So that's how matters stand

[markhor_3]

1.
Pelosi's home has always had layers of security, and some people who want to
go to court with Pelosi's husband are blocked by layers of security. In this
case, how did a homeless person who usually lives on a bus get in?
2.
It's hard to imagine that the Pelosi family will open the door to a bottom
Trump fan.
3.
Pelosi's husband called the police in the bathroom in the early morning.
4.
When Pelosi's husband called the police, he said, "His name is David and he
is a friend.". Why do you call a bottom Trump fan a friend?
5.
According to media sources, Pelosi's husband and the attacker were wearing
only underwear and snatching hammers when the police arrived.
6.
The Pelosi family and the police have not released surveillance videos and
law enforcement records until now.

http://p3-sign.toutiaoimg.com/tos-cn-i-qvj2lq49k0/e64675134f9c4a72b8ab12e327b397f4~tplv-obj:1073:686.image?from=post&x-expires=1674921600&x-signature=OVaW6G5iU1AvNCBBhGRSSw%2Fn%2BDM%3D

http://p3-sign.toutiaoimg.com/tos-cn-i-qvj2lq49k0/0e09424ae1b04489b9860ed846675eec~tplv-obj:621:886.image?from=post&x-expires=1674921600&x-signature=XfV618qEy8SmproJuPQWTYojGzg%3D

http://p3-sign.toutiaoimg.com/tos-cn-i-qvj2lq49k0/db7e2f5e57d347daad372cc15ee8b29c~tplv-obj:1530:700.image?from=post&x-expires=1674921600&x-signature=milgZ82r6aFTjegZ9ANKM09yeaU%3D

http://p3-sign.toutiaoimg.com/tos-cn-i-qvj2lq49k0/0e09424ae1b04489b9860ed846675eec~tplv-obj:621:886.image?from=post&x-expires=1674921600&x-signature=XfV618qEy8SmproJuPQWTYojGzg%3D

[markhor_3]

Russian intelligence agency: Minutes after the Nord Stream1-2 blast, former
British Prime Minister Liz Truss texted U.S. Secretary of State Blinken
saying "it's over."

[markhor_3]

The Netherlands announced that it would lift 91 sanctions against Russia,
becoming the first European country to publicly lift sanctions against
Russia.

[one]

markhor_3 wrote:

>When Pelosi's husband called the police, he said, "His name is David and he
>is a friend.". Why do you call a bottom Trump fan a friend?

At times, politics and friendship
are not mutually exclusive.

Some people are able to set aside differences
of opinions and get along okay not talking
about matters that are not as important as
their being friends naturally.

Along with politics, religion can be a topic
people disagree about, perhaps strongly,
and yet be friends as they have interests
which are shared other mutually.

Sports is an other story.

Reminds one of Taoism, in a Way.

Ways are ways and can be Ways
but aren't always, the Way.

- thanks! Cheers!

[one]

What did she mean by saying, it's over?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

"This conversation is inappropriate for alt.philosophy.taoism."

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> markhor_3 wrote:
>>
>> >Russian intelligence agency: Minutes after the Nord Stream1-2 blast, former
>> >British Prime Minister Liz Truss texted U.S. Secretary of State Blinken
>> >saying "it's over."
>>
>> What did she mean by saying, it's over?
>
>"This conversation is inappropriate for alt.philosophy.taoism."

How so?

- thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

It concerns neither philosophy nor Taoism, but rather highly freighted contemporary international news?

[hoo ray]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > one wrote:
>> >> markhor_3 wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Russian intelligence agency: Minutes after the Nord Stream1-2 blast, former
>> >> >British Prime Minister Liz Truss texted U.S. Secretary of State Blinken
>> >> >saying "it's over."
>> >>
>> >> What did she mean by saying, it's over?
>> >
>> >"This conversation is inappropriate for alt.philosophy.taoism."
>>
>> How so?

>It concerns neither philosophy nor Taoism, but rather highly freighted contemporary international news?

