Re: The Good ****p LOLLIPOP and Carl Sagan / Arthur Clarke / Brad Guth

Perhaps one might think of being above all but
the problem is that there is always a loophole
in everything and the key to the leverage is to
know the point of fulcrum and apply adequate
energy to gain advantage.



"BradGuth" <bradguth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1190665696.902459.91190@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> You got that right.
>
> Of course it would certainly help if my local internet provider were
> not part of the problem, by allowing such easily detected Usenet
> spermware/****ware through their system, but no such luck.
>
> Here's another one for the old Usenet moderated to death gipper.
> Another warm and fuzzy group that claims being above such dastardly
> tactics of topic/author moderation, but clearly is deep within their
> swarm like cultism of moderating by fully excluding anything which
> rocks their boat.
>
> Observationology = Epistemology (stealth moderated)
> http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?lnk=gschg
> Epistemology = Observationology, except if you're from Earth where
> either is of no value unless the mainstream status quo allows it via
> the ***** bigotry of peers that have clear motives and the means to
> enforce such motives.
>
> Observationology is as old as raw intellegence.
>
> Observationology is as old as deductive reasoning.
>
> Observationology is as unaccepted as anything on Earth.
>
> Interpreting an image for the good or the bad of whatever's old, new
> or improved is often not allowed in the eye of the beholder,
> especially when there's a given faith-based swarm like mindset that'll
> oppose and/or exclude via moderation as to whatever interpretation
> that's other than scripted by the mainstream status quo, or else
> limited as to being inert eye-candy, regardless of the consequences.
>
> Selective observationology is the modern skewed science of hocus-pocus
> or illusionism that's applied differently to each situation, typically
> accomplished so that your mindset isn't bothered by the actual
> truth(s) contained within any given image.  Phony arguments as based
> upon those nifty conditional laws of physics that apparently function
> not only different per terrestrial situation or application, but are
> never of what you think it's all about whatever's off-world, or off-
> moon are fairly common place for those hell bent upon living a lie for
> all it's worth.
>
> It seems Usenet along with most other internet forums are chuck full
> of such conditional laws of physics and/or the excluding of evidence
> on behalf of sup****ting their version of epistemology or
> observationology, that's as faith-based or cultism skewed in order to
> suit whatever's their one and only interpretation of everything,
> especially on behalf of anything that's worthy of boat rocking or god
> forbid revisionism.
>
> Question;  How often or how much of epistemology is based upon lies or
> the exclusion of evidence?
>
> In other words, when is a lie not a lie simply because peers of
> epistemology or whatever ology say it's so?
> - Brad Guth -

> On Sep 24, 10:43 am, "LKYs Mother" <LKYs_Mot...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > If it is moderated then google would capture it as such.
> > However I do not believe that all newsgroups are moderated
> > and as such if no other reply appears then you have to accept
> > it as no one else is replying unless of course there is the rare
> > possibility of unique intervention and censor****p.  But I am not
> > that im****tant to be tracked down and censored.  So it must be
> > you who must be oozing with im****tance that everywhere you
> > go they track you down to censor or prevent communication.
>