Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Will pedofiles ever be accepted like gays?
2 views
Skip to first unread message
R. Giggs.
Dec 12, 2011, 4:30:24 PM12/12/11
to
For example you run a guest house, a pedo trun up and wants
a room, shoudl you have to let it even though you have kids?
Moral dilema?
a room, shoudl you have to let it even though you have kids?
Moral dilema?
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 12, 2011, 4:45:39 PM12/12/11
to
reply.
WM
R. Giggs.
Dec 12, 2011, 4:51:40 PM12/12/11
to
"Nigel Oldfield" <WMCritica...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:jc5sm3$qv5$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 12/12/2011 21:30, R. Giggs. wrote:
>> For example you run a guest house, a pedo tursn up and wants
>> a room, should you have to let it even though you have kids?
>>
>> Moral dilema?
>
> You had better define a few of your terms if you want a useful/informed
> reply.
>
> WM
>
Use the dictionary definitions, I know of no other.
>> Moral dilema?
>
> You had better define a few of your terms if you want a useful/informed
> reply.
>
> WM
>
The Revd
Dec 12, 2011, 4:50:10 PM12/12/11
to
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:30:24 -0000, "R. Giggs." <co...@trunt.com>
wrote:
>For example you run a guest house, a pedo trun up and wants
>a room, shoudl you have to let it even though you have kids?
>
>Moral dilema?
Paedophilia will be the next sexual disorientation to get government
endorsement after homosexuality.
wrote:
>For example you run a guest house, a pedo trun up and wants
>a room, shoudl you have to let it even though you have kids?
>
>Moral dilema?
endorsement after homosexuality.
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 12, 2011, 5:03:48 PM12/12/11
to
'Textbooks' are for that.
I will settle for what you define them to be, for now, when you do.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 12, 2011, 5:09:41 PM12/12/11
to
I do expect it will have equivalent, legal protections quite soon (e.g
'hate' laws, discrimination etc).
However, in a clinical sense, it already does, as it qualifies as a
'disability' (depending on definition).
If you both mean, walking into a hotel, with a hot, sexy, babelette in
hand, and booking a room, methinks that will be a longer time in returning.
WM
R. Giggs.
Dec 12, 2011, 5:10:26 PM12/12/11
to
news:jc5to4$2n0$1...@dont-email.me...
I define them as the dictionary definitions (phew!! glad thats sorted!)
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 12, 2011, 5:15:47 PM12/12/11
to
>> Use the dictionary definitions, I know of no other.
>>
>> Dictionaries are for usage, not definition.
>>
>> 'Textbooks' are for that.
>>
>> I will settle for what you define them to be, for now, when you do.
>>
>> WM
>>
>
> I define them as the dictionary definitions (phew!! glad thats sorted!)
Circular reasoning.
>>
>> Dictionaries are for usage, not definition.
>>
>> 'Textbooks' are for that.
>>
>> I will settle for what you define them to be, for now, when you do.
>>
>> WM
>>
>
> I define them as the dictionary definitions (phew!! glad thats sorted!)
Which dictionary, Dictionary of what? Do you view one dictionary as
being more factually-correct than another? If so, why?
Dictionaries are not sources of reality, they are tomes of usage.
What do *you* mean, by what you say?
WM
R. Giggs.
Dec 12, 2011, 5:28:09 PM12/12/11
to
news:jc5uei$2n0$4...@dont-email.me...
I mean what I said, why do you *mean* by your reply?
Two can play at your stupid game, I have given my definition.
There is nothing more I have to add to it.
If you want to be an awkward bastard so be it but I can't make it any
clearer
to someone who deos not want to answer the question as stated,
Two can play at your stupid game, I have given my definition.
There is nothing more I have to add to it.
If you want to be an awkward bastard so be it but I can't make it any
clearer
to someone who deos not want to answer the question as stated,
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 12, 2011, 5:33:20 PM12/12/11
to
>> Dictionaries are not sources of reality, they are tomes of usage.
>>
>> What do *you* mean, by what you say?
>>
>> WM
>>
>
> I mean what I said, why do you *mean* by your reply?
You first, you are the OP.
>>
>> What do *you* mean, by what you say?
>>
>> WM
>>
>
> I mean what I said, why do you *mean* by your reply?
> Two can play at your stupid game,
>I have given my definition.
> There is nothing more I have to add to it.
> If you want to be an awkward bastard
>so be it but I can't make it any
> clearer
> to someone who deos not want to answer the question as stated,
mean, the responses can only be general.
WM
totallyconfused
Dec 12, 2011, 7:16:22 PM12/12/11
to
On Dec 12, 10:33 pm, Nigel Oldfield
nigel took his 'I want to be a padantic twat pill'.
Martin
Dec 12, 2011, 7:27:42 PM12/12/11
to
Stating "as per dictionary" hardly does that, which dictionary, which
definition, which usage.
Na, the tosser Giggs was just being a fool. He was unable to define what
he meant and couldn't even be bothered to cite a source. Fuck him
The Revd
Dec 14, 2011, 8:08:46 AM12/14/11
to
years.
Phi
Dec 14, 2011, 8:24:19 AM12/14/11
to
"The Revd" <pee...@degenerate.Grik> wrote in message
news:qt7he7h87gseu6n49...@4ax.com...
Special Care
Dec 14, 2011, 8:33:34 AM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 1:08 pm, The Revd <peel...@degenerate.Grik> wrote:
> I predict "Paedo Pride" parades along Whitehall within the next 50
> years.
=============
> I predict "Paedo Pride" parades along Whitehall within the next 50
> years.
The older generation remember the P.I.E - Paedophile Information
Exchange marching around town centres in the 1970s to demand
legalisation of paedophilia.
Special Care
Dec 14, 2011, 8:56:14 AM12/14/11
to
This seems a bit surreal.
The Children Act, circa 1980, put all this into reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
The Children Act, circa 1980, put all this into reverse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
Special Care
Dec 14, 2011, 9:01:06 AM12/14/11
to
On Dec 14, 1:56 pm, Special Care <special.car...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This seems a bit surreal.
> The Children Act, circa 1980, put all this into reverse.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
=================
> This seems a bit surreal.
> The Children Act, circa 1980, put all this into reverse.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange
" ........no age of consent..........and that the criminal law should
concern itself only with sexual activities to which consent is not
given......."
That is unworkable.
Human beings are PURE 100% SHITE, as soon as they pass through the
later stage of the mother-infant relationship, and they will exploit
children without the children's consent, given half the chance.
Leave the law as it is.
There is a long-term healing possibility.
That's all, when people are 'weary of the long sorrow.'
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 14, 2011, 9:32:37 AM12/14/11
to
>> If you both mean, walking into a hotel, with a hot, sexy, babelette in
>> hand, and booking a room, methinks that will be a longer time in returning.
>
> I predict "Paedo Pride" parades along Whitehall within the next 50
> years.
Possibly (happened here before and elsewhere (USA)), but that is not the
>> hand, and booking a room, methinks that will be a longer time in returning.
>
> I predict "Paedo Pride" parades along Whitehall within the next 50
> years.
same as the above.
WM
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 14, 2011, 9:33:17 AM12/14/11
to
>> I predict "Paedo Pride" parades along Whitehall within the next 50
>> years.
>
>
> An adult midget should get some customers
... and there lies a great misconception.
>> years.
>
>
> An adult midget should get some customers
WM
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 14, 2011, 9:37:34 AM12/14/11
to
other than it does now, to us.
You will note, that they were the 'Paedophile ***Information***
Exchange', once 'outlawed', now quite legal, in concept and practice; so
much so, an 'organisation' is no longer required.
WM
Special Care
Dec 21, 2011, 10:19:43 AM12/21/11
to
On Dec 14, 2:37 pm, Nigel Oldfield <WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
An organisation for what? If they existed openly now they'd all be
burned out of their homes.
A fashion rules each age.
The Children Act, 1980, sent us down a wrong road and it's been a
total disaster.
Children need to be controlled rigidly in this type of inverted
civilisation.
There has to be ZERO TOLERANCE in dealing with unruly children, until
we can go back to the Garden of Eden.
Otherwise you have the 'Lord of the Flies' syndrome, which is what we
do have now in UK.
You remind me of Eamon de Valera, they way you use words.
You're a twister, never saying what you mean.
There was a Garden of Eden civilisation about eleven thousand years
ago, remembered in nearly all tribal traditions on every continent,
and it was a civilisation which placed no restrictions on expressions
of love between human beings.
We all long to get back to where we were eleven thousand years ago.
But there's no short cut. If we legalise paedophilia, nearly all
adults, male and female, will not have the emotional maturity to deal
with it and will manipulate and exploit vulnerable children who have
an impulse to please the adults to retain their approval. It's
unworkable.
By the way, wasn't sex between adults and children legalised for a few
years in Denmark in the 1960s or 1970s? How did that work out? Remind
us.
wrote:
>
> > The older generation remember the P.I.E - Paedophile Information
> > Exchange marching around town centres in the 1970s to demand
> > legalisation of paedophilia.
>
> They were 'Classical' Paedophiles, and the term meant something to them,
> other than it does now, to us.
>
> You will note, that they were the 'Paedophile ***Information***
> Exchange', once 'outlawed', now quite legal, in concept and practice; so
> much so, an 'organisation' is no longer required.
>
> WM
==================
> > The older generation remember the P.I.E - Paedophile Information
> > Exchange marching around town centres in the 1970s to demand
> > legalisation of paedophilia.
>
> They were 'Classical' Paedophiles, and the term meant something to them,
> other than it does now, to us.
>
> You will note, that they were the 'Paedophile ***Information***
> Exchange', once 'outlawed', now quite legal, in concept and practice; so
> much so, an 'organisation' is no longer required.
>
> WM
An organisation for what? If they existed openly now they'd all be
burned out of their homes.
A fashion rules each age.
The Children Act, 1980, sent us down a wrong road and it's been a
total disaster.
Children need to be controlled rigidly in this type of inverted
civilisation.
There has to be ZERO TOLERANCE in dealing with unruly children, until
we can go back to the Garden of Eden.
Otherwise you have the 'Lord of the Flies' syndrome, which is what we
do have now in UK.
You remind me of Eamon de Valera, they way you use words.
You're a twister, never saying what you mean.
There was a Garden of Eden civilisation about eleven thousand years
ago, remembered in nearly all tribal traditions on every continent,
and it was a civilisation which placed no restrictions on expressions
of love between human beings.
We all long to get back to where we were eleven thousand years ago.
But there's no short cut. If we legalise paedophilia, nearly all
adults, male and female, will not have the emotional maturity to deal
with it and will manipulate and exploit vulnerable children who have
an impulse to please the adults to retain their approval. It's
unworkable.
By the way, wasn't sex between adults and children legalised for a few
years in Denmark in the 1960s or 1970s? How did that work out? Remind
us.
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 21, 2011, 12:13:05 PM12/21/11
to
On 21/12/2011 15:19, Special Care wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2:37 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> The older generation remember the P.I.E - Paedophile Information
>>> Exchange marching around town centres in the 1970s to demand
>>> legalisation of paedophilia.
>>
>> They were 'Classical' Paedophiles, and the term meant something to them,
>> other than it does now, to us.
>>
>> You will note, that they were the 'Paedophile ***Information***
>> Exchange', once 'outlawed', now quite legal, in concept and practice; so
>> much so, an 'organisation' is no longer required.
>>
>> WM
>
> ==================
>
> An organisation for what? If they existed openly now they'd all be
> burned out of their homes.
What do you mean by 'openly', you mean, like, meeting in a scout hut?
> On Dec 14, 2:37 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>> The older generation remember the P.I.E - Paedophile Information
>>> Exchange marching around town centres in the 1970s to demand
>>> legalisation of paedophilia.
>>
>> They were 'Classical' Paedophiles, and the term meant something to them,
>> other than it does now, to us.
>>
>> You will note, that they were the 'Paedophile ***Information***
>> Exchange', once 'outlawed', now quite legal, in concept and practice; so
>> much so, an 'organisation' is no longer required.
>>
>> WM
>
> ==================
>
> An organisation for what? If they existed openly now they'd all be
> burned out of their homes.
WM
Ret.
Dec 21, 2011, 2:01:47 PM12/21/11
to
No.
--
Kev
Justice? You get justice in the next world,
in this world you have the law...
William Gaddis
--
Kev
Justice? You get justice in the next world,
in this world you have the law...
William Gaddis
Special Care
Dec 24, 2011, 7:20:36 AM12/24/11
to
On Dec 21, 5:13 pm, Nigel Oldfield <WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
======================
Well, it's not a laughing matter.
The Denmark thing is an embarrassment.
http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002033.html
wrote:
Well, it's not a laughing matter.
The Denmark thing is an embarrassment.
http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002033.html
Nigel Oldfield
Dec 24, 2011, 9:49:17 AM12/24/11
to
On 24/12/2011 12:20, Special Care wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:13 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 21/12/2011 15:19, Special Care wrote:
>>
>>> An organisation for what? If they existed openly now they'd all be
>>> burned out of their homes.
>>
>> What do you mean by 'openly', you mean, like, meeting in a scout hut?
> ======================
>
> Well, it's not a laughing matter.
Oh, it sometimes is.
> On Dec 21, 5:13 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 21/12/2011 15:19, Special Care wrote:
>>
>>> An organisation for what? If they existed openly now they'd all be
>>> burned out of their homes.
>>
>> What do you mean by 'openly', you mean, like, meeting in a scout hut?
> ======================
>
> Well, it's not a laughing matter.
Oh yes, well aware of it and sexual attacks reduced during that period.
BTW, almost of all of those images were posing or simulated sexual contacts.
WM
Special Care
Jan 4, 2012, 12:38:27 PM1/4/12
to
On Dec 24 2011, 2:49 pm, Nigel Oldfield
======================
"sexual attacks reduced during that period"
....but some would say that is because the sexual attacks depicted by
those images were not recorded as crimes.
I want us to go back to the Garden of Eden, but there is no short cut
such as the Denmark affair.
A long process of re-education among adults is the only way out of
this pit of shit we've all dug ourselves into.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incest Taboo Revisited
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_37hfqw24g3
"sexual attacks reduced during that period"
those images were not recorded as crimes.
I want us to go back to the Garden of Eden, but there is no short cut
such as the Denmark affair.
A long process of re-education among adults is the only way out of
this pit of shit we've all dug ourselves into.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Incest Taboo Revisited
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_37hfqw24g3
Nigel Oldfield
Jan 4, 2012, 12:45:06 PM1/4/12
to
>> The Denmark thing is an embarrassment.
>>> http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002033.html
>>
>> Oh yes, well aware of it and sexual attacks reduced during that period.
>>
>> BTW, almost of all of those images were posing or simulated sexual contacts.
>>
> ======================
>
> "sexual attacks reduced during that period"
>
> ....but some would say that is because the sexual attacks depicted by
> those images were not recorded as crimes.
A tiny drop in the ocean, to the national SO figures (plus, most of the
>>> http://www.alliancesupport.org/news/archives/002033.html
>>
>> Oh yes, well aware of it and sexual attacks reduced during that period.
>>
>> BTW, almost of all of those images were posing or simulated sexual contacts.
>>
> ======================
>
> "sexual attacks reduced during that period"
>
> ....but some would say that is because the sexual attacks depicted by
> those images were not recorded as crimes.
images had already been taken).
> I want us to go back to the Garden of Eden, but there is no short cut
> such as the Denmark affair.
based on evidence and correct fact.
> A long process of re-education among adults is the only way out of
> this pit of shit we've all dug ourselves into.
WM
Special Care
Jan 5, 2012, 9:39:59 AM1/5/12
to
On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, Nigel Oldfield <WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
wrote:
>
Oh. now you've said something sensible for a change.
I certainly want support of the vulnerable and equity based on
evidence and correct fact.
However, we seem to mean different things when we say that.
Well there's no harm in stating my case again just to keep in
practice, just typing 'off the cuff.'
I'm very fluent at it now.
