Modern Miracles, Guadalupe, Fatima

[Leo Volont]

Modern Miracles It is the constant din of the Materialist’s argument that the theist has not been able to prove the existence of God. Well, untrue. It is simply that the Materialist will not accept the proofs which are offered. Remember how the Scholastic Church used to dismiss the Heliocentric Models of the Solar System in favor of the Aristotelian Ptolemaic Models of Geocentricity – that they would deny that the Sun was the center of the solar system; and why? Well, they already had their answer. Their model even presented with mathematics, well enough to satisfy themselves. They could even make clocks that would tick away reproducing the night and day skies exactly, all with the earth in the very center. As far as they cared, they already had the Truth, thank you very much Galileo and Copernicus. Well, today the shoe is well on the other foot and it is Religion which demands Empirical Attention to Actual Events, Phenomena and Occurrences which would demonstrate Divine Supernaturalism. But Science dodges the issue by exerting an ‘a priori’ reasoning which goes something like this – since Miracles are impossible, then it is impossible for a Miracle to ever happen, and so therefore Miracles do not happen – they do not exist because they cannot exist, and any God predicated upon Miracles likewise would not exist. No need to even look up out of their logic book. They can refute the Providentiality of the Divine without ever going beyond a formulation of words – it is as though they are attempting to protect themselves by casting a Spell or chanting a magic formula. You do see what is happening there, don’t you? Logic is being used to dismiss Empirical Evidence, just as formerly a Scholastic Logic was used to dismiss Science. That was when Science was still Empirical, before Science corrupted into the very thing it once stood against – a Bulwark of Dogma, in this case using a purely grammatical construct of words, a sophistry of logic, in order to dodge the evidence of eyes, ears, testimony, witnesses, documentation, reports, sworn affidavits, libraries replete with what cannot be honestly referred to as anything but considerable Data. I would suggest anybody who wishes to be convinced of the Miraculous to do a study of two particular Apparitional Complexes – first, Our Lady of Guadalupe, and then Our Lady of Fatima. Our Lady of Guadalupe is unique in that Miraculous ‘residue’ has been left behind for our scientific examination. Our Lady had created an Image of Herself on a canvass of very coarse burlap that should have rotted away in less than 20 years, but still remains after almost 500 years. The colors that form the Image shift and change, like those of an oil slick, and study shows that no paints or pigments were used to form the Miraculous Image, but that the Image seems to have grown out of the very molecules of the cloth fibers, more like the chemical and molecular processes of a photograph than anything we know of in painting or drawing. And Science has had it close by in Mexico City for the last 4 or 5 Centuries, clear Proof of the Miraculous while they simply pretend it never happened and doesn’t exist. There is also the remarkable story of what had occurred during one of many of the Revolutions in Mexico, fomented by those tirelessly evil Free Masons. A time bomb consisting of a large flower vase, filled to the brim with nitroglycerin was set off on the very altar of the Basilica just beneath the glass casing of the apparently fragile Image. Well, miraculously enough, especially to our modern sensibility of just how much damage bombs are capable of, nobody was hurt, though windows blew out and chunks of marble wall flew asunder. Mass was being celebrated at the time and so Priest and altar boys and such who were only inches away from the center of the explosion, who would have been expected to be blown to shreds – even vaporized – but when smoke and dust cleared, there they stood, as well as those startled parishioners in the front rows. The large brass crucifix set beside the altar was bent up into an indiscernible twisted piece of junk. But the glass case that held the image, a few feet away, was not even cracked… didn’t even show a smudge. The smoke cleared and