10 amazing paper stunts!

50

I have just created another Quirkology video, this time containing 10 amazing things that you can do with a piece of paper. Hope that you enjoy it!

50 comments on “10 amazing paper stunts!

  1. Sheldon Cooper says:

    If I may be given leave to interject

    According to Title 18, Chapter 17 of the U.S. Code, which sets out crimes related to coins and currency, anyone who “mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued,” can be fined or imprisoned as well.

    And as for the fire risk implications of balancing a paper coil over a hot lamp …. well don’t go there

    Also who in their right mind would willingly give up cash to partake of that foul, brown liquid that laughingly masquerades itself as chain-store coffee, should take a long hard look at themselves.

  2. Eddie says:

    Excellent stuff. Can’t wait to try ’em out.

    PS – something for Barry to use prior to next post…

    http://plainenglish.co.uk/drivel-defence.html

  3. Barry Goddard says:

    I see once again I have both been spoken too and indeed for – once more by someone using the name “Barry Goddard” to post in an an onymous fashion without making the correct attachment of their own name. This has truly become an interesting phenomena on this very present website community that perhaps in good time is worthy of further comment.

    Meantimes may I reassure @sheldon that it is likely our kindly of ofttimes absent host Mr Wiseman has most likely not broken any pre-existent known US federal laws on the defacement of in-circulation paper currency – vis to be clear (as @edie asks) the dollar “bill” shown in the video.

    For surely in truth that bill is still perfectly capable of making its way back across the wide ocean known as the Atlantic and find itself in perfectly acceptable circulation despite a small cut in its inner interior. A some cut no less that could easily be repaired with some ordinary plastic tape available in any office – and indeed most kitchen utility drawers will have such a roll of tape. If you have never seen such a repair device simply ask around. You will find it has an abundance of usages in home and office for small repairs such as the one referred to in the video,

    Nonetheless tricks with paper though a perhaps delightful distraction on a dull weekday morning should not distract us from the higher thoughts coursing through this website community correspondence – many would be dismayed and disheartened if we allowed that to once more happen again after all the good work of recent weeks spent clarifying the objectives and raising the very spiritual tone of the discussions of late to date.

    And indeed it may for some be a distraction to try to veer the communication toward modes of expression. @Edie may find straight-forward communication difficult to follow – hence the eternal retreat back into the mystifyingly vague language of puzzles (where the existence of a comma or a gender amiguous name or some such verbal slight of hand is necessary to attempt to hide the true answer from the less than vigilant). Yet complaints about style are in many ways vindication of the style as we can see for sure that there are no complaints about the substantive and nourishing content that our dialogues at times bring to this blog.

    By seeing our purpose clearly we can safely and swiftly make progress untoward our goals – which for many I know are some of the noblest and insightful duties that a human life coule hope to aspire to. Thus may we all renew our efforts – and put these trifling interruptions of anonymous posters and quotes from Federal Laws behind us in our ever striving for our very future.

    • Galaxial Monobrow says:

      “For surely in truth that bill is still perfectly capable of making its way back across the wide ocean known as the Atlantic and find itself in perfectly acceptable circulation despite a small cut in its inner interior. A some cut no less that could easily be repaired with some ordinary plastic tape available in any office – and indeed most kitchen utility drawers will have such a roll of tape. If you have never seen such a repair device simply ask around. You will find it has an abundance of usages in home and office for small repairs such as the one referred to in the video,”

      Does this mean: You could still use this note in the US if you repaired it with some sticky tape?

      Is someone getting paid by the word?

  4. Roger Frey says:

    Where is the free template?

  5. Roger Frey says:

    Where is the link? It’s not in the video and I can’t find it anywhere on the page.

  6. Barry Goddard says:

    I feel it is appropriate now at this time to comment on @Sheldon’s expressed fears about paper being above a hot lamp. It is good that @Sheldon trusts us in this community enough to feel this place is enough of a safe space to allow him to open up his heart and speak freely of such fears. We should all humbly be justifiably proud of the achievement we have accomplished here.

    Yet such a fear is utterly baseless and thus must come from Sheldon’s own insecurities and perhaps hidden traumas of candles and blazes experienced as a child. Perhaps not experienced consciously as a child in this life yet still carried over (as so many I speak to carry over trauma) from one or several of past lives previously lived before his present birth.

    For to simply address the presenting issue (I know that the underlying groundless trauma is in some ways more important. Yet to address that in public would be a breach of client-therapist etiquette even though I am unable to comment on whether Sheldon has approached me via private message to discuss such an arrangement). Paper about a hot source is seldom an issue:

    Many of us can see this simply by looking in an upward direction. Incline your head to the ceiling and you likely see ceiling paper. Perhaps coated in flammable paint type substance. Yet that layer of combustibles is at all times above whatever hot sources we have in the room below – be they candles or incense or cigars or room heaters of many and varied types.

    And yet ceiling fires are few and seldom even in houses with many hot sources.

    Thus I ask Sheldon and those he may have disquieted to take some deep breaths and contact inner tranquil states that are always there and can easily be accessible to us – just as the calm ocean depths underlie any turbulence on the surface currents and waves.

  7. Barry Goddard says:

    @Sheldon – though I applaud your time and effort you have clearly put into researching and publishing your statistics – for surely the urge to look backward and evaluate the reasons for the developments in our lives is surely as natural a human urge as looking upward toward the stars at night – I feel I must caution this approach as a cure-all for events of historical happenstance.

    For when it comes to risky behaviour it simply is not sufficient to be wise after the event. The horse as the old saying says) has clearly bolted by then leaving the stable door ajar in a precarious state. No indeed we must strive to be also wise before the event and equally wise during the duration of the event.

    This I think is the thematic message that Mr Wiseman would wish for us all to take from this blog and its many and varied postings concerning the foibles of human cognition and our efforts to enhance our consciousness – even if the usually approved methods are so sadly limited to those recognised and promoted by the recently developed “western scientific method”. For there are many far more powerful and evidence based systems of science than are dreamt up in your philosophy.

    Yet I wish not to digress upon other topics – fascinating to us all though they may be. Let us return to the subject in hand and conclude that retrospective studies – even those of the obvious quality and depth as @Sheldon’s – should not blind us to the need to be situationally aware (and indeed in all other ways aware) at all times even before the circumstances that may provoke @Sheldon’s interest in conducting another study.

    • Sheldon Cooper says:

      My word, quite a few ‘Thumbs Down’ I see.

      Mr Goodard, I fear that your magical, mystical powers are fading. But I guess you already new that from your Astrolergy.

      A plea… For those of you who believe in astrology, please carefully consider what I say. For those of you who don’t, think harder about what you can do to help rid ourselves of the psuedoscience.

      I mean no ill will to the believers–some of my favourite people are genuine astrology buffs. If it makes you happy, and helps you understand life a little better, go for it. The people that upset me are those that may blindly believe in the truth of astrology without really considering where it comes from.

      Astrology is not to be confused with astronomy. Yes, astrology is the predecessor to the modern day astronomy that is the scientific study of the Universe, but it is certainly not the same anymore.

      Astrology is the study of the aspects of heavenly bodies with the belief that they hold influence over human affairs. The early astronomers did not know much about what was going on in the sky, other than what they were able to observe. At that point, astrology and astronomy worked hand in hand; some of the our most famous scientists held second jobs as astrological forecasters.

      At this point in history, though, we need to seriously separate the two. With the scientific knowledge that we have gained in recent history, there is little reason to place much trust in the notion that the Sun, Moon, or planets will affect your day to day life. Five thoughts:

      1) Distances. As anyone who has taken introductory physics should know, the force of gravity goes with the inverse square of the distance… ie., the further a body is from you, the less it will affect you. Remember how far away Earth is from the Sun, Moon, and planets (hint: MILLIONS of miles). Though the person who delivered you at birth may be much less massive than any celestial body, they are much closer and would certainly affect you more than the positions of the planets.

      2) Other influences. For argument’s sake, let’s say that there is some unknown force that far-away celestial bodies do exert. The laws of physics have yet to be completely understood, so I’ll concede that it may be possible that there is something that works independently of distance and might influence the lives of people. But if that force is not distance dependent, why aren’t stars, galaxies, quasars, or black holes included in astrological forecasts?

