• =?UTF-8?Q?=e2=80=94_YOM_KIPPUR_=2819_SEPTEMBER_2018=29:_THE_DANCING?= =

    From dolf@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 24 20:11:27 2018
    XPost: alt.france, alt.culture.african, alt.fan.countries.ghana
    XPost: alt.politics.africa

    — YOM KIPPUR (19 SEPTEMBER 2018): THE DANCING LESSONS OF THE CO-PRINCE
    OF ANDORRA {COURAGEOUS, VALIANT, MANLY}

    (c) 2018 Dolf Leendert Boek, Revision: 22 September, 2018

    YOUTUBE: “Macron Takes More Dancing Lessons”

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hras-qQDthA>

    THEIR 28 LETTERS {ie. a superset of 22 Semitic elements} OF ARABIC
    SCRIPT HATRED {#215 / #235} as fraudulent pretence to piety AND AN
    HABITUAL CONTEMPT OF #902 - RULE OF LAW (EGALITÉ: #22 x #41 as *ONTIC* necessity comprising a subset of 21 consonants with #VOWELS of Semitic origins), #492 - VOLUNTARY FREE WILL (LIBERTÉ), and #391 - HOMOIOS
    PRINCIPLES (FRATERNITÉ) which doesn’t comply with the requisite dignity...

    FACTS ON THE ARABIC LANGUAGE
    Type: Abjad
    Languages: Arabic
    Time period: 356 AD to the present
    Parent systems: Egyptian --> Proto-Sinaitic --> Phoenician --> Aramaic
    Syriac --> Nabataean --> Arabic Alphabet
    [<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet>]

    YOUTUBE: “The King and I Etc , Etc , Etc.”

    <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JHH6iwgIek>

    LIONS GROWL OF BUTCHERS FOUL (SCREAMING.NUTBAG@GMAIL.COM) @ 1452 HOURS
    ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Queen Dolf of Sale has now invented one's own
    script: 'ARABRIC'.

    Future gobbledigooks may be even harder to read than they are already."

    DOLF @ 1521 HOURS ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2018: "We are not interested in your
    media statements but that which the President of the FRENCH REPUBLIC
    cares to voluntarily make.

    Save your statements for court.

    That any statements you make will be presented in a court of law with
    respects to impunity against the DIGNITY ROYAL and constitutes TREASON.

    That perjury by both members of the RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE (RSL) and
    an INSPECTOR OF POLICE are a breach of the VALUES OF OATH espoused by
    the: “will to your uttermost bear Faith and Allegiance unto the Queen's Majesty; and will assist and defend all Jurisdictions, Pre-eminences,
    and Authorities, granted to Her Majesty, and annexed to the Crown by
    Acts of Parliament, or *OTHERWISE*, *AGAINST* *ALL* *FOREIGN* *PRINCES*, *PERSONS*, *PRELATES*, *STATES*, *OR* *POTENTATES*.

    <http://www.grapple369.com/Fascist%20(Knights%20Templar%20International)/>

    [IMAGES: WHICH AS THEIR IMAGES CONVEY SUCH ENTITIES AS KNIGHTS TEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL BY IMPETUS OF STATES / RELIGIONS / SOLDIERS /
    ORGANISATIONS / INSTITUTIONS AS CONSTITUTING A FOREIGN POWER AND
    GENERALLY IN ALL THINGS YOU WILL DO AS A FAITHFUL AND TRUE SERVANT OUGHT
    TO DO TO HER MAJESTY. SO HELP YOU GOD]

    LIONS GROWL OF BUTCHERS FOUL (SCREAMING.NUTBAG@GMAIL.COM) @ 1438 HOURS
    ON 19 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Nope, no court would entertain such a
    presentation and if you tried it you would be tossed out on your ear.

    Treason is defined in our law and it does not include "impunity against
    the DIGNITY ROYAL", one reason being that you appear to have
    misunderstood the meaning of the word 'impunity'.

    No, it does not [include the KNIGHTS TEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL].

    Nope, the High Court ruled on that in 1950, (Fulgar J, from memory) you
    are incorrect.

