Special Counsel Collusion

About: Mueller Investigation: Too Many Anti-Trump Coincidences | National Review

The story keeps on going & going & …. #EnerjizzerBunny 
‘Tis the story of the failure of the judicial branch of the government to prosecute within the swamp.
It would be interesting to see if there could be a special counsel investigation of the 4th estate for libel & slander and also creating fruit on the poisoned tree xor poisoning the tree itself. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree


  1. occupy your own brain
  2. EnerjizzerBunny
  3. LOA
  4. fairwitness
  5. fakenews
  6. WhoKnows
  7. QuantumPhysics
  8. SchrodingersCat
  9. truth
  10. SoYouSay


Mark de LA says
Years ago before fbi we had a wiki (which eventually got hacked) some of the residue of which is in the group unhackthebrain somewhere around http://fastblogit.com/thought/1550 .
The idea was to find a way to create a fair-witness core to supplant what the M$M has become. See Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land for the inspiration about fair witnesses.  M$M is mostly about money, advertizing & public mind manipulation.   What’s actually news & what’s so could really occupy the public mind in 5 minutes or less per day; particularly if organized by content.  Who really needs to know about the latest murder, war, scandal etc, anyway?

See the wikipedia: (*)

Si says
Yes I agree, no one needs to know about the latest war, scandal, etc. That’s why I don’t watch TV or read news on the M$M. What I choose to focus on will have a measure in shaping my reality, so I choose wisely.

As I have said here before, I think Heinlein’s idea of a Fair Witness is a fantasy. A nice story. One can only witness what one creates to witness. So if a group of people earnestly tried to be fair witnesses, they would quickly, especially in these times, discover that each was observing something different no matter how hard they tried to be objective. The more they tried to observe a singular outside reality, the more clear it would become that they could not, and that what they were observing was always a product of what they each were thinking (Schrodinger Cat effect) … and that where something appeared to be the same was only where thoughts happened to be of a similar vibration between individuals. In fact, I think true fair witness programs have been tried more than once … but they had to be dissolved each time because they were found unobtainable in practice. 

This is actually an easy way to prove that we each create our own reality. Simply go out and try and observe the same thing as another. You will find that the more you try, the more you will find different. The appearance of sameness in external reality requires a lot of personal blindness and focus on only a very few points at a time. The more points one includes in what they observe, the more what is being observed will diverge from any other. I have tried this so I know this is true. It is a solid axiom, as solid as any good mathematical theorem. The idea that we can observe objectively is wishful thinking, easily proved wrong.

Psychic witness programs would be more effective, because one of the attributes that gives a psychic their ability is their innate ability to match vibration with another. Psychic witnesses would not be fair witnesses to a collective reality, but they would, if honest and trustworthy, be much stronger witnesses to the reality of a particular individual.

I like FBI for it’s ability to converge thought upon a topic … not for it’s ability to bear witness, which I believe to be impossible in the traditional sense. But to each his own. The software does not care what it is used for.  

Mark de LA says
All of this is a prisoner of your personal ontology. Maybe you can’t observe something & describe it in native language without your ontology & personality interfering. Michael Hadley pointed what was needed > 17 years ago in his Tiger/Dragon seminars in about 5 minutes of demonstration.

Si says
“All of this” [that I write] is personally verifiable by anyone willing to apply simple scientific method. I give one simple experiment which can be done above, and have supplied many more over the years. I speak in the language that best matches the results I have personally verified, yes. I would personally call that “modern native language”. I don’t know what Michal said, but I doubt he and I would disagree if we were face to face talking about any of this. Your disagreements with me don’t appear to be about verifiable elements, but only about the way things should be said (according to how you were taught once upon a time) and also some of the unverified presumptions you believe in, also because they were what you were taught.

I go with what I can verify myself, not what others say. I only use what others say as a direction to try in and when it works out, then I often quote that entity. What I talk about is all real and verified by me … and I don’t expect anyone, including you, to believe in it until you have verified it for yourself. Once you have, then it becomes useful to utilize the newer language constructs I often use because they better match the newly understood pointers to ideas.

Mark de LA says
I’m not contradicting your ontology, I’m just not using it. My ontology limits very little. Yours seems to limit the ability to be a fair witness. No need to set limits particularly if one never runs into them.

