• The above Banner is a Sponsored Banner.

    Upgrade to Premium Membership to remove this Banner & All Google Ads. For full list of Premium Member benefits Click HERE.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. ... bingo! 😀 A fun sitcom, british humor, Space: 1999, good old days...
  2. Just saw a YT Video of Ivanisevic winning Wimbledon 2001 "ulitmately he won a final in 2001", so yes, ultimately can have a temporal meaning too. Who knew Ok sixgun, I concede, you win 😀 it was nice small talking with you
  3. Social science today Testing Inter-hemispheric Social Priming Theory in a Sample of Professional Politicians-A Brief Report Summary The current study tests a critical prediction from inter-hemispheric social priming theory in a sample of professional politicians. We ask the question of whether one’s political preferences are manifested in the hand used while cleansing one’s posterior. We find compelling evidence from a sample of professional politicians in the UK (N=8) that this is most certainly the case. The finding is a breakthrough and has implications for organisational management and beyond (we discuss such matters at length). Experiments are now recommended to test the causal direction of our major discovery. http://crimsonpublishers.com/pprs/pdf/PPRS.000516.pdf -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I submitted a hoax manuscript to a predatory journal. The finding? Politicians from the right wipe their ass with their left hand (and vice versa) - big breakthrough! Manuscript accepted w/o review. I then haggled the OA fee down to $0 - so here it is -> (link: http://crimsonpublishers.com/pprs/pdf/PPRS.000516.pdf) crimsonpublishers.com/pprs/pdf/PPRS.… https://twitter.com/Gary_Lewis1/status/1014110123315392512 😂😂😂😂😂
  4. six, google „historical jesus“ or „historicity of jesus“ The reason why you don’t find evidence is because you are not ready to accept certain infos as evidence, and you are not ready to accept certain infos as evidence because these contradict your belief Googling around you will find lines like these „Virtually all New Testament scholars and Near East historians, applying the standard criteria of historical investigation, find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain.“ „Almost all modern scholars consider his baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts.“ I’m not trying to convince you. As I said, you have your belief and no evidence could change it, because you wouldn’t recognize it as evidence in the first place. I’m just explaining you why, as I said, freemasons abadoned the theory of the non existence of Jesus in rhe 19st century. Now, before starting flattering yourself 😀 for denying what virtually every historian worldwide think, please consider that apparently 40% of the Brits share this conviction or yours https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died I’m old fashioned, I had always a faible for what they call common sense philosophy When I meet someone who keeps on contradicting himself and encourages others to do the same, I let him speak while I try to keep one meter between him and me
  5. Kimchi, you talk about gnostics but what smarts you in the first place is actually this This is a UK based forum, I didn’t expect a lot of sympathy for this posting, but if you manage to go beyond the catholic/protestant thing and look at what’s going on in our society, six is brilliant at this, you’ll see that I’m right Otherwise set me straight
  6. You are changing your statement six Firstly you wrote things like „we are souls imprisoned in a body“, which means here and now, and everybody understood you in this way. You were talking about living bodies. You brought up the gnostics, who indeed held up the notion that (living) human beings are spirits imprisoned in bodies. You said our body is worthless, which is indeed very compatible with the notion of human beings being spirits imprisoned in bodies. By the way, you didn’t say corpses, you said bodies. You didn’t say dead body, not even (dead) body, you said body, and (generally) your words are very precise. Now you change subject and talk about corpses „Ultimately the body is worthless“ doesn’t mean The dead body is worthless. Ultimately doesn’t have a temporal meaning, ultimately means all in all considered. When you say, for exemple, Ultimately Jack is a moron you are saying All in all considered Jack is a moron and not After dying Jack is a moron So, do you still think that we are worthless bodies with a imprisoned spirit inside? Do you really think that your doughter is a worthless body with a imprisoned spirit inside? Did you tell her? „Dear doughter, you are now old enough, I must let you know, all these years I took care of you out of sentimentality, actually your body is worthless“ „Darling, after having deepen for years into the secret knowledge I came to realise that you are a wonderful spirit but your body means squat“ There are two ways of confuting someone’s statements Either you are smart and educated, in which case you start with the theoretical confutation, or you are one like me, in which case you check if he is ready to be consequent. If a) he admits he isn’t, b) he says yes but you know he isn’t, c) his actions contradict his statements, like a father proclaiming that our bodies are ultimately worthless after having taken care of his daugther’s health, then you don’t need to take what he says seriously. This let's call it life related method of confutation is applied mostly within the so called Analytic Philosophy, which - now I digress - is actually a product of the Anglo-American philosophical culture. You brits, with your Oxfordes and your Cambridgies, are really good at that. So, six, coming back to your remark, my questions had nothing to do with sentimentality. It’s just logic. Logic and common sense 😀