      3) Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. The three outermost planets (yes IMHO Pluto is a planet) were only discovered within the past three centuries. How does that work with the claim that astrologers make about the accuracy of their art for previous times?

      4) Precession of the Earth. Due to the slight wobbling of the Earth’s axis, the current position of objects in the zodiac circle are no longer consistent with the tenets of astrology set up thousands of years ago. Your “sun sign” is actually currently shifted over by one (i.e., a Leo is really a Cancer).

      5) Build me a house of ham. If you’ve thought about the human reproductive process, you know that a baby spends about 9 months gestating in the mother’s womb before it is born. Why, then, does your birth time matter? Shouldn’t it really be the time of conception that would affect who the baby is to become? Or is it that the muscular lining of the mother protects the fetus from all external forces? In that case, shouldn’t a ham enclosure do the trick?

      Think about it. If I haven’t managed to debunk astrology, I hope I’ve at least made you more aware of it. The skies are mysterious, but they need not rule your life.

  8. Barry Goddard says:

    @Sheldon – you clearly have a good rationally logic mind. Yet you must beware using such skills to re-inforce your own convictions rather than bravely following the truth of the evidence to whereever it leads.

    For surely if we used logic and reasoning alone we would still be exalting Issac Newton as a great scientist and be trying to launch space ships and build iPads using only his theories. Yet as we all know his theories are wrong. It too great scientists such as Einstein and Hahnemann and von Daniken who applied their imaginations to the evidence and the universe at large and thus birthed forth our modern world with all its many wonders. (Einstein called this process a “thought experiment” at a time when many scientists did not yet even consider thoughts and memories and imagination and consciousness to be real things that could be used in experiments).

    Yet – thanks to Einstein and his many supporters – we now can see that thought and consciousness are the very bedrock of the universe we perceive spread out all around us.

    And by following the universe rather than our limited filters we too can step out into that wider world – a wider world where Truth is not determined by the Votes of those who fear to think imaginatively. Truth is solely determined by Reality itself. Thus I am not downhearted by a few negative votes. They simply help to illuminate the magnitude of the task ahead of us all in the future that is already upon us every single day.

    We have many resources available to us in this oncoming future. Astronomy is one – it may help us in 3 million years time when we collide with Andromeda. Astrology is yet another – helping us with our destiny in the cosmos every single day.

    Thus Sheldon please join me in removing the mind shackles from every single person with that need. There can surely be no greater task to dedicate a human life to.

  9. Eddie says:

    Newton may not have had the whole picture, but at least he moved our understanding of the universe along, unlike religious and superstitious nutters like you, who are still going round chopping people’s heads off and throwing homosexuals off buildings.

    • Barry Goddard says:

      @Edie – I sense you are being disingenuine with your dismissal of the gentle ancient sciences that have wisely guided mankind in these past 1000 centuries of history until the were swept away in the mad and unprecedented dash to create the science of industrial revolutions.

      For what are we to speak of deaths when more people have died from industrial deaths this last century than ever died through the whole of history? Deaths from automobiles and deaths from airplanes and their bombs. Atom bombs and catastrophic global warming. Biological disasters such as Thalidomide and Vaccinations. Wars with ever more terrible weapons of massive destructiveness power. Satellites watching our every move while plastics choke the life out of the last remote sea creatures of the depths. MRSA to attack those who in their pain and confusion venture into a hospital expecting kindness and cure. Guillotines and lethal injections for those the State chooses to dispose of. And all manner of poisonous gases and powerful earthquakes brought upon by fracking and other geo-terror methods.

      The kindly ancient arts of science look on in horror at the mess that they alone will survive and thus will be tasked with solving once the last scientist has died at their own hands as their experiments of massed destruction continue to wreak untold and perhaps untellable havoc on the very planet we all humbly rely upon for our very nourishment and existence.

      The hubris of industrialised science is tellingly counterpointed by the humanity and deep insightful caring of the ancient arts that have indeed nourished humanity since time immemoriable and earlier still.

