Child porn is evil and should not be tolerated.

Exactly! Then you get official disclosure like this. Standard time warp works the same as space warp does in relativity where distances are relative based on observer unless invariant measurement is defined. But extradimensional warping allows the wormhole effect of entanglement of times and places and basically can manipulate any events closer together with enough work.

I say I could do it with God's help. I'm sure Doug Gresham has other offers.

Also keyword polylogue, when you were a wee lad.

Learn to net, Joe. Newspapers.com shows snippet search.

Here and here you can see that the article, essentially quoted correctly otherwise, has a different last paragraph, which originally read:

"Who knows but what it may actually translate from one language to another?"

OP didn't happen, plus your trumpeted research skills are bunk. Presumably you're not here as an elite researcher.

I see that I misread the comment where you were offended about not getting your approval. It didn't refer to roundtables but to my promoting the two of us after you suggested yourself as mod, suggested we fix the lack of mods, and then suggested you would work for me. So I struck "of roundtables".

At that same link I quoted you saying: "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" "But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions."

So you promoted yourself as an approver, and as a modmaker.

However, by proposing "Rules" for roundtables, from that same link, you do seem to have promoted yourself as an approver of roundtables too.

Yes, it was today 11-22 in fact.

Someday I wanted to purchase the rights to The Dark Tower and finish it. If you have it digitally that would be a great next book, but if you don't then I don't want to overburden your typing. Most of its themes he preferred reworking into That Hideous Strength and I think from his description of the difficulties of plotting he just never got a resolution for Tower that tied everything together as neatly as he was accustomed.

But Tower is about teleportation and multiverse, not time travel.

I thought I'd read a joke about how Kennedy, Lewis, and Huxley walk into heaven, and Peter says ....

The freer I get to think for myself, the more I find Jesus to be the answer. Even were his story a lie, the men who wrote it were onto a better way of living than anyone else ever in history, a way that gets better the more I contemplate it. Other explanations pale in light of the inference to the best. Thank you for your consideration.

You are free to excommunicate me at your leisure; I see you banned me again for 1488 days for posting the content you requested and attempting to follow your rules.

Does the Bible says Jesus was a Jew and King of the Jews many times, or does it not (Matt. 2:2, 27:11, 29, 37, etc.; John 4:9, 22; Heb. 7:14, 8:8, Rev. 5:5)?

Did Jesus become seed of the woman by taking part of the flesh of the egg of his mother (Heb. 2:14), or did she not provide an egg to him making her only a surrogate mother?

Does Matt. 27:24-26 literally say the Jews killed him or does it say they claimed his blood and Pilate delivered him to crucifixion?

How could Jesus despise Jews if he made them his disciples, including the first Jewish pope, and told them at first to minister only to Jews (Matt. 3:5, Matt. 15:24, Acts 1:8)?

Did the Jewish crowd that repented of Jesus's death at the preaching of Peter in Acts 3-4, which Peter as pope said were responsible for Jesus's death, become some of the first 5,000 members of your Church?

Is there some authority you accept, like the Catechism of the Catholic Church or other magisterium, that would allow these questions to be decided objectively?

Yes, Jews want to censor the NT because it charges some Jews with complicity in Jesus's death, and that one verse in Thessalonians says it directly. Paul didn't despise Jews either, he was one of them and learned the completion and goal of Judaism.

You are free not to answer, but I recommend you not put a stumbling block before a brother who is asking you to answer honest questions about the Bible.

I'm a Swamp Ranger of SwampRangers.com, we range the swamp and neutralize swamp creatures. As such I work as volunteer for Scott Lively of First Century Bible Church.

Ralph Lyman looks like a pretty good artist! u/Graphenium, did you notice that the SPHINX is included even though it's not a sign or decan? It's there because all true sphinges are not lions but are lion-human hybrids. The famous riddling sphinx is a woman-lion hybrid. That sphinx comes from the abutment of Virgo and Leo! "The idea that the Sphinx’s leonine form was meant to gaze at the constellation Leo on the spring equinox ... had already been worked out in the early 1900s, based on still older astrological claims going back to the Middle Ages that saw the Sphinx as a combination of woman and lion, thus symbolizing Virgo and Leo." This idea goes back to the Greco-Roman era, combining Pliny and others. (The whole blog entry is worthwhile. It also mentions Esneh (Esna), and suggests that it's possible the builders wanted the sphinx to see Leo at the summer solstice instead of vernal equinox, which could give it the traditional dating of 2500 BC; and on the same line it gives an 1822 anon's idea that Seth built the Sphinx in 730 AM, about 3263 BC by my count but earlier by the LXX count. He thinks the earlier dating claim was modified from the later and was influenced by the Dendera Zodiac beginning with Leo.)

