Stripping my username, the meaning behind it.
My current username is SUmof1.
2 people asked me if my name meant anything.
It does. Here's the explanation.
First off, what is the sum of something?
The sum of something is when you add it together,
E.g: The sum of 6 and 6 is 12.
Knowing this you can see that my username doesn't make any sense as it only has one number. One number needs to be added to another number to give the sum which is something my username doesn't do.
Firstly, the number 1 is very special. It is the only integer that merits its own existence from Peano's axioms (not to mention that it is the building block of positive integers)
This error is to signify incompletion, you could think of this as my stage in life, my age, but this was me just being edgy.
And, If you took 'of' out of my username you'll be left 'SUm1' which when read says someone
Why is the 'S' and 'U' capital?
SU = Soviet Union
This is because I support communism and also because I'm partly Russian.
Lets split all the letters (and number) apart:
S U M O F 1
This idea is a bit retarded and I don't really remember what I was thinking when I added it.
The S can be pronounced 'as'
The U can be read as 'you'
The last the three letters M O F would be read as mof and if you use a little imagination you can read it as mofo which means motherfucker in colloquial English (if you read it fast enough), The 1 is written as one and pronounced as 'wun' or 'won' similar to wan (want)
So, when you read them in this order you get:
As (S) you (you) mofoing (motherfucking) want (1)
As you motherfucking want.
Don't ask me why.
Also, if you take 'Sumo' out of my username you're left with f1. F1 (Formula 1) the single-seater car that I used to be obsessed with because of its speed.
(372.6 km/h is the highest speed recorded ever by a Formula 1)
The alphabets used in my username (S, U, m, o, f)
There are 26 letters in the English alphabet as everyone knows.
Which rank do these letters (S, U, m, o, f) have:
S = the 19th letter
U = the 21st letter
m = the 13th letter
o = the 15th letter
f = the 6th letter
Now we will gather all the ranks up so that they look like one number. When you do this you get 192113156
Now because the goal of this post is to make you understand everything, I would expect you to say 'I understand everything (about your username)' once you're done reading. (which is going to be a while)
384422631.2 What is this number?
The first half '384422' is from a power distribution unit which is to do with my other obsession about magic, I literally used 'power' (not magical power, but that is what I would want you to think). If you take out one '4' from the number you will get the gene ID for The Fruit Fly which is a symbol of transformation, rebirth and many other things
The second half '631.2' is a section that I got from US law which is about jurisdiction and procedures. Procedures are something that I enjoy following (and making, this post is a procedure to the understanding of my username). The jurisdiction is section (631.2) talks about small claims (which can only reach the High Court at maximum, this was me being edgy again with there being no real meaning in modern society and how everything in society is mundane)
Now that you know where the number came from, let us use it.
Splitting it what I'll do, I'll divide it by itself (shrink it from the inside)
But before we do that there's another thing I have to show. If you take the previous number which was 192113156 and divide it by this number 384422631.2 that we were just using. So 192113156 / 384422631.2 equals to 5, which is the amount of letters in my username S (1) U (2) m (3) o (4) f (5)
Now, the shrinking (ignoring decimals):
38 / 4 = 9 (.5)
42 / 2 = 21
63 / 12 (1.2 becomes 12 because it is a section so therefore it is one whole thing) = 5 (.25)
We're almost done. Three results, three numbers. These numbers are going to achieve my goal for this post
The numbers are:
9, 21 and 5
Going back to the (English) alphabet.
The 9th letter = I (the one after H, you might've confused it with L, just making sure you don't get confused)
The 21st letter = U
The 5th letter = E
We get three letters:
I U E
Which can be an acronym.
I Understand Everything
I hope you did, If you did then reply with IUE
Make you understand everything (goal completed)
I’d be interested in knowing what your username means, so let me know by leaving a reply.
PIZZA POLL!!! 🍕
HA! normal tomato sauce....... well I work at pizza hut and we don't call a tomato sauce.
we call pizza sauce.... just sayin just sayin.
What the actual fuck?? Pizza sauce? Sorry bored but that just sounds dumb
bacon....... what kind of bacon? it is bacon crumbles or bacon strip?