everybody present knew of the extent of the Miracle they just experienced. But Science wouldn’t acknowledge the Miracle… heck, they would not even acknowledge that it was they who had set the bomb. The second complex of Miracles I would like to point out surround the Apparition of Our Lady of Fatima Portugal, particularly the last Miracle of a series of Miracles that occurred over a period of six months. The Miracle of the Sun of October 13th, 1917 was witnessed, on the spot, by a crowd of 75,000 witnesses, many of whom were skeptics, partisans of an Anti-Catholic Revolution then besetting Portugal… they had come to hoot and holler, but instead they became reluctant witnesses to what they would have preferred not to believe had they not seen it with their own eyes. Then, over a dimension of approximately 500 square miles, people who had chosen not to be involved with the by then famous Apparition were startled when they too witnessed the Miracle of the Sun up in the sky – a Dancing of the Sun in a splendor of unexpected colors, which included prospects of the Sun diving at the earth as though it were the end of the World. Perhaps part of the Miracle involves the demarcation of the line between those who witnessed a Spectacular Miracle and those a county line away who had an ordinary day and saw nothing. For instance, those in Spain, a few miles away, had not the slightest clue of why those across the invisible line to the West were looking up into the sky. Little spoken of is a strange auxiliary miracle that also happened. You see, it had been raining all the night before and all morning up until minutes before the scheduled Apparition. All of Europe had seen this storm, and the soldiers of the First World War were drenched and cold in their trenches. The people gathered at Fatima were likewise sopping wet, and standing to their ankles in mud stirred up by a milling crowd of 75,000. The Apparition and the Miracle of the Sun lasted only 20 minutes, which means that the constant rain had only suspended itself by no more than a half an hour. But EVERYBODY took note that at the close of the Miracle, they and the ground beneath them were entirely warm and dry. Cars that had been in mud up to their axles a moment before were now raising dust in their drive away. Every coat, shirt and even sock and boot were bone dry. It was not a spectacular Miracle, but just something of a nice gift that Our Lady could leave this vast crowd, that they should reflect upon the Miracle they had just witnessed in reasonable creature comfort. Then we have the Results. The imminent Socialist Anti-Clerical Revolution in Portugal fizzled out. The World Media, packed with Free Masons, was able to isolate the Miracle’s influence to the borders of Portugal, but they lost influence there and would never entirely gain it back. As a reward for their return to Religion, Portugal would be saved from any of the turmoil of World War Two… indeed, one can note that every Loyal Catholic Country was able to avoid World War Two. All of Central and South America, under the Protection of Our Lady of Guadalupe, and Portugal, Ireland, and to a limited extent Spain. All those previously Catholic Nations then ruled by Free Masonic controlled Parliaments were sucked into the War. There are other Miracles which could be discussed, but any sincere search for such wonderful phenomena can progress well enough without any further comment from my keyboard, though if anybody would appreciate my opinions on this or that which they may uncover… don’t hesitate to ask. Also, I should point out that Catholic Prophecy foretells of a coming Great Miracle that the World Media will not have the tenacity to ignore. This coming Great Miracle will also leave a Miraculous Residue which will attest to the certitude of its Supernatural Origins. Part of the Prophecy is that a core group of Atheists, though slapped in the face by more than ample Proof, will choose to adhere to their Atheism simply because they have too great an emotional investment in their Doctrine of Hate to give it up simply because it is not true. That had never worried them before. References: http://www.fatima.org/essentials/facts/default.asp http://www.catholicism.org/brmichael-guadalupe.html http://www.apparitions.org/#codes

[bradybaker]

Interesting read, thanks for actually posting something of substance for once. Here is my question to you, and no, I'm not trying to be evil. Have you ever considered the possibility that these 'events' and 'observations' can be explained without the introduction of supernatural forces? Secondly, are you actually proud that the Catholics didn't get involved in WWII? Their 'position of non-involvement' during the Holocaust was and is commonly seen as a complete disgrace to the morality they hold so high. EDIT: I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just asking a couple simple questions...please respond honestly.

[Nirvana Starseed]

Nice post Leo. Of which I would like to add here..... The spirituality of science Truth is God, and the unbelieving will suffer. We are God and the unbelieving shall not know himself. No-where can this be seen more clearly than humanitys religion, And no-where can this be seen more clearly than humanitys science. So who is better, I say neither, but both are the same. Stop fighting and start uniting that which has its place in the scheme of truth. Stop unbelieving and start believing in each other. And believing in that which is yet to be discovered. And do it with a faith that you shall know what is true, It does no good, to say you shall never know and what you say is always wrong. In no-one can this be seen more clearly, than an athiest. And no-one can this be seen more clearly, than a religious fanatic. So be balanced and know the middle way. This is the main message of the buddha. and the main message of christ is to love one another. Here you have the mind and love aspects. The masters have shown you the way now you should start knowing it, and living it. Those who do not understand what is shown before them, can never aspire in the image of that which they worship. And those who do not believe can never understand that which was taught.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by bradybaker Interesting read, thanks for actually posting something of substance for once. Here is my question to you, and no, I'm not trying to be evil. Have you ever considered the possibility that these 'events' and 'observations' can be explained without the introduction of supernatural forces? Secondly, are you actually proud that the Catholics didn't get involved in WWII? Their 'position of non-involvement' during the Holocaust was and is commonly seen as a complete disgrace to the morality they hold so high. EDIT: I'm not trying to be argumentative either, just asking a couple simple questions...please respond honestly. The Holocaust only happened because England and America placed an Embargo on Europe. It was inevitable that millions of people would die of starvation. Churchhill and Roosevelt were effectively just as guilty as Hitler. Now, war was what caused all of those problems. Peace would have solved them. German generals had been applying for Peace since 1941, and the Allies refused to deal... the Americans and the English wanted a War, and we can suppose they wanted to starve out millions of Europeans, perhaps even specifically targetting the Jews. Remember that the Allies were already landed in Italy but chose not to bring up their Armies from the South, but chose to go all the way back to the farthest reaches of western france. Why? Because if they had come up from the South, the greater proportion of Concentration and Labor Camps would have been quickly liberated. The Allies deliberately slowed the War in order to assure a great mortality among the Camp Inmates. Look at the War Plans. The Armies were supposed to go slow. General Paton was not following orders or projected schedules as he liberated the Camps early. Finding anybody alive had not been part of the plan. So who were the Catholics supposed fight? Both Sides were Enemies. Let them kill off each other. As for the Jews, well Jewish Banking funded the War. Was it not they who said that people would reap what they sow? If they did not want to suffer from the Dogs of War, then they should not have financed the whole damned Dog Show. But looking at Catholic Prophecy from Fatima (of course you did no homework) it was declared that a Second War was not at all necessary, and that a Second War would only come in punishment for those who would not Repent and take up Moral and Godly lives. The Second World War was not political or military in that sense, but only a Grand