It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Al Qaeda Serves Baked Boys To Their Families For Lunch

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Perhaps it MIGHT be wise to take the sharp perceptiveness in for a checkup. The ALL CAPS are NOT random.


Nope. They aren't. Its an old propaganda tool that tries to reinforce certain points in a conversation in order to add weight and emphasis to it, to try and trick your brain into remembering those sections more clearly.

Fortunately, if you spend some time on the internet the effects of this are MITIGATED because THE USE OF CAPS AS EMPHASIS IS CONSIDERED RUDE AND TO BE SHOUTING.

I just thought I'd point that out because its an adjunct to the conversation, but also adds a little perspective, because when you read back the topic has started to become an advert for Freerepublic.com and the use of the strange and not part of anyones lexicon word "Freeper" is repeated over and over again.

Who/Whats is a "freeper"? More disturbingly, whats a "first hand freeper"?




posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   
I'm thinking thats why it was moved to the skunk works
cause there is no sources except just one mans site.

That or someone with powers agree that its just all hogwash.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The whole notion of baking a human being is just ridiculous. It would take way too much fuel, and the meat would be very dry and tasteless by the time it was done. The best way would be to cook it like a pig, where you take hot igneous rocks from a fire, toss them in a pit, wrap the body in grape leaves and burlap, and bury the body on the rocks. Bury it about midnight, and by about 10 a.m. the next morning when you dig it up, the meat will be moist and literally dripping off the bones. You can use a BBQ sauce to spice it up, but it really isn't necessary. Side dishes of potatoes or rice work well to round out the meal.

Your other option is to slowly smoke the carcass in a smokehouse. You get a nice smoky taste with that, hickory or mesquite, if you can get it. But that really does take a long time, sometimes up to three days.

I'm afraid you'd have to ask a religious expert as to whether or not the final product is Kosher. I suspect that if you do it right, there is no particular restriction about it. God's angel stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son, Isaac, but that was an individual case. There is probably a proper way to sacrifice a human being. Most religions have some lingering vestige of human sacrifice lingering from their pasts. Even Christianity has ritualistic elements of cannibalism.

What does Rachel Ray have to say about it?



[edit on 9-7-2007 by SuicideVirus]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Er..ok...

Sounds like you have some experience in the matter


[edit on 9/7/07 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
What Evilbat said, plus the fact that absolutely zero evidence has been produced for their being AQ in Iraq in 1991 conducting kidnappings and murders.

I'm still waiting on that, by the way. Other posters attempted to sidetrack that very issue, but at the end of the day, have still produced naff all evidence of it taking place in the early 90's.


If your referring to me no i did not trry to side track,we disputed sectarian violence for a while and i also said i don't even know if this story is true,i was not talking about this story.

The most i said about this story is i do not see why poeple think its so unreasonable alqeada would do such act of violence



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:09 PM
link   
The point is not that AQ would or would not do it, but this story is bogus because AQ was NOT operating in Iraq in 1991.

Hence why you brought up sectarian violence as a whole in Iraq, claiming it was going on, when it clearly wasn't.

During Saddams rule, which was very secular, he kept a lid on it and sectarian violence was unheard of. It's only since the invasion that sectarian violence in Iraq has flared.

I have seen dozens of Iraqis who all say the same thing. Read the blogs coming out of Baghdad, check the figures, read history.

I tried to show you, but you chose to just ignore me and shout "WRONG WRONG WRONG" all the freeking time...

If I am wrong, show me. Don't just say so. Not the best way to "own me" as you claimed, is it?



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
The point is not that AQ would or would not do it, but this story is bogus because AQ was NOT operating in Iraq in 1991.

Hence why you brought up sectarian violence as a whole in Iraq, claiming it was going on, when it clearly wasn't.

During Saddams rule, which was very secular, he kept a lid on it and sectarian violence was unheard of. It's only since the invasion that sectarian violence in Iraq has flared.

I have seen dozens of Iraqis who all say the same thing. Read the blogs coming out of Baghdad, check the figures, read history.

I tried to show you, but you chose to just ignore me and shout "WRONG WRONG WRONG" all the freeking time...