Well, a good starting point is the Oxana Malaya (Dog Girl) video,
which demonstrates to even a total fool (?) the intense power of
imprinting of prominent early experiences and the intense urge every
living organism has to imitate and repeat early prominent experiences,
mainly because we survived physically while undergoing those early
prominent experiences and at this stage of our evolution we are
condemned to imitate and repeat any activity and emotional states
associated with physical survival.
The most prominent early experience for all human beings, male and
female, is an intense sexual/incest/paedophile relationship with our
mothers, the most prominent part of that relationship being anal
eroticism between mother and baby.
All growing infants, male and female, have an intense urge to keep on
imitating and repeating those beautiful, harmonious, pleasurable
caresses of early infancy, with the mother and with other children.
Again think of Oxana Malaya to grasp that fact more easily.
However, if love is allowed to flow as Nature intended, the ruling
group will have no more soldiers to keep the ruling group in the life
of luxury to which they are accustomed.
The immediate purpose of motherhood is to generate hate-crazed
soldiers to fight inter-tribal wars to keep the ruling group in the
life of luxury to which they are accustomed.
The fact that mothers don't know what they are doing doesn't alter the
realities of life.
The keep the ruling group in the life of luxury to which they are
accustomed, mothers must sabotage the loving relationship between
mother and baby and prevent the baby from imitating and repeating the
loving harmony and delightful pleasures of early infancy.
Since the mother can offer no explanation of her sudden descent into
mental illness, inversion and child abuse, she has to use TOXIC SHAME
against her baby, meaning shame with no reference to ethics or moral
compass, but only shame for the sake of shame imposed to control
others. 'Guilt tripping' is another way of saying it.
So the mother conveys to her baby that everything has gone into
reverse and the delightful loving harmony and pleasure of early
infancy is now reclassified as child abuse and one of the worst
crimes, while the most beautiful parts of our bodies are being
mysteriously reclassified as not just the opposite of beautiful but so
shameful and so evil that they must be concealed and not spoken of.
This inversion and toxic shame in the later stage of infancy is
immeasurably cruel child abuse being committed by every mother in the
world, and for the sole reason of generating hate-crazed soldiers
filled with repressed rage to be discharged on the battlefields to
keep the ruling group in the life of luxury to which they are
accustomed.
So if I use your phrase and say I agree with it, the phrase: "I want
which will eventually lead to the ending of the obscenity that is the
later stage of the mother-infant relationship.
But it can't happen soon. We're too far gone. Our imbecility is
associated with physical survival in our brain circuits and
archetypes, so we are filled with the compulsion to cling to what we
are doing now.
===========
I typed the above very quickly, 'off the cuff.' I wont revise it. I
can state the correct analysis very fluently now. It's one of the few
things I do well. But my talent is wasted in this era. Nobody wants to
recover from our collective mental illness.
Get on with it then, you seven billion shitheads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Glabach, Niles Newton et al on infantile sexuality:
http://www.womanthouartgod.com/breastfeedinglovemaking.php
Careless Hands (that can't hold on to love)
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddp6bt4_187gpmt3sjh
Shaking the Baby
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_21gvfsbjdd
The Universal Fear of Being Known
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddp6bt4_188hggbt5f8
The Prominence of Anal Eroticism in Infancy
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfqhsz6n_41ckwz5hfx
wrote:
>
> I do not want 'Eden', I want 'support of the vulnerable' and equity,
> based on evidence and correct fact.
>
======================
> based on evidence and correct fact.
>
Oh. now you've said something sensible for a change.
I certainly want support of the vulnerable and equity based on
evidence and correct fact.
However, we seem to mean different things when we say that.
Well there's no harm in stating my case again just to keep in
practice, just typing 'off the cuff.'
I'm very fluent at it now.
Well, a good starting point is the Oxana Malaya (Dog Girl) video,
which demonstrates to even a total fool (?) the intense power of
imprinting of prominent early experiences and the intense urge every
living organism has to imitate and repeat early prominent experiences,
mainly because we survived physically while undergoing those early
prominent experiences and at this stage of our evolution we are
condemned to imitate and repeat any activity and emotional states
associated with physical survival.