Sounds probable.
Recently a mention was made of people
who were paid to produce modes of propaganda and
whether markhor_3 is among them is an unknown
even unto this very day.

- hoo ray! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

Right, so there's no place for it in a Chinese philosophy newsgroup, okay?

[Jeffrey Rubard]

In a world where even Donald Trump can be looking at an "Espionage Act" investigation,
bizarre newsfeeds like yours could easily be "looked askance" at.

[aye]

What is inappropriate for a moderated group is moderated out of being.

Unmoderated groups, such as this one is, whether it is called
a Chinese philosophy group or a Taoist philosophy group
or by any other ming/name, has a place for all posts
posted to it by posters who post their posts.

To be unconcerned sounds Taoist, imo.

- aye. the fish are happy. Thanks again! Cheers!

[aye]

Jeff wrote:

>In a world where even Donald Trump can be looking at an "Espionage Act" investigation,
>bizarre newsfeeds like yours could easily be "looked askance" at.

Taoism is a mite bit obscure
when the word refers to Tao Chia, Lao-Chuang,
compared with Confucianism speaking of what you might like
to call Chinese philosophy.

If this were a Chinese philosophy newsgroup
rather than a Taoist philosophy group, then, all forms
of what you might like to call, Chinese philosophy, would be on-
topic instead of off-topic naturally.

Buddhism, for example, as Channa, could be topical seeing
as how it's a Chinese philosophy as it welled up there
before moving on to Japan where it became
Zenna until finally arriving in Portland
and known as Zen in the States.

To say, Zen Buddhism is a Chinese philosophy, one could
and what t'hat mite means is a kind of a noun-thing.

Verb forms such as Tao is able to be vary.

- naturally! aye. Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022 at 1:14:33 PM UTC-7, aye wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
> > hoo ray wrote:
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > one wrote:
> >> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> >> > one wrote:
> >> >> >> markhor_3 wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Russian intelligence agency: Minutes after the Nord Stream1-2 blast, former
> >> >> >> >British Prime Minister Liz Truss texted U.S. Secretary of State Blinken
> >> >> >> >saying "it's over."
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What did she mean by saying, it's over?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"This conversation is inappropriate for alt.philosophy.taoism."
> >> >>
> >> >> How so?
> >>
> >> >It concerns neither philosophy nor Taoism, but rather highly freighted contemporary international news?
> >>
> >> Sounds probable.
> >> Recently a mention was made of people
> >> who were paid to produce modes of propaganda and
> >> whether markhor_3 is among them is an unknown
> >> even unto this very day.
> >>
> >
> >Right, so there's no place for it in a Chinese philosophy newsgroup, okay?
> What is inappropriate for a moderated group is moderated out of being.
>

For the audience: "We've been here before", i.e. I first saw this bizarre piece of "boilerplate" years ago,
when Usenet was not moribund. People "flipped" about it then.

[one]

Jeff wrote:

>For the audience:

What audience?

>"We've been here before",

You, and your audience?

> i.e. I first saw this bizarre piece of "boilerplate" years ago,
>when Usenet was not moribund. People "flipped" about it then.

Every body who was here now is not.

How many years ago could be a question.

Before 1996, then was prior to m'eye-time. Aye,
having explored Usenet, no groups presented their
selves nor thems elves to me as being worth any time.

Not sure when it was. It was during and/or after 1991.
T'hat mulch is certainly certain as only a BBS group was
deemed of any interest until suddenly, an associate of
mines at work said to check Usenet again.

And sew an it was. Two were picked as being appropriate
for the likes of me and mines gone spelunking and this group
of all groups caught a form of attention t'hat was, unsurpassed.

- even unto this very day. Thanks! Cheers!

[Jeffrey Rubard]

On Wednesday, November 2, 2022 at 5:25:08 AM UTC-7, one wrote:
> Jeff wrote:
>
> >For the audience:
>
> What audience?
> >"We've been here before",
> You, and your audience?

