Tim Gratz Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 (edited) Arthur Schopenhauer once said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Shanet is still at the stage of ridiculing me. John, however, has graduated to the second stage (violent opposition to some of my posts). Sometime soon, I suspect, the truth of my scenario will become self-evident. Now I know I'm just opening myself up here. But then why am I here at all? Must have masochistic tendencies! Edited June 27, 2005 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Geraghty Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Run and hide Tim! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 I can ride but I cannot hide! The issue is who am I running from? DGI, I would assume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 Let'sa not get carried away, here, folks! Just thought it was a very interesting quote worth posting. I am sure many if not most of you have heard it before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Tim, whilst I admire your cofidence there's an old English saying. There's many a slip twixt cup and lip. Your most serious problem however is a complete lack of any think like hard evidence. ( I will however admit your not alone in that department.) So unless you have something "Up your sleeve"I dont expect you will be hearing any appologies in the near future...Steve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 I just love these old English sayings! Poor Brittanica, first we won the war of independence then we proceeded to kill the language! Which reminds me: John should start a new thread who Shakespeare really was. I know Pat would be interested. John, what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Tim. "Wouldst thou swallow a cammel, but strain at a gnat" The Bard, old rent a quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted June 27, 2005 Author Share Posted June 27, 2005 Two bee or not two bee. To bee or not to bee. Too bee or not too bee. Two bee or not to be. Two bee or not too be. Too be or not to be. To be or not too be. Two bee or not two be. To be or not to be. Too be or not too be. This illustrates the problem with the English language! Have to have three words that mean different things (to, too, two) but allsounding alike. What sense does that make? How about words like gear that have several different meanings but the same spelling. You guys run out of words, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Arthur Schopenhauer once said:All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Shanet is still at the stage of ridiculing me. John, however, has graduated to the second stage (violent opposition to some of my posts). Sometime soon, I suspect, the truth of my scenario will become self-evident. Now I know I'm just opening myself up here. But then why am I here at all? Must have masochistic tendencies! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sometime soon, I suspect, the truth of my scenario will become self-evident. Tim are your "declaring your independence" of mind, thought, and deed here, or are you merely penning yourself another constitutional amendment. Hey, why didn't you answer me back about Boca Chica, or do you not bother to answer PM's sent to you through this forum? You don't have to reply on site. I gave you my e-mail address: tmauro@pacbell.net. I'm seriously interested in knowing what it looks like today. Thanks, Ter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 Arthur Schopenhauer once said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. Tim, I think another statement by someone famous--where's Bartlett's when I need it?--may also apply: If you tell the same lie over and over again, people will eventually begin to believe it. I'm not saying that this applies to your scenarios, but if one should choose to draw such a parallel, they might have a case. And I submit that, based upon the evidence on this forum, you're far more adept at lashing out at others than at taking a lashing [perhaps you should turn your Funk & Wagnall's to the word "masochist," as I don't detect that you enjoy taking a lashing at all...so I therefore question the veracity of your statement about having "masochistic tendancies."]. However, I won't disagree that you enjoy the jousting; I merely detect, from your words, that you don't enjoy the pain...which is what defines a masochist, so therefore your statement reflects self-delusion. Might I suggest that you choose your words more carefully[precisely]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher T. George Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 I just love these old English sayings!Poor Brittanica, first we won the war of independence then we proceeded to kill the language! Which reminds me: John should start a new thread who Shakespeare really was. I know Pat would be interested. John, what do you think? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You won the war of independence???? Hmmm... what about economic dependence these days on other countries? Best regards Chris George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted June 27, 2005 Share Posted June 27, 2005 John, however, has graduated to the second stage (violent opposition to some of my posts). Sometime soon, I suspect, the truth of my scenario will become self-evident. ________________________________ Tim: Everyone who has ever seriously studied this case is in "violent opposition" with your posts. Unlike most people on the right you have actually studied this case so you KNOW it was a conspiracy. You are intellectually honest enough to go beyond Posner, but like most on the right, you are simply blinded to the fact that JFK was killed by a coup. So you find writers like Russo- (who almost no one else trusts)- to support your view. Even when someone gives you proof after proof of the government's complicity, like was found in the pieces I posted by my friend Vince Salandria you just ignore this in favor of a scenario that is exactly what Shanet called it: "disinformation". The only issue for most of us here is whether or not we believe you sincerely hold this view, NOT that any of us are going to accept it as a "valid" explanation. That you post this innane stuff day after day makes me question your motives. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now