Punishment from God. So, no, it is silly to suppose that any nation was wrong for not jumping into the avoidable fray. Expanding the War would only have made it worse. Besides, you should watch what you argue for. Whom are you fighting? Are you presently in uniform. How dare you sit at a desk and talk about having others fight. Go fight yourself if you feel that way. And, no, there is not other explanation for these referenced Events outside of Divine Providentiality. Again, you are resorting to the A Priori Dodge of Miracles are Impossible and so it must have been something else. You are using a Logical Sophism in order to avoid the Empirical Reality of the Situation. There is a Reason we have the Word "Miracle". If it describes a logical impossibility then we need to wonder whether we have not seen more Miracles than we have Mathematical Logical Abstractions. Nobody has ever seen a Mathematical Logical Abstraction, but we have thousands of documented miracles. So I would say that if we had to choose between the Reality of a Miracle or of an Abstraction, I would prefer the Miracle.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed Nice post Leo. Of which I would like to add here..... The spirituality of science Truth is God, and the unbelieving will suffer. We are God and the unbelieving shall not know himself. No-where can this be seen more clearly than humanitys religion, And no-where can this be seen more clearly than humanitys science. So who is better, I say neither, but both are the same. Stop fighting and start uniting that which has its place in the scheme of truth. Stop unbelieving and start believing in each other. And believing in that which is yet to be discovered. And do it with a faith that you shall know what is true, It does no good, to say you shall never know and what you say is always wrong. In no-one can this be seen more clearly, than an athiest. And no-one can this be seen more clearly, than a religious fanatic. So be balanced and know the middle way. This is the main message of the buddha. and the main message of christ is to love one another. Here you have the mind and love aspects. The masters have shown you the way now you should start knowing it, and living it. Those who do not understand what is shown before them, can never aspire in the image of that which they worship. And those who do not believe can never understand that which was taught. Jeepers, Nirvana, maybe you need to be reminded that Jesus probably could have used a better Game Plan. Do you really suggest that the Imitation of Christ requires us all to be murdered by the Atheists? God and the Angels had supported Christ's Messianic endeavors until it became entirely too clear that practically the entire social infrastructure of Judah was virulently against it. The Messianic Mission was then replaced by a Divine Decision to Lay Waste the Land with a Curse. And it could happen again. If the Atheists again achieve this huge plurality and again discourage the Divine Implacement of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, then, once again, the alternative will be that the Avenging Angels should lay waste to the land. And we then will all suffer. Catholics suffered for 2000 years because of the mistakes of the Atheists of Judah. And you want to be nice to them. Well, Our Lady talks of Mercy and Kindness, and though I am largely a Partisan of Our Lady, when it comes to that, I would rather incline to the Viewpoint of Her Son, who when He was being lead to the slaughter consciously and deliberately placed the Curse on Jerusalem. He was not forgiving of those atheists. yes, He forgave the Roman Platoon because it was none of their affair. But when He said that not one stone would stand upon another, it was as good as He Himself knocking down the Walls Himself. Then there is their Moral Assumptions of these Atheists. Where Freedom is the only Virtue, then every exploitation and predation is permitted and allowed. Just look, Capitalism (the child of Atheist Protestantism) is moving ever closer to pushing labor into bare-subsistence slavery. The Principle of Competition must move inevitably toward having One World Winner and a remainder of failed and broken losers. it is not only Wrong, but it won't Work. It fails both the moral test and the pragmatic one. You can be nice to these people, but they will then think that you must half agree with them. They won't make that mistake about me.