      Let us then begin the renaissance of the human race by returning to the ancient sciences that raised it up to the heights from which modern science is determined to dash it down from once again. No one who cares for life on this very planet can surely stand by in idleness and let this happen.

      Join with me in the return to greatness that will mark the very start of the healing process that we all so sorely are much in need of.

    • Sheldon Cooper says:

      You have a lot to say here Mr Goodard!

      (I am hoping BTW that the ‘Exclamation Police’ are not reading this

      So just to make it easier for you:

      – There is no force, known or unknown, that could possibly affect us here on Earth the way astrologers claim. Known forces weaken too fast, letting one source utterly dominate (the Moon for gravity, the Sun for electromagnetism). An unknown force would allow asteroids and extrasolar planets to totally overwhelm the nearby planets.

      – Astrologers tend to rely on our ability to remember hits and forget misses. Even an accurate prediction may be simple chance.

      -Study after study has shown that claims and predictions made by astrologers have no merit. They are indistinguishable from chance, which means astrologers cannot claim to have some ability to predict your life’s path.

      There is harm, real harm, in astrology. It weakens further people’s ability to rationally look at the world, an ability we need now more than ever.

    • Adzcliff says:

      Hi Sheldon Cooper

      Using the words of others to make arguments can be an extremely useful and valid intellectual exercise – even if entire posts are made up of those words. However, it is only good manners to say when we are doing it, so that: (1) credit for those words is given accordingly; (2) readers get a true impression of how much of ‘you’ is in those posts; and (3) your interlocutors can be reassured they are not conversing with a bot. You did this in your first post where you referenced the US Code, but failed to acknowledge that Emily Lu and Phillip Plait were the almost-sole authors of your latter two. It’s not the first time I have mentioned this, which makes me wonder whether you feel differently about issues of intellectual etiquette. Would be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts.

      Regards.

    • Anonymous says:

      Adzcliff = drivel

    • Barry Goddard says:

      @Anonymous

      Your contribution to this dialogue adds zeroness of value. A one word insult of a regular (if misguided) contributor neither helps the narrative or assists the poster your critique or explains what it is exactly you mean to be trying to say. You thus simply sew confusion where the rest of us are exemplars of clarity and polite exchange.

      Perhaps one of the pinnacles of civilised discourse – and one that I humbly always attempt to emulate as a worthy goal – is to be polite in the face of ignorance and misinformation and troll-like posts that add nothing of any substance to the dialogue at hand.

      I fear you @anon have traded brevity for politeness and thus are at risk of risking removing yourself from polite society in the very eyes of the others with whom it would seem you wish to converse. This own goal brought on by shooting yourself in the foot is surely even by you now on reflection seen as an exemplar of a faux pas.

      Yet some of us at least practice that rarest in modern society of virtues – that of being patient. I am therefor taking this moment in this post to respond to you not only with your same brevity yet also in a kindly and helpful manner as befits the highest aspirations of any and (we can wish one day) all posters to this community of comment and insight.

      And thus I ask you to reconsider your impolite and frankly imprenetrable brief babble and thus return to discourse with us on a deeper level than you have yet to have demonstrated so far. You will find us (some of us at least) welcoming of genuine enquirers and open to the raising of many and varied aspects of human and trans-human psychology and spirituality. Thus please drop the gruffiness and join us in the genuine splendour of intellectual explorative discussion at the very deepest levels.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry Barry

  10. Barry Goddard says:

    @Sheldon – the strength you may have in your personal received convictions is no doubt highly commendable to some. Yet let us remember that just as anecdote is not evidence so too personal filters are not truth. Unless backed up by rigourous and extended studies.

    Consciousness is clearly the central defining aspect of what it is to be human so any description of reality that excludes consciousness is at best an attempt to misled others to the nature of ultimate truth. We know too we are affected by the very physical existence of the universe around us – how could it be otherwise? Even scientists would seldom argue otherwise.

