You've probably heard that there could be food rationing in the future.
Here's how to get around it.
Become a food donator.
Every week, buy some food and donate it to a charity. Make sure that they give you a certificate each time.
Now, when you go buy food, you can show the certificate and get more than your "fair share."
Getting around food rationing
Mastermind1 min to readEnjoy your fake narrative. Bye.
You respond to me first. I replied to you. Then you blame it on me. That is not a fake narrative. It is right here anybody can see for themself.
Jrvan did what you claim to do yourself - making one aware (in this case, you) of their behavior towards someone else. You don’t seem to like it nor take it very well when people do that to you, but you feel perfectly justified doing it to others and condemn those who try to set you straight, but insist people listen to you when you “expose” them.
If you can’t take criticism and instead choose to turn the discussion back onto the other person to put them down, don’t expect anyone to listen to you when you give “criticism”. If you don’t want to grow and be given awareness of yourself, then don’t force yourself on others.
0
Enjoy your fake narrative. Bye.
You respond to me first. I replied to you. Then you blame it on me. That is not a fake narrative. It is right here anybody can see for themself.
Jrvan did what you claim to do yourself - making one aware (in this case, you) of their behavior towards someone else. You don’t seem to like it nor take it very well when people do that to you, but you feel perfectly justified doing it to others and condemn those who try to set you straight, but insist people listen to you when you “expose” them.
If you can’t take criticism and instead choose to turn the discussion back onto the other person to put them down, don’t expect anyone to listen to you when you give “criticism”. If you don’t want to grow and be given awareness of yourself, then don’t force yourself on others.
...
I remember it quite well. You saw fit to put down AAA because you had a misunderstanding about his advice, and I attempted to help you understand. If this is how you respond to constructive criticism designed to help you have better discussions with people, then I'm done here.
Unfortunately gaslighting is not forbidden on this forum. In my opinion it should be.
Here is what should happen according to my wisdom:
Person A says X.
Person B says that X is bad.
Person A denies saying X.
Person B proves with a quote that person A said X and denied saying X.
Mod suspends person A from posting for a period of time, which increases with each offense.
I think that sort of thing would get really messy, as the whole point to gaslighting is convincing the targets (and any bystanders because the more who believe the lie the merrier things are for the gaslighter) that the target is the problem and cause them to question their reality so that the gaslighter walks off scot-free from it all. Really skilled ones can take what someone has said and convince onlookers that it means what they claim it is, despite what the words actually say.
Apologies that your thread is where this is happening, AAA.
0
...
I remember it quite well. You saw fit to put down AAA because you had a misunderstanding about his advice, and I attempted to help you understand. If this is how you respond to constructive criticism designed to help you have better discussions with people, then I'm done here.
Unfortunately gaslighting is not forbidden on this forum. In my opinion it should be.
Here is what should happen according to my wisdom:
Person A says X.
Person B says that X is bad.
Person A denies saying X.
Person B proves with a quote that person A said X and denied saying X.
Mod suspends person A from posting for a period of time, which increases with each offense.
I think that sort of thing would get really messy, as the whole point to gaslighting is convincing the targets (and any bystanders because the more who believe the lie the merrier things are for the gaslighter) that the target is the problem and cause them to question their reality so that the gaslighter walks off scot-free from it all. Really skilled ones can take what someone has said and convince onlookers that it means what they claim it is, despite what the words actually say.
Apologies that your thread is where this is happening, AAA.
You could use these, as they directly apply to you:
0
You could use these, as they directly apply to you:
Jrvan did what you claim to do yourself - making one aware (in this case, you) of their behavior towards someone else. You don’t seem to like it nor take it very well when people do that to you, but you feel perfectly justified doing it to others and condemn those who try to set you straight, but insist people listen to you when you “expose” them.
I did not mind this and I didn't have any problem with it. What I don't like is how both of you blame all conflict on me, when I was not the person to start it. I guess the important point is to decide where is the point when a discussion ends up being a conflict? I think both of you think that your first comments to me are a discussion, and that it is my replies that are the first conflict. I think that my replies are also just part of a discussion. Then your answer to me is about how I am a bad guy and I am turning everything into an argument when I'm really not.