[spoon]

So I took the bait, and studied the two "miracles". Our Lady of Guadalupe Originally posted by Leo Our Lady of Guadalupe is unique in that Miraculous ‘residue’ has been left behind for our scientific examination. Our Lady had created an Image of Herself on a canvass of very coarse burlap that should have rotted away in less than 20 years, but still remains after almost 500 years. The colors that form the Image shift and change, like those of an oil slick, and study shows that no paints or pigments were used to form the Miraculous Image, but that the Image seems to have grown out of the very molecules of the cloth fibers, more like the chemical and molecular processes of a photograph than anything we know of in painting or drawing Lets see. First off, it's really not that hard to preserve things for long times. It is not a miracle that a cloth survived hundreds of years. To the rest of those claims, scientific studies have been done on the cloth and it has been firmly established that it was painted on. The best part of that report would be Originally posted by The site I linked+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The site I linked)</div> infrared photographs show that the hands have been modified, and close-up photography shows that pigment has been applied to the highlight areas of the face sufficiently heavily so as to obscure the texture of the cloth. There is also obvious cracking and flaking of paint all along a vertical seam, and the infrared photos reveal in the robe's fold what appear to be sketch lines, suggesting that an artist roughed out the figure before painting it. Portrait artist Glenn Taylor has pointed out that the part in the Virgin's hair is off-center; that her eyes, including the irises, have outlines, as they often do in paintings, but not in nature, and that these outlines appear to have been done with a brush; and that much other evidence suggests the picture was probably copied by an inexpert artist from an expertly done original.[/b] As for the nitroglycerin story, do you have an primary evidence backing it up? You do know stories of this kind are exaggerated wildly or just plain made up. Burden of proof would be on you to establish that this actually happened. Our Lady of Fatima First off, the sun did not dance around for everyone in that hemisphere (as you said) - suggesting that it was some sort of localised effect. A true miracle would have had the sun actually moving around for everyone. So, if it was a localised effect - what was everyone present doing? Staring at the sun. Starting at the sun for long enough tends to make you see things. Hell, staring at one point for long enough makes you see things. You even debunked a similar phenomenon at these very forums last week: <!--QuoteBegin-Leo Anyway, what this staring into a mirror does is to use up the specific biochemical ingredients in the eyes and brain which would give the normal color and resolution to the image being stared at. You see, normally the eyes move around and new movements catch our awareness and by moving from image to image and color to color, our eyes and brain can keep up with the proper chemical outputs to process and develop our continuity of sight vision. But just staring introduces a dysfunction. So, when you stare into a mirror for just a few minutes, ofcourse, you will soon find yourself seeing some colorless and focus shifting version of yourself. What else would you expect to see, given the circumstances? And all other Aura Seeing is based upon the same principles... of draining off the neural pigments by staring at fixed objects. Stare at a girl in a green sweater, and you will see a Red Aura. A Yellow Dress will cast a Blue aura just as Blue will throw Yellow. In short, when your eye and brain are drained of a specific pigment, we will end up seeing the opposite color in some shifty aura. Nothing supernatural about it at all. Indeed, I am always surprised that the silly women who attend these New Age Seminars do not openly rebel when they are pressed into these idiotic exercises, as what is happening should be entirely clear to anybody but a .... Well, I should not say it, because it seems that you were fooled by it yourself. And I am not ordinarily a Skeptic, but this kind of thing causes us Spiritualists to be quite the deserving laughing stock of the Scientific Community who then goes on to suppose that we must be equally retarded and gullible about every other thing as well. This applies here as well. I especially liked the part about being a laughing stock. Secondly, the localised effect wasn't even universal. Not all of the people who were at the site witnessed the \"miracle\", and those that did witness it saw very different phenomena. Why couldn't everyone see it, and why wasn't it standard throughout all the \"visions\"? As for the \"auxiliary miracle\" of the drying ground, you are aware that the ground dries rather quickly right? Especially in areas riddled with cracks and caves, which usually happens in areas which are limestone. And, sure enough, Fatima is in a limestone range. As for people reporting dried feet, it seems to me like a tall tale, in light of all the other evidence pointing towards a scientific explanation of this \"miracle\". Summing up All in all, not very convincing miracles. Despite your claim: Originally posted by leo But Science dodges the issue by exerting an ‘a priori’ reasoning which goes something like this – since Miracles are impossible, then it is impossible for a Miracle to ever happen, and so therefore Miracles do not happen – they do not exist because they cannot exist, and any God predicated upon Miracles likewise would not exist. No need to even look up out of their logic book. It is clear that if anyone cares to "look up from their logic book", the evidence points towards a scientific explanation. Your whole post was just one big illustration of confirmation bias: you 'know' that Catholicism is correct, so you only see the miraculous evidence in these cases - even when the scientific evidence is easily available. And anyway what sort of lame, half-assed god uses apparitions and hallucinations as miracles? What ever happened to feeding 500 people with a loaf of bread. That might be a miracle science could not explain, pity miracles of that kind never happen. But, since apparitions are all we've got, apparitions are what you get. Praise the true god: -spoon

[Nirvana Starseed]

Originally posted by spoon So I took the bait I don't know about Leo, but I'm not fishing for small fish.

[spoon]

So was there any point to that post, or was it just an insult? Any shortcomings you can point out in my scientific explenation of these "miracles"? No? To run with your metaphor: If you want a big fish use better bait

[Nanten]

The Holocaust only happened because England and America placed an Embargo on Europe. It was inevitable that millions of people would die of starvation. Churchhill and Roosevelt were effectively just as guilty as Hitler. You're saying that the Holocaust was not the Nazis killing Jews, gypsies, etc., but instead Jews, gypsies, etc. starving to death because of an embargo. That makes no sense. We have pictures of what happened in the concentration camps. We have German records. It wasn't mass starvation, it was mass murder. Now, war was what caused all of those problems. Peace would have solved them. German generals had been applying for Peace since 1941, and the Allies refused to deal... I wonder why. The Germans initiated a war of aggression by invading Poland, the Low Countries, France, and other nations. The Allies didn't want peace because the Germans would have ended up with most of Europe, territory that didn't belong to them. Also, Germany only wanted peace with the Allies so that they could safely invade the USSR and start an even more destructive stage of the war. the Americans and the English wanted a War, and we can suppose they wanted to starve out millions of Europeans, perhaps even specifically targetting the Jews. Proof? Remember that the Allies were already landed in Italy but chose not to bring up their Armies from the South, They brought some of their armies up from the south. The Germans kept fighting in Italy after its government surrendered. The Allies weren't making enough progress on that front and Stalin was pushing for a landing in France to take some pressure off of the battered Red Army. but chose to go all the way back to the farthest reaches of western france. Why? Because if they had come up from the South, the greater proportion of Concentration and Labor Camps would have been quickly liberated. No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Massdep...eportations.gif The Allies deliberately slowed the War in order to assure a great mortality among the Camp Inmates. I see little evidence of that. What were they supposed to do, charge directly into Germany? They liberated France in two months and nineteen days. Trouble with logistics slowed their advances in the fall, and Operation Market Garden failed. These prevented a faster victory. After Antwerp was secured, Germany launched their counteroffensive and the Battle of the Bulge began, which stalled the Allies some more. Finally, the Allies were able to assault Germany itself and finish the war. There is no evidence that the Allies slowed the war to kill more people. Look at the War Plans. The Armies were supposed to go slow. General Paton was not following orders or projected schedules as he liberated the Camps early. Finding anybody alive had not been part of the plan. Germany would have been defeated quickly enough, with or without Patton. So who were the Catholics supposed fight? Both Sides were Enemies. Let them kill off each other. As for the Jews, well Jewish Banking funded the War. Was it not they who said that people would reap what they sow? If they did not want to suffer from the Dogs of War, then they should not have financed the whole damned Dog Show. Quit with the conspiracy theories, please. If you're going to post wild accusations, try to make some effort at coherence and provide evidence. But looking at Catholic Prophecy from Fatima (of course you did no homework) it was declared that a Second War was not at all necessary, and that a Second War would only come in punishment for those who would not Repent and take up Moral and Godly lives. The Second World War was not political or military in that sense, but only a Grand Punishment from God. So, no, it is silly to suppose that any nation was wrong for not jumping into the avoidable fray. Expanding the War would only have made it worse. The war was not avoidable. Hitler was a madman. Appeasement was tried. It failed. Besides, you should watch what you argue for. Whom are you fighting? Are you presently in uniform. How dare you sit at a desk and talk about having others fight. Go fight yourself if you feel that way. Are you in uniform? Did you liberate the concentration camps or fight in World War II? If not, you might want to refrain from criticizing Allied war plans and claiming that they allowed genocide to occur. And, no, there is not other explanation for these referenced Events outside of Divine Providentiality. There's no possible explanation for \"miracles\" except God? Since when? Again, you are resorting to the A Priori Dodge of Miracles are Impossible and so it must have been something else. You are using a Logical Sophism in order to avoid the Empirical Reality of the Situation. There is a Reason we have the Word \"Miracle\". If it describes a logical impossibility then we need to wonder whether we have not seen more Miracles than we have Mathematical Logical Abstractions. Nobody has ever seen a Mathematical Logical Abstraction, but we have thousands of documented miracles. So I would say that if we had to choose between the Reality of a Miracle or of an Abstraction, I would prefer the Miracle. Thousands of documented miracles could easily be explained by something other than God. I don't care about what you think of miracles. When you revise history to make the Germans look like the good guys in World War II, you step over the line and do something I can't stand.

