Sheather

Hence it being useless to the common man. I have done quite a lot of research into the freeman techniques, and if there's one thing it showed me, it's that if your knowledge isn't almost encyclopaedic then you will get your arse handed to you, and to that end, I think it would be better to advise people to do a great deal of research rather than hand them a snippet of information and say "this is what happened and how and you can use it to get out of a jam." I would think that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, rather than the skeptic. You're asking me to disprove your comments, relying on the fact that you've said them as evidence enough of proof? That logic is bordering on religious pseudo-logic, thankfully not quite that bad. How remarkably arrogant.

MFW 1 litre of ayahuasca contains 10 kilograms of DMT. I can hardly see it as fearful propaganda. He's asking for specific information about how to become a part of ceremonies involvving copious amounts of an illegal substance. It is illegal due to DMT in its composition, and denying knowledge about it is definitely a valid response when asked from someone who has shown no reason to be trustworthy. I would call it more a healthy dose of cynicism. How do you determine legitimacy?

You make a remarkably obvious seeker of pseudo-condemning knowledge. I don't know if many members will be willing to risk their necks on the possibilty that you are genuine and safe to talk to. You have six posts to your name so far, how would they know you're not a cop looking for an easy catch or somesuch? I think you'd need to be a regular at least for someone to be willing to divulge such information, that is, if they knew of anything like that. I'm sure nobody on this forum has dealings with such an illegal substance

I think all ethos is saying is that it doesn't turn black and white as in when you look elsewhere on the image so long as you keep your eyes on the dot.

I posted this in the free energy thread too. It looks like it will be some improvement aye? Here it is embedded. It only works with ease if you do it from youtube I think, or if you go to the page source and find the video file (normally .flv or .swf) EDIT: Oops, didn't embed it.

Humm, I think the newest post finder somehow skipped that comment. I apologise for my somewhat harsh response... I think it is important to note though that even if there is not an apparent source of energy, it could still be recieving energy from somewhere (surrounding environment).

You clearly don't have your definitions right then. Perpetual motion indicates that a system can put out equal to or more than the amount of energy put in. Free energy instead suggests that more energy can be put out than YOU put in. A solar panel is an example of a free energy device. These aren't closed systems producing energy from nothing (perpetual motion machines would by necessity be closed systems), these are open systems that take energy from the environment around them to produce more energy than they require to run. Did you watch the clip I posted? It explains a concept of free energy generation through nanofibres, it's in development as collaborative work of many outstanding scientists and engineers. Apparently an example of such is a flywheel being rotated in pulses. The book suggests that the flywheel takes some energy from the environment around it in this situation and can be propelled faster than the energy required would suggest (if given constantly). I'm not advocating perpetual motion, nor gullability. The possibilities should be determinable with simple logic - bearing in mind that most of these aren't closed systems.

Because free energy is NOT perpetual motion, it is the use of systems that put out more energy than YOU put in. Also the original post was a specific question... The thread has just degenerated. What about THIS?

Where might I locate such a shop? They look like they'd be full of interesting and cheap knick nacks that I'd love...

Perhaps somebody already has O.o The book makes a clear distinction between free energy and perpetual motion though. It clearly states that none of the devices it shows are trying to break the laws of physics.

I have a PDF thousands of pages long all about free energy devices... I don't know where I got it but I think it was linked from somewhere in this forum. It was written by a guy named "Patrick J. Kelly" and I'll try to upload it somewhere if you're interested?

I think "for long hours in a sealed area" has more to do with it than the fans taking oxygen from the air. They probably can, but in miniscule amounts.

Yeah I've heard a bit about that, most people seem convinced of something along the lines of ergotism, which was pretty prevalent in those times. I'm inclined to side with them, but I think the reports not too accurate. If they'd danced for days without pause they'd have died from either dehydration, exertion, or lack of sleep... The dancing could have been misrepresented seizures or something? Just another random thought...

Is Gringe a cross between cringing and grimacing?

Our Detective Chief Inspector here doesn't know what the fuck he's on about.

Imo women are much more likely to outright deny any appreciation for porn, whether they watch it or not, simply because of social constructs. I've know girls who watch general hetero porn, some watch gay or lesbian porn too. I think it really depends on the preferences of the individual.

My girlfriend got really hurt when she noticed I had porn on my PC a while ago. I ended up deleting the lot and not touching it for a while from shame, but after I'd thought about it for a while, I rejected that view and got some again. More recently, she's discovered that I masturbate, and is hurt that I'm not masturbating solely to her, and was questioning me about why isn't she enough? I've refused to apologise because I don't think I've done anything wrong, but she'd reduced herself to tears in the discussion we had immediately afterwards. Women can be so emotional. EDIT: @Ballzac I wasn't hiding anything either, as I didn't think it would be an issue, it was in My Documents, a folder called Porn.

Do you have a shred of evidence to support this claim? Something that isn't just as much hearsay and anecdotal nonsense? That it stood for 1000 years doesn't suggest it still stands today, and a name with all letters lower case indicates you aren't speaking of a proper noun, which is to say a specific person or place. Your comment sound plausible but the reality is most of this information is worse than useless to the vast majority of people. Without a great deal of knowledge on the matter, "freeman" techniques will get you thrown in jail rather easily. There are few who I think will pursue the information to any serious degree.

Oh my god! Arnie with a koala?! Adorable. From the same intriguing artist as #374 And something for a bit of perspective. I've left it as a link due to size, thought it would be more considerate.

You get that simply from the word register? Don't you think it more logical that it would mean recognised by the crown instead?

From my limited understanding of the group, I'd say absolutely essential to the continuation of life. Although I'm not sure it's present in all species, it appears to be a fairly important enzyme group for those which do utilise them. VVVVVVV What would be the results from the removal of SSB proteins from a human? VVVVVVV

It is likely doing permanent damage to your hearing, though it's up to you to determine if that's a bad thing. Favourite object within your house and why?

That is twisted logic. An area of space can contain nothing, and thus it can be said that nothing exists within this space. This statement is saying that there is not a single thing existing within said space, by definition of the word nothing. Nothing = no thing - the lack of things in an area indicates that nothing exists there. It is not a thing, its definition states that it is a lack of things. Nothing is a creation of our language as a negative definition. As such it can be said to exist in all places where no things exist, without filling those spaces with a thing to negate said nothingness (remember - negative definition). As such, logic has no need to prove it. It exists by its very meaning.

May I get that last Mugwort, and spring onions?

Hope to find someone good enough to stitch it them back together, or make a clumsy attempt yourself. Either way is imperfect. What should you do when you feel crushed by the weight of existance, when you ask yourself why bother with the world if there's no lasting meaning to it all?