what are the criteria of proof to prove that Brinkman doesn’t believe a word he says that he was assigned to go post hoc find a tree to pretend until a lying make-believe story that he knows his falls in order to run cover for the salvation salesman
the word interpretation equals the word lie and cover story and fabrication for the purpose of covering up a replacement strategy trying to replace the true Psilocybe in Eucharist by their fake salvation salesman product.
these so-called historians are as fake as tom houses
they’re just hired liars; “I am a historian – will fabricate history 4 U to protect your brand”
The Tom Hatsis “Witch who replaced the true, Psilocybin Eucharist by a placebo or scopalamine-deliriant pseudo-Eucharist” brand.
that’s the great product quality that I’m gonna sell with my brand by being a “historian”
NOW let us talk about appropriate Sense of so-called compelling evidence for what and so-called criteria of proof for what proof that the other team is insincere in there pseudo interpretation that they put forth that they don’t even believe in and that they know is a false interpretation it is a deliberate misinterpretation
this is a weaponeyes pseudo-History and weponized pseudo-interpretation; lying cover stories that they fabricate
The appropriate sense of how do we need to – given this reality, how then do we need to apply and talk about and analyze and define so-called
“” compelling evidence for what are we talking about compelling evidence that mushroom tree means mushroom or are we talking about compelling evidence that the other so-called interpretation is in fact a lying cover story by people who know perfectly well that the mushrooms are the real deal Eucharist and the real deal mix wine for that matter mixed wine in the antiquity context
who are the people who are putting forth the so-called interpretation
what is their motive
who prophets
who stands to profit from this bunk interpretation cover story fabrication lie insincere and bluff insincere “compelling evidence” –
for what ???
we need to define compelling evidence for what Dr. Brown for exposing the frauds the salvation salesman and what the real motive is that causes them to put forth this interpretation that they do not believe in and that they know perfectly well is false we need coat compelling evidence both four
Conclusion : we need to define compelling evidence for two things not one thing. we need to find criteria of proof for two things not one thing.
Define compelling evidence for interpreting Mushroom Trees as Psilocybin or Mushrooms
and also define “compelling evidence” for proving that the other team is insincere in there interpretation which they put forth
they don’t believe their own interpretation
they know that their interpretation is false and a lie and a put-on.
The real true I have discovered the true assignment the true assignment is to define criteria of proof for two things prove mushroom trees are mushrooms but you also have to prove and define criteria of proof to prove that the deniers are liars and criminals putting forth and insincere Bluff cover story that they don’t believe in because they are trying to sell a product that is false as hot as a fake history books
the word “History” & “Historian” means telling and fabricating a lie , cover story to cover up the crime of removing Psilocybin from the Eucharist to knowingly and deliberately sell a false fraudulent product that has no effect, as a sales corporate profit Strategy.
the Salvation Salesmen roller derby team = the Historian Hucksters
are we talking about compelling evidence that mushroom tree means mushroom or are we talking about compelling evidence that the other so-called interpretation is in fact a lying cover story by people who know perfectly well that the mushrooms are the real deal Eucharist and the real deal mix wine for that matter mixed wine in the antiquity context who are the people who are putting forth the so-called interpretation what is their motive who prophets who stands to profit from this bunk interpretation cover story fabrication lie insincere and bluff insincere
bluff-interpretations, a put-on, We need compelling evidence that they are con artist trying to bluff and fabricate a cover story that’s with the word interpretation it means what’s your cover story so that you can replace your own fake product like badly written psychedelic history books to replace the real thing: the psilocybin Eucharist. and interpretation here is a lie a criminals cover story fabrication that they try to con other people it’s used as a weapon it’s a weapon eyes cover up scheme it’s an interpretation in that sense in the sense of that the child steals the cookie from the jar and says no mommy I didn’t take the cookie I was in the other room is do we call that an interpretation in fact it’s a lying cover story I interpret the missing cookie in the jar as I didn’t do it because I was in the other room so much
so much for the word interpretation the word interpretation means the lie that I am going to tell to sell you my false product in place of the true Psilocybe in Eucharist.
so much for the word “interpretation”
the word “interpretation” actually means the lie that I am going to tell to sell you my false product in place of the true, Psilocybin Eucharist. NOW , Dr Brown, given that now let’s talk about “compelling evidence” Criteria of Proof now it has shifted rightly to include we are talking about compelling evidence that the pope directed Brinckmann and Panofsky and Bankster Wassen to fabricate a cover-up story that they know very clearly is false and Dr. Brown you published the conflict of interest point Young Irvin found Jan Irving Irving
experimental page to see if I can do some sort of a minimal overhead prep
Voice dictation
No I have not solve the issue of how to provide the .mp3 download link for longer than a week see idea development page at this website idea development page 13 for the link to download one week starting April to 2022
episode came out great
2010 live performance of song Journey to the Center of the Mind https://youtu.be/kEJp2BsaeiE
Errata; points I meant to make
0) per my march 2022 weblog posting where I described my feedback loop, I didn’t complete that thought here describing that the loop of :
voice dictation to write a webpage, then use voice recording to read aloud that webpage and comment on it
and then I’m good to go from there; I can do that indefinitely, with solid content, producing great web pages and producing great voice recordings in a loop strategy workflow.
1) Eric Davis the point I was going to make he did not check the popularity stats of his show he just did whatever he wanted himself and he did not want to be influenced by page views how many people listen to each episode and then steer it based on that he deliberately did not do that just like I DGAF what people think about the Egodeath Mystery show it’s irrelevant.
45:00 I got sidetracked talking about how mixed wine inherently Hass to be for Sabin not amanita Hass to be psilocybin not amanita my point I was trying to get to was kind of the biggest point in the world the entire network of all mixed wind in antiquity covers that era then add to that the network of all mushroom trees in the middle ages.
Extreme ubiquitous mixed wine in antiquity which had to be psilocybin equals plus extreme Ubiquitous and Mushroom Trees in the middle ages which all means Psilocybin was Ubiquitous in that era what we really have then is by applying the ego death Theory Cybermonk maximal entheogens maximal Psilocybin Theory of religion we have the maximal Psilocybin mix wine theory of religion in antiquity Plus the maximal Psilocybin Mushroom Trees Theory of christian Audi the maximal Psilocybe and Theory of Mushroom Trees the Amanita is strictly kept as a second rate honorary but everyone understands that the first rate real deal the benchmark is not an Amanita everybody knows everybody in there ancient world network of
everyone in the ancient network of mixed wine knows that psilocybin is first rate and the amanita is no use is no good for mixed wine wine
everyone in the middle ages network of universal Ubiquitous and Ubiquitous Mushroom Trees everyone knows that psilocybin is the benchmark real deal normal main regular form of mushroom tree ingestion and that amanita is a distant second rate honorary only strictly
Mixed wine was as Ubiquitous a Panofsky Mushroom Trees and it had to have been psilocybin not an Amanita Psilocybin use was exactly 100% identical in spread and scope and ubiquity as mixed wine, in antiquity.
in exact parallel to the extreme possible extent the exact same points come from me come from the ego the theory come from the maximal entheogens theory which Carl Ruck knows that I am the divine I devised it it is devised by me he knows that is mushroom trees in exact parallel with the universal spread of mixed wine which means Psilocybe in everywhere
what Dr. Brown needs is not how to interpret in a rational way because everybody don’t kid yourself let’s stop pretending let’s stop kidding yourself everybody already knows how to interpret evidence the real article should be about exposing a put on exposing a cover-up that’s the work at hand the work at hand is not how to fare fairly way to different interpretations we’re not talking what we have is not two different interpretations so much as we have one forced fake interpretation cover story put on BS story keep a bullshit story is so-called interpretation essay it is purely a con game these are con artist it’s the pope competing against Mushrooms the Mushrooms of the real deal the pope is a con artist fraud and fake that’s the story here not how to do a fair rational interpretation everybody already knows how to do a fair rational interpretation of evidence so there is no point in writing Dr. Brown’s article the real article
The real article needed is more like young Irvins expose of pop psych Agenda the pop psych agenda- explain the motivations it’s all about Paul Thagard’s book conceptual revolutions the chapter section on irrationality: social aspect that’s the article that’s actually required rather than metatheory of what makes one interpretation more compelling than another of course both are needed but chapter 1 of Dr. Brown’s article Hass to be all about bluff put on bullshit cover story fayke pseudo Interpretations put forth in bad faith in order for the pope and his historians because the word historian
Thomas Hatsis brags about being a historian the job of historians is a cover up operation they are assigned to cover over what really happened in history and to fabricate an insincere story that they themselves don’t believe in that’s what it means to be a historian it means that you are assigned a job and it is evident that the pope has assigned a job to Thomas Hatsis to remove mushrooms from Christianity because they compete against the meditation hucksters and the salvation salesman who offer a fraudulent fake product that has zero effect
what we are presented with from Panofsky under lying historians fabricate flimsy obviously transparently flimsy cover-up operation cover stories and they call that a interpretation and then Dr. Brown wants to talk about what makes one interpretation more compelling than another
the first chapter Hass to be “weponized “interpretations””
chapter 1 : weaponeyes and pseudo false cover story “interpretations” that aren’t actually taken seriously by those who put them forth. just as I have re-titled my submission article to give it a strong extreme bias and a firm commitment to my interpretation and not be neutral and toothless subject to abuse by others similarly an interpretation is a weapon and interpretation is a combat weapon and interpretation as a roller derby contact sport tactics strategy to inflict to make the other team lose that’s the purpose of an interpretation
and Dr. Brown’s assignment is kind of phony.