    Nobody is required to answer questions from you, Dolf.

    No, it is not a "foreign power".

    No it isn't. You are getting s44 of the Constitution mixed up with
    normal oaths of office.

    17 September 1900 was the proclamation of federation, nothing to do with
    oaths of office.

    That document [of 29 October 1900] was about the Governor-General's job,
    and can't be "invoked" by a private citizen against other people.

    It was not "instrumentation", it was an official appointment. The "instrumentation" came in the form of twin Acts of Parliament."

    My objection has always been ROMAN CATHOLICS / FREEMASONRY imposing {#17
    / #33 - #INRI / #65 - SOLDIER} a @5 - substituted HETEROS ethic upon our
    {#390 / #288 / #419} war dead and usurping the @1 - SOVEREIGNTY of the
    #391 - HOMOIOS basis to our Commonwealth’s Governance which is defined
    as a PRINCIPLE that is circumscribed {#13 / #21 / #37} by Queen
    Victoria’s Letters Patent of 17 September 1900 <— *THAT* *IS* *TO*
    *IMPLY* *ADVICE* * *FROM* *PRIVY* *COUNCIL* as the instrumentation of Federation into a nation.

    I believe that my claim has merit and that you claim our soldiers died
    for some other cause is a slander and impetus for racial / religious /
    sexual hatred which I am not going to tolerate and for which because
    it’s impetus is the LETTERS PATENTS OF 29 OCTOBER 1900 which established
    a permanent function as office of the Governor General then neither the
    EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION nor AMP INSURANCE are
    exempt from legal action.

    @1 - #17 - 2017
    @2 - #33 - #INRI
    @3 - #65 - SOLDIER
    @4 - #390 - WREATHS / CROWN / AMERICAN INDEPENDENCE 4 JULY 1776 (HOMOIOS)

    #390 as [#5, #90, #80, #10, #200, #5] = tsephiyrah (H6843): {#8 as #385}
    1) plait, chaplet, *WREATH*, *CROWN*; 1a) plait, coronet, *DIADEM*;

    @5 - #288 - UMBRA / BEERSHEBA / 11 SEPTEMBER 2001 (HETEROS)
    @6 - #419 - SLAUGHTER
    @7 - #391 - HOMOIOS
    @8 - #13 - Letters Patent
    @9 - #21 - Bequeathed to Sovereign Heirs in perpetuity

    @10 - #37 - Non-Deeming Action, Government Administration; I-Ching: H40
    - Release, Deliverance, Taking-Apart, Untangled; Tetra: 21 - Release;

    In whatever circumstance, it is capable of being hosted upon the
    INTELLECTUS AS GENITIVE VOLUNTĀTUS as it's mechanism for delivery and
    staging which then becomes an acute and risky precipice consideration
    that is accorded entirely by my Intellectual Property.

    Which as DATA SET knowledge provided by the HEBREW / GREEK Biblical
    lexicon being the CATEGORIES OF UNDERSTANDING as coming into my
    possession as expressed by a time stamped @ 2019 HOURS ON 28 JULY 2011,
    then had a confirmation to its existence within my possession only upon
    19 MAY 2016 in having at such prior time been DATA MINED by my own
    undertaking and ingenuity in being sourced from a *FOREIGN* *AGENT*
    named RICHARD AMIEL MCGOUGH, whom is well educated within mathematics
    and quantum physics and currently a software engineer at 4QTRS within
    YAKIMA, WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and this occurred following
    his debunked BIBLE WHEEL PROJECT (2001-2011) as research MATERIAL which accompanied a selective computed #288 - UMBRA by contrived GEMATRIA
    value being a DATA MANIPULATION that whilst initially obscured by
    myself, regardlessly conveyed a clear MENS REA {ie. the intention or
    knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to
    the action or conduct of the accused} of defeasance (French: défaire, to
    undo) which within law, is an instrument which defeats the force or
    operation of some other deed or estate; as distinguished from condition,
    that which in the same deed is called a condition is a defeasance in
    another deed. Thusly irrefutably sustains the gravitas of my claim as
    to there being tangibility by ACTUS REUS {ie. action or conduct which is
    a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused} and therefore reasonable concerns for my safety, wellbeing and security.

