it's not there or over there either.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> > To get rid of the desiese is to know that you are sick. The trouble is that

> > as soon as you get well you are dead.

> > -ego-

>

> if by dead you mean never having been, yes.

>

> but it's no trouble.

 

That could be the trouble ;-).

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Monday, June 22, 2009 12:14 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> > > >

> > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now

> > > > is

> > > > more

> > > > like a joke.

> > >

> > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > apply

> > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > >

> > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may

> > > not

> > > be

> > > avoidance.

> > > -geo-

> >

> > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> >

> > But, enjoy ;-).

>

> LOL

>

> To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> imply

> in a separate entity.

> -ego-

 

nothing implies a separate entity

 

Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

-ego-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 22/6/2009 12:31:19

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Monday, June 22, 2009 12:16 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, June 22, 2009 12:21 AM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

>

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Sunday, June 21, 2009 8:39 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > One understands the instant there is no other.

> > > >

> > > > But who wants to give up the self that seemingly exists in relation

> > > > to an other, and by losing this self gain nothing?

> > >

> > > Nobody. That's probably why nobody ever does ;-).

> > >

> > > > All the alternatives have choicelessly dried up.

> > >

> > > Exactly. And in my case, it was a case of 'crisis', just as you've

> > > talked

> > > about before. Right in the midst of 'suicidal' substance use.

> > > Acknowledging, of course, that this is a story, and 'now never

> > > happened'.

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > I constructed the basis for crisis when I decided I had encountered an

> > other, who decided I had been encountered.

> >

> > The crisis can be avoided only imaginarily, and so keeps reappearing in

> > various ways. Look around. It is not " my " crisis, it is the world, I am

> > the

> > world, and it is always only " my " crisis.

> >

> > Finally, one acknowledges that it can't be avoided, and the entire

> > reality

> > constructed that way inevitably collapses (now).

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > Sense of self is the avoidance ot the ongoing crisis.

> > -geo-

>

> Yes, a self going through time and maintaining its selfhood, is the crisis

> that projects the world, and that is projected from the world.

>

> - D -

>

> To get rid of the desiese is to know that you are sick. The trouble is

> that

> as soon as you get well you are dead.

> -ego-

 

if by dead you mean never having been, yes.

 

but it's no trouble.

 

No trouble only after the burrial of the gost.

-ego-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 22/6/2009 12:31:19

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Monday, June 22, 2009 12:10 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

>

> > The seen-fact seeing itself as a fact would imply in a seer looking.

> > -ego-

>

> Yes

>

> and an objective fact of some kind

 

The least folks could do would be to acknowledge that 'objectivity' is a

subjective concept ;-).

 

Subjective to whom?

-ego-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 22/6/2009 12:31:19

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> Tim G.

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, June 22, 2009 12:10 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

>

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > The seen-fact seeing itself as a fact would imply in a seer looking.

> > > -ego-

> >

> > Yes

> >

> > and an objective fact of some kind

>

> The least folks could do would be to acknowledge that 'objectivity' is a

> subjective concept ;-).

>

> Subjective to whom?

> -ego-

 

I mean, from the everyday perspective even, objectivity is subjective. Nobody

has ever been 'outside themselves' to verify anything like objectivity.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> if by dead you mean never having been, yes.

>

> but it's no trouble.

>

> No trouble only after the burrial of the gost.

> -ego-

 

A ghost of something that's never been? There's a new one :-p.

[Guest guest]

-

Tim G.

Nisargadatta

Monday, June 22, 2009 12:42 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> if by dead you mean never having been, yes.

>

> but it's no trouble.

>

> No trouble only after the burrial of the gost.

> -ego-

 

A ghost of something that's never been? There's a new one :-p.

 

So a gost of something that has been is better?

-ego-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 22/6/2009 12:48:17

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, June 22, 2009 12:14 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

>

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > >

> > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now

> > > > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > like a joke.

> > > >

> > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > > apply

> > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > >

> > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may

> > > > not

> > > > be

> > > > avoidance.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > >

> > > But, enjoy ;-).

> >

> > LOL

> >

> > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > imply

> > in a separate entity.

> > -ego-

>

> nothing implies a separate entity

>

> Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> -ego-

 

If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) there is

no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

 

It's all or nothing.

 

Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

> > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> > > > > now

> > > > > is

> > > > > more

> > > > > like a joke.

> > > >

> > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > > apply

> > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > >

> > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may

> > > > not

> > > > be

> > > > avoidance.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > >

> > > But, enjoy ;-).

> >

> > LOL

> >

> > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > imply

> > in a separate entity.

> > -ego-

>

> nothing implies a separate entity

>

> Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> -ego-

 

If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) there

is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

 

It's all or nothing.

 

Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

 

- D -

 

Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

" now " .

-ego-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 22/6/2009 15:01:22

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> > > > > > now

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > >

> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > > > apply

> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > >

> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may

> > > > > not

> > > > > be

> > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > >

> > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > >

> > > LOL

> > >

> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > > imply

> > > in a separate entity.

> > > -ego-

> >

> > nothing implies a separate entity

> >

> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > -ego-

>

> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) there

> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

>

> It's all or nothing.

>

> Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

>

> - D -

>

> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> " now " .

> -ego-

 

Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that there

is no need to state a " now. "

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

-

dan330033

Nisargadatta

Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

Re: it's not there or over there either.

 

 

 

 

 

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> > > > > > now

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > >

> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems

> > > > > to

> > > > > apply

> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > >

> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism

> > > > > may

> > > > > not

> > > > > be

> > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > >

> > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > >

> > > LOL

> > >

> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > > imply

> > > in a separate entity.

> > > -ego-

> >

> > nothing implies a separate entity

> >

> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > -ego-

>

> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> there

> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

>

> It's all or nothing.

>

> Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

>

> - D -

>

> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> " now " .

> -ego-

 

Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that

there is no need to state a " now. "

 

- d -

 

If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is

no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

-ego-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.

Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009

Tested on: 22/6/2009 15:13:36

avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

- "geo" <inandor<Nisargadatta >Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PMRe: Re: it's not there or over there either.>> - > dan330033> Nisargadatta > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM> Re: it's not there or over there either.>>>>>> Nisargadatta , "geo" <inandor wrote:>>>> > > > > > geo> "Now" is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the>> > > > > > now>> > > > > > is>> > > > > > more>> > > > > > like a joke.>> > > > >>> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems >> > > > > to>> > > > > apply>> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.>> > > > >>> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism >> > > > > may>> > > > > not>> > > > > be>> > > > > avoidance.>> > > > > -geo->> > > >>> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.>> > > >>> > > > But, enjoy ;-).>> > >>> > > LOL>> > >>> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not>> > > imply>> > > in a separate entity.>> > > -ego->> >>> > nothing implies a separate entity>> >>> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a "as if".>> > -ego->>>> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now) >> there>> is no "as if" - anywhere at any time.>>>> It's all or nothing.>>>> Or all and nothing, if you prefer.>>>> - D ->>>> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a>> "now".>> -ego->> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that > there is no need to state a "now.">> - d ->> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is > no need to state that there is no "as if" either.You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or not. Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed?> -ego->>>>>>>>> >>>>>> avast! Antivirus: Inbound message clean.> Virus Database (VPS): 090526-0, 26/05/2009> Tested on: 22/6/2009 15:13:36> avast! - copyright © 1988-2009 ALWIL Software.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> dan330033

> Nisargadatta

> Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

>

>

>

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> > > > > > > now

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems

> > > > > > to

> > > > > > apply

> > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism

> > > > > > may

> > > > > > not

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > > >

> > > > LOL

> > > >

> > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > > > imply

> > > > in a separate entity.

> > > > -ego-

> > >

> > > nothing implies a separate entity

> > >

> > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > > -ego-

> >

> > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> > there

> > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> >

> > It's all or nothing.

> >

> > Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> >

> > - D -

> >

> > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> > " now " .

> > -ego-

>

> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that

> there is no need to state a " now. "

>

> - d -

>

> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is

> no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

> -ego-

 

There is no need, period.

 

What would be needed?

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote:

>

>

> -

> " geo " <inandor

> <Nisargadatta >

> Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PM

> Re: Re: it's not there or over there either.

>

>

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >>

> >> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> >> > > > > > now

> >> > > > > > is

> >> > > > > > more

> >> > > > > > like a joke.

> >> > > > >

> >> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems

> >> > > > > to

> >> > > > > apply

> >> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> >> > > > >

> >> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism

> >> > > > > may

> >> > > > > not

> >> > > > > be

> >> > > > > avoidance.

> >> > > > > -geo-

> >> > > >

> >> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> >> > > >

> >> > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> >> > >

> >> > > LOL

> >> > >

> >> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> >> > > imply

> >> > > in a separate entity.

> >> > > -ego-

> >> >

> >> > nothing implies a separate entity

> >> >

> >> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> >> > -ego-

> >>

> >> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> >> there

> >> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> >>

> >> It's all or nothing.

> >>

> >> Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> >>

> >> - D -

> >>

> >> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> >> " now " .

> >> -ego-

> >

> > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that

> > there is no need to state a " now. "

> >

> > - d -

> >

> > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is

> > no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

>

> You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or not.

Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed?

> > -ego-

 

Yes.

 

Who is there to give a statement?

 

Has there ever been a statement?

 

- D -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > > > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there is

some

> > > > > > > > > > > universal

> > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside

anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > yes

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and

forth

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > and that which is

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and

forth " ..

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > " contact " ???

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > with whom by what?

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > silly guy!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > yes.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > the moon is round.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - d. -

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > ten lashes of the whip!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > wake up!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots.

> > > > >

> > > > > - d -

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > help can only come from within.

> > > >

> > > > though you marvel at my boots..

> > > >

> > > > they're not miraculous..

> > > >

> > > > they are merely Gucci.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > within what?

> >

> >

> > it's not a within a what wuss.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> ho hum.

>

>

> - d -

 

 

how droll.

 

you don't hum very well ho.

 

y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > > >

> > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now is

> > > > > more

> > > > > like a joke.

> > > >

> > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > > apply

> > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > >

> > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may not

> > > > be

> > > > avoidance.

> > > > -geo-

> > >

> > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > >

> > > But, enjoy ;-).

> >

> > LOL

> >

> > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not imply

> > in a separate entity.

> > -ego-

>

> nothing implies a separate entity

 

 

saying that does.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > dan330033

> > Nisargadatta

> > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> > > > > > > > now

> > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems

> > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > apply

> > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism

> > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > > > >

> > > > > LOL

> > > > >

> > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > > > > imply

> > > > > in a separate entity.

> > > > > -ego-

> > > >

> > > > nothing implies a separate entity

> > > >

> > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > > > -ego-

> > >

> > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> > > there

> > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> > >

> > > It's all or nothing.

> > >

> > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> > >

> > > - D -

> > >

> > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> > > " now " .

> > > -ego-

> >

> > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that

> > there is no need to state a " now. "

> >

> > - d -

> >

> > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is

> > no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

> > -ego-

>

> There is no need, period.

>

> What would be needed?

>

> - D -

 

 

evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed.

 

so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1.

 

it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2.

 

any time pal..

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > > > > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks there

is some

> > > > > > > > > > > > universal

> > > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside

anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > yes

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and

forth

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > and that which is

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in experiences

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and

forth " ..

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > " contact " ???

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > with whom by what?

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > silly guy!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > yes.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > the moon is round.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > - d. -

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > ten lashes of the whip!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > wake up!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > - d -

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > help can only come from within.

> > > > >

> > > > > though you marvel at my boots..

> > > > >

> > > > > they're not miraculous..

> > > > >

> > > > > they are merely Gucci.

> > > > >

> > > > > .b b.b.

> > > >

> > > > within what?

> > >

> > >

> > > it's not a within a what wuss.

> > >

> > > .b b.b.

> >

> > ho hum.

> >

> >

> > - d -

>

>

> how droll.

>

> you don't hum very well ho.

>

> y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl.

>

> .b b.b.

 

you're silly.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the now

is

> > > > > > more

> > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > >

> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > > > apply

> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > >

> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may

not

> > > > > be

> > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > -geo-

> > > >

> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > >

> > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > >

> > > LOL

> > >

> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

imply

> > > in a separate entity.

> > > -ego-

> >

> > nothing implies a separate entity

>

>

> saying that does.

>

> .b b.b.

 

does not.

 

 

d.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > -

> > " geo " <inandor@>

> > <Nisargadatta >

> > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PM

> > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either.

> >

> >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >>

> > >> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

> > >> > > > > > now

> > >> > > > > > is

> > >> > > > > > more

> > >> > > > > > like a joke.

> > >> > > > >

> > >> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems

> > >> > > > > to

> > >> > > > > apply

> > >> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > >> > > > >

> > >> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism

> > >> > > > > may

> > >> > > > > not

> > >> > > > > be

> > >> > > > > avoidance.

