The day of reckoning has arrived.

[Angrboda]

Are you claiming that your knowledge of the composition of the universe being vibrations comes from a feeling like love?  If so, then you have no evidence, because feelings don't convey knowledge.  You've made knowledge claims and are trying to back them up with 'a feeling'?  It doesn't work that way.  Either it's a false analogy, or the analogy is accurate, and you have no real knowledge.

Either way, you can take your analogy to love and shove it.  It doesn't apply.

As usual you think like a FOOL.  
Love is not only physical.
In fact physical love is at the very bottom on the scale of measurement of total love so to speak.
As you climb higher and higher and reach spiritual love then you get the lot.

And the lot means that knowledge is also part and parcel of the infinite endless love.
All there is to know will be known.

Bollocks. You sure do love making bullshit claims. No evidence for any of it though.

Also Einstein agree when he said......."Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics".........

Einstein never said that. So obviously you are not at this 'peak' that grants knowledge because you're still quoting bullshit. So you don't have this love that grants knowledge even if it were to exist, which it doesn't.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/16/...ng-energy/

Quote Investigator: There is no substantive evidence that Albert Einstein said this. It does not appear in the comprehensive collection of quotations “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein” from Princeton University Press [UQEI].

The earliest evidence QI can find for this quote is in a digital archive captured in April 2000 of a webpage from a site called bashar.org. The data can be viewed by using the “Wayback Machine”, a service provided by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organization which offers permanent storage and access to massive collections of digitized materials.

A set of computers at the Internet Archive regularly crawl the web and download accessible webpages. The data is stored for later examination by researchers, historians, and the curious. The “Wayback Machine” provides a front-end to a search engine that allows a user to view the contents of an individual webpage as it appeared on dates from the past. However, only a limited number of webpages and dates are available for study.

On April 8, 2000 a computer at the Internet Archive visited the website bashar.org and downloaded a webpage that included the quotation under investigation in the last paragraph. The title at the top of the page was “The Ides of March”. The words on the page were not attributed to Albert Einstein. Instead, the name Darryl Anka appeared at the bottom of the page along with a copyright symbol and a 1996 date. The webpage was likely created sometime between 1996 and April 2000.

The Wikipedia entry for Darryl Anka states that he worked as a special effects artist for several motion pictures. In addition, it states that Anka is known as a channeler [WKDA]:

Anka claims that he began to communicate, through trance-channeling, with an extra-terrestrial entity called Bashar in 1983. He describes Bashar as existing in a parallel reality, in a time frame that we perceive as the future.

The webpage at bashar.org from April 2000 explicated the philosophy of Bashar as channeled by Anka. The page stated: “Everything you could ever want, it has already been given to you”.

[Cyberman]

What a crap Yog. Internets was not around when Einstein was around. So how the words be on the internets if Einstein not said them? Who is fool now?

You never thought about it did you?


[/channeling]

What the hell just happened?

[downbeatplumb]

You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.

A leopard can't change its shorts.

Red sky at night........ barns on fire.

A bird in the hand will probably cost a couple of bottles of WKD.

People in glass houses should not wander around naked.

[Little Rik]

As usual you think like a FOOL.  
Love is not only physical.
In fact physical love is at the very bottom on the scale of measurement of total love so to speak.
As you climb higher and higher and reach spiritual love then you get the lot.

And the lot means that knowledge is also part and parcel of the infinite endless love.
All there is to know will be known.

Bollocks.  You sure do love making bullshit claims.  No evidence for any of it though.

Also Einstein agree when he said......."Everything is energy and that’s all there is to it. Match the frequency of the reality you want and you cannot help but get that reality. It can be no other way. This is not philosophy. This is physics".........

Einstein never said that.  So obviously you are not at this 'peak' that grants knowledge because you're still quoting bullshit.  So you don't have this love that grants knowledge even if it were to exist, which it doesn't.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/16/...ng-energy/

Quote Investigator: There is no substantive evidence that Albert Einstein said this. It does not appear in the comprehensive collection of quotations “The Ultimate Quotable Einstein” from Princeton University Press [UQEI].