it’s a phony assignment
Brown pretends as if these are sincere interpretations when the actual nature of what Panofsky puts forth and what has this puts forth are not sincere interpretations Hatsis has conflict of interest in the reason for why he puts forth an interpretation he’s not interested in truth he’s interested in selling his corporate brand the only falsely claims that he wishes that there were mushrooms in Christianity
but he’s not interested in the truth; he’s interested in selling and marketing his brand, which is “I am the witch who removed mushrooms from the Eucharist in popular Christianity theory.”
similarly the pope who assigned Brinckmann to do a post hawk filtering through coming through the list of all shapes of trees to find the tree that looks the most like mushrooms to fabricate a post hawk cover story to try to protect the salvation salesman from having to compete against the product that delivers the goods and that actually has an effect to transform and give you salvation and regeneration the real Eucharist there is a war of the salvation salesmen are at war against Psilocybe and Mushrooms which are thesimilarly the pope who assigned Brinckmann to do a post hawk filtering through coming through the list of all shapes of trees to find the tree that looks the most like mushrooms to fabricate a post hawk cover story to try to protect the salvation salesman from having to compete against the product that delivers the goods and that actually has an effect to transform and give you salvation and regeneration the real Eucharist there is a war of the salvation salesmen are at war against Psilocybe and Mushrooms which are the eucharist
The next, below, I did voice transcription for too long: the block became too big and it overloaded and malfunctioned, so it produced double text, ahead:
these satanic salvation salesman try to sell you a false product that has no effect and they try to suppress the real Eucharist they are against the Eucharist they try to substitute their fake Eucharist instead of their actual true Eucharist which was historically true and historically normal and historically popular and then they come along afterwards and try to fabricate a weponized pseudo interpretation that they don’t believe in and that they know perfectly well as falls Dr. Brown’s homework assignment does not factor that number one most important fact into account into account
these satanic salvation salesman try to sell you a false product that has no effect and they try to suppress the real Eucharist they are against the Eucharist they try to substitute their fake Eucharist instead of their actual true Eucharist which was historically true and historically normal and historically popular and then they come along afterwards and try to fabricate a weponized pseudo interpretation that they don’t believe in and that they know perfectly well as falls
Dr. Brown’s homework assignment does not factor that number one most important fact into account.