[Ex Nine]

The Darwin apparition is TEH BOMB. And I only go outside the rules of proper spelling on very special occasions.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Nanten (regarding the holocaust) . The War had been a gamble for the Germans. Europe had enough surplus food for a year or two. Everybody was diverted into the Armies or to the factories. The farms were vacant. The War was supposed to be over by 1943. After that, there was no food. It was something of a miracle that anybody on the continent of Europe survived. Now, consider what you would do in a similar situation, if you were in political control of a starving continent. Would you allow the populations to stay home so they could get together and riot? Or would you send them to Camps where they could be monitored and controlled? Look at America -- did they NOT send people to a Camp with their Hurrican Katrina -- and no food was provided. It is the habit of Government to organize and control misery. But the American Government did not cause Hurricane Katrina, and the Germans did not cause the starvation of Europe. It was the British and the Americans who did that. There were more than enough Food Supplies that were diverted from South America. If one looks at the History close enough, I am sure that you could even find instances of the British or even the Americans sinking supply boats flying neutral flags. One needs to remember regarding the Holocaust that nobody actually looked to see what really happened and then reported it. What we have is only have is the presentation from the lawyers at the War Crimes Trials, and lawyers are famous for not being objective or impartial. They had a case to win and presented all of their 'facts' with the intent of describing a particular picture which they wanted to present to the World. So they made Starvation Camps appear to be like Death Camps. But there is a huge difference between actively killing people, and standing by passively while they die from a condition which they are powerless to prevent. Only a Miracle or the decision to lift the Food Embargo could have saved those millions of lives. But the Americans and the British refused to budge. They still do the same thing. For instance, in Iraq while we now know that Saddam Hussein did indeed do everything that was required of him by the Americans -- to destroy all his Weapons of Mass Destruction -- the Americans never choose to lift its own Embargo -- their "Sanctions", and we know that these Sanctions caused the death of thousands of young children and babies each year. There is something about the Protestant Mentality that delights in Murder by Embargo. Also, there is the point regarding the Holocaust where we must wonder about all of the millions of survivors. Nobody is more methodical than the Germans. You would think that if they did indeed control the complete Continent, which they did, and if they wanted to kill all of the Jews, Catholics, Gypsies, Socialists and others, then WHY are they not all dead? If there was an Intentional Holocaust committed to the genocide of Jews, why enough Survivors to populated Israel? Remember what they say in the Movies, "If I wanted to kill you, then you would be dead". If the Germans had wanted to kill the Jews, they would be dead. What killing was done was done because the German Planners had determined that even the most minimal food rations had run out. The killing that was done was done in the sense of euthanasia... that it was better to quickly kill people than to allow them to slowly suffer in the throes of starvation.

[ptahsokar]

Originally posted by Ex Nine And I only go outside the rules of proper spelling on very special occasions. Hmmmm. So what you are saying is that you are keeping the spirit of the law of letters. Or perhaps you mean that you are keeping the letter of the law of the spirit of what you are saying. Whatever you do don't tell me that you are keeping the spirit of the letter of the law of letters. I would disagree with that...not on the grounds that it might be false...just on the grounds that its disagreeable.

[Nanten]

Originally posted by Wikipedia From October 1940 ZOW sent reports to Warsaw, and from March 1941 Pilecki's reports were being forwarded via the Polish resistance to the British government in London. These reports were a principal source of intelligence on Auschwitz for the Western Allies. The Allies didn't get the idea that the camps were death camps from nowhere, as is shown above. Oh, yeah. One more thing: Don't post and then send me a PM with the exact same text in it.

[Leo Volont]

Dear Nanten, Reactively responding to each sentence I wrote is a horrible style to have to comment upon. What do you want... another thirty responses. Also, anybody following the thread is asked to read my essay once more, to understand what notions you are leaching upon. Honestly, it would be better if you could learn how to write an essay. Think of what you want to say and say it, and not creep like a vine on somebody else's Tree of Knowledge.

