The Father Of Religion and Philosophy (plus conspiracy)

Rests on the obvious truth (below in 1-2 parts) by any point when of the human being:

1. Here is no truth in the human being.

2. Here is never truth in the human being.

If here in the human being were truth during any point or during a whole lasting, then truth will have either erased any lie (tale) hence or kept any lie (tale) shut off from ever coming to pose how a lie (tale) only can.

And even with what the internet allows to go on, both, number 1 and number 2 get exposure. Or else, here goes no questioning what people enter onto the internet by a personal (or public) computer with online access, if everything is truth 'as is'.

Though here is no truth in any of you a human being:

Do any of you have any thing additional to add?

Understand, being human and telling tales about not telling tales or not seeing every single thing is a tale, puts you in a conspiracy about nothing but a pathetic try to make, both, A) the any or whole "human being" span sound of good news and B) the any or whole "human being" appear by a butter up image of a worth while thing. Know, no good news can be a lie. And know, no butter up image can be a worth while thing.

 

Go note the grand rug removal from under touch period. So to speak.

Go note the grand swipe. So unactual.

Go note the weak fictionality. So ass shit out of luck!

Go note the hunch in not so. So even untold.

Hide or run-a-weigh shine a giveaway by yes-a-daze.

Executive (Execute Activity) Producer's Cut.

Hear of people ghosts? Well, meet rugs ghosts away from under fictionality's touch, so to speak. No more pluck trap holes by any hand which can not apply to a will category nor a man (as in manning) category.

Fiction pitiful punks (gov and news media) cop inn pleas.

Dont caption such, fiction such.

Poerty, to me, vise versa: actuality playing fiction; fiction playing actuality; and fiction displaying fiction; plus actuality displaying actuality.

And "playing" goes more than one way under a magnification of skinning...

Playing-

1. Portraying (and Performing/ as in putting on a performance)
2. Putting on (as through an electronic device key to aid)
3. Using (as in to serve a disclosed or undislosed purpose to be, either, a total disgaurd afterward or a 'put up for maybe later' category. The simple purposes may be to: 1) use for a passtime to play with as a toy or 2) use for wartime as a weapon of warfare.)
4. Tricking (as in suckering).

But dont even think Mabus be playing.

 

Fat undesireable, how the hail 'no longer' doing Mabus survive; these (plague) fiction-V sho(u)t secrete!

Some thing put from under. Current a finite locate it.

Recall "it" either for removal from the book in particular or implying encompass which also re-imply for the removal aswell.

Got time--time--time to find (finite locate) it! To find (finite locate) it!--Courtesy of STP.

Remember Lot's wife. Recall Feast 2. The creature's wife scream, but Lot's wife had no chance to scream (a locate finite).

Now remember the OUTERLIMITS episode where the computerize type robots, looking human, were going for ensuring function a priorty? The one lady got to have known the inner detail, and got to know the weakness a dependability such a relie on the alive humans. And the robots knew not to tell them whole, but had to tell at least one alive human. See the lukewarm the robots faulitness, which be the fact no computerization can be better than an alive individuality? The can not or can test can't compete with SHOULD nor beat SHOULD. "Should" only what an individuality roll firm with! No other capable of a SHOULD continuation, to be specific. Can, can test, will not, should try (an intent to fail)... Can't and don't fuck with SHOULD solid golden rule (or solid grand better). Plus, SHOULD cast "SHOULD NOT". "Should not" only lays inner non-actuality where can and can test dwell. In authentic actuality, no thing a "should not." One should enguage any etc. how prefer/favor. It's no I should not do this because so-n-so can trip or so-n-so can test with logic against the beyond so not under logic the no duh way or so-n-so a class will not see (or: come to see) eye to eye. But the "should not" only plague a coward for becoming a coward over a rather simple "will not". The "will not" picker become total empty. Any which claim "will not" current upon the planet, rather implicating should not or can (as in simply because can say such which is the can test) or can test or can not.