The Great Sphinx never had a lion's face that was repurposed; it was a human face from the start (and even repurposing that into another human is sketch). So it wasn't ever a lion but always had a dual nature. The sphinx's pose may be connected to the carved palette of Pharaoh Narmer (who may have been Menes I), a leader of the First Dynasty. It depicts a legless sphinx in a marsh overseen by Horus, a Hierakonopolis version of the Father God. So in Egypt, the original Horus is in charge of polymorphs (there are also cow-women depicted, and Narmer himself wears a bull's tail, making him the world's first furry, and yes I posted it to FurryArt). Sagittarius is a centaur (like Centaurus), and Capricornus is a mer-goat or fish-goat (Hydra is also a hybrid sea creature, probably a serpent-griffin). Another polymorph is visible in Esna next to Virgo, but I don't know who he is.

The Temple of Esna, by Ptolemy III in the 200s BC, is noted for having a complete zodiac, starting with Virgo and ending with Leo. (Obviously the annual order of signs proceeds clockwise but the precession signs proceed counterclockwise.) This is an echo of the likelihood that the zodiac is a complete narrative from Virgo to Leo such that the sphinx became a symbol of the whole narrative.

Conclusion: The zodiac serves as the oldest source of polymorphs such as those seen in Ezekiel 1, and directly informs the first sphinges of Egypt, which have predynastic origin. In time the female sphinx became a summary of the entire zodiac. The Esna Temple suggests that the narrative begins with a virgin seen in heaven and ends with a lion seen in heaven. I know a narrative like that.

New conspiracy theory: Shortly after 1400 BC, Thutmose IV found the Great Sphinx buried in sand up to its shoulders and began excavation. That means Planet of the Apes was really telling us that the (female) Statue of Liberty is the same being as the Sphinx! We were just comparing her to a painting of (androgyne) lucifer, so that boosts both connections.

Copy 4 of 4

The sequence was:

1. You suggest we "make a pool" for discussion, proposing "Rules" (like a mod) such as "Expose shills" (meta), adding "I don't review this forum daily" (which you later castigate others about not doing enough of) and "If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic" (which u/Graphenium does and you castigate him for).

2. I support your idea by being the only one to propose a topic, and I note the mod absence before anyone this cycle, "maybe we need a new mod".

3. You reply "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" and "I am an absolute idiot in moderation" (proposing the idea of you as mod before I propose me as mod) and "I can do the work - no problem for me, actually I like doing a lot of work... But if you can explain your words to a person, who was never a moderator" (though you are a Scored mod, and later say you have multiple communities but you only have one).

4. I continue deferring who the mod could be and explain how mods use stickies as you request.

5. You compliment me (is this simping?), "It's great that you're humble, but we need ideas! Honestly! Any idea is good", you notice "it's the only idea that is discussed" (the only answer to your question): then you give the big spitball (trial balloon), "this place has none active moderators... One solutions could be for you to create your own page and moderate it as well as you can, another would be to call for a community that would visit a forum and place certain people, that you trust, as moderators... If you want to create your own community, I will help with everything that I have. But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions. If you have an idea for a new commity, you have my full support! Many will benefit from such a place!" There you even ask me to select plural moderators and you offer to work for me but you don't apply it to modding this community for some reason, even though you discuss the idea of yourself modding this community.

6. I finally take your bait, "Well .... there are many ways to go with this .... This is also a situation where I'd consider moderating if the community would have me, because there isn't much burden there and I wouldn't promise anything other than objectivity .... I'll write something brief at Meta to see where it goes." Note that it's completely dependent on community approval, not appointment. At Meta I write among other things "Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help".

