Re: A strange thought on degrees of consciousness
Librarian
that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them.
This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser.
I'm here to give you facts.
When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue,
you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite.
It is the only prayer for which you stand.
You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre.
In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty
that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next
twelve months shall be null and void.
The oath shall not be an oath;
the vow shall not be a vow;
the pledge shall not be a pledge.
They shall have no force or effect.
And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath,
vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer
that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted
from fulfilling them.
How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon
their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.
We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered,
and for the same reason.
--- Benjamin H. Freedman
[Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing
individuals of the 20th century. Born in 1890, he was a successful
Jewish businessman of New York City at one time principal owner
of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry
after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the
remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his
considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the
Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.]
In article <bev1f5$f86$2...@husk.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
<ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>cu...@kcwc.com (Curt Welch) writes:
>>Neil W Rickert <ricke...@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>> David Longley <Da...@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>> > The whole value
>>> >of trying to engineer this is a robot, however simple, would be that it
>>> >would make it clearer how reinforcement worked.
>
>>> Or, more likely, it would demonstrate that it does not and could not
>>> work well enough to account for human learning.
>
>>Now that's a good reason to not believe in my work - the basic idea that A
>>can't lead to B. But I think you (Neil) understand that this is just your
>>belief and not something that can be proven to be impossible. It's just
>>something that to you is "obviously" impossible.
>
>I wouldn't say it is "just my belief". I have good reasons for my
>view. On the other hand, you are correct that I cannot provide a
>knock-down proof that your project is impossible. I am not even
>trying to discourage you from carrying out your project.
>
>>There's a big difference between that perspective and what Mr. Truth seemed
>>to be putting forth that it had been long ago "proven" or that a simple
>>thought experment (in the form of his question to me) clearly "proved" the
>>approach was impossible.
>
>TS is raising some good questions on the difficulties your project
>will face. I doubt that TS has the final answer as to what will or
>will not work. In any case, TS also cannot give a knock down proof
>that your project is impossible. The issues TS raises can perhaps
>help you focus your plans, provided that you don't allow them to
>drive you to distraction.
Garbage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"On 2 July [2002], Air Marshal Sir John Walker,
the former chief of defence intelligence and deputy chair
of the Joint Intelligence Committee, wrote a confidential memo
to MPs to alert them that the
"commitment to war" was made a year ago.
"Thereafter," he wrote, "the whole process of reason, other reason,
yet other reason, humanitarian, morality, regime change, terrorism,
finally imminent WMD attack . . . was merely covering fire."
Rev. 11D Meow!
incoming
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Tomato Splat!
"Librarian" <libr...@global.lib.reinforcement.authority> wrote
in message news:427782186174...@149.102.207.8...