Isn't it interesting that it is in fact easier to prove that something does exist, than that it doesn't, this being the basis for all the Urban Legends in modern society ? If such a place existed - reminds me of Wonder Woman's Amazon - could one know for sure ? I am not disagreeing with the Swedes on this because how would I know ? I am not Swedish, ( although far enough back, to when the Vikings came to England, and were very nice to everyone, and only afraid of the Sky falling on their heads , who knows ? ), nor have I ever been there, though I wouldn't mind - Scandinavia fascinates me. But if we say such a town does not exist, how could we be absolutely sure, in a country of what - nine million ? This is the sort of " well, you never really know " kind of talk that allows us to want to believe in mysteries. I get the feeling, that even if they drained Loch Ness, as Burns did in that episode of the Simpsons, and found nothing, people would still say there was a Monster there - it was hiding under a pebble, or was invisible. What I mean is, if such a town were found, then it would be undeniable - you would only need one such discovery to verify it. But if it was not, and people looked in hundreds of towns all over Northern Sweden, and found nought, even hundreds of failures would not mean the theory is disproved. Reminds me of the rigour needed to make a Mathematical Proof - the mathematician knows of no counter examples to his theory, but cannot use this fact to prove beyond doubt that it is true. One however could argue that if such a town were real, there should be some indication, but this to me goes against the egalitarian nature of Swedes in general, even though it is a Monarchy. We had a similar thing here in New Zealand in 1993, when some hunters claimed to have seen a living Moa. This is a flightless rattite bird similar to an Emu or Ostrich, believed to have been hunted to extinction some time ago. There was no undeniable proof of what they had seen, but then no proof they hadn't seen it. This all goes back to the idea that just because You can't see something, doesn't mean it is not there. One way around this is to use common sense, and sometimes one can be told tall stories and believe them without thinking it through. In " All the President's Men " Woodward and Bernstein recall that there was a story about a king who supposedly waited in the snow to see the Pope, for ages, without going inside - if I remember rightly - it's been a while - the lesson in Journalism was to ask if such a story was likely , or possible, or any number of other things. It is true that sometimes Truth is Stranger than Fiction - there are proven examples of this, but one needs to look at each story one is told, and think about it. I was recently told that recycling in New Zealand is more expensive than just making the stuff again from scratch. Immediately I was skeptical. One could seize this idea as if it is some of the usual Lone Gunman X Files type conspiracy theory, or consider, would any city council and big business continue with something like that if it is a waste of money ? Doubt it. I am not of the belief that pollution causes Global Warming, since historically there have been warm periods and cold snaps long before mankind could possibly have done enough pollution to cause it - but I like a clean planet. I see no point in pumping filthy smoke into the air, nor in wasting raw material that can be recycled, and incidentally, seeing I mentioned it, I do believe there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK, that Oswald was part of it, with Jack Ruby, but I do not believe Oswald fired the fatal shot. Look at the film. Laws of Physics apply. Whether it was a coup as Oliver Stone suggested and Walter Cronkite disagreed with, I do not know. The Christchurch Star, right here in my city, which Donald Sutherland's character was reading in the movie still has records of the premature announcement of details of the assassination on file. But perhaps I digress. One thing this serves to show, though, is how many legends there could be in the world, and how we may never know the truth or untruth of some of them. As for the possibility of this town in Sweden ? Yeah, doubt it. Such a thing would not be legal - although there are women and men only gyms in some places, fair enough - but a whole town ? If anyone had seen it, they would have made a mint selling pictures to the tabloids. If the female inhabitants kill any spies, then how would anyone live to tell about it ? By that rationale, I could say there is a city of giants in Tasmania, and prove it by saying that it must be true, because no one can disprove it, so it is like the evidence exitsts by default. The Russian.202.36.179.66 (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
urdu sexy stories in real urdu language
DOWNLOAD: https://tinourl.com/2vIfGW
As absence leaves its traces in ruinations, Naheed lyrically pieces together the shards of material and imagined subjecthood and composes verses where this absence can be deciphered. This poetic interplay between the real and imaginary, where the borders are so porous that the two seem to fuse together, is Naheed's attempt to register in words those real events of a country that seem unreal in the actuality and frequency of their occurrence. Her poetics consists of daring to confront global, national, social, and canonical norms in a lyrical manner that imagines a new threshold of being. Naheed's published work ranges from ten volumes of poetry to two memoirs, travel narratives, collections of prose and criticism, edited anthologies and journals, collections of short stories for children, translations, and character sketches. Lyric poetry, for her, is a site for reenacting memory. The gashes in memory and the ensuing tensions in language, which would become apparent in the race against forgetting, are employed by Naheed to explore the limits and possibilities of imagined being. In her prolific literary and activist career, she has challenged the ways in which gendered identity is constitutionally negated through legislations such as the Hudood Ordinance of 1979, introduced by the military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq (1924-1988) to appease reactionary religious elements and to legitimize his military rule. Within the four-part Hudood Ordinance (hudood derives from hadd, meaning "limit" or "prohibition," where punishment is fixed by religious, and not civil, law), the Zina Ordinance criminalized zina (adultery and extramarital sex) and required that zina b'il-jabr (rape) be proved through the testimony of four pious men; and the 1982 Law of Evidence equated a woman's testimony to half that of a man (Mumtaz and Shaheed 1987; Jahangir and Jilani 1990; Jalal 1991; Khan 2003).2 By... 2ff7e9595c
Comments