If I am wrong, show me. Don't just say so. Not the best way to "own me" as you claimed, is it?



No you said non stop rude remarks.and go read my post i made before,with all your different posts so theres no disputing it...And if u still dont believe there was sectarian violence then your still wrong,im sorry but there was and always has been...i do not want to continue this petty arguement,so agree to disagree


And your story about saddam is BS,he used weapons n the kurds man,HE HIMSELF......And google the story about a mothers son being kille dby iraqi soldiers,then his body dumped off to his mother and she was told she needed to pay for the bullets.............

Hes a real nice guy

And as for many of poeple saying that,ya i can find many peopel saying the opposite,all depends who you ask and what region they are from..



[edit on 9-7-2007 by Project_Silo]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
No you said non stop rude remarks.and go read my post i made before,with all your different posts so theres no disputing it...And if u still dont believe there was sectarian violence then your still wrong,im sorry but there was and always has been...i do not want to continue this petty arguement,so agree to disagree


Whatever chap. I produced facts and figures, you did not. End of as far as I'm concerned.


Originally posted by Project_Silo
And your story about saddam is BS,he used weapons n the kurds man,HE HIMSELF......And google the story about a mothers son being kille dby iraqi soldiers,then his body dumped off to his mother and she was told she needed to pay for the bullets.............

Hes a real nice guy


Therein lies a fundamental problem with your line of thinking.

I never said Saddam was a nice guy nor that he didn't kill his own people. What I am saying is SECTARIAN violence in iraq pre-2003 was unheard of. Big difference between SECTARIAN violence and that as applied by a mad dictator.

He was fairly indiscriminate with his killing and the Kurdish attacks were as a result of Kurds fighting on behalf of Iran during the War, which in itself was over Territory (namely the Shat-al-Arab waterway) and not sectarian. he bumped of Sunni as well as Shia during his rule. It was about control, not religion.

Saddam had many Shia, as well as Christians and Sunni, in his ruling elite, so how does that figure?

You still miss the whole bloody point, mind you, in that AQ was not in Iraq conducting any sort of Sectarian violence in 1991.


Originally posted by Project_Silo
And as for many of poeple saying that,ya i can find many peopel saying the opposite,all depends who you ask and what region they are from..


Go on then. Show me. After all, I've shown you. Why is it only I that has to produce evidence to the contrary. Why not trying actually backing yourself up, instead of just appearing like a troll.

[edit on 9/7/07 by stumason]



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
meh whateevr dude i provided 5 links,and man why wont u answer my thread with all your qoutes.....because your wrong,and now ill put you on ignore because there is no way i'm continuing this because you refuse to face the facts and twist words around in every post..good day chap



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Project_Silo
meh whateevr dude i provided 5 links,and man why wont u answer my thread with all your qoutes.....because your wrong,and now ill put you on ignore because there is no way i'm continuing this because you refuse to face the facts and twist words around in every post..good day chap


Those links, as I told you earlier in the thread, I answered one by one.

That is plain for everyone to see. Go back and see my reply.

The one citing a specific example of a killing was in 2006, the other's just provided background info which is already known. Nothing you posted proved that AQ was in Iraq in 1991 or that there was any sectarian violence as claimed in the opening article..

Put me ignore if you like, it just proves you cannot have a sensible debate because if someone disagrees with you and proves you wrong, you get your undies all knotted up.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
to evilbat,




When I read a news article I say to myself

* What are the positives and negatives?
* Is it fair and balanced, or bias?
* Are all viewpoints represented?
* Does the story come from more then one source, if not why?



Quite reasonable and wise of you--really--to a point . . .

HOWEVER,

In the best of all possible ideal worlds that include good and evil . . .

that might be safe enough.

In the multiverse we are faced with . . . it's often just not the case that such an approach is even close to always safe at all.

A very wise and renowned professor at my PhD school once said . . . when asked about incongruencies in the many times edited Book of Mormon that was suppodedly not edited at all . . . he was a Bishop . . .

He noted: Well, the world is complex enough that just about any cock-a-maymee explanation will do.

I disagree with him theologically. But he had a good point--in the sense that the complexity SEEMS to afford all manner of divergeant and even a seemingly over-abundance of mutually exclusive explanations and interpretations of events, issues, facts . . .

