You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Everything I've said has been a Lie!
- Thread starter Jocariah
- Start date
Re: Animals
The serve no purpose. They occupy a niche
Originally posted by Jocariah
Animals appear in many varieties – there is an abundance of animals on this planet. Why is that, why might that be – what purpose might they serve?
The serve no purpose. They occupy a niche
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
Jocariah
so far you have said nothing that seperates you from a self absorbed religouse radical
that seeks to disturb other people with no empathy
yet you claim to know higher levels of self understanding
this means you have gone past a point of caring for others
you are obviousely content to be selfish and therefor no better than any other that you seek to victimise be condersending comments and inference
i know of the religouse doctrine you are preaching from but have no desire to go into its books and theorys to extract the parts you are quoting in a cut and paste manner
you seem very much like the type that insights chaos to find self content in distracting attention away from your own issues
maybe your thesis is your path to self enlightenment which may take several life times
(in accordance with your own religouse preaching)
why are you posting such religouse things in pseudoscience
it should be in the religion forum
people who do such things to attempt to drag down forums is very old and trol like behaviour
read the rules of the site
so far you have said nothing that seperates you from a self absorbed religouse radical
that seeks to disturb other people with no empathy
yet you claim to know higher levels of self understanding
this means you have gone past a point of caring for others
you are obviousely content to be selfish and therefor no better than any other that you seek to victimise be condersending comments and inference
i know of the religouse doctrine you are preaching from but have no desire to go into its books and theorys to extract the parts you are quoting in a cut and paste manner
you seem very much like the type that insights chaos to find self content in distracting attention away from your own issues
maybe your thesis is your path to self enlightenment which may take several life times
(in accordance with your own religouse preaching)
why are you posting such religouse things in pseudoscience
it should be in the religion forum
people who do such things to attempt to drag down forums is very old and trol like behaviour
read the rules of the site
Charlatan
My good man, have enough intestinal fortitude and backbone to do your homework and present us with these books and theories you say I am plagiarizing.
Foundationless claims do nothing but impede and destroy your own credibility.
Make that extra effort necessary to show me up for the fraud that you say I am, so that all your brethren, right here - right now, may revel in you formidable prose, having exposed me as a fake and charlatan.
Come on now, we know you can do it.
Cheers
.
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
Jocariah, so far you have said nothing that seperates you from a self absorbed religouse radical ....... i know of the religouse doctrine you are preaching from but have no desire to go into its books and theorys to extract the parts you are quoting in a cut and paste manner ....... (etc.)
My good man, have enough intestinal fortitude and backbone to do your homework and present us with these books and theories you say I am plagiarizing.
Foundationless claims do nothing but impede and destroy your own credibility.
Make that extra effort necessary to show me up for the fraud that you say I am, so that all your brethren, right here - right now, may revel in you formidable prose, having exposed me as a fake and charlatan.
Come on now, we know you can do it.
Cheers
.
Last edited:
Prove me a plagiarist
Prove me a plagiarist? I dare you to try!
The problem is you can't - no one can, because my words are original; they are my words alone, and have always been so.
Your small-mindedness cannot grasp the fact that you are, and have always been speaking to an original.
Right here in this odd little thread, lost amongst countless other threads, buried here, relatively out of sight.
Your mind is incapable of grasping original thought.
But I have known that all along.
And now you do as well.
Cheers.
.
Prove me a plagiarist? I dare you to try!
The problem is you can't - no one can, because my words are original; they are my words alone, and have always been so.
Your small-mindedness cannot grasp the fact that you are, and have always been speaking to an original.
Right here in this odd little thread, lost amongst countless other threads, buried here, relatively out of sight.
Your mind is incapable of grasping original thought.
But I have known that all along.
And now you do as well.
Cheers.
.
