Jump to content
The Corroboree

The Dude

Members2
  • Content count

    1,816
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by The Dude


  1. So I've neglected my B. Caapi and it looks to be in a pretty sorry state.
    I wonder if simply watering it more often will save it? I've been adding Seasol too. I thought perhaps I need to prune it so it has a chance to properly rehydrate. Any tips guys?

    Thanks!

    -Dude

    post-596-0-50310200-1410183514_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-87744400-1410183528_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-84898900-1410183752_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-83847400-1410183764_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-50310200-1410183514_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-87744400-1410183528_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-84898900-1410183752_thumb.jpg

    post-596-0-83847400-1410183764_thumb.jpg


  2. Great thread! Cheers for all the advice which I'm going to need right about now.

    I've got a pretty young caapi in a pot. At the base it might be almost a centimeter thick. Last night I accidentally knocked over a support rod, and noticed this morning that it has almost snapped off a part of vine that's about 15cm up the plant. It's about 5mm thick at this point. The break is just before the vine started branching off into many smaller shoots, rapidly dcreasing in thickness.

    It's spring time and it's hailing here. I guess there's a high RH but it's far from tropical weather at the moment. So my question is, what is the most I can propagate from this if it's getting really thin at the top? Last summer it shot straight up a couple metres and there's a couple long thin vines that I guess are unusable?

    As far as mediterranean climate goes, is there any consensus on L shapes vs T shapes? If L shapes are the go, where exactly do I cut it and how exactly do I plant it?

    Apologies for n00bness. :blush:


  3. Most cults like Scientology and Catholicism are allowed to go on, some are so dangerous the government must stop them!

    OVERVIEW OF THE DAVIDIAN MASSACRE

    by Carol Moore

    I was one of millions of Americans who, after seeing the April 19, 1993 burning of the Branch Davidian church outside of Waco, Texas wondered: Did these people really commit mass suicide, as the government alleged, despite the clear evidence on television that the fire started after a tank crashed into one part of the building? Were they really as insane as the government claimed? Why did they have to be attacked with massive, military-like force 51 days earlier? What is the truth?

    After two years of research I came to the following conclusions, documented in my book The Davidian Massacre published in late 1995. After the book came out more evidence surfaced that back up allegations -- and answer questions -- presented in the book. I review both below. See the links above for the book's online version and other information.

    On February 28,1993 overly aggressive and highly militarized agents of BATF set out to put on a "big show" to increase their budgets and prestige by attacking the Branch Davidian religious group outside of Waco, Texas. Six months earlier, agents had spurned David Koresh's attempts to cooperate with their investigation of his gun business by inviting them to see his guns. On February 28, when he came to the front door and tried to cooperate, reckless agents shot him and mortally wounded his father-in-law. Other agents started shooting from helicopters, killing four Davidians. Agents probably assassinated another Davidian who approached Mount Carmel later that day. And so began a 51 day standoff.

    Davidians and their on-site attorney made it clear to FBI negotiators that evidence of illegal gunfire in the highest roofs and walls of Mount Carmel would lead to prosecution of agents for murder. One of the Davidians' motivations for refusing to surrender was their demands for assurances this evidence would not be destroyed by BATF investigators after they left the premises. It was not until the end of March that outside attorneys told them that Texas Rangers, who they trusted, and not BATF, would be investigating.

    FBI Hostage Rescue Team member hearing of these claims, and bent on revenge for the deaths of four BATF agents killed by Davidian defenders during the February 28th BATF attack, did their best to sabotage negotiations. They escalated harassment of Davidians every time individuals left Mount Carmel, turning off power, faking tank attacks, turning on bright lights and loud music. Finally, distrustful Davidians stopped coming out at all.

    At the same time agents began a campaign of lies to Attorney General Janet Reno about the status of negotiations, the alleged beating of children, the safety of CS gas, the rules of engagement, and other issues, tricking her into approving their gas and tank assault. They set it up to make sure that the attack would lead to the destruction of the building, its incriminating evidence–and scores of inconvenient Davidian witnesses to BATF crimes.

    On April 19, 1993, as the tank assault began, FBI agents falsely claimed that Davidians broke their phone, making negotiations impossible. Davidians believe a tank broke the line. They claimed Davidians shot at them, giving them an excuse to speed up their plan to massively gas Davidian and rip apart Mount Carmel with tanks. Davidians pleaded with gestures and signs to have their phones fixed--they were terrified of being shot or run over by tanks if they started exiting. For even as tanks rammed the building, the FBI lied, calling out over loudspeakers, "This is not an assault."

