Alex Tsakiris and Tom Jump Debate Near Death Experience Sceicne |408|

I set down to read it properly, and needed GOOGLE to explain Tollens before I even got to the table!

It is a very dense post - at least for me.

David
Taken well David. In the old Skeptiko, people used to use the 'you need to write more clearly' quip as a means of ad hoc and ad hominem arguing, and laziness. Or even to cover for simple obtuseness, to which they would not admit. I got fed up with that and left for a bit. But in your case I trust you now.

Agreed, but you must realize - the post is about the map, and not a demographic atlas (big book). Maps are by nature, very dense. But they play a critical role in that way. I had a client for whom I did corporate strategy, who used to say 'TES, if you cannot get the strategy on one single sheet of paper, you have no idea what you are talking about...' This was a well known chairman and CEO you see in the headlines. I was able to do that, and he trusted my guidance as a result.

To pose this in the terminology of the alchemist, the map is schema (a scaffold for knowledge - indicating competence), not grimoire (the detailed inventory praxis of your method or meaning). My grimoire would be here: The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation - and that is already over 2000 entries to date. The structure and function of the two documents are different. The alchemist needs both, and what we have been lacking is the map - we have tons of sites on Google who can define those terms, but none who really knows what they mean, do and how they interrelate. The map serves in this schema. I don't have the room, to develop a grimoire in that one post. :) However, as my more persistent readers have begun to discern, the whole site The Ethical Skeptic IS indeed a grimoire itself.

It is like learning guitar. I have the map of chords on my wall - segregated by major and minor keys. But I also have my 2 inch thick Guitar Grimoire on my desk - one cannot learn to play guitar by the poster of chords alone, true - one must use both in interplay.

I hope that makes sense.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forum!

Yes - your approach is exactly right, because a conclusion that is taken to be definite because it is 99% certain to be true, and seems plausible, can then get used (maybe years later) to prove something rather less plausible, which is then used to prove something that seems unbelievable except to people who assume it is science!

The problem is that people don't keep long chains of reasoning in their heads, so they go on making implausible deductions based on what they think are rock-solid foundations.

David
A paragon of that story:


Off topic? Sure, but cannot resist. This wiki quote of a scientist named Majerus is fun in light of recent dna evidence: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution."

Its such a backwards statement!

What was believed to be a single point mutation turned out to be a 21,925 base pair insert. Whats even more intriguing is asking how more complex wing designs appear. How can random mutation do that? Its the non-coding region that enforces a regulatory framework that saved the moths. But how? Its almost mystical. Like a kind of choice had been made. Across different continents.
 
Last edited:
I dont think the intellectual stuff works as well as it is cracked up to be. I have come to see that this part of our materialistic conditioning that distracts us from Heart stuff. There is a present passion for The Brain as if that is the focal organ of our physical being - but if you look deeper into our culture The Heart has at least the same esteem - but we ignore it. Its not part of science in the way the brain is - so we discount its essential role in shaping our consciousness. The ancients asserted the soul connected to the physical body via heart and brain.

These days Heart is making a comeback in a big way - but if we are head focused we misunderstand what is going on.

They also understood that there was the way of love/wisdom and the way of intellect, with the latter serving the former. Our idea of mind really replaced the idea of psyche (soul) when materialism began to rise to ascendancy - and that same momentum debased reason into intellect. Reasoning was the means by which we became conscious of soul - and its is not something that is amenable to intellect or logic on their own.

There was a wisdom tradition as an intentional practice, but these days we seem to stumble upon it - usually when intellect is failing us and we are despairing. And sometimes it is when we get a kick in the backside for being so stupid. I was monumentally stupid. I got hit with an auto-immune disease that nearly killed me and left me with an enduring disability. You find wisdom in funny places - if you are unlucky or stupid. But I do have to confess that if I had a time machine and I go back to 8 April 2008 and change how things turned out I probably wouldn't

I am a huge fan of a neat little book called The Sirach. You can google a PDF. It has been owned by Christians quite unreasonably, so the translations are a bit distorted. Here's a quote from one of the sites - Two centuries before Christ, Jesus, son of Sirach, wrote this book, which is a synthesis of the traditions and teachings of the “sages”. It is actually a deep distillation of the Wisdom tradition. It speaks to the Heart and, if you let it, starts to restore the balance.
Hi Michael
Thanks for the advise, I have downloaded and will try to integrate somehow.
Blaise
 
So, is it science or a convenient invention?
I think that once we get beneath the blustering facade that the materialist science lobby wants us to think is definitive shell of scientific knowledge we find a whole bunch of scientific thought that is decidedly not mainstream (i.e. not accepted by the materialist overlords).