Last edited:
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
Jocariah ... dude!
i did not mean to imply that you were plagerising
i was meaning in relation to the type of religouse beliefe that you have posted about
i think just as a vague memory it is maybe slightly hindu/haricrishna based
i might be wrong
but you speak of the devine self and different selfs eminating from it and congruent alternate realities and and self embodyments all that is underscored by such a religouse
doctrine in combination with the associative theory of reincarnation and the progresional tree concept of the devine self life force
i have read enough to know the concept is already in existance with many off shoots
i am curiouse why you would not make some mention of them
however if you expand your reading a little you may find pre-established theorys relating to a combination of the type of phillosophys you are residing from with your posting
how this relates to the U.F.O and or abduction phenomena seems somewhat shakey on its pre-conception that there is relative ideoligy.. when once you investigate some of the massive amounts of claims you will find that reports of such U.F.O and abduction phenomina cross all religouse bounderies and do not collectively suggest they transform to any one single religouse or non religouse doctrine
i have done extensive reading on these topics
and find it rather odd that you seek to place a relativistic interpretation on the bassis of reality when it is clearly defined to be varied and non collective in its interpretive data within this particular feild of data (U.F.O & abduction) cross matched with religouse beliefes
where do you place your groups to interpret such data to cast specific ideoligy within this frame?
i did not mean to imply that you were plagerising
i was meaning in relation to the type of religouse beliefe that you have posted about
i think just as a vague memory it is maybe slightly hindu/haricrishna based
i might be wrong
but you speak of the devine self and different selfs eminating from it and congruent alternate realities and and self embodyments all that is underscored by such a religouse
doctrine in combination with the associative theory of reincarnation and the progresional tree concept of the devine self life force
i have read enough to know the concept is already in existance with many off shoots
i am curiouse why you would not make some mention of them
however if you expand your reading a little you may find pre-established theorys relating to a combination of the type of phillosophys you are residing from with your posting
how this relates to the U.F.O and or abduction phenomena seems somewhat shakey on its pre-conception that there is relative ideoligy.. when once you investigate some of the massive amounts of claims you will find that reports of such U.F.O and abduction phenomina cross all religouse bounderies and do not collectively suggest they transform to any one single religouse or non religouse doctrine
i have done extensive reading on these topics
and find it rather odd that you seek to place a relativistic interpretation on the bassis of reality when it is clearly defined to be varied and non collective in its interpretive data within this particular feild of data (U.F.O & abduction) cross matched with religouse beliefes
where do you place your groups to interpret such data to cast specific ideoligy within this frame?
Oh dear, dear, Jocariah..........
Do you really think that you deceived anyone?
Prove it.......
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23899&highlight=Jocariah
Who did you deceive there? Surely not MrMynomics......
-Guyute
Do you really think that you deceived anyone?
Prove it.......
http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23899&highlight=Jocariah
Who did you deceive there? Surely not MrMynomics......
-Guyute
Having a dialogue with me is easy; just keep in mind that I know you better than you know yourself. Which isn’t saying much, really, because you don’t know yourself, at all.
I hate to say it Jock, but you can't say you're original when you say stuff like this. If I had a nickel...
Here's some new material for you:
<a href="http://www.hhhh.org/maia/liestxt.html">Lies Abusers Tell</a>
I believe "I know you better than you know yourself" is #41 on that list... maybe you should think about what you're trying to say here.
What makes you want to reach out and hurt people? Let it all out.
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
I hate to say it Jock, but you can't say you're original when you say stuff like this. If I had a nickel...
Here's some new material for you:
<a href="http://www.hhhh.org/maia/liestxt.html">Lies Abusers Tell</a>
I believe "I know you better than you know yourself" is #41 on that list... maybe you should think about what you're trying to say here.
What makes you want to reach out and hurt people? Let it all out.
Blatantly spouting condescension appears to elicit greater responses here than not doing so, apparently more so in fact than any past sincerity on my part. I shall keep this in mind, should that ever become a goal of mine.
Cheers
.
Condescension is a fine art; your personal type is coarse and offensive, and also (as I previously said) highly unoriginal to the point of being cliché.
Also you yourself have called the value of your sincerity into question... so what are we left with? The quality of your prose, which is sorely lacking. Certainly your claims of originality are proving to be a lie, which I guess goes along with what you've been telling us...
Also you yourself have called the value of your sincerity into question... so what are we left with? The quality of your prose, which is sorely lacking. Certainly your claims of originality are proving to be a lie, which I guess goes along with what you've been telling us...
Originally posted by BigBlueHead
Condescension is a fine art; your personal type is coarse and offensive, and also (as I previously said) highly unoriginal to the point of being cliché.
Also you yourself have called the value of your sincerity into question... so what are we left with? The quality of your prose, which is sorely lacking. Certainly your claims of originality are proving to be a lie, which I guess goes along with what you've been telling us...
So what is your point my good man - I have already confessed to being a liar? Tell me something original, ideas and such, so that I may see your perspective, and share your vision of the world.
Time is wasting.
Cheers
.
My point, since you ask, is that by undermining the benefit of the doubt you have removed the only redeeming quality that you had: the appearance of honesty.
Since your maunderings were pretty dreary - what I read of them, for I assumed that your "spiritual journey" would have progressed farther in your later posts - the only allure of any kind that they had was that they might represent a true, if flawed and thoughtless, intellectual pursuit.
What you have told everyone by calling your honesty into doubt is that, not only are you a dreary little person with no interesting thoughts that you wish to share, but that you have deliberately wasted their time along with your own by misrepresenting your intent. It is as if you had given away free tickets to a show that doesn't exist.
Your subsequent protestations of originality mean about as much to me as the unpleasant free verse poetry of bitter high school students who wonder why God does not like them. Certainly, protesting your own originality, accusing all others of being incapable of said, and then claiming that you somehow know all about them from the few encouraging words that they have typed, is an unfair way to characterize other people.
In conclusion, you suck.
Since your maunderings were pretty dreary - what I read of them, for I assumed that your "spiritual journey" would have progressed farther in your later posts - the only allure of any kind that they had was that they might represent a true, if flawed and thoughtless, intellectual pursuit.
What you have told everyone by calling your honesty into doubt is that, not only are you a dreary little person with no interesting thoughts that you wish to share, but that you have deliberately wasted their time along with your own by misrepresenting your intent. It is as if you had given away free tickets to a show that doesn't exist.
Your subsequent protestations of originality mean about as much to me as the unpleasant free verse poetry of bitter high school students who wonder why God does not like them. Certainly, protesting your own originality, accusing all others of being incapable of said, and then claiming that you somehow know all about them from the few encouraging words that they have typed, is an unfair way to characterize other people.
In conclusion, you suck.
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
Jocariah ... dude!
i did not mean to imply that you were plagerising
i was meaning in relation to the type of religouse beliefe that you have posted about
i think just as a vague memory it is maybe slightly hindu/haricrishna based
i might be wrong
but you speak of the devine self and different selfs eminating from it and congruent alternate realities and and self embodyments all that is underscored by such a religouse
doctrine in combination with the associative theory of reincarnation and the progresional tree concept of the devine self life force
i have read enough to know the concept is already in existance with many off shoots
i am curiouse why you would not make some mention of them
however if you expand your reading a little you may find pre-established theorys relating to a combination of the type of phillosophys you are residing from with your posting
how this relates to the U.F.O and or abduction phenomena seems somewhat shakey on its pre-conception that there is relative ideoligy.. when once you investigate some of the massive amounts of claims you will find that reports of such U.F.O and abduction phenomina cross all religouse bounderies and do not collectively suggest they transform to any one single religouse or non religouse doctrine
i have done extensive reading on these topics
and find it rather odd that you seek to place a relativistic interpretation on the bassis of reality when it is clearly defined to be varied and non collective in its interpretive data within this particular feild of data (U.F.O & abduction) cross matched with religouse beliefes
where do you place your groups to interpret such data to cast specific ideoligy within this frame?
