 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
I read:
"If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis."
I can read from that, and I can understand from that, that you are expressly not a trained psychologist.
I got that, and I get that, you are offering to me information that identifies you as someone who is not a trained psychologist.
Then I read this:
"You have misconstrued the first sentence. I am not a trained psychologist or psychiatrist."
I understood then, and I understand now, that I am not connected to, and I am not exchanging information with, a trained psychologist.
I get that.
I got that.
Why are you now claiming that I did not get that, as if I can't read plain English and comprehend plain English?
The viewpoint was expressed:
"If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis."
Why does the subject of "symptom" and "diagnosis" enter into the stream of information transferring between two individuals?
Was it this:
Me:
"I am no longer useful as a slave in that capacity."
Did that inspire you to write this:
"If I were a trained psychologist I would likely be accepting that as symptom description from my patient. Then I would carefully offer a diagnosis."
I'd like to know, as I offered already, I am curious.
A war, as you inform me, and you inform anyone else who may want to know, is over, as far as you know.
I got that.
I get that.
A war, as far as you know, is over.
The fact that the United States of America was a voluntary association for mutual defense before criminals perpetrated an obvious fraud remains to be a fact.
The war that you understand to be over, according to you, started much later than the war that was started with the fraud in which a voluntary mutual defense association was turned into a criminal organization under the same name: United States of America.
This may help (or not):
http://www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html#afp07
The title of that offer of information dated December 6, 1787 is:
Adoption Of The Constitution Will Lead To Civil War
The war that you say has ended is a war predicted (or at least coinciding in time and place with a different war other than the war you understand to be over) almost 100 years before the war (that may be the same war you say now has ended) that actually happened: predictably.
Why did the author of the information (simple reason based upon simple facts) offer a warning about a pending (inevitable?) war?
Quote:
The new constitution in its present form is calculated to produce despotism, thralldom and confusion, and if the United States do swallow it, they will find it a bolus, that will create convulsions to their utmost extremities. Were they mine enemies, the worst imprecation I could devise would be, may they adopt it. For tyranny, where it has been chained (as for a few years past) is always more cursed, and sticks its teeth in deeper than before.
Calculations are made so as to turn from something and to turn toward despotism.
Our enemies - uncontrolled as they are in their ambitious schemes, fretted with losses, and perplexed with disappointments – will exert their whole power and policy to increase and continue our confusion. And while we are destroying one another, they will be repairing their losses, and ruining our trade.
The calculation is specifically geared to divide so as to conquer.
Why are you and I seemingly divided, even now?