dammit the damn voice transcription lost my sentence for no reason no reason really just randomly hiccup and Thruway as I was trying to fcking say:
we are evaluating an insincere non-interpretation cover story versus a clear thinking well articulated sensible reading when we are given the assignment of interpreting Mushroom Trees as Mushrooms the problem that we actually face is not that we need to define Criteria define compelling evidence and criteria of proof;
we do need those things but the context is entirely different the night naïve kind of Pollyanna make believe as if the playing field is level it is filled with con artist and frauds and ConMan who know perfectly well that mushroom trees mean mushrooms but they’re pretending to believe something else and they’re trying to get us everybody else to buy their fake product the salvation salesman they know that their product is fake that’s the problem that’s the real context that we need to write an analysis of evidence regarding
This is the subject of the purpose what is the purpose of their stated at interpretation their stated interpretation is for the purpose of telling a lie
they are trying to foist a false interpretation that they know is false in order to
like hatsis sells his company brand “I am the famous witch who removed mushrooms from the Eucharist” – that’s the purpose of why they are putting forth their fake interpretation that they know is a lie it’s a bad faith pseudo interpretation it’s not actually an interpretation or to the word interpretation as a synonym or one of its meanings one of the most important meanings of the word interpretation is that I’m going to fabricate a fake cover story so suppose I rob a bank and then I make up a lie about where I was is that an interpretation interpretation can be used as a form of trying to tell a lie to cover up got a crime that’s the kind of so-called interpretation that we need to refute in this critical quart room someone is lyingof why they are putting forth their fake interpretation that they know is a lie it’s a bad faith pseudo interpretation it’s not actually an interpretation or to the word interpretation as a synonym or one of its meanings one of the most important meanings of the word interpretation is that I’m going to fabricate a fake cover story so suppose I rob a bank and then I make up a lie about where I was is that an interpretation interpretation can be used as a form of trying to tell a lie to cover up got a crime that’s the kind of so-called interpretation that we need to refute in this critical quart room someone is lyingof why they are putting forth their fake interpretation that they know is a lie it’s a bad faith pseudo interpretation it’s not actually an interpretation or to the word interpretation as a synonym or one of its meanings one of the most important meanings of the word interpretation is that I’m going to fabricate a fake cover story so suppose I rob a bank and then I make up a lie about where I was is that an interpretation interpretation can be used as a form of trying to tell a lie to cover up got a crime that’s the kind of so-called interpretation that we need to refute in this critical quart room: someone is lying. who?
dr. Brown’s article needs to be given two interpretations and one party is lying and putting forth an interpretation that’s a cover story to cover up a crime
how do we detect “compelling evidence” in the courtroom to detect and judge which party is telling a fabricated interpretation that they know is false and a lie to cover up their heinous anti-Christ tale; and:
what is “criteria of proof” that one interpretation is an evil vicious malicious lie in bad faith – that’s what the article has to cover.
so we have to talk about chapter 1 what is the purpose of putting forth false interpretations that you don’t even believe in but you’re trying to swindle people with
it’s more like con artistry 101 , not entheogens scholarship 101 – RULES OF DIRTY ROLLER DERBY CONTACT SPORT
2) The way in which I am planning to traumatize Wouter Hanegraaff that I meant to say I’ve mentioned it before I’ve researched it before I found my first posting that mentions entheogenic esotericism and it is 100% perfect and ideal and could not possibly be better and that was many years before he wrote the chapter for the book contemporary esotericists in which he wrote that he tried to see if anyone had used the word before him and he finds as far as he can tell he’s the first person to use the phrase entheogenic esotericism but he’s wrong and I have proof although I could not find the exact archive archive.org URL
but I do have my own evidence of the Yahoo group posting dates which is eight in fact perfectE tho it could be fake but max and wrmspirit egodeath community can vouch it it a good-Faith archive and
they can confirm that it is extremely valuable to me my dates my posting dates with my proof of my priority of discovery
it is in my interest to keep that accurate
so the question for Hanegraaff is not whether I really honestly did post it on that date many years before him the phrase entheogenic Esotericists
actually the question for Hanegraaff is well the content of my post in which I chastise severely BS re e e.
i’m like hanegr, you should not be worrying about the fact that I wrote the phrase many years before you your bigger problem is the content of my posting in which I severely called out baloney.
did I finish my thought about the sleazy art historian cover up operators and the sleazy the witches team the historian historian Tom Hatsis that he too calls himself a historian and he too is involved in a cover-up cover-up operation to remove mushrooms from the Eucharist –
I got diverted by that other important subject :
hey everybody aren’t you forgetting something; do you even realize that allegro says no historical Jesus?
why are you not discussing that?
and why are you always getting it wrong why do you time and again write that allegro is notorious and infamous because he said that Mr. Jesus used amnesia Mushrooms
3) leopard dionysus fountain as amanita was a mere hypoth in back of mind until suddenly when writing browns article on evidence, late in that process i remebered my hypoth and ONLY THEN brought together my 10/10/10 10:10am photo of double holy grail fountains in the rain to crop and exactly match and positively jackpot identify the fountain as amanita in mosaic w 5 psilocybin mshs & 4 msh-shaped grape baskets & vines growing from krater psilocybin mixed wine, wine mixing bowl where you add water to the mushroom grape wine non-branching vine concentrate.
