In article <175b2f66-fe4e-4fde...@googlegroups.com
The Millennium Wombat <jimb...@gmail.com
> On Tuesday, 14 April 2020 22:43:01 UTC+1, David Dalton wrote:
> > On Apr 10, 2020, David Dalton wrote
> > (in
> > article<dalton.nfld-A0CF...@reader02.eternal-september.org
> Wow, what a load of offensive twaddle. Let me pick out some of the worst
> > > For the theists on here, currently I consider my top
> > > deity God, defined as the all-governing someone, to be
> > > non-anthropomorphic and non-gendered and refer to my
> > > God as "it". However I am considering switching to
> > > the view that my God has all eight sexual harmonics
> > > and is optimally sexually compatible with everyone.
> "God is sexually compatible with humans" - offensive to many monotheists (and
> the kind of heresy that the Catholics used to burn people to death for).
and God can be identified with by everyone
Also I am an individual neopagan, not a Catholic any more.
> > Here is a brief summary of the eight harmonics theory for those
> > who, like me, are reluctant to click on links in a Usenet newsgroup
> > post, especially http rather than https:
> > I have a theory
> This is offensive to me as a scientist. It's not a theory: a theory is a
> hypothesis plus evidence. You've been posting about this for many years and
> you've yet to mention ANY evidence outside of yourself. It's not even a
> hypothesis, because it does not offer testable propositions. The best word
> for it would probably be to call it a "notion".
A theory is something that can be tested by searching for
evidence, as mine could be by surveys/interviews.
> > of four orientations (purestraight, gay/lesbian, bisexual
> > by nature, and fourth orientation compatible only with bisexual by
> > nature of the opposite gender)
> Insisting on calling bisexuals "bisexuals by nature", but not adding "by
> nature" to any of the others, is subtly offensive, as is adorning straight
> with the word "pure" but not extending that to gay people or lesbians. Your
> biases are showing.
I use bisexual by nature since some bisexuals (attracted to
both genders) are straight by lifestyle choice (choose
to have sex just with the opposite sex), and also
unfortunately some gays and lesbians try to act bisexual
or straight (though this is forced in some societies/religions).
Also I think bisexuals are far more common that surveys
Perhaps purestraight is not a good term, since they are not
particularly pure, especially when they have a series
of relationships with bisexuals of the opposite gender,
but are when they get hooked up with a purestraight of
the opposite gender. But in my theory I have two types of
straight: purestraight, optimally compatible with purestraight
of the opposite gender, and fourth orientation, compatible
only with bisexual(s) of the opposite gender, and also
many bisexuals say they are straight.
> > and two spiritual genders,
> Offensive to non-binary, genderqueer, and third gender people directly, and
> all those of us who got over the idea of the gender binary decades ago.
I think those are what I call multispirit individuals, though
some may be simply transgendered.
> There are not just two genders. Different cultures have different ideas about
> gender and they don't always define two (or any). Gender is performative.
> > so effectively
> > eight harmonics (1M, 2M, 3M, 4M, 1F, 2F, 3F, 4F). However one
> > must also be careful to watch for transgender cases (e.g. 1MT would
> > be spiritually purestraight male in a female body)
1MT would be optimally compatible with 1F but might have
to settle for 3F. When I say watch for I mean in
seeking evidence for the theory.
> > and multispirit
> > individuals, which I define not as transgender but as individuals
> > with more than one harmonic, generally equal number of male
> > and female harmonics, and usually two-spirit, e.g. 3F/2MT, but
> > I did come across one four-spirit individual, 1M/2M/1FT/2FT,
> > compatible with everyone other than 4F and 4M, so far, and a
> > 3M/3FT or 3F/3MT would be at least partially compatible with
> > everybody, and if there was an eight-spirit individual they would
> > be optimally compatible with everyone, as would a 1M/1F/3M/3F.
> > When I say bisexual by nature I mean someone who feels
> > sexual attraction to both genders, but can be honestly either
> > bisexual, straight, celibate, or gay/lesbian by lifestyle choice.
> > When I say partially compatible I mean less likely to
> > stick, so a 1M is optimally compatible with a 1F but
> > only partially compatible with a 3F, and I think also
> > that a 3F is only partially compatible with a 3M but
> > is optimally compatible with a 4M, 3F, or 2F.
> > I base my theory partly on my own sexual attractions (I think
> > I am 4M) but I also used it, with at least one confirmed 1M/3FT
> > result, when I thought I had a matchmaking siddhi (paranormal
> > ability)
> Perceived paranormal powers cannot be supporting evidence for a theory,
> because evidence must be testable, and by definition, supernatural things
> aren't testable in the natural world.
So yes, it is based mainly on my own sexual experiences and
attractions, but the matches that I intuited from late March 8
to early March 20, 2019, including e.g. 4F Joni Mitchell
with 3M Tom Waits, are testable.
> > from late March 8 to early March 20, 2019, which
> > I hope will return someday. When I say above that I came
> > across a 1M/2M/1FT/2FT, that was using my ability on a
> > picture and it has not yet been confirmed. And through
> > what I call assisted shaktipat I have been trying to pass
> > on the ability to at least a million individuals worldwide,
> > who should benefit from my theory. But if not, the theory
> > should be able to be researched and applied through surveys.
> > The confusing part is that many who are bisexual by nature
> > are straight by lifestyle choice, and some gay/lesbian (sexually
> > attracted to just the same gender) are dishonestly (although
> > unfortunately forced in some cases) trying to be bisexual or straight.
> That's the confusing part?
Yes, if you survey people and some bisexuals say they
are straight and some lesbians say they are bisexual.
That would have to be accounted for in testing the
theory; orientation must be based just on who one
is attracted to.
> > I do not believe there are asexuals, though a 4M who has had
> > no experience yet with 3F might think that he is.
> Need I mention to which group this is offensive?
I commented on asexuals more in another followup a little