Discussion:
David Davis Resigns
Add Reply
Yellow
2018-07-09 00:08:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
What choice did he have?

BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
Phi
2018-07-09 07:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:***@News.Individual.NET...
> What choice did he have?
>
> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>

I think Gove is more dynamic.
MM
2018-07-09 07:51:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:46:45 -0000, "Phi" <***@inbox.com> wrote:

>
>"Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:***@News.Individual.NET...
>> What choice did he have?
>>
>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>
>
>I think Gove is more dynamic.

At least he's not a smirker like Davis.

MM
Ian Jackson
2018-07-09 08:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@4ax.com>, MM
<***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:46:45 -0000, "Phi" <***@inbox.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:***@News.Individual.NET...
>>> What choice did he have?
>>>
>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>>
>>
>>I think Gove is more dynamic.
>
>At least he's not a smirker like Davis.
>
Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
--
Ian
pamela
2018-07-09 16:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09:14 9 Jul 2018, Ian Jackson wrote:

> In message <***@4ax.com>, MM
> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:46:45 -0000, "Phi" <***@inbox.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:***@News.Individual.NET...
>>>> What choice did he have?
>>>>
>>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I think Gove is more dynamic.
>>
>>At least he's not a smirker like Davis.
>>
> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.

David Davis famously said:

"What's the requirement of my job? I don't have to be very clever.
I don't have to know that much. I do just have to be calm,"

No wonder the EU ran rings around him.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-07-10 16:22:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <***@4ax.com>, MM
> <***@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 07:46:45 -0000, "Phi" <***@inbox.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Yellow" <***@none.com.invalid> wrote in message
> >>news:***@News.Individual.NET...
> >>> What choice did he have?
> >>>
> >>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I think Gove is more dynamic.
> >
> >At least he's not a smirker like Davis.
> >
> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
> --
> Ian

The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
Norman Wells
2018-07-10 16:38:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>
> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].

So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
libellous, insinuation?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-07-10 16:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> >> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
> >
> > The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>
> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
> libellous, insinuation?

Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
Norman Wells
2018-07-10 17:12:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/07/2018 17:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>
>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>
>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>> libellous, insinuation?
>
> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".

Yup, and just the second article it brings up says:

"UK wants ‘mutually beneficial’ Brexit deal, says David Davis"

That's not 'wanting the negotiations to fail', is it?

So, tell us just what evidence you have for that scurrilous, potentially
libellous, insinuation.

Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact confirms
your dishonesty.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-07-11 11:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 10/07/2018 17:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
> >>>
> >>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
> >>
> >> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
> >> libellous, insinuation?
> >
> > Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>
> Yup, and just the second article it brings up says:
>
> "UK wants ‘mutually beneficial’ Brexit deal, says David Davis"
>
> That's not 'wanting the negotiations to fail', is it?
>
> So, tell us just what evidence you have for that scurrilous, potentially
> libellous, insinuation.
>
> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact confirms
> your dishonesty.

Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away than do a deal.

There is a massive amount showing his dimissive attitude to the negotiations he was supposed to be leading - occasional attendance, stating the results were not binding, arriving unbriefed etc. etc.

IMO my assertion IS true, even if DD never foolish enough to admit it publicly and explicitly.

In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.
Norman Wells
2018-07-11 11:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/07/2018 12:00, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 17:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>>>
>>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>>> libellous, insinuation?
>>>
>>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>>
>> Yup, and just the second article it brings up says:
>>
>> "UK wants ‘mutually beneficial’ Brexit deal, says David Davis"
>>
>> That's not 'wanting the negotiations to fail', is it?
>>
>> So, tell us just what evidence you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>> libellous, insinuation.
>>
>> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact confirms
>> your dishonesty.
>
> Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away than do a deal.

Strange you can't point to anything then despite being asked.

> There is a massive amount showing his dimissive attitude to the negotiations he was supposed to be leading - occasional attendance, stating the results were not binding, arriving unbriefed etc. etc.
>
> IMO my assertion IS true, even if DD never foolish enough to admit it publicly and explicitly.

So, it's just your opinion and your assertion. Why didn't you say so
honestly rather than stating it as fact?

> In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.

No it isn't. It's scurrilous and potentially libellous. Public
interest is not a defence to that. Truth would be, but you don't seem
to have any backing for that.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-07-11 11:56:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:16:33 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 11/07/2018 12:00, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2018 17:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
> >>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
> >>>>
> >>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
> >>>> libellous, insinuation?
> >>>
> >>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
> >>
> >> Yup, and just the second article it brings up says:
> >>
> >> "UK wants ‘mutually beneficial’ Brexit deal, says David Davis"
> >>
> >> That's not 'wanting the negotiations to fail', is it?
> >>
> >> So, tell us just what evidence you have for that scurrilous, potentially
> >> libellous, insinuation.
> >>
> >> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact confirms
> >> your dishonesty.
> >
> > Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away than do a deal.
>
> Strange you can't point to anything then despite being asked.

Do your own googling Norman, I am fed up providing links for your trolled spurious denials of very well known and established facts.

>
> > There is a massive amount showing his dimissive attitude to the negotiations he was supposed to be leading - occasional attendance, stating the results were not binding, arriving unbriefed etc. etc.

and this in in a previous thread I started.

> >
> > IMO my assertion IS true, even if DD never foolish enough to admit it publicly and explicitly.
>
> So, it's just your opinion and your assertion. Why didn't you say so
> honestly rather than stating it as fact?
>
> > In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.
>
> No it isn't. It's scurrilous and potentially libellous. Public
> interest is not a defence to that.

Really Norman do a bit of checking first; there are essentially three defences to a defamation action: -

1. Truth. Given the weight of evidence of DD's position regards defaulting back to WTO, that any jury would find on the balance of probabilities it was true.

2. Fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.

This is a defence, and entirely appropriate here.

3. It wouldn't damage him anyway.

Not applicable, but would apply if for instance one described Peter Sutcliffe as a rapist, even though he only murdered his victims without raping them.


> Truth would be, but you don't seem to have any backing for that.

Do you keep a bucket of sand by your keyboard to put your head in while you are typing?

BTW why do you think DD was smirking?
pamela
2018-07-11 16:31:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12:56 11 Jul 2018, R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:16:33 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 12:00, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> >> On 10/07/2018 17:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> >>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> >>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> >>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he
>> >>>>> was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted
>> >>>>> the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely
>> >>>>> outside the EU [and much poorer].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous,
>> >>>> potentially libellous, insinuation?
>> >>>
>> >>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>> >>
>> >> Yup, and just the second article it brings up says:
>> >>
>> >> "UK wants ‘mutually beneficial’ Brexit deal, says David
>> >> Davis"
>> >>
>> >> That's not 'wanting the negotiations to fail', is it?
>> >>
>> >> So, tell us just what evidence you have for that scurrilous,
>> >> potentially libellous, insinuation.
>> >>
>> >> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact
>> >> confirms your dishonesty.
>> >
>> > Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away
>> > than do a deal.
>>
>> Strange you can't point to anything then despite being asked.
>
> Do your own googling Norman, I am fed up providing links for your
> trolled spurious denials of very well known and established facts.

Poor Norman. His usual troll of "give me an explanation in your own
words so I can spin out a lengthy disagreement" isn't working.


>> > There is a massive amount showing his dimissive attitude to the
>> > negotiations he was supposed to be leading - occasional
>> > attendance, stating the results were not binding, arriving
>> > unbriefed etc. etc. and this in in a previous thread I started.
>> >
>> > IMO my assertion IS true, even if DD never foolish enough to
>> > admit it publicly and explicitly.
>>
>> So, it's just your opinion and your assertion. Why didn't you
>> say so honestly rather than stating it as fact?
>>
>> > In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair
>> > and reason able comment in the public interest.
>>
>> No it isn't. It's scurrilous and potentially libellous. Public
>> interest is not a defence to that.
>
> Really Norman do a bit of checking first; there are essentially
> three defences to a defamation action: -

When Norman is trolling, he doesn't have any need for facts.

