maybe gonna have to get used to each other
i am SO not used to Nara ever being on the receiving end, of that kind of condescension - from someone who is arguably on the same page as he is. Or, am i reading this wrong?Originally Posted by mot
Hey mot,
The treatise Nara linked to, predates that Sona crapola that you linked to. Latin predates sona as well. Maybe you'll have to carry me through your understanding, as i am apparently unable to find my legs here. i've never heard of a "legalise society." Gotta' link to a member list?
Please leave typos alone, or i'll hammer you every time i catch you. i can't believe you checked him for toe; and then proceeded to omit an- from -other; AND used your, where you shoula' typed you're. THAT IS SO TROLL. Please refrain from doing that. Try minding your own composition more. My hat is off to you, however, for making correct use of that one too in there.
Maybe, i need to take you by the hand, and explain how chat room works?
Did you spend any time reading the linked treatise? Did you notice the OP solicited comments and criticisms of same? Near as i can tell, you answered Nara's understanding, without referring to the treatise itself. Now, follow me...Now, this alone, could generate pages of comments - and hurling, maybe. It should wet the appetite of any like minded readers, to click over and search the matter out.
If you bother to check this quote, you'll see it's in the handwriting of subscribing witnesses neighborhood. In fact, there are places where the treatise seems to almost glimpse graphoanalysis, in attempts to establish identity! No sona mumbo jumbo. Really man.
It's brass tacks controversies, in condensed form, that helped me imagine a dialogue that went a little like this...
"Sir, who signed this bond? Yer under oath now. This looks exactly like all these other signatures, that you just admitted were yours, and here's the guy - i'm about to get him to testify - that he witnessed you sign that there paper. " It references old old cases that predate the operative, corporate gubment paradigm of some researchers; that as far as i know, predate all of our most sacred, patriot, strawman cows. ha! And these last two assertions, might be worth discussing here, too.
In closing, i cannot resist pointing out a phrase from Nara's first quote of the treatise - which thing stoned me...Ya, duh, wow. Anyone else notice that? i never ever knew that such a doctrine existed. What a great find! Tell me more, someone, please.the doctrine that the identity of name was evidence of identity of person, has measurably exploded
Reply With Quote