    After six hours of tank attacks, a fire started, probably by the last tank attack knocking over a lantern–but possibly by an FBI incendiary device at the front of the building. Infrared (FLIR) video evidence strongly suggests an agent in an FBI tank lobbed an incendiary device into the back of the building after the first fire, starting a second fire. Wind whipped fire swept through the tinderbox of a building. Most Davidians were trapped by debris and collapsed stairwells on the second floor or inside the concrete room. There is evidence on FLIR video that FBI or Delta force personnel shot at least 70 shots at the back of building during the fire, probably to stop Davidians trying to escape. There even is evidence, dramatized convincingly in the new film “Waco: A New Revelation” that FBI or Delta Force personnel sneaked into the building and placed a shaped charge on top of the concrete room to kill Davidian leaders who they believed were hiding there. Nineteen men, thirty-four women and twenty-three children died that day.

    The trial of eleven survivors was a travesty of prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Nine Davidians received a total of 243 years in sentences. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear their appeals on the 30 year sentences the judge meted out to them for

    carrying a gun during the commission of a crime–even though the jury found them innocent of that crime, murder of federal agents. He also failed to tell the jury they could find the Davidians innocent of aiding and abetting voluntary manslaughter by reason of defense, something some jurors declare they would have done! On June 4, 2000 the seven Davidians still imprisoned, aided by noted Second Amendment attorney Stephen Halbrook, won their Supreme Court appeal and their sentences were cut to a total of 105 years. Six of the seven were released from prison in 2006, one in 2007.

    In 1995, after two weeks of hearings, Congress announced it had gotten out all the truth –and promised it had gotten federal agents under control. My book reviews many reasons that was not true. For details about continuing revelations until the end of the year 2000 see Waco News.

    In 1999, pushed by evidence from Davidian civil suit investigators and attorneys, as well as film-makers, "Waco" made the headlines again. “Ex-agent says device fired at Waco compound,” “[Texas Rangers] official says Army force present at Waco siege,” “Reno Says FBI Misled Her About Waco Arms,” “Reno and Freeh Agree on New Independent Probe of Waco” and “Independent Counsel and Congress Investigate Waco” blared across newspapers front pages and web pages of America. Of course these weren’t “revelations” to most Waco researchers, government critics and Davidian attorneys–or to people who had seen the Academy Award-nominated and Emmy winning film “Waco: the Rules of Engagement.” Congress promised yet another round of Waco hearings but in the end only a few Senators took the matter seriously.

    Then President Bill Clinton appointed former Senator John Danforth to investigate. Danforth believed the FBI, conducted questionable forensic tests, and his year 2000 report again exonerated FBI agents. The only prosecution Danforth brought was against the federal prosecutor who allowed a Waco investigator too free an access to evidence, prompting the 1999 revelation that FBI agents had used pyrotechnic devices on April 19th, despite their previous denials. (The prosecutor earlier had engaged in coverups of evidence of BATF agents' crimes against Davidians, so we shouldn't feel too badly for him.) He claimed to be a whistleblower -- thereby making sure the government knew he could expose a lot more cover ups -- and received only probation after plea bargaining.

    Why has there been such a cover up of the truth about Waco? Simply put, the truth is too terrible for the American people to hear: federal agents twice attacked and murdered a total of 82 civilians, mostly women, children and the elderly–half of them people of color. And the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of our “Constitutional Republic” let them get away with it. All branches have a vested interest for finding federal agents innocent of all crimes–protection of their own perks and privileges.

    The truth would undermine Americans’ faith in their political system. Waco film-maker Michael McNulty has revealed some in Congress fear “The truth would just inflame the crazies.” Americans must demand prosecution of all responsible agents and financial reparations to the Davidian prisoners who spent more than a dozen years in prison, victims of government crimes against them.

     

    http://carolmoore.net/waco/


  4. A bit boring but plenty of good conversations, like a Jim Jarmusch movie. Pretentiousness is in the eye of the beholder, it's just some philosophical conversations, like you would have with your friends whilst stoned or tripping, with a cool disjointed visual style that does (for me) evoke the feeling of a dream. Not a movie I rush back to, but definitely one I'd watch again.