Si says
Yes, that is what I would prefer. That you use whatever ontology you want and the language that supports it. There is no reason we have to think the same or talk the same in order to co-create quite well. We know what each other means when we speak and that is enough. In fact, all the energy people often put into trying to make realities the same is a huge drain on personal energy and one factor in the reduced effectiveness of pre modern man.

I don’t see not having fair witness as being any kind of a limitation. In fact, quite the opposite. The whole model that makes something like fair witness necessary or desirable is quite a mixed up stew and full of built in difficulty between otherness. The model I live by is much easier for everyone who uses it to interact within.

We don’t have to have synchronized outside reality in order to interact in beautiful and artistic ways, from the heart.  All we need have is similar interest and authentic communication.

Mark de LA says

Mark de LA says
I suppose that if one draws within one’s own world they may not need to engage or consider what one does not witness themselves. So no need of fair witnesses. I use otherness stuff as context of the times.

Si says
Right. It is not that I don’t value otherness, I hugely value and desire it. I simply know in my heart that everything I experience is inside my own reality and everything anyone else experiences is inside their own reality. We simply draw on the knowledge of each other’s realities to create and manifest experiences in our own. Traditionally we keep some things in sync between our reality and others as we create our own … but never everything, and reality happens to work out just fine when very little is in sync, depending on co-desire. Things themselves tend to work, no matter what. It is only thinking about things that appears not to work a lot of the time.

Mark de LA says
“But never everything” is not a problem – few if any by themselves have grasp of everything.  A fair witness would grasp what’s so about the situation investigated.

Si says
Well in my living experience, a fair witness would only grasp what is so about the reality that witness has created. Realizing that we are each in our own reality experience alleviates the need for a fair witness. Then we can focus on what we want to experience, both individually, and together, instead on WHAT IS … which is quite different between us and others and that’s okay. I’m okay, your okay. My reality is okay, your reality is okay. Now, what do we want to do together? That’s all we need to think about. Knowing what you are doing in your reality helps me create new things and experiences in my reality. What is not the same between our realities does not matter at all. We don’t even need to think about it in order to have great experiences that feel like we are having them together. All that thought time people spend on what is not the same is a huge waste of reality experiencing potential … and believing that those things are important is the only thing that makes a fair witness an important kind of person to have around.

Truth is that which is so. That which is not truth is not so. Truth really is all there is in anyone’s experience. Nothing else needs one’s attention, or the attention of a fair witness. 

Mark de LA says
You are repeating yourself.  I doubt you understand what a fair witness is.

Si says
I read the book. I understand quite well. The entire premise is based on the idea that there is some common box of things “out there” distinctly separate from each individual experience. Fair witness is all about bearing witness to that supposed collection of things. I know, from my own careful experimentation, as well as the results of my own life for the last several years now, that there is nothing “out there” to witness. All one can witness is what they create as their own reality experience. Some parts of that experience will match up in varying degrees to parts of others experiences, as they each create them to be so. What is actually so is what is. It is what one experiences. Doesn’t make any difference if two people experience the same thing, or something different, what is true is what one experiences. It can only be the same for a fair witness … and anyone who has honestly tried to fairly witness will easily discover this for themselves, if they are open to the idea, and if they are not open to it, they will still discover that no amount of trying will give multiple people the same experience to a degree that would make a fair witness actually useful. Hence, there are none, for quite surely it is something that the average person would agree should be a part of our social life because a fair witness would be so useful if reality actually was as the average person thinks it is.

So not only is the idea of a fair witness outside the constraints of available proof, but it is also not indicated to be an available thing simply because it is well known of, purportedly highly desirable, and yet does not exist. A fair witness is only an enigma. 

And yes, I speak very consistently, even if that appears to repeat. For my life has settled into a very clear channel of being where I confidently know what my experience is and what components of my experience affect and direct my experience of my life. I am still surprised often and learn and grow and create new things constantly, because I desire and enjoy surprise and new learning. It would be just as easy to have a life without surprise or tangential movement, as some do create for themselves, if that were what I wanted.