    And so with consciousness primary and the universe swirling around our ever conscious moment and senses how too could they not inter-relate and communicate each other’s essence? Saying you do not understand the method and thus the method must be discarded is ironically to exactly give precedence to consciousness (albeit in this case solely your own as if all other people’s can be discarded for reasons not disclosed by yourself to the rest of us).

    Thus universal explorations such as shamanism and astrology represent the current very pinnacle of the cutting edge of Man’s exploration of what it means to be human in our cosmos. We should think on very deeply of the consequences to the future of human knowledge and destiny if we should in any ways try to disrupt that noble endeavour.

    Such is of course straightforward discourse to the many who venture to this blog for its erudite conversation and thus I hesitate to express this once more again. Yet if saying it helps even the one reader to open their mind’s eye to their mind’s cosmos I will humbly be grateful for that reader taking the time to read my simple words of explanation.

  11. Eddie says:

    It’s the Friday puzzle….

    In an tank containing enough water, a block of wood floats. On top of the block of wood, a brick has been glued. We mark the current water level. If the block of wood is turned around (so that the brick hangs under it), will the water level rise, fall, or stay the same?

    • Sheldon Cooper says:

      The upward force, needed to keep the block of wood with the brick floating, is equal to the weight of the block of wood with the brick. Turning the block of wood around does not change the weight, so the needed upward force stays the same, so the weight of the displaced water stays the same.

      Conclusion: the water level stays the same.

    • Eddie says:

      Good thinking, Sheldon.

    • Sheldon Cooper says:

      That’s because I am Capricorn. Would you agree Mr Goodard?

    • Barry Goddard says:

      If I may interject a touch of real world realism into this abstract fantasy puzzle – for surely any puzzle (if assume we are indeed even to tolerate puzzles as a distraction from the true issues of this blog community exchange) must needs be be rooted in the fertile earth of reality rather than a world of arbitrary made up rules that change from puzzle to puzzle:

      Inverted the brick will sink.

      This is so simply obvious from a simple application of real world common sense that we all (puzzlers perhaps excepted) know about bricks:

      Real bricks absorb water.

      Anyone with a damp proof course in their house – i.e. that is everyone living in a brick built house – knows that bricks are pourous and soak up water like a veritable sponge to the flame.

      Simple and easily accessible brick facts will thus then show us that a typical house brick will absorb a liter and a half of water. That in kilo terms is after conversion somewhere in the region of one to two extra kilograms in weight.

      It may be that the puzzlers would now wish to go back to the puzzle and reword it so the brick is wrapped in bubblewrap or some other means to introduce a barrier between the brick and the water that it would without the waterproofing naturally absorb into its material. Yet I ask you not to handwave away the very universe we actually live in:

      A puzzle must match reality or it is just a vain exercise in similtaneous equations and other pointless alegbra exercises. Let us now all agree to simply abandon puzzles as unprofitable for those who have chosen a true spiritual quest. And thus we can at last move forward with confidence to speak on issues of true import rather than once more again revert to babbling about bricks or leaning ladders or how many frogs will fill a swimming pool or any endless number of bizarre obsessional numerology.

    • Eddie says:

      Regarding paras 1 to 3, Barry, the brick is glued to the wood.
      Hope this helps.

  12. Barry Goddard says:

    Yet @Edie gluing a brick to a lump of wood has no effect on the brick’s inherent pourosity. The brick will still absorb water – indeed copious amounts of water – and thus will still sink with the additional weight of the water that will be acting to drag down the combined plank/brick object.

    If it were so easy to create floating bricks then surely we would have heard of Pirate ships and perhaps some military sailing vessels that were lined on the outside with bricks, For surely floating bricks below the water line would protect against reefs and sharks and other dangers of the Deep. While bricks above the water line yet still in grave danger of being continuously splashed would help protect against missiles such as canonballs and ramming ships.

    Yet no. The brick ship is not a part of history. For as everyone except our armchair puzzlers know in their hearts: bricks will sink. This is literally not rocket science. It is indeed close to the opposite: it is the science that when applied to submarines has saved many an unfortunate undersea mariner from a watery grave in a brick-lined sub.

    For those of us with the greatest respect for science of all types this disregard for the Natural Law of pouricity for the sake of a badly constructed and also at the same time meaningless puzzle is doubly sad.

