On 13 May, 22:44, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > But Pat, it is already set within the Space-Time Parameters that you > shouldn't be able to "recover". >
Thus, the statement 'hopefully'. Whether or not it IS set is known, i.e., yes, the future IS set, but 'to what is it set' is NOT known...at least by us. Which is why Muslims so often say "Insha Allah", i.e., "If God is willing". > On May 13, 9:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 13 May, 14:12, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ja, überstanden. Gute Besserung auch dir. > > > See, you're more techie than I am, as I don't know how to get the > > umlaut to show up and resort to covering it with the extra 'e'. > > Hopefully, I'll recover from THAT, as well. ;-) > > > > On 13 Mai, 14:23, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 13 May, 10:29, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Speak for yourself/ your own perception, please, Pat! A sheer > > > > > necessity if we want to get on with our "Minds Eye"/ mutual > > > > > overstanding - project! Thank you. > > > > > LOL!! Thing is, we all speak for the One that is. Uebersteht? > > > > > > On 12 Mai, 14:02, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 12 May, 11:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I see you have placed space time in a active role relationship > > > > > > > with my > > > > > > > here and now with your phrasing that suggests that it is space > > > > > > > time > > > > > > > that does things. This is where we've parted in the past Pat. I > > > > > > > might consider that my actions become part and participle of space > > > > > > > time record and that it is actually forming out of a continuum of > > > > > > > actions not based on pre-valued/disposed actions which takes away > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > necessity of actually living it out. If I chop off my finger it > > > > > > > is not > > > > > > > due to the fact that is was necessary in adherence to space time > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > order to have the universe appear to be what it is tomorrow but > > > > > > > actually it would be to alter the universe of tomorrow by my > > > > > > > thought > > > > > > > through action thereby placing the formation of the universe in my > > > > > > > hands as a canvass onto which an artist paints. I doubt very much > > > > > > > that the universe is dependent somehow on the existence of an > > > > > > > under > > > > > > > the bridge denizen scrounging for the next morsel of food. It > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > seem likely that there would be any marked difference in universal > > > > > > > principles based on that existence. Therefore as before I would > > > > > > > conclude that the decisions made prior to that point of existence > > > > > > > which led to that existence is independent of any space time > > > > > > > influence. I see it the other way around. > > > > > > > Well, I'll stick with Einstein on this one. The future is already > > > > > > extant as evidenced through time dilation. If you can disprove time > > > > > > dilation, then you can have it your way. Just because you can't see > > > > > > around the temporal corner doesn't mean that there's nothing around > > > > > > that corner; rather, it only implies that you can't see around that > > > > > > corner. > > > > > > > > On May 11, 6:24 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 11 May, 01:05, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ahh, yes Archy, the memories. I relive the games often. It > > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > actually a very distinct aspect of human exchange very rarely > > > > > > > > > looked > > > > > > > > > at for what it really is; perhaps one of the most pleasurable > > > > > > > > > rue > > > > > > > > > forms of the libidinous nature with mutual high hopes for deep > > > > > > > > > penetrations. I can't think of anything more enjoyable than > > > > > > > > > engaging > > > > > > > > > in seductive parlays with a voluptuous member of the opposite > > > > > > > > > sex. > > > > > > > > > Of course they say marriage is grand but divorce is fifty > > > > > > > > > grand and up > > > > > > > > > so getting past the pleasure without getting tied up in knots > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > become the challenge. But I have to say there were those > > > > > > > > > that I > > > > > > > > > foolishly let go and in retrospect and reminiscence I ponder > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > possibilities, ergo; my most famous words "If Only". > > > > > > > > > No need for regrets, my friend. Space-time doesn't do anything > > > > > > > > unnecessary, because ALL of it is already extant. Including > > > > > > > > those > > > > > > > > regrets. So, whilst that may seem paradoxical (in that I say > > > > > > > > there's > > > > > > > > no need for regrets, yet also explain that your regrets WERE > > > > > > > > necessary), what I mean is that there is no need for FUTURE > > > > > > > > regrets, > > > > > > > > now that you know that all events in the past HAD to be the way > > > > > > > > they > > > > > > > > were in order to get the universe to where it is now. That is, > > > > > > > > there's little sense in regretting what was necessary. > > > > > > > > > > On May 10, 6:29 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Slip has reminded me of the word 'foreploy' and the world > > > > > > > > > > of former > > > > > > > > > > rusing. > > > > > > > > > > > On 10 May, 14:07, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 May, 18:39, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, I am not two-faced and my tongue is not split. > > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't burn > > > > > > > > > > > > me. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh no, I wasn't trying to imply that you were two-faced. > > > > > > > > > > > Rather, I > > > > > > > > > > > was trying to perform a 'vorterspiele' on your "Also > > > > > > > > > > > Sprach..." and > > > > > > > > > > > relating you to Zarathustra, who was the prophet of a > > > > > > > > > > > dualistic > > > > > > > > > > > faith. It was only a pun, NEVER meant as any kind of > > > > > > > > > > > punishment. > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies, if I offended you. Really!! > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 Mai, 14:14, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 May, 11:09, gabbydott <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, my best Lee, you've made my day! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know the London of the 80's a little bit, a time > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when I was stopped > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the street by a police officer for walking with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a black man - I > > > > > > > > > > > > > > should go find find some better company. Policemen > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in Berlin would > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have never dared to act like that, the black man > > > > > > > > > > > > > > could have been an > > > > > > > > > > > > > > American soldier. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, "God is all so Bastard" is gorgeous! You > > > > > > > > > > > > > > see, I have a bad > > > > > > > > > > > > > > habit of starting my explanations in German with > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "also", which means > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "thus" in this case. You know, the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thus-spoke-Gabby-style, always > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wonderfully demonstrated by our friend orny. But > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've been working on > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it, I hope you've noticed! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Is this a way of affirming/asserting yourself as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > reincarnation of > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zarathustra? ;-) How about "Die > > > > > > > > > > > > > Verstecktsachenzweisprecherin" as a > > > > > > > > > > > > > title of respect? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For those who don't speak German to any length, I'd > > > > > > > > > > > > > translate that as > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The woman who secretly speaks two things" (in > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference to > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zarathustra (Zoroaster), the prophet of a dualistic > > > > > > > > > > > > > faith, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Zoroastrianism) although, literally, I've just shoved > > > > > > > > > > > > > the words for > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'hidden', 'things', 'two' and 'speaker' together with > > > > > > > > > > > > > a feminine > > > > > > > > > > > > > ending and preceded by a feminine definite article. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But German excels > > > > > > > > > > > > > at inventing new words by adding other words > > > > > > > > > > > > > together; truly, it's one > > > > > > > > > > > > > of its greatest powers, in my opinion, and one that > > > > > > > > > > > > > English inherited, > > > > > > > > > > > > > albeit in a, funnily enough, bastardised way. ;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7 Mai, 10:30, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hahah! I disagree my dearest Gabs, God is all so > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bastard, yep we can > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > certianly call God that, I don't really know why > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a person of faith > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > would want to but, ahh if they wish to, well go > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > right ahead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 May, 22:21, gabbydott <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Bastards" is definitely not one of the 99 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > names of Allah, Pat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mai, 14:02, Pat > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 May, 12:49, Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ahhh Gabbs, I'm afraid I can't answer that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Shhh it's my secret to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > keep. I will say though not Tory, ohhh no > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > never that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's also a pretty safe bet you didn't vote > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BNP. Personally, I'd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reckon you voted Lib Dem. hoping for a hung > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > parliament and the chance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that it might just bring, God help us, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > coalition between factions > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > forcing the bastards to work together rather > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > than against one another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 May, 11:47, gabbydott > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, I'm in for the guessing game, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > although I'm terrible at it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You should be voting Labour for > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > traditional reasons, but for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > betterment of your children Tory would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > more reasonable, yet the old > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > freedom fighter in you calls for the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Libs. Help me, which duty has > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > won? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6 Mai, 10:31, Lee <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless of course the word of the day is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Sarcasam'. I have been > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reliably informed though that Americans > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do not get it! More racism, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just to jolly up a drab Thursday > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
