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

Re: as ever -- when a nobody like me has the proof of a crime by a rich and powerful person who owns media and politicians -- there can only be one outcome

Expand Messages
  • Ardeshir Mehta
    ... [A] Well, maybe yes, maybe no: I still think that initially you pretended not to understand me. If you are really honest you can tell me honestly whether
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 2, 2008
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [PWS] Indeed. However, the majority of Americans
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and Europeans are now as guilty as the Sex Crime
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gang ('Jews') because they are protecting the SCG,
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if only by acquiescence.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [A] Because of their apathy, right? But they are
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not to blame, right? Because their apathy is not
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their fault, right?
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, right. sigh
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [PWS] Is it apathy? Or is it terror imposed by the
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> puppet masters?
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [A] The majority of Americans and Europeans acquiesce
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because they are terrified? Terrified of what? And why?
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [P] I suspect that with the majority of Americans it
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is neither acquiescence nor fear but active
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>> participation.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>> [A] But WHY? What's in it for THEM?
      >>>>>>>>>>>> [PWS] "Nothing succeeds like success" - a classic
      >>>>>>>>>>>> Americanism used to mind-program Americans into
      >>>>>>>>>>>> compliance with the law of the concrete jungle.
      >>>>>>>>>>>> Americans worship success in others, especially the dog
      >>>>>>>>>>>> who can eat all the other dogs. The last man standing.
      >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone with more money than could ever have been
      >>>>>>>>>>>> acquired honestly.
      >>>>>>>>>>> [PWS] I forgot to mention. What Americans really want is
      >>>>>>>>>>> an uninterrupted supply of cocaine. So they do not wish
      >>>>>>>>>>> to disrupt the activities of the Cocaine Import Agency.
      >>>>>>>>>>> [A] Aren't all the above simply symptoms of stupidity?
      >>>>>>>>>>> And isn't stupidity, at least when it doesn't have a
      >>>>>>>>>>> genetic basis, simply a symptom of apathy - which is to
      >>>>>>>>>>> say, an unwillingness to exert oneself to find out what
      >>>>>>>>>>> really is and was the case?
      >>>>>>>>> [PWS] Even you engage in avoidance of reality.
      >>>>>>>> [A] Yes, indeed: I freely admit it. As I said before,
      >>>>>>>> everybody sucks - including yours truly.
      >>>>>>>> But I try day by day to reduce my suckage, by challenging
      >>>>>>>> people to DEOMONSTRATE that those ideas of mine which they
      >>>>>>>> THINK are are wrong are indeed wrong. If any idea I
      >>>>>>>> entertain is clearly demonstrated to be wrong, I abandon
      >>>>>>>> that idea.
      >>>>>>>> For example, for a couple of years I believed the Official
      >>>>>>>> Conspiracy Theory re. 9-11. But after reading one of Nashid
      >>>>>>>> Abdul Khaaliq's essays about it - which I came across on the
      >>>>>>>> web by pure chance - it was demonstrated to me that I was
      >>>>>>>> wrong to believe the OCT, so I immediately abandoned my
      >>>>>>>> belief in it.
      >>>>>>> [PWS] Once one part of the 9/11 OCT falls, the whole lot
      >>>>>>> pancakes. It's the only thing about 9/11 that does.
      >>>>>>>> [A] In my experience, most people - including those with
      >>>>>>>> whom I am in regular contact - DON'T abandon those ideas of
      >>>>>>>> theirs which have been clearly demonstrated to be wrong. (Do
      >>>>>>>> YOU?)
      >>>>>>> [PWS] (Which idea was that?)
      >>>>>> [A] I don't understand the question. Care to clarify?
      >>>>> [PWS] You asked whether I abandon ideas of mine which have been
      >>>>> demonstrated to be wrong. I was curious to know which idea of
      >>>>> mine you believe to have been proved false.
      >>>> [A] The idea that if the population of the world were 10 billion
      >>>> we couldn't deal with all their shit. The idea that I have a
      >>>> "need to feed a trillion people". The idea that I have a need to
      >>>> have at least 100 humans within 100 feet of me all the time. The
      >>>> idea that "maybe dinosaur farts reached a concentration where
      >>>> the atmosphere became inflammable and there was a global flash
      >>>> fire in the air". The idea that you are honest (without, be it
      >>>> noted, having any idea of the difference between 'true' and
      >>>> 'false', which you consider in fact to be nonsensical). Need I
      >>>> go on?
      >>> [PWS] You could supply the 'proofs' you claim to have. For
      >>> example, how exactly do you know dinosaur farts didn't reach a
      >>> critical level in the atmosphere? Were you there at the time? Do
      >>> you not recall the recent case of the man who was asphyxiated by
      >>> his own farts?
      >> [A] Yes, you're right about that one - I stand corrected. How
      >> about the others, though?
      > [PWS] Ok. I admit I don't know how many people you want in the room
      > with you at any one time. So will you now at least admit that I'm
      > honest?

