#Login Register


  • 3 Vote(s) - 4 Average
Home 


The Third Eye and The Pineal Gland
failboat Show this Post
12-30-2013, 04:43 AM #31
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-29-2013, 11:14 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:59 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:23 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 07:37 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  As to Blavasky's claims, she lived in an era where she could not prove her claim because there was not enough scientific know how.

Rather it is interesting to look at the statements made in earlier eras to see if they are later validated by science.

Sometimes, we discover that indeed the person was on to something even if they couldn't prove it in a laboratory. Sometimes the person isn't exactly right, but they do contribute to our knowledge.

That's why doctors study Hippocrates, Galen and Paracelsus even if those old guys weren't always correct.

you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.

and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
for example:
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.

Sorry, but your explanation regarding extraordinary proof is simply a rehash using more words to claim the same thing.

The claim that something has no basis in reality is simply an empty claim. Ordinary proof determines whether something has a basis in reality or not.

Proof is proof. Convicting someone of murder is a great example of what I mean. There was a case of a man who was convicted of murder simply because some May Fly larvae casings were found on the body when the body was found in the Fall of the same year.

These larvae are seen only in the Spring of the year. The suspect claimed he saw the victim on the 4th of July, a memorable day. The defendant was convicted based on the very ordinary lie and the ordinary existence of the may fly larvae.

The prosecution had no other real evidence, so their claim was extraordinary. The evidence was a lie...a simple lie and some simple life forms.

GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!

their claim would have been extraordinary if they claimed that a psychic saw how the suspect murdered the victim...
but if they found the same may fly larvae on the body of the victim (or at the crime scene) and on the suspect i guess that would have been evidence for him being the murderer. or whatever. lol i don't know the background story nor am i a forensic specialist. :/

The jury did not need to find larvae on the killer, only in the victim. The conviction was based on timing. Had the victim been alive on July 4th, it would have been impossible for May Fly larvae material to be present because the body was found in the Fall too soon for the May Fly larvae to return.

Thus the claim by the killer that he'd seen the victim alive in July was a lie, evidence of a guilty conscience. Simple, ordinary evidence proved an extraordinary claim.

The same requirement for proof applies regardless of the example, whether it be psychic abilities or anything else. No extraordinary proof is required, only ordinary proof because ordinary proof is all there is. There is no such thing as "extraordinary proof" other than in the minds of the cynics who push this mythical canard.

so you don't distinguish between the murderer's claim and paranormal claims?

so you don't distinguish between the following claims?
- i have a pet cat.
- i have a pet dinosaur.
12-30-2013, 06:47 AM #32
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-30-2013, 04:43 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 11:14 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:59 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-29-2013, 08:23 AM)failboat Wrote:  you know it would have been sensational if she had known that some cells in the pineal gland resemble those of an eye before science even found out... but this was not the case... she even talks about who gave her the idea of the pineal gland being an eye in "the secret doctrine". she said it was a biologist or physician called "professor lankester" or "lankster"... don't remind his name.
back in the days people believed that the pineal gland is the very center of our thoughts because it was such a weird structure and lied in the very center of our brains - some even claimed the pineal gland was the interface between our "souls" and "the material world"... descartes was one of them.
what blavatsky did was nothing more than what most charlatans do today: mixing up scientific findings which are unexplainable or difficult to understand with their religious bullshit to come up with ludicrous theories about how the world works.

and your post regarding extraordinary proof is wrong.
an extraordinary claim is extraordinary because it has no basis in reality. therefore you would need an extraordinary proof to prove it.
for example:
1000 people claim to have witnessed that i can read other persons minds.
under normal circumstances this would have been sufficient proof but unfortunately telepathy isn't something normal that is explainable with what we know about reality therefore it needs an extraordinary proof: someone needs to come over and test my telepathic abilities with special tests and in a special laboratory because i could be a conman, right?
another example: witch trials. if the judges insisted upon an extraordinary proof for those extraordinary claims no person would have been harmed.

Sorry, but your explanation regarding extraordinary proof is simply a rehash using more words to claim the same thing.

The claim that something has no basis in reality is simply an empty claim. Ordinary proof determines whether something has a basis in reality or not.

Proof is proof. Convicting someone of murder is a great example of what I mean. There was a case of a man who was convicted of murder simply because some May Fly larvae casings were found on the body when the body was found in the Fall of the same year.

These larvae are seen only in the Spring of the year. The suspect claimed he saw the victim on the 4th of July, a memorable day. The defendant was convicted based on the very ordinary lie and the ordinary existence of the may fly larvae.

The prosecution had no other real evidence, so their claim was extraordinary. The evidence was a lie...a simple lie and some simple life forms.

GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!!

their claim would have been extraordinary if they claimed that a psychic saw how the suspect murdered the victim...
but if they found the same may fly larvae on the body of the victim (or at the crime scene) and on the suspect i guess that would have been evidence for him being the murderer. or whatever. lol i don't know the background story nor am i a forensic specialist. :/

The jury did not need to find larvae on the killer, only in the victim. The conviction was based on timing. Had the victim been alive on July 4th, it would have been impossible for May Fly larvae material to be present because the body was found in the Fall too soon for the May Fly larvae to return.

Thus the claim by the killer that he'd seen the victim alive in July was a lie, evidence of a guilty conscience. Simple, ordinary evidence proved an extraordinary claim.

The same requirement for proof applies regardless of the example, whether it be psychic abilities or anything else. No extraordinary proof is required, only ordinary proof because ordinary proof is all there is. There is no such thing as "extraordinary proof" other than in the minds of the cynics who push this mythical canard.

so you don't distinguish between the murderer's claim and paranormal claims?

so you don't distinguish between the following claims?
- i have a pet cat.
- i have a pet dinosaur.

Nope. The same proof would prove the existence of either one. No matter how outlandish the assertion is, the proof is the same. Produce the cat or the dinosaur.

Take the claim "I've a dog skeleton," or "I have a bigfoot skeleton." The dog skeleton is a not so extraordinary claim if you were, say, a veterinarian or an anthropologist.

In contrast, a big foot skeleton is an extraordinary claim.

Produce the skeletons and let them be examined by a trained physical anthropologist or whomever would be the best person to provide confirmation.

There are dog skeletons, so we know they are real. There are no bigfoot skeletons that have ever been discovered, so as yet their existence is iffy at best. But it's the same level of evidence to make the proof.

Pray for me. hug.gif
failboat Show this Post
12-30-2013, 09:36 AM #33
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
here is an actual photo of my pet dinosaur (during my vacation^^):

İmage

should be evidence enough - just like a pic of my cat would have been enough evidence.
12-30-2013, 09:44 AM #34
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-30-2013, 09:36 AM)failboat Wrote:  here is an actual photo of my pet dinosaur (during my vacation^^):

İmage

should be evidence enough - just like a pic of my cat would have been enough evidence.

A picture of a cat is not proof. Sorry. I've explained to you what proof would be. It doesn't differ regardless of the claim.

As was said in the beginning, the phrase regarding extraordinary proof has no basis in anything other than being a rhetorical flourish. As such it has worked as a debating device. But upon examination, it has no merit.

Pray for me. hug.gif
failboat Show this Post
12-30-2013, 02:26 PM #35
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-30-2013, 09:44 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:36 AM)failboat Wrote:  here is an actual photo of my pet dinosaur (during my vacation^^):

İmage

should be evidence enough - just like a pic of my cat would have been enough evidence.

A picture of a cat is not proof. Sorry. I've explained to you what proof would be. It doesn't differ regardless of the claim.

As was said in the beginning, the phrase regarding extraordinary proof has no basis in anything other than being a rhetorical flourish. As such it has worked as a debating device. But upon examination, it has no merit.

if someone proudly showed you a pic of his cat you would believe him without further evidence, right?
but if someone showed you a pic of his pet raptor you would need more evidence to believe him, right? you would need some special proof to believe his very special claim, am I wrong? chuckle.gif
12-30-2013, 02:50 PM #36
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
While I agree with you as to how questionable theories becoming fact, there is still so much we don't know about the natural world and energies.

At close magnification the Calcite Micro-Crystals are visible on the actual gland.

İmage

There's that element Calcite again. 13.gif

http://kritterbox.com/Thread-Limestone?p...#pid151787

İmage
failboat Show this Post
12-30-2013, 03:17 PM #37
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-30-2013, 02:50 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  While I agree with you as to how questionable theories becoming fact, there is still so much we don't know about the natural world and energies.

At close magnification the Calcite Micro-Crystals are visible on the actual gland.

İmage

There's that element Calcite again. 13.gif

http://kritterbox.com/Thread-Limestone?p...#pid151787

İmage

there are much more things we don't know than we actually know - but that doesn't mean that we have to come up with theories of how the world works which are contradictory to the little we know for sure due to years of observation experimentation and research.
12-30-2013, 03:31 PM #38
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(12-30-2013, 03:17 PM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 02:50 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  While I agree with you as to how questionable theories becoming fact, there is still so much we don't know about the natural world and energies.

At close magnification the Calcite Micro-Crystals are visible on the actual gland.

İmage

There's that element Calcite again. 13.gif

http://kritterbox.com/Thread-Limestone?p...#pid151787

İmage

there are much more things we don't know than we actually know - but that doesn't mean that we have to come up with theories of how the world works which are contradictory to the little we know for sure due to years of observation experimentation and research.

True, but in relation to the calcite crystals both in the pineal gland and calcite (limestone) used to built pyramids, and the resulting testing by researchers as to energetic frequencies (Pyramid limestone/quartz construction study: this baseline frequency of 1.5 hz has been described as the Tri-thalamic entrainment frequency shown to synchronize the pulsation of the hypothalamus, pineal and pituitary gland into a unified functioning.) - I will continue to be open-minded in this area.
12-30-2013, 04:03 PM #39
Shadow Mrs. Buckwheat
Posts:12,782 Threads:1,182 Joined:Feb 2011
(12-30-2013, 03:17 PM)failboat Wrote:  there are much more things we don't know than we actually know

How do you know what you don't know? chuckle.gif
12-30-2013, 04:05 PM #40
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(12-30-2013, 04:03 PM)Shadow Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 03:17 PM)failboat Wrote:  there are much more things we don't know than we actually know

How do you know what you don't know? chuckle.gif

I theorize that we know but doubt what we know. chuckle.gif
12-30-2013, 05:13 PM #41
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,049 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
For experimentation purposes, if you wish, I have posted a video with the 1.5 hz beat which was found in the pyramid.





Wow, my son's cat came running to me, jumped on my lap and is purring like crazy the moment I started this video.
12-30-2013, 05:50 PM #42
ezrin Incognito Anonymous
 
12-31-2013, 08:48 AM #43
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-30-2013, 02:26 PM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:44 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:36 AM)failboat Wrote:  here is an actual photo of my pet dinosaur (during my vacation^^):

İmage

should be evidence enough - just like a pic of my cat would have been enough evidence.

A picture of a cat is not proof. Sorry. I've explained to you what proof would be. It doesn't differ regardless of the claim.

As was said in the beginning, the phrase regarding extraordinary proof has no basis in anything other than being a rhetorical flourish. As such it has worked as a debating device. But upon examination, it has no merit.

if someone proudly showed you a pic of his cat you would believe him without further evidence, right?
but if someone showed you a pic of his pet raptor you would need more evidence to believe him, right? you would need some special proof to believe his very special claim, am I wrong? chuckle.gif

How many times do I need to tell you what I've already told you?

Proof is proof. A photo of someone claiming a cat belongs to them is not proof. If you want to prove (not claim) a cat is yours, you would need to bring it to me and show me a bill of sale. Failing that you'd need to have witnesses testify that they gave you the cat in addition to bringing the actual cat to verify the cat.

Likewise, you'd need to bring the live raptor in with a bill of sale or witnesses.

In either case the evidence that proves the existence and ownership is the same. Nothing extraordinary about either proof.

Pictures are not proof in either case.

The main takeaway from this is the rhetorical dishonesty in the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It might have come from Dr. Victor Herbert or 'the amazing Randy' or some other disreputable cynic.

It's used as a ruse to deny any and all evidence. They - and they alone - decide what acceptable evidence would be. Randy combines this canard with yet another bit of duplicity. He does magic tricks that are supposed to show that since he can produce a trick that is similar in its effect as the real thing, therefore the real thing is a trick.

That's like saying because there are artificial diamonds, there is no such thing as a real diamond. It's thoroughly dishonest thinking and he knows it.

The "extraordinary proof" meme is verbal sleight of hand. I've shown you how it is false. In the case of people like Herbert and Randy, the meme isn't just untrue - it's a method used to intentionally deceive.

Pray for me. hug.gif
failboat Show this Post
12-31-2013, 11:55 AM #44
failboat Incognito Anonymous
 
(12-31-2013, 08:48 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 02:26 PM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:44 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:36 AM)failboat Wrote:  here is an actual photo of my pet dinosaur (during my vacation^^):

İmage

should be evidence enough - just like a pic of my cat would have been enough evidence.

A picture of a cat is not proof. Sorry. I've explained to you what proof would be. It doesn't differ regardless of the claim.

As was said in the beginning, the phrase regarding extraordinary proof has no basis in anything other than being a rhetorical flourish. As such it has worked as a debating device. But upon examination, it has no merit.

if someone proudly showed you a pic of his cat you would believe him without further evidence, right?
but if someone showed you a pic of his pet raptor you would need more evidence to believe him, right? you would need some special proof to believe his very special claim, am I wrong? chuckle.gif

How many times do I need to tell you what I've already told you?

Proof is proof. A photo of someone claiming a cat belongs to them is not proof. If you want to prove (not claim) a cat is yours, you would need to bring it to me and show me a bill of sale. Failing that you'd need to have witnesses testify that they gave you the cat in addition to bringing the actual cat to verify the cat.

Likewise, you'd need to bring the live raptor in with a bill of sale or witnesses.

In either case the evidence that proves the existence and ownership is the same. Nothing extraordinary about either proof.

Pictures are not proof in either case.

The main takeaway from this is the rhetorical dishonesty in the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It might have come from Dr. Victor Herbert or 'the amazing Randy' or some other disreputable cynic.

It's used as a ruse to deny any and all evidence. They - and they alone - decide what acceptable evidence would be. Randy combines this canard with yet another bit of duplicity. He does magic tricks that are supposed to show that since he can produce a trick that is similar in its effect as the real thing, therefore the real thing is a trick.

That's like saying because there are artificial diamonds, there is no such thing as a real diamond. It's thoroughly dishonest thinking and he knows it.

The "extraordinary proof" meme is verbal sleight of hand. I've shown you how it is false. In the case of people like Herbert and Randy, the meme isn't just untrue - it's a method used to intentionally deceive.

actually the quote came from laplace as far as i know... and not from those hardcore sceptics...
and i didn't ask you those questions for fun. i try to get a point across. i want to show you that your state of view is false by using a reductio ad absurdum.^^

You do realize that the extraordinary claim wasn't the claim of ownership but the claim that raptors are alive and well (which contradicts everything we know about the world → extraordinary)?

So if i showed you the pic of the cat you wouldn't need any special kind of evidence to know that you're dealing with a real cat, right? the pic would be sufficient proof for the existence of cats because the pic of the cat isn't contradictory to everything that is known about how the world works, right? A pic of the cat would be ordinary proof.

if i showed you a pic of the raptor you would need more special evidence - a simple pic is no longer sufficient to prove the existence of dinosaurs because living dinosaurs contradict everything we know. the proof would no longer be ordinary like in the case above but *drum roll* extraordinary.
01-01-2014, 05:50 AM #45
Below Average Genius Member
Posts:1,882 Threads:148 Joined:Apr 2013
(12-31-2013, 11:55 AM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-31-2013, 08:48 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 02:26 PM)failboat Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:44 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(12-30-2013, 09:36 AM)failboat Wrote:  here is an actual photo of my pet dinosaur (during my vacation^^):

İmage

should be evidence enough - just like a pic of my cat would have been enough evidence.

A picture of a cat is not proof. Sorry. I've explained to you what proof would be. It doesn't differ regardless of the claim.

As was said in the beginning, the phrase regarding extraordinary proof has no basis in anything other than being a rhetorical flourish. As such it has worked as a debating device. But upon examination, it has no merit.

if someone proudly showed you a pic of his cat you would believe him without further evidence, right?
but if someone showed you a pic of his pet raptor you would need more evidence to believe him, right? you would need some special proof to believe his very special claim, am I wrong? chuckle.gif

How many times do I need to tell you what I've already told you?