You, or someone like you, has run pretty much exactly this "heh-heh-they-don't-get-it" legal scam before.
(After multiple repetitions over decades, more would be "evident" than you might wish.)

> > i.e. I first saw this bizarre piece of "boilerplate" years ago,
> >when Usenet was not moribund. People "flipped" about it then.
> Every body who was here now is not.
>

"Totally indefensible speculation", i.e. you don't even know how to *begin* to "cash" that.
Your audience could, however, be coaxed... by frankly *extortionate* methods to *do your
own freaking math* for you. (The basic feel of it.)

> How many years ago could be a question.
>

Y'know, as we get older we get tired.
"Hmm."
I'm forty-three years of age. Are you older than that?
"Gimme a second here" stuff, etc.

> Before 1996, then was prior to m'eye-time. Aye,
> having explored Usenet, no groups presented their
> selves nor thems elves to me as being worth any time.
>

This is ancient psych-out IP fraud BS that has never substantially changed
and which many are familiar with (including what to avoid out of it).

> Not sure when it was. It was during and/or after 1991.
> T'hat mulch is certainly certain as only a BBS group was
> deemed of any interest until suddenly, an associate of
> mines at work said to check Usenet again.
>

"Wishful thinking" runs the world... no wait, it doesn't, it even can't.

[one]

Jeff projected:

>You, or someone like you, has run pretty much exactly this "heh-heh-they-don't-get-it" legal scam before.
>(After multiple repetitions over decades, more would be "evident" than you might wish.)

No idea what you're talking about.

Sounds as if you were conned
by a scammer and more than once.

Your views, reflections, reflecting your thought
forms as prehaps they were trained given your
experiences and impressions impressed you and
you appear to repeat them in repetition at times
and while not at all times, many times here.

With Taoism, assuming that's actually the topic,
when some legality exists, breakers of that law
emerge potentially and sew an it goes eh.

Without laws there would be no, legal scams.

With laws emerge legal tribbles and as they
multiply and divide, to slice, dice and mince
words over minutia like jah-mon ore bins
a well frog mite find a bit part in its
horse's mouth which reminds one
of the old farmer and his son.

Tis said to be a Taoist tale
from the Huai Nan Tzu.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-LL2FW5zU

- in a bamboozle groove. Thanks again! Cheers!

[one]

Jeff wrote:
> one wrote:
>> Jeff wrote:

>> > i.e. I first saw this bizarre piece of "boilerplate" years ago,
>> >when Usenet was not moribund. People "flipped" about it then.
>>
>> Every body who was here now is not.
>
>"Totally indefensible speculation", i.e. you don't even know how to *begin* to "cash" that.

What quote cash?

No idea what you're talking about.

You are not making sense.

You appear to be saying Usenet is moribund.
Such a view mite holds a bit in its mouth.
Tis a bit part of a horse of course.

>Your audience

The only audience here is you
and, at times, one other reader
who responds to these threads.

> could, however, be coaxed... by frankly *extortionate* methods to *do your
>own freaking math* for you. (The basic feel of it.)

No idea what you're talking about.

The folks who founded this virtual place,
a newsgroup supposedly about Taoist philosophy,
are not here anymore. Every body who was here
in 1995 and on through when they left are now
not here. Each one is not. The mathematics
of subtraction how ever could be Taoist.

TTC 48 has a few lines about that.

https://terebess.hu/english/tao/gia.html

- fwiw. Thanks! Cheers!

[aye]

one wrote and linked too:

>Tis said to be a Taoist tale
>from the Huai Nan Tzu.
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW-LL2FW5zU

In the linked-to above
version, neither/nor is said
to be the Tao of how it was and
while most of the renditions render the
tail of an horse as being, maybe, mebbe,
as me old grammer used to say it's like, w'hats
ever and then the sun known as the Sun being a
star yet is not called, the Star, was going to appear
to rise, some said, no, not really, and then again sum.

- aye. a pale blue dot worldspin naturally. Cheers!