Akinyi Princess of K'Orinda-Yimbo

Blueworld Blogger beetge vs Akinyi Princess of K’Orinda-Yimbo

Religion is nothing more than a man-made attempt at establishing a relationship with God but not on God's terms, rather the terms of man. I am a devout Christian, a Pastor and a Prophet, and I can honestly say that I do not have ONE religious hair on my body. (I used to have, but by the Grace of God, I grew up) God started out His dealings with man through a Father and Son (Daughter) relationship. Man messed it up, and God sent His Son to come and fix up that mess. Man, however preferred buildings, rituals, structures, specific days, a rule book, special clothing etc. to the Grace and Relationship idea that God had. Churches today have become clubs with exclusive memberships, rather that the Body of Christ. Let them keep their buildings and clubs, daniibee, you are much better off with your relationship.

This is a blog from the "Evolution. Old-Age Earth. IT'S A HOAX!" group. I see a lot of talk about proving "theories" this way and the other. Let's just rewind and settle down. We all know that since you can't re-create God in a lab, He is not scientifically explained, and thus we find Him by FAITH (our unshakable belief in Him) - this is also true regarding evolution. It is IMPOSSIBLE to re-create evolution in a lab, thus the followers of evolution has just as much FAITH (their unshakable belief in it) in the theory as Christians have in God. The only way to explain either point is by finding evidence of its existence in history. Let's look at an example: I was not here when Jan van Riebeeck colonized the Cape in 1652, but I believe it to be so, because of the EVIDENCE left by him. Now the evidence left by van Riebeeck does not even closely resemble modern day evidence – Today we would leave photographs, home-movies, entries in government databases, (ID, driver’s licenses, voter’s rolls etc.) that could positively prove that we existed - but these things never existed in his day, thus we have to look for another type of evidence. For example: 1) He might have left a diary, some official documents. These may be intact, or in various stages of decay. In the latter instance, the evidence left is not absolute, it is subject to the interpretation of the people that found and studied the evidence. Thus the conclusions are mere conjecture, NOT 100% factual. In terms of scientific jargon, this is called a hypothesis, and when some (not ALL) proof could be added, a THEORY. Only when the theory is 100% proven can it be called FACT. The problem with this kind of evidence is that it is not only diaries (FACTUAL) that are written, but also novels (FICTION). Someone could have been bored and wrote a fictitious diary about a fictitious man named Jan van Riebeeck. In the same way, when we go to a museum and look at a model of a dinosaur, we are NOT looking at a FACTUAL re-creation of the beast, we are looking at how people pieced a skeleton (100% proof) together, and then interpreted the structure (conjecture according to the level of their current knowledge of the subject – which is also subject to change) to add muscle and skin, in order to render a MODEL of what they perceived that specific creature to have looked like. 2) But van Riebeeck could have left another kind of evidence, something that would tell us that he had to have existed in order for the evidence to exist, he also physically had to have existed as well. For instance, he could leave his homestead behind, something that only he created, something that bears his name on the cornerstone, possibly with a date engraved as well. This is something that has been handed down to his descendants thorough the generations, descendents that could possibly even bear his name. This type of evidence is 100% factual. The mere existence of this evidence means that van Riebeeck must have existed as well. Thus, when we test theories of faith, we have to subject them to the same type of test. We cannot use different types of tests to either prove one theory or disprove another. Next: Lets set up a test!

Email Spoofing – When Freedom Fetters

www.akinyi-princess.de

I just received an email apparently coming from myself! Of course I was curious and opened it – et voila (sorry I don't have the French bits and pieces to spell this correctly) – with the dearest of husbands and four children between us, I was being offered Viagra. Laughing, I crawled down and clicked the sender’s unsubscribe. Whoosh! I landed on a Canadian website selling me even more dozens of different potency pills! You're up, you don't quit, eh.

I’ve deleted everything, but have I really escaped this net, medium fish that I am? I’ve activated my Spam terminator to sweep my PC three times, but am I really safe? After all, it was this same software supposed to see to it that none of these good fellas get to me and my precious files, who failed to notice the spoofing in the first place – and set me up like a sitting duck. And Viagra seems to be a bestseller.

Definition according to Toney Bradley, CISSP-ISSAP: Email spoofing is the act of forging the header information on an email so that it appears to have originated from somewhere other than its true source. The protocol used for email, SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol), does not have any authentication to verify the source. By changing the header information, someone can make an email appear to come from whomever they choose. Miscreants can even copy the targeted organization's logo and formatting, to give the email an authentic look and feel.

Email spoofing is used by virus authors. By propagating a virus with a spoofed email source, it is more difficult for users who receive the virus to track its source to stop the virus.

Email spoofing is also used by distributors of spam to hide their identity. In March 2009, About.com's daily newsletter was the victim of a high volume of spoofed email from spammers attempting to sell Viagra. Because the email contained About.com's logo and address, some recipients believed it actually originated from About.com.

Well, I hope my terminator did the deed. So I say: stay tuned and beware of the satyr Apky the Upright!

Never Saw A White, Only Pig-Pink

So our main Man is now at the White House. They're all claiming him. The Irish, complete with a priest, maintained yesterday that Barack Hussein Obama is Irish - his mother's family tree - to the tune of one eighth. One of the arguments was his name - Obama. The Irish made comparisons with O'Reilly and O'Donovan and O'Connor etc etc. I'M sorry, I'm a Kenyan and Luo so I know that the O simply denotes "male" in the name. The female would be "Abama". I'm Akinyi (morning child), and had I been born a boy I'd be Okinyi. The Germans a few months ago claimed that President Obama is 37% German. Curious, that all the pink people label him black. The Germans (like most pink people but USA ones) seem unable to refer to the man as "President Obama". No, he's "Black President Obama". Pigmentation-mania since the classification days of the Age o Enlightenment. Who is clinging to the past here and claiming to be modern and advanced? ZDF (Germany) televison reporters who should know better are the worst here. Why are these people so scared of their own sins against God and the entire creation, but so creative in making it all the sins of the rest of humankind and creation? There are no human "races" because humankind is of a single species. "Race" in the proper sense is or should be applied to that which has been bred such as dogs, cattle or horses. Breeding, clear and simple.

Why is President Obama's pink 50% "Black"?
Did you ever see Powell and Bush Jr next to each other and failed to see which one of them was pinker than the other? Surf the 'Net for colour pix of these two and compare!

Yesterday at the inauguration I almost laughed out loud when that reverend (or was it a pastor?) prayed to God, warning Him to emember that "we are Americans", and proceeding to mention Judgement Day! I could see us all - from worms, fish, butterflies, birds, rats & mice, humankind, you name it - as plaintiffs reciting the horrrors committed againt us all by the pink people. What a day that will be!

A lot of African-Americans were on live interviews yesterday with reporter questions along the lines of: How do you feel about having a black president at last? Engraved in catatonia, the pinks are still firmly of the belief tha they are top of the charts! I wish I'd been in Washington to be interviewed. I'd have replied: How does it feel to be unable to lie through your teeth that pig pink are the only ones with a licence to lead, the only ones with grey matter inside their crania? These reporters should have asked their own pink people: How do you feel about our losing our hegemonic delusions and what can we now do to wind the time back to our halcyon days?

It's time for some human mental wellness, and nearly all of them need it.