Jesus Christ, your spelling is way too desstracting, dude!
I am a hybrid (i.e., genetically altered) human, extensively programmed by what some would call aliens - now what was your question again?
How many of us have you known, recognized or spoken with? None?
That being the case, take a deep breath, focus, and ask away.
Cheers
.
Last edited:
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
Jocariah
Quote
Jesus Christ, your spelling is way too desstracting, dude!
I am a hybrid (i.e., genetically altered) human, extensively programmed by what some would call aliens - now what was your question again?
How many of us have you known, recognized or spoken with? None?
That being the case, take a deep breath, focus, and ask away.
Cheers
---
so you wish me to ask myself a question?
what shall i do next?
ask you a question?
ok
so how do i know if you are lying about my spelling ?
Quote
Jesus Christ, your spelling is way too desstracting, dude!
I am a hybrid (i.e., genetically altered) human, extensively programmed by what some would call aliens - now what was your question again?
How many of us have you known, recognized or spoken with? None?
That being the case, take a deep breath, focus, and ask away.
Cheers
---
so you wish me to ask myself a question?
what shall i do next?
ask you a question?
ok
so how do i know if you are lying about my spelling ?
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
Jocariah
Quote
Jesus Christ, your spelling is way too desstracting, dude!
I am a hybrid (i.e., genetically altered) human, extensively programmed by what some would call aliens - now what was your question again?
How many of us have you known, recognized or spoken with? None?
That being the case, take a deep breath, focus, and ask away.
Cheers
---
so you wish me to ask myself a question?
what shall i do next?
ask you a question?
ok
so how do i know if you are lying about my spelling ?
My good man, all people lie, it's simply a matter of degrees. Observing actions over time, helps to paint a picture of intent. Understand a person's intent, chances are you'll understand the person.
As an example, look at all of my posts over time, and you'll see my intent - observe only my recent posts, and you'll be misled.
Take in the broad overview and you'll always have more information than a more recent, shorter time-period, experience.
If you, or anyone for that matter, are too lazy to take the time, or make the effort to observe over a longer period of time, then you do not have all of the information necessary.
It's always about information - isn't it?
Cheers.
Sorry, Jocariah, it is about the CREDIBILITY of the evidence. That
is where opinions are formed and controversies arise, both in
pseudoscience and science. Perceived credibility is subjective.
is where opinions are formed and controversies arise, both in
pseudoscience and science. Perceived credibility is subjective.
Originally posted by 2inquisitive
Sorry, Jocariah, it is about the CREDIBILITY of the evidence. That
is where opinions are formed and controversies arise, both in
pseudoscience and science. Perceived credibility is subjective.
Nothing to be sorry about, you're right - it's all subjective.
Cheers
ripleofdeath
Registered Senior Member
Jocariah
well considering for a moment what you have mentioned
maybe you could give some type of basic concept in regard to how you think your perspective and thus understanding would differ from another person who might follow a similar manner of interactive belief ?
well considering for a moment what you have mentioned
maybe you could give some type of basic concept in regard to how you think your perspective and thus understanding would differ from another person who might follow a similar manner of interactive belief ?
Originally posted by ripleofdeath
Jocariah
well considering for a moment what you have mentioned
maybe you could give some type of basic concept in regard to how you think your perspective and thus understanding would differ from another person who might follow a similar manner of interactive belief ?
Interactive belief? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with that concept - but then I am ignorant of many things, and knowledgeable only of a few.
I might be able to understand your question if you could explain what is meant by your usage of the term 'interactive belief'.
In your explanation, please don't assume I know things that you know - even the simplest of things that you understand may be foreign to me, especially as it pertains to philosophy and the ideas of others.
Cheers