7. You seal the deal: "Anyone here up to a vote? We need a moderator and u/SwampRangers offers his help. We have been without posts that unite our thinking for very long... We need a moderator urgently! Please cast your vote! It's ok if it is for yourself even .... You say you made 3 but you give up on your ego and promote a 4th one - not done by you... Respect for that! Honestly! I will visit them all, we need to expand! Hope others visit them too! .... You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even." You were speaking of simping?

So I promoted the two of us after you hypothesized yourself as mod first and after you proposed we two fix the lack of moderation.

Everything that came after that is all downhill from that deal. There had already been rival names suggested: I said in my reply to your vote "I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod". A primary burr in your saddle was that I defended Will as harmless and wouldn't commit to ban him without giving him warnings. You didn't like my view on math, or forum-sliding, or Robert's Rules. Once you realized I wouldn't do everything you wanted, pfft. And bang bang.

Now you're saying you exposed some scheme of mine, which reads at first like projection. I see no crime whatsoever in the idea occurring to me that I might want to mod and my then discussing the subject neutrally, and, after you describe the hypothetical of you modding, my offering my services. But God will judge all schemes. What you approved of was us fixing the lack of moderation generically.

Copy 3 of ?

The sequence was:

1. You suggest we "make a pool" for discussion, proposing "Rules" (like a mod) such as "Expose shills" (meta), adding "I don't review this forum daily" (which you later castigate others about not doing enough of) and "If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic" (which u/Graphenium does and you castigate him for).

2. I support your idea by being the only one to propose a topic, and I note the mod absence before anyone this cycle, "maybe we need a new mod".

3. You reply "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" and "I am an absolute idiot in moderation" (proposing the idea of you as mod before I propose me as mod) and "I can do the work - no problem for me, actually I like doing a lot of work... But if you can explain your words to a person, who was never a moderator" (though you are a Scored mod, and later say you have multiple communities but you only have one).

4. I continue deferring who the mod could be and explain how mods use stickies as you request.

5. You compliment me (is this simping?), "It's great that you're humble, but we need ideas! Honestly! Any idea is good", you notice "it's the only idea that is discussed" (the only answer to your question): then you give the big spitball (trial balloon), "this place has none active moderators... One solutions could be for you to create your own page and moderate it as well as you can, another would be to call for a community that would visit a forum and place certain people, that you trust, as moderators... If you want to create your own community, I will help with everything that I have. But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions. If you have an idea for a new commity, you have my full support! Many will benefit from such a place!" There you even ask me to select plural moderators and you offer to work for me but you don't apply it to modding this community for some reason, even though you discuss the idea of yourself modding this community.

6. I finally take your bait, "Well .... there are many ways to go with this .... This is also a situation where I'd consider moderating if the community would have me, because there isn't much burden there and I wouldn't promise anything other than objectivity .... I'll write something brief at Meta to see where it goes." Note that it's completely dependent on community approval, not appointment. At Meta I write among other things "Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help".

7. You seal the deal: "Anyone here up to a vote? We need a moderator and u/SwampRangers offers his help. We have been without posts that unite our thinking for very long... We need a moderator urgently! Please cast your vote! It's ok if it is for yourself even .... You say you made 3 but you give up on your ego and promote a 4th one - not done by you... Respect for that! Honestly! I will visit them all, we need to expand! Hope others visit them too! .... You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even." You were speaking of simping?

So I promoted the two of us after you hypothesized yourself as mod first and after you proposed we two fix the lack of moderation.

Everything that came after that is all downhill from that deal. There had already been rival names suggested: I said in my reply to your vote "I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod". A primary burr in your saddle was that I defended Will as harmless and wouldn't commit to ban him without giving him warnings. You didn't like my view on math, or forum-sliding, or Robert's Rules. Once you realized I wouldn't do everything you wanted, pfft. And bang bang.

Now you're saying you exposed some scheme of mine, which reads at first like projection. I see no crime whatsoever in the idea occurring to me that I might want to mod and my then discussing the subject neutrally, and, after you describe the hypothetical of you modding, my offering my services. But God will judge all schemes. What you approved of was us fixing the lack of moderation generically.

Copy 2 of ?