The earliest evidence QI can find for this quote is in a digital archive captured in April 2000 of a webpage from a site called bashar.org. The data can be viewed by using the “Wayback Machine”, a service provided by the Internet Archive, a non-profit organization which offers permanent storage and access to massive collections of digitized materials.

A set of computers at the Internet Archive regularly crawl the web and download accessible webpages. The data is stored for later examination by researchers, historians, and the curious. The “Wayback Machine” provides a front-end to a search engine that allows a user to view the contents of an individual webpage as it appeared on dates from the past. However, only a limited number of webpages and dates are available for study.

On April 8, 2000 a computer at the Internet Archive visited the website bashar.org and downloaded a webpage that included the quotation under investigation in the last paragraph. The title at the top of the page was “The Ides of March”. The words on the page were not attributed to Albert Einstein. Instead, the name Darryl Anka appeared at the bottom of the page along with a copyright symbol and a 1996 date. The webpage was likely created sometime between 1996 and April 2000.

The Wikipedia entry for Darryl Anka states that he worked as a special effects artist for several motion pictures. In addition, it states that Anka is known as a channeler [WKDA]:

Anka claims that he began to communicate, through trance-channeling, with an extra-terrestrial entity called Bashar in 1983. He describes Bashar as existing in a parallel reality, in a time frame that we perceive as the future.

The webpage at bashar.org from April 2000 explicated the philosophy of Bashar as channeled by Anka. The page stated: “Everything you could ever want, it has already been given to you”.

Nothing really change Yog in your small mental world.

Your tactic include.........
1) Deny, deny always deny the facts that may put you in trouble.
2) Avoid evidence by changing argument and pretend that LR doesn't notice that.
3) Search around and around all the time for possible facts that may contradict LR considering that your own intellect offer next to nothing.
4) Using swearing and filthy language to try to avoid thinking about your failing and on and on.....

When you will ever grow up Yog?



But let us see your latest attempt to get off the hook.

1) You say that Einstein never said that sentence that I provide when in fact the link that you provide say ..................I do not think this is physics, and I do not think these are Einstein’s words.

You see....the guy say........I do not think.
He doesn't say....in the affirmative that Einstein never said that but you fool twist the words to help your
agenda.
You are not honest Yog.
By the way that sentence follow Einstein logic of thinking so it is very very likely that he said that.
You on the other hand do not follow Einstein logic and yet you make a judgment based on nothing
as usual in order to prove your case.

And what about Jesus extraordinary things witnessed by thousand that you avoid to comment?
Does it scare you to know that everything is possible once you reach higher stages of spirituality?
Of course it does Yog because all this would knock down your atheist dogmas.  

One more failing Yog.
Aren't you tired of hitting the wall?

[Cyberman]

3) Search around and around all the time for possible facts that may contradict LR considering that your own intellect offer next to nothing.

Damn those facts!

[Angrboda]

Nothing really change Yog in your small mental world.

Your tactic include.........
1) Deny, deny always deny the facts that may put you in trouble.
[SNIP]

I was going to reply, but then I realized you didn't say anything worth replying to. Just the usual bullshit and lies. You really are pathetic.

---

Oh, one thing worth replying to, you fucked up.

Einstein never said that.  So obviously you are not at this 'peak' that grants knowledge because you're still quoting bullshit.  So you don't have this love that grants knowledge even if it were to exist, which it doesn't.

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/05/16/...ng-energy/

But let us see your latest attempt to get off the hook.

1) You say that Einstein never said that sentence that I provide when in fact the link that you provide say ..................I do not think this is physics, and I do not think these are Einstein’s words.

You see....the guy say........I do not think.
He doesn't say....in the affirmative that Einstein never said that but you fool twist the words to help your
agenda.
You are not honest Yog.

And you're not competent.  The words you quoted are from a letter to the Quote Investigator asking him to look into the quote.  They are the conclusions of the letter writer, not of the investigation by the Quote Investigator.  But then you'd know that if you had done more than simply skim the text looking for something to dispute.  Your analysis of the Quote Investigator webpage is shallow and incompetent.  Here is what the Quote Investigator concluded:

"In conclusion, this saying is not from Albert Einstein. It is probably from a channeler named Darryl Anka who has assigned the words to an entity named Bashar."