    — CARPE DIEM —
    [11 November 2017]

    “SEIZE THE DAY.
LET IT NOT TAKE YOU.
MAKE THE MOST OF IT.
TODAY WHILE YE
    MAY.
LEST MOURNERS QUEUE.
FOR WHAT YOU FORFEIT.
BY GOD’S GIFT {#357 = #9, #5, #70, #200, #5, #2, #5, #10, #1, #50 as theosebeia (G2317): {#11
    as #307 % #41 = } 1) reverence towards God's goodness} BETRAY.”

    That in addition to falsified records of property on the brief of
    evidence relating to my ARREST upon 11 NOVEMBER 2017 {

    You will not know or understand of any manner of thing to be attempted,
    done, or spoken against Her Majesty's Person, Honour, Crown, or Dignity
    Royal, but you will let and withstand the same to the uttermost of your
    Power, and either cause it to be revealed to Her Majesty Herself, or to
    such of Her Privy Council as shall advertise Her Majesty of the same.
    [From OATH BY ALMIGHTY GOD of the “PRIVY COUNCIL” whom "ADVISED ON 17 SEPTEMBER 1900 TO QUEEN VICTORIA'S LETTERS PATENT OF 29 OCTOBER 1900' expressing a VALUE STATEMENT which dates back to at least 1570 and has a prerogative consequence.

    } which failed to convey that it occurred opposite the BOER WAR MEMORIAL established upon 29 OCTOBER 1909 as being within my possession a letter
    dated 8 November 2017 regarding these matters made to the STATE /
    FEDERAL ATTORNEY GENERALS and a book titled "GOD THE CENTER OF VALUE
    [VALUE THEORY IN THE THEOLOGY OF H RICHARD NIEBUHR (1894-1962)] BY C.
    DAVID GRANT" published 1984, the sworn statements made by TIMOTHY WISE
    on 20 November 2017 as TREASURER for the SALE RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE
    (RSL) and INSPECTOR SCOTT ANDREW BRENNAN on 13 November 2017 as police registered number 24927 fails as PERJURY to disclose evidence of a
    repetitious (3 times) question made to the RSL representative concerning allegiance to the #390 - CROWN and whether their participation within
    memorial services were undertaken in concert with KNIGHTS TEMPLAR
    INTERNATIONAL and therefore a FOREIGN POWER which is prohibited by their
    OATH as per “*ADVICE* *OF* *OUR* *PRIVY* *COUNCIL*” of 17 September 1900 and impetus for the invoking Queen Victoria’s Letters Patent of 29
    October 1900 as instrumentation to the Federation as Australian
    Commonwealth 1901."

    ALL ALTERATIONS TAKE PLACE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW OF THE CONNECTION
    OF CAUSE AND EFFECT.
    PROOF: I perceive that appearances succeed one another, that is, that
    [B: #233] one state of a thing exists at one time, the opposite of which existed in the previous state. I am therefore actually connecting two perceptions in time. Now connection is no act of mere sense and
    intuition, but is here the product of a synthetic faculty of the
    imagination that determines the inner sense with respect to relation in
    time. The imagination can however conjoin the aforementioned two states
    in two different ways, so that either one or the other would precede in
    time; for time cannot be perceived in itself and what precedes and what
    follows in objects determined, as it were empirically, in relation to
    it. I am therefore conscious only that my imagination places one state
    before, the other after, not that in the object [B: #234] one precedes
    the other; or, in other words, the objective relation of the appearances
    that succeed one another remains undetermined through mere perception.
    In order then for this relation to be cognized as determined, the
    relation between the two states must be so thought that it is thereby determined with necessity which of them must be placed before, which
    after, and not the reverse. However, the concept that carries with it a necessity of synthetic unity can only be a pure concept of the
    understanding, which does not lie in perception – and here it is the
    concept of the relation of cause and effect, in which the former
    determines the latter in time as consequence, and not merely as
    something that could precede it in the imagination (or not be perceived
    at all). It is, then, only because we subject the succession of
    appearances, hence all alterations, to the law of causality that
    experience itself – i.e., empirical cognition of the appearances – is possible; hence the appearances themselves as objects of experience are possible only in accordance with this very law.