The sequence was:

1. You suggest we "make a pool" for discussion, proposing "Rules" (like a mod) such as "Expose shills" (meta), adding "I don't review this forum daily" (which you later castigate others about not doing enough of) and "If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic" (which u/Graphenium does and you castigate him for).

2. I support your idea by being the only one to propose a topic, and I note the mod absence before anyone this cycle, "maybe we need a new mod".

3. You reply "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" and "I am an absolute idiot in moderation" (proposing the idea of you as mod before I propose me as mod) and "I can do the work - no problem for me, actually I like doing a lot of work... But if you can explain your words to a person, who was never a moderator" (though you are a Scored mod, and later say you have multiple communities but you only have one).

4. I continue deferring who the mod could be and explain how mods use stickies as you request.

5. You compliment me (is this simping?), "It's great that you're humble, but we need ideas! Honestly! Any idea is good", you notice "it's the only idea that is discussed" (the only answer to your question): then you give the big spitball (trial balloon), "this place has none active moderators... One solutions could be for you to create your own page and moderate it as well as you can, another would be to call for a community that would visit a forum and place certain people, that you trust, as moderators... If you want to create your own community, I will help with everything that I have. But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions. If you have an idea for a new commity, you have my full support! Many will benefit from such a place!" There you even ask me to select plural moderators and you offer to work for me but you don't apply it to modding this community for some reason, even though you discuss the idea of yourself modding this community.

6. I finally take your bait, "Well .... there are many ways to go with this .... This is also a situation where I'd consider moderating if the community would have me, because there isn't much burden there and I wouldn't promise anything other than objectivity .... I'll write something brief at Meta to see where it goes." Note that it's completely dependent on community approval, not appointment. At Meta I write among other things "Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help".

7. You seal the deal: "Anyone here up to a vote? We need a moderator and u/SwampRangers offers his help. We have been without posts that unite our thinking for very long... We need a moderator urgently! Please cast your vote! It's ok if it is for yourself even .... You say you made 3 but you give up on your ego and promote a 4th one - not done by you... Respect for that! Honestly! I will visit them all, we need to expand! Hope others visit them too! .... You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even." You were speaking of simping?

So I promoted the two of us after you hypothesized yourself as mod first and after you proposed we two fix the lack of moderation.

Everything that came after that is all downhill from that deal. There had already been rival names suggested: I said in my reply to your vote "I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod". A primary burr in your saddle was that I defended Will as harmless and wouldn't commit to ban him without giving him warnings. You didn't like my view on math, or forum-sliding, or Robert's Rules. Once you realized I wouldn't do everything you wanted, pfft. And bang bang.

Now you're saying you exposed some scheme of mine, which reads at first like projection. I see no crime whatsoever in the idea occurring to me that I might want to mod and my then discussing the subject neutrally, and, after you describe the hypothetical of you modding, my offering my services. But God will judge all schemes. What you approved of was us fixing the lack of moderation generically.

Copy 1 of ?

I see that I misapplied your comment about me to u/Graphenium because you're generating so many pings. Not only that but it's called "derailing" when you fly off on a tangent in a completely different thread, especially if you use the same comment multiple times.

The sequence was:

1. You suggest we "make a pool" for discussion, proposing "Rules" (like a mod) such as "Expose shills" (meta), adding "I don't review this forum daily" (which you later castigate others about not doing enough of) and "If you think that I shouldn't start this - make a DISCUSSION post about your best conspiracy topic" (which u/Graphenium does and you castigate him for).

2. I support your idea by being the only one to propose a topic, and I note the mod absence before anyone this cycle, "maybe we need a new mod".

3. You reply "I agree - no moderation in quite some time... Seems like an echo chamber in here... And if we don't fix it, who will?" and "I am an absolute idiot in moderation" (proposing the idea of you as mod before I propose me as mod) and "I can do the work - no problem for me, actually I like doing a lot of work... But if you can explain your words to a person, who was never a moderator" (though you are a Scored mod, and later say you have multiple communities but you only have one).