I do not mind discussing things like this, and I do not mind disagreeing. But I think there should be consistency in what is a discussion and what is an argument, when there does not appear to be much difference in the messages. If it is an argument, y'all argued first. If it is a discussion, all of us are just discussing and there is no problem. But I don't believe that I started any conflict with either of you on this topic so I just don't see how it is fair to be blaming it on me when I didn't start it.
I feel a lot better about this comment than some of my past comments. I think I am explaining clearly and nicely how I was really thinking and feeling about this. I am sorry for reacting emotionally earlier, it is not something that I wanted to do. But there have been many problems in the lives of people I care about recently so all of my patience went to zero in the past few weeks.
0
Jrvan did what you claim to do yourself - making one aware (in this case, you) of their behavior towards someone else. You don’t seem to like it nor take it very well when people do that to you, but you feel perfectly justified doing it to others and condemn those who try to set you straight, but insist people listen to you when you “expose” them.
I did not mind this and I didn't have any problem with it. What I don't like is how both of you blame all conflict on me, when I was not the person to start it. I guess the important point is to decide where is the point when a discussion ends up being a conflict? I think both of you think that your first comments to me are a discussion, and that it is my replies that are the first conflict. I think that my replies are also just part of a discussion. Then your answer to me is about how I am a bad guy and I am turning everything into an argument when I'm really not.
I do not mind discussing things like this, and I do not mind disagreeing. But I think there should be consistency in what is a discussion and what is an argument, when there does not appear to be much difference in the messages. If it is an argument, y'all argued first. If it is a discussion, all of us are just discussing and there is no problem. But I don't believe that I started any conflict with either of you on this topic so I just don't see how it is fair to be blaming it on me when I didn't start it.
I feel a lot better about this comment than some of my past comments. I think I am explaining clearly and nicely how I was really thinking and feeling about this. I am sorry for reacting emotionally earlier, it is not something that I wanted to do. But there have been many problems in the lives of people I care about recently so all of my patience went to zero in the past few weeks.
You've probably heard that there could be food rationing in the future.
Here's how to get around it.
Become a food donator.
Every week, buy some food and donate it to a charity. Make sure that they give you a certificate each time.
Now, when you go buy food, you can show the certificate and get more than your "fair share."
In Germany you indeed get a certificate for sharing food with charity. Below 200€ you get a general certificate that you‘ve shared food which is worth below 200€, and above 200€ you get an explicit certificate.
This might actually work, thank you.
I was wondering, are these certificates going to have any worth if famine hits entire nations? Food will become a resource that would be as desired then as money is now (meaning everyone will want as much food as they can get). Nobody gets more money from anywhere if they make any amount of donations to charity. Basically you would have dozens of certificates but you would still be at the mercy of the people giving out the food. In other words how would these certificates guarantee that you would still get more than your portion when food would be a limited resource?
0
For any Inquiries on Translations matters please message me on the Forums or Vultus Templorum or email me at [email protected]
You've probably heard that there could be food rationing in the future.
Here's how to get around it.
Become a food donator.
Every week, buy some food and donate it to a charity. Make sure that they give you a certificate each time.
Now, when you go buy food, you can show the certificate and get more than your "fair share."
In Germany you indeed get a certificate for sharing food with charity. Below 200€ you get a general certificate that you‘ve shared food which is worth below 200€, and above 200€ you get an explicit certificate.
This might actually work, thank you.
I was wondering, are these certificates going to have any worth if famine hits entire nations? Food will become a resource that would be as desired then as money is now (meaning everyone will want as much food as they can get). Nobody gets more money from anywhere if they make any amount of donations to charity. Basically you would have dozens of certificates but you would still be at the mercy of the people giving out the food. In other words how would these certificates guarantee that you would still get more than your portion when food would be a limited resource?
You've probably heard that there could be food rationing in the future.
Here's how to get around it.
Become a food donator.
Every week, buy some food and donate it to a charity. Make sure that they give you a certificate each time.
Now, when you go buy food, you can show the certificate and get more than your "fair share."In Germany you indeed get a certificate for sharing food with charity. Below 200€ you get a general certificate that you‘ve shared food which is worth below 200€, and above 200€ you get an explicit certificate.