Both, neither, strips, crumbles I see no difference taste wise
who puts a fucking fresh basil on pizza? must be weird people.
THAT SHIT IS GOOD OK? Real good pizza has fresh basil on it
WHAT!!! NO LOVE FOR CHICKEN AND FETA CHESSE?????? PFFTT
Eww not, that’s disgusting
I AGREE WITH KORG'S WORD....THIS IS BLASPHEMY!!!!!
Stressed and stuck after being released from prison
I just been going thru a lot in the past two years. I left my husband august of 2016. I was starting to get on my feet until I ended up getting pulled over and had a probation violation warrant for not reporting. I went to jail in Dec 2016 then I was sentenced to prison Jan 2017. Although I had left my husband my husband and I had been talking and we were trying to,worl,on our relationship. I was in prison from January to August 2017.
After about 4 months of being in prison I decided that my relationship with my husband was unhealthy. So I told him I was going to stop calling I was completely done. I got out of prison on my judicial release(early release) in August. Since I was released early I was on probation again. Since I was on probation I had to live in my hometown and I had to stay at my fathers home which was a complete mess because he only has a 3 bedroom home and i did not have a bedroom because my little brother and sister live there. Not only that but my dad has lived in the same house for over 20 years. The area in which he lives used to be a nice neighborhood has turned into the ghetto. I know practically everyone in my small hometown from kids I went to school with to nearly all the drug dealers. I was pretty popular back on my school days. I can't go anywhere without a few people stopping me to say hi or try to get me to do or help them sell drugs. So its really stressful. On top of that My dad had been telling me I needed to get a job to help with bills and what not. I had no problem with it. I put in some applications buy I had not heard back from anywhere I applied to which I think it had something to do with my record and reputation. However, I was offered a job from one of my friends parents as they own a storw. I I told my probation officer that I wanted to get a job and I had been offered one but my probation officer said I was not allowed to work at that time because I had to focus on my recovery and had to attend my counseling sessions, treatment classes, classes for,probation, report 3 times a week and go,in front of the judge every 2 weeks. Which they want me to go to outpatient treatment because I had been an heroin addict since I was 14-21. I had been clean from heroin for about 3 years before I went to prison off the hard drugs other than marijuana. But I started working back at the strip club to help survive because I couldn't depend or ask my dad or my family for anything. I never had and I'm not going to start.
After being released from prison I started smoking marijuana as I use it as a coping mechanism because it helps me stay clean off the hard drugs and I was tempted to use. I've expressed to my probation officer and the judge that smoking weed really helps me when I feel the urge to use. That I do not consider marijuana a drug because it is used in many states for medicial purposes and marijuana is not addictive or causes accidents or death and that I will always smoke marijuana. They do not agree with me obviously and our state has not passed the law yet.
So, anyways I had to live with my father once I got released from prison. Which was a disaster. My lil brother is struggling with a crack/cocaine addiction. So I was really bothered by that and not having my own room to sleep in I had just felt like a burden to my father as he has been dealing with a lot of stress due to being behind bills, dealing with my brother and my pregnant sister. He would argue with me all the time. I felt like my family didn't want me there.
About two weeks after I was released and staying at my fathers My husband whom I had not talked to since like April of 2017 found out I was out of prison. He called me saying he wanted to see me.. I was very nervous about seeing him as I had left my husband for many reasons but I do and will always have love for him. So I met him a few times hoping maybe we could possibly work things out and maybe I could go home. But every time I met with him he just wanted to try to get me to have sex and I wasn't ready for all that. I wanted us to start over and rebuild and work on our relationship. So then because I didn't want to have sex he would try to argue with me and tell me that he wanted to see our dog coco yet the whole time I was in prison I asked him to go pick coco up from my fathers house. He failed to do so. But now he wanted to see our dog? I told him i would bring Coco to see him next time I was in town. He stopped bothering so much.