Mark de LA says
Yep, still repeating yourself without any more  extra than justification for your opinion.  If you were on the sidewalk of an intersection looking into the middle of the intersection & along came 2 cars that crashed into each other could you not say “2 cars crashed into each other” ?  That’s all that is required with the ability to investigate by talking to others & glean for fact & not opinion & embellishment & interpretation & meaning – it is a zen kind of thing which some zen training helps with.

Si says
In my reality, two cars may well have crashed into each other. The person standing next to me may experience one car crashing into a wall and another crashing into a light pole. The only reason we would experience the same thing would be if we both have agreement to create the same experience in each of our realities. Which is also quite Zen btw. Zen does not enforce one common experience, and in fact, elicits one to pay attention to the experience one person is having, even if it is different from the person next to you.

Mark de LA says
Maybe, Maybe not.  I asked if you witnessed 2 cars crashing into each other if you could simply say “two cars crashed into each other” without elaborating. You have a lot of extra baggage in your answer & did not answer the question & got lost in your particular ontology again.

Si says
I can answer that if that is what is true for me.

But that does not mean or imply it is true for anyone else.

That is the point.

The usefulness of a fair witness requires there to be something that is not dependent upon a person’s own experience. There is no proof of such a thing … and in fact, the majority of the actual evidence suggests there is not. It is only habit of thought and the socially instilled fear of being alone if there is not something independent of our reality experience that causes people to look for this thing that is separate from each individuals experience. If people were logical and objective in their own experience, they would easily see that what they experience IS what IS, and that is as far as any individual can ever take it, fair witness included, without venturing into the realm of imagination. When we are thinking that something is being witnessed outside the experiences of an individual, we are imagining … no matter how compelling, it is still only imagination. Only what you experience IS.

Mark de LA says
You’ve just shifted the illative force of IS into that of “experience” .   enjoy!  lots of words too! .. rather repetitive.

Si says
Yes exactly! Reality IS your experience of it.

Everything else happens in imagination.

Mark de LA says
Yep, just a bunch of monads running around with our individual experiences, why should we ever bother to talk to each other null

Si says
For the “experience” of talking to each other. For the experience of sharing our experience and allowing that sharing to create new IS in each of our own experiences. For evolution. For fun. For love.

But we don’t have to. There are some individuals who share nothing at all. Some only meditate and sleep. Others live in solitude. Interacting is not a requirement of reality experience, it is a desire. That in itself is a clue to the intrinsic nature of reality.

Mark de LA says
XOR something else! thumbs upnull

Si says
XOR if the shoe fits so dam well, just wear it! It’s better than going barefoot and if it does fit so well, then your walking out is going to be a really awesome experience, right now, today!  

Some people wait a lifetime for the right pair of shoes to come along … and die before they get to walk though the vast variety of life’s gardens. Just wear the pair of shoes that is right in front of you and fits the best right now … you will never regret having tried out a new pair of shoes and the adventures they will take you on. You will likely regret having stayed at home barefoot.  

Mark de LA says
To a cobbler all things look like shoes. To a dildo all things seem like vibrations …. etc. My ontology is more direct than metaphors. null

Si says
Whatever your ontology is, it appears not to allow you to try out new things without going through a long and structured process before you feel safe to do so.

Mark de LA says
Such is your imagination about someONE other than YOu!  I don’t have to be or "try out” doing what a serial killer does in order to appreciate not being one. I am not in search of a new ontology.  I try out that which I am attracted to NOT what another proselytizes about.  So far yours is riddled with claims and very little demos (mostly in your head).   I don’t want to live in the forrest & be a nomad. That’s fine for others – just not me.  I don’t want to live on an island either. I did once & even that – before the Internet – was socially claustrophobic.

Si says
Well I have supplied many many exact things you can do to find out about my ontology and how it works for yourself. Most otologies don’t do that, they require faith. Mine requires no faith. Everything in it is available to be directly experienced. But mine requires something most do not, and that is putting on a pair of shoes and going walking out there and having an experience that will shape your beliefs directly.

Like when Bandler and Grinder were having students go out and try NLP on campus, and the administration told them to stop because school was for learning about things, not doing them. (From Frogs into Princes). #LOA is like that too. It’s a get out there and do things way of learning about and understanding reality.

Mark de LA says
Yep, more claims.  Bandler, Tony et. al. demonstrated their techniques.   Where are yours?