For example https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/bioc...ciousness-and-the-illusion-of-death-1.3789414

i was embarrassed to discovered I had at least half a dozen kindle books on radical rethinking of scientific ideas and beliefs unread or partially read in my kindle library.

Its not that these alternative ways of knowing are suppressed. They are just not championed in an organised fashion. I think it is fairly evident that to be a materialist these days suggests that one is (a) innocently ignorant of the alternatives - but wilfully lazy - or (b) intentionally in a state of denial - and hence driven by malignant intent. Courtesy of TES' recent observations - the (b)s prey on the (a)s - so the idleness is magnified into toxic opinion and reprehensible egotism that has the temerity to masquerade as intellectualism - thus fooling a majority of innocent and ignorant souls who wouldn't know an intellectual from a pint of bitter on a good day. This sorry situation makes it possible for the 'fake science' (Oh God! that sounds so Trumpian - but its true) to be mistaken for the actual intellectual bedrock of a culture. Its not just a "convenient" intention. Its a deliberately crafted one.

I don't want to sound like some bore on the subject of moral philosophy but the advantage of creating a materialistic way of knowing is that turns human morality into a contest of intellectual argument, pragmatism and the appalling fictions and manipulations of what is presented to us as Law. How the world works determines what the rules are. What can possibly be the foundation of a system of ethics based on materialism? How does justice arises, for example?
 
Yes - your approach is exactly right, because a conclusion that is taken to be definite because it is 99% certain to be true, and seems plausible, can then get used (maybe years later) to prove something rather less plausible, which is then used to prove something that seems unbelievable except to people who assume it is science!
I want to suggest that don't and can't "know" anything. At best we can come up with ideas that serve our purpose. That is to say that we can be functionally aware within a deeply complex interplay of realities. Even proposing we know 1% of anything is a boldly inflated assessment - on the premise that anything we know is linked to a whole.

What seems to happen is that we create domains of knowledge within in which we know stuff related to the domain - but we can never assume that domain is significant or absolute (which is what we do with religion quite often). For example I am a good cook within the domain I have set for myself. People who eat my food do not find it unpalatable, and in fact enjoy eating it. But that does not mean, or infer, I am a good cook compared to cordon bleu cookery.

At present in science we have a materialistic propaganda that serves commercial and political needs (one domain) - and this may be characterised by a certain level of certainty. Beyond that are multiple domains of specialist fields where such certainty has neither meaning nor value. Even creating a domain does not mean that we can assess what portion of it we can know - but we do. You will hear people saying that they understand how something works. But there was a time when we sincerely thought that Newtonian physics defined material reality - now (despite a lot of kicking and screaming) not so much, because quantum physics has put an end to that delusion. But, here's the thing, you can still go back to Newtonian physics and live a perfectly functional life. If you set your domain as Newtonian physics you can function within it.

This is kinda where materialism is. It has set a domain. But materialism is not just a view of how the world works at a material level, it has a moral and philosophical domain as well - and these are the elements that have become most toxic to us.

We have not exhausted what we can know about the Newtonian domain, and we are barely scratching the surface of the quantum. Is there something beyond that? You bet there is! One of the attractive features of the pre-Newtonian domain was a sense of humility in which humanity joined life in general as belonging to a divine order of being. While Newton was actually a deeply spiritual man, his age became synonymous with the belief that the intellect was the highest human expression - and he an exemplar! (his love of the spiritual was long hidden because devotees of his allegedly intellectual attainment could not face the fact that their their intellectual hero was into woo woo BS.)

I think we know squat in an 'objective sense', but it doesn't matter. The ancient Greeks wanted to know the nature of their reality, but also how to behave well within it. If we create a domain of needing to know what we need to know to live well and needing to know how to behave well, I think we achieve our moral an existential imperative to the highest level we can.