      [A] Well, maybe yes, maybe no: I still think that initially you
      pretended not to understand me. If you are really honest you can tell
      me honestly whether you were or not pretending not to understand me.

      Also, even if the answer here is "yes", how about other subjects -
      like our ability, technologically speaking, to feed several times as
      many people as we do now? Or as to how many cubic centimetres there
      are in the Universe? Or whether one can choose to believe in free
      will? And do you admit that you don't actually KNOW whether or not
      Sharon was behind the events of 9/11?

      Indeed, what about your claiming to be honest but not being able to
      tell the difference between 'true' and 'false'? How can you be honest
      in such a case? What does "honest" MEAN, then?

      >>>>>>>> [A] One example is that most people, even those who have
      >>>>>>>> been SHOWN clearly that banks counterfeit money (i.e.,
      >>>>>>>> create money which they have no authority to create), don't
      >>>>>>>> want to "uphold the law with Dick" - see his post below -
      >>>>>>>> which states that counterfeiters should be made to desist
      >>>>>>>> from further counterfeiting, and even prosecuted!
      >>>>>>> [PWS] I'm sure they're shivering in fear at your onslaught.
      >>>>>> [A] Who are you talking about? The people who don't want to
      >>>>>> uphold the law, or the banksters? If the latter, what does it
      >>>>>> matter, if all the rest of the people - the vast majority, in
      >>>>>> other words - are for upholding the law? If the former, why
      >>>>>> should they shiver, and why do they think I am "onslaughting"
      >>>>>> them?
      >>>>> [PWS] Are you totally oblivious to all sarcasm?
      >>>> [A] I was wondering if YOU were, Peter.
      >>>>> [PWS] I was talking of the counterfeiters and how they laugh in
      >>>>> our faces.
      >>>> [A] As I said, what does it matter, if all the rest of the
      >>>> people - the vast majority of people, in other words - are for
      >>>> upholding the law and prosecuting them?
      >>>>>>>>> [PWS] Your theory that agriculture could be made so
      >>>>>>>>> efficient as to feed a trillion people may even be correct.
      >>>>>>>>> But you overlook the arse-end of your own theory.
      >>>>>>>>> We cannot deal with the shit produced by a 'mere' 10
      >>>>>>>>> billion. Try to imagine the inescapable aroma of human
      >>>>>>>>> sewage constantly pervading every aspect of everyone's
      >>>>>>>>> lives. A global shanty town.
      >>>>>>>> [A] The above is not an example of my suckage, however. I
      >>>>>>>> have thought of this problem already. The shit can be
      >>>>>>>> recycled into food and plant matter. It's a natural process.
      >>>>>>> [PWS] Isn't everything? I still don't understand your need to
      >>>>>>> have at least 100 humans within 100 feet of you all the time.
      >>>>>> [A] I don't have any such need, Peter. (I also don't
      >>>>>> understand YOUR need to ascribe needs to ME which I don't
      >>>>>> have! Or are you simply being dishonest, pretending not to
      >>>>>> understand me?)
      >>>>> [PWS] Then why the need to feed 100 trillion people? Do you
      >>>>> hope to be on the other side of the planet to the rest of us?
      >>>> [A] 100 trillion? Did I say 100 trillion? Sorry, I meant 100.
      >>>> (Oh dear. Mr Sault again can't read ... AND is oblivious to
      >>>> sarcasm.)
      >>>>>>>> [A] Remember that the planet has a far greater biomass of
      >>>>>>>> animal life than merely the humans on it, and the total
      >>>>>>>> amount of shit produced by the rest of the animals on the
      >>>>>>>> planet far exceeds that produced by the humans alone - or
      >>>>>>>> even by the humans plus domesticated animals. And yet the
      >>>>>>>> planet has been recycling all this huge amount of shit for
      >>>>>>>> billions of years. Humans can learn from what the planet has
      >>>>>>>> been doing for so long!
      >>>>>>> [PWS] We are the planet. And just look what happened to the