This might actually work, thank you.
I was wondering, are these certificates going to have any worth if famine hits entire nations? Food will become a resource that would be as desired then as money is now (meaning everyone will want as much food as they can get). Nobody gets more money from anywhere if they make any amount of donations to charity. Basically you would have dozens of certificates but you would still be at the mercy of the people giving out the food. In other words how would these certificates guarantee that you would still get more than your portion when food would be a limited resource?
If it hits hard and we face entire famines then no, this is not going to help you at all.
But if we face some food rationing, then I believe that this might help.
In Germany, you were only allowed to buy 1 package if toilet paper and one (or two) bottles of sunflower oil. If you have had the certificate, you‘d probably be able to buy more.
Again, if famines hit home, this won’t do any good, but if they ration some goods/foods, this might help.
0
[ email redacted ]
"Don’t quit. Suffer now,
and live the rest of your life as a Champion.“
Read the Temple of Zeus: Learn the truth and knowledge that has been secret and forbidden for MILLENIA!!
STAND TALL, BE PROUD, BE STRONG, YOU ARE PART OF ZEUS‘S HOUSE!
HAIL LADY INANNA!!
HAIL LORD APOLLO!!
HAIL BAAL-ZEBULON!!
HAIL FATHER ZEUS!!
You've probably heard that there could be food rationing in the future.
Here's how to get around it.
Become a food donator.
Every week, buy some food and donate it to a charity. Make sure that they give you a certificate each time.
Now, when you go buy food, you can show the certificate and get more than your "fair share."In Germany you indeed get a certificate for sharing food with charity. Below 200€ you get a general certificate that you‘ve shared food which is worth below 200€, and above 200€ you get an explicit certificate.
This might actually work, thank you.
I was wondering, are these certificates going to have any worth if famine hits entire nations? Food will become a resource that would be as desired then as money is now (meaning everyone will want as much food as they can get). Nobody gets more money from anywhere if they make any amount of donations to charity. Basically you would have dozens of certificates but you would still be at the mercy of the people giving out the food. In other words how would these certificates guarantee that you would still get more than your portion when food would be a limited resource?
If it hits hard and we face entire famines then no, this is not going to help you at all.
But if we face some food rationing, then I believe that this might help.
In Germany, you were only allowed to buy 1 package if toilet paper and one (or two) bottles of sunflower oil. If you have had the certificate, you‘d probably be able to buy more.
Again, if famines hit home, this won’t do any good, but if they ration some goods/foods, this might help.
This is the targeted message.
...
If there's a real famine, then no. People would be killing each other for food and money would be worthless. Even gold would become worthless.
However, as with most recent "famines," they are not real. They are engineered and pushed by the media so that those with a monopoly on food can get rich.
If paper can buy food then there's no famine.
0
...
If there's a real famine, then no. People would be killing each other for food and money would be worthless. Even gold would become worthless.
However, as with most recent "famines," they are not real. They are engineered and pushed by the media so that those with a monopoly on food can get rich.
If paper can buy food then there's no famine.
Jrvan did what you claim to do yourself - making one aware (in this case, you) of their behavior towards someone else. You don’t seem to like it nor take it very well when people do that to you, but you feel perfectly justified doing it to others and condemn those who try to set you straight, but insist people listen to you when you “expose” them.
I did not mind this and I didn't have any problem with it. What I don't like is how both of you blame all conflict on me, when I was not the person to start it. I guess the important point is to decide where is the point when a discussion ends up being a conflict? I think both of you think that your first comments to me are a discussion, and that it is my replies that are the first conflict. I think that my replies are also just part of a discussion. Then your answer to me is about how I am a bad guy and I am turning everything into an argument when I'm really not.
I do not mind discussing things like this, and I do not mind disagreeing. But I think there should be consistency in what is a discussion and what is an argument, when there does not appear to be much difference in the messages. If it is an argument, y'all argued first. If it is a discussion, all of us are just discussing and there is no problem. But I don't believe that I started any conflict with either of you on this topic so I just don't see how it is fair to be blaming it on me when I didn't start it.