    (A boat car drives up in front of the airport)

    [...]

    "Not a problem. Anchors away. So what do you think of my little vessel? She's what we call seeworthy, s-e-e, see with your eyes. I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality. Voila. And this, this is like my little window to the world and every minute's a different show. Now I may not understand it, I may not even necessarily agree with it, but I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along. You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying. You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river.

    The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. Saves on introductions and goodbyes. The ride does not require an explanation, just occupants. That's where you guys come in. It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box. Now you may get the 8-pack, you may get the 16-pack, but it's all in what you do with the crayons, the colors that you're given. And don't worry about drawing within the lines, or coloring outside the lines. I say, color outside the lines. You know what I mean? Color right off the page. Don't box me in! We're in motion to the ocean. We are not landlocked, I'll tell you that."

     

    I remember hearing a couple samples from waking life at a trance party, the crayons, and the idea that we're in a living dream, and can do whatever we want. These truths come to us from time to time, then we fall back to "reality". Such movies (or samples from them in a track) can be a timely reminder of our infinite potential - which this amnesiac reality often distracts us from.


  5. oneliners dont help here. and are not funny

     

    Of course that's just a Sagittarius thing to say. :wink: I thought the "virgin on the ridiculous!" was quite funny, and laughter is always helpful. Of course it's impossible for me to leave a one liner, so don't you worry, I'll come up with a hilarious and helpful rant just for you :) ...I'll try to anyway

    Astrology is quite fascinating, to me it all comes down to the paradox of free-will versus determinism.

    "the stars impel, they do not compel"

    It's a bit of a tightrope balancing between the forces of free-will and destiny. I think that only by trying to become conscious of the unconscious patterns influencing our lives can we harness this fate forming energy and create a more self directed destiny, or at the very least know where we're going a bit better.

    "I don't believe in astrology; I'm a Sagittarius and we're skeptical."

    --Sir Arthur C. Clarke

    :lol:

    Oh yeah, and for any Christians out there who associate Satan with the goat, remember that Jesus was born in Capricorn... Then they sacrificed him.

    • Like 3

  6. Diffusa sounds quite interesting. It would be nice to have a few mature specimens for sure! If I had the cash I'd jump on that! Especially considering they're mature growth in the ground without grafting!


  7. ...Not that this is any way relevant but no I don't live with my mum, and we get along fine. The thing is she doesn't censor what I have to say, and then when bought up on said issue, tell me that my issue stems from my dislike of her, so I don't need to tell her she's committing the strawman fallacy of distorting/making up what my real position is and attacking that. ...so no, I do not "drive her nuts with this shite"

    I used to think you were alright incog, I don't know why you felt the need to post that. The saddest thing is that it wasn't even funny. For someone that you consider worthy of as much attention as a freshly eliminated turd you sure spent a lot of time writing that hilarious response. Cheers for comparing my "fruitloopery" to a turd, awfully nice of you. It's a shame you do not see any sense in my writings, but that is not my problem, and I think your dismissal of my opinion and calling it shit was a little bit rude, but hey, conspiracy theorists are fair game.

    Sorry eatfoo, it's this thing called ego that keeps me coming back to defend it. Then again I guess I don't need to defend myself from such a low caliber attack.

    • Like 4

  8. The bar guilds was quite an interesting read. Their ceremonial black robes convey power, a sinister and intimidating power, all of it a myth, subconscious coercion.

    The part about harvesting souls makes perfect sense, for they attempt to make you give up your free will through fear. That being the spiritual dimension of their ceremonial dramas which scare you into submission.

    Seeing as these are all quotes, could you please post the source of the information?

    • Like 1

  9. Incognito is not a girl. I know he was being sarcastic, his old man used to be the "grand poobah" of some lodge. So as long as their secrets are not revealed, him and his mates would be happy to be here, however by bringing up the big c word, he now obviously feels that his boys club will not be welcome here. ...that being the explained version of the sarcastic comment.