The question we need to ask ourselves is "How we are doing in terms of what we have set ourselves as good to know - and do the evident consequences of acting that way suggest to us that we have it right?' That's a qualitative measure, not a qunatative one.
 
Off topic? Sure, but cannot resist. This wiki quote of a scientist named Majerus is fun in light of recent dna evidence: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all the proof of evolution."
This is hardly proof of evolution, since the moths do not 'evolve' or even adapt. They remain static while the environment changes.That's not quite the same thing as the Galapagos finches. And, besides, we neglect the other side of Darwin's interests - intentional breeding for preferred attributes and characteristics (the bedrock of modern farming). Darwin had an atheistic bent, which denied him the opportunity to imagine a different way 'evolution' might work. Now that non-atheists are looking closely at evolution very closely, the mechanisms Darwin proposed are no longer seeming to be as definitive as he proposed - but you'd expect that to be the case after 160 years of the evolution of the means of scientific examination.
 
This is hardly proof of evolution, since the moths do not 'evolve' or even adapt. They remain static while the environment changes.That's not quite the same thing as the Galapagos finches. And, besides, we neglect the other side of Darwin's interests - intentional breeding for preferred attributes and characteristics (the bedrock of modern farming). Darwin had an atheistic bent, which denied him the opportunity to imagine a different way 'evolution' might work. Now that non-atheists are looking closely at evolution very closely, the mechanisms Darwin proposed are no longer seeming to be as definitive as he proposed - but you'd expect that to be the case after 160 years of the evolution of the means of scientific examination.
I rather think Superqualia was aware of that :)

David
 
I rather think Superqualia was aware of that :)
He/she may be aware of that, but that's not what he/she said. I get that his/her subsequent comment exhibited an appreciation of genetics. But all the pepper moth scenario demonstrates is that environmental changes can favour some characteristics. Neither the light nor dark coloured moths were eliminated in the available time frame, and each flourished or declined as the environment changed. If there is no evidence of 'natural selection' I don't see the point of the comment - unless I am missing something.

Maybe I am just being pedant in not seeing that either moth type was 'selected' as opposed to being circumstantially favoured. Since neither type of moth 'adapted' to its environment through progressive change - and, in fact, the enviroment 'adapted' to the moth's needs I am not sure what the point was. I am happy to be educated of course.

I have understood 'natural selection' to be a progressive process where the 'most like' the desired state have a higher chance of survival than the 'least like' - but even that's stupid. For example the orchid in Western Australia that looks like a female wasp that is now routinely mounted by dumb male wasps got to be that way because at some time long ago orchids that vaguely looked like female wasps developed a higher rate of fertilisation than those that did not - to the point where the more wasp-like the orchid looked the more it got mistakenly rooted repeatedly and the more random chance mutations favoured the wasp rooting orchid. In this was ether orchid had to also evolve a mechanism to dong the wasp on the head to deposit pollen that was then transferred to the next mistaken orchid.

Excising intelligence from this and putting it all down to radom mutation raises, for me, insanely ridiculous levels of probability risks. I prefer to see an intelligent agent messing with stupid male wasps and having a bit of a laugh.

But then we are disposed to think of orchid and moth as separate and distinct agents, rather than intimately connected players in ecosystem that acts as an organism in its own right. Maybe we have simply witnessed an internal synergy emerging and expressing in an elegant and lovely way.
 
It is the most important question, yes. Mind you, what follows is my speculation - and does not rise to the level of science, theory nor scientific hypothesis. It is a gut hunch... it must be critiqued hard and is full of flaw. Nonetheless, here is that suspicion. It is a triangulating inductive inference if you will...

Yes, of those we 'oppose', there are certainly the hapless who just think as they are told (the pretend asleep); and as well there are those who understand the method which spins their thinking and execute it loyally, but bear no understanding as to why they do it (apparatchiks or useless idiots). These two constituents constitute 99.9% of the control-minded among us. Agency exists and functions whether or not the participants know they are wallowing in it. And that principle is a useful artifice.