The most prominent early experience for all human beings, male and
female, is an intense sexual/incest/paedophile relationship with our
mothers, the most prominent part of that relationship being anal
eroticism between mother and baby.
All growing infants, male and female, have an intense urge to keep on
imitating and repeating those beautiful, harmonious, pleasurable
caresses of early infancy, with the mother and with other children.
Again think of Oxana Malaya to grasp that fact more easily.
However, if love is allowed to flow as Nature intended, the ruling
group will have no more soldiers to keep the ruling group in the life
of luxury to which they are accustomed.
The immediate purpose of motherhood is to generate hate-crazed
soldiers to fight inter-tribal wars to keep the ruling group in the
life of luxury to which they are accustomed.
The fact that mothers don't know what they are doing doesn't alter the
realities of life.
The keep the ruling group in the life of luxury to which they are
accustomed, mothers must sabotage the loving relationship between
mother and baby and prevent the baby from imitating and repeating the
loving harmony and delightful pleasures of early infancy.
Since the mother can offer no explanation of her sudden descent into
mental illness, inversion and child abuse, she has to use TOXIC SHAME
against her baby, meaning shame with no reference to ethics or moral
compass, but only shame for the sake of shame imposed to control
others. 'Guilt tripping' is another way of saying it.
So the mother conveys to her baby that everything has gone into
reverse and the delightful loving harmony and pleasure of early
infancy is now reclassified as child abuse and one of the worst
crimes, while the most beautiful parts of our bodies are being
mysteriously reclassified as not just the opposite of beautiful but so
shameful and so evil that they must be concealed and not spoken of.
This inversion and toxic shame in the later stage of infancy is
immeasurably cruel child abuse being committed by every mother in the
world, and for the sole reason of generating hate-crazed soldiers
filled with repressed rage to be discharged on the battlefields to
keep the ruling group in the life of luxury to which they are
accustomed.
So if I use your phrase and say I agree with it, the phrase: "I want
'support of the vulnerable' and equity, based on evidence and correct
fact" - for me it means beginning a process of education among adults
which will eventually lead to the ending of the obscenity that is the
later stage of the mother-infant relationship.
But it can't happen soon. We're too far gone. Our imbecility is
associated with physical survival in our brain circuits and
archetypes, so we are filled with the compulsion to cling to what we
are doing now.
===========
I typed the above very quickly, 'off the cuff.' I wont revise it. I
can state the correct analysis very fluently now. It's one of the few
things I do well. But my talent is wasted in this era. Nobody wants to
recover from our collective mental illness.
Get on with it then, you seven billion shitheads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Glabach, Niles Newton et al on infantile sexuality:
http://www.womanthouartgod.com/breastfeedinglovemaking.php
Careless Hands (that can't hold on to love)
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddp6bt4_187gpmt3sjh
Shaking the Baby
http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dddp6bt4_21gvfsbjdd
The Universal Fear of Being Known
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dddp6bt4_188hggbt5f8
The Prominence of Anal Eroticism in Infancy
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfqhsz6n_41ckwz5hfx
Nigel Oldfield
Jan 5, 2012, 9:48:33 AM1/5/12
to
On 05/01/2012 14:39, Special Care wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not want 'Eden', I want 'support of the vulnerable' and equity,
>> based on evidence and correct fact.
>>
> ======================
>
> Oh. now you've said something sensible for a change.
I & LF.
> On Jan 4, 5:45 pm, Nigel Oldfield<WMCriticalEstop...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I do not want 'Eden', I want 'support of the vulnerable' and equity,
>> based on evidence and correct fact.
>>
> ======================
>
> Oh. now you've said something sensible for a change.
> But it can't happen soon. We're too far gone. Our imbecility is
> associated with physical survival in our brain circuits and
> archetypes, so we are filled with the compulsion to cling to what we
> are doing now.
>
> ===========
>
> I typed the above very quickly, 'off the cuff.' I wont revise it. I
> can state the correct analysis very fluently now. It's one of the few
> things I do well. But my talent is wasted in this era. Nobody wants to
> recover from our collective mental illness.
> Get on with it then, you seven billion shitheads.
WM
0 new messages