> 1. Truth. Given the weight of evidence of DD's position regards
> defaulting back to WTO, that any jury would find on the balance of
> probabilities it was true.
>
> 2. Fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.
> This is a defence, and entirely appropriate here.
>
> 3. It wouldn't damage him anyway.
> Not applicable, but would apply if for instance one described
> Peter Sutcliffe as a rapist, even though he only murdered his
> victims without raping them.
>
>> Truth would be, but you don't seem to have any backing for that.
>
> Do you keep a bucket of sand by your keyboard to put your head in
> while you are typing?

Being "clue-proof" and blind to reality is a troll technique.
MM
2018-07-12 09:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:31:12 +0100, pamela <***@gmail.com> wrote:

>Poor Norman. His usual troll of "give me an explanation in your own
>words so I can spin out a lengthy disagreement" isn't working.

He must be thoroughly pissed off that I no longer respond to his
nonsense. The amount of time I gain every day is significant. In the
end he will be bereft of any responders.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-07-12 11:37:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/07/2018 10:11, MM wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:31:12 +0100, pamela <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Poor Norman. His usual troll of "give me an explanation in your own
>> words so I can spin out a lengthy disagreement" isn't working.
>
> He must be thoroughly pissed off that I no longer respond to his
> nonsense. The amount of time I gain every day is significant. In the
> end he will be bereft of any responders.

No, your elective deafness is just a silly affliction. It doesn't stop
me from commenting on your nonsense, and of course I will; it just stops
you coming back to counter anything I say with your irrefutable logic.

There will always be those who have come to this discussion group who
are here for sensible discussion, even if that doesn't include you.
It's pretty fundamental.
pamela
2018-07-12 13:56:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10:11 12 Jul 2018, MM wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:31:12 +0100, pamela <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Poor Norman. His usual troll of "give me an explanation in your own
>>words so I can spin out a lengthy disagreement" isn't working.
>
> He must be thoroughly pissed off that I no longer respond to his
> nonsense. The amount of time I gain every day is significant. In the
> end he will be bereft of any responders.
>
> MM

Now watch what Norman does .... he'll now try to get your to answer to
his reply to that statement.

He never gives up because once a troll always a troll.
Norman Wells
2018-07-11 16:58:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 11/07/2018 12:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:16:33 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 11/07/2018 12:00, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 17:54, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>>>>> libellous, insinuation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>>>>
>>>> Yup, and just the second article it brings up says:
>>>>
>>>> "UK wants ‘mutually beneficial’ Brexit deal, says David Davis"
>>>>
>>>> That's not 'wanting the negotiations to fail', is it?
>>>>
>>>> So, tell us just what evidence you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>>> libellous, insinuation.
>>>>
>>>> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact confirms
>>>> your dishonesty.
>>>
>>> Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away than do a deal.
>>
>> Strange you can't point to anything then despite being asked.
>
> Do your own googling Norman, I am fed up providing links for your trolled spurious denials of very well known and established facts.

Oh, I see, it's a truth universally acknowledged, and therefore requires
neither evidence nor proof.

In view of the fact that your statement is a scurrilous, quite likely
libellous, insinuation, I think you need to do a bit better than that.

You have no basis for your comment, have you?

>>> There is a massive amount showing his dimissive attitude to the negotiations he was supposed to be leading - occasional attendance, stating the results were not binding, arriving unbriefed etc. etc.
>
> and this in in a previous thread I started.
>
>>>
>>> IMO my assertion IS true, even if DD never foolish enough to admit it publicly and explicitly.
>>
>> So, it's just your opinion and your assertion. Why didn't you say so
>> honestly rather than stating it as fact?
>>
>>> In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.
>>
>> No it isn't. It's scurrilous and potentially libellous. Public
>> interest is not a defence to that.
>
> Really Norman do a bit of checking first; there are essentially three defences to a defamation action: -
>
> 1. Truth. Given the weight of evidence of DD's position regards defaulting back to WTO, that any jury would find on the balance of probabilities it was true.

The onus of proof would be upon you, no-one else, and generally the
information that causes the defamation will be taken as untrue unless
you can establish otherwise. You said "privately he wanted the
negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely outside the EU".

Where is your evidence?

> 2. Fair and reasonable comment in the public interest.
> This is a defence, and entirely appropriate here.

It doesn't apply here. There is no 'public interest' as it's been
defined over the centuries by the courts in what you have said.

>> Truth would be, but you don't seem to have any backing for that.
>
> Do you keep a bucket of sand by your keyboard to put your head in while you are typing?
>
> BTW why do you think DD was smirking?

When? Where?

People smirk all the time. Some look as if they're smirking when
they're not. I don't think you can divine anything from your judgement
of a person's facial expression. I don't think a court could either.
pamela
2018-07-12 12:14:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17:58 11 Jul 2018, Norman Wells wrote:

> On 11/07/2018 12:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:16:33 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 11/07/2018 12:00, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> .....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact
>>>>> confirms your dishonesty.
>>>>
>>>> Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away
>>>> than do a deal.
>>>
>>> Strange you can't point to anything then despite being asked.
>>
>> Do your own googling Norman, I am fed up providing links for your
>> trolled spurious denials of very well known and established
>> facts.
>
> Oh, I see, it's a truth universally acknowledged, and therefore
> requires neither evidence nor proof.
>
> In view of the fact that your statement is a scurrilous, quite
> likely libellous, insinuation, I think you need to do a bit better
> than that. You have no basis for your comment, have you?

Nice attempt, Norman, to revitalise your trolling but Mark can see
through you all too easily. You need to find another, er, mark.


>>>> In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair
>>>> and reasonable comment in the public interest.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. It's scurrilous and potentially libellous. Public
>>> interest is not a defence to that.
>>
>> Really Norman do a bit of checking first; there are essentially
>> three defences to a defamation action: -
>>
>> 1. Truth. Given the weight of evidence of DD's position regards
>> defaulting back to WTO, that any jury would find on the balance
>> of probabilities it was true.
>
> The onus of proof would be upon you, no-one else, and generally
> the information that causes the defamation will be taken as untrue
> unless you can establish otherwise. You said "privately he wanted
> the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely
> outside the EU". Where is your evidence?

Try Google, Norman. Mark doesn't want to be trolled into a long
shaggy dog story of a discussion in which your primary purpose is to
spin it out for as long as possible by asking for evidence you can
find for yourself.
Norman Wells
2018-07-12 12:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/07/2018 13:14, pamela wrote:
> On 17:58 11 Jul 2018, Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> On 11/07/2018 12:56, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 12:16:33 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 11/07/2018 12:00, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 18:12:28 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Give a proper link please, not a Google search that in fact
>>>>>> confirms your dishonesty.
>>>>>
>>>>> Look Norman there is plenty that says DD would rather walk away
>>>>> than do a deal.
>>>>
>>>> Strange you can't point to anything then despite being asked.
>>>
>>> Do your own googling Norman, I am fed up providing links for your
>>> trolled spurious denials of very well known and established
>>> facts.
>>
>> Oh, I see, it's a truth universally acknowledged, and therefore
>> requires neither evidence nor proof.
>>
>> In view of the fact that your statement is a scurrilous, quite
>> likely libellous, insinuation, I think you need to do a bit better
>> than that. You have no basis for your comment, have you?
>
> Nice attempt, Norman, to revitalise your trolling but Mark can see
> through you all too easily. You need to find another, er, mark.
>
>
>>>>> In any event, given his deeds and words it is certainly fair
>>>>> and reasonable comment in the public interest.
>>>>
>>>> No it isn't. It's scurrilous and potentially libellous. Public
>>>> interest is not a defence to that.
>>>
>>> Really Norman do a bit of checking first; there are essentially
>>> three defences to a defamation action: -
>>>
>>> 1. Truth. Given the weight of evidence of DD's position regards
>>> defaulting back to WTO, that any jury would find on the balance
>>> of probabilities it was true.
>>
>> The onus of proof would be upon you, no-one else, and generally
>> the information that causes the defamation will be taken as untrue
>> unless you can establish otherwise. You said "privately he wanted
>> the negotiations to fail so they the UK would be completely
>> outside the EU". Where is your evidence?
>
> Try Google, Norman. Mark doesn't want to be trolled into a long
> shaggy dog story of a discussion in which your primary purpose is to
> spin it out for as long as possible by asking for evidence you can
> find for yourself.

Why do you think you have to speak for him? Is he incapable? Or do you
feel he needs to be taken under your protective wing for some other reason?

What next? Cuddles and a comfort blanket?
dolf
2018-07-10 19:42:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
R. Mark Clayton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>
>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>
>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking
>>> the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail
>>> so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>
>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>> libellous, insinuation?
>
> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>

Due your apparent ‘who’ / ‘wto’ we are left wondering if that was an error
of cohesion by superficiality within the same spacial quadrant (ie. you are
incapable of any deep thought) due to yourself being an incoherent bumbler
whom are reliant upon accidental consequence (ie. a trait inherited from
your father: a premature evacuator / your mother having a lack of any
viable life defences: no spermicide handy) and the congenital result is the
defective society must then content with as its misfortune.

I think therefore I am is not a wholesome characteristic which can describe
you—what’s the soccer score currently and can the result similarly be
determined by cosmic elasticity (formation in mind before instantiation as
reality) as consciousness which in continuum occurs or is it a shocking
reality of combatant / defeatist dynamics in a constant tussle and never a
smooth transition to undeniable reality.

WTF@{
@1: Sup: 35 (#35); Ego: 30 (#30),
Male: #35; Feme: #30
}


Nous: #30
Time:
Date: 2018.9.12
Torah: [#30, #5, #8]@{
@1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
@2: Sup: 35 (#65); Ego: 5 (#35),
@3: Sup: 43 (#108); Ego: 8 (#43),
Male: #108; Feme: #43
} // #43

Dao: Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War
Tetra: #59 - Massing
I-Ching: H45 - Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together
(massing), Finished

Latin: Clemens ... {Clement God} Alt: Haladyah {Yonder is the Strife of
God} {

1. HELPS MAINTAIN PEACE & HARMONY BETWEEN COUNTRIES, PROTECTS CROWN HEADS &
MAKES SUBJECTS OBEDIENT TO SUPERIORS
2. FAITHFULNESS
3. RESPECT AND DEVOTION
4. Thopitus
}

Solomon {Peaceable; perfect; one who recompenses}

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#453 / #355} / HETEROS {#445 / #351} / TORAH {#485 /
#371}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:4,nous:30&idea:{m,286}&idea:{f,187}&idea:{m,453}&idea:{f,355}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 4, nous: 30 [Date: 2018.9.12, Time: (none),
Super: #453 / #25 - What's behind it all?, Imaging the Mysterious; I-Ching:
H62 - Minor Superiority, Small Excess, Small Exceeding, Preponderance of
the small, Small surpassing; Tetra: 10 - Defectiveness, Distortion, Ego:
#355 / #30 - Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War; I-Ching: H45 -
Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing),
Finished; Tetra: 59 - Massing]

Nous: #35
Time:
Date: 2018.9.22
Torah: [#5, #10, #10]@{
@1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5),
@2: Sup: 15 (#20); Ego: 10 (#15),
@3: Sup: 25 (#45); Ego: 10 (#25),
Male: #45; Feme: #25
} // #25

Dao: Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence
Tetra: #19 - Following
I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance

Latin: Magnificus {God master of the Universe} Alt: Ashalyah {Labor on
Errors in God} {

1. CONFOUNDS THE EVIL & GRANTS RELEASE FROM ENEMIES
2. GIVES VICTORY
3. IRON, WEAPONS, SOLDIERS & MILITARY GENIUS
4. Ptibiou
}

Solar Eclipse: 12 July 2010 (AEST)

#2000 CE

Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#356 / #288} / HETEROS {#407 / #273} / TORAH {#390 /
#224}

<http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:6,nous:35&idea:{m,204}&idea:{f,144}&idea:{m,356}&idea:{f,288}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>

***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 6, nous: 35 [Date: 2018.9.22, Time: (none),
Super: #356 / #63 - Origins in Reversal, Consider Beginnings; I-Ching: H51
- Quake, Thunderclap, Shake, The arousing (shock, thunder); Tetra: 62 -
Doubt, Ego: #288 / #35 - Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence;
I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance; Tetra: 19 - Following]



--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
dolf
2018-07-10 20:32:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
dolf <***@hotmail.com> @ 0542 hours on 11 July 2018 (AEST) wrote:
> R. Mark Clayton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>>
>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking
>>>> the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail
>>>> so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>>
>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>> libellous, insinuation?
>>
>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>>
>
> Due [to] your apparent ‘who’ / ‘wto’ we are left wondering if that was an error
> of cohesion by superficiality within the same spacial quadrant (ie. you are
> incapable of any deep thought) due to yourself being an incoherent bumbler
> whom are reliant upon accidental consequence (ie. a trait inherited from
> your father: a premature evacuator / your mother having a lack of any
> viable life defences: no spermicide handy) and the congenital result is the
> defective society must then content with as its misfortune.
>
> I think therefore I am is not a wholesome characteristic which can describe
> you—what’s the soccer score currently and can the result similarly be
> determined by cosmic elasticity (formation in mind before instantiation as
> reality) as consciousness which in continuum occurs or is it a shocking
> reality of combatant / defeatist dynamics in a constant tussle and never a
> smooth transition to undeniable reality.
>
> WTF@{
> @1: Sup: 35 (#35); Ego: 30 (#30),
> Male: #35; Feme: #30
> }
>
>
> Nous: #30
> Time:
> Date: 2018.9.12
> Torah: [#30, #5, #8]@{
> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
> @2: Sup: 35 (#65); Ego: 5 (#35),
> @3: Sup: 43 (#108); Ego: 8 (#43),
> Male: #108; Feme: #43
> } // #43
>
> Dao: Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War
> Tetra: #59 - Massing
> I-Ching: H45 - Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together
> (massing), Finished
>
> Latin: Clemens ... {Clement God} Alt: Haladyah {Yonder is the Strife of
> God} {
>
> 1. HELPS MAINTAIN PEACE & HARMONY BETWEEN COUNTRIES, PROTECTS CROWN HEADS &
> MAKES SUBJECTS OBEDIENT TO SUPERIORS
> 2. FAITHFULNESS
> 3. RESPECT AND DEVOTION
> 4. Thopitus
> }
>
> Solomon {Peaceable; perfect; one who recompenses}
>
> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#453 / #355} / HETEROS {#445 / #351} / TORAH {#485 /
> #371}
>
> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:4,nous:30&idea:{m,286}&idea:{f,187}&idea:{m,453}&idea:{f,355}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>
> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 4, nous: 30 [Date: 2018.9.12, Time: (none),
> Super: #453 / #25 - What's behind it all?, Imaging the Mysterious; I-Ching:
> H62 - Minor Superiority, Small Excess, Small Exceeding, Preponderance of
> the small, Small surpassing; Tetra: 10 - Defectiveness, Distortion, Ego:
> #355 / #30 - Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War; I-Ching: H45 -
> Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing),
> Finished; Tetra: 59 - Massing]
>
> Nous: #35
> Time:
> Date: 2018.9.22
> Torah: [#5, #10, #10]@{
> @1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5),
> @2: Sup: 15 (#20); Ego: 10 (#15),
> @3: Sup: 25 (#45); Ego: 10 (#25),
> Male: #45; Feme: #25
> } // #25
>
> Dao: Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence
> Tetra: #19 - Following
> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance
>
> Latin: Magnificus {God master of the Universe} Alt: Ashalyah {Labor on
> Errors in God} {
>
> 1. CONFOUNDS THE EVIL & GRANTS RELEASE FROM ENEMIES
> 2. GIVES VICTORY
> 3. IRON, WEAPONS, SOLDIERS & MILITARY GENIUS
> 4. Ptibiou
> }
>
> Solar Eclipse: 12 July 2010 (AEST)
>
> #2000 CE
>
> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#356 / #288} / HETEROS {#407 / #273} / TORAH {#390 /
> #224}
>
> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:6,nous:35&idea:{m,204}&idea:{f,144}&idea:{m,356}&idea:{f,288}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>
> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 6, nous: 35 [Date: 2018.9.22, Time: (none),
> Super: #356 / #63 - Origins in Reversal, Consider Beginnings; I-Ching: H51
> - Quake, Thunderclap, Shake, The arousing (shock, thunder); Tetra: 62 -
> Doubt, Ego: #288 / #35 - Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence;
> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance; Tetra: 19 - Following]
>
>
>

H5975@{
@1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
@2: Sup: 19 (#49); Ego: 70 (#100),
@3: Sup: 59 (#108); Ego: 40 (#140),
@4: Sup: 63 (#171); Ego: 4 (#144),
Male: #171; Feme: #144
} // #144

T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;

THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.

#VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
#TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
#POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
#TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
#CANON: #156

#144 as [ #30, #70, #40, #4] = `amad (H5975): {#8 as #144 % #41 = #21} 1)
to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to stand, take
one's stand, be in a standing attitude, stand forth, take a stand, present
oneself, attend upon, be or become servant of; 1a2) to stand still, stop
(moving or doing), cease; 1a3) to tarry, delay, remain, continue, abide,
endure, persist, be steadfast; 1a4) to make a stand, hold one's ground;
1a5) to stand upright, remain standing, stand up, rise, be erect, be
upright; 1a6) to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear,
rise up or against; 1a7) to stand with, take one's stand, be appointed,
grow flat, grow insipid; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to station, set; 1b2) to cause
to stand firm, maintain; 1b3) to cause to stand up, cause to set up, erect;
1b4) to present (one) before (king); 1b5) to appoint, ordain, establish;
1c) (Hophal) to be presented, be caused to stand, be stood before

--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
dolf
2018-07-10 21:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
LLORIS'S SAVE FOR FRANCE MADE FOR AMAZING PHOTO

CHARLES CURTIS | USA TODAY 5:49 a.m. GMT+10 July 11, 2018

Belgium nearly put one past Hugo Lloris in the 21st minute of the World Cup
semifinal against France.

<https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2018/07/10/hugo-lloriss-diving-save-for-france-made-for-the-most-beautiful-world-cup-photo/111184528/>

> T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
>
> UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
> I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
> Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;
>
> THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
> appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.
>
> #VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
> #TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
> #POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
> #TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
> #CANON: #156

dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> dolf <***@hotmail.com> @ 0542 hours on 11 July 2018 (AEST) wrote:
>> R. Mark Clayton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>>>
>>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking
>>>>> the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail
>>>>> so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>>>
>>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>>> libellous, insinuation?
>>>
>>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>>>
>>
>> Due [to] your apparent ‘who’ / ‘wto’ we are left wondering if that was an error
>> of cohesion by superficiality within the same spacial quadrant (ie. you are
>> incapable of any deep thought) due to yourself being an incoherent bumbler
>> whom are reliant upon accidental consequence (ie. a trait inherited from
>> your father: a premature ejacuator / your mother having a lack of any
>> viable life defences: no spermicide handy) and the congenital result is the
>> defective society must then content with as its misfortune.
>>
>> I think therefore I am is not a wholesome characteristic which can describe
>> you—what’s the soccer score currently and can the result similarly be
>> determined by cosmic elasticity (formation in mind before instantiation as
>> reality) as consciousness which in continuum occurs or is it a shocking
>> reality of combatant / defeatist dynamics in a constant tussle and never a
>> smooth transition to undeniable reality.
>>
>> WTF@{
>> @1: Sup: 35 (#35); Ego: 30 (#30),
>> Male: #35; Feme: #30
>> }
>>
>>
>> Nous: #30
>> Time:
>> Date: 2018.9.12
>> Torah: [#30, #5, #8]@{
>> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
>> @2: Sup: 35 (#65); Ego: 5 (#35),
>> @3: Sup: 43 (#108); Ego: 8 (#43),
>> Male: #108; Feme: #43
>> } // #43
>>
>> Dao: Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War
>> Tetra: #59 - Massing
>> I-Ching: H45 - Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together
>> (massing), Finished
>>
>> Latin: Clemens ... {Clement God} Alt: Haladyah {Yonder is the Strife of
>> God} {
>>
>> 1. HELPS MAINTAIN PEACE & HARMONY BETWEEN COUNTRIES, PROTECTS CROWN HEADS &
>> MAKES SUBJECTS OBEDIENT TO SUPERIORS
>> 2. FAITHFULNESS
>> 3. RESPECT AND DEVOTION
>> 4. Thopitus
>> }
>>
>> Solomon {Peaceable; perfect; one who recompenses}
>>
>> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#453 / #355} / HETEROS {#445 / #351} / TORAH {#485 /
>> #371}
>>
>> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:4,nous:30&idea:{m,286}&idea:{f,187}&idea:{m,453}&idea:{f,355}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>>
>> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 4, nous: 30 [Date: 2018.9.12, Time: (none),
>> Super: #453 / #25 - What's behind it all?, Imaging the Mysterious; I-Ching:
>> H62 - Minor Superiority, Small Excess, Small Exceeding, Preponderance of
>> the small, Small surpassing; Tetra: 10 - Defectiveness, Distortion, Ego:
>> #355 / #30 - Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War; I-Ching: H45 -
>> Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing),
>> Finished; Tetra: 59 - Massing]
>>
>> Nous: #35
>> Time:
>> Date: 2018.9.22
>> Torah: [#5, #10, #10]@{
>> @1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5),
>> @2: Sup: 15 (#20); Ego: 10 (#15),
>> @3: Sup: 25 (#45); Ego: 10 (#25),
>> Male: #45; Feme: #25
>> } // #25
>>
>> Dao: Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence
>> Tetra: #19 - Following
>> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance
>>
>> Latin: Magnificus {God master of the Universe} Alt: Ashalyah {Labor on
>> Errors in God} {
>>
>> 1. CONFOUNDS THE EVIL & GRANTS RELEASE FROM ENEMIES
>> 2. GIVES VICTORY
>> 3. IRON, WEAPONS, SOLDIERS & MILITARY GENIUS
>> 4. Ptibiou
>> }
>>
>> Solar Eclipse: 12 July 2010 (AEST)
>>
>> #2000 CE
>>
>> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#356 / #288} / HETEROS {#407 / #273} / TORAH {#390 /
>> #224}
>>
>> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:6,nous:35&idea:{m,204}&idea:{f,144}&idea:{m,356}&idea:{f,288}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>>
>> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 6, nous: 35 [Date: 2018.9.22, Time: (none),
>> Super: #356 / #63 - Origins in Reversal, Consider Beginnings; I-Ching: H51
>> - Quake, Thunderclap, Shake, The arousing (shock, thunder); Tetra: 62 -
>> Doubt, Ego: #288 / #35 - Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence;
>> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance; Tetra: 19 - Following]
>>
>>
>>
>
> H5975@{
> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
> @2: Sup: 19 (#49); Ego: 70 (#100),
> @3: Sup: 59 (#108); Ego: 40 (#140),
> @4: Sup: 63 (#171); Ego: 4 (#144),
> Male: #171; Feme: #144
> } // #144
>
> T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
>
> UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
> I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
> Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;
>
> THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
> appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.
>
> #VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
> #TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
> #POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
> #TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
> #CANON: #156
>
> #144 as [ #30, #70, #40, #4] = `amad (H5975): {#8 as #144 % #41 = #21} 1)
> to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to stand, take
> one's stand, be in a standing attitude, stand forth, take a stand, present
> oneself, attend upon, be or become servant of; 1a2) to stand still, stop
> (moving or doing), cease; 1a3) to tarry, delay, remain, continue, abide,
> endure, persist, be steadfast; 1a4) to make a stand, hold one's ground;
> 1a5) to stand upright, remain standing, stand up, rise, be erect, be
> upright; 1a6) to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear,
> rise up or against; 1a7) to stand with, take one's stand, be appointed,
> grow flat, grow insipid; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to station, set; 1b2) to cause
> to stand firm, maintain; 1b3) to cause to stand up, cause to set up, erect;
> 1b4) to present (one) before (king); 1b5) to appoint, ordain, establish;
> 1c) (Hophal) to be presented, be caused to stand, be stood before
>