. . . :|
I'll repeat myself. If you can’t take criticism and instead choose to turn the discussion back onto the other person to put them down, don’t expect anyone to listen to you when you give “criticism”. If you don’t want to grow and be given awareness of yourself, then don’t force yourself on others.
AAA is our brother, whether you like it or not. Using dividing language to push his image from the fold of the ToZ and our family in your original comments is foul play on your part. Until the authorities state otherwise, is one of OUR PEOPLE.
If you think slapping a band-aid on this and walking off uttering more lies and excuses to avoid what you've said to others and myself in this thread is going to make things good and dandy, you are severely mistaken. If you want healthy positive relationships and communications with other Zevists, I suggest you do something about your incessant need to manipulate others and blending "helping" with your underhanded slights and put-downs.
I've got enough experience under my belt to know when someone is serving me shit and trying to make it look pretty, Ol. For someone who's been here as long as you and does this in a place that preaches and honors truth, is disturbing.
I think you should look at the links I gave outlaw.
0
Jrvan did what you claim to do yourself - making one aware (in this case, you) of their behavior towards someone else. You don’t seem to like it nor take it very well when people do that to you, but you feel perfectly justified doing it to others and condemn those who try to set you straight, but insist people listen to you when you “expose” them.
I did not mind this and I didn't have any problem with it. What I don't like is how both of you blame all conflict on me, when I was not the person to start it. I guess the important point is to decide where is the point when a discussion ends up being a conflict? I think both of you think that your first comments to me are a discussion, and that it is my replies that are the first conflict. I think that my replies are also just part of a discussion. Then your answer to me is about how I am a bad guy and I am turning everything into an argument when I'm really not.
I do not mind discussing things like this, and I do not mind disagreeing. But I think there should be consistency in what is a discussion and what is an argument, when there does not appear to be much difference in the messages. If it is an argument, y'all argued first. If it is a discussion, all of us are just discussing and there is no problem. But I don't believe that I started any conflict with either of you on this topic so I just don't see how it is fair to be blaming it on me when I didn't start it.
. . . :|
I'll repeat myself. If you can’t take criticism and instead choose to turn the discussion back onto the other person to put them down, don’t expect anyone to listen to you when you give “criticism”. If you don’t want to grow and be given awareness of yourself, then don’t force yourself on others.
AAA is our brother, whether you like it or not. Using dividing language to push his image from the fold of the ToZ and our family in your original comments is foul play on your part. Until the authorities state otherwise, is one of OUR PEOPLE.
If you think slapping a band-aid on this and walking off uttering more lies and excuses to avoid what you've said to others and myself in this thread is going to make things good and dandy, you are severely mistaken. If you want healthy positive relationships and communications with other Zevists, I suggest you do something about your incessant need to manipulate others and blending "helping" with your underhanded slights and put-downs.
I've got enough experience under my belt to know when someone is serving me shit and trying to make it look pretty, Ol. For someone who's been here as long as you and does this in a place that preaches and honors truth, is disturbing.
I think you should look at the links I gave outlaw.
.....
You are right. I will start to think more about this.
If there's a real famine, then no. People would be killing each other for food and money would be worthless. Even gold would become worthless.
However, as with most recent "famines," they are not real. They are engineered and pushed by the media so that those with a monopoly on food can get rich.
If paper can buy food then there's no famine.
Yes I read at the end of last year entire cargo ships with goods going to US were blocked at their harbours. I don't know if they are still there. Also there has been a sort of international campaign to block imports from China. I know of businessmen who couldn't get their products from China because of this quasi-ban on imports. Same I don't know if is still available.
0
For any Inquiries on Translations matters please message me on the Forums or Vultus Templorum or email me at [email protected]
If there's a real famine, then no. People would be killing each other for food and money would be worthless. Even gold would become worthless.
However, as with most recent "famines," they are not real. They are engineered and pushed by the media so that those with a monopoly on food can get rich.
If paper can buy food then there's no famine.
Yes I read at the end of last year entire cargo ships with goods going to US were blocked at their harbours. I don't know if they are still there. Also there has been a sort of international campaign to block imports from China. I know of businessmen who couldn't get their products from China because of this quasi-ban on imports. Same I don't know if is still available.