Otherwise you’re considered a head cook if unaccredited and while in the same position as a head chef.
That's your opinion. You're so stuck on semantics, it hurts.
Chefs don't have to be accredited.
Cooks don't either.
Neither do doctors.
Neither do programmers.
Does having a degree help in the career? Sure. Does it make it more likely to get a job? Sure.
But just because you have a degree doesn't guarantee a job. If you believe that crap, then from my perspective you're the "failed disgruntled basement teenager."
You're spewing nonsense straight from these institutions' handbooks. They want you to believe this crap. They want you to believe we can't function without them.
You're living in THEIR fantasy world. Snap out of it.
Yes, all your titles are meaningless. They mean nothing to me, they mean nothing to the globalists who abuse you, and they mean nothing to a child. There's nothing you can do to convince me you're extra special because of them and not your actions.
They only have value so long as you use them. If you stop using them, they only mean as much as what others value it on your resume.
The pieces of paper you wield over others are only effective as signs of your hubris. If you can't perform in the role that paper says you can perform in then they are nothing more than a lie -- to yourself and others.
Your opinion is no more or less valid because of those pieces of paper. Having those little titles of yours, even if you value them so highly, makes you no more wrong or right when confronted with the truth. Those papers and titles DO NOT give you authority to change reality. They only suggest to another that you might understand reality, not that you actually do.
When those institutions are fraudulent in their teaching, so is your view on reality. What you've said to me thus far shows you aren't ready to accept that possibility. Which is all the more reason you shouldn't hold stock in your accreditations. They could be based on fallacies, based on false interpretations of reality. You need to be ready to accept that.
That’s not how the world works
Which is why millions are currently dying of "vaccine" genocide. The "vaccines" were accredited. So obviously they aren't causing people's hearts to explode, by your logic. We should all be good little boys and girls and make sure to sell our soul to these institutions, because they're always right and everything they do and everyone they hand a diploma, so long as they are "accredited", are going to perform their roles flawlessly.
The world doesn't work with accreditation systems. We need to return to a meritocracy.
Define "formal training."
Define "accreditation."
At what point in "education" do you consider someone to be a chef?
admit that you are wrong
Opinions cannot be wrong. You do not need accreditation to be a chef. It's nice to have, but not an absolute requirement.
There is nothing you can say or do that will change my opinion.
If you think a fancy diploma is required to fulfill a role then you are using the exact same mentality that empowers freaks in labcoats with the authority to squash all those voices saying the "vaccines" aren't safe.
Getting accreditation says nothing to your ability to perform a role or occupation. That's the illusion institutions want you to believe -- that you absolutely need their magic piece of paper in order to follow your dreams.
If I were to hire a chef then being able to make recipes for my menu and lead a galley of cooks is all I'd care about. If a bum I yank off the street can fulfill that role to my satisfaction, then he's my chef. I don't give two shits about accreditation if they can't manage a kitchen properly.
If you do means you still haven't shaken off the programming.
You still can't get over the semantics, can you?
If you work as a chef, you're a chef. If you aren't working as a chef, you aren't a chef.
I don't discount that one could be a good chef or a bad chef, but so long as they are doing chef things, as opposed to cook things, they are a chef.
It's a semantic argument to determine what the roles of a chef are. The bare minimum qualification for a "chef" is therefore best determined by etymology, which I have already provided:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/chef
"head cook," 1842, from French chef, short for chef de cuisine, literally "head of the kitchen," from Old French chief "leader, ruler, head" (see chief (n.)).
creating a dish does not ever make one a chef. Formal training is what makes one a chef.
That's your opinion, and a semantic argument.
by prefacing your entire post with a falsehood simply because no one else is speaking up.
Without arguing semantics, what is that falsehood? Semantics are opinion. You can be a "chef" without formal training, because there is no definition of "formal training." What you consider "formal training" varies wildly depending on who you ask.
That's semantics, and I don't care to argue over it, if I haven't been perfectly clear on that. It's all your OPINION, and you are presenting it as fact. Stop trying to goad me into a fight over opinions. It's a waste of time...
It's like arguing whether or not a chiropractor is a doctor or not...
there are many more staying silent because they don’t see it as worthwhile for them to contend
The down-doots beg to differ...
I actually didn’t realize that personalities and influencers was another analogy
The whole thing is an analogy. Ponder why it took you so long to figure that out. I suspect it's because, as I said, your bias in the terms clouded your judgement in my usage of them. It happens, but what matters is that we learn and accept that words can bend a bit depending on context.
Their use of the terms is almost always an analogy.
That's how they operate. They use Acroamatic Ciphers to obfuscate their actual intents and talk about it among the sheep in plain-day view.
https://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta42.htm
The entirety of my thread's purpose was to un-obfuscate their intent in using the terms "Spirit Cooking". Netting me into a semantic argument of what constitutes a "Chef" in your mind is a pointless endeavor. I don't even disagree, which is why it is baffling to me that you think there's some animosity between us.