Proof is proof. A photo of someone claiming a cat belongs to them is not proof. If you want to prove (not claim) a cat is yours, you would need to bring it to me and show me a bill of sale. Failing that you'd need to have witnesses testify that they gave you the cat in addition to bringing the actual cat to verify the cat.

Likewise, you'd need to bring the live raptor in with a bill of sale or witnesses.

In either case the evidence that proves the existence and ownership is the same. Nothing extraordinary about either proof.

Pictures are not proof in either case.

The main takeaway from this is the rhetorical dishonesty in the statement "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." It might have come from Dr. Victor Herbert or 'the amazing Randy' or some other disreputable cynic.

It's used as a ruse to deny any and all evidence. They - and they alone - decide what acceptable evidence would be. Randy combines this canard with yet another bit of duplicity. He does magic tricks that are supposed to show that since he can produce a trick that is similar in its effect as the real thing, therefore the real thing is a trick.

That's like saying because there are artificial diamonds, there is no such thing as a real diamond. It's thoroughly dishonest thinking and he knows it.

The "extraordinary proof" meme is verbal sleight of hand. I've shown you how it is false. In the case of people like Herbert and Randy, the meme isn't just untrue - it's a method used to intentionally deceive.

actually the quote came from laplace as far as i know... and not from those hardcore sceptics...
and i didn't ask you those questions for fun. i try to get a point across. i want to show you that your state of view is false by using a reductio ad absurdum.^^

You do realize that the extraordinary claim wasn't the claim of ownership but the claim that raptors are alive and well (which contradicts everything we know about the world → extraordinary)?

So if i showed you the pic of the cat you wouldn't need any special kind of evidence to know that you're dealing with a real cat, right? the pic would be sufficient proof for the existence of cats because the pic of the cat isn't contradictory to everything that is known about how the world works, right? A pic of the cat would be ordinary proof.

if i showed you a pic of the raptor you would need more special evidence - a simple pic is no longer sufficient to prove the existence of dinosaurs because living dinosaurs contradict everything we know. the proof would no longer be ordinary like in the case above but *drum roll* extraordinary.

There would be nothing extraordinary in presenting either one. Either they are presented or they are not.

Let's say I own two diamonds. One is a $99 diamond from Kay Jewelers and the other is the Hope Diamond.

One is an ordinary diamond while the other is extraordinary. Yet the process of proving they that they are both diamonds is the same.

You keep missing the point. The statement that extraordinary proof is required is the ruse here. The premise is false. And it is intentionally put forth in order to create a culture of belief. The cynic always places themselves as the final judge of what is or is not proven.

One tactic is to claim that since 100 studies disprove a claim and only one proves it, then the 100 must be right.

By the same argument in the year 1,400 the world is not round because those 'experts' who oppose the idea greatly outnumber those who support it.

Only one trip around the earth or to the Americas defeats one million opinions to the contrary. Was the trip extraordinary? To the million, yes. But it's quite ordinary to the one who makes it.

It's only extraordinary as measured by the minds who were the most limited.

From my vantage point, proof that God exists can be found in the ordinary leaf or the ordinary blade of grass. To the limited mind of the skeptic such a claim is extraordinary. Grass 'knows' when to grow and when to turn water and minerals into the color green and to grow. It's obvious because it happens a quintillion number of times many times over each and every year.

To the skeptic, that isn't extraordinary enough proof.

Meanwhile, if it isn't also extraordinary proof, why aren't all the skeptics joined together able to manufacture a single blade of grass? Grass is just ordinary. It's simple, so the skeptic would say. They would refuse to recognize that photosynthesis and growth from a seed are extraordinary because they make the rules, they say.

All the scientists in the world cannot build one seed of grass. Not one.

Since we've already discovered the extraordinary, namely that the world is round, but we can't build a seed of grass that can turn into an actual blade of grass, then by definition a seed of grass is extraordinary.

Whoever makes the gazillion seeds in his sleep is quite extraordinary. Yet that extraordinariness is rejected by the rule makers, the cynics, because they make the rules to fit their own desires.

Pray for me. hug.gif



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com