On Aug 10, 1:03Â am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> On Aug 10, 4:04Â pm, Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> On Aug 9, 10:08 pm, turtoni
fastmail.net> wrote:>
>>> On Aug 10, 12:39 am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>>> wrote:>
>
>>>> At the end, you will see truth greater than the sum of its parts, (and
>>>> its parts are perhaps the most challenging ever taking in every major
>>>> controversy over the millenia.)
>
>>>> If you find anything worthy of your attention for discussion after
>>>> this, then go and play with your scalextric set.
>
>>>> Im going to risk spoiling it for you by pointing to the 'last page',
>>>> which actually hasnt been written.
>
>>>> Make a comparison between what is already being introduced, and our
>>>> dna molecule.
>
>>>> I dare you !
>
>>>> BOfL
>
>
>>> Any transcription of this to post ot the newsgroup?
>
>>> I found problems with the "waiting to be dead" idea right off the bat.
>
>>> Too subjective. Too poetical. Unreal. Bullshit. Childish. Came to the
>>> same conclusions as a teenager.
>
>>> "A feature article in The Stranger has stated the film is based solely
>>> on anecdotal evidence, while others have criticized it for using
>>> unidentified, undated, and unsourced video news clips, voice-overs,
>>> quotes, and book citations without page numbers. In a piece entitled
>>> "Internet idiocy: the latest pandemic", an opinion piece in the
>>> Arizona Daily Wildcat refers to the film as "internet bullshit",
>>> saying that "witty sayings, fear tactics and a cool, assertive air all
>>> enable them to convince the unwitting public of their points" while
>>> another in the Irish Times called it "unhinged" and accused it of
>>> offering nothing but "surreal perversions of genuine issues and
>>> debates."
>
>>> In the Gauntlet, Jordyn Marcellus wrote it was ironic that the film's
>>> viewers "have blindly followed the documentary without doing their own
>>> research." He states that, though the film is "well-edited and is
>>> truly compelling", it "glosses over inconvenient facts," uses
>>> "deceptive filmmaking" and that "for a film that rails against
>>> deception, there's a lot of deception implicit in its creation."
>
>>> On March 10, 2008, director Peter Joseph removed the "Clarifications"
>>> section from the film's official site, a section which The Gauntlet
>>> believed "alluded to dishonest filmmaking tactics that would otherwise
>>> help to discredit the film." It was replaced by a Q&A Section that
>>> "attempts to smack down" the film's critics."
>
>
>> Ha, with all the cool books floating around on mainstream shelves, who
>> needs a conspiracy movie? I was just reading this cute little book,
>> about the tenth one like it.
>
> Those that have been mislead by the same medium.
>
> I have never come across anything so comprehensive, from the
> astrological explaination of the regularly recycled messianic myths,
From Asstrology to 9-11 Trootherism. It's a natural progression.
Having grown up with a close relative who was schizophrenic,
I am driven to nothing but nausea by Asstrology, along with all
other New Age squishy-headedness. One of the symptoms of
schizophrenia is supersitiousness.
My favorite Everclear song is _Why I Don't Believe in God_, precisely
because the lyrics precisely capture the experience of knowing a
schizophrenic only too well.
And speaking of the Age of Aquariums, and Firesign Theatre:
He must have been a pisces, probably working for scale.
> to the introduction of the purpose of silican chip implantation into
> the population.
>
> I somehow, dont think you have watched it based on your comments.
Dude, it's two hours long! And you can find
this sort of crap all over YouTube anyway.
Some of it much more mercifully brief.
9-11 Troothers need never feel lonely, because
there's one born every minute.
