not logged in
| re: Jim has authorized me to give Susan a message | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 08:06 pm UTC 08/20/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Jim has authorized me to give Susan a message - Smeghead 02:48 am UTC 08/18/07 |
> > > There is nobody on this board who claims to also > > believe the Richard O'Brien and Jim Cypherd stuff. > > Obviously you were not around on the previous board when > she first invented this shit. There were several people > who claimed what she was saying might or > could be true. As well they should, and would have continued to without your harassment of them and showing them a what's for to your wrath and spilling that wrath into your realm of influence which they felt censure would have resulted had they thought and written freely of their liberally minded views on the board. The only thing a dictator fears is being disagreed with for fear of losing control. Your wrath and derision is such that is far outweighing the consequences of my being "a liar", if someone believed me, because whether they believed me or not would only lead to the next level of analysis. The object of avoiding the next level of analysis is to find a closer point towards truth. When someone hiding the truth is afraid of the analysis, they want to squelch that natural progression, or "nip it in the bud". So what are you afraid of? I don't have any issues with scrutiny. I'm scrutinized all the time. What I am more than scrutinized, is suppressed. Suppression is a control of information, an act of suppression is like an act of hiding the truth. Your interferences are a little bit like that, and as much as you fight, the more there is a reason to wonder why. The censures can all be there if it is "proven" that I am "a liar", but you don't want to take it that far, because you know I am not, and that it would not be so proved. You don't have to like me, you don't have to help me, and you don't have to agree with me. But don't interfere with me, and don't hurt me. >You yourself have said you don't > know if what she says is true or not. No, this is not true, you are making a biased statement that says nothing. Doubt and all the shades of either unknowing doubtful or rightful statements, and benefits of doubt, have no bearing on the statements' truths. A third party who is detached from the intimate knowledge cannot know, but the evolution of learning is just that. It is an evolution. Nobody has to say to something I say, by golly, that's right, but they could think about it, and eventually in the evolution, as one may say, "The truth will out". I didn't see anyone saying to Richard Smith, "uh gee, why don't you look like you looked like in........" and "gee, why don't you do something like you did then....." and "gee, you mean you had nothing to say in that movie AT ALL?" and "Why did you do it?" No, because a whole machine went behind his steps covering them for him. So if you think that the truth I give is stronger than the machine, or the machine is stronger than the truth, why not just let the evolution take place? >Which shows that > you are proving my point. There are people so ignorant > and stupid enough to be sucked in by her so obvious lies. I think you are relying on people being so ignorant and stupid enough to believe your rhetoric and interference actions and mistake that for outrage, when it is something else entirely, but we don't know what. > How can you NOT know that what she says is a lie? > Are you totally retarded? People don't know what I say is a lie or the truth because you keep telling them reasons why they should not look at it, why they should not think about it, so I'm inclined to think that the more they pay homage to your stalls, the more "retarded" they are apt to be. It takes five hours to read the analysis which deals with many topics, and that is in addition to other pages which are specifically concerning childhood and forward personal informations and interpretations about Jim Cypherd, who used the names Jim Steinman and Richard O'Brien at varying aspects of musical and theatrical life after an early college education. All Kimi Wong can ever say about Smith is that he was looking through a picture book of science fiction films. So, compare the volumes and see who comes up with more sense. I believe that people who are not totally retarded are able to think for themselves, and all I do is give something to think about. Thinking is a good thing. The only ones who dislike thinkers, in intellectual pursuits are those who want to control the thoughts. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim has authorized me to give Susan a message - Smeghead 02:48 am UTC 08/18/07 |
| Next: | re: Jim has authorized me to give Susan a message - Pudding 12:46 am UTC 08/18/07 |
| Thread: | |