But back to your quite good screening criteria . . .

When I read a news article I say to myself

* What are the positives and negatives?

There is soooooooooooo much disinformation; duplicitous NWO stuff; appearances contrary to underlying facts etc. etc. etc. how can one be sure--even beyond a reasonable doubt

--of the POSITIVES

OR

THE NEGATIVES.

Much less a particular set of them.

And if it's published by the Main Stream Media, then my growing assumption is that it's probably at least significantly false or at least significantly slanted for a dubious and probably evil goal of the globalists.

I just know that gone are the days when a given set of positives and negatives--especially in the Main Stream News--served as fool proof anything very dependable.

* Is it fair and balanced, or bias?

Wellll, this one has gone by the wayside as well.

The "most trusted man in American of decades back--Walter Croncite--has proven to be a blathering slavish stooge of the globalist puppet masters.

And, "fair and balanced" according to what goal; compared to what criteria in terms of what context??? And according to what perspective, 'expert,' power group etc???

I've seen plenty of situations where the "fair and balanced" perspective as espoused by the Main Stream Media was chock full of lies and the rest of it was so distorted as to equal a lie--but it SOUNDED all fair and balanced. But it was straight from the pure fabricated lies of hell.

Then there's that proverb about the evil being given over to believe a lie as their just due. I've seen plenty of proof to satisfy me that such a phenomenon is increasingly common. I've seen people I'd never have guessed would be blinded and clueless--especially about things so easily ferreted out . . . and yet . . . there they were--believing and spouting stuff I knew from personal experience to be total off the wall garbage. Sometimes it can be shocking and quite saddening. All in the name of "fair and balanced."

* Are all viewpoints represented?

I think this is a lie from the beginning itself. All view points

are

NOT

EQUAL!

I've known a lot of schizophrenics . . . some of whom thought they were Jesus and some of whom thought they were bananas or some such. All viewpoints would include theirs as equally valid. But not in my criteria or construction on reality.

Nor would the viewpoints of those whom I know to be grossly deficient in thoroughly studying the major sides of the major issues of our era . . . as well as the major philosophical and religious perspectives--and not just from the standpoint of the adherents.

* Does the story come from more then one source, if not why?

I think normally, this is a reasonable preference.

But when it becomes a rigid law . . . danger is lurking.

In many situations there is only ONE reliable source. Either there ARE no other sources or ALL the other sources are brazenly lying or at best grossly distorting or just abjectly clueless themselves about the realities involved.

Slavish adherence to the ONE SOURCE AVERSION rule will then condemn one to automatically being on the side of the clueless or brazenly lying. And if you think such is uncommon in our era . . . then I think your assumptions need some serious tune-up.

In this particular case . . . I'm more than satisfied that the reporter is highest quality--many LEVELS ABOVE those heard on CNN and the likes routinely. He himself has not said whether it is totally true, 50% true or whatever. He's merely reported what he's heard and observed first hand.

I haven't seen the pics Rush Limbaugh was speaking of today . . . but evidently there are pics and certainly stories of added horror in that city (on Michael Yon's website) that would make ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of horror--INCLUDING the baked boys horror--just par for the course--as, evidently, the Iraqi's feel such it is. There's evidently some commentary amongst the locals that the baked boys story is exceedingly believable BECAUSE of ALL THE OTHER ROUTINE HORRORS that the Jihadi's so callously and glibly dispense SOOOOO ROUTINELY and soooooo bloodily.

As George Kelly demonstrated with his construct grid . . .

tiger.cpsc.ucalgary.ca...

we are all scientists making hypotheses about our world, our realities.

Those of us who make the best predictions based on the best hypotheses tend to do the best in life.

The best hypothesizers and the best predictors . . . must have a construct system which is firm enough as to be stable unless major things in the environment change markedly . . . yet not so permeable and so unstable as to be equal to the schizophrenic's--the sort who's realities are fairly constently in flux--convoluting interminably.

And, it helps to have a construct system which takes into account and interprets meaningfully and reliably the widest possible amount of and types of data coming into the individual.

