Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [2012-Theories] Re: 2012 - What will happen?

Expand Messages
  • saint
    Gordon, Your statement about lawyers clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding. Lawyers don t argue about right of wrong . They argue points of law ,
    Message 1 of 57 , Jun 5, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      Gordon,
       
      Your statement about lawyers clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding. Lawyers don't argue about 'right' of 'wrong'. They argue 'points of law', that prove or disprove to the court their client has broken a law. This is not a moralistic judgment. It a matter of law. It is a common mistake to believe courts dispense justice. They do not. They dispense an interpretation of the law.
       
      Perhaps it is the 'training' you have received that precludes you from understanding that in terms of the cosmos, 'right' and 'wrong' are truely subjective. That is why the answer to your question begins and ends with the understanding that there is only one whole. Every other position is an aberration of reality.
       
      David
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: gordon
      Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 9:10 AM
      Subject: Re: [2012-Theories] Re: 2012 - What will happen?

      Perhaps you could make a start by putting the following into simple English. In my experience, most folk who don't know the difference between right and wrong are lawyers!
       
      <<There is no right or wrong - only two EQUAL opposites. Something is
      right only by being wrong and it is wrong because it is right. A
      choice is always dual - it determines simultaneously wright and wrong
      and choice is always subjective. Only no choice is objective choice.
      That's why we can get it, because all theories are always exclusivity
      of one that precludes equal opposite. Right/wrong is dual or 2D
      projection of 3D reality, which is not exclusivity of only one choice
      between right and wrong, but inclusiveness of all such relative
      choices. In other words, reality is not duality, but triangulation.
      3rd direction is depth of surface duality.
      >>
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 4:55 PM
      Subject: [2012-Theories] Re: 2012 - What will happen?

      --- In 2012-Theories@yahoogroups.com, "gordon" <gordon@y...> wrote:
      > There is no arguing with such a profound lack of logic. How can you
      ever accept the possibly that you might be wrong. . ?
      >
      My dear friend,
      I am so glad that you found such profound lack of logic, so if you
      can be so kind to point it out to me i would be much obliged. Are you
      saying that it is right to be wrong or are you saying it is wrong to
      be right? Or you're saying something else? At least we agree that
      argument is futile, so at least there is something in common.
      Daniel

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • gordon
      David there is a significant difference between accusing your fellow scientists of dogmatism, while still supporting their methodologies, and adopting a
      Message 57 of 57 , Jul 7, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        David
         
        there is a significant difference between accusing your fellow scientists of dogmatism, while still supporting their methodologies, and adopting a different perspective. No one is suggesting all of science has got it wrong. They certainly have not. However, there are areas of knowledge that are strictly forbidden to criticism or alternative analysis. The origins of the universe, the origin of mankind. How did we get here? Where did we come from? What purpose do we have being here. Are we just a biological entity or is there more to us than meets the eye? These are the questions your scientific method refuses to not only discuss but even acknowledge the existence of.
         
        Who says they are my "fellow scientists"? Once again you appear to be confusing science with the scientific establishment. Science, as defined in my last email, would certainly not forbid such research, and I agree with you, more effort should be expended in these directions.
         
        If you go back and look at Mendle's statistics for his crossing of pairs, you will soon see the distribution curves are too smoothe. he did this  knowing it would increased his chances of acceptance, in the 'age of reason', as it was then  called.. Newton did the same, although I don't have the exact details of his data manipulation.
         
        But the results were valid . . ! A slight massaging to make the graphs look better hardly changes that fact. Once again we have scientists pandering to the establishment of the day. Their methods were correct else they would not have made their discoveries.
         
        Darwin, as has every appologist for the theory of evolution after him, made absolutely unsupportable claims of connection between various specimens found at different locations on this planet. And when proof is demanded for their unsupported connections, they always resort to the same piece of intellectual dishonesty.... the actual link is missing, but we'll find it one day! And this is where much of today's science becomes religion. Because to believe in something without the necessary proof for its existence is a religious belief.
         
        I never said that Darwin's theory was complete. I do find it ironic that someone such as yourself, who is prepared to accept some of the most incredible hypotheses as being correct purely because they came from sources outside of the mainstream scientific community, is now condemning others for a small act of faith such as this.
         
        Do you disagree with the mechanism of natural selection as postulated by Darwin. If so, please tell us why.
         
         Yes, one would need to agree that the Church has not been overly friendly towards science on a number of occasions! And yes, CONTROL is certrainly their game plan!
         
        Wonderful, we have finally found a point of agreement!
        :-)
         
         No Gordon I mean exactly what I say! Fero was prevented from introducing his radical construction methods precisely because the science of his structure could not be demonstrated. he himself is recorded (on video tape) as saying this. However to assume the 'scientific method' removes public risk, is again a rather silly statement given the medical disasters that have befallen hundreds of thousands - probably millions of innocent victims.
         
        Your statements about Ferroconcrete did not run true to me. I found the following on the Internet:
         
        "In 1867, reinforced concrete was patented by F. Joseph Monier (1823-1906), a gardner in Paris, to reinforce garden tubs, beams and posts. The French inventor had found that the tensile weakness of plain concrete could be overcome if steel rods were embedded in a concrete member..The new composite material was called reinforced concrete, or ferroconcrete. William E. Ward builds (1871-75) the landmark building, first in the U.S. to use reinforced concrete, for a private house in Port Chester, N.Y., It was designed by architect Robert Mook."
         
        So, there does not appear to be any Italian named Ferro! (Did you ever study Latin?) It was invented by a Frenchman.  :-)
         
        You also appear to allude to the business of the International Drug Companies. They are as far removed from science as yourself. IMHO they are the closest thing to a corporate Lucifer on the face of this planet, and you will never find me defending their record and actions in any way, shape or form.
         
         I possibly have you at a disadvantage here Gordon, having lived on airforce establishments all of my early life and a father who was a senior engineering offcier in our airforce. Junkers (the company) was responsible for the engine and airframe devlopment of the first German jet while Whittle worked at RAF Farnbourough and Boscome Down developing the engine while Gloucester developed the airframe, in a parallel development programe. The point I make is that without engine and airframe development being matched together you end up with the situation British Leyland did in the 1970's. Ever wondered why you can get at the sparkplugs and oil filter on a Japanese car and not a Leyland one? Simple. Leyland insisted on designing engines and tansmissions separately from their body design group! The Japanese insisted the process should be integrated!
         
        So, what you had was a bureaucratic botch-up - again little to do with science. Bureaucrats tend to understand little about such things too.
         
        I do however grant you that there was considerable political pressure brought to bear against identifying the organism that caused BSE and had it not been for a small number of honest and courageous scientists, the world would be in greater peril from beef consumption.
         
        Yes, the pressure was considerable. Have you any idea of the constraints under which most scientists operate. How they get their finance for a start. Yes, a lot of it comes from Government and Government-controlled sources. If they say or do the wrong thing they may be suddenly out of a job. They don't get shot, they just lose their funds. So perhaps this little insight will give you a better appreciation of the background to the BSE scandal, not the first time that a government-orchestrated cover-up has been done on this scale either .
         
        Gordon
         
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.