    The apprehension of the manifold of appearances is always successive.
    [A: #189] The representations of the parts succeed one another. Whether
    they also succeed one another in the object is a further point for
    reflection, which is not included in the first point. Now one can in
    fact call everything, and even every representation insofar as one is
    conscious of it, an object; but it is a matter for deeper investigation
    what this word is to signify regarding [B: @235] appearances, not
    insofar as they (as representations) [A: @190] are objects, but only in
    so far as they designate an object. In as much as they, merely as representations, are at the same time objects of consciousness, they are
    not at all to be distinguished from apprehension, i.e., reception into
    the synthesis of the imagination, and one must then say: that the
    manifold of appearances is always generated successively in the mind.
    Were appearances things in themselves, then no human being would be able
    to conclude from the succession of representations how the manifold of
    those appearances might be conjoined in the object. For in the end we
    have to do only with our own representations; how things in themselves
    may be (without regard to representations through which they affect us)
    is completely beyond our sphere of cognition. Now although the
    appearances are not things in themselves, and nevertheless are the only
    thing that can be given to us for cognition, I still have to show what
    in the appearances themselves may suit the manifold for a conjoining in
    time, notwithstanding that its representation in apprehension is always successive. Thus, for example, the apprehension of the manifold in the appearances of a house that stands before me is successive. Now the
    question is: whether the manifold of this house itself also is
    successive in itself, which of course no one will grant. However, as
    soon as I raise my concept of an object up to transcendental
    significance, the house is now indeed no thing in itself, but [B: #236]
    only an appearance, i.e., a representation, whose transcendental object
    is [A: #191] unknown; what, then, shall I understand by the question:
    how might the manifold be conjoined in the appearance itself (which is
    still nothing in itself )? That which lies in the successive
    apprehension is here viewed as representation, while the appearance that
    is given to me, notwithstanding that it is nothing more than a sum of
    such representations, is viewed as their object – with which my concept, which I extract from the representations of apprehension, has to agree.
    Since truth is the agreement of cognition with object, it can easily be
    seen that here one can ask only about the formal conditions of empirical
    truth, and that appearance, in counter-relation with the representations
    of apprehension, can only be represented as their object that is
    distinct from them if it falls under a rule that distinguishes it from
    every other apprehension and makes one way of conjoining the manifold necessary. That in the appearance which contains the condition of this necessary rule of apprehension is the object.

    Let us now proceed to our problem. That something happens – i.e., that something, or some state, comes to be that wasn’t there before – [B:
    #237] cannot be perceived empirically unless preceded by an appearance
    that [A: #192] does not contain this state in itself; for a reality
    following upon an empty time, hence, a coming to be that no state of
    things precedes, can be apprehended just as little as empty time itself.
    Every apprehension of an event is therefore a perception that follows
    upon another perception. Since this is, though, the case with every
    synthesis of apprehension, as I have shown above in the appearance of a
    house, it does not in this way yet distinguish itself from the others.
    But I also note: that if, in an appearance containing a happening, I
    call the preceding state of perception A and the succeeding one B, then
    B can only follow A in the apprehension, while the perception a cannot
    follow but only precede B. I see for example a ship drifting downstream.
    My perception of its location further down succeeds the perception of
    its location further up the course of the river, and it is impossible
    that in the apprehension of this appearance the ship should first be
    perceived further downstream but afterwards further upstream. Here,
    then, the order in the succession of perceptions in the apprehension is determined, and the apprehension is bound by that order. In the previous example of a house, in the apprehension my perceptions could start at
    [B: #238] the top of the house and end with the ground, or else start
    from below and end above, just as they could apprehend the manifold of empirical intuition from the right or the left. In the series of these perceptions there [A: #193] was, then, no determined order making it
    necessary when in the apprehension I had to begin in order to conjoin
    the manifold empirically. This rule is, however, always to be met with
    in the perception of something that happens, and it makes the order of
    the perceptions succeeding one another (in the apprehension of this
    appearance) necessary.