About a month later I met a guy and we started talking. He was very sweet and nice. However, about a month after we started talking I found out that he had a fiance and I stopped talking to him. It really hurt my feelings. So I decided I didn't need to get into a new relationship with anyone. I should be single for awhile. Well, after a few weeks I started getting lonely again. I went to the bar a couple weekends in a row and hooked up with a few guys. Some of them picked me up from my fathers house to take me on dates but they all knew I didn't want nothing serious. Just wanted to have fun and become friends with benefits (f*'m buddies)
Then my husband calls me telling me that he knows that I had been out with guys that my father, sister and brother all told him what I was doing and who I was going out with. He was saying I was cheating on him. I was like how is this when we aren't together. We may be married but we have been separated for quite some time. So he started texting me saying that when we get divorced that he is going to,me me sure I get nothing and that he will be getting coco once the divorce was finalized. So I felt pretty betrayed by my family. I felt that they had absolutely no reason to tell my husband about what I was doing and what was going on with my life. I did not even want to be around them after this happened.
So I started thinking and talking to a few of my friends that I know that went to prison and got early release. One of my closest friends told,me that she stopped reporting and turned herself in and she was sent back to prison to do the rest of her sentence. So, i thought if I would stop reporting and let my probation officer put a warrant out for my arrest that they would send me back to prison, so that way I could just finish the rest of my time and be off probation completely but unfortunately they would not let me do it. Instead they let me back out.
While I was in jail my father had called my husband and he ended up picking up our dog coco. My father and I argued a lot after I got out because of him giving coco to my husband. My father was also saying that if I am never going to do anything with my life. That I'm going to be worthless just like my mother. That I am always going to be in and out of jail or prison and that he don't want me around. It really hurt my feelings. So I packed my things and moved into my older brothers apartment.
My brother and the mother of his child I are addicted to heroin. Its hard to be around them when they use because it makes me want to get high. But I did not relapse. I just would stay gone majority of the day and come home to go to eat sleep and go to bed. Well I over slept and missed two appointments in one day one with my probation officer and the other with my counselor. Usually when you miss an appointment they will give you a probation violation and put you in jail so I stopped reporting again and when they put a warrant out I turned myself in. I begged the judge to let me sit the remainder of my time out and he still would not let me. He released me again from jail...
So, now I am back in my brothers apartment again. When I got home I realised a lot of my things were missing like some of my favorite designer clothes that my husband bought me from Saks fifth ave, gold and silver coins that I started collecting that cost about 300 each, my old cell phones, tablet, MAC make up and shoes. I confronted my brother about it. He said he would talk to the mother of his child about it. She said she didn't steal anything clothes. That when I was in jail her little sister stayed and must have. Later that day she messaged me saying she found some of my clothes. Well she brought some of them back.. But of course my favorite clothes were not there.. Then my tablet showed up in my bedroom closet out of no where. But my gold coins cell, phones, shoes and make up are still missing. Its really stressing me out.
Well I was using his phone tonight he got a text message from his baby mom and I can't help but to read his past messages from her.. I was being nosey. I see a message from her during the time I was in jail saying she could get 100 out of the clothes and she said they could sell the gold and silver coins. So now I know that not only did my brother know that she stole and sold my clothes but he was obviously in on it too. Which really hurts my feelings because I help out a lot. I pay $250 a month in rent, buy groceries and house hold nessessities, give him money when he needs it and baby sit my niece whenever. So it really hurts my feelings that he would just do this to me. But I do,understand addiction but even when I was addicted to drugs I never had to steal. I always found a way to get money by hustling for my dealers.
I am struggling with what to do. I want to move out on my own so I don't have to deal with this but with me being on probation and my probation officer does not want me working and in out patient treatment. I just don't know what or how I am going to do it. I almost think what would be best for me if I went to do the remainder of my sentence which literally is only 19 days as of now. Which is almost 3 weeks. Which it will be over in no time then I can be off probation. I am thinking about not reporting to probation anymore and let them put another warrant out for my arrest and turn myself in again. I just don't know what to do with my things. Maybe get a storage unit and put my things in there before I turn myself in. I just don't even know if it will even work this time because it has not the past 2 times I went to jail. I just want to get a real job so that i can start living and get a job instead of working at the strip club and move out of my home town on my own.
Idk if this sounds dumb to anyone or if I am thinking clearly. I am just stressed and stuck in a hard spot.
