Follow us!

    Re: Acquired Intellect, does it lead to "truth"?

    Posted by ff on 7/25/04


    Crazy discussions. However, TODAY, when defendants shirk responsibility by
    claiming, after the fact, that they were not reliable (i.e. they're liars and
    cheaters then) and therefore it is unreasonable that someone would rely on what
    they say/represent, I have to wonder. That's about as nutty as some claim, some
    sound here.

    A statement on products such as "Purchase and use at your own risk. The
    statements made here are not reliable. We lie, cheat, deliberately and with
    conscience..." may not be so bad? Would it be better to know they're liars and
    cheaters, before the fact, and therefore they cannot be reliable?

    Of course, the nature of the product is important. Consider a such a statement on
    your gardening tools versus baked goods versus pharmaceuticals?

    A lot of lawsuits could be prevented if in DD's case for example, the landord were
    to tell her in advance that he was a liar and don't believe anything he says or
    writes or agrees to? Likely, DD would have gone elsewhere.


    On 7/25/04, mary wrote:
    > Greetings from earth....
    > Mary
    > On 7/24/04, agree wrote:
    >> On 7/16/04, v wrote:
    >>> On 7/15/04, To Mary wrote:
    >>>> On 7/14/04, Mary wrote: > Hey Brain Boy:>> Time to ask the nice man to take
    >> you back to your room. Too much > computer time is bad for your oxygen
    >> saturation. Remember to actually > SWALLOW your medication, don't just fake
    > it.
    >> Really enjoyed your post.>> Best Regards,>> Mary>> PS: I can see you through
    >> your monitor when you type.> Don't judge others by same standard you are
    >> beeing judged, it is only your personal problem and not the problem of
    >> others. Virus Fraud
    >>> To whom it may concern: re: viruses. i know nothing about biology, hell! i
    >> cant even spell it. but from what i remember. bacteria & virus, are from two
    >> different familys. not even related. from the picture i see, they look more
    >> like bacteria. altho i have seen certain viruses under the microscope. they
    >> resemble the picture. i know they have different shapes & forms. & certain of
    >> them attack diffrent organs in the body. i find this all very interesting.
    >> somone is saying we are being duped. let me guess! by the drug companys.
    >> continue on. the more this goes, the more i learn. i dont discount anything.
    >> untill i'm convinced other wise.
    >> After reading all, hat we are being dupped.
    >> It is not the first time the scam is pulled on all to make money.
    >> It is uncommon that with such evidence judge gave the government official
    > 8
    >> months in jail for providing false informaton to general population that
    >> HIV causes AIDS.
    >> When yoiu compare the pics including EBOLA it looks like thaose are
    >> some "other inconsistant shapes". Further even bacteria has consistant
    >> while fungi don't.
    >> So the thesis that AIDS is caused by a fungi better fits the picture
    >> than the NEVER found retrovirus.
    >> I found this reading fascinating.
    >> It only shows that the American Sociaety is really suffering from
    >> Missing intelligence gene, and the Acquired Intelligence Defficiency
    >> Syndrome fits well all so called experts.
    >> Fungi lives of oxygen and this could explain the extreme tiredness as
    >> LANKA named it Acquired Energy eficiency Syndrome.
    >> The poster Mary well fits the discussed profile of mising intelligence
    >> gene. Rather than reading and trying to understand she reads the boittom
    >> of the coffee ....
    >> Can you
    > spot
    >> the 'real HI Virus' among these images?

    >> Does HIV exist at
    >> all? What about the HIV- genome?
    >> HIV researchers believe the AIDS virus looks like this; like a bomb or water
    >> (blood) mine. This model is based on the detection of cellular particles in
    >> cell lines under very special conditions. Such particles never have been
    >> isolated or somehow else demonstrated to exist as a virus or be of viral
    >> origin. This is nothing but a modell based on a collection of proteins of
    >> various size (no other characterization!) which by antibody detection (known
    > as
    >> HIV- or AIDS-test) have been chosen to be said to represent parts of HIV
    >> according to the ill-minded and false concept of retroviruses and how they
    >> should look like.

    Posts on this thread, including this one

  Site Map:  Home Chatboards Legal Jobs Classified Ads Search Contacts Advertise
  © 1996 - 2013. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.