    In our case, therefore, I will have to derive the subjective sequence of
    the apprehension from the objective sequence of the appearances, because otherwise the former is completely undetermined and does not distinguish
    any one appearance from the rest. By itself the former proves nothing
    about the connection of the manifold in the object, because it is
    completely arbitrary. This connection will therefore consist in the
    order of the manifold of the appearance according to which the
    apprehension of the one (what happens) follows upon that of the other
    (which precedes) according to a rule. Only in this way can I gain the
    right to say of the appearance itself, and not merely of my
    apprehension: that in it a sequence is to be found – which is as much as
    to say that I cannot institute the apprehension otherwise than exactly
    in this sequence. [CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, SECOND ANALOGY of ANALYTIC OF PRINCIPLES, pp 184-187]

    — HOMO ERECTUS —

    "SUCH LOAD OF WADDLE.
    THE TRUTH JUST BEGS.
    OVER DUCKING TWADDLE.
    VENOM POSTURING DREGS.
    WHAT CAN YOU SADDLE?
    WITH ONLY FROGS LEGS."

    FROGSLEGS@{
    @1: Sup: 76 (#76); Ego: 61 (#61),
    @2: Sup: 30 (#106); Ego: 63 (#124),
    @3: Sup: 63 (#169 - I TROUBLE MYSELF ONLY WITH MY OWN AFFAIRS
    {%18}); Ego: 34 (#158 - I AM NOT HOT OF SPEECH {%23}),
    @4: Sup: 49 (#218); Ego: 72 (#230),
    @5: Sup: 37 (#255); Ego: 27 (#257),
    @6: Sup: 64 (#319); Ego: 23 (#280),
    @7: Sup: 20 (#339); Ego: 18 (#298),
    Male: #339; Feme: #298
    }

    #51 - There are four Cosmological Ideas. They mistakenly refer to the completeness, which can never be experienced, of a series of conditions.
    Pure reason makes four kinds of contradictory assertions about these
    Ideas. These antinomies result from the nature of human reason and
    cannot be avoided. [Wikipedia 2018:Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics]

    "In the first place, the usefulness of a system of categories is here
    revealed so clearly and unmistakably that even if there were no further
    grounds of proof of that system, this alone would sufficiently establish
    their indispensability in the system of pure reason. There are no more
    than four such transcendent ideas, as many as there are classes of
    categories; in each of them, however, they refer only to the absolute completeness of the series of conditions for a given conditioned. In
    accordance with these cosmological ideas there are also only four kinds
    of dialectical assertions of pure reason, which show themselves to be dialectical because for each such assertion a contradictory one stands
    in opposition in accordance with equally plausible principles of pure
    reason, a conflict that cannot be avoided by any metaphysical art of the
    most subtle distinctions, but that requires the philosopher to return to
    the first [IDEA @339] sources of pure reason itself. This antinomy, by
    no means arbitrarily contrived, but grounded in the nature of human
    reason and so inevitable and never ending, contains the following four
    theses together with their antitheses:

    #1 - THESIS {The world has, as to time and space, a beginning (a
    boundary)} / ANTITHESIS {The world is, as to time and space, infinite}
    #2 - THESIS {Everything in the world is constituted out of the simple} / ANTITHESIS {There is nothing simple, but everything is composite}
    #3 - THESIS {There exist in the world causes through freedom} /
    ANTITHESIS {There is no freedom, but everything is nature}
    #4 - THESIS {In the series of causes in the world there is a necessary
    being} / ANTITHESIS {There is nothing necessary in this series, but in
    it everything is contingent}"[CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE HISTORY OF
    PHILOSOPHY, Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, IDEA @339]