  7. In case your question was serious... nothing against the French, it's just that people love underdogs, people love cinderella stories If apollo had won against balboa, there'd have been no rambo
  8. Once a contrarian, always a contrarian 😀
  9. I wish for once putting down a posting here would take me less than one hour
  10. Gnostics were either single philosophers or lived in isolated communities, scattered around the east roman empire. They were not organized as a movement or something like that, every community had its own doctrine. Every gnostic felt free to invent his own theory. There was no gnostic common doctrine. What they had in common was a fascinating terminology (monad, aeon, pleroma, archon, sophia etc.). Their philosophical language was said to be intentionally cryptic. Gnostic doctrines were incomprehensible for ordinary people, completely detached from daily life and empirical experience. Normally we’d reckon such theories to be nonsense, but since they fought the church we call it secret knowledge. Gnosticism classified humanity like this (thanks Wiki): • sarkic – earthly, hidebound, ignorant, uninitiated. The lowest level of human thought; the fleshly, instinctive level of thinking. • hylic – lowest order of the three types of human. Unable to be saved since their thinking is entirely material, incapable of understanding the gnosis. • psychic – "soulful", partially initiated. Matter-dwelling spirits • pneumatic – "spiritual", fully initiated, immaterial souls escaping the doom of the material world via gnosis. According to gnosticism, the pneumatics could be the biggest a-holes in human history and still have the right to lead the pack and ultimately achieve salvation. I know that doesn’t fit in with the notion of the gnostics as victims of the wicked Vatican but I think they were mostly full of it. The church wasn’t allowed to persecute people, the secular power did it, but since the social or political influence of the gnostics were nothing, the roman authorities would have had no interest in persecuting them. There was as much as no gnostic bishop and they had no traction among the ordinary christians. Bishops had better things to do than dealing with a theological phenomenon which was considered irrelevant. Only some theologian, like the bishop of Lyon, engaged wih their metaphysical ejaculations. I’m not trying to show off or to tease one of the smartest members of this forum, that would be hara-kiri, I’m just trying to explain how imo what you call cultural marxism works. The „Gnostics who the early church bent over backwards to exterminate and destroy all knowledge and records“ is Dan Brown, is an hoax that the general knowledge of an educated person and some reasoning could easily spot. I’m not blaming you. I just point to how our mind works and how they exploit it Our mind lets in what matches with our basic convictions, in your case, as you put it, that the Vatican is the most wicked organization. It is not a deficiency of our mind, it is a logical necessity. We can’t examine every piece of information we get in touch with. Social control needs only the ability to push some notions into playing the role of basic convictions. The Powers that should not be, as you call them, the Masters of the Narrative, have this ability. Once some notions get promoted into playing the role of basic convictions within our society, the job is done, our mind does the rest Quite interesting, isn't it
  11. I’m not sure about Serbia, Slovenian and Bosnia, but beside that yes, I guess next sunday we are all croatians
  12. Do you really believe that your daughter's body is worthless? Did you tell her?
  13. Mildred

    Brexit means Brexit

    Six, I totally agree with your analysis of how cultural marxism and social engineering work. My point is, cultural marxism is only a means, not their goal. If you want to see their goal, don’t look at the UK, look at Syria, don’t look at London, look at Aleppo. If we want to understand what’s going on we have to transcend the social or cultural level and step into another realm, you can call it spiritual, religious, theological, metaphysical … This is actually what you did, talking in that marginal note about non-human entities behind TPTB. I tend to think that if we want to understand not just how cultural marxism works but its point, we have to engage ourselves in what these non-human entities are, how they work, what they want, but I don't think that you are willing to engage with these questions because for doing it you’d have to deal with christian theology, and maybe with some exorcist’ report
  14. Ok, let's leave out the better life part then: You should thank Jack for having shot down your kids. He freed them from their bodily chains Are you ready to be consequent?
  15. Mildred

    Kinesis Gold and Silver currency

    100% agree First part about the company's strategies, second part about the yield system and the distincion between minter, depositor and holder's yield