4. I continue deferring who the mod could be and explain how mods use stickies as you request.

5. You compliment me (is this simping?), "It's great that you're humble, but we need ideas! Honestly! Any idea is good", you notice "it's the only idea that is discussed" (the only answer to your question): then you give the big spitball (trial balloon), "this place has none active moderators... One solutions could be for you to create your own page and moderate it as well as you can, another would be to call for a community that would visit a forum and place certain people, that you trust, as moderators... If you want to create your own community, I will help with everything that I have. But I suck as a moderator. I can flag things for you, if you want, but I wouldn't want to make the final decisions. If you have an idea for a new commity, you have my full support! Many will benefit from such a place!" There you even ask me to select plural moderators and you offer to work for me but you don't apply it to modding this community for some reason, even though you discuss the idea of yourself modding this community.

6. I finally take your bait, "Well .... there are many ways to go with this .... This is also a situation where I'd consider moderating if the community would have me, because there isn't much burden there and I wouldn't promise anything other than objectivity .... I'll write something brief at Meta to see where it goes." Note that it's completely dependent on community approval, not appointment. At Meta I write among other things "Obviously, if u/Paleo or someone feels comfortable adding u/Neo1 and myself to the mod list as caretakers to see if anyone more ready-willing-able comes along, that seems like it would help".

7. You seal the deal: "Anyone here up to a vote? We need a moderator and u/SwampRangers offers his help. We have been without posts that unite our thinking for very long... We need a moderator urgently! Please cast your vote! It's ok if it is for yourself even .... You say you made 3 but you give up on your ego and promote a 4th one - not done by you... Respect for that! Honestly! I will visit them all, we need to expand! Hope others visit them too! .... You see collaboration and you work for it. I cast my vote for you as moderator of c/Conspiracies! To me, you have proven that you left your ego behind and you want to accomplish the goal of the community. That does come with challenges from shills that would want to break you, but I know you're better than me, so I cast my vote firmly towards a person that is able to defend his position and leave his ego - you! You didn't have to prove your worth, but you did it anyway, for the best of this community. I really hope you can help us forward! I hope we can vote for a moderator from this point on, so we can finalize it in a week. Anyone can cast their own votes. It's fine, if you vote for yourself even." You were speaking of simping?

So I promoted the two of us after you hypothesized yourself as mod first and after you proposed we two fix the lack of moderation.

Everything that came after that is all downhill from that deal. There had already been rival names suggested: I said in my reply to your vote "I'm losing track of how many people have suggested themselves for mod". A primary burr in your saddle was that I defended Will as harmless and wouldn't commit to ban him without giving him warnings. You didn't like my view on math, or forum-sliding, or Robert's Rules. Once you realized I wouldn't do everything you wanted, pfft. And bang bang.

Now you're saying you exposed some scheme of mine, which reads at first like projection. I see no crime whatsoever in the idea occurring to me that I might want to mod and my then discussing the subject neutrally, and, after you describe the hypothetical of you modding, my offering my services. But God will judge all schemes.

Further, by my saying I would go to Meta and your not saying anything about it, the maxim of the law is that silence betokens consent. So you approved. Struck, because you were offline; so what you approved of was us fixing the lack of moderation generically.

It's called editing when you cherry-pick the Conspiracies-only view after you've been told and when you crop the screen to hide that fact.

Look, you're acting so idiotic tonight that any awake mod would give you a timeout by now. It's as if you're getting paid by the reply so you generate falsehoods to get more replies. You need to take a sabbath. Consider whether your demonstrating how much you need to be right is harming the name of Christ that we all agree on. You're even lapping u/Graphenium on how dogged you can be to proving an inconsequential, tangential, self-referential point.

^ the modmaker

^ the modmaker

What's with the accent mark "À" in your comment dude? What kind of AI are you using to generate that?

Have seen this before but a source is appropriate anyway given such high correlation.

Thanks!

No, this is u/Graphenium's field of expertise and JG just happened upon it because he's expanding his reach. Very interested to see where this conspiracy goes ....

Link or it didn't happen.

Link or it didn't happen?

And you know, Joe, if you continue working on the things I suggest, because I see that you do quietly recognize them on occasion, I could see myself defending 5-10 varied neutral posts on interesting subjects daily at current forum levels. Funny that I'd be more inclined to promote you more than I would the mod of c/TrueChristianity, but when one promises and does nothing, and another doesn't promise but does something, you know the story. But don't get cocky as if my opinion won't worsen if your behavior does.