Leaderboard

Nathan_Jr: “Don't the epistles provide criteria for a man of god? Haven't we already shown victor doesn't meet those criteria?” Mike: "The epistles do not tell us how God picks people for super special jobs, like listen to what God said he should trust and not trust in other authors and researchers. That super special 1942 job also entailed teaching it, distributing it and listening to God’s guidance in that as well. He got the job done, mostly, by his retirement in 1982. ============================= It's rather silly to cling so doggedly to what was so thoroughly disproven. https://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/topic/24980-concerning-the-failure-of-the-1942-promise/ There was no special nor super special 1942 job. The only reason to think there was, is the testimony of a proven liar and proven fraud. It is not sound thinking to trust the words of a proven liar. It is not sound thinking to trust the genuine work of a known fraud. It is not sound thinking to give credibility to someone who has a history of lying, defrauding, and so on. They've already squandered "the benefit of the doubt."

Now consider these lines from Pound’s Canto LXXIV, which the OED cites in its entry on bull$hit as a verb: Hey Snag wots in the bibl’? Wot are the books ov the bible? Name ‘em, don’t bull$hit ME. This is a call for the facts. The person addressed is evidently regarded as having in some way claimed to know the Bible, or as having claimed to care about it. The speaker suspects that this is just empty talk and demands that the claim be supported with facts. He will not accept a mere report; he insists upon seeing the thing itself. In other words, he is calling the bluff. The connection between bull$hit and bluff is affirmed explicitly in the definition with which the lines by Pound are associated: As v. trans. and intr., to talk nonsense (to);…also, to bluff one’s way through (something) by talking nonsense. It does seem that bull$hitting involves a kind of a bluff. It is closer to bluffing, surely, than to telling a lie… …just what is the relevant difference here between a bluff and a lie? Lying and bluffing are both modes of misrepresentation or deception… The liar is essentially someone who deliberately promulgates a falsehood. Bluffing, too, is typically devoted to conveying something false. Unlike plain lying, however, it is more especially a matter not of falsity but of fakery. This is what accounts for its nearness to bull$hit. For the essence of bull$hit is not that it is false but that it is phony… …what is wrong with a counterfeit is not what it is like, but how it was made. From: pages 44 – 47 of On Bull$hit by Harry G. Frankfurt

...as we were heard to proclaim, "Someday I'll be a REAL boy!"

That's the one, Rocky. Hellebores have such variety, huge range of colours and shapes. But this one I hadn't seen before, and really liked it.

The structure is all about control. Once you've seen the strings of the marionettes, you can never go back to a time when you did not see them.