On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 5:46:55 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:53:23 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 4:39:45 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Monday, August 8, 2016 at 9:19:56 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
I'm sorry, I made the mistake of trying to make sense of something you've said. Obviously that is a fools errand.
I'm sorry you're crazy as a sack of rats,
I'm not that's the point. You are.
Rubber/glue/waaaaaa
You're being childish.
There you go projecting again.
You do that not me.
There you go projecting again.
You have Ganser's Syndrome definitely! lol.
you MookJacking asshole.
I don't know what that means. Do you?
You are apparently the only one here who doesn't know what it means..
You're the one engaging in personal attacks.
How do you know it's a personal attack if you don't know what it
means?
'It' means personal attacks by you. Your name calling and general demeanour is an attack on me personally. That's obvious to anyone reading your tripe, regardless of whatever words the voices in your head tell you to make up.
So you don't know what it means but it's obviously a personal attack?
Your Ganser's Syndrome is flaring up. When I say I don't know what you mean by the pronoun 'it' in the previous sentence, its not the same as saying I don't know whatever it refers to. Got it? lol. You sound a lot like Bill Clinton explaining Monica Lewinski's relationship to him. "It depends on what the meaning of is, is!" hahaha..
Do you frequently make absolute statements about things that
you do not understand?
No. I never do, you moron.
You just did.
No, you THINK I did, you were wrong. You have trouble with that concept given your mental disorder.
Well, yes, you do.
Not really.
Yes really.
No, you're the one making stuff up. Saying for example that the Russians pushed the Americans into the OST in 1967 just because it sounded right to the voices in your head. Anyone who takes the trouble to read the State Department website on the OST knows that the US was pushing Russia to sign an OST since 1957 when DIA indicated they were ready to launch a satellite into orbit!
Rational people read 'I think we should withdraw' in the context of a UN treaty, as a withdrawal of the USA from the UN.
Nonsense.
Lots of people feel that the US should withdraw from the UN. Aren't you one of them? When you say "I think we should withdraw?"
I know complete sentences are hard for you, but you really should
include the entire quote, which was "I think we should withdraw from
the Outer Space Treaty".
You said "I think we should withdraw" period.
And what were we talking about, dip****?
The United Nations and the treaties it saddles its member states with.
Wrong.
If the US were to withdraw from a UN treaty they used significant muscle to get everyone to sign, that would seriously undermine the organisation.
We were talking about one specific treaty, the Outer Space
Treaty,
That's right. I see your understanding of geopolitics is as profoundly lacking as all other topics you discuss here.
and nobody had mentioned the United Nations until you
MookJacked the thread.
The OST is a United Nations treaty. Its a treaty proposed and championed by the USA in order to control and constrain the USSR geopolitically since they were way ahead of the USA in space transport technology at the time is was proposed. The USSR refused to sign any such treaty until it was clear that the USA had pulled ahead of the USSR, and then the treaty served to constrain USA in space.
The treaty is inappropriate to economic development of off-world resources by private interests in the twenty-first century. It is a relic of the Cold War. As is the UN generally. The UN Law of the Sea is a similar relic, inappropriate to the commercial development of ocean resources using twenty-first century technology. As is the Antarctic Treaty, from the UN for the same reasons. How many treaties do we have to abrogate before we say the UN itself doesn't serve US interests going forward?
If you said the UN is great but the OST needs to be dropped, then you should have said so since it is a foolish statement in the context of the treaty and the UN itself. I assumed you understood WHY the OST was bad. I see I was wrong, since you understand NOTHING afaict.
I know it's hard for you,
You are the one constantly making errors, and project them on to me. I mean, I routinely say things you cannot comprehend because you are an idiot.. Then, you routinely attack me, because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! lol. Its funny really.
You're projecting again.
No, you're the one who said that Russia promoted the OST while the USA resisted it, because the voices in your head told you that seemed right! lol. You didn't take the trouble to find out what the facts were, because in your gut that didn't feel right. Ganser's Syndrome dude. Look it up. You have it.
but the topic of the conversation was that Outer Space Treaty, not the
UN.
The topic is the United Nations and the treaties it saddles its member states with.
Wrong.
The OST is was promoted by the USA at the UN. It was modelled on the law of the sea. Those treaties and the Antarctic treaty are relics of the cold war and are inappropriate to an interconnected world of twenty first century technology.
We were talking about one specific treaty, the Outer Space
Treaty,
A UN treaty administered by the UN.
and nobody had mentioned the United Nations until you
MookJacked the thread.
The OST is a UN treaty dude. It is only one of a host of non-armament treaties that restrict the utilisation and ownership of resources beyond the control of any nation state. They are all relics of the Cold War that sought to constrain the Soviet Union and their client states in the development of resources. They're all inappropriate in the twenty-first century in an internet enabled world. I thought you understood these basic precepts. Obviously I was wrong in that assessment. I won't make a similar assessment again.
Hell, by your 'logic' I might have meant we should withdraw from the
human race.
The human race is not a product of the United Nations.
Other way around.