Si says
All over the place here. I gave you one exact thing you can do just yesterday in our conversation about fair witnesses.

Mark de LA says
You talk ABOUT stuff & instruct others to follow your ontological precepts but you do not demonstrate except within you & whatever crowd follows you ~20 people have?  The youtube, gaia & other subscription channels are now full of groups starting their own new age religions. Very few are attractive to me especially those spawned from the movie “The Secret”.  The promo is always hyper-exaggerated from the real content & RESULTS. RELIGIONS are the opiate of the masses (xor the maryjane) because they give the “buyer" what they most want, i.e. salvation, riches, sex, groups & groupies,  social lives, power, etc.  (all the temptations that JC was given by Lucifer/Ahriman when he went into Hell & was tempted. – R.S.) Of course you don’t have to believe that if you are already tempted-out. null

Si says
Special Counsel Collusion (comment 82835) second paragraph. Try it. Try to create a group of fair witnesses. Use the most reliable people you can find. Train them in the same language to use to describe. You will find that with just 3 people the differences in “objective observation” will be significant enough to invalidate their testimony in any reasonable court. And with 10 or more people you will find that the differences in testimony truly boggle the mind … as if they were all observing something quite different (in different realities for instance).

Your conclusions can be your own. You must try it to find out if what I say is true … I know it will be because I try these things, you can find out, or you can think you know and never find out. I have offered you literally dozens of things you can actually try, with no risk, to find out if my model makes more sense than the traditional. You can say you don’t want to change, and that’s fine, but you can’t say I don’t give you real things to try and conclude about. I do all the time.

Mark de LA says
So you are giving me more directions & hearsay etc … can’t prove a negative anyway – no risk on your part. Somehow I don’t see results outside your own head (xor heart) . Declare ahead of time what you intend & then produce it (goes against the Abraham trend, though) .
I can see the #fairwitness solution – the how to demonstrated by Michael (in 5 minutes before the Internet showed up) not here yet. The times are moving in that direction with all the politics & #fakenews going on these days.  The 4th estate needs to be separate from the economy to be a #fairwitness to anything.

Si says
Yes I tell you what you will discover ahead of time, and even what it most likely means. So what? Who said that should not be done? Keeping people in the dark is a boring way people used to do things. It is still up to you to try and to verify and then consider the results and what it means. So try any of these things and then we will discuss the meaning together. It is not hearsay to ask you to try something. It is hearsay to call exact things you can try results only in my own head however.

Mark de LA says
Where is the external evidence? Being a mathematician I like to see the proof before believing a theorem.

Si says
No problem. Perform any of the experiments I suggest and record the results. I’m not that kind of guy. I do things and make my own conclusions and move on. I don’t do things so that others don’t have to. With all this stuff it is more convincing to do it yourself. Then you get a real feel for how reality actually works and you end up with direct experiential evidence, which is much more powerful to rework your beliefs with than the data results of others “should be”.

Mark de LA says
Remember (above) 

So you are giving me more directions & hearsay etc … can’t prove a negative anyway – no risk on your part. Somehow I don’t see results outside your own head (xor heart) 

Si says
How can you “see results” if you don’t “do anything”?

This isn’t an encyclopedia of knowledge, it is your life. Results come by doing things yourself and finding out what happens.

Mark de LA says
Perhaps you have not gotten it yet – I am my own guru! … no need for any more.  
There are too many self-styled gurus available these days to chase without any tangible results demonstrated. Just because you managed to fake out a cop into not giving you a ticket doesn’t mean anything beyond you have a fairly good con-game going.

Si says
I have no interest in being anyone’s guru. I talk about my ontology because it is fun and helps me understand it more clearly. I give you plenty of things to try “as your own guru” if you want to have a larger experience than the one you are having, no risk things, that you can judge for yourself. If you don’t want a larger experience, that’s your business.

In any case, I speak the language that matches my experience of life. When I comment on others stuff I use references that match what I know and how I live. It is a good plan.

Mark de LA says
Kewl, whatever works for YOU! null

Si says

Mark de LA says
still obsessed with repeating yourself to what end #WhoKnows ?
That which is so is that which is so.  That which is – IS! 
Truth is that which is so clothed in congruent language with what it is. 
A tree falling in the forest with nobody around is still a tree falling in the forest whether somebody is around for the experience although nobody will be there to witness it ← which is language expressing a truth.

Si says
#LOL I am obsessed with honing the clarity of my experience!  

I am glad truth has nothing to do with language as you seem to think it does. If it did, we would be in a hopeless pickle! It is that many people do think truth has to do with language that creates mounds and mounds of legalese … huge racks of that truth shit in law libraries.  Truth is simply that which is so … it’s what you experience. You either represent what you experience accurately to yourself and then it is your truth or you authentically represent it to others and it is spoken truth. Or you don’t represent what you experience with authenticity and it is not truth.

As Zen showed us many many years ago, trees do not fall in the forest when no one is there to experience it. Reality is your experience of it. When you come across a fallen tree, THAT is your experience. Anything else is only your imagination. Others have their experiences. That which is not experienced IS NOT. ISness only happens (becomes manifest) when the experience box is opened. Until then, the cat is only a quantum cat, the tree only a quantum tree. ?             #truth #QuantumPhysics #SchrodingersCat

Mark de LA says
OK – so you have negated everything  I said & continue to repeat yourself ..  It is probably & most likely a waste of my time talking to you on such subjects.  Read http://www.fastblogit.com/thought/3342 if you are interested in logic & truth XOR live in your imaginary world.

Mark de LA says
Such behavior is very similar to what the politicians do on talk TV as party robots appearing for some cause such as net neutrality or anti-Trump exposes when all they say is a filibuster for their own cause without listening to anybody else.

Mark de LA says
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trail-londons-serial-cat-killer-031442106.html ← too much QA null

Si says
I haven’t negated anything. I even agreed about obsession. I speak truth. When you are being authentic, you speak truth. They don’t have to agree to be truth … they only need be so. Contrary to popular thought, things don’t need to be in agreement to be truth.

The Barbara Cubed thing is cool. It is a tool. Show me how to use it by showing how it finds the truth in what I said. That could be fun … and some of that real demonstration you have been asking for.  

Politicians rarely speak truth. They speak from an agenda. Even if it sounds the same to you, perhaps because you are trained to listen for guru speak, like Peter Ralston speaks (I am not a Guru), what I say and what politicians say is very different. What I say is true because it is an authentic match to my experience. What they say is almost always designed to motivate people in one particular direction or another and it’s actual authenticity is usually severely degraded in that process. I don’t try to motivate … I simply channel WHAT IS as it is inspired to pass through me by interacting with others, their ideas, and questions. What they do with it I care not. What they do at all, I care not. If they are motivated to co-create with me by anything I say or do, that is fantastic (and many I am around are). But that is not my motivation. My motivation is to be as authentic as I can be … and so what I speak is as close to truth as it can be.

Si says
Conversation forked to thought 24868

Mark de LA says
ditto – repeat ; authenticity is not the same thing as truth. 
P.2689 xor Barbara Cubed ¶ XXII (mentioned) is a clue.  All proof is demonstration of some kind.  If you want to communicate it needs language – truth is not not just taking someone’s word about something.

Si says
I agree. Truth is never “taking someone’s word about something”. Truth is one and only one thing, experience, that which is so. One can represent experience authentically, or not. That’s how authenticity works into it.

Yes demonstration => what one experiences of it

That is the plumb in the pudding. If you don’t experience it, but only think about it and imagine it … there is no proof. That is why I always ask you to do things … to generate your own experience of something. That, and only that, can be a proof.

Si says
… also, Guru’s speak in ways that lead people to have experiences and thus have proof. Peter Ralston speaks in such patterns. I am not a Guru. I speak directly, authentically, from my heart. I am not speaking to lead anyone to a proof by having their own experience. Sometimes you or another asks, then I tell you directly what you can do to experience proof … and leave it at that.

Mark de LA says
#SoYouSay  experience is experience, demonstration is demonstration (may be part of communication) apparently you can’t communicate an experience cuz it is inside you you can only talk about it xor something else.

Si says
Yep. Like I said. I am not a Guru, and I am not a politician, and I am not leading others in some cult. I am a guy. I have a reality, it is what I experience. You have your experience. If you want others to lead you in your experience, look elsewhere. If you do what I tell you to do, your own experience will deepen … it’s what happens … and without any attachment to me. Take it or leave it, or design your own experience … or be a sheep and live though others. It’s all good, it’s all reality experiencing itself.