So, yes he did say in the affirmative, contrary to your claim that he did not.  When you actually learn to read, maybe you'll do more than just skim the page looking for something to refute.  As I said, you're pathetic.

[Little Rik]

Nothing really change Yog in your small mental world.

Your tactic include.........
1) Deny, deny always deny the facts that may put you in trouble.
[SNIP]

I was going to reply, but then I realized you didn't say anything worth replying to.  Just the usual bullshit and lies.  You really are pathetic.

---

Oh, one thing worth replying to, you fucked up.

But let us see your latest attempt to get off the hook.

1) You say that Einstein never said that sentence that I provide when in fact the link that you provide say ..................I do not think this is physics, and I do not think these are Einstein’s words.

You see....the guy say........I do not think.
He doesn't say....in the affirmative that Einstein never said that but you fool twist the words to help your
agenda.
You are not honest Yog.

And you're not competent.  The words you quoted are from a letter to the Quote Investigator asking him to look into the quote.  They are the conclusions of the letter writer, not of the investigation by the Quote Investigator.  But then you'd know that if you had done more than simply skim the text looking for something to dispute.  Your analysis of the Quote Investigator webpage is shallow and incompetent.  Here is what the Quote Investigator concluded:

"In conclusion, this saying is not from Albert Einstein. It is probably from a channeler named Darryl Anka who has assigned the words to an entity named Bashar."

So, yes he did say in the affirmative, contrary to your claim that he did not.  When you actually learn to read, maybe you'll do more than just skim the page looking for something to refute.  As I said, you're pathetic.

DOUBLE FOOL.                

By saying.......... It is probably from..........is the same as to say.......I think that.......NO DIFFERENCE Yog.
Nothing to do with any affirmative sentence.
As far as these sentences do not carry any evidence then they are guessing and guessing can not be put at the same level as to any positive and affirmative saying.
Nothing, zero, nil.
That is bizarre Yog considering that your mother language is English while mine is not.
You should know better what is affirmative and what is not.
But don't worry too much after all.
Your friend Cyb will be there to back you up with one more kudos.  
Shame Yog Shame.  

[Angrboda]

I was going to reply, but then I realized you didn't say anything worth replying to.  Just the usual bullshit and lies.  You really are pathetic.

---

Oh, one thing worth replying to, you fucked up.


And you're not competent.  The words you quoted are from a letter to the Quote Investigator asking him to look into the quote.  They are the conclusions of the letter writer, not of the investigation by the Quote Investigator.  But then you'd know that if you had done more than simply skim the text looking for something to dispute.  Your analysis of the Quote Investigator webpage is shallow and incompetent.  Here is what the Quote Investigator concluded:

"In conclusion, this saying is not from Albert Einstein. It is probably from a channeler named Darryl Anka who has assigned the words to an entity named Bashar."

So, yes he did say in the affirmative, contrary to your claim that he did not.  When you actually learn to read, maybe you'll do more than just skim the page looking for something to refute.  As I said, you're pathetic.

 

By saying.......... It is probably from..........is the same as to say.......I think that.......NO DIFFERENCE Yog.

Bull balls.  You're full of shit.  Full stop.  

You made an error, and now, true to form, you're changing the substance of what you said.  "It is probably from" expresses a high degree of certainty, as much as is reasonable given the evidence, which he is only summarizing here.  Regardless, the question is not what level of certainty the Quote Investigator has, but what level of certainty one should have given the evidence that was presented.  So your bullshit argument about what he really means is just a diversion.  The question is does it make sense to attribute the quote to Einstein when the earliest attestation of the quote attributes it to someone else?  And the answer to that is an affirmative, "No, it does not."  As usual, you're full of red herrings and bullshit assertions.  You sidestepped the question only to step in your own excrement.

Nothing to do with any affirmative sentence.
As far as these sentences do not carry any evidence then they are guessing and guessing can not be put at the same level as to any positive and affirmative saying.
Nothing, zero, nil.

These sentences don't carry evidence because they are a summation of the evidence which came before them.  Duh.  You're so full of crap.  You're dismissing the whole of what was said based on only a part of what was said.  That's taking things out of context and is a form of lying.  As I said, you're just up to your usual bullshit and lies.  It's not a guessing, it's a conclusion based upon evidence which was presented, namely that the earliest attestation of the quote is not to Einstein, but to someone else.  If that evidence leads you to conclude that Einstein "probably" made that quote, then you're a fucking imbecile.  Again, your dancing is of no use because you haven't defused the central question.

That is bizarre Yog considering that your mother language is English while mine is not.
You should know better what is affirmative and what is not.

What's truly bizarre is the lengths you will go to in order to deny that you made an error.  Yet it's clear that you're just backpedaling here because you were WRONG about what the Quote investigator had said.  And this is just more bizarre contortions of logic and sense on your part.  "[T]his saying is not from Albert Einstein," is an affirmative statement, and if you don't understand that much, you should go back to butt fucking Italy where they do speak a language which you do understand. Again, it isn't a question of the Quote Investigator's use of language. That's just a red herring. What is at issue is the Quote Investigator's use of the evidence. A subject your inane bullshit has not even touched. Is it reasonable to conclude that the quote is from Einstein if the earliest attestation to it attributes it to someone else? If you answer that in the affirmative, then you're a fucking moron.

[Cyberman]

But don't worry too much after all.
Your friend Cyb will be there to back you up with one more kudos.

Jealousy becomes you. I'm flattered.

Just fyi, though - Cyberman doesn't diminute to "Cyb". That's merely one nonsensical phrasing out of the countless others.

[Little Rik]

 

By saying.......... It is probably from..........is the same as to say.......I think that.......NO DIFFERENCE Yog.

Bull balls.  You're full of shit.  Full stop.  

You made an error, and now, true to form, you're changing the substance of what you said.  "It is probably from" expresses a high degree of certainty, as much as is reasonable given the evidence, which he is only summarizing here.  Regardless, the question is not what level of certainty the Quote Investigator has, but what level of certainty one should have given the evidence that was presented.  So your bullshit argument about what he really means is just a diversion.  The question is does it make sense to attribute the quote to Einstein when the earliest attestation of the quote attributes it to someone else?  And the answer to that is an affirmative, "No, it does not."  As usual, you're full of red herrings and bullshit assertions.  You sidestepped the question only to step in your own excrement.

Nothing to do with any affirmative sentence.
As far as these sentences do not carry any evidence then they are guessing and guessing can not be put at the same level as to any positive and affirmative saying.
Nothing, zero, nil.

These sentences don't carry evidence because they are a summation of the evidence which came before them.  Duh.  You're so full of crap.  You're dismissing the whole of what was said based on only a part of what was said.  That's taking things out of context and is a form of lying.  As I said, you're just up to your usual bullshit and lies.  It's not a guessing, it's a conclusion based upon evidence which was presented, namely that the earliest attestation of the quote is not to Einstein, but to someone else.  If that evidence leads you to conclude that Einstein "probably" made that quote, then you're a fucking imbecile.  Again, your dancing is of no use because you haven't defused the central question.

That is bizarre Yog considering that your mother language is English while mine is not.
You should know better what is affirmative and what is not.

What's truly bizarre is the lengths you will go to in order to deny that you made an error.  Yet it's clear that you're just backpedaling here because you were WRONG about what the Quote investigator had said.  And this is just more bizarre contortions of logic and sense on your part.  "[T]his saying is not from Albert Einstein," is an affirmative statement, and if you don't understand that much, you should go back to butt fucking Italy where they do speak a language which you do understand.   Again, it isn't a question of the Quote Investigator's use of language.  That's just a red herring.  What is at issue is the Quote Investigator's use of the evidence.  A subject your inane bullshit has not even touched.  Is it reasonable to conclude that the quote is from Einstein if the earliest attestation to it attributes it to someone else?  If you answer that in the affirmative, then you're a fucking moron.

More and more garbage to hide the fact that you can not provide any real and solid evidence.

We certainly live in two different universes Yog.
You on one side believe in something only after the evidence is given by physical science.
Unfortunately physical science is not able to go behind the physical things.
Consciousness is not something physical so it is obvious that physical science will not be able to give any evidence of God or how the universal system works.
Maybe in the future they may but in the meantime you are left with little.

I on the other hand I am not a fool like you that wait and wait for Santa to drop a present.
Yoga is the present and I don't have to wait for Santa to get it.