Great content in both part a and b.
Check idea development page 13 to see if I summarize some points about this episode there.
Errata
Part B has many dropped words. As unhappy as I am about Part B’s dropped words, part A is all-around great and almost completely clean; part A only has a few dropped words; it’s not really a problem.
I am able to follow part B, and you are able to follow most of it; you just have to mentally fill in the gaps. That should be easy after hearing part A.
I don’t know about spending time to redo the production on part B to fix dropped words.
Solution to prevent mixing off-topic passages with the on-topic content
Part B at 10 minutes, I accidentally left in about five minutes of discussion of mic & voice technique.
I’ve most recently been developing some better policies where I don’t allow a given recording to contain multiple types of content such as warm up practice; instead, I stop recording and make a separate recording to do that now.
That’s my latest technique to make life so much easier during production, to prevent accidentally shipping off-topic content.
Improving “Criteria of Proof” Article
The episode is couched in terms of writing the paper submitted for Dr. Brown’s class to presenting the paper, and how much of it should be metatheory, and how much of it should be evidence and demonstrating how our interpretation is compelling – but take a contrasting take a binary approach.
Not only show how our interpretation is good, but also show how the other interpretation is bad.
That’s what we don’t do; currently, we don’t show how the other interpretation is a cover-up operation and an insincere lie and fraudulent pseudo-Interpretation in bad faith to cover up their criminal-like motives.
Our team, the Monks.
The episode is couched in terms of writing the paper submitted for Dr. Brown’s class about presenting the paper and how much of it should be metatheory and how much of it should be evidence and demonstrating how our interpretation is compelling AND how the crayon-drawn, transparently obvious cover-up, pseudo-“interpretation” is not compelling.
The team called the Monks, who also have on board the artists and mycologists, we should add a chapter about exposing that the other teams interpretation is clearly not a real interpretation, but it’s clearly And transparently obvious that it’s just just a cover-up operation and a conflict of interest in order to protect their corporate strategy of replacing Psilocybin and eucharist by an inferior product, and try to become famous best-selling writer re-branding himself instead of psychedelic which rebranding his product being himself being his reputation as a supposed historian to sell books and try to make a name for himself becoming famous his ploy his business strategy we are exposing we have exposed his crooked business strategy or at least a deluded delusional business strategy that is bound to fail.
he what he is attempting to do as he’s trying to make a name for himself as the famous historian who debunked Mushrooms in Christianity but a huge problem is he has the most tiny one dimensional notion of what the mushrooms in Christianity thesis is he doesn’t even understand what the thesis is
Hatsis so far has been operating under the delusion due to being woefully uninformed he’s been laboring under the delusion that the theory of mushrooms and Christianity is strictly Allegro and Amanita Secret Culture propagation just like Andy Letcher imagines and fights against in a totally great example tilting at windmills and our paper also adds section on fallacies hell these dirty
We could teach a college course about fallacious arguments drawing are examples from these two teams given that they both have to lie and misrepresent and fabricate cover stories and flimsy Interpretations, naturally they commit every fallacious argument in the book.
We provide compelling evidence of this transparently obvious conflict of interest cover up operation that they try to foist off as “interpretations”.
Explain the evidence that that the other team is insincere and should probably be like kicked out of the class.
Conflict of interest and what their dirty strategy is to try to hide the fact and lie to people and replace Psilocybin Eucharist by a substitute, for their own dishonest profit. both of these businesses our employ the strategy of replacing the flesh of Christ by which we are saved by a phony substitute that is designed not to cause mental transformation either replacing the genuine product by an inert product that does nothing, or by a product that provides inferior effects: actual hallucinations and delirium, instead of effectuating Christian mental and spiritual transformation about our model of the world and ourselves.
One team is trying to set up a business or protect an existing business the salvation Salesmen.
That team is trying to replace well their strategy is to replace Psilocybin eucharist by a placebo eucharist and make a business out of that selling people salvation that can never possibly work so that they can sell people salvation in increments, none of which have any effect, and in fact that entrench deluded egoic thinking, and so do the very opposite of what the actual Eucharist does, to give enlightenment and transformation and salvation.
Those teams have a business strategy that that’s a conflict of interest because both of them are trying variations of the same strategy replace the Psilocybin Eucharist by a false substitute, either by a placebo or scopolamine.
The other dishonest team that has infiltrated the class and it’s turning in an insincere pseudo Interpretation cover story their strategy their business strategy for the Hatsis mega corporation industries witches supply company.