    <http://www.grapple369.com/images/STOLENCHILDREN_011.jpeg>

    <http://www.grapple369.com/images/STOLENCHILDREN_666.jpeg>

    <http://www.grapple369.com/images/Screaming-Nutbag.jpeg>

    <http://www.grapple369.com/images/SIMIAN%20MONKEY%2020180727.jpeg>

    [IMAGES: A common composition of posturing and cosmological elements
    exists between INTERNET CAUSE CÉLÈBRE hate speech and Mural by artist
    Jeremy Kasper]

    LIONS GROWL OF BUTCHERS FOUL (SCREAMING.NUTBAG@GMAIL.COM) @ 1452 HOURS
    ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Why does a nutter dwelling in a cheap flat
    permeated with masturbatory funk in a small and remote Australian town
    nobody has ever heard of, have any interest in what the frog president
    has to say?

    Which court? I ask, because none of the real courts of this country will
    ever find anything in relation to your gibberish except that it is an
    abuse to present it to the court, and your sending it to people is - as
    per one court's finding - extremely prejudicial to their rights, because
    it is voluminous and non-sensical."

    — VIRTUAL CONCEIT WALL —

    "SARCASM AND WIT.
    IS FAVOURED HUMOUR.
    TO NARCISSISTIC DECEIT.
    OF DISEASE AND TUMOUR.
    YOUR MURDEROUS HEAT."

    #18 - Judgments of experience are empirical judgments that are valid for external objects. They require special pure concepts which have
    originated in the pure understanding. All judging subjects will agree on
    their experience of the object. When a perception is subsumed under
    these pure concepts, it is changed into objective experience. On the
    other hand, all empirical judgments that are only valid for the one
    judging subject are judgments of mere perception. These judgments of
    perception are not subsumed under a pure concept of the understanding. [Wikipedia 2018:Prolegomena_to_Any_Future_Metaphysics]

    We must therefore first of all note: that, although all judgments of
    experience are empirical, that is, have their basis in the immediate
    perception of the senses, nonetheless the reverse is not the case, that
    all empirical judgments are therefore judgments of experience; rather,
    beyond the empirical and in general beyond what is given in sensory
    intuition, special concepts must yet be added, which have their origin completely a priori in the pure understanding, and under which every
    perception first can be subsumed and then, by means of the same
    concepts, transformed into experience.

    Empirical judgments, insofar as they have objective validity, are
    JUDGMENTS OF EXPERIENCE; those, however, that are only subjectively
    valid I call mere JUDGMENTS OF PERCEPTION. The latter do not require a
    pure concept of the understanding, but only the logical connection of perceptions in a thinking subject. But the former always demand, in
    addition to the representations of sensory intuition, special concepts originally generated in the understanding, which are precisely what make
    the judgment of experience objectively valid.

    H6767@{
       @1: Sup: 6 (#6); Ego: 6 (#6),
       @2: Sup: 8 (#14); Ego: 2 (#8),
       @3: Sup: 17 (#31); Ego: 9 (#17),
       @4: Sup: 47 (#78); Ego: 30 (#47),
       @5: Sup: 56 (#134); Ego: 9 (#56),
       @6: Sup: 5 (#139 - I HAVE NOT SLAUGHTERED THE SACRED ANIMALS {%13}); Ego: 30 (#86 - I AM NOT A ROBBER OF FOOD {%10}),
       @7: Sup: 15 (#154); Ego: 10 (#96),
       @8: Sup: 55 (#209); Ego: 40 (#136),
       Male: #209; Feme: #136
    } // #298

    T'AI HSÜAN CHING {POLAR OPPOSITIONS / INTERPLAY OF OPPOSITES} [4 BCE]:

    UMBRA: #240 % #41 = #35 - Great Guiding Signs?, Virtue of Benevolence;
    I-Ching: H17 - Following, Allegiance; Tetra: 19 - Following;

    THOTH MEASURE: #35 - Oh Tem-sepu, who makest thine appearance in Tattu;
    *I* *AM* *NOT* *ONE* *WHO* *CURSETH* *THE* *KING*.