If god created the universe, then who created god? (question for theists)
@thestrangest 0 evidence of Jesus... That is an incorrect statement. According to modern day historians, 1 ancient Jewish historian and two Roman politicians around the Second Century AD who make reference to Jesus of Nazareth. Flavtheius Josephus (the Jewish historian), who wrote a history of Judaism around AD93 who references James the brother of Jesus, "the so-called Christ", then Pliny and Tacitus write of Jesus and his followers. Tacitus making note that Jesus was executed by Pontius Pilate.
1st Josephus's works are generally accept to be forgeries, the only debate that remains is on how much of it isn't forged if it isn't 100% forged, he talked about MANY Jesuses in his books and none of them completely fit the description of the christian jesus, here are the 2 most common citations and a short explanation on how they are most definitely forgeries.
The Testimonium Flavianum
"About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah(Christ). When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.Citation 12"
A citation that comes next
"Ananus… convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."
-Josephus was jewish and these are not things a devout jew would write(e.g. "Jesus was the messiah/christ", "On the third day he appeared to them restored to life"... would never have been written by him)
-Josephus is usually sophisticated in his vocabulary(E.g. he wouldn't have said "he won over many jews and many of the greeks"... without saying to what he would have won them, he also wouldn't have said that he was one "who wrought surprising feats"/"a doer of incredible feats"... without giving examples and explaining what he meant)
-Josephus usually explained anything out of the ordinary to his audience(Christ was not a common word in gentle vocabulary so Josephus wouldn't have used such a word without explaining what a Christ is, neither would he have said that there were Christians without explaining what Christians are)
If you strip away all the things that Josephus would have never written the only thing that remains is "About this time, there lived Jesus, a wise man" not to mention that even this should be stripped away since not only is the whole citation above out of place and doesn't fit in the story Josephus was telling but even if it was just this small "about this time lived Jesus..." then Josephus would have most definitely explained who this Jesus is and what his role in the story is
For the James citation to not waste anymore of my time I'll just quote one of the 2 sources i state below
"It must be admitted that this passage does not intrude into the text as does the one previously quoted. In fact, it is very well integrated into Josephus’ story. That it has been modified from whatever Josephus’ source may have said (remember, here too, Josephus could not have been an eye-witness) is nevertheless extremely probable. The crucial word in this passage is the name James (Jacob in Greek and Hebrew). It is very possible that this very common name was in Josephus’ source material. It might even have been a reference to James the Just, a first-century character we have good reason to believe indeed existed. Because he appears to have born the title Brother of the Lord,Note Hit would have been natural to relate him to the Jesus character. It is quite possible that Josephus actually referred to a James “the Brother of the Lord,” and this was changed by Christian copyists (remember that although Josephus was a Jew, his text was preserved only by Christians!) to “Brother of Jesus” – adding then for good measure “who was called Christ.” According to William Benjamin Smith’s skeptical classic Ecce Deus,Citation 15there are still some manuscripts of Josephus which contain the quoted passages, but the passages are absent in other manuscripts – showing that such interpolation had already been taking place before the time of Origen but did not ever succeed in supplanting the original text universally."
But if you prefer a video breakdown and in depth explanation, here is one:
Now for the next 2 i hope you forgive me for this but if the 1st one took me so long i really am not in the mood for these 2. I would appreciate it if you can just read these 2 citations i spent some time to pick but if you don't want to I'll just come back to this in 1-4 weeks and write a long ass text explaining why they do not provide historical proof for the jesus of christianity
In addition to the palpably bogus passage in the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus called the "Testimonium Flavianum" is another of the pitiful "references" dutifully trotted out by apologists to prove the existence of Jesus Christ: To wit, a short passage in the works of the Roman historian Pliny the Younger. While proconsul of Bithynia, a province in the northwest of Asia Minor, Pliny purportedly wrote a letter in 110 CE to the Emperor Trajan requesting his assistance in determining the proper punishment for "Christiani" who were causing trouble and would not renounce "Christo" as their god or bow down to the image of the Emperor. These recalcitrant Christiani, according to the Pliny letter, met "together before daylight" and sang "hymns with responses to Christ as a god," binding themselves "by a solemn institution, not to any wrong act." Regarding this letter, Rev. Robert Taylor remarks
"If this letter be genuine, these nocturnal meetings were what no prudent government could allow; they fully justify the charges of Caecilius in Minutius Felix, of Celsus in Origen, and of Lucian, that the primitive Christians were a skulking, light-shunning, secret, mystical, freemasonry sort of confederation, against the general welfare and peace of society."