4) im pitting hatsis against ruck by putting them on different roller derby teams. hatsis is anti secrecy premise, but team Dr. Secret with Ruck is the one who is asserting the secrecy premise.
you can’t simply claim that you are in agreement with Carl rock as hats is asserted defensively on the live stream September 2021 and then at the same time demonize and vow to take down the secrecy Premise, Given that Carl Ruck is the very person who is pushing the secrecy Premise.
5) I didn’t completely mean that I had just now made up the term “anything but mushrooms” position.
probably if you search I probably posted that term before, the “anything but mushrooms” position/ bluff-“interpretation”
here right now is a new phrase the “anything but Amanita” ABA interpretation –
or pseudo-quasi-BS cover story “non-interpretation interpretation”; pseudo fake ersatz make-believe pretend interpretation the bluff cover story ersatz pseudo-interpretation.
of course remember hats does not use the words that we in the correct way like we do he absolutely could inflates the word Mushroom with the word Amanita so in his mind to see anything but mushrooms is an exact synonym of saying anything but amanita because the only mushroom tree that exists and the only mushroom tree that matters and the only mushroom tree that we ever should be talking about explain curled and never talk about anything else other than plaincourault and reject Dr. Brown Dr. Brown’s assignment which is to discuss the interpretation of the hundreds and hundreds of mushroom Trees and Hatsis says no I refuse
of course remember hatsis does not use the words that we in the correct way like we do
he absolutely conflates the word Mushroom with the word Amanita.
so in his mind to say “anything but mushrooms” is an exact synonym of saying “anything but amanita”, because the only mushroom tree that exists and the only mushroom tree that matters and the only mushroom tree that we ever should be talking about explain curled is plaincourault and never talk about anything else other than plaincourault and reject Dr. Brown Dr. Brown’s assignment which is to discuss the interpretation of the hundreds and hundreds of mushroom Trees and Hatsis says no, I refuse:
dr. Brown you’re wrong; the category of the art historians the historians category that the historians call mushroom trees doesn’t exist and Panofsky is wrong;
the top historian is wrong; the top art historian is wrong; plaincruel in fact is unique and is special so that we should treat it as a proxy
it is unique because it is the one mushroom tree which is the proxy for all mushroom trees and it is “not mushrooms” (by which I mean it is not amanita, because those are exact synonyms)
I tell you, Thomas Hatsis’ thinking is so muddled, so garbled and so muddled; he doesn’t know what his position is, He only knows that his corporate brand that will make him famous is that he’s the guy who removed mushrooms from popular theory of Christianity.
he doesn’t know what his interpretation is
his thinking doesn’t make any sense we can’t even really have a lyses thinking it’s like trying to analyze a bowl of oatmeal it’s shifting his interpretation shifting how he thinks about Plaincourault shifting his concept of the alleged existence of the hundreds of mushroom trees does he agree with Panofsky or not the top historian does the historian Hatsis agree with the top historian Panofsky
but there is absolutely nothing special about plane crawled that it is exactly a member of a type then why doesn’t Hatsis mentally capable of interpreting the entire motif of all mushroom trees but why does he insist on brushing it under the rug sweeping that under the rug all of the mushroom trees and try to force everyone and I mean very very concretely the proof of what I’m saying look at his outline of his article at the Hancock site he tries to say that there’s really only exists one mushroom tree which is plain crawled and that’s why it serves as a rock proxy for the nonexistent art category “msh trees” so a huge problem with the witches team interpretation is that they don’t address the don’t scope they’re thinking to the whole set of all of the mushroom trees they try to only scoop their interpretation to plane crawl uniquely and they don’t really specify they do not specify what their interpretation is at the broad scope of all of hundreds of mushroom trees
they refuse to tell us what their interpretation is at that scope , and they only specify that their interpretation for playing role plaincourault is that it is not amanita
TechGnosis
interview again with Erik Davis have him on my show since since Erik Davis is not doing podcast he been on a long one year hiatus I could have him on my podcast I would just be telling him about my canterbury he could help me well I need to read his books I would be embarrassed to tell him no I haven’t read your past three books or all your writing is in vain because nobody buys books anymore ha ha Ha but putting aside the fact that I refuse to read his books like Spiritual California imagine if I he brings his
knowledge and his knowledge is a lot lot better he does not rub me the wrong Way, Christopher partridge off and usually rubs me the wrong way he tries to lay it on heavy-handed his radical anti-civilization cultural deconstruction tear everything down the esotericism is the same thing as being counterculture like God Erik Erik Davis never pulled anything like that
i’ve only had mild relatively mild objections to to somethings Davis is Erik Davis it said but Christopher partridge his work seems to be permeated by wrong messed up thinking like this saying that the very nature of esotericism is to be against culture.