        #VIRTUE: As to Gathering (no. #35), it is success.
        #TOOLS: With Failure (no. #75), loss of fortune.
        #POSITION: With Ascent (no. #7), high ambitions.
        #TIME: With Sinking (no. #64), low ambitions.
        #CANON: #181

    ONTIC_OBLIGANS_181@{
       @1: Sup: 35 (#35); Ego: 35 (#35),
       @2: Sup: 29 (#64); Ego: 75 (#110),
       @3: Sup: 36 (#100); Ego: 7 (#117),
       @4: Sup: 19 (#119); Ego: 64 (#181 - I LEND NOT A DEAF EAR TO THE
    WORDS OF RIGHTEOUSNESS {%24} / I AM NOT ONE WHO CURSETH THE KING {%35}),
       Male: #119; Feme: #181
    } // #181

    #298 as [#6, #2, #90, #30, #90, #30, #10, #40] = tselatsal (H6767):
    {UMBRA: #8 as #240 % #41 = #35} 1) *WHIRRING*, *BUZZING*; 2) spear; 3)
    whirring locust;

    "And David {well-beloved, dear} and all the house of Israel {who
    prevails with God} played before the LORD on all manner of instruments
    made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and
    on cornets, and on cymbals {#298 as [#6, #2, #90, #30, #90, #30, #10,
    #40] = tselatsal (H6767): cymbal}." [2Samuel 6:5 (KJV)]

    All of our judgments are at first mere judgments of perception; they
    hold only for us, i.e., for our subject, and only afterwards do we give
    them a new relation, namely to an object, and intend that the judgment
    should also be valid at all times for us and for everyone else; for if a judgment agrees with an object, then all judgments of the same object
    must also agree with one another, and hence the objective validity of a judgment of experience signifies nothing other than its necessary
    universal validity. But also conversely, if we find cause to deem a
    judgment necessarily, universally valid (which is never based on the perception, but on the pure concept of the understanding under which the perception is subsumed), we must then also deem it objective, that is,
    as expressing not merely a relation of a perception to a subject, but a property of an object; for there would be no reason why other judgments necessarily would have to agree with mine, if there were not the unity
    of the object – *AN* *OBJECT* *TO* *WHICH* *THEY* *ALL* *REFER*, *WITH* *WHICH* *THEY* *ALL* *AGREE*, *AND*, *FOR* *THAT* *REASON*, *ALSO*
    *MUST* *ALL* *HARMONIZE* *AMONG* *THEMSELVES*. [CAMBRIDGE TEXTS IN THE
    HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, Kant's Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics,
    IDEA @298]

    DOLF @ 1750 HOURS ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2018: "It will be necessary to seek
    court protection from these neo-nazi RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE (RSL) and
    ROMAN CATHOLIC WELLINGTON SHIRE COUNCILLORS.

    It most certainly is a clear case of TREASON and RACIAL HATRED, ANTI
    SEMITIC and SEXUAL PREJUDICE by the RSL / WELLINGTON SHIRE COUNCIL and
    KNIGHTS TEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL / ROMAN CATHOLICISM association with WORLD
    WAR I CENTENNIAL COMMEMORATIONS on REMEMBRANCE DAY 11 NOVEMBER 2018 and
    we must implore the courts to ensure our safety."

    LIONS GROWL OF BUTCHERS FOUL (SCREAMING.NUTBAG@GMAIL.COM) @ 1333 HOURS
    ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Your Honour, I would like to apply for 24/7 round-the-clock police protection to protect me from the SALE RSL
    employees and council employees, and their spouses while I mercilessly
    stalk them all around town

    Judge: 'Lock him up!'"

    GOVERNMENT SHILL #2 (GOV.SHILL@GMAIL.COM) @ 1410 HOURS ON 17 SEPTEMBER
    2018: "Unfortunately, with the piss poor courts and the piss poor mental
    health system we have in this country, he will have to seriously hurt
    some innocent person before anything is done."

    DOLF @ 1252 HOURS ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2018: "I had to call the police due to
    an instance of menacing and irrational conduct as alleged breaches to an INTERVENTION ORDER which are subject to an appeal AP-18-0775 and there
    was a woman loitering some 80 metres away within the park area who I
    couldn't readily distinguish and whom the police later identified as the
    MARION STATUE ARTIST that I had discoursed with @ 1739 / 1747 HOURS ON
    MONDAY 28 MAY 2018. I had in point of fact not spoken to her at all
    today and yet it was being improperly alleged that I had upon this day ambushed, harangued and verbalised her over some absurd impetus of
    'SAVING THE WORLD'.