Taylor also comments that, at the time this letter was purportedly written, "Christians" were considered to be followers of the Greco-Egyptian god Serapis and that "the name of Christ [was] common to the whole rabblement of gods, kings, and priests." Writing around 134 CE, Hadrian purportedly stated:
"The worshippers of Serapis are Christians, and those are devoted to the God Serapis, who call themselves the bishops of Christ. There is no ruler of a Jewish synagogue, no Samaritan, no Presbyter of the Christians, who is not either an astrologer, a soothsayer, or a minister to obscene pleasures. The very Patriarch himself, should he come into Egypt, would be required by some to worship Serapis, and by others to worship Christ. They have, however, but one God, and it is one and the self-same whom Christians, Jews and Gentiles alike adore, i.e., money."
It is thus possible that the "Christos" or "Anointed" god Pliny's "Christiani" were following was Serapis himself, the syncretic deity created by the priesthood in the third century BCE. In any case, this god "Christos" was not a man who had been crucified in Judea.
Moreover, like his earlier incarnation Osiris, Serapis—both popular gods in the Roman Empire—was called not only Christos but also "Chrestos," centuries before the common era. Indeed, Osiris was styled "Chrestos," centuries before his Jewish copycat Jesus was ever conceived....
In any event, the value of the Pliny letter as "evidence" of Christ's existence is worthless, as it makes no mention of "Jesus of Nazareth," nor does it refer to any event in his purported life. There is not even a clue in it that such a man existed. As Taylor remarks, "We have the name of Christ, and nothing else but the name, where the name of Apollo or Bacchus would have filled up the sense quite as well." Taylor then casts doubt on the authenticity of the letter as a whole, recounting the work of German critics, who "have maintained that this celebrated letter is another instance to be added to the long list of Christian forgeries..." One of these German luminaries, Dr. Semler of Leipsic provided "nine arguments against its authenticity..." He also notes that the Pliny epistle is quite similar to that allegedly written by "Tiberianus, Governor of Syria" to Trajan, which has been universally denounced as a forgery.
Also, like the Testimonium Flavianum, Pliny's letter is not quoted by any early Church father, including Justin Martyr. Tertullian briefly mentions its existence, noting that it refers to terrible persecutions of Christians. However, the actual text used today comes from a version by a Christian monk in the 15th century, Iucundus of Verona, whose composition apparently was based on Tertullian's assertions. Concurring that the Pliny letter is suspicious, Drews terms "doubtful" Tertullian's "supposed reference to it." Drews then names several authorities who likewise doubted its authenticity, "either as a whole or in material points," including Semler, Aub, Havet, Hochart, Bruno Bauer and Edwin Johnson. Citing the work of Hochart specifically, Drews pronounces Pliny's letter "in all probability" a "later Christian forgery." Even if it is genuine, Pliny's letter is useless in determining any "historical" Jesus.
Turning next to another stalwart in the anemic apologist arsenal, Tacitus, sufficient reason is uncovered to doubt this Roman author's value in proving an "historical" Jesus. In his Annals, supposedly written around 107 CE, Tacitus purportedly related that the Emperor Nero (37-68) blamed the burning of Rome during his reign on "those people who were abhorred for their crimes and commonly called Christians." Since the fire evidently broke out in the poor quarter where fanatic, agitating Messianic Jews allegedly jumped for joy, thinking the conflagration represented the eschatological development that would bring about the Messianic reign, it would not be unreasonable for authorities to blame the fire on them. However, it is clear that these Messianic Jews were not (yet) called "Christiani." In support of this contention, Nero's famed minister, Seneca (5?-65), whose writings evidently provided much fuel for the incipient Christian ideology, has not a word about these "most-hated" sectarians.