Erik Davis has a lot more positive reading I think. so I don’t know maybe they just be like a casual thing Erik Davis is kind of taking a break from podcast and I know I am taking a break from reading stupid books like hers and we could just have just plain enjoyable conversation I’d let him open the show episode and he would do is a 55 minute monologue leaving in five minutes for the guest to talk let me introduce discussed this guest is the greatest guy and I’m glad to have them on the show and I’m gonna talk to you all about this how wonderful this guest is and I’m gonna talk on and on for 55 minutes about how great discussed as well it looks like we’re out of time OK everyone by this is Erik Davis on the Erik Davis show where we talk about Erik Davis and we have all kinds of guest on the show where I talk about Erik Davis and then hang up
it’s funny because only at the very end like in his in his final show where he talks about retrospective and how terrible his mic was I was so mad when I prepared to give Erik Davis a good clear excellent very excellent clear very clear feed and he put me on his usual very low phi show and he recently talked about his malformed philosophy of his wrong think he’s messed up thinking about why he should not give any white why he should feel treated with disdain to be technically to technically set up the show so he ended up with like really awful terrible Fidelity on a show and I was so mad I was so mad after I was on his show and I had done everything possible to give
him a clear audio feed which I did and then as always it was a super low Fidelity result his whole show his whole episode and then my friend who like many is an audio expert lectured me about tips to get better Fidelity as if I was responsible for production of Erik Davis’s lousy crummy audio of his lousy crummy show yeah well I got to get back to that friend anyway I need it badly need to get back to him and I will tell him finally that I was a bit mad at him of course he couldn’t know he couldn’t know the situation but I never
or set him straight I never set him straight on what happened but right on his most recent final show Erik Davis explained how he listen to back and in retrospect it was a really cool episode he said two things he talked about how wretched and terrible his audio was and that he made a big mistake there and he talked about what the hell was wrong with me that I have he said he would he only at the very end of his whole episodes at the very end of his show in his last episode he or his last few episodes he finally for such a high consciousness guyor set him straight I never set him straight on what happened but right on his most recent final show Erik Davis explained how he listen to back and in retrospect it was a really cool episode he said two things he talked about how wretched and terrible his audio was and that he made a big mistake there and he talked about what the hell was wrong with me that I have he said he would he only at the very end of his whole episodes at the very end of his show in his last episode he or his last few episodes he finally for such a high consciousness guy
I better role tape if I’m gonna talk about the stuff he talked and talked and talked and talked and would never let the guy speak it’s like gift of gab gone completely jump the shark
why are you going to have guests on your podcast if you never let them if you just open your show was like 40 minute monologue
nobody wants to hear a stupid 40 minute monologue when they’re there for her to hear the guest
I mean you’re contradicting yourself nobody wants that contradiction
like if this is episode 123 to have Joe Bob Fred on the show then let Joe Bob Fred talk
don’t sit there and announce Joe Bob Fred for 45 minutes and then say we only have five minutes left
you’re contradicting yourself
it’s aggravating
That was exactly what he said he said how could I have been so low consciousness??
