Time Lines_Are they a CON_Discuss

norman · 11-08-2008, 02:23 PM

I normally draw a fine line between an observation and a conclusion. On the issue of 'Time Lines' I'm having great difficulty avoiding being drawn to a conclusion. I've started this thread to invite some serious discussion on the subject.

Here are some points to consider, feel free to add more:

1) When and where did the concept, as we know it, originate?

2) What distinguishes it from just simply not knowing what the future will be?

3) What distinguishes it from just simply knowing what the future will be?

4) Is it a 'hard currency' yet?, if so, why?

5) Does the concept have anything in common with "The War On Terror"?

6) Why would I ask item 5?

7) Is a logical analysis of the concept and it's uses/applications equivalent to misunderstanding it completely?

8) Can it be proved or disproved?

9) How can a rumour mill/'truth seeking community' be hijacked by such a concept?

I think my list of items indicates well enough where I'm coming from on this issue. Where are you coming from?

I'll end this initial post with a quote from another thread that I saw a couple of days ago. When I read it I crumpled under the weight of the huge 'penny' that dropped in my brain. It probably wasn't the way podWORLD said it but more likely the way I read it. Thank you podWORLD, I finally got it, like I finally got "The War On Terror" and it's invisible un-defeatable enemy about 2 to 3 years after it started.

What this does for my appreciation of (tell the world) Dr Dan is unclear for now. Hence my request for some intelligent and serious discussion. Here's podWORLD's choice remark:

Quote [ from podWORLD ]

...........That's what makes timelines such a cool set up. When what you predict doesn't happen you just say the timeline changed, beautiful.........

Over to you,

norman.

11-08-2008, 02:23 PM	#1
norman Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: UK Posts: 118	Time Lines_Are they a CON_Discuss I normally draw a fine line between an observation and a conclusion. On the issue of 'Time Lines' I'm having great difficulty avoiding being drawn to a conclusion. I've started this thread to invite some serious discussion on the subject. Here are some points to consider, feel free to add more: 1) When and where did the concept, as we know it, originate? 2) What distinguishes it from just simply not knowing what the future will be? 3) What distinguishes it from just simply knowing what the future will be? 4) Is it a 'hard currency' yet?, if so, why? 5) Does the concept have anything in common with "The War On Terror"? 6) Why would I ask item 5? 7) Is a logical analysis of the concept and it's uses/applications equivalent to misunderstanding it completely? 8) Can it be proved or disproved? 9) How can a rumour mill/'truth seeking community' be hijacked by such a concept? I think my list of items indicates well enough where I'm coming from on this issue. Where are you coming from? I'll end this initial post with a quote from another thread that I saw a couple of days ago. When I read it I crumpled under the weight of the huge 'penny' that dropped in my brain. It probably wasn't the way podWORLD said it but more likely the way I read it. Thank you podWORLD, I finally got it, like I finally got "The War On Terror" and it's invisible un-defeatable enemy about 2 to 3 years after it started. What this does for my appreciation of (tell the world) Dr Dan is unclear for now. Hence my request for some intelligent and serious discussion. Here's podWORLD's choice remark: Quote [ from podWORLD ] ...........That's what makes timelines such a cool set up. When what you predict doesn't happen you just say the timeline changed, beautiful......... Over to you, norman.