

Social networks like Facebook provide the unique ability of connecting or setting up networks of people, friends or groups. At SocialReligion.info we are creating a special type of social network, exclusive to religion. Instead of “friends’ there will be “congregation” members. Every religious form of expression will be included with audio,video,text,chat,dating and paypal functions creating a true Global Religious Social Community. To launch the site, we are having a contest offering $100,000.00 to the profile with the most “congregation” members. If you would like instructions on how to enter the contest, respond with your name, email address and nearest city to contest@SocialReligion.info
The main site will be www.Globalorc.com (Global Online Religious Center)


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Bridge Brokers – Corporate – Marc Okon – Founder & Director : Website Broker Division (2010)
Address:
60 Knickerbocker Avenue
Bohemia, New York 11716
Cell:
(718) 915-4532
Direct Phone Number:
(888) 614-6592
Fax:
(888) 605-5727
www.VCIC.info Venture Capital Internet Corporation (1999-2010)
Venture Capital Internet Corporation was formed by Marc Okon in 1999 to capitalize on the expected growth of Internet related projects and ventures. Currently VCIC operates www.MarcOkon.com , www.SocialReligion.info , www.Globalorc.com (Online Religious Center) and own the domains www.ConsulateAdvisors.com, www.eWebsiteBroker.com, www.SEOexchange.info, www.AudioAd.info, www.AdMoney.info, www.iMovieTheater.info,www. iBlogCast.info, www.iBoxSeat.info, www.iEros.info, www.iFetish.info, www.iGlobalNet.info, www.iNetscape.info, www.iPatrol.info, www.iResumepost.info, www.MyBankBook.info, www.myiProfile.info, www.TheLoanHouse.info, www.iUnionize.info and www.ToTheFire.com. VCIC is engaged in building out and linking all domains creating a new force in Internet portal related content activity.
VCIC.info
SocialReligion.info
Globalorc.com


“Workers Of The Networking World Unite” ™
—————————>
Heaven Less Opulent Than Vatican, Reports Disappointed Pope…
HEAVEN—The soul of Pope John Paul, which entered heaven last week following a long illness, expressed confusion and disappointment Saturday, upon learning that the Celestial Kingdom of God to which the departed faithful ascend in the afterlife is significantly less luxurious than the Vatican’s Papal Palace, in which the pope spent the past 26 years of his earthly life.
“Where are all the marble statues, sterling-silver chalices, and gem-encrusted scepters?” the visibly disappointed pope asked. “Where are the 60-foot-tall stained-glass windows and hand-painted cupolas? Where are the elaborately outfitted ranks of Swiss Guards? Why isn’t every single surface gilded? This is my eternal reward?”
Heaven, according to the New Testament, has “brilliance like a very costly stone… of pure gold, like clear glass…” with “twelve gates… each gate a single pearl.” Yet the pope, who spoke from the afterlife, said heaven is nothing like the “solid-gold city” detailed at length by John of Patmos in the Book of Revelations.
“Evidently, the Bible was not intended to be taken literally, after all,” John Paul II said. “Don’t get me wrong: It’s very nice up here—quite beautiful and serene. It’s just not as fancy as what I’m accustomed to. If I’d known heaven was going to be like this, I would’ve taken one last tour through my 50 rooms of velvet-draped thrones and priceless oil paintings before saying ‘Amen’ and breathing my last.”
According to the pope, heaven is merely a place of unending peace and happiness, wherein all the spirits of the Elect live together forever in perfect harmony and goodness, basking in the rays of God’s divine love.
“Up here, everyone is equal,” John Paul II said. “No one has to go through an elaborate bowing ritual when they greet me. And do you know how many times my ring has been kissed since I arrived? None. Up here, I’m mingling with tax collectors, fishermen, and whores. It’s just going to take a little getting used to, is all.”
The pope said it is amusing to think that he has been waiting for this “so-called Paradise” his entire life.
“I spent almost 84 years reciting novenas and Hail Marys to get to this restful place,” John Paul II said. “If I’d wanted peace, quiet, and pretty clouds, I could’ve moved to the Italian Riviera. Frankly, this afterlife represents a significant drop in my standard of living.”
“Well, they always said you can’t take it with you,” he added
——————–>
www.LITmocracy.com
Contest Philosophy In The Nutshell:
I thought of something this morning while I was walking. I call it an “Ahocracy”. It’s based on a system that people can use to do any of three things:
Vote on initiating the use of aggressive force to prevent anyone from taking specific actions under a specified set of conditions for the public good.
Identify fraud within the Ad Hocracy.
Register a delegation of voting power to another member.
#1 is the primary function of government, and every single little thing a government does boils down to this one item. Modern government also take it upon themselves to initiate such force to compel actions (rather than prevent them), but I don’t believe this is ever morally justified, or even practical in the long term, so my Adhocracy would make no provision for it. Government can take other actions, but so can private people, so in an Adhocracy, any action that doesn’t boil down to #1 is considered a private behavior (not as in secret, but as in falling within the rights of the individuals doing it). As is customary in any decent society, the initiation of the use of aggressive force is never within the rights of an individual.
A person can specify their own set of conditions to make a proposal, and their vote and the votes of all who have effectively delegated to them immediately count in favor of it. A person can also search for an already-existing (and likely one that therefore already has more votes) in order to add their votes to it. I say “effectively” delegated because if I delegate to you and you delegate to Jane, then I have effectively delegated to Jane.
A vote on a proposal is either abstain (the default), for, or against.
#2 involves verifying that a randomly selected member of the Adhocracy is an actual human being who holds only one Adhocracy account. It’s like the voter registration system making sure each person has only one vote. The system would randomly select an account from among those that have been verified the fewest number of times and provide the volunteer (when you choose to perform #2, you are a volunteer for the Adhocracy) with contact information for that account. The volunteer is then expected to find other methods of identifying that member, and submitting them to see if the Adhocracy connects any of those other methods to an account other than the original one.
Your $100,000 prize might go to someone who is very good at creating the illusion of multiple online identities. This #2 is intended to thwart any such efforts.
Verifying that a person on the Internet is different from every other person who signs up for your website is a special art, and I would very much enjoy spreading the skills in such an art far and wide.
#3 can be a wholesale expression of trust in another person. When a member does this, they lose the ability to do #1 because the person they trusted now gets to use their vote. This is republicanism to its logical extreme. However, a member may also select a specific proposal and revoke their delegation of voting power for that one issue if they happen to disagree with the way their vote is being used.
Of course, I didn’t mention #4, which is that they can see what’s going on in the Adhocracy – anything from who is registered (by name and city, I suppose) and to whom they have delegated their votes and which proposals they’ve revoked it on to how many proposals there are, when they were proposed, who proposed them, and even how many times each existing member (by name and city again, of course) has been verified. It’s very transparent, but it does not provide any means of sending private messages to more than one (randomly selected) member at a time.
The interesting thing about this is that any member can turn to the adhocracy to find a proposal that attempts to justify the initiation of force and see how many people are for it and how many are against. The value of such statistics is really all we need. There need be no institution to carry out the use of force according to the results because these things will happen without any institutionalization. In fact, someone may propose the set of conditions to be that another proposal’s set of conditions have been met, but that proposal has less than X% of it’s voters in favor, and so anyone attempting to use force according to that proposal should be stopped. But the fact remains: the Adhocracy is only an advisory.
Any number of existing social networks could be used to provide people with an easy way to delegate, which would re-align political pressure with the people and take it out of the marketers’ and lobbyists’ hands.
I suspect this thinking is why you called me, and of course, I’m happy to oblige.
Dave.


















































