Search results

:cool: good!

...any way that prevents it from falling off...

To you, the wannabee, Point 1 & 3: You admit to breaking the law Point 2: You admit to being unethical Point 4: As a member, you would be CHARGED with and OBLIGATED to being moral and respectful of the law Sorry, I would black cube you if you made it through the petition and investigation...

Yep. Not even a convincing con.

Part 2

For your consideration:

Ouroboros? My thoughts... One soul, infinite lifetimes...

I'll tolerate this. But don't expect me to accommodate it.

I understand what you have done here. I understand the spirit of what you have shared. Some points: 1) I can tolerate intolerance. I do not have to accommodate it. 2) I can still function tolerating intolerance. I may not continue to function if I accommodate it. 3) As long as intolerance...

I disagree. The paradox is due to limited understanding. Society CAN tolerate intolerance. Especially when the intolerance is Civil, Respectful and Considerate. Your assumption excludes the possibility that intolerance can be Civil, Respectful and Considerate. Civil, Respectful and...

We could, but it would be foundationally wrong. Toleration is NOT Acceptance. Toleration is NOT responding negatively toward what we perceive to be a source of irritation. It doesn't mean that we accept the influence of the perceived source. It only means our responses are not negative...

AMEN!

To introduce them to metaphor...

Typical Logical Fallacy... changing the meaning of a word to suit your argument... Metaphor and reality are two entirely different directions with entirely different foundations.

As humorous as your comment is meant to be, it is fallacious. Regularity is determined by the governing Grand Lodge.

They're also for unbalance wheels... just sayin'

And both constructive and destructive are double-edged.

Only when it's followed 9 months later by an unexplained pregnancy being sought by three wiseguy. Depends upon if there are any wiseguys ruling the jurisdiction, or not...

His name means "fore thought". When you realize what the myth is actually communicating, you see how "fore thought" was able to bring "the knowledge of the gods" to mankind.

Landmarks are NOT universally the same OR accepted within all jurisdictions. FWIW: http://bessel.org/landmark.htm