      >>>>>>> dinosaurs. That was a natural process too.
      >>>>>> [A] But dinosaurs didn't die of an overproduction of shit.
      >>>>> [PWS] You don't know that. Maybe dinosaur farts reached a
      >>>>> concentration where the atmosphere became inflammable and there
      >>>>> was a global flash fire in the air.
      >>>> [A] Funny.
      >>>> (Oh. You're serious, aren't you? Good Gawd. You don't believe in
      >>>> Gawd but believe in THAT?)
      >>>>>> [A] (I don't understand your need to try to change the
      >>>>>> subject, Peter. Do you HAVE to try to show that you cannot
      >>>>>> have been mistaken when you clearly are ... even at the cost
      >>>>>> of debating an issue dishonestly, namely by pretending you
      >>>>>> didn't understand the essence of my argument?)
      >>>>>> By the way: if indeed the dinosaurs died of an asteroid
      >>>>>> impacting the Earth, well, we humans can prevent that
      >>>>>> happening to us, with modern technology, by searching for any
      >>>>>> asteroids that might impact the Earth, and diverting them from
      >>>>>> their course.
      >>>>> [PWS] Allowing that the idea of changing the orbit of an
      >>>>> asteroid is not entirely as fatuous as it sounds, the way it
      >>>>> will work out is that the asteroid would have missed except for
      >>>>> our tampering with its orbit.
      >>>> [A] Why?
      >>>> It's not as fatuous as it sounds - look it up, there's a good
      >>>> chap. (Try http://neat.jpl.nasa.gov/neofaq.html .)
      >>>>> [PWS] Allowing again that the idea is not totally ludicrous, it
      >>>>> would immediately be picked up by mad zionist moles inside NASA
      >>>>> who would change the asteroid's orbit so it hit Vermont. This
      >>>>> would then be blamed on the Jews' enemy du jour.
      >>>> [A] Funny.
      >>>>>>>> [A] Indeed, pretty much ALL waste can be recycled - if
      >>>>>>>> necessary using plasma torches (look it up). The only
      >>>>>>>> exception I know of is nuclear (i.e., radioactive) waste.
      >>>>>>>> But this is negligible in quantity, and for that reason can
      >>>>>>>> easily and cheaply be vitrified and then dumped into the
      >>>>>>>> Sun, using cannons of the type envisioned by Gerald Bull
      >>>>>>>> (look it up.)
      >>>>>>> [PWS] How do you propose to demonstrate that the Sun won't
      >>>>>>> simply spit it back at us?
      >>>>>> [A] I don't; but it's much more likely that it won't than that
      >>>>>> it will, wouldn't you say?
      >>>>>>>> [A] There: I have demonstrated an idea of yours to be
      >>>>>>>> clearly wrong. Are you honest enough to acknowledge the
      >>>>>>>> fact, and to abandon it? I do wonder.
      >>>>>>> [PWS] I freely admit that you could be wrong.
      >>>>>> [A] Well, your above replies demonstrate to me one thing for
      >>>>>> sure: that you are blatantly dishonest. I simply CAN'T believe
      >>>>>> that you are an honest person, as you claim to be, when you
      >>>>>> clearly PRETEND not to understand my above arguments!
      >>>>>> But that's okay - as I said earlier, everybody lies. Your
      >>>>>> situation may well be that you lie to yourself as well as to
      >>>>>> others, and believe - "honestly" - in your own lies.
      >>>>>> Cheers.
      >>>>>> +++++
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- In ODEION@yahoogroups.com, "Dick Eastman"
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oldickeastman@ wrote:
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [DICK] As ever, when a nobody like me has the
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proof of a crime by persons rich and powerful who
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own the media and politicians only one outcome is
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is your duty to uphold the law with me.
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dick Eastman
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yakima, Washington
      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every man is responsible to every other man.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.