For the record, I'm not talking down to you. I'm trying to present a competent position without dipping into a pointlessly semantic sink-hole...
understand what I was trying to correct without taking it so personally
I'm not taking it personally. This entire conversation is one-sided. I hold no animosity towards you. If you feel that I do, it's only because your opening with me being "completely wrong" was a really bad take, supported by an even worse, vague explanation.
You entered the argument in bad faith, charging in with accusations of "complete" wrong hood, conflating what you determine as fact with my opinion, which is the basis of this semantic argument you're hounding at.
You didn’t even mention how the main and primary difference in a chef which is formal training and overseeing other chefs.
Again, I'm not gonna be goaded into arguing semantics. Why are you so hellbent on getting into a spat online?
“Cooks are influencers while Chefs are personalities”? That statement couldn’t be further from the truth.
Why do you think this equivalency is wrong? You haven't sufficiently explained how it is a false equivalency...
No matter how you cut it, I did perform a proper grammatic analogy, no matter how much you want to dismiss it.
https://www.westbranch.k12.oh.us/userfiles/213/Classes/123/Analogy%20ClassNotes.pdf
An analogy is a type of word problem that consists of two word pairs. To solve the analogy you must find a word that correctly completes the second pair. At first glance, the words in an analogy may seem to have nothing to do with each other, but the words are always logically related. The first pair of words has a relationship similar to the second pair of words. To solve the analogy, you need to figure out that relationship.
For example:
You have Personalities and Social Media Influencers. Personalities create talking points while Social Media Influencers spread them.
Elon Musk is a Personality. He writes something on twitter, and all the numerous influencers carry that and use his points to push a narrative.
Elon Musk is the Chef, Influencers are Cooks. He prepares the recipe, the talking points, and the Influencers prepare the meal using those talking points.
The same can be said in "Cooking" an MK Ultra victim. Chefs determine what trauma would allow them to brainwash the victim, while Cooks come in and torture, deceive, and manipulate the victim.
If you want an analogy to work, then you need to understand the nuance of your analogy better.
I knew exactly what I was writing when I wrote it. I could have used bees, with queen bees and worker bees, but it wouldn't have applied to Spirit Cooking. I'm trying to show how they "spiritually" cook their victims because they believe it is a more worthy offering to their false gods. Chefs and Cooks are THEIR terms, and I sought to elaborate their use of them.
I'm sorry if you got hung up on the analogy, but it was correctly formed based on THEIR usage. There's little other way to understand the context and terms interchangeably other than taking them literally. I mean, they are cannibals, but it's obvious to anyone that there is more to this "ceremony" than just a fascination with eating human flesh.
It's called "Spirit Cooking", not "Eating People", after all.
Others completely understood what I meant. They saw the proper analogy, and I even created a sole comment to further draw the equivalency. I can't help it if you simply couldn't look past the literals of the equivocation because of your semantic bias in the definition of "Cook" and "Chef"...
I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. I'm not arguing semantics, and that's what you're doing.
You said I was "completely wrong" and "not accurate at all" then cited an article which states what I claimed verbatim.
This discussion makes no sense.
All I'm "getting close" to is the fact you have no ability to form a rational argument. Nothing you have said has construed a valid argument. I don't disagree with anything else you've written, but I don't see how it at all is in conflict with what I have written. You simply said I was wrong.
Which leads me to assume you're just pissy for being pissy's sake. I objectively have no idea what you're upset about, other than having regret for posting an article which supports your imaginary opposition.
Your difference between a chef and a cook is completely wrong.
Your distinctions between the two are not accurate at all in their real distinctions.
Your words?
To simply answer this question, a chef is an individual who is trained to understand flavors, cooking techniques, create recipes from scratch with fresh ingredients, and have a high level of responsibility within a kitchen. A cook is an individual who follows established recipes to prepare food.
That's almost verbatim what I claimed.
Cooks follow recipes while Chefs make recipes
Congratulations, you played yourself.
If I ever get down I crack open this and read it through again:
https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/119629.pdf
This is "The Plan", or at the very least required reading for it.
If you own the land, do you own the underground as well?
Take a gander at the US reservoirs and line them up with 'ol BIlly Gates' purchases.
https://greatawakening.win/p/12i48eKwA5/mr-gates-where-is-the-ground-wat/c/
Looks to me like he's building a continental transit system. What's going on down there?
They probably can't but when has that ever stopped any congressman from doing what they want?
People will sue, the suits will be thrown out, and that will be that.
I'd still like some deltas, but yeah this is the most convincing evidence thus far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfpagB8wWng
You're welcome.
1 in 10 is my guess.
10% is the offering of a Tithe.
one tenth of annual produce or earnings, formerly taken as a tax for the support of the Church and clergy.
10% every year.
If we have 7,000,000,000 people, and if their target is 15% remaining...
At 10% reduction per year, we're looking at 40 years before they get to their 15%.
103,466,180 people left in 40 years, to be exact. I'm not good at math, so feel free to correct me.
Jesus is always here, but so long as one person exists that doesn't wish him to show his face, for the sake of that one person, he makes himself scarce.
If Jesus were to show himself to us in person, and force the world to bend the knee, then all will be lost. Only by coming to God through Jesus by our own Faith and Determination will we find salvation. Jesus revealing himself to us at this point in time will cause many to love God falsely, not of their own will.
God refuses to rob us of our own Free Will, even if it means we will slaughter ourselves. He Loves us so much that he won't doom us to be slaves to our eyes and ears instead of free agents which have found God on our own.
So, it is true. If we all gathered together in one place, and shared the same sentiment that Jesus be there among us, then he will. This is but one path for his second coming, but not the necessary one. It's the one which would please God to no end, but one he does not expect, just as a Father doesn't expect his children to do exactly as he has instructed.
Jesus alone is the Unblemished Lamb. All others have various sins and shortcomings that keep them from God. Jesus takes upon himself those shortcomings so that we may climb the face of the cliff and meet with him there in Heaven. Jesus is the sorry soul which had climbed the mountain, looked down upon all those struggling, and then cast himself back down in order to guide us towards the top taking the path he etched into the stone.
Only God the Father knows the time and the hour. It's something not even known to Jesus, unless revealed to him by the Father.
Which means it is not a set date. The Doings of Man, having met the proper criteria, will bring about the End Times. Whether it will be a tragedy or a comedy, is anyone's guess.
You're supposed to feel averse to what I'm writing. I'm telling you how they think.
It's horrible, misguided, and downright Evil.
I agree, you aren't the base. That's how they view you, though. That's how these sick monsters see you -- as a lump of flesh to work and devour.
Instead, you are like the Blank Slate. An innocent canvas for which all wondrous works of God may be rendered, not devoured.
God is the Artist, not these demons. God is the hand which moves the paint brush (his beloved son, which bears His will) and with every stroke he brings into Life the doings of His Mind.
We, Humans, are his Masterpiece.
We emulate God and make our own Works, to glorify and raise Him up as the one True God of Love.
These Satanic fiends don't see it that way. They believe they are God. They believe they alone are the Artist. They believe that God has served his purpose, and his purpose was nothing more than to give birth to the Self.
They believe God birthed us and that it is their right to turn around and slit the throat of God. To sacrifice God up in effigy so that they may rule His kingdom, as successors by betrayal.
That's the Satanic mindset. You're not supposed to like it, because it goes against Nature.
I don't want to battle semantics.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/chef
"head cook," 1842, from French chef, short for chef de cuisine, literally "head of the kitchen," from Old French chief "leader, ruler, head" (see chief (n.)).
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=cook
"one whose occupation is the preparing and cooking of food," Old English coc, from Vulgar Latin *cocus "cook," from Latin coquus, from coquere "to cook, prepare food, ripen, digest, turn over in the mind" from PIE root *pekw- "to cook, ripen."
I am not sure how they think they avoid that.
There is a plan. A really old one.
They seek to delay their inevitable punishment indefinitely. To catch the World in a softlock. To freeze the seasons and the times in place, so that no more World events happen without their approval.
Astronomy/Astrology pays into this.
Also, think in terms of banking, debt, and usury.
One way to rule the World is to have all Movers, everyone with a Divine Spark, believe in a New World Order, and so it will be. To accomplish this, they sought to wrack up a tab so large that Mankind wouldn't be able to account for their sins.
That failed. Jesus paid off the debt of our sins in his blood.
Their Plan B is to reduce the population to a small population that's far more easily controlled. This is to make it impossible for people to find Salvation through Christ and work against them.
If they can squash people's Redemption through Christ, they can go back to Plan A.
That's why they want to "stop climate change"
Each season brings with it a time for things to take place. Spring is a time to plant, Summer a time to grow, Fall a time to harvest, and Winter a time to reflect.
If they can have their perpetual time of Harvest, then all things will be theirs to take.
To freeze the seasons and the movement of the Celestial Bodies such that they move only when they want them to.
That's their plan... To prevent the coming of God's Perpetual Kingdom by freezing the mind of Man in an inescapable Matrix.
What does it mean to walk in another person's shoes?
What if you walk in the shoes of one sacrificed before realizing their full potential?
Would you obtain that full potential?
All you've said and more. Innocence stained red in the blood of betrayal.
They literally walk upon the corpses of those they conquer when they wear the red shoes. They flaunt their power over the souls they've entrapped.
But more than just that, they believe those shoes will lead them "home."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooM-RