Phil Deakins

My best guess is that we've all allowed ourselves to go astray, and that it's not an LL announcement at all. It'll be an announcement from Qualyphi Back in the 60s, the main pop weekly papers started showing ads. All the ads said was "D-day for Donovan" and they might have said something like "soon" or given a date. The idea was that it was a mystery and everyone would be wanting to know what it was all about. The d-day date came and it turned out to be the first single release from a new singer called Donovan. If they'd advertised than a new singer's first single will be released on <date>, it wouldn't have had a fraction of the interest that it got. It caused Donovan to be a star from word Go. So I think that Qualyphi is doing the same thing - generating interest for a soon-to be-announced thing of his own

Porky Gorky wrote: Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Most of the worlds problems come from the American empire and its thirst for greed, like all those that believe in god and things like the rapture, what has always puzzled me is why every other part of the world has very old cultures but that large lump of land called north America had only nomads on it, well seems clear now, it is only stable for a few 1000 years, and is regularly washed, about every 3600 years, check out the sea shells inland, they are only a few thousand years old, so how did they get there? Simple really. OK so rather than mocking your absurd opinions I am going to try and help educate you instead. May I add to her education? She said that, "every other part of the world has very old cultures". I think she forgot about Australia and almost the whole of Africa, and those are just the continents she forgot about. I don't actually think she forgot about them though. I think that she wanted to point an accusing finger in one particular direction and intentionally omitted them because they didn't suit her purpose. It's along the lines of something I said earlier about people like the "ancient astronauts" fruitcakes - they use bits of facts because whole facts defeat their arguments. The fact is that all the world had very old cultures - even the nomads in many parts of the world. She used the word "cultures" wrongly. I wonder what she actually meant. You don't have to go back those few thousand years that she mentioned to find that people everywhere lived pretty much the same.

If you have an AO (Animations Overrider) you would know. It's a device that is worn not on your avatar but on your HUD (your screen), and it's intended to override the default animations, such as walk and run. If the animation in the poseball you sat on has a lower priority than the sit animation in your AO, the AO animation will have control of your avatar, instead the ball's animation. If you have an AO, you should be able to turn it off by clicking it on your screen and selecting to turn it off. It often happens that, when an avatar sits on a sex bed's poseball, the AO's sit animation has a higher priority than the sex animation, and the avatar sits instead of doing the sex animation. Turning the AO off causes the avatar to do the sex animation.

Stalking, no. Responding to posts that I find interesting, yes. I'll certainly ignore any of your posts that hold no interest for me. That's how I treat all posts from everyone.

Qwalyphi Korpov wrote: It involves an opportunity. I have to say it's a huge opportunity. That's more than I should say but there it is. My previous suggestions don't match that so... They are going to advertise LL jobs here. They are going to ask for applicants for unpaid jobs as forum moderators. Am I getting warm now?

They are shutting the forum down. They are going to permaban certain people. They are going back to the original software. They are going to use this forum for official announcements. They are going to have Lindens contributing here in their specialist areas. Am I getting warm with any of those?

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Really, all she has done is make me money. I'm happy for you. But you'll be wasting some of it if you spend it on what you propose concerning this forum and people in it, especially me. But, since you're so confident, I encourage you to go ahead

MoiselleErin Teardrop wrote: People who sit around and think the world is gonna end this year better hope it happens. When this year is gone, I wonder what people are going to say? "Oh no, I never said the word was gonna end" The Seventh Day Adventists claimed that the 'faithful' would be taken up to heaven by <date early in the 20th century>, and many of them were on their roofs waiting for it to happen. It didn't happen, so they modified what they actually meant, claiming that the word "by" meant "near", which it does in some cases., and they redid the date. It didn't happen on the new date either. I've forgotten how they got around that one.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: I heard a broadcast on the Republic Broadcasting Network by john Moore, that the large body that lucinda talked about here some months ago is real and about to get very close and pass us, causing the pole to shift a bit and huge waves will go many miles inland at a height of 400 feet, he also says many coastal bases are being evacuated this week and next week, I live in the UK I have heard troops have trained for evacuating London in October. Seems many people are confirming what lucinda said here many months ago, what do you all think and those that live in the US, is it true are bases near the coast being evacuated? And revisiting the OP again, which was written 3 months ago, what happened? US coastal bases were to be evacuated a week or two after the post, and London was preparing for evacuation in October. Also, 400' waves were to sweep into America and the pole was to be shifted. What happened? I do know that the paths of heavenly bodies can be calculated very acturately years ahead so, since the calculations for this event were only needed to be a few months ahead at the most, what happened to this large body? Lucinda must have been totally wrong, eh?

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Sorry can't take anyone seriously who believe in fairy's and gods, there is no god, the universe is a living organism and we are just parts of it, like the liver in your body, you made the liver but don't have any control over it like you imagine gods have control over you, in fact I would not mind betting that the rest of the universe see us as backward while we still believe in these silly ideas of gods, I suggest you all grow up and stop thinking someone is looking after you, cos that's the only real reason most believe n a god, like children they don't want to take responsibility for their actions, GROW UP. Grow up? Are you insulting everyone in the thread by equating them with children?

Try it again with your AO turned off.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Did you not say all abuse me, sorry mate but you are one of the people I will be asking about, and my solicitor is very good, it took just one letter from her to win my case and the others paid up straight away, that being the money she holds. Oh feel free. If she has money of yours, she'll have less of yours afterwards because she'll charge you for her work

Oh. Leia36's post just reminded me of something. If you want to see some real forum bullying, I could point you to an old thead in the original forum in which the whole world came down on me like a ton of bricks. They were all wrong, and some of them apologised to me afterwards, but there was a bandwagon effect at my expense. If you think you've been bullied in this thread, you merely had a ride in the country on a fine summer's day by comparison.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen any insults against you, although I haven't read the early pages of posts. You've been called a troll, which I don't think you are, but you call other people trolls too, so that's a bit 'pots and kettles', isn't it. I suspect that what you see as insulting is merely people not taking your word for things. Things that definitely sound preposterous to say the least. Things that you won't provide any evidence for that is actual evidence. You won't even say how you came to your conclusions. Perhaps you are offended that people won't take your word for things, and you feel it's insulting. Still, if you want to waste your money, see a solicitor that you have to pay, but I do suggest using the free Citizen's Advice Bureau's solicitors instead.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Sorry but I have had enough with the bullies here and have made an appointment to see my solicitor about this forum That's a pity. You've made some very big statements - things that you clearly believe - and I would have liked to see some evidence. I'm sure that everyone else would have liked to see some too but, unfortunately, you haven't been able to provide any, so I have to put your beliefs down to blind faith. Perhaps this thread has taught you that, making such bold statements in public is likely to falls on deaf ears, and even scorn, unless you can back them up with evidence - either your own or someone else's. Nobody has been bullying you. You only feel that way because you've been repeatedly asked to back up your claims with evidence, and you found those request too hard because you have nothing to back the claims up with. It felt like bullying to you. I can understand that. You are free to consult a solicitor, of course, but my advice is to do it in a way that doesn't cost you any money, because any cost will definitely be down the drain. I think you may be a compatriot of mine so might I suggest the Citizen's Advice Bureau. They provide free legal advice.

Leia36 wrote: In summation, you are are troll, a funny one, but none the less a troll That was written to Boudicca and I have to disagree with it A troll, in my understanding, writes things that are designed to extract a response. They write things with the intention of winding people up. That's my understanding of a troll. I am certain that Boudicca believes what she writes and, therefore, on the whole, she is not a troll, imo. She is certainly something that's quite uncommon but I don't believe that she's a troll.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Grow up. You see why nobody can possibly take you seriously. The above was your response to someone finding flaws in your evidence. If you had any answers at all, instead of just blind faith, you could have written a reasoned response but, instead, look at what you actually wrote.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Most had been there, but you only concerned in trolling me, so this is the last time I will answer you. I'm not only concerned with trolling you. I'm not trolling you at all. I'm actually dicussing your position with all your beliefs with you. It may feel like trolling to you but that's only because (a) I've been asking some genuine but hard questions that you can't answer and (b) I've been showing the gaping holes/chasms in your arguments and what you think of as evidence. So, if you will calm down and answer me, what makes you think that most of those dead astronomers had been to the south pole? It doesn't say that in the video. Can you show us something that shows that all those people were linked by the south pole? And I'll ask my previous again. If all those astronomers were killed, who do you think has been killing them? Governments? You might as well answer me because I'm not going to stop asking genuine questions and showing the flaws in your arguments if and when I see them.

It plays just fine in situ, but what point are you trying to make with it? You said, "over 20 astronomers from the south pole have died in accidents since it was spotted, well all the top ones that were looking for it." That video provides no evidence whatsoever to support your claim. It doesn't even provide evidence to support its own claim that astromomers are dying in pairs. All it does is show a load screenshots - one for each atronomer that died. The detail can't be read because it skips along so quickly that you do very well to read each headline. Not only that but you said over 20 atronomers from the south pole... The video only mentions the south pole for one or maybe two atronomers. All that video does is show that some astronomers have died. It doesn't even show a time period and it certainly doesn't suggest that they all worked at the south pole. It picked on astronomers but it could equally well have picked on any occupation and come up with the same sort of video. So, as evidence for your statement, it fails 100% - pretty much the same as you previous piece of evidence - the Horizom programme. But I have a question. Since you believe that all those astronomers died either because they were astronomers, or because they had something to do with your large object, or because they had something to do with the outer reaches of the solar system, who do you think has been killing them? Governments?

Leia36 wrote: In summation, you are are troll, a funny one, but none the less a troll, and you should prepare your arguments better if you are to be considered successful in your trolling, Good entertainment value that's all this thread is. True, and it's very enjoyable. It really is good entertainment There is quite a strong human tendancy to believe the person in front of us. For instance, it's easy for us to actually believe the person on the podium when s/he says that <something> is right, because of this, this, and this, and those other people are therefore wrong. We tend to accept what the person in front of us says, as long as it makes some sort of reasonable sense. The person in front of us can be in front of us in the flesh, in a book, on the web, on TV, etc. It's not at all difficult for a person, whose nature is such that it is likely to believe in conspiracy theories whenever someone puts one forward with some sort of persuasive argument, to believe all the oddball ideas that some people come up with, as long as they are accompanied by some sort of persuasive argument. The persuasive facts don't need to be actual facts as long as they are presented as facts. Then such a person actually believes that s/he is party to a truth that most people are ignorant of, and they can believe themselves to be, in a way, superior to most people because they know the truth while the masses are ignorant. Take those scientists, for instance. Someone told such people that a lot of the scientists who saw the large object have died since it was first seen. Obviously there must be something going on. Nobody is gullible enough to believe that the object itself singled those people out for death, so who or what killed them? The government that wants to keep it secret from the population? Aha! It must be the government. Who else could it be? The large object really is there, and the government is keeping it from us. Now we know the real truth! But in fact a lot of scientists, who were 'in the know', didn't die, so what now? That's just a rumour put about by the government to keep it secret from the population. Not only that, but the government obviously changed records of the deaths to keep it secret. They can do that. But I know the truth. I just made that up, of course, but it's really not difficult for people whose nature suits it, to believe the most preposterous things, and believe they are in possession of knowledge that the general population doesn't have. They can't prove it, of course, but that doesn't bother them because their nature is such that they really really want it to be true. When asked to show evidence, they make some excuse and don't show any, because the evidence doesn't actually exist. All they have is someone's idea that was presented with a few bits of facts, making the whole thing somewhat persuasive. They can only use bits of facts because whole facts kill their argument.

Rival Destiny wrote: You need to watch these videos backwards in order to get the message here. That's where I went wrong then. Dammit!

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: OK I am logging off now, have to say being here today has been a horrible experience, so I will post the BBC documentary watch all 4 vids. So, to sum up, I have asked you repeatedly for evidence or proof of what you claim, either your own evidence/proof or anyone else's, and the one piece of evidence you eventually offered does not support your claims. It is not evidence of what you claim.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Think one documentary was called, "are you good or evil", can't say any more as it would be working for you. Right. I watched all 6 parts of the documentary (not 4 as you stated in your last post). And, like just about all tales, there is always an element of truth. For example, brown dwarfs exist. That's the element of truth in your large object tale. In this case, there is an observed difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths, but it isn't a gland, as you think it is. It's the non-functioning of areas (more than one) of the brain. Also, to be a psychopath you need to have a modified version of what is called the "warrior" gene. Also, the nature of psychopaths is such that they occupy an unexpected percentage of top boardroom jobs. That's according the BBC's Horizon programme that you linked to as evidence. So the bits of truth in your tale are, there is a difference in the brains of some people. and people on one side of the differences do tend to occupy a higher percentage of top boardroom jobs. Now, I'm using my memory here, which may not be absolutely accurate, but according to my memory, you claimed that there is more than one species of human on the earth, and they are differentiated by a gland in the brain, which is either turned on or off, and you cited the BBC programme as evidence of it. The BBC programmes says no such things. Either that, or you said that the gland in the brain is turned on or off according to how our "masters" [from another planet somewhere] want of each individual. You said or implied something along those lines. I can't state that there isn't a gland in the brain that could be on or off, or what the effects of it in either condition would be. What I can say is that the evidence you provided for it categorically does not support what you claimed. I.e. it isn't evidence for such a gland, or of more than one species of human - or anything even remotely similar to what you claimed. It is only evidence of a difference in the brains of psychopaths and non-psychopaths. I'm guessing here but I imagine you've been reading stuff from people like those 'ancient astronauts' fruitcakes, who take a bit of this, plus a bit of that, and mix it all together with a bit of the other, being careful to omit more bits of this, that, and the other that would speak against what they want to believe, and come up with a cast iron claim of something totally ludicrous - and claim that the this, that, and the other is absolute evidence of it. There is a saying, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" . I'll modify it a little and suggest it to you. If it sound too ridiculous to be true, it probably is.

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Man made global warming is a myth, every planet is warming because of this large body. That's odd. We've had what appears to be global warming for a lot of years now - much longer than we've known about it. How long has this thing been in our solar system then? Our space craft take years to reach the edge of our solar system but heavenly bodies, such as stars move through space pretty darned quick as compared to our smail-like space craft. So, if it exists and is causing the global warming, judging by the length of time we've had global warming, shouldn't it have got here by now?

Boudicca Littlebird wrote: Can't you find it yourself, stop trying to get others to work for you, sound like that 1%, but you can't be as you are here. Never let it be said that I left others to do what I could myself. While you were writing the quoted post, I searched on Google for "2 species of humans". I found one BBC article that's about the human species splitting into 2 starting a thousand years from now - nothing to do with a gland in the brain. I read the Wikipedia article on humans and there's nothing there either. I did find an ebook (not a book that any publisher felt worthy of being printed) that claims there are "Two Species Of Human On Earth Now" but the write-up about it didn't suggest that it's anything to do with a gland in the brain. So show it or it doesn't exist and, if you believe it exists, then it's merely something that you've been told, presumably by reading the writings of some fruitcake or other, but have no evidence for. It won't be me who looks a fool if you don't provide links