...the Tacitean passage next states that these fire-setting agitators were followers of "Christus" (Christos), who, in the reign of Tiberius, "was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate." The passage also recounts that the Christians, who constituted a "vast multitude at Rome," were then sought after and executed in ghastly manners, including by crucifixion. However, the date that a "vast multitude" of Christians was discovered and executed would be around 64 CE, and it is evident that there was no "vast multitude" of Christians at Rome by this time, as there were not even a multitude of them in Judea. Oddly, this brief mention of Christians is all there is in the voluminous works of Tacitus regarding this extraordinary movement, which allegedly possessed such power as to be able to burn Rome. Also, the Neronian persecution of Christians is unrecorded by any other historian of the day and supposedly took place at the very time when Paul was purportedly freely preaching at Rome (Acts 28:30-31), facts that cast strong doubt on whether or not it actually happened. Drews concludes that the Neronian persecution is likely "nothing but the product of a Christian's imagination in the fifth century." Eusebius, in discussing this persecution, does not avail himself of the Tacitean passage, which he surely would have done had it existed at the time. Eusebius's discussion is very short, indicating he was lacking source material; the passage in Tacitus would have provided him a very valuable resource.
Even conservative writers such as James Still have problems with the authenticity of the Tacitus passage: For one, Tacitus was an imperial writer, and no imperial document would ever refer to Jesus as "Christ." Also, Pilate was not a "procurator" but a prefect, which Tacitus would have known. Nevertheless, not willing to throw out the entire passage, some researchers have concluded that Tacitus "was merely repeating a story told to him by contemporary Christians."
Based on these and other facts, several scholars have argued that, even if the Annals themselves were genuine, the passage regarding Jesus was spurious. One of these authorities was Rev. Taylor, who suspected the passage to be a forgery because it too is not quoted by any of the Christian fathers, including Tertullian, who read and quoted Tacitus extensively. Nor did Clement of Alexandria notice this passage in any of Tacitus's works, even though one of this Church father's main missions was to scour the works of Pagan writers in order to find validity for Christianity. As noted, the Church historian Eusebius, who likely forged the Testimonium Flavianum, does not relate this Tacitus passage in his abundant writings. Indeed, no mention is made of this passage in any known text prior to the 15th century.
The tone and style of the passage are unlike the writing of Tacitus, and the text "bears a character of exaggeration, and trenches on the laws of rational probability, which the writings of Tacitus are rarely found to do." Taylor further remarks upon the absence in any of Tacitus's other writings of "the least allusion to Christ or Christians." In his well-known Histories, for example, Tacitus never refers to Christ, Christianity or Christians. Furthermore, even the Annals themselves have come under suspicion, as they themselves had never been mentioned by any ancient author....
In any event, even if the Annals were genuine, the pertinent passage itself could easily be an interpolation, based on the abundant precedents and on the fact that the only manuscript was in the possession of one person, de Spire. In reality, "none of the works of Tacitus have come down to us without interpolations."
Regarding Christian desperation for evidence of the existence of Christ, Dupuis comments that true believers are "reduced to look, nearly a hundred years after, for a passage in Tacitus" that does not even provide information other than "the etymology of the word Christian," or they are compelled "to interpolate, by pious fraud, a passage in Josephus." Neither passage, Dupuis concludes, is sufficient to establish the existence of such a remarkable legislator and philosopher, much less a "notorious impostor."
It is evident that Tacitus's remark is nothing more than what is said in the Apostle's Creed—to have the authenticity of the mighty Christian religion rest upon this Pagan author's scanty and likely forged comment is preposterous. Even if the passage in Tacitus were genuine, it would be too late and is not from an eyewitness, such that it is valueless in establishing an "historical" Jesus, representing merely a recital of decades-old Christian tradition.
Here is a video only on Tacticus if you want:
Just because a book is deemed "sacred" doesn't make it 100% inaccurate to historical events or figures.
True but this one in particular(the bible) has close to 0 if not 0 historical merit
What's your walking like a badass song?
Strip that down
~by Liam Payne
If u could DELETE anything from EARTH, what would it be?
Pretty much everything except for weed, vodka, strip clubs, women, more women, and more weed.
FIRST THING YOU CAN THINK OF...READY...SET...GO
@willoww hmmmm lets see:
something thats disguised as sugar
creepy crawly gross thing
my new jeep rubicon