Their dirty dishonest anti-enlightenmemt strategy for giving their false, lying pseudo-interpretation flimsy cover story is, they are trying to replace the Psilocybin Eucharist by a deliriant scopolamine substitute psychoactive, which is very inefficient and is not targeted at loose cognitive association binding, which is required for fast, efficient, complete, coherent, and clear-thinking mental transformation.
The Salvation Salesmen team and the Witches team should definitely given an F for bad faith contribution of a interpretation that they don’t even believe in themselves. they’re both trying the same strategy the one team is trying to the witches are trying to replace Psilocybin in the eucharist by the deliriant scopolamine plants which is different than the Salvation Salesmen team.
and what their their ploy their strategy the covert strategy is to replace the psilocybin eucharist by pure placebo but other than that practically both teams are making the same move and so practically they’re both putting for the same flimsy bluff Insincere lying pseudo Interpretations one of them is half heartedly they’re both very halfhearted
in the interpretations that they put forth or so half hearted because the only purpose of their interpretations is to displace the true interpretation that they’re putting forth hazy inconsistent underspecified crayon drawn waffling such as parasols of victory but no that’s not my then they say no that’s not my position but it is but it isn’tin the interpretations that they put forth or so half hearted because the only purpose of their interpretations is to displace the true interpretation that they’re putting forth hazy inconsistent underspecified crayon drawn waffling such as parasols of victory but no that’s not my then they say no that’s not my position but it is but it isn’t
but if you want to know my reading on each of these mushroom trees of course there’s only a single mushroom tree which is plain curl but if we were to if you were to force me against my will to admit that there exists other mushroom trees I would try to make the excuse and cover story of parasols of victory as much as I could,
but whatever I don’t give a fck what you call them , so long as you adhere to my actual interpretation which is essentially negative what they are in fact is anything but mushrooms so it really doesn’t matter it’s irrelevant whether we waive them away “easily explained away” by employing “sound, tried-and-true historical criteria” (by which I mean, ways of lying and fabricating false history fake History fayke pseudo History).
if you really force me against my will to acknowledge is there exist any other mushroom cheese other than the fresco which uniquely shows Amanita unlike any other then I will try to designate as many as I can in my completely lackadaisical half hearted way too wave them away and deflect the evidence I will try to label as many as possible as parasols Victory which I really couldn’t care less about and then the other ones or you see it let me explain in detail my analysis of each instanceif you really force me against my will to acknowledge is there exist any other mushroom cheese other than the fresco which uniquely shows Amanita unlike any other then I will try to designate as many as I can in my completely lackadaisical half hearted way too wave them away and deflect the evidence I will try to label as many as possible as parasols Victory which I really couldn’t care less about and then the other ones or you see it let me explain in detail my analysis of each instance
my interpretation is that there parasols a victory except for the ones that you won’t believe my bluff on and so I actually to be specific my theory is that they’re not all parasols a victory that’s my explanation please see my please go away and look at my online amateur blogger articles where I lay out somewhere my sound tried and true historical criteria by which I expect easily explain away all of them are parasols a victory
except for the mushroom trees that are not foistable off as parasols of victory, in which case those are something else – whatever, I couldn’t care less what you call them, but I guarantee you this though: I will specify here that they are definitely not mushrooms; they are anything but mushrooms.
my positive specific identification of those other mushroom trees that I can’t pretend are parasols of victory, I specifically interpret them as: Anything But Mushrooms.
but I’m not gonna tell you because you would be convinced if I were to tell you both what my criteria are and what the hell the other trees are mushroom trees the ones that I can’t Bluffview and claim that their parasols a victory rest assured I do have explanation interpretation of those other mushroom trees that I can’t pretend are parasols of victory, but I’m not going to tell you what those interpretations of mine are.
but if I were to tell you what my interpretations are , the only reason you don’t believe me is because you are unaware of my arguments, which I’m not going to tell you, but see my online amateur blogger articles – it’s somewhere in there, but I don’t really care enough to bother citing them.
that they’re trying to lie
their whole interpretation is really a lie, is what it comes down to
a lie and a cover-up operation; they’re trying to prevent the whole assignment
they are trying to disrupt
The other teams in this class or trying to prevent the success of the investigation.
they’re trying to prevent correct interpretation
they’re trying to force the incorrect interpretation.
they’re deliberately trying to misinterpret.
their deliberately trying to do the opposite of what Dr. Brown is asking for.
they’re trying to prevent everything that the instructor is striving to accomplish
The Egodeath theory 