> > >> > > > > -geo-

> > >> > > >

> > >> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > >> > > >

> > >> > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > >> > >

> > >> > > LOL

> > >> > >

> > >> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

> > >> > > imply

> > >> > > in a separate entity.

> > >> > > -ego-

> > >> >

> > >> > nothing implies a separate entity

> > >> >

> > >> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > >> > -ego-

> > >>

> > >> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> > >> there

> > >> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> > >>

> > >> It's all or nothing.

> > >>

> > >> Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> > >>

> > >> - D -

> > >>

> > >> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> > >> " now " .

> > >> -ego-

> > >

> > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that

> > > there is no need to state a " now. "

> > >

> > > - d -

> > >

> > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is

> > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

> >

> > You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or not.

Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed?

> > > -ego-

>

> Yes.

>

> Who is there to give a statement?

>

> Has there ever been a statement?

>

> - D -

 

 

[Yes.]...is a statement.

 

you said it.

 

you typed it.

 

go figure huh?

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > dan330033

> > > Nisargadatta

> > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing

the

> > > > > > > > > now

> > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it

seems

> > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > apply

> > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism

> > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > > > > >

> > > > > > LOL

> > > > > >

> > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does

not

> > > > > > imply

> > > > > > in a separate entity.

> > > > > > -ego-

> > > > >

> > > > > nothing implies a separate entity

> > > > >

> > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > > > > -ego-

> > > >

> > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> > > > there

> > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> > > >

> > > > It's all or nothing.

> > > >

> > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> > > >

> > > > - D -

> > > >

> > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> > > > " now " .

> > > > -ego-

> > >

> > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state that

> > > there is no need to state a " now. "

> > >

> > > - d -

> > >

> > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there is

> > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

> > > -ego-

> >

> > There is no need, period.

> >

> > What would be needed?

> >

> > - D -

>

>

> evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed.

>

> so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1.

>

> it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2.

>

> any time pal..

>

> .b b.b.

 

evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words read,

forms an image, and provides these responses.

 

 

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > > -

> > > " geo " <inandor@>

> > > <Nisargadatta >

> > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:25 PM

> > > Re: Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dan330033

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> > > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >>

> > > >> > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing

the

> > > >> > > > > > now

> > > >> > > > > > is

> > > >> > > > > > more

> > > >> > > > > > like a joke.

> > > >> > > > >

> > > >> > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it

seems

> > > >> > > > > to

> > > >> > > > > apply

> > > >> > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > >> > > > >

> > > >> > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new

mechanism

> > > >> > > > > may

> > > >> > > > > not

> > > >> > > > > be

> > > >> > > > > avoidance.

> > > >> > > > > -geo-

> > > >> > > >

> > > >> > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > >> > > >

> > > >> > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > > >> > >

> > > >> > > LOL

> > > >> > >

> > > >> > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does

not

> > > >> > > imply

> > > >> > > in a separate entity.

> > > >> > > -ego-

> > > >> >

> > > >> > nothing implies a separate entity

> > > >> >

> > > >> > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > > >> > -ego-

> > > >>

> > > >> If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> > > >> there

> > > >> is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> > > >>

> > > >> It's all or nothing.

> > > >>

> > > >> Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> > > >>

> > > >> - D -

> > > >>

> > > >> Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> > > >> " now " .

> > > >> -ego-

> > > >

> > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state

that

> > > > there is no need to state a " now. "

> > > >

> > > > - d -

> > > >

> > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there

is

> > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

> > >

> > > You know what? Stating or not stating has nothing to do with needing or

not. Who is there to need, and who will provide the needed?

> > > > -ego-

> >

> > Yes.

> >

> > Who is there to give a statement?

> >

> > Has there ever been a statement?

> >

> > - D -

>

>

> [Yes.]...is a statement.

>

> you said it.

>

> you typed it.

>

> go figure huh?

>

> .b b.b.

 

very concrete response.

 

clunker.

 

- d -

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@>

wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 "

<Roberibus111@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 "

<dan330033@> wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " Tim G. " <fewtch@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@>

wrote:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Aren't 'you' the issue that must unravel?

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -tim-

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Why dont you ask dan the same question? He thinks

there is some

> > > > > > > > > > > > > universal

> > > > > > > > > > > > > mind outside of here/there.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Dan doesn't think there's anything inside or outside

anything else, and he's made this abundantly clear.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > yes

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > but nothing i say will help

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and

forth

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > and that which is

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > has no involvement in back and forth

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > one who knows without knowing, simply is

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > doesn't require anything from words

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > one who is moving toward knowing, and engaged in

experiences

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > can also engage in endless repartee

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > believing that there is meaningful contact being made

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > or imagining there is entertainment through the contact

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " it just becomes fodder for meaningless repartee, back and

forth " ..

