The English Connection

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Davinho wrote:

Quote:

why does it need to get so personal...where does that come in.

it's not personal, I'm just saying it how I see it.

Quote:

Surely, if someone gives you a bit of info, veiled or otherwise, it's usually best to meditate on it and come to your own conclusions.

Ah another case of game playing? Until people grow up, stop playing games and work together no progress will ever be made......but hey perhaps that's what people want.....the game to not end

seconded, Davinho...

...although I'm guessing you might see me as one of the main culprits :lol:

Regards,

Spartacus

Davinho · **Joined:** 26 Jan 2010 10:58 am **Posts:** 1806

haha it seems to me that the deeper you are entrenched in the mystery the more games you play.......funny that
:lol:

Spartacus Paraclete · **Joined:** 30 Dec 2009 12:04 pm **Posts:** 1906

Davinho wrote:

haha it seems to me that the deeper you are entrenched in the mystery the more games you play.......funny that
:lol:

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 5:53 pm

roscoe wrote:

TCP wrote:

roscoe wrote:

Just let me lay down a self evident rule here that nobody seems to have grasped. We are dealing with a Secret Society and Secret Societies are Secret. They will lie if you get too close (the term they use is Diverting a Discourse), they will put out false trials, that's what Secret Societies do.

I would imagine secret societies don't often angle for free publicity by giving interviews to authors either.

TCP

They will when membership is dropping and they need to recruit. Especially when the selected few found suitable in the Blue Lodge Outer Temple are moved into the Inner Temple.

Giving interviews to Englishmen for an "explosive" work of psuedohistorical revison doesn't seem like a very practical way to recruit - unless, of course, selectivity no longer matters and they're simply trying to raise capital.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 5:58 pm

Sheila wrote:

why does it need to get so personal...where does that come in.
Surely, if someone gives you a bit of info, veiled or otherwise, it's usually best to meditate on it and come to your own conclusions.

You might want to direct your questions to "Tertius" as he's the one making things personal and dismissive.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:07 pm

Sheila wrote:

Hmmm...i had to really think about what a "bleu photo" is... and if i've got the right end of the stick then i reckon this is a rather obvious example of one.

AP Wire Photo - 1974. Flowers for an Artist: Marc Chagall, left, is given a bouquet of flowers by a girl at right in the First National Plaza in Chicago before the unveiling of a mosaic designed by Chagall. Left to right: Mr. Gaylord Freeman, chairman of the First National Bank of Chicago, Mrs. Freeman and Mayor Richard J. Daley.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, unless you're suggesting that Marc Chagall was a member of the Priory of Sion.

TCP

Sheila · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:23 pm

You are one dumb bunny Tim, polish up your glasses mate.

Sheila · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:27 pm

TCP wrote:

Sheila wrote:

why does it need to get so personal...where does that come in.
Surely, if someone gives you a bit of info, veiled or otherwise, it's usually best to meditate on it and come to your own conclusions.

You might want to direct your questions to "Tertius" as he's the one making things personal and dismissive.

TCP

hmm....did you even bother to reflect on what he'd posted...if not, there must be at least two reasons why you didn't.

Sheila · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:28 pm

Post removed

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:34 pm

Sheila wrote:

I beg to differ .......did any of you bother finding out what Tertius is saying here....it's actually rather important.

If you would all stop jumping down the man's throat...you will see that you've been given some rather interesting bit's of information here....get translating and then go figure.

Sub Tillia indeed.

If it was important he'd drop the personal insults and write in English. Or is that what he has you for? :lol:

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:35 pm

Sheila wrote:

You are one dumb bunny Tim, polish up your glasses mate.

That is exactly what the photo depicts, despite whatever myth your handler tells you.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:36 pm

Post removed

Better than that, I found the original caption. :lol:

Do you ever stop to think about how his unethical behavior affects your credibility, Sheila? Perhaps you should.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:39 pm

Sheila wrote:

sorry Tim, that is laughable on both counts.... look at the photo and tell me what you see, describe the scene please.

I've already done so, as per the original caption on the photo. Now why don't YOU tell us what it means, Christa-Girl? Or do you need time to confer with your handler?

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:40 pm

Sheila wrote:

Quote:

Better than that, I found the original caption

you are so slow...

You are so fake... :lol:

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:45 pm

Sheila wrote:

LOOK at the photo...how many people are present ?

Five - Marc Chagall, Mr. and Mrs. Freeman, Mayor Daley, and the young lady presenting a posey to the artist.

How many do DO see?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9679871@N04/6330212150/

Better yet, let's ask anyone else following this thread how many people THEY see?

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:49 pm

Sheila wrote:

i'm probably the most genuine person you are ever likely never to meet...and it's "Crista"...sans H btw.

The fact that you feel you have to tell people how "genuine" you are speaks volumes.

"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

TCP

Sheila · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:51 pm

LOOK at the photo.

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 6:52 pm

Sheila wrote:

OMG...look again !

Two partially obscured faces over Chagall's shoulder. Now I bet you're going to tell us who they are, right? Or maybe not, you'll probably see how much mileage you can get out of it.

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:07 pm

Sheila wrote:

...and you don't know photoshopping when it's right under your nose, or are you just being obtuse ?

Show us where it's photoshopped:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9679871@N04/6330212150/

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:13 pm

Sheila wrote:

blow it up and have a look.

1024 x 984 - nothing. Unless you're making some sort of case for ghost photography. :lol:

TCP

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:20 pm

Sheila wrote:

only four people were present...not five.

You're daft.

TCP

Sheila · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:20 pm

no i'm not...you are blowing smoke in everybody's eyes Tim.

Sheila · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:24 pm

Sheila wrote:

Hmmm...i had to really think about what a "bleu photo" is... and if i've got the right end of the stick then i reckon this is a rather obvious example of one.

for those that missed the start of the "conversation", this is the photograph i am talking about.

VeryAngryMother · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:33 pm

Sorry to butt in chaps. No idea what the argument (or indeed the thread) is about except there are obviously only 4 people in the photo??

VAM

TCP · **Posted:** 26 Jan 2012 7:37 pm

VeryAngryMother wrote:

Sorry to butt in chaps. No idea what the argument (or indeed the thread) is about except there are obviously only 4 people in the photo??

VAM

Is that what you see, VAM? Only four people in the photo?

TCP

Arcadia Discussion Zone

The English Connection

Who is online