I don’t know how he put it but he said “what the hell is wrong with me “
“shut up, me!! wtf”
maybe a place to list out some content ideas like reading aloud finally the criteria for evidence article and maybe talking more about the motivations shouldn’t the evidence article the theory of evidence the theory of interpretation of mushroom trees the theory of interpretation of mushroom trees shouldn’t that article talk about the
lying meditation hucksters but here especially the salvation salesman the pope and that interpretation theory which the pope invented the flimsy obvious puerile insultingly childish and flimsy cover story which is so much the style of the church fathers and the the anti-heresy riders are so is it your service so infantile unbelievable a crayon scribbling maybe Edwin Johnson says that they were the forgery factories in 1525 fabricating the children
fabricating children’s tales that read like the written by eighth graders these do not read like credible serious reality-based writings they sound childish they did some childish and puerile their manner of writing like hatsis
on the one hand I shouldn’t be beating up on hatsis , but on the other hand he’s so aggressive and so he is so eager to to come across as taunting
certainly no one can can argue against this point that he’s he’s got it coming to him I just don’t really care so I don’t know if I’m just being likeopportunistic
I don’t want to be apologetic to him but I am I going to make him always the go to punching bag
he’s asking for it he pretty much Positions himself to be my go to punching bag to make fun of him like he like he does 1 million times more to everyone else
why why is it supposed
why is he allowed to do that but I’m not
like fair is fair
if he can write articles that are so infantile as to have personal insults and taunting in the title of his articles where he actually has roasting you on Irving you just can’t get any more unprofessional and immature than that
so , what, now you’re going to criticize me for that I’m excessively to me what I’m supposed
you’re asking me or telling me that I have to be the greater man and carry myself with dignity and not beat up someone with low IQ every day
I hope
poor poor Hatsis I’m bullying him but I do feel like it’s kind of too easy
it’s like the time I was I was embarrassed in the weight room
I support everyone of course like like any bodybuilder or any weight lifter of course I support everybody, that’s that’s inherent
and I believe in lower weight
but this guy was doing like 100 pounds on the barbell on the bench press and I was kind of horrified to realize so I came in and alternated within and I felt bad because it became clear to me I could go on indefinitely doing like 100 or 200 push-ups of bench presses like that with
the weight was just way below anything I could make use of , and I am a big advocate of low weight
maybe these days I would see it a little differently , maybe I could meet I could make it work today, I’ve gotten really good at low weights
but yeah
I feel like I am Godzilla and Thomas Hatsis is like Bambi
except he’s a very like Chihuahua – very rude and aggressive like because he’s a week and a small one little yappy dog
he tries to compensate by talking big talk to try to cover his scholarly inadequacy
and I feel like it is mean or low of me to say that
I don’t know
I have a bit of a moral conundrum
but it is it is useful I am just I was about to criticize it or
I was about to maybe you could say take advantage of Tom Hatsis by using him as a convenient example I guess I guess that’s what I wanna say is
although it looks like I am I was going to make him
I was going to use him as a negative example and
I’m saying that it wasn’t for the purpose of making fun of him , that was not my motivation
my motivation just in for that I almost went to make a negative example out of housetsis ,
my motivation was not to make fun of him,
my motivation was that he was a convenient example of badness of some sort , for whatever point I was going to make. I was going to somehow use him as an example of puerile childish crayon like writing like it may be eighth grade level at best kind of character just writing and you get that same character and it kind of answers why are the why is the team the witches allied with the team the popes they have the same comic comically childish crayon like completely unbelievable their third character of their arguments is for insultingly infantile like I feel like they’re insulting me by telling me this bedtime just saw stories as if I’m
going to buy their 8th grader or 2nd grader obviously transparently flimsy cover story so it’s so obvious that it’s a cover story the interpretation the theories or models or interpretation that my team is refusing or competing against what it’s like we go out on the roller rink and there’s some in third graders were like wait a minute this is where the college division but this other team is third graders we can’t we can’t go out there on the roller rink with them but they’re all like taunting us in the witches and it turns out that the third graders and it’s the pope and it’s to the heart for hire for hire our establishment art historians who will who will academic for pay waving their credentials entering their sell themselves on lists of
Thumbs down well I guess I need to roll tape since I’m on a monologue
things to voice dictation I can immediately see the thought that I started above it was about trying to characterize and describe the kind of childish puerile I spy especially maybe you should look up the definition of puerile this cover story from the pope and from the establishment art historian Panofsky I mean Brinkman and then after that the establishment art historian Panofsky flunkies of the pope total conflict of interest or will my main point more importantly shouldn’t the theory of interpretation
shouldn’t this theory of interpretation discuss not merely conflict of interest but stronger than that bad faith Interpretations we need to discuss bad faith interpretations does Paul Thagard cover that in his book conceptual revolutions does he cover bad faith cover story interpretations where the person has motives to lie about what their interpretation is worth it which would be like saying does staggered discuss models that get challenged by better models were the old model is not held seriously but was rather a weponized
pretense that’s the situation we have here does he cover dishonest theories theories that are put forth by one party to try to deceive and miss lead the other party because that’s what the the popes the team the derby team called the pups who are submitting their paper to Dr. Brown which will stay there interpretation and I feel like my teams paper
I guess I might be ready to roll tape because I am spinning a monologue here

The Egodeath theory 