Melki Hassa's Blog

People are so much allergic to contentions, with that corrections, they would use innuendoes. The first thing that set apart one thing and another is their contexts, if you use the wrong context in order to convey the message, it's as if the reality is not that sophisticated that there's such thing as such that requires not the proper context.  There's something special about every single thing, and to use innuendoes to negotiate is as if you don't acknowledge that and then would proceed with your next decision (often times on other people).  It's just pure display of political power, and even it contains the audacity that you don't have to worry about the proper context or that you know that it's definitely not accurate and still you'd proceed with your desire.  ---------------- Blatant spoken word, pen on paperness, is not a guarantee that the decisions would be right, but to me at least what needs to be considered were considered, the issue were put o

People like to say that crypto has no underlying values, I somewhat in support of that however I also think that they do have underlying values which are encryption.  My God is the Spirit of Truth so I value verification, preservation of the Truth at the utmost highest level. So even though I don't own any crypto right now I do think that their concept is admirable. The problem is with shares you could have a ruler which is the PBV ratio but not with crypto.  If I were to make a cryptocurrency I'd issue a currency for every verification of Truth in existence and diminishing values for the verification of the verifications. However the system should somehow be able to cancel false affirmations and transferred the currency to the correctors.  I call this system the hostile verification system.  The main controller of this currency would be its rating system, where each individuals would had a reliable ID, and they would be rated based on how sustainable their proceeds are. If you