But there are also those in this play, I believe, who understand the why of what they do - who craft the policy. And here is the reason why I postulate this. My cat when I was a teenager was a very sensitive white longhair, with one green eye and one blue eye. These were not normal cats - they picked up on everything. This cat would sit by me in my bedroom when I watched TV (Mannix, Jeopardy, In Search Of, etc.) and she loved to be near me. Every fifth night or so, off and on, she would appear to sense something in the room with us. She would watch it, and hiss, and swipe her paw in the air - as if she was defending me. She would fixate on a spot in the room, which would move about, about human in height. Until she would become so terrified she would run out of the room, or insanely climb the walls and furniture and flee into the closet and hide, looking out to see if the 'thing' was gone. It was her fear which gave rise to my suspicion that something invisible, was indeed there.

Later in life I wrote a poem called The Eagle The Ape The Horse and The Lion

If your fear is the eagle, teach its young that there is no such thing as flying
If you fear the ape, imbue guilt into his love for the tree
If you fear the horse, establish the common sense that honor can be sought only in following
If your fear is the lion, cause it to believe that another more powerful lion is hiding in the grass:
And when you observe the condition of the eagle, the ape, the horse and the lion, know that someone is afraid.

It is clear to me that someone is afraid, both of us as humanity - our nature and/or abilities, and of some unseen virtual presence - which threatens it greatly. It seeks to exploit us in some desperate need/circumstance it possesses. It hides, it seeks control, it is reposed inside its fortress of last resort - a trapped animal. It is hissing and pawing at a virtual spot in our broad cosmology. And it will do anything, and kill anyone, and everyone - in order to protect itself. It is older than us, and it bears enmity towards us with a deep passion. Yet, it has become addicted drunkard to mutiplicity in suffering and blood, especially of that which is innocent.

A conflict which we cannot observe - which is based upon the artifice that one cannot awaken one who has been taught to pretend to be asleep.

It thrives upon religion and the artifice of human existential fear. It used to employ Abrahamism/Polytheism/Hell to accomplish this goal. But we are getting smarter - and something else had to be crafted to take the place of those religions - something which afforded them continuation of the shroud inside which they currently cloak themselves.

A New Religion - one which serves to completely neutralize any hint to their existence. A method of holding a hostage captive, without the hostage even being aware of such circumstance. Regarding all the while, their circumstance to be merely accidental. Absolutely brilliant in its offing - the blood of the innocent shed on epochal scale.

But just like an invisible toxic-radioactive alpha particle leaves a trail in an ionized gas cloud chamber... even so, their terror of SOMETHING, is what signals their presence. With each 'Pac-Man' below, the empty portion of the pie chart represents whole domains of observation they seek to obfuscate (see The Tree of Knowledge Obfuscation). While the filled portion represents each trajectory inside their assay of imperious doctrines. In this, we find intelligence through heteroduction - in other words what they point AWAY from, is more important (informative and probative) than what they actually point 'towards' (teach).

View attachment 1166
Amazing! Not sure I can do an adequate job of responding to all of it let me take a shot. the nihilistic / fear thing has worked its way into a lot of skeptiko shows in the last year. like you, I think this is a central question. another thread I've been following is the tulpa / thought form thing. the idea that we are creating our reality -- both figuratively and literally. the third thread I've been following (more in my own personal work) is the yogic non-dual thread and the idea that at the core of our being is the observer... and no matter how incredibly vast and complex the version of reality we experience, it is fundamentally something else... i.e. fundamentally different from who we are. of course, isn't a new idea (as if there is such a thing :)) but it feels like a shift in terms of how I'm thinking about things.

I watched The Shack this weekend. it's a good movie, a little churchy, but pretty deep in parts. one of the main takeaways for me (and forgive me if this is incredibly obvious) is that any attempt at a deep understanding extended consciousness / god is going to be way, way beyond but we can understand. what is this little scene in the movie points out is what many atheists like to cry about, "how can god be so cruel?" from my human perspective all answers seem glib... but we've heard otherwise over and over again from those who have gained a deeper understanding:
 
Further to a couple of posts I made earlier, here's a Scientific American article that expresses some of my own incredulity about modern cosmology and points to its "big problems". Here's a tidbit:

After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory's original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.
Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?
That looks extremely interesting, and Scientific American at its best - a superb find!

