Moscow police search scientology [Taganskaya Street]
- Thread starter Lermanet_com
- Start date
Mystic
Crusader
And to bring the thread into USA "realities" (which are lie illusions generated by a government daily proving it is against the people of the Unites States):
Are you a "potential domestic terrorist"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qRhPutagK8
Are you a "potential domestic terrorist"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qRhPutagK8
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Panda Termint
Cabal Of One
Smilla
Ordinary Human
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Smilla
Ordinary Human
I think that The Anabaptist Jaques is very wise and learned, but in my experience wise and learned people can be wrong as often as stupid people
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
I think that The Anabaptist Jaques is very wise and learned, but in my experience wise and learned people can be wrong as often as stupid people
Oh, I'd agree...he is very wise and very learned.
I do not always agree with him.....and I'm not always right.
A lot of postings are not between the two ( or more sometimes ) posters that are posting.
I think differing views are a good thing even when no one is putting forward the "exact" truth or even the "correct" solution.
This horse will be beaten to white ribs glowing in the moon light - LOL !
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Same as anywhere else but with more money, a slightly greater tendency towards self-righteous 'moral' values, and broadly less experience or interest in foreign peoples & cultures due in part to a general preference for an attitude of 'america first' and a focus on "what's in it for me" all coupled with the widespread ownership of firearms.
Avaricious obsessive self-centered nutcases with guns more or less sums it up.
On the 'plus' side, americans are typically warm-hearted and generous, at least with those they haven't previously decided to hate. So I'm afraid that the 'leadership' really do broadly represent the american people, howsoever much populists may seek to deny it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xOs_uZrBnI
(My first & personal fave rendition.
)Mark A. Baker
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
I think that The Anabaptist Jaques is very wise and learned, but in my experience wise and learned people can be wrong as often as stupid people
True, but they are intelligently wrong, as opposed to merely being stupidly wrong, and that makes all the difference. The intelligently wrong are easily corrected, indeed they are often self-correcting.
Unfortunately neither aspect of correction is generally to be observed with the other sort.
Mark A. Baker
Smilla
Ordinary Human
True, but they are intelligently wrong, as opposed to merely being stupidly wrong, and that makes all the difference. The intelligently wrong are easily corrected, indeed they are often self-correcting.
Unfortunately neither aspect of correction is generally to be observed with the other sort.
Mark A. Baker
The wise and stupid might both find the truth with the right approach.
All thats required is a pin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emWWY5VIYUk
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
I think that The Anabaptist Jaques is very wise and learned, but in my experience wise and learned people can be wrong as often as stupid people
All I did was to say I was not infallible.
But when I said no one here is infallible, that seems to upset some people.
Yikes!
The Anabaptist Jacques
Smilla
Ordinary Human
degraded being
Sponsor
the U.S. Department of Defense. Scientology inspired methods?
From wikipedia: List of banned books by goverments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Operation Dark Heart (2010)
Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
Memoir
In September 2010 the U.S. Department of Defense overrode the Army's January approval for publication. The DoD then purchased and destroyed all 9,500 first edition copies citing concerns that it contained classified information which could damage the integrity of U.S. National Security. The publisher, St. Martin's Press,[70] in conjunction with the DoD created a censored second edition; which contains blackened out words, lines, paragraphs, and even portions of the index.[71]...."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From wikipedia: List of banned books by goverments
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"...Operation Dark Heart (2010)
Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
Memoir
In September 2010 the U.S. Department of Defense overrode the Army's January approval for publication. The DoD then purchased and destroyed all 9,500 first edition copies citing concerns that it contained classified information which could damage the integrity of U.S. National Security. The publisher, St. Martin's Press,[70] in conjunction with the DoD created a censored second edition; which contains blackened out words, lines, paragraphs, and even portions of the index.[71]...."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
degraded being
Sponsor
Not being infallible could possibly make you wrong on two points there,
first, you might actually be infallible, and some one or others might also be infallible.
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
I was just joking
Cool. Sorry.
But if I said I wasn't infallible, then if it turned out I was infallible, then it wouldn't be true, because I was wrong when I said I wasn't infallible. (unless I was just joking when I said I was infallible)
The Anabaptist Jacques
degraded being
Sponsor
Cool. Sorry.
But if I said I wasn't infallible, then if it turned out I was infallible, then it wouldn't be true, because I was wrong when I said I wasn't infallible. (unless I was just joking when I said I was infallible)
The Anabaptist Jacques
Ahh...yes, but you see I wasn't talking about the "ifs" of what you said....but just to address that point, if you hadn't hypothesised (hope you don't mind English-as-in-England spelling), the negative, and the outcome of something that hasn't been stated, then the fallibility or otherwise ("otherwise" doesn't necessarily mean "in"-fallible here) of you or others could be discussed. But as it is, it can't, because it's not true that you didn't say "if if I said I wasn't infallible, then if it turned out I was infallible, then it wouldn't be true, because I was wrong when I said I wasn't infallible. "
The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Ahh...yes, but you see I wasn't talking about the "ifs" of what you said....but just to address that point, if you hadn't hypothesised (hope you don't mind English-as-in-England spelling), the negative, and the outcome of something that hasn't been stated, then the fallibility or otherwise ("otherwise" doesn't necessarily mean "in"-fallible here) of you or others could be discussed. But as it is, it can't, because it's not true that you didn't say "if if I said I wasn't infallible, then if it turned out I was infallible, then it wouldn't be true, because I was wrong when I said I wasn't infallible. "
Like they say in China "two Wongs don't make a white."
The Anabaptist Jacques
Similar threads