--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
dolf
2018-07-10 23:06:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> LLORIS'S SAVE FOR FRANCE MADE FOR AMAZING PHOTO
>
> CHARLES CURTIS | USA TODAY 5:49 a.m. GMT+10 July 11, 2018
>
> Belgium nearly put one past Hugo Lloris in the 21st minute of the World Cup
> semifinal against France.
>
> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2018/07/10/hugo-lloriss-diving-save-for-france-made-for-the-most-beautiful-world-cup-photo/111184528/>
>
>> T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
>>
>> UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
>> I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
>> Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;
>>
>> THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
>> appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.
>>
>> #VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
>> #TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
>> #POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
>> #TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
>> #CANON: #156
>
> dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> dolf <***@hotmail.com> @ 0542 hours on 11 July 2018 (AEST) wrote:
>>> R. Mark Clayton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking
>>>>>> the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail
>>>>>> so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>>>>
>>>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>>>> libellous, insinuation?
>>>>
>>>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Due [to] your apparent ‘who’ / ‘wto’ we are left wondering if that was an error
>>> of cohesion by superficiality within the same spacial quadrant (ie. you are
>>> incapable of any deep thought) due to yourself being an incoherent bumbler
>>> whom are reliant upon accidental consequence (ie. a trait inherited from
>>> your father: a premature ejacuator / your mother having a lack of any
>>> viable life defences: no spermicide handy) and the congenital result is the
>>> defective society must then content with as its misfortune.
>>>
>>> I think therefore I am is not a wholesome characteristic which can describe
>>> you—what’s the soccer score currently and can the result similarly be
>>> determined by cosmic elasticity (formation in mind before instantiation as
>>> reality) as consciousness which in continuum occurs or is it a shocking
>>> reality of combatant / defeatist dynamics in a constant tussle and never a
>>> smooth transition to undeniable reality.
>>>
>>> WTF@{
>>> @1: Sup: 35 (#35); Ego: 30 (#30),
>>> Male: #35; Feme: #30
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>> Nous: #30
>>> Time:
>>> Date: 2018.9.12
>>> Torah: [#30, #5, #8]@{
>>> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
>>> @2: Sup: 35 (#65); Ego: 5 (#35),
>>> @3: Sup: 43 (#108); Ego: 8 (#43),
>>> Male: #108; Feme: #43
>>> } // #43
>>>
>>> Dao: Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War
>>> Tetra: #59 - Massing
>>> I-Ching: H45 - Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together
>>> (massing), Finished
>>>
>>> Latin: Clemens ... {Clement God} Alt: Haladyah {Yonder is the Strife of
>>> God} {
>>>
>>> 1. HELPS MAINTAIN PEACE & HARMONY BETWEEN COUNTRIES, PROTECTS CROWN HEADS &
>>> MAKES SUBJECTS OBEDIENT TO SUPERIORS
>>> 2. FAITHFULNESS
>>> 3. RESPECT AND DEVOTION
>>> 4. Thopitus
>>> }
>>>
>>> Solomon {Peaceable; perfect; one who recompenses}
>>>
>>> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#453 / #355} / HETEROS {#445 / #351} / TORAH {#485 /
>>> #371}
>>>
>>> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:4,nous:30&idea:{m,286}&idea:{f,187}&idea:{m,453}&idea:{f,355}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>>>
>>> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 4, nous: 30 [Date: 2018.9.12, Time: (none),
>>> Super: #453 / #25 - What's behind it all?, Imaging the Mysterious; I-Ching:
>>> H62 - Minor Superiority, Small Excess, Small Exceeding, Preponderance of
>>> the small, Small surpassing; Tetra: 10 - Defectiveness, Distortion, Ego:
>>> #355 / #30 - Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War; I-Ching: H45 -
>>> Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing),
>>> Finished; Tetra: 59 - Massing]
>>>
>>> Nous: #35
>>> Time:
>>> Date: 2018.9.22
>>> Torah: [#5, #10, #10]@{
>>> @1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5),
>>> @2: Sup: 15 (#20); Ego: 10 (#15),
>>> @3: Sup: 25 (#45); Ego: 10 (#25),
>>> Male: #45; Feme: #25
>>> } // #25
>>>
>>> Dao: Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence
>>> Tetra: #19 - Following
>>> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance
>>>
>>> Latin: Magnificus {God master of the Universe} Alt: Ashalyah {Labor on
>>> Errors in God} {
>>>
>>> 1. CONFOUNDS THE EVIL & GRANTS RELEASE FROM ENEMIES
>>> 2. GIVES VICTORY
>>> 3. IRON, WEAPONS, SOLDIERS & MILITARY GENIUS
>>> 4. Ptibiou
>>> }
>>>
>>> Solar Eclipse: 12 July 2010 (AEST)
>>>
>>> #2000 CE
>>>
>>> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#356 / #288} / HETEROS {#407 / #273} / TORAH {#390 /
>>> #224}
>>>
>>> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:6,nous:35&idea:{m,204}&idea:{f,144}&idea:{m,356}&idea:{f,288}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>>>
>>> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 6, nous: 35 [Date: 2018.9.22, Time: (none),
>>> Super: #356 / #63 - Origins in Reversal, Consider Beginnings; I-Ching: H51
>>> - Quake, Thunderclap, Shake, The arousing (shock, thunder); Tetra: 62 -
>>> Doubt, Ego: #288 / #35 - Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence;
>>> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance; Tetra: 19 - Following]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> H5975@{
>> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
>> @2: Sup: 19 (#49); Ego: 70 (#100),
>> @3: Sup: 59 (#108); Ego: 40 (#140),
>> @4: Sup: 63 (#171); Ego: 4 (#144),
>> Male: #171; Feme: #144
>> } // #144
>>
>> T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
>>
>> UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
>> I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
>> Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;
>>
>> THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
>> appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.
>>
>> #VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
>> #TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
>> #POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
>> #TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
>> #CANON: #156
>>
>> #144 as [ #30, #70, #40, #4] = `amad (H5975): {#8 as #144 % #41 = #21} 1)
>> to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to stand, take
>> one's stand, be in a standing attitude, stand forth, take a stand, present
>> oneself, attend upon, be or become servant of; 1a2) to stand still, stop
>> (moving or doing), cease; 1a3) to tarry, delay, remain, continue, abide,
>> endure, persist, be steadfast; 1a4) to make a stand, hold one's ground;
>> 1a5) to stand upright, remain standing, stand up, rise, be erect, be
>> upright; 1a6) to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear,
>> rise up or against; 1a7) to stand with, take one's stand, be appointed,
>> grow flat, grow insipid; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to station, set; 1b2) to cause
>> to stand firm, maintain; 1b3) to cause to stand up, cause to set up, erect;
>> 1b4) to present (one) before (king); 1b5) to appoint, ordain, establish;
>> 1c) (Hophal) to be presented, be caused to stand, be stood before
>>
>
>
>



--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
dolf
2018-07-11 11:27:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I ought add that I was in bed, without a television and on my iPhone when I
wrote that splendid piece of prognosticative visualisation ...

I will write it up later...

dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> LLORIS'S SAVE FOR FRANCE MADE FOR AMAZING PHOTO
>>
>> CHARLES CURTIS | USA TODAY 5:49 a.m. GMT+10 July 11, 2018
>>
>> Belgium nearly put one past Hugo Lloris in the 21st minute of the World Cup
>> semifinal against France.
>>
>> <https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2018/07/10/hugo-lloriss-diving-save-for-france-made-for-the-most-beautiful-world-cup-photo/111184528/>
>>
>>> T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
>>>
>>> UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
>>> I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
>>> Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;
>>>
>>> THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
>>> appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.
>>>
>>> #VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
>>> #TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
>>> #POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
>>> #TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
>>> #CANON: #156
>>
>> dolf <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> dolf <***@hotmail.com> @ 0542 hours on 11 July 2018 (AEST) wrote:
>>>> R. Mark Clayton <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 10 July 2018 17:38:13 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/07/2018 17:22, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>>>>>> On Monday, 9 July 2018 09:14:21 UTC+1, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Almost ANYONE is more dynamic than Davis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The reason he was smirking, was whilst publicly he said he was seeking
>>>>>>> the best deal for the UK, privately he wanted the negotiations to fail
>>>>>>> so they the UK would be completely outside the EU [and much poorer].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, just what evidence do you have for that scurrilous, potentially
>>>>>> libellous, insinuation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Plenty Google up "david davis wto rules".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Due [to] your apparent ‘who’ / ‘wto’ we are left wondering if that was an error
>>>> of cohesion by superficiality within the same spacial quadrant (ie. you are
>>>> incapable of any deep thought) due to yourself being an incoherent bumbler
>>>> whom are reliant upon accidental consequence (ie. a trait inherited from
>>>> your father: a premature ejacuator / your mother having a lack of any
>>>> viable life defences: no spermicide handy) and the congenital result is the
>>>> defective society must then content with as its misfortune.
>>>>
>>>> I think therefore I am is not a wholesome characteristic which can describe
>>>> you—what’s the soccer score currently and can the result similarly be
>>>> determined by cosmic elasticity (formation in mind before instantiation as
>>>> reality) as consciousness which in continuum occurs or is it a shocking
>>>> reality of combatant / defeatist dynamics in a constant tussle and never a
>>>> smooth transition to undeniable reality.
>>>>
>>>> WTF@{
>>>> @1: Sup: 35 (#35); Ego: 30 (#30),
>>>> Male: #35; Feme: #30
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nous: #30
>>>> Time:
>>>> Date: 2018.9.12
>>>> Torah: [#30, #5, #8]@{
>>>> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
>>>> @2: Sup: 35 (#65); Ego: 5 (#35),
>>>> @3: Sup: 43 (#108); Ego: 8 (#43),
>>>> Male: #108; Feme: #43
>>>> } // #43
>>>>
>>>> Dao: Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War
>>>> Tetra: #59 - Massing
>>>> I-Ching: H45 - Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together
>>>> (massing), Finished
>>>>
>>>> Latin: Clemens ... {Clement God} Alt: Haladyah {Yonder is the Strife of
>>>> God} {
>>>>
>>>> 1. HELPS MAINTAIN PEACE & HARMONY BETWEEN COUNTRIES, PROTECTS CROWN HEADS &
>>>> MAKES SUBJECTS OBEDIENT TO SUPERIORS
>>>> 2. FAITHFULNESS
>>>> 3. RESPECT AND DEVOTION
>>>> 4. Thopitus
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Solomon {Peaceable; perfect; one who recompenses}
>>>>
>>>> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#453 / #355} / HETEROS {#445 / #351} / TORAH {#485 /
>>>> #371}
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:4,nous:30&idea:{m,286}&idea:{f,187}&idea:{m,453}&idea:{f,355}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>>>>
>>>> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 4, nous: 30 [Date: 2018.9.12, Time: (none),
>>>> Super: #453 / #25 - What's behind it all?, Imaging the Mysterious; I-Ching:
>>>> H62 - Minor Superiority, Small Excess, Small Exceeding, Preponderance of
>>>> the small, Small surpassing; Tetra: 10 - Defectiveness, Distortion, Ego:
>>>> #355 / #30 - Government without Coercion, Be Chary of War; I-Ching: H45 -
>>>> Gathering, Congregation, Clustering, Gathering together (massing),
>>>> Finished; Tetra: 59 - Massing]
>>>>
>>>> Nous: #35
>>>> Time:
>>>> Date: 2018.9.22
>>>> Torah: [#5, #10, #10]@{
>>>> @1: Sup: 5 (#5); Ego: 5 (#5),
>>>> @2: Sup: 15 (#20); Ego: 10 (#15),
>>>> @3: Sup: 25 (#45); Ego: 10 (#25),
>>>> Male: #45; Feme: #25
>>>> } // #25
>>>>
>>>> Dao: Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence
>>>> Tetra: #19 - Following
>>>> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance
>>>>
>>>> Latin: Magnificus {God master of the Universe} Alt: Ashalyah {Labor on
>>>> Errors in God} {
>>>>
>>>> 1. CONFOUNDS THE EVIL & GRANTS RELEASE FROM ENEMIES
>>>> 2. GIVES VICTORY
>>>> 3. IRON, WEAPONS, SOLDIERS & MILITARY GENIUS
>>>> 4. Ptibiou
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Solar Eclipse: 12 July 2010 (AEST)
>>>>
>>>> #2000 CE
>>>>
>>>> Prototype: *HOMOIOS* {#356 / #288} / HETEROS {#407 / #273} / TORAH {#390 /
>>>> #224}
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.grapple369.com?zen:5,row:5,col:6,nous:35&idea:{m,204}&idea:{f,144}&idea:{m,356}&idea:{f,288}&PROTOTYPE:HOMOIOS>
>>>>
>>>> ***@zen: 5, row: 5, col: 6, nous: 35 [Date: 2018.9.22, Time: (none),
>>>> Super: #356 / #63 - Origins in Reversal, Consider Beginnings; I-Ching: H51
>>>> - Quake, Thunderclap, Shake, The arousing (shock, thunder); Tetra: 62 -
>>>> Doubt, Ego: #288 / #35 - Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence;
>>>> I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance; Tetra: 19 - Following]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> H5975@{
>>> @1: Sup: 30 (#30); Ego: 30 (#30),
>>> @2: Sup: 19 (#49); Ego: 70 (#100),
>>> @3: Sup: 59 (#108); Ego: 40 (#140),
>>> @4: Sup: 63 (#171); Ego: 4 (#144),
>>> Male: #171; Feme: #144
>>> } // #144
>>>
>>> T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:
>>>
>>> UMBRA: #144 % #41 = #21 - Guiding the Physical, Emptying the Heart;
>>> I-Ching: H31 - Reciprocity, Conjoining, Influence (wooing), Feelings;
>>> Tetra: 42 - Going to Meet;
>>>
>>> THOTH MEASURE: #21 - Oh thou who art above Princes, and who makest thine
>>> appearance in Amu; I do not cause terrors.
>>>
>>> #VIRTUE: Release (no. #21) means a push forward.
>>> #TOOLS: Embellishment (no. #61) means a decline.
>>> #POSITION: With Flight (no. #49), there is what one avoids.
>>> #TIME: With Contention (no. #25), there is what one hastens towards.
>>> #CANON: #156
>>>
>>> #144 as [ #30, #70, #40, #4] = `amad (H5975): {#8 as #144 % #41 = #21} 1)
>>> to stand, remain, endure, take one's stand; 1a) (Qal); 1a1) to stand, take
>>> one's stand, be in a standing attitude, stand forth, take a stand, present
>>> oneself, attend upon, be or become servant of; 1a2) to stand still, stop
>>> (moving or doing), cease; 1a3) to tarry, delay, remain, continue, abide,
>>> endure, persist, be steadfast; 1a4) to make a stand, hold one's ground;
>>> 1a5) to stand upright, remain standing, stand up, rise, be erect, be
>>> upright; 1a6) to arise, appear, come on the scene, stand forth, appear,
>>> rise up or against; 1a7) to stand with, take one's stand, be appointed,
>>> grow flat, grow insipid; 1b) (Hiphil); 1b1) to station, set; 1b2) to cause
>>> to stand firm, maintain; 1b3) to cause to stand up, cause to set up, erect;
>>> 1b4) to present (one) before (king); 1b5) to appoint, ordain, establish;
>>> 1c) (Hophal) to be presented, be caused to stand, be stood before
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>



--


YOUTUBE: "The Meerkat Circus"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-7OuqWi4vQ>

SEE ALSO AS RELATIONSHIP: *INVALIDATING* {Perennial philosophy (HETEROS
{#390 - ROBBERS} v’s HOMOIOS {#391 - STEWARDS OF GOD’S HOUSE} THEORY OF
NUMBER) as universal of right and wrong...} *THE* *ORTHODOX* *AND* *ROMAN*
*CATHOLIC* *CHURCH'S* *CLAIM* {#390 as 1, #100, #80, #1, #3, #5, #200 as
harpax (G727): {#11 as #242} 1) rapacious, ravenous; 2) a extortioner, a
robber} *TO* *JUBILEE2000* *AS* *BEING* *DELUSIONAL* *AND* *FRAUDULENT*

Private “Saint Andrews” Street on the edge of the Central Business District
dated 16th May, 2000 - This report is prepared in response to a TP00/55 as
a Notice of an Application for Planning Permit

<http://www.grapple369.com/jubilee2000.html>

SEE ALSO: HYPOSTASIS as DAO OF NATURE (Chinese: ZIRAN) / COURSE (Greek:
TROCHOS) OF NATURE (Greek: GENESIS) [James 3:6]

Chinese HAN Dynasty (206 BCE - 220CE) Hexagon Trigrams to Tetragram
assignments proposed by Yang Hsiung (53BCE - 18CE) which by 4BCE
(translation published within English as first European language in 1993),
first appeared in draft form as a meta-thesis titled T'AI HSUAN CHING {ie.
Canon of Supreme Mystery} on Natural Divination associated with the theory
of number, annual seasonal chronology and astrology reliant upon the seven
visible planets as cosmological mother image and the zodiac.

It shows the ZIRAN as the DAO of NATURE / COURSE-trochos OF NATURE-genesis
[James 3:6] as HYPOSTATIS comprising #81 trinomial tetragrammaton x 4.5 day
= #364.5 day / year as HOMOIOS THEORY OF NUMBER which is an amalgam of the
64 hexagrams as binomial trigrams / 81 as trinomial tetragrammaton rather
than its encapsulated contrived use as the microcosm to redefine the
macrocosm as the quintessence of the Pythagorean [Babylonian] as binomial
canon of transposition as HETEROS THEORY OF NUMBER.

<http://www.grapple369.com/nature.html>

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities No. 43 of Act 2006 defines
a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING” and the question is, if it is permissible to
extend this definition to be a "PERSON MEANS A HUMAN BEING AS A CONSCIOUS
REALITY OF HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] WHO IS INSTANTIATED WITHIN THE TEMPORAL
REALITY AS THEN THE CAUSE FOR REASONING AND RATIONALITY."

That my mathematical theoretical noumenon defines the meta-descriptor
prototypes which are prerequisite to the BEING of HOMO [iOS] SAPIEN [T] as
EXISTENCE / *OUSIA*.

<http://www.grapple369.com/Grapple.zip> (Download resources)

After all the ENNEAD of THOTH and not the Roman Catholic Eucharist,
expresses an Anthropic Cosmological Principle which appears within its
geometric conception as being equivalent to the Pythagorean
TETRAD/TETRACTYS
Norman Wells
2018-07-09 08:00:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:

> What choice did he have?
>
> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.

He would be in an even stranger position than Davis. How can any true
Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that Mrs May has
set out? His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just trying to give it
effect. It would mean arguing for something he's vehemently opposed to.

I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too much
too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only in
extremis, our real bottom line. In any negotiation, you should go in
asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less. Then you actually
have room to negotiate.

Sadly, though, Mrs May does not appear to have done Negotiation 101.
And that puts the UK at something of a disadvantage.
The Todal
2018-07-09 10:50:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
>
>> What choice did he have?
>>
>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>
> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis.  How can any true
> Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that Mrs May has
> set out?  His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just trying to give it
> effect.  It would mean arguing for something he's vehemently opposed to.
>
> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too much
> too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only in
> extremis, our real bottom line.  In any negotiation, you should go in
> asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less.  Then you actually
> have room to negotiate.
>
> Sadly, though, Mrs May does not appear to have done Negotiation 101. And
> that puts the UK at something of a disadvantage.
>

David Davis's vision of Brexit was always an unrealistic one which would
have inflicted huge damage on our industries and our economies.

Theresa May has realised that we don't have any negotiating leverage at
all. We can only beg for favours from the EU to soften the impact of
Brexit. Those who say that Mercedes and BMW will ensure that we get a
favourable deal are living in cloud cuckoo land.

Sadly, you're one of many back-seat negotiators. I don't suppose you've
ever negotiated a business contract. The most you've done is persuaded a
car salesman to reduce his price.
Phi
2018-07-09 10:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
>
>> What choice did he have?
>>
>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>
> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis. How can any true
> Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that Mrs May has
> set out? His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just trying to give it
> effect. It would mean arguing for something he's vehemently opposed to.
>
> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too much too
> soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only in extremis,
> our real bottom line. In any negotiation, you should go in asking for
> more than you hope to achieve, not less. Then you actually have room to
> negotiate.
>

We should have started negotiations from a clean break.
Otherwise they won't take us seriously.

> Sadly, though, Mrs May does not appear to have done Negotiation 101. And
> that puts the UK at something of a disadvantage.
>
The Todal
2018-07-09 10:51:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 11:12, Phi wrote:
>
> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
>>
>>> What choice did he have?
>>>
>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>
>> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis.  How can any true
>> Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that Mrs May
>> has set out?  His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just trying to
>> give it effect.  It would mean arguing for something he's vehemently
>> opposed to.
>>
>> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too much
>> too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only in
>> extremis, our real bottom line.  In any negotiation, you should go in
>> asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less.  Then you actually
>> have room to negotiate.
>>
>
> We should have started negotiations from a clean break.
> Otherwise they won't take us seriously.


A clean break would bankrupt the nation. Then nobody, at home or abroad,
will take your lot seriously.
Fredxx
2018-07-09 12:11:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 11:51, The Todal wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 11:12, Phi wrote:
>>
>> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
>>>
>>>> What choice did he have?
>>>>
>>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>>
>>> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis.  How can any
>>> true Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that Mrs
>>> May has set out?  His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just trying
>>> to give it effect.  It would mean arguing for something he's
>>> vehemently opposed to.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too
>>> much too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only
>>> in extremis, our real bottom line.  In any negotiation, you should go
>>> in asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less.  Then you
>>> actually have room to negotiate.
>>>
>>
>> We should have started negotiations from a clean break.
>> Otherwise they won't take us seriously.
>
>
> A clean break would bankrupt the nation. Then nobody, at home or abroad,
> will take your lot seriously.

There are many countries relying on WTO tariffs. They are not bankrupt.
Phi
2018-07-09 13:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Todal" <***@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 09/07/2018 11:12, Phi wrote:
>>
>> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
>>>
>>>> What choice did he have?
>>>>
>>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>>
>>> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis. How can any true
>>> Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that Mrs May has
>>> set out? His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just trying to give it
>>> effect. It would mean arguing for something he's vehemently opposed to.
>>>
>>> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too much
>>> too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only in
>>> extremis, our real bottom line. In any negotiation, you should go in
>>> asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less. Then you actually
>>> have room to negotiate.
>>>
>>
>> We should have started negotiations from a clean break.
>> Otherwise they won't take us seriously.
>
>
> A clean break would bankrupt the nation. Then nobody, at home or abroad,
> will take your lot seriously.

Well it won't be the first time we have been bankrupt, attributed to our
self determination.
The Todal
2018-07-09 14:17:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 14:11, Phi wrote:
>
> "The Todal" <***@icloud.com> wrote in message
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>> On 09/07/2018 11:12, Phi wrote:
>>>
>>> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
>>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What choice did he have?
>>>>>
>>>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
>>>>
>>>> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis. How can any
>>>> true Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that
>>>> Mrs May has set out? His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just
>>>> trying to give it effect. It would mean arguing for something he's
>>>> vehemently opposed to.
>>>>
>>>> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too
>>>> much too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only
>>>> in extremis, our real bottom line. In any negotiation, you should go
>>>> in asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less. Then you
>>>> actually have room to negotiate.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We should have started negotiations from a clean break.
>>> Otherwise they won't take us seriously.
>>
>>
>> A clean break would bankrupt the nation. Then nobody, at home or
>> abroad, will take your lot seriously.
>
> Well it won't be the first time we have been bankrupt, attributed to our
> self determination.

Maybe most Brexit supporters are people with nothing to lose, because
they've had a messy divorce or they've had their own business which then
failed. Or they're on the dole.

So they don't really care if they bring down everyone else's prosperity.
Yellow
2018-07-09 14:27:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 15:17:04 +0100, The Todal <***@icloud.com>
posted:
>
> On 09/07/2018 14:11, Phi wrote:
> >
> > "The Todal" <***@icloud.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@mid.individual.net...
> >> On 09/07/2018 11:12, Phi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "Norman Wells" <***@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
> >>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> On 09/07/2018 01:08, Yellow wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> What choice did he have?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> BBC says Gove is in the running for his job.
> >>>>
> >>>> He would be in an even stranger position than Davis. How can any
> >>>> true Brexiteer sign up to and argue in support of the policy that
> >>>> Mrs May has set out? His job wouldn't be setting UK policy, just
> >>>> trying to give it effect. It would mean arguing for something he's
> >>>> vehemently opposed to.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm afraid May has undermined all negotiations by giving away too
> >>>> much too soon and revealing what should have been, perhaps and only
> >>>> in extremis, our real bottom line. In any negotiation, you should go
> >>>> in asking for more than you hope to achieve, not less. Then you
> >>>> actually have room to negotiate.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> We should have started negotiations from a clean break.
> >>> Otherwise they won't take us seriously.
> >>
> >>
> >> A clean break would bankrupt the nation. Then nobody, at home or
> >> abroad, will take your lot seriously.
> >
> > Well it won't be the first time we have been bankrupt, attributed to our
> > self determination.
>
> Maybe most Brexit supporters are people with nothing to lose, because
> they've had a messy divorce or they've had their own business which then
> failed. Or they're on the dole.