It is amazing that the magazine let a non-scientist write a piece like this, but clearly, as in other areas of science, it takes someone outside the field to critique what is wrong. His book is available on Kindle for £18, and I am tempted to get it, but I have made a couple of underwhelming book purchases recently, so I may wait till someone else has tried it.

Having read the Scientific American article, here is a further quote:
It's perhaps worth stopping to ask why astrophysicists hypothesize dark matter to be everywhere in the universe? The answer lies in a peculiar feature of cosmological physics that is not often remarked. For a crucial function of theories such as dark matter, dark energy and inflation, which each in its own way is tied to the big bang paradigm, is not to describe known empirical phenomena but rather to maintain the mathematical coherence of the framework itself while accounting for discrepant observations. Fundamentally, they are names for something that must exist insofar as the framework is assumed to be universally valid.
I think this is spot on. When we all learned science in school, we learned about a variety of simplified theories that seemed a bit more general and powerful than they really were. Take Ohm's law, which states that the current flowing through a resistor is proportional to the applied voltage. This looks wonderfully general - something like the generality of Newton's law of gravity - but what is a resistor - is it a two terminal stripey component found inside bits of electronics, or is it absolutely anything that could be stuck between those electrical terminals? Clearly this law does not apply to absolutely anything - otherwise there would be no semiconductor electronics. Ultimately you realise that resistors are things defined to obey Ohm's law. So in a sense, that famous law is a tautology! Futhermore, if you apply a high voltage to a resistor, it will warm up (or even vaporise), and its resistance will change.

This is something you get used to repeatedly in the course of doing a degree in any of the more practical sciences. There are, for example mathematical laws about equilibrium chemical reactions, that tell you how far a reversible reaction will proceed as a function of the concentrations of the various components. This looks great until you realise that for the most precise results you deal in something called activities, or effective concentrations.

I think this is what fundamental physicists have utterly forgotten - they think their laws are the last word, even when extrapolated over many magnitudes.

I think it is this same attitude that lets scientists dismiss Dualism, simply because ultimately there must be some interaction between the physical and non-physical realms. This stupid mistake shuts science off from exploring the entire world of non-physical phenomena!

David
 
Last edited:
Amazing! Not sure I can do an adequate job of responding to all of it let me take a shot. the nihilistic / fear thing has worked its way into a lot of skeptiko shows in the last year. like you, I think this is a central question. another thread I've been following is the tulpa / thought form thing. the idea that we are creating our reality -- both figuratively and literally. the third thread I've been following (more in my own personal work) is the yogic non-dual thread and the idea that at the core of our being is the observer... and no matter how incredibly vast and complex the version of reality we experience, it is fundamentally something else... i.e. fundamentally different from who we are. of course, isn't a new idea (as if there is such a thing :)) but it feels like a shift in terms of how I'm thinking about things.

I watched The Shack this weekend. it's a good movie, a little churchy, but pretty deep in parts. one of the main takeaways for me (and forgive me if this is incredibly obvious) is that any attempt at a deep understanding extended consciousness / god is going to be way, way beyond but we can understand. what is this little scene in the movie points out is what many atheists like to cry about, "how can god be so cruel?" from my human perspective all answers seem glib... but we've heard otherwise over and over again from those who have gained a deeper understanding:
I realize that my above post may not have responded directly to your points so let me add this video as another example of the impossible complexity extended consciousness (i.e. the mind of god). this scientific research not only establishes reality reincarnation but forces us to consider the interface between that extended reality and the kind of stuff we consider to most "real"... our body:
 
Last edited:
I realize that my above post may not have responded directly to your points so let me add this video as another example of the impossible complexity extended consciousness (i.e. the mind of god). this scientific research not only establishes reality reincarnation but forces us to consider the interface between that extended reality and the kind of stuff we consider to most "real"... our body:
Maybe what you are commenting on, is that whereas we generally consider things that have happened to our body - blemishes or whatever - to be trivial - nothing that would bother a soul if it separated from one body and entered a baby for another life - the evidence seems to be that more than our minds passes on - or that our minds control much more than we normally assume. I.e. maybe they create all of us and the lives we procede to live?

This aspect of reincarnation research seems to crop up over and over, so I guess it isn't likely to be overturned.

