As you see

As you see, no "philosophy" is capable of happening without my presence and permission. When I am not around, "philosophy" websites die a death of deprivation.

This is because I am The Thinker who thinks for other stupid people. You are stupid people, and cannot maintain a "philosophy" website without a true, real, authentic philosopher. ILO has suffered the same death of dehydration, as has KT. This website will die too, in time. Unless I am present, nothing occurs.

The Heavens do not Change without God's Mind at the wheel, controlling all things.

Username wrote:As you see, no "philosophy" is capable of happening without my presence and permission. When I am not around, "philosophy" websites die a death of deprivation.

This is because I am The Thinker who thinks for other stupid people. You are stupid people, and cannot maintain a "philosophy" website without a true, real, authentic philosopher. ILO has suffered the same death of dehydration, as has KT. This website will die too, in time. Unless I am present, nothing occurs.

The Heavens do not Change without God's Mind at the wheel, controlling all things.

I am not god, but goddess, eh, I suppose I can be both. What do you want me to do here? Arm you or this place with real thinkers? I am freaking probing the universe for this, but it's like searching for straws amongst clouds. Or maybe clouds amongst straws. I thought I found an 11 year old thinker on the physics forum, but then some dimwit banned me for being too out of the ordinary,,, it was supposed to be physics and the 11 year old was far beyond the supposed mentors! The world is lovely for thinking 11 year olds but not so much for older banners and thought killers, and stupid banners of free-thinkers. For why? When you ban the freedom of thoughts for another, you do the same to you. Do you understand this?

You should respect the fact that unintelligent minds will never "get away" with attempting to deceive most intelligent minds.

I demand honesty. And honesty is something foreign to a mind like yours.

Only a select few people I allow to associate or identify with Me. The rest are unwelcome.


God hates Liars.

Username wrote:You should respect the fact that unintelligent minds will never "get away" with attempting to deceive most intelligent minds.

I demand honesty. And honesty is something foreign to a mind like yours.

Only a select few people I allow to associate or identify with Me. The rest are unwelcome.


God hates Liars.

I don't care. You want to make up or believe in a hating god, your choice, not mine. *shrugs*

Mayflow wrote:I don't care. You want to make up or believe in a hating god, your choice, not mine. *shrugs*

Hahahahahaha, you're such stupid, fucking filth. I spit and walk over shit like you.

Learn to become Honest, faggot. I can see right through you. You cannot escape your Past, no matter how hard you try.


No mortal can lie to God, ever. And you insult His Divine Intelligence when you try to, fucking idiot. Peace out, well, no Peace for you.... You are going to burn in hell, bitch. I hope you enjoy the thought of fire licking the flesh from your bones, stripping it away like melted butter. Anyway, should you ever become "honest" and "truthful", words foreign to you and your kind, you know where to find me.... or do you??

Time to Repent.

Cripes my puter breaks down and it goes to crap here.

Well, Kris, to be honest: it was pretty crappy from the start...

Not your fault: just the way of all things 'nettish'.

Me: simply waiting to find out if the voice of the opposition has any place in the discussion/debate about 'world government'.

Doc believes I contribute nothing of value...I'd like to know if any one else agrees (no point in answering the question, User: your view is apparent... ).

Since, Kris, the discussion/debate is your bailiwick: I think everyone is just waiting for you to get things moving again.

Henry Quirk wrote:
Doc believes I contribute nothing of value...I'd like to know if any one else agrees (no point in answering the question, User: your view is apparent... ).

Since, Kris, the discussion/debate is your bailiwick: I think everyone is just waiting for you to get things moving again.

Henry, so far all you've said is that you don't want rules or Gov. how is that contributing to the creation of a world gov?

So far Kris and Henry are back, just need to see if Mayflow is still here.

I'm not contributing to the formation of a 'world government', Doc.

I'm opposing it.

If you believe I'm a stumbling block 'here' (where the conversation/discussion/debate is essentially meaningless), imagine the stumbling block someone like me would be/will be/is in the real world.

In the least: I'm the example of what folks like yourself will/must contend with if you hope to see 'world governance'.

And: since Kris doesn't share your view of my valuelessness (and since this is her pony ride), you're stuck with me...*shrug*

Henry Quirk wrote:I'm not contributing to the formation of a 'world government', Doc.

I'm opposing it.

If you believe I'm a stumbling block 'here' (where the conversation/discussion/debate is essentially meaningless), imagine the stumbling block someone like me would be/will be/is in the real world.

In the least: I'm the example of what folks like yourself will/must contend with if you hope to see 'world governance'.

And: since Kris doesn't share your view of my valuelessness (and since this is her pony ride), you're stuck with me...*shrug*

Just to be clear, I was only refering to specific posts regarding world gov. and I agree with most of them, I also do not particularly want some big gov. telling me what to do. In general I have no intention of causing harm to others, (I know you see that 'harm' as a bit nebulous, but I don't see the point of a more specific definition now.) But I do see the value of keeping others from bothering me, I really have better things to do than dig holes in my back yard. All that being said there will need to be some kind of framework, and just saying I don't want any is less helpful than proposing reasonable limits to the power of that framework.

I can't propose limits on something I don't believe should exist.

I 'can' (and, if the conversation continues, 'will') offer suggestions on how to navigate around 'government' and 'governors', but I won't be offering to the would-be governors suggestions on how best to restrain me.

Not in my best interest... --Henry

And: yeah, that’s my post above...thought it would be easier to post as guest for the quick response...I was mistaken: too many hoops to jump through.

Henry Quirk wrote:And: yeah, that’s my post above...thought it would be easier to post as guest for the quick response...I was mistaken: too many hoops to jump through.

I can imagine those hoops must have been really painful for you.

HA!

HA!

H. Quirk wrote:I can't propose limits on something I don't believe should exist.

I 'can' (and, if the conversation continues, 'will') offer suggestions on how to navigate around 'government' and 'governors', but I won't be offering to the would-be governors suggestions on how best to restrain me.

Not in my best interest... --Henry

I'd be interested in hearing those suggestions and insights.

With time: as the conversation progresses...

Most of my suggestions are commonsensical, however...think a bit and you'll figure out most of it for yourself.

H. Quirk wrote:I can't propose limits on something I don't believe should exist.

I 'can' (and, if the conversation continues, 'will') offer suggestions on how to navigate around 'government' and 'governors', but I won't be offering to the would-be governors suggestions on how best to restrain me.

Not in my best interest... --Henry

Perhaps it would be in your interest to propose limits on the government to prevent it from restraining you.

The first, best, limit: that 'governance' should never move from 'discussion' into 'implementation'.