    FOR ARTIST DIALOG SEE VINEGARETTE: "THE SHIP OF STATE (HEBREW STOICHEION
    AND IT'S EGYPTIAN BOOK OF THE DEAD CHAPTER #99 METAPHOR) IS IN DEEP
    WATER" dated 5 September 2018

    <http://www.grapple369.com/Groundwork/4%20Vinegarette%2020180909.pdf>

    And I castigated the police for engaging within falsehoods as I hadn't
    been in proximity to that person as the contiguous timestamp of my
    photograph and time of telephone call convey."

    LIONS GROWL OF BUTCHERS FOUL (SCREAMING.NUTBAG@GMAIL.COM) @ 1647 HOURS
    ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2018: "I notice he has something listed in the LA TROBE
    COUNTY COURT regarding the matter of his 'surveillance operations'.
    Could be worth delving into who is doing what on that one."

    GOVERNMENT SHILL #2 (GOV.SHILL@GMAIL.COM) @ 1751 HOURS ON 17 SEPTEMBER
    2018: "MAAKER -V- MURRAY?

    Let us know how you get on Dolt."

    DOLF @ 1906 HOURS ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2018: "That is secret men's business
    and suggests a level of information opportunity as access which is not
    normally accessible to persons..."

    GOVERNMENT SHILL #2 (GOV.SHILL@GMAIL.COM) @ 0917 HOURS ON 18 SEPTEMBER
    2018: "Simple Google search."

    DOLF @ 1906 HOURS ON 17 SEPTEMBER 2018: "Given the timestamp of the file
    was published at 1625 hours (#364 / #273} and your advice about same was
    made at 1647 hours as being only 22 minutes later.

    “Pure mathematics contains only analytic propositions, but metaphysics contains synthetic propositions a priori. Now he erred severely in this,
    and this error had decisively damaging consequences for his entire
    conception. For had he not done this, he would have expanded his
    question about the origin of our synthetic judgments far beyond his metaphysical concept of causality and extended it also to the
    possibility of a priori mathematics; for he would have had to accept mathematics as synthetic as well. But then he would by no means have
    been able to found his metaphysical propositions on mere experience, for otherwise he would have had to subject the axioms of pure mathematics to experience as well, which he was much too reasonable to do. The good
    company in which metaphysics would then have come to be situated would
    have secured it against the danger of scornful mistreatment; for the
    blows that were intended for the latter would have had to strike the
    former as well, which was not his intention, and could not have been;
    and so the acute man would have been drawn into reflections which must
    have been similar to those with which we are now occupied, but which
    would have gained infinitely from his inimitably fine presentation.

    3. Properly metaphysical judgments are one and all synthetic. Judgments belonging to metaphysics must be distinguished from properly meta-
    physical judgments. Very many among the former are analytic, but they
    merely provide the means to metaphysical judgments, toward which the aim
    of the science is completely directed, and which are always synthetic.
    For if concepts belong to metaphysics, e.g., that of substance, then the judgments arising from their mere analysis necessarily belong to meta-
    physics as well, e.g., substance is that which exists only as subject,
    etc., and through several such analytic judgments we try to approach the definition of those concepts. Since, however, the analysis of a pure
    concept of the understanding (such as metaphysics contains) does not
    proceed in a different manner from the analysis of any other, even
    empirical, concept which does not belong to metaphysics (e.g., air is an elastic fluid, the elasticity of which is not lost with any known degree
    of cold), therefore the concept may indeed be properly metaphysical, but
    not the analytic judgment; for this science possesses something special
    and proper to it in the generation of its a priori cognitions, which
    generation must therefore be distinguished from what this science has in
    common with all other cognitions of the understanding; thus, e.g., the proposition: All that is substance in things persists, is a synthetic

    [continued in next message]

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)