David
 
I wonder if Tjump has continued to follow this thread? If he has, he must be wringing his hands in despair at the way it has evolved!

David
Where is the "thumbs down" sign? WTH does Trump have to do with this? Give me a break. The only thing that has "evolved" in that whole nonsense is there were NO Russians involved. Give it a rest. Oh wait, yes, there were Russians involved (and UK and Australia) along with a whole other group of freaks but that was on the DNC side. I don't know if this input is allowed on here, but if you bring up President Trump, I'm going to jump. We have enough enemies of our country without our own citizens trying to undermine us.

The only ones "wringing their hands in despair" are those who know he is going to do it again in 2020. Because they got no one with any good ideas on the other side.
 
I think that once we get beneath the blustering facade that the materialist science lobby wants us to think is definitive shell of scientific knowledge we find a whole bunch of scientific thought that is decidedly not mainstream (i.e. not accepted by the materialist overlords).
Nevertheless...the article was published in Scientific American, as have been several of Bernardo Kastrup's. I find this encouraging. Slowly, slowly, the idea of modern cosmology being claptrap is gaining ground, as is the idea of consciousness being primal.

I don't find Lanza as convincing as BK, but he's in the right ballpark.
 
Where is the "thumbs down" sign? WTH does Trump have to do with this? Give me a break. The only thing that has "evolved" in that whole nonsense is there were NO Russians involved. Give it a rest. Oh wait, yes, there were Russians involved (and UK and Australia) along with a whole other group of freaks but that was on the DNC side. I don't know if this input is allowed on here, but if you bring up President Trump, I'm going to jump. We have enough enemies of our country without our own citizens trying to undermine us.

The only ones "wringing their hands in despair" are those who know he is going to do it again in 2020. Because they got no one with any good ideas on the other side.
Holy hell, you are posting in this thread with zero knowledge of what the thread is about.
 
Where is the "thumbs down" sign? WTH does Trump have to do with this? Give me a break. The only thing that has "evolved" in that whole nonsense is there were NO Russians involved. Give it a rest. Oh wait, yes, there were Russians involved (and UK and Australia) along with a whole other group of freaks but that was on the DNC side. I don't know if this input is allowed on here, but if you bring up President Trump, I'm going to jump. We have enough enemies of our country without our own citizens trying to undermine us.

The only ones "wringing their hands in despair" are those who know he is going to do it again in 2020. Because they got no one with any good ideas on the other side.
Might want to reread his post before diving headfirst into the abyss. ;)

Hint: Check the spelling carefully.
 
Where is the "thumbs down" sign? WTH does Trump have to do with this? Give me a break. The only thing that has "evolved" in that whole nonsense is there were NO Russians involved. Give it a rest. Oh wait, yes, there were Russians involved (and UK and Australia) along with a whole other group of freaks but that was on the DNC side. I don't know if this input is allowed on here, but if you bring up President Trump, I'm going to jump. We have enough enemies of our country without our own citizens trying to undermine us.

The only ones "wringing their hands in despair" are those who know he is going to do it again in 2020. Because they got no one with any good ideas on the other side.
It's TJUMP (the guy in the dialogue with Alex), not TRUMP (the president). You didn't read carefully enough, and haven't been around here long enough to know that David supports Donald Trump.
 
Where is the "thumbs down" sign? WTH does Trump have to do with this? Give me a break. The only thing that has "evolved" in that whole nonsense is there were NO Russians involved. Give it a rest. Oh wait, yes, there were Russians involved (and UK and Australia) along with a whole other group of freaks but that was on the DNC side. I don't know if this input is allowed on here, but if you bring up President Trump, I'm going to jump. We have enough enemies of our country without our own citizens trying to undermine us.

The only ones "wringing their hands in despair" are those who know he is going to do it again in 2020. Because they got no one with any good ideas on the other side.
The guy that Alex interviewed for the latest podcast calls himself Tjump, and he definitely lacked the intellect of President Trump - whom I support!

I have bolded the parts of your post that I agree with completely.

Actually when I first read the title of this podcast, I read it as 'Trump' - so don't worry - we all have a foot in mouth moment on here - there are so many subjects discussed!

David
 
Last edited:
Top