Wait. What's the 10 year plan exactly?
Also, good commies have 5 year plans. This is double that, so ...
you read this correctly.
as i explained in an earlier post, i am a "ghostwriter" for the original resetter.
i'm a woman, a pimo regular pioneer working for my friend who was redsetter1 on reddit.
Wait. What's the 10 year plan exactly?
Also, good commies have 5 year plans. This is double that, so ...
meme, myself, i. .
susan blackmore.
new scientist 13 march 1999 40-44. also published at new scientist, archive 13 march 1999hold out your arm in front of you.
Ok. Back to star wars ...
uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
I check back here every now and then, just to see if Lloyd managed to control any fraction of his penis. I don't follow him on the regular... That being said, he posted a stand up video? Did he go to a comedy club or something? Wtf?
meme, myself, i. .
susan blackmore.
new scientist 13 march 1999 40-44. also published at new scientist, archive 13 march 1999hold out your arm in front of you.
This one is kinda brutal:
meme, myself, i. .
susan blackmore.
new scientist 13 march 1999 40-44. also published at new scientist, archive 13 march 1999hold out your arm in front of you.
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle—was it designed?
it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?
' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.
It's an interesting series. I can't wait for the next episode: Necrotizing fasciitis -- was it designed?
Lol.
meme, myself, i. .
susan blackmore.
new scientist 13 march 1999 40-44. also published at new scientist, archive 13 march 1999hold out your arm in front of you.
the jw website is currently featuring a piece: the shell of the diabolical ironclad beetle—was it designed?
it is part of their regular tedious 'was it designed?
' series that purports that very very specific animal species must have been specifically designed because of some seemingly amazing feature.. but they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.
But they seem completely unaware that this directly contradicts their notion that only very broad 'kinds' were required on the mythical 'ark'.
Ahh this brings back memories. Way, way back when I was beginning to realize it wasn't true, I was talking with an elder that knew I was having "issues" with evolution, and Noah' ark had come up.
He gave me that "broad kinds on the ark" line. I just asked, "Was Noah and his family white, black, or asian?" By the end of the day he conceded that micro-evolution was definitely true. But not macro, no.... that's just impossible.
in my studies, i have concluded that year 530 bc was when the destruction of jerusalem occurred and the temple destroyed.
i had determined this prior to investigation of vat4956.
i had already found that the jubilees, sabbaticals, courses of the priests, and chronology attested to this.
When someone proposes yet another chronology:
uh oh, looks like the mega thread gave up the ghost, so while i investigate / fix it just continue the discussion here .... it's been a long 9 years lloyd evans / john cedars.
So if Lloyd is gay, perhaps the reason he stays in the closet is because he is afraid he would lose patrons if he came out as a gay man.
Lol, there is something to indicate this officially? Lol...
Let the record show that it was I .. I indeed theorized, from the beginning, that we were jumping the gun assuming "girls definitely older than 20" meant that he was with "girls" at all. The mega thread holds the record. Indeed we all knew "definitely over 20" meant "definitely not older than 20", and so it was a simple logical jump to "definitely not girls".
All his complaints about "not being sexually compatible" with his wife make sense in this context.