SISS-POOL

In this post on the Prieure-de-Sion, I believe I gave Dan Brown a clue, it rumored he was lurking in our groups. I am doing Langdon – before this fictional character was conceived! I do suggest historic-fiction in one of these groups.

I came up with the name of the organization my arch foe heads. SISS-POOL

SOCIAL ICONS OF THE SECRET SECRETARY POOL

SISS restructured the Social Internet on LIES. Everything is a now a LIE. There are no PEDIGOGICAL TRUTHS. The male search engine is gone. So are the Lighthouses of Truth to guide mankind, and keep humankind off the rocks. A secret language is slipped in to fill the void. It is like Gregg’s Shorthand. It employs Social Icons. The only people who can get anything real being done is THE GIRL FRIDAYS. The Goddesses of Freya!

Keyboards with just Icons, are used, their position changed once a week.

MSNBC had a man suggest Trump has turned society upside down by LYING, and, no one being culpable due to special pardons – that women have long owned! This oversight is mankind’s Achilles Heal that does away with Right to Trial. If certain icons are placed on your social profile, like curses, your goose is cooked. No one will do anything for you. Not so much as make you a cup of coffee.

Jon Presco

Copyright 2018

• prosemont@yahoo.com

  Feb 28, 2001

  I just got back from playing a round golf with my professor friend,
  Mark Gall, who is in Who’s Who for establishing the way you teach
  teachers how to teach people. He is the head of the education
  department at the University of Oregon. I told him of my difficulty I
  have been having getting my study across, it nipped in the bud before
  it has a chance to take hold. I know it is highly specialized, it
  based upon the work of Robert Graves ‘The White Goddess’ who
  concludes much of human mythology, and most of our Biblical teaching
  is based upon ancient calendar mysteries, thus they have a common
  connection, being the sun and moon rise, wane, wax, and set pretty
  much the same way for everyone in the world, and perhaps not so
  suprisingly “there is nothing new under the sun” these mystery-makers
  sticking to tried and true principles.

  If you don’t know what’s out there, have not bothered to take a good
  look around, then you do not know how scarce this material is, it all
  but wiped out by the Catholic church. What is left unscathed is
  scattered here and there, and is like connect the dots, which I
  understand can be quite irksome to other posters. I am a man with a
  mission, I so angry with the Catholic church for doing this,
  sometimes I can not connect straight!

  I then sought a solution, asked Mark how he would structure a way
  this seemingly abstract and off the beaten path study (and other
  studies) could be shared for the betterment of the whole. He brought
  up the theory of a professor named Potter (I believe?) who
  surmised; “It is much easier to disprove something, then to prove
  something.”

  That seemed to sum up the trouble I, and perhaps others are having
  here, and at other groups. You get people who know and believe this,
  and they have a field-day disproving the theories others put forth,
  and quite often never putting their standard up the flag pole to see
  if it gets a hardy salute! I mean, considering the subject matter,
  this is like shooting ducks in a barrel! To prove Mary Magdalene had
  Jesus’s baby is going to be much harder to prove, then proving the
  world isn’t flat. And it is flat, even though there exists some new
  evidence to the contrary.

  It would be a great service to this group, and others, if we did put
  some of this fine, even noble logic to work, and see if we can INVENT
  a new format, so that this new media of electronic “thinking aloud”
  we will not fall away into a utterly devastating silence, a void
  beyond the void. I think there is an existing method we can try. One
  idea I was thinking about, was picking pro and con teams to tackle a
  controversy that won’t go away, much like a debate team. Thus, no one
  feels ganged up on, worried about the growing number of shark in the
  bloody water.

  Jon Presco

  In Prieure-de-Sion@y…, flegetanis@h… wrote:

  > I thought I might make this short posting, to be built upon later,
  

  to

  > address a question that has been brewing in my mind ever since Jon
  > started posting. It seems to me that the majority of his
  

  conclusions

  > are based on a kind of verbal join-the-dots. There is a reference
  

  to

  > a dragon in this traditional literature, there might be a reference
  > to a dragon in this mystical tradition, and rather than taking the
  > Levi-Straussian line that this represents a common source of
  

  literary

  > and anthopological imagery, he concludes that rather it is evidence
  > of the interconnectedness of things. To me this seems a dangerous
  > position, as with links that tenuous, I could prove that since in
  

  the

  > Waste Land T.S Eliot quoted the line “Full fathom five thy father
  > lies” from Shakespeare’s the Tempest, this is evidence not of
  

  Eliot’s

  > literary debt, but rather of the fact that they both stem from an
  > older ur-text which predates them both.
  > Likewise, as has already been pointed out, the instance of a word
  > such as ‘pearl’ does not really signify anything, either
  > semiologically or specifically, except in that instance, it is
  

  being

  > used to denote the presence of Oyster by-product. Linking it in
  

  with

  > cliche and unrelated myth through the postulation that all things
  > made of pearl and featuring in ‘myth’ are fundamentally connected
  

  is

  > an illogical assumption and that product of either false logic, or
  > the absense of logic.
  > An even more fundamental problem emerges when we address the fact
  > that not all of these myth-traditions exist in the same language,
  

  and

  > so mis-translation and misinterpretation make simple assumptions
  > about with word in latin being connected with this word in aramaic
  > for example, foolhardy unless the original sources can be cited and
  > provable translations provided.
  > It seems obvious to me that Jon has a large amount of research, but
  > that it does not really seem to prove the things he says it proves
  > (if I am accurate in suggesting he is trying to prove something).
  > Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the matter, as I am sensing
  > that there is some dissatisfaction with the current state of
  

  affairs.

  > I trust noone will be too offended by my stepping in here, but in
  

  my