    This indeed highlights the problems caused by unbridled puzzling at the heart of this very website. Which is just one of the very many reasons why those of us amongst us who care passionately for science and logic and reason have called so often (despite it to date being in vain) for the puzzlers to simply desist and allow the rest of us the space for edifying conversation and the such like.

    Yet I am not disheartened. Even though yet one more puzzle has allowed the conversation yet once more again to be derailed from its pure intent. I know from observing the stubbornness of many a human heart that change takes time. Yet I know too that the silent majority here are deafening in support of the stance we amongst us take. There remain many places in the universe where puzzlers can exchange their clever phrases and similtaneous equations wrapped up in misleading jargon and words – and where they can disregard the Laws of Physics that the rest of us consider Sacred. Yet only here is a rare unique opportunity to engage with the very Mind of Professor Wiseman. Let us not spoil that moment in this place for the sake of a few irrelevant puzzles.

    And thus I hope we can now all look forward to a nourishing fare of intellectual stimulation in the vast and endless future of this website. We have worked hard to make this possible. Let us allow it to happen now.

    • Eddie says:

      Brick. Just one letter change away from describing you

    • Ken Haley says:

      Barry: you have made the most ridiculous assertion I’ve ever read. The ancient Egyptions had to have floating bricks! How else did they make the pyramids? Everyone knows they used water to flood the region while slaves pushed the bricks into position. Get yourself grounded in reality.

  13. Eddie says:

    Looks like Barry’s been having us on all this time…

  14. Barry Goddard says:

    @Edie

    I do not recognise myself in your last most recent two comments above. I feel you may be making a case of psychological projection – ie that is seeing in someone else a characteristic of your own that you yourself are not comfortable with.

    Yet either way I thank you for calling me “brisk”. I feel it was intended as a complement despite whatever your true feelings on the topic at hand. For though I am succinct and to the point (it is a matter of some pride that I aim to always express myself with brevity and kindness and understanding) I do not see myself as brisk. For I always take the time to properly engage with others no matter how unpopular that may make me with others as others try to hurry the conversation onward to topics for which others in the conversation are not yet ready. For true politeness is in my humble opinion one of the many things that separate us from the mere brute savages whom every day seem to occupy the Internet more and more often.

    Secondly nor do I know what you mean by your comment about having you on. If you mean helping others on to the most appropriate spiritual path for ones such as ourselves who find ourselves in this cosmos then yes perhaps I have betimes attempted that. I feel that any of us with even the humblest of spiritual gifts are literally called by the very universe to assist and aid in such ways. And perceptive person would naturally conclude as such too.

    Thus I thank you for your comments and complements though I fear I have not properly as yet fully understood them and thus I ask you for the sake of those who read this blog community to be more less obscure in the ways you have of expressing yourself in writing here.

    Nethertheless I am heartened by your wish to express positive comments about me myself. I feel this is a measurable change from your darker states of mind that manifested here just a few short months ago. Perhaps the coming of Spring has naturally lightened the emotional burdens of your soul.

  15. Ken Haley says:

    Another puzzle: Draw 4 straight line segments connected end-to-end to form a large M. Now draw 3 straight lines through the M to form 9 non-overlapping triangles.

  16. cctv home says:

    Closed circuit TV has helped inside capture and prosecution of terrorist bombers and child abductors notable.
    The video clip is really a lot more correct and precise and it is
    possible to be competent to operate by using it irrespective of one’s
    age. Cctv xbmc If not, the officers were merely conducting a private contractual
    duty with the time with the incident and there might be no respondeat superior cause of City liability.

    For full-functional operation within the multi-channel CCTV system, STM-260W
    has 4 BNC video inputs for security equipment connection and VGA-input for PC.
    Working with motion sensors a burglar rings in the event the perimeter
    of your home is crossed.

  17. Eddie says:

    Here’s another one. Without looking, you draw two balls from a bag containing 4 blue balls, 3 red balls and one green ball, all of the same size. What is the probability that the two balls are of different colour?

  18. Barry Goddard says:

    im a moose

    • Barry Goddard says:

      Again, a visitor to this withering blog has sought to impersonate me for reasons that are surely rooted in their own self-esteem and spiritual identity crisis. I am truly humbled that, out of all the identities the universe has gifted us, they have chosen to wear mine to deflect the world from their inner struggle. Whilst I would never deny my moniker to anyone who needed a welcoming but temporary sanctuary from their existential woes, alas they will learn soon enough that the only true path to the endless wonders of the self lie in accepting that the consciousness we look out from is ours, and ours alone, temporarily bequeathed to us in its current form by that most avuncular of spiritual entities, the cosmos. So, as always, I am sure the the silent majority here share my hope that my timid impersonator will find the strength to come out from behind their veil, and accept my humble invitation to tutor them in the science of the stars so that they, like the many others that have had the good fortune to open themselves to my worldly wisdom, will find their true self and unique calling in the universe.

  19. Barry Goddard says:

    I remain perplexed once again to see not only one but several posts in this very thread that use my name to post information that any mildly astute reader here on this blog would with a moment’s reflection know could not be my words.

    I feel my mission (if I may for only one moment use such a term for such a humble approach to human communication as mine) here is to help where I can with those who are open (and in some very cases indeed eager) to speak of and to hear about experiences that contain spiritual depth and nurturable insights into the true mind of man as we find ourselves.

    It is thus therefore of a confusing situation especially for those not well versed in these matters to find others on the sidelines who never-the-none-the-less are perchance required to read through posts that purport to be consonant with the issues I help others to dialogue in yet are of considerable dubious quality.

    Thus for the sake of the lessor experienced partakers of this blog may I tentatively suggest an ironclad rule which once adopted – as indeed the majority silent and otherwise will naturally wish – would request those posting in the name of another poster to indicate that in a clear manner that removes any lingering doubt from the minds of said partakers.

    Thus this would be of doubly good usage as it would brook no censorship on names yet maximise the clarity of our understanding of who has posted rich and meaningful original content of inestimable value to the careful reader while marking clearly the deriviatative comic echos of the true posters’ true voice and language and style.

    That would thus go far to ensure the quiet enjoyment of all who post here – including yet by no means limited to those who have nothing to say yet need to borrow a voice in which to speak.

    • Eddie says:

      For my part, Barry, I was totally fooled by the imposter. In fact I was 100% sure it was you, though in retrospect the lack of paragraphs gave it away somewhat.

    • Barry Goddard says:

      @Edie – I thank you for your support in this matter of the misattribution of posts made here on this very blog.

      It is indeed as indeed you have noticed easy for the inattentive reader to be temporally misled or confused by the flurry of “false flag” posts made here – and indeed perhaps elsewhere too – though that is a post for another time and perhaps another place.

      Yet to simply note the positive light in which this is best observed: such confusion cannot last for long for we live in a very cosmos that has Truth as its bedrock and thus falsehoods can only make so much headway before being overtaken by the bright penetrative light of Truth itself. That yet indeed is the very heart of the Scientific Method.

      Yet still many try to live life in quiet falsehood foolishly expecting that to be of benefit to them. All the Wise know themselves that this is not the case. We need only look up at the great arc of Stars above us (and indeed all around us in all directions above below and across) to know that truth is quite literally all around us. For surely to deny the cosmos is to deny our very home – and thus to deny ourselves while seeing ourselves as homeless.

      Therefore there remains a simple test to apply to any post to help elucidate if it is genuine or the product of a faker. In my case for to take an example we need simply ask ourselves to reflect on the qualities of heart and mind embedded in the post itself. Humble though I wish myself to be in matters of human communication nevertheless I feel I can say that my posts strive successfully to be ones that are kind and insightful and caring – also considerate of other genuine seekers and of interest to all spiritual venturers of this world. I also at all times welcome simple plain language and dialogue with others of a like minded demeanour.

      Perhaps even you too Edie could typify your genuine posts such that any one else in future should they doubt the authorship of a post mononymed as yourself can refer to your checklist to ascertain genuineness.

      I thank you again for your unstinting support at this of all times today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s