack thereof. You have a set of beliefs, which you subscribe to and that’s fine. But according to your logic, that also restricts your freedom. It’s the same not just in religion but throughout human thought. Do humans come up with an original thought at all? The more we read, listen, talk, and communicate, do we not further restrict our ‘potential’ freedom? We start to make judgements according to our beliefs, whether one is religious, or not. That does not mean though that one Hindu is the same as the other, or one Athiest is the same as you. Once you understand this escapedmentalpatient, you will understand what I mean by being outlandish and quite honestly, stupid.
Stop making comments about stuff that you have no clue about, once you do have a clue, do some proper work and only then respond. Like I said, your beliefs are fine, and I do agree that religions have caused a lot of heartache of the history of civilisation, but has religion not been any benfit to humanity as well? Even your cynical mind must concede that religion has provided goodness for millions of people out there. Who are you to say that they have got it wrong or more importantly, who are you to say what is fact?

 One man has surprisingly that has led the ‘anti-Sheedy mafia’ has been none other than one Robert Walls. Now those who know footy and read his columns realise it is the biggest example of populist journalism evident in the AFL. However, for years he has been on Sheeds’ back and despite some of his ludicrous claims and opinions, this guy has the ‘respect’ of the footy community. Read his stuff, and see fist hand how this ‘expert’ is somehow respected for pointing out the blatantly obvious…

But the one man who has led the charge against Sheeds is Garry Lyon, ex-captain of the Melbourne Football Club and now popular AFL ‘expert’. Lyon was a terrific leader of his players as captain, a terrific and dangerous forward, yet suffered immensely with injuries throughout the later stages of his career. The way he bowed out was too sad, and when he did retire, I felt sad as a 13-yr old kid who grew to respect and like this champion.

In the past, Garry I felt maintained his integrity through his insights and objectiveness when it came to AFL. He is a smart person, which makes it shocking when he criticises Sheeds. Now, every coach at every level is open to criticism and I would not have a problem if Garry has provided some sort of insight but in the case of Sheeds, he certainly did not. Garry and Sheeds faced off on Footy Classified (Ch. 9) on Monday, 14th May and I thought his questions were vague, and pretty much lame.

I pick up the paper the next morning to see that he has gone off and written one of the dumbest articles of the last 3 years. I read this huge headline saying ‘It’s time to leave, Sheeds’…

Lyon highlights that despite Sheeds track record, the EFC ‘for the first time I can remember, the place seems to be flat. Hird is tiring, the Johnsons are just going, they have too many plodders and the two and three-year youngsters have not come on as hoped’. Now Lyon has stated that this article was not written in reaction to 1 week of footy, but over time. What Lyon does not comment is for how long? If it’s over the first 2 months of footy, need I remind the guy that Sheeds and the Bombers defeated the Crows in Adelaide, (Top 4 team last year), the Dockers (Top 4 team last year), the Saints (Top 8 team last year) relatively comfortably. Lyon would probably argue that he made the judgements over 3 weeks of football, where the Dons have lost to Collingwood, Hawthorn, and Kangaroos.  Now, what scares me, is if Lyon believes a coach should leave after 3 weeks of footy, well I am quite simply astounded. It is absolutely unfair to give any coach notice after just 3 weeks of footy.

Lyon said that his point is that ‘change can reinvigorate a club’.

‘Fresh ideas, fresh coaching philosophies, fresh personality, fresh motivational methods, and a fresh, clean assessment on a playing list can be very powerful tools, especially in an environment that has been dominated by one man, albeit Kevin Sheedy, for 27 years’.

That at first seems reasonable, except for one important detail. Does Lyon honestly think that over 27 years, Sheeds has never changed one bit. This is the man who has reinvented himself as often as U2 have during the same time. What is Lyon on about? He believes that change can help, sure and with some people it does. But in Sheeds’ case, Essendon have never been more successful during their history under Sheedy. How? Because Sheeds has always been fresh to the majority of his players. He further argues that players got stale at his club, [which Sheeds replied in no uncertain terms. saying 'Well, Garry, that is probably why you failed as a team, if you were their captain and couldn't get inspired' ] which again is a lame argument because as Lyon says, he does not know how Sheeds’ works, as Lyon never played under Sheeds. So how can he make a judgement on whether the EFC players are stale to begin with?

Lyon has called Sheeds a bully, despite the fact that along with Walls, Sheehan, Smith, Wilson, Hutchison and others who form a certain part of the media, who are out to get a coach. Lyon said that Sheeds laid down a cheap shot at him. Yet what else does Lyon expect? He has been in a footy culture before. He knows how the media pressure is in Melbourne. And yet he argues on May 21sy 2007 on Footy Classified that Sheeds and his ‘mafia’ have come out in force to defend him. Umm, who has Garry??? Only Geoff Slattery has you idiot and EFC fans. You are an idiot Garry Lyon, who’s going periliously close to the levels set by Robert ‘Throbbie’ Walls. Footy journos are a by-product of the ‘populist’ demands set forth by the agenda makers. Sadly, not enough people out there realise this, and continue to believe the ‘experts’ like Walls and Lyon.

I have not played the game on the level that Walls and Lyon have, but I can say one thing. I watch more EFC games than most people, including journos. There are few guys from Bomberblitz who attend every training session and game. Some supporters may be delusional, but no more so than ‘experts’ who think they know every club based on their ‘personal reputation’. So Garry, get off your comfy media job and see what coaching is like as a coach of an AFL team.  As Sheeds says, Garry’s job is about criticism and at least give some meaning insight to the game, which on those grounds in his article on Sheeds as failed. At least Walls was once upon a time a coach of an AFL club.