>>Hi all, [...]
Yes, we make a FAQ where we explain people how to read who posted,
and how to use the front of their brain to support own limbic thinking
to get an idea about if it is actually worth to download and read the
stuff or not.
Also we might explain how to read a headline.
And maybe the first paragraph(s)
So that if it says...
AOK - Capitalized Posts about my insurance company in Germany
and thenthousand other intelligent abrvs to Invent.
Reactions in the hypothalamus, cortisol and cell reductions
I am Frankenstein and you are another Cheng,
and what someone else just said he did not mean, even if he insists
repeatedly that he did mean that,
because several centuries before it had also another meaning,
and now it MIGHT also have some other meaning, so therefore it could
not possibly have the first meaning given in works like Webster's
Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary Of The English Language
nor could it have the first meanings given in translations into other
Cognito ergo sum, that the own are not the only thinking areas in the
brain is irrelevant as I do not understand areas of the brain anyway
and prefer theories, therefore those should be unified into a theory
of THE Capitalized Cognition. Who objects to have the own limbic areas
stuck together undifferentiated with thinking areas of motorics in
other locations, and cognition to just referring to thinking but
widely abused also in generalized unspecific ways, and no discerning
made about which minds the whole is about, not liking to be
generalized with octopei and others,
such persons must take up discussion with why they do not agree with a
a standard (by default) Theory and mind-models that are not even
specifying which sectors of the human brain are counted as "mind" and
which ones are not.
As those theories must be the center of discussions,
so that the author and a few others feel better about themselves.
BS: Check if you are eligible to submit
your data to us: (10 000 words later).
Our great group (another 10 000 words later) will have a
meeting at the "..." about undefined, unspecified generalized
consciousness (so that you don't know which of the consciounesses it
is about and not even if it is about human conscious areas in the
brain). Another meeting will be about seeing without understanding
"seeing". So, as we are sense censored theories are warped
accordingly. Please warp your theories you submit to us accordingly.
Excuse me, but I am a (Ph.D. or someone else faking as a) student (and
in reality of this room docking in under another name) and was hoping
for some homework about the topic "..." you might have data for me
(so Frankie summons it up and I don't have to waste too much time on
They have abducted loads of others, but still any of those of the long
list I'd like off the planet. I have tried to get abducted, too,
to hand them that list, but fear that if they beam up those people,
they might download a load of theirs in return.
Do you believe it would be wise to swap?
1001 theories why we are not like other mammals having the double I
areas in the limbic system, and why it is not consciousnesses,
but instead THE consciousness, THE memory, THE generalized ...,
so that longer cutting around in other persons declared animals and
possessions can be continued.
God hath given thee thy soul, dear brother, and wert thou to hearken
to me well, methinks realization might befall thee
that the mind of sundry is burdened by what they do not wish to bear
without fleeing into believe, that thou mightst destroy by what thou
doest without heeding if what thou suppliest instead,
can give people(s) enough stability.
If thou wert to attempt to understand what is
the result shall be accordingly.
...then by reading either the headline or the first paragraph(s) you
might get an idea which post might be interesting for YOU and download
I guess an explanation about filter systems might be added for those
wishing to censor in that form.
Personally I might find an explanation of the word "we" also O.K.,
as some people constantly seem to confuse the own person or some
others with all of the planet.
So they might actually say "Do we need a FAQ" as if they were not
aware that some others might decide that they do not need them and not
bother to waste phone money to download them
or might decide that we need loads of FAQs and that everybody should
And once reading what others might imply there, you could Re to the
FAQs and open a sand-pit-trench-FAQs
where you might straight start of:
"Did someone pee into your brain
that you want to take that piss of a generalized theory
and declare it THE standard model that others have to refer to.
You did not even get what different areas of the brain near your own
are good for yet. If I were next to you I might knock on your head to
listen if it sounds hollow. Get yourself a good partner, then you
might feel less need to go off with such .... here. Your theories
are so mind-bogglingly bad, that one could think that in telepathy you
are lagging not just centuries, but thousands of years back.
... Also we could try to "borrow" some "peace"-bloke from some German
speaking room, to go that one should consider opinions of others and
be critical of the own. And that certain rooms are not for personal
warfare, but for the exchange of ideas
and advancing together.
In the end we could vote for the best FAQ.
Then each one can dock under dozens of names, and ask lots of friends
to alter the vote as well.
...What if some decide that non or many FAQs would be considerably
more broadband and just one too narrow-band to download?
What if with exceptions there are usually the same folks tending to
write in here anyway (miss Cheng a bit, though), so that as long as
you are not too retarded
it should not be that tricky to get an idea who is into what when
downloading the headlines and considering what (not) to read?