No one in any culture has ever been observed to use more than 26 constructs in dealing with reality. And most of us use less than 15 or so the vast majority of the time.

Now the puppet masters have handicapped generations of citizens by selling the lying bill of goods that

THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG--ALL IS SITUATIONAL.

to be continued



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
HOWEVER . . .

these puppet masters who have sold the lying bill of goods that

THERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG--ALL IS SITUATIONAL . . .

That is, axe murdering on Sunday is bad but alternate Thursdays will be quite allowable.

Shooting you because of your bad clothing sense on Monday would be quite kosher but to shoot you on Friday because you murdered your unborn child is quite due capital punishment.

Actually these same puppet masters will

NOT treat you at all in a situation ethics manner when they DEMAND, as they will--that you take the CHIP ID IMPLANT--or die.

They will also not support situation ethics when they demand that you bow down and worship the global ruler--as they will--or die.

But enroute to that 'wonderous NEW WORLD ORER' . . . it serves their purpose to destroy old values and morals by the lie that situation ethics is the only eithics there is . . . so if it feels good, do it.

And if it feels good to do it TO someone else--as long as you don't get caught . . . or as long as you get called before and idiot judge who agrees that the puppet masters' agenda is the only morality going . . . then wonderful . . . . /sar

But the Jihadi's will have none of it. Their value is the only one they support. And brutal death to ALL WHO DISAGREE.

And any amount and any type of horror is not too extreme for their use in scaring the citizens of the planet into kowtowing to their power mongering.

I suspect they thought that the baked boys incidents were quite creative and fun. They probably laughed repeatedly over the shocked looks on the family members faces.

Being asleep or clueless in the face of such horrormasters is not a good survival habit.

Appeals to "fair and balanced" will ring exceedingly hollow when they come for your child for the bakery.

("your" here being used generically for everyman/woman).



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Uhhhh,

We don't have the recipe.

"baked" could cover in banana leaves buried in hot rocks.

Could include in a big bread oven.

could include in a big bar-B-Q.

we weren't told such details.

Assumptions on either side of that are just assumptions, fantasies.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:36 AM
link   
to neformore,

The assertions posted are exceedingly, to me, . . . skewed way out of whack to brazenly wrong and seemingly from a rather cheeky attitude.

1. There was significant discussion with the powers that be about what the best forum would be. I was happy for them to put it where they thought it best fit. I can't speak for their thought processes but my sense is that this forum affords the most fitting range of responses relative to the topic etc.

2. As I've noted, I've used ALL CAPS in my style since at least about 1961. Folks can construe it as shouting if they wish. It's not my reality. I understand a lot of folks construe things that way on the web. It's merely a convention. It has grown, for many, into an excuse to whine because some folks don't post as the whiner does. I don't feel particularly bound, married, enslaved to other folks sensibilities.

3. The nonsense about my posting style vis a vis ALL CAPS being some sort of deliberate propaganda tool is hilarious--off the wall hilarious. I like a variety of emphases as well as variety for the sheer fun of variety. That's my nature and personality. On ATS, it's too bothersome and problematic to use color well or I'd use that also.

4. Your comments about FREEREPUBLIC are MOST off the wall and untrue.

(A) It just happens to be my favorite website that I spend the most time on.

(B) It just happens to be the best website I know of for news that's accurate and quicker than any other website I know of. Many times, FREEPERS (members of the website) number more than double ATS's membership and are also scattered around the world. Therefore, when something breaks out of any significance, it's quite common for a FREEPER to be onsite and to poste the event on the website quite frequently 20 minutes before major news media will--and sometimes--on major stories even--2 hours before Main Stream Media will broadcast the story. For that reason, I consider it a potentially life saving website and the best one for me to keep track of the news on.

(C) That's MY reality. Others are welcome to it but it wouldn't bother me in the least if NO ONE from ATS bothered about it. It just happens to be my primary reference group when it comes to news items and current events.

(D) Actually, the extreme liberals that seem to comprise 80-92% or whatever of ATS would not really be very welcome at FR unless they behaved themselves a LOT more than they tend to on ATS. It is deliberately a CONSERVATIVE website. Liberals from ATS posting on FR as they do on ATS would likely be banned as trolls. I wouldn't encourage such folks to bother trying. I'm not really interested in such folks of such a philosophical perspective giving the founder and webmaster of FR extra grief. He has MS and is plenty busy without such harrassments.