Mark de LA says
thanks for the bunch of words .null

Si says
Sure thing. It’s what I do. 🎼

See Also

  1. Thought A Law of Attraction Event Story with 810 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  2. Thought #Integrity #authenticity with 445 viewings related by tag "loa".
  3. Thought Events underdetermine Truth with 406 viewings related by tag "truth".
  4. Thought Seeking Information with 329 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  5. Thought How some Losers play the RWG with 252 viewings related by tag "WhoKnows".
  6. Thought about: Syrian War - comment 75615 with 236 viewings related by tag "loa".
  7. Thought about: one of the best dialogues ever written! ever! the egg. | spirit science with 195 viewings related by tag "loa".
  8. Thought What Trump means by "fake news" ... with 194 viewings related by tag "FakeNews".
  9. Thought Doing things for others with 190 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  10. Thought LOA Trumps Hillary with 173 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  11. Thought #WillToBelieve with 168 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  12. Thought Sensing ... with 167 viewings related by tag "loa".
  13. Thought Taking Control with 141 viewings related by tag "loa".
  14. Thought [title (21932)] with 138 viewings related by tag "WhoKnows".
  15. Thought DMT - and the reality drug with 132 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  16. Thought Socretes Cafe Wednesday June 21 2017 with 128 viewings related by tag "FakeNews".
  17. Thought are your thoughts yours alone or are they really available to all who can tune them in? with 118 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  18. Thought What comes first ... thinking or doing ... er, always? with 116 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  19. Thought Little magical circumstances. with 116 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  20. Thought Fallacies and Pallacies with 112 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  21. Thought Why my trains of thought break ... with 112 viewings related by tag "loa".
  22. Thought General to specific with 101 viewings related by tag "loa".
  23. Thought Mark Fo Hammer's new age thinking and brain coupling with 99 viewings related by tag "loa".
  24. Thought [title (23969)] with 98 viewings related by tag "loa".
  25. Thought Consciousness as "transactional relative relivance" reares it's ugly head for the first time here with 89 viewings related by tag "truth".
  26. Thought Watching breaking Fake News ... with 85 viewings related by tag "FakeNews".
  27. Thought Making up Others with 84 viewings related by tag "loa".
  28. Thought Crisps up LOA! with 79 viewings related by tag "loa".
  29. Thought about: SNL' spoof of Kellyanne Conway with 73 viewings related by tag "FakeNews".
  30. Thought The Oath of Truth with 64 viewings related by tag "truth".
  31. Thought Midnight Cowboy in Seattle with 63 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  32. Thought an example of LOA philosophy not working ... with 61 viewings related by tag "loa".
  33. Thought Deeds collapse Possibilities into Manifestations with 55 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  34. Thought Fox Guarding the Hen House with 54 viewings related by tag "truth".
  35. Thought YES Island with 53 viewings related by tag "loa".
  36. Thought #NYTimes with 50 viewings related by tag "fakenews".
  37. Thought Yet Another "Circumstances don't Matter" with 50 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  38. Thought The Meaning of Everything - The Immutable Laws with 47 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  39. Thought What does Miami mean? with 47 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  40. Thought Humanity from the Anthroposophical Point of View with 45 viewings related by tag "loa".
  41. Thought about: Contemplation - comment 59735 with 43 viewings related by tag "loa".
  42. Thought Representing something changes my awareness of it with 42 viewings related by tag "loa".
  43. Thought The human personality with 40 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  44. Thought Thinking Domains Curate Too! with 40 viewings related by tag "loa".
  45. Thought Posting on Face Book to ... with 39 viewings related by tag "occupy your own brain".
  46. Thought Free will of another with 39 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  47. Thought Generalizing what "a lie" means to me with 39 viewings related by tag "truth".
  48. Thought Interesting Constellation - Lakshmi with 37 viewings related by tag "LOA".
  49. Thought about: Mini-Cast Episode 28: Integrity with yourself. - comment 68040 with 35 viewings related by tag "loa".
  50. Thought about: Special Counsel Collusion - comment 82936 with 34 viewings related by tag "QuantumPhysics".