Most of 17,410,742 is a very big number and if it is indeed true that
most of 17,410,742 people in the UK have nothing to lose then that is
the problem in a nutshell.


> So they don't really care if they bring down everyone else's prosperity.

Should you not be asking why it is the prosperous do not give a shit
about those who are not rather than slagging off the have nots for
trying to turn the tables?
The Todal
2018-07-09 17:36:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 15:27, Yellow wrote:

>
> Should you not be asking why it is the prosperous do not give a shit
> about those who are not rather than slagging off the have nots for
> trying to turn the tables?
>

Seriously? You are wondering why the rich and prosperous don't want to
solve the problems of the poor and those with no prospects?

Wasn't it always thus?

If a high proportion of Leave voters are from parts of the country where
shops are boarded up, factories have closed and food banks are rife,
then I don't think it's helpful to "slag off" such voters. It doesn't
make them stupid, because they were asked a question and gave an answer.
A jury isn't stupid when it gives its decision. As Dr David Owen wisely
said, if the only correct answer in the referendum was Remain, no sane
Prime Minister would have arranged to have a referendum.
MM
2018-07-10 08:08:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Jul 2018 18:36:47 +0100, The Todal <***@icloud.com>
wrote:

>On 09/07/2018 15:27, Yellow wrote:
>
>>
>> Should you not be asking why it is the prosperous do not give a shit
>> about those who are not rather than slagging off the have nots for
>> trying to turn the tables?
>>
>
>Seriously? You are wondering why the rich and prosperous don't want to
>solve the problems of the poor and those with no prospects?
>
>Wasn't it always thus?
>
>If a high proportion of Leave voters are from parts of the country where
>shops are boarded up, factories have closed and food banks are rife,
>then I don't think it's helpful to "slag off" such voters. It doesn't
>make them stupid, because they were asked a question and gave an answer.
>A jury isn't stupid when it gives its decision. As Dr David Owen wisely
>said, if the only correct answer in the referendum was Remain, no sane
>Prime Minister would have arranged to have a referendum.

Where does this comment leave Cameron's sanitry? Intact? In doubt?

MM
Joe Clanton
2018-07-09 14:29:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 15:17, The Todal wrote:

> Maybe most Brexit supporters are people with nothing to lose, because
> they've had a messy divorce or they've had their own business which then
> failed. Or they're on the dole.
>
> So they don't really care if they bring down everyone else's prosperity.

Often it is the opposite. Old people with accumulated wealth support
Brexit and the young without wealth or property are remainers.

I'm old and scared so I support remain. I think if I were young I would
support Brexit.

I know hard Brexit will create short term problems and turmoil but I
think it could also provide opportunity and address some of the
entrenched problems with the UK economy such as the rise in economic
inequality.
Fredxx
2018-07-09 15:22:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 15:29, Joe Clanton wrote:

<snip>

> Often it is the opposite. Old people with accumulated wealth support
> Brexit and the young without wealth or property are remainers.
>
> I'm old and scared so I support remain. I think if I were young I would
> support Brexit.
>
> I know hard Brexit will create short term problems and turmoil but I
> think it could also provide opportunity and address some of the
> entrenched problems with the UK economy such as the rise in economic
> inequality.

That's probably the most balanced view from someone who voted remain as
I have ever seen here.

I'm sure it won't be long before someone turns this thread to an abusive
rant. I hope I'm wrong.
The Todal
2018-07-09 17:22:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 15:29, Joe Clanton wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 15:17, The Todal wrote:
>
>> Maybe most Brexit supporters are people with nothing to lose, because
>> they've had a messy divorce or they've had their own business which
>> then failed. Or they're on the dole.
>>
>> So they don't really care if they bring down everyone else's prosperity.
>
> Often it is the opposite. Old people with accumulated wealth support
> Brexit and the young without wealth or property are remainers.
>
> I'm old and scared so I support remain. I think if I were young I would
> support Brexit.
>
> I know hard Brexit will create short term problems and turmoil but I
> think it could also provide opportunity and address some of the
> entrenched problems with the UK economy such as the rise in economic
> inequality.
>

That's a bit like saying that a world war will create short term
problems and turmoil but could also provide opportunity etc, reduce
poverty, result in a wonderful new thing called the NHS. And so it came
to pass.

The flaw in the argument is that nobody - not the politicians, not the
economists, not the civil servants - actually knows that the
consequences of Brexit will be. There's nobody with mastery of all the
detail. There are optimistic people and there are pessimistic people.
There's an element of superstition - don't talk our country down or we
will fail. And don't be too optimistic because you might put a hex on
our chances.

If many of our factories close down their UK operations and move to
mainland Europe somone will have to provide new factories and new
industries. The government doesn't do such things. It can provide tax
incentives and it can award honours to those who succeed in business.
Someone else will have to start up these new industries and take on the
burden of selling goods to a closed European market. Jacob Rees Mogg can
be the voice of cheery optimism but he has nothing worthwhile to offer
other than speeches.
Jim Ericsson
2018-07-10 11:52:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 09/07/2018 18:22, The Todal wrote:
> On 09/07/2018 15:29, Joe Clanton wrote:
>> On 09/07/2018 15:17, The Todal wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe most Brexit supporters are people with nothing to lose, because
>>> they've had a messy divorce or they've had their own business which
>>> then failed. Or they're on the dole.
>>>
>>> So they don't really care if they bring down everyone else's prosperity.
>>
>> Often it is the opposite. Old people with accumulated wealth support
>> Brexit and the young without wealth or property are remainers.
>>
>> I'm old and scared so I support remain. I think if I were young I
>> would support Brexit.
>>
>> I know hard Brexit will create short term problems and turmoil but I
>> think it could also provide opportunity and address some of the
>> entrenched problems with the UK economy such as the rise in economic
>> inequality.
>>
>
> That's a bit like saying that a world war will create short term
> problems and turmoil but could also provide opportunity etc, reduce
> poverty, result in a wonderful new thing called the NHS. And so it came
> to pass.
>

Yes it is true. Periodic turmoil can create better long term outcomes
than stagnation. You might think it a trivial point but when people
emphasise that there will be pain it is worth pointing out that the pain
may also have a good effect.

No pain, no gain. This is a very hard sell for short term politicians.
The last one I remember remotely trying it was Thatcher. I do sometimes
wonder if the benefits of Thatcherism were almost solely due to this
renewal effect. She destroyed stuff when she came to power thus making
room for new innovation, creating a boom.

> The flaw in the argument is that nobody - not the politicians, not the
> economists, not the civil servants - actually knows that the
> consequences of Brexit will be. There's nobody with mastery of all the
> detail. There are optimistic people and there are pessimistic people.

Gosh, yes! We can't see the future so we have to guess, make
predictions. That works both ways though. We also can't see what will
happen if we remain.


> There's an element of superstition - don't talk our country down or we
> will fail. And don't be too optimistic because you might put a hex on
> our chances.
>
> If many of our factories close down their UK operations and move to
> mainland Europe somone will have to provide new factories and new
> industries. The government doesn't do such things. It can provide tax
> incentives and it can award honours to those who succeed in business.
> Someone else will have to start up these new industries and take on the
> burden of selling goods to a closed European market. Jacob Rees Mogg can
> be the voice of cheery optimism but he has nothing worthwhile to offer
> other than speeches.
>

Rees Mogg is just a comedy act, but Boris has rather poisoned the well
on that approach.

The problem I see is that over the last 15 years (maybe longer) the UK
has built an economy based on the supply of cheap labour. Hence we
haven't invested in improved working practices, technology and
automation thus productivity has stagnated. This is comfortable for a
while but eventually the economies that have modernised will swamp us.
In much the same way as in the USA the industrialised North swamped the
slave owning Southern states in the mid nineteenth century. Also as I
said this cheap labour approach increases inequality.

So hard Brexit does have a potential upside, of course they could mess
it up and just replace cheap labour immigration from the EU with
immigration from the rest of the world.
Loading...