(E) It would be OK for folks to take advantage of the extensive and rapid news gathering skills of FREEPERS as lurkers.

(F) There is no great benefit to FR for added liberal members or lurkers. There is NO advertising. It is supported by contributions--something exceedingly unlikely from ATS type members. So, that's another reason for ATS members to steer clear.

(G) I mention FR so often as I would if I had Einstein or Stanton Friedman or Richard Hoagland or Linda Moulton Howe or all of them as my housemates. FR is the best resource I have to a wide diversity of information and is thereby my primary reference group. When references are demanded of me, of course I will go first and foremost to FR because FR is full of experts and posts about a wide diversity of topics and very high quality factual information sorted through by very bright folks with great critical thinking skills.

(H) A "firsthand FREEPER" on this thread referred to a list of reports and threads by FREEPERS who happen to be in Iraq as military or contract personnel or media types who are giving their first-hand insights and reports on their experiences and perspectives there.

5. Your hostile assaultive insults to me and my perspective are noted but not enjoyed. I realize that may be a plus to you but I still encourage you to change your attitude toward me if you really want me to read your posts.

6. I forgot a cautionary concern for you. I strongly encourage you to retune your assumption apparatus. IF your assumptions about the world and reality at large are as chronically wrong as your assumptions about me are . . . it could spell a lot more trouble for you in the future than I'd wish on my worst enemy. Things are likely to get more complicated and confusing instead of less. That would make such an assumption pattern all the more problematic.

Sincerely,










[edit on 10/7/2007 by BO XIAN]

[edit on 10/7/2007 by BO XIAN]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   



The point is not that AQ would or would not do it, but this story is bogus because AQ was NOT operating in Iraq in 1991.



This makes absolutely no sense to me.

Michael Yon's narrative was about a reasonably recent briefing with higher ranking military and Iraqi officials.

I see far more reasons to consider the narrative and baking boys incident at least exceedingly plausible if not thoroughly true.

None of the arguments to the contrary have given me the slightest pause or hesitation in believing the story.

Al Qaeda has behaved consistently in an extremely ruthless and brutal way. This is, from THEIR STATED PERSPECTIVE, merely a variation on a theme.

In my construction on reality, DENIAL OF REALITY, DENIAL OF TRUTH is the OPPOSITE of DENIAL OF IGNORANCE.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
I forgot a cautionary concern for you. I strongly encourage you to retune your assumption apparatus. IF your assumptions about the world and reality at large are as chronically wrong as your assumptions about me are . . . it could spell a lot more trouble for you in the future than I'd wish on my worst enemy. Things are likely to get more complicated and confusing instead of less. That would make such an assumption pattern all the more problematic.


I don't need your cautionary concern, and I certainly don't need to be talked down to or patronised.

I'd hate to live in a world seen from your perspective. It really must be a truly terrifying place for you - and other people who see things your way - to be in.

[edit on 10/0707/07 by neformore]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   
In reply to post #'s
1
and 2

so I don't over quote

I think You and I are in the same boat of not wanting to believe the media.

and We don't want to believe in such false stories from them. Hence why I said another freelancer. Yon's work goes to fox and other sources so why not
read some from another freelancer.

I understand what you are saying about media holding info or making us believe something, or why one source is good.

But with a story like this?

I think the way I look at a news clip is great no problems at all.

I see your point about why I look at things CAN be wrong, but is it?

Look I'm not trying to change
your believes
how you think
what you have faith in
what you watch
what you read

I just don't want propaganda spread,
making things worse then they already are

I have made my point a few times.
and I don't need potshots in U2U's


None of the arguments to the contrary have given me the slightest pause or hesitation in believing the story.


Then it must be true of what I said earlier about the boarders right?

I just heard many people in Utah are making Coloradians eat their young cause they not converting to Mormons.

does it make it true?

No cause it sounds far fetched right?