Well, it is a product of certain humans who consider themselves owners of the rest. The Rockefellar Trust owns the building and land and leases it to the UN. As a result, that land is no longer part of the USA and not subject to taxation or regulation. The Rockefellar Trust and other select coroprations associated with the Trust rent offices there. The UN rents offices and land there as well. This allows the Rockefellar's and their friends to escape reporting on activities that would otherwise be reportable and taxable.
This special relationship between the UN and key members of the planet's ruling oligarchy is another reason to end the US relationship to the UN, after a careful review of our obligations under treaty and an assessment as to whether or not we should continue in whole or part in each one based on national self-interest.
Or the nuclear test ban treaty.
We can withdraw from the United Nations, assess each treaty on its merits, and decide as a nation what treaties we think serve the American interest. This is how we make America Great again, according to one politician.
We can also NOT withdraw from the United Nations, assess each treaty
on its merits, and decide as a nation what treaties we think serve the
American interest.
Your understanding of our relationship with the UN and what UN member states can do is as flawed as your belief that Russia not the USA promoted the OST in the 1950s.
Or absolutely anything
at all.
Only in your demented mind. No one else's.
Glad you got my point.
That you have Ganser's Syndrome - absolutely that is obvious.
Sane people can stick to the subject or at least follow along.
Yes, proving once again you are a demented idiot. Since you have confused things I've said five different ways in a very short space of time.
Mookie, your problem is I *DON'T* confuse things
Your problem is that you think you don't when in reality you do. An indicator of Ganser's Syndrome.
you've said and point
out a small percentage of the raft of absolute tripe you emit.
Look, you're the one who said that Russia promoted the OST when in reality the USA did.
All
you seem able to do is MookJack and shift the goal posts.
There you are using words the voices in your head say are real. lol. Idiot.
Everybody knows what they mean but you, Mookie, so who's the idiot?
You are the one who doesn't understand plain English and makes **** up just because it sounds right to the voices in your head.
If you were proposing that the US withdraw from the OST but NOT the UN, its you who need to clarify and explain why the Law of the Sea and Agenda 21 and all the rest is just fine, only the OST needs trashed.
I don't need to do any such thing,
Yes you do.
No I don't, dip****.
Yes you do.
No I don't, dip****.
Again, I presume you wish to be understood. The reality is you do not. You wish to sow confusion for the gratification it gives you. This is Ganser's Syndrome.
People are creating political platforms on the idea the USA should withdraw from the UN primarily due to the crappy treaties the UN imposes on its member states, that benefit the IMF and BIS but no one else. That's what's drove Greece Ireland Iceland into the ****ter, and is driving everyone else into the ****ter as well. So, when you say "I think we should withdraw" - and I agree - don't go all ape**** just because YOU didn't clarify what it was we were to withdraw from. If it was such a freaking big deal, you needed to say that.
That's YOUR loony agenda, Mookie.
The OST is a UN treaty one of a host of non-armament treaties signed by the USA and other UN members. They are relics of the Cold War when the USA worried that the USSR would use superior technology to claim resources under the sea, in Antarctica and in space. If the USA were to withdraw from the OST it would do so for very much the same reason it would withdraw from all the other non-armament treaties it promoted in the 1950s. That is, there is no reason especially to single out the OST as the only treaty the USA should withdraw from. If the USA did that, it would put significant pressure on the UN and would likely lead to its collapse, just as the impasse between Britain and the USA over ship counts doomed the League of Nations.
Not my circus, not my monkeys.
No, because what I'm saying is rational. What you are saying is a product of your mental disorder.
You need to clarify and explain just what the
little voices in your head are telling you.
I'm talking about what the voices in your head are telling you. When someone says something its up to the person speaking to explain what the hell they mean. Only a psychopath like you gets mad at people and denigrates others who agree with you but don't precisely get what you said because you weren't clear to start out with.
They're currently telling me you cannot read English.
They are as right about that as they were about Russia promoting the OST.
I explained
what's wrong with the OST.
What was that precisely?
The fact that you are too stupid to get it
and have your own agenda don't mean **** to me.
I have no agenda other than speak the truth.
Like I said you a freaking lunatic! lol.
Yet you're the one who cannot follow a simple conversation.
I'm the one having a rational conversation. You on the other hand, not so much.
Then you need to explain how the US withdrawing from a treaty they arm twisted a lot of nations who have no interest in space at all in the 1960s, should take their next arm twisting seriously.
It was the USSR that was twisting arms.
No it wasn't.
Liar.
You're projecting again. You're the biggest liar I've ever met. Fact is, I say things only that are true. You say things that are convenient even if they are not true. In fact, you say things that are frequently to the point of nearly always not true. You are a congenital liar.
This is a case in point. You said the Soviet Union was twisting arms. I said the USA was. Let's see what the US State Department has to say about the Outer Space Treaty which was signed in Washington first by the USA in January 1967, only after ten years of arm twisting by the USA.
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm
This link says in part;
"In early 1957, even before the launching of Sputnik in October, developments in rocketry led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects. The development of an inspection system for outer space was part of a Western proposal for partial disarmament put forward in August 1957. The Soviet Union, however, which was in the midst of testing its first ICBM and was about to orbit its first Earth satellite, did not accept these proposals."
