On 15 May, 18:37, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yeah, and the skewed secret word is a joke, like no one can read it.
> I've had to prove who I was a dozen times this past week. Maybe it is
> supposed to be that way because of the Space-Time Continuum.
>
{snickers} If it has already happened...then you KNOW it was
necessary.
> On May 14, 7:51 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think I may give up if I have to reset any more google passwords.
> > I'd rather pull strings,
>
> > 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".
>
> > > 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
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