I do not live in a fantasy world my ats friend.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Being asleep or clueless in the face of such horrormasters is not a good survival habit.

Appeals to "fair and balanced" will ring exceedingly hollow when they come for your child for the bakery.


You know, I was re-reading this thread to make sure I hadn't actually misjudged and I came across this piece of melodramatic BS, which I must have missed first time.

You refer to "one source aversion" as if its some kind of crime. Heres the deal - in case you hadn't noticed - this is a messageboard on the internet, which does its part in connecting a global community across the world.

The initial premise of this thread comes from one article. I'm sorry but thats not enough in the information age. If you Google the title of the thread, you get linked to numerous websites, all of which refer back to the initial article. Not one, sound, esablished internationally recognised news source or agency gets listed.

No BBC, CNN, FOX, Reuters, MSNBC, Al Jazeerh etc, not even Pravda (which serves up more than its fair share of crap) or Itar-Tass. Not one. Not even the National Enquirer. It only appears on right wing partisan websites and blogs.

Now that tells me something about the validity of the article, because I have yet to come across a story with an element of truth in it that hasn't appeared on one of the above, even in its most simplistic forms.

Now if a single source had been put forward as evidence on ANY forum on ATS you would have been called on it. Simple as that.

The whole story smacks of an urban legend.

And yet you persist with it, and I have no idea why.

You deem the rest of us to be asleep and yet we're the ones who have been looking for verification of this only to find none. You preach at us about your values and the need to listen to you but you do not afford us the same luxury, instead you just dismiss the counter points put forward. We've put forward arguments from multiple sources that refute some - if not all - of the claims you've made on here. You dismiss them out of hand and yet continue to quote from your single source for the story and your right wing republican website.

So I'm calling time on this one. Its BS.

Please look out for my soon to be posted threads about the guy who wakes up in a bath of ice with no kidneys, and the girl who finds a hook embedded in the roof of her car.



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by BO XIAN



The point is not that AQ would or would not do it, but this story is bogus because AQ was NOT operating in Iraq in 1991.



This makes absolutely no sense to me.



Have you actually read the article? It clearly states AQ in Iraq in 1991 conducting kidnappings and murder to fuel sectarian violence. My statement above makes perfect sense. Anyone with a basic grasp of english can read it.

I'll try again for you though..

I'm not disputing wether AQ would do such a thing, what I am disputing is that this article is crap because it claims it happend in the early 90's.

Understand?

I'm not here to argue with about the pro's and cons of the modern media. I'd probably agree with you. But your patronising remarks, long winded attempts in your posts to make you appear intelligent and a willful ignorance of the most basic facts that would prove this story false just smack of someone with an agenda.

Instead of dealing with the material at hand, your attacking us for questioning it.

How about you prove the story true?



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   



I don't need your cautionary concern, and I certainly don't need to be talked down to or patronised.

I'd hate to live in a world seen from your perspective. It really must be a truly terrifying place for you - and other people who see things your way - to be in.



Sorry you construed my post that way.

My reality is that my person, perspective and motives were yet again grossly misperceived, misconstrued, misassumed. I thought I was expressing genuine caring and concern to another ATSer . . . who I was and genuinely am interested in avoiding unnecessary life hassles . . . given that I've experienced enough to think that a range of such are not really that much fun--especially when unnecessary. But, have it your way. I don't HAVE to express caring and concern in your behalf.

It is rather hazardous, however, to return evil to someone for their extending you good.

Actually, my perspective on and my experiences with reality has been exceedingly fulfilling, interesting, fun, diverse, creative . . . wouldn't trade it for any other. Have helped a long list of families, couples, individuals and groups experience greater fulfillment, life satisfaction, deepened relationships etc. Have a lot of students who consider me their "Gan Baba" and I vice versa them.

Fear? . . . Mother was a chronic worrier . . . Has been a challenge overcoming some such infections. But I've been at inner peace wholesale and overwhelmingly for a long time.

I do understand that you seem to hate, loathe, wish to eradicate from the planet folks of my perspective. That's rather sad.

I think it would likely be another poor flawed assumption to fantasize that I'm likely to give you a free ride on expressing such hostilities via raging harsh excesses . . . by silence on my part.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join