[Nanten]

I'm not trying to write an essay.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Nanten I'm not trying to write an essay. Fine, I was not looking forward to reading one from you anyway. But until you DO write an essay, I will ignore your lists of reactive complaints as simple annoyances.

[Nanten]

Originally posted by Leo Volont Fine, I was not looking forward to reading one from you anyway. But until you DO write an essay, I will ignore your lists of reactive complaints as simple annoyances. Does this mean that you won't respond to my last on-topic post?

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Nanten Does this mean that you won't respond to my last on-topic post? No, not while you write in chopped-up lists. High Society demands certain bare minimums, which, if not met, fully justify exclusion. If you insist upon writing like a protestant, then you will have to satisfied to be read by protestants. I won't touch the stuff.

[Nanten]

No, not while you write in chopped-up lists. High Society demands certain bare minimums, which, if not met, fully justify exclusion. If you insist upon writing like a protestant, then you will have to satisfied to be read by protestants. I won't touch the stuff.[/b] How do I write like a Protestant? Is there a convention where Protestant writers and essayists conspire to write in "chopped-up" sentences or something? Can non-Protestants like myself join the Protestant Writing Guild?

[Ex Nine]

Sokar, I didn't even know there was a law of letters, much less a spirit of the letters, or a law to the spirit of the letters, or a spirit of the law of the letters. Just that there are correct and incorrect arrangments of them. If I believed the most latter of the list, I would have to think there was a spirit to the law of the spirit of the letters. But I cannot think it is correct for a moment that there is law to the spirit of the law of the letters. Not on the grounds that it might be disagreeable. Just on the grounds that it is incorrect.

[Leo Volont]

Originally posted by Nanten No, not while you write in chopped-up lists. High Society demands certain bare minimums, which, if not met, fully justify exclusion. If you insist upon writing like a protestant, then you will have to satisfied to be read by protestants. I won't touch the stuff. How do I write like a Protestant? Is there a convention where Protestant writers and essayists conspire to write in \"chopped-up\" sentences or something? Can non-Protestants like myself join the Protestant Writing Guild?[/b] Well, visit any Protestant Page and you will see what I mean. They all write like you. One will write an essay, and then the next 40 Protestants will submits lists of quotes and responses. It is absolutely agonizing. They can't imagine that the proper answer to one essay is simply another essay. They are too stupid.

[Nanten]

They are too stupid.[/b] Thank you.

[Alex D]

Originally posted by Leo Volont They are too stupid. Jesus Leo, it sounds like a school playground argument. "You smell!" "Well you write funny!" "Well you're stupid!" "Well you're a poopy head!". You get the idea. You, my friend (of I can't wait for wait you say about that) seem to have developed an inferiority complex in your old age. You see, you constantly try to justify your own existence with posts about just how intelligent you claim to be, most of which contradict themselves factually and in turn lend nothing to this veneer you try to put on. I would continue this into a full essay, but I don't want to drone on and eliminate the chance of anyone but the very dull or very bored from reading this post.

[Nirvana Starseed]

ok Alex. Great post......great response.......absolutely astounding. I mean if you weren't here to point out the bickering and how childish it is, while doing some of your own winging about Leo. I really don't know what we would have done. Leo don't waste your time.....it's obvious those present are not capable of conforming to your format nor discussing anything useful with you. The price of knowing some english Speaking of a lack of perception what is this? Originally posted by leo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(leo)</div> They are too stupid.[/b] <!--QuoteBegin-Nanten in response Thank you. (?)....If someone said I was stupid I would not feel a need to thank them, or consider it a compliment. I mean wow....that is really disturbing. wise up everyone, please. I know all your coffees are cold. I'll make you another coffee, anything. Just try not to fall asleep whenever some potential wisdom arrives.

[Alex D]

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed ok Alex. Great post......great response.......absolutely astounding. I mean if you weren't here to point out the bickering and how childish it is, while doing some of your own winging about Leo. I really don't know what we would have done. Aww, you didn't pick up on the subtle irony of the post?