So not the Outer Space Treaty, then. And you should read the
following paragraphs.
Its this paragraph that proves the USA was promoting the OST at the UN as a way to constrain the USSR. When the USA caught up and surpassed the USSR a decade later, the USSR signed the treaty the USA was selling for over a decade.
Which pretty much proves you make **** up and lie about it just to carry on pointless argument against people you don't like. Then you blame them for people not wanting to read you bull**** and wonder why no one comes and contributes to this site any longer.
Fact is, I'm your most consistently brilliant contributor. You're lucky to have me post here, you moron.
Yeah, sure you are.
snicker
Laugh it up fuzzball, you obviously know nothing about the OST based on what you've said about it.
They wanted the OST in place
before the US put people on the Moon because they knew they were
losing the race and wanted to prevent the US from making any claims or
getting any advantage from getting there first.
No they didn't.
Liar.
Cite? DO you have a citation for what the voices in your head told you to write? NO? I didn't think so!
Fact is, according to the US department of State website describing the treaty, in early 1957, even before the launching of Sputnik in October, developments in rocketry led the United States to propose international verification of the testing of space objects. The development of an inspection system for outer space was part of a Western proposal for partial disarmament put forward in August 1957. The Soviet Union, however, which was in the midst of testing its first ICBM and was about to orbit its first Earth satellite, did not accept these proposals.
Interesting isn't it! Fact is, I know this history because I lived it. You on the other hand, not so much. So, take your lithium, quieten down, and leave me the **** alone you moron! lol.
And just how old were you in 1959, Mookie, when you "lived it"? So,
take your lithium, quieten down, and go **** yourself.
Look in the mirror when you say that and you have it just about right. In 1969 the second year of the OST, I purchased my first car, a 1963 Ford Falcon - as described here;
http://trashotron.com/agony/columns/05-24-02.htm
Stop trying to MookJack the thread, you ill-mannered
monomaniac.
You're familiar with psychological projection?
Yes, I watch you do it continually. Rubber/glue/waaaaaaaa.
You're being childish.
There you go projecting again.
Ganser's Syndrome is a factitious disorder, characterised by the individual mimicking behaviour they think are typical of a psychosis, by providing nonsensical or wrong answers to questions, and doing things incorrectly. The answers given, however, are usually so close to the question as to reveal that the patient has understood the question. Also called nonsense syndrome, balderdash syndrome, syndrome of approximate answers, pseudodementia or prison psychosis ( The syndrome is described most frequently in prison inmates form whom it may represent an attempt to gain leniency from prison or court officials ), classified in DSM-IV as one of the dissociative disorders. People with Ganser Syndrome have short-term episodes of odd behavior similar to that shown by people with serious mental illnesses. Diagnosing Ganser syndrome is very challenging, not only because some measure of dishonesty is involved but also because it is very rare.
There you go projecting again.
You're the one gaining gratification in misquoting conversations.
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.
That's what's happening here! I'm not ill-mannered, YOU ARE. I'm not a maniac, YOU ARE!
YOU ARE the one who said "we should withdraw" from the UN. I am merely replying to that. Now YOU ARE angry at me for replying to what you said, accusing me of the very things you do.
I never said we should withdraw from the UN.
You said we should withdraw. I presumed you were being rational and meant the UN. If you meant to say we should withdraw from the OST, while remaining in the UN, you needed to make that more clear.
Despite the fact that the topic of conversation was the Outer Space
Treaty and not the UN. Your version of 'rational' isn't.
The Outer Space Treaty is the product of the United Nations. The Outer Space Treaty, as it is known, was the second of the so-called "nonarmament" treaties of the UN. Its concepts and some of its provisions were modeled on its predecessor, the Antarctic Treaty also a product of the UN. Like that Treaty it sought to prevent "a new form of colonial competition" and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation might cause.
The United Nations is the product of humanity. Obviously I must have
intended that we withdraw from humanity.
The UN is a product of the ruling oligarchy who sought to control and constrain nation-states in favour of international cartels dominated by the IMF and BIS.
In this sense both treaties are opposed to unlimited commercial development that made the US frontiers so profitable for the nation.
I said that a long time ago. Nice you've finally caught up.
Cite?
You are a liar.
I'm sorry you feel that way. There is absolutely no basis for that statement. However, I see you are committed to this view, and its not really my problem. Its yours.
If you were really sorry you'd stop lying.
I don't lie. You obviously do.
There you go lying again.
Your belief in that statement is a product of your mental disorder.
snip MookLunacy
YOU ARE the lunatic friend. Not me.
You're familiar with psychological projection?
Yes, and you do it all the time.
You're familiar with psychological projection?
I'm familiar with Ganser's Syndrome. You obviously have it.
And there you go projecting your diagnosis on others again.
snip MookClueless going on and on about a .sig quote
You lie about who promulgated the OST at the UN;
http://www.state.gov/t/isn/5181.htm
That's very likely because your hero, Mark Twain, advises the following;
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...4ff612f239.jpg
Which is precisely what you do all the time.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...heine-heinrich