Re: Acquired Intellect, does it lead to "truth"?
Posted by DD on 7/27/04
In Mary's world, people like me don't matter, consequently neither do our rights,
constitutional or otherwise.
She just gets a thrill out of stirring up the pot; like the bully in the school yard.
On 7/25/04, ff wrote:
> 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....
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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