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > daaaaaaaaaaany!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > you're looking for " meaning " ?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " meaning for what and for whom.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > " contact " ???

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > with whom by what?

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > all is one for true and for fun.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > silly guy!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > yes.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > the moon is round.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > - d. -

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > ten lashes of the whip!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > wake up!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > first put on your captain marvel boots.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > - d -

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > help can only come from within.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > though you marvel at my boots..

> > > > > >

> > > > > > they're not miraculous..

> > > > > >

> > > > > > they are merely Gucci.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > .b b.b.

> > > > >

> > > > > within what?

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > it's not a within a what wuss.

> > > >

> > > > .b b.b.

> > >

> > > ho hum.

> > >

> > >

> > > - d -

> >

> >

> > how droll.

> >

> > you don't hum very well ho.

> >

> > y'all ain't never gonna make no bread with that shit girl.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> you're silly.

>

> - d -

 

 

 

i am what i am.

 

you're phony and sanctimonious.

 

the world balances everything out like that.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing the

now is

> > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it seems to

> > > > > > apply

> > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new mechanism may

not

> > > > > > be

> > > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > > -geo-

> > > > >

> > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > > >

> > > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > > >

> > > > LOL

> > > >

> > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does not

imply

> > > > in a separate entity.

> > > > -ego-

> > >

> > > nothing implies a separate entity

> >

> >

> > saying that does.

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> does not.

>

>

> d.

 

 

that's a second " statement " of incorrectly perceived fact.

 

..b b.b.

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " roberibus111 " <Roberibus111@> wrote:

> >

> > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > -

> > > > dan330033

> > > > Nisargadatta

> > > > Monday, June 22, 2009 3:07 PM

> > > > Re: it's not there or over there either.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > geo> " Now " is just a concept of the timebound mind. Chasing

the

> > > > > > > > > > now

> > > > > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > > > more

> > > > > > > > > > like a joke.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > This applies equally to all concepts, not only 'now'. If it

seems

> > > > > > > > > to

> > > > > > > > > apply

> > > > > > > > > especially to 'now', then something is being avoided.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > All involuntary concepts, yes. The conception of a new

mechanism

> > > > > > > > > may

> > > > > > > > > not

> > > > > > > > > be

> > > > > > > > > avoidance.

> > > > > > > > > -geo-

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I dunno what you're talking about, and doubt you do either.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > But, enjoy ;-).

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > LOL

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > To imagine the way to the super-market, to design a new car, does

not

> > > > > > > imply

> > > > > > > in a separate entity.

> > > > > > > -ego-

> > > > > >

> > > > > > nothing implies a separate entity

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Actualy nothing. The implication is fragmentation, a " as if " .

> > > > > > -ego-

> > > > >

> > > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then (now)

> > > > > there

> > > > > is no " as if " - anywhere at any time.

> > > > >

> > > > > It's all or nothing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Or all and nothing, if you prefer.

> > > > >

> > > > > - D -

> > > > >

> > > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state a

> > > > > " now " .

> > > > > -ego-

> > > >

> > > > Without fragmentation, without the entity, there is no need to state

that

> > > > there is no need to state a " now. "

> > > >

> > > > - d -

> > > >

> > > > If I understand without separation of any entity anywhere, then there

is

> > > > no need to state that there is no " as if " either.

> > > > -ego-

> > >

> > > There is no need, period.

> > >

> > > What would be needed?

> > >

> > > - D -

> >

> >

> > evidently you think you have a need to know what would be needed.

> >

> > so better take that " period " off the end of sentence #1.

> >

> > it's bullshit by fact of your query in sentence #2.

> >

> > any time pal..

> >

> > .b b.b.

>

> evidently to the mind of bob, that constructs the meaning of the words read,

forms an image, and provides these responses.

>

>

>

> - d -

 

 

you're slipping kid.

 

whatever little stuff you had you've lost.

 

the post above is incoherent...

 

not that that is way different from your norm.

 

you need some rest danny.

 

it's ok to not get to 100 today.

 

you've already posted decades.

 

for christ sake..

 

don't you ever get tired of your continuous speciousness?

 

..b b.b.