  10. ...it just pissed me off that you dismissed my concerns as nothing more than a personal dislike of you and a need to publically vent or something. I think you're a champ, for putting all this money, time and effort into this website and associated community, and on the couple occasions we've met you seem really chill, so it upset me that you reckon this difference of opinion is cuz of me disliking you. ...Meh

    Incognito... so what's their problem exactly? They won't join the forum if there are certain discussions they don't like? Don't worry, discussions about their special boys club are at an all time low, the conspiracy theorists have been shown the door, or at least made to feel really uncomfortable, so your dad and his friends can join now.

    ...also, what's so bad about my post that it deserved two negz? ...I mean really, show me where I wrote anything abusive or misleading or trollish. "Ah, forget about it!" <--said Sicilian mafia stylee.


  11. Sorry to bring this up, let sleeping dogs lie and all that... I just really didn't like this post of yours T, so decided to leave the forum for a few days which turned into a nice break anyway. I still feel I need to address this.

    I think you're also assuming a bit too much about me as you seem to have little idea where i personally stand on the various conspiracies. You seem to assume that because I dislike the way a certain theory is presented that I actually dislike the theory, which has given you a bit of a wrong picture.

     

    ...perhaps, in that case instead of shutting down a theory, and the members who support it for being unstable, because of its presentation, try to mediate this and get to the truth of the theory by giving your perspective. If you (wholly or partly) agree with the content just not the style of the post, then you do yourself and the community a disservice by dismissing it and shutting it down without explenation (unless its a personal attack on someones state of mind). ...I guess you can blame the proponent as instable when they get defensive over people attacking them personally, (instead of the theory itself... we all know that fallacy yeah?), and by extension cast doubt on the theory because of peoples natural tendency to defend their ego.

    because I see things from a different angle to you Torsten, I must be a lesser quality contributer (or even paranoid).

    I've never said or thought you are paranoid.

     

    I never said you did, although by generally dismissing conspiracy theories as the fantasies of paranoid and unstable people, the argument may as well extend to me for entertaining some of these theories.

    I do know that you dislike me and the way I run the forums and that you miss no opportunity to state so publically, but I don't have a problem with that. This isn't a popularity contest and I've never noticed you damaging the forums in any way. Mind you, negging/pozzing 12 posts in this thread in as many minutes is probably faster than you can read the posts, so that probably came close to abuse, but looks like a couple of other people did that too, so never mind.

     

    Now who's paranoid? How many ASSumptions can you make in one paragraph? Wow!

    First of all this whole thread started over people taking disagreements personally. I disagree with you on a certain issue and now apparently I dislike you and the way you run the forums and I miss no opportunity to state so publically... If it wasn't for this public statement of how my concerns are nothing more than a personal dislike of you, thereby dismissing them as anything more than a petty grievance, I probably wouldn't bother with this here rebuttal. I really like you Torsten, you're a top bloke and all that, I'm just critical of what I don't like, don't take it personally.

    I only positise or negatise after I've read a post, cheers for calling me a slow reader! :) So you disbelieving my reading speed is not abuse this time because a couple other people can read and rate posts quick too?

    Not all conspiracy nuts are mentally unstable, but then again many are. It's not the conspiracy belief that makes someone unstable, but rather it is the instability that increases the likelihood that someone believes in conspiracies. When I called mescalito mentally unstable then this was before he even posted conspiracy stuff. It was because he was so unstable he shafted me on a trust issue. You should read the thread that caused the problem and I doubt you would still claim he was mentally stable then. And synchro even advertises his instability in his sig line, so please explain to me what your issue is.

     

    so you don't have to be crazy to believe in conspiracy theories... but if you're crazy you are much more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, ergo, if you entertain/believe in conspiracy theories chances are high that you're crazy. Those conspiracy theories that I promote are sane, all the other ones I dismiss are the crazy ones :P

    What's my issue? Freedom of speech, ad hominem logical fallacies, people trolling conspiracy threads and then blaming the OP when the thread turns into a shit fight ...but mostly, I just don't like you Torsten and needed to say so publically! :P

    tbh, I'm not all that phased by the phasing out of conspiracy theory discussions, I find it hilarious that this community would take such a restricted approach to investigating the possible hidden realities around us, but to each their own. I'll stick to plants and occasionally expressing my dislike of Torsten from now on, I don't want to step on any toes and discuss taboo subjects.

    I just needed to "please explain" to answer your request, and defend my position as a real concern, not "being argumentative and jumping on the bandwagon" or simply a personal dislike, ...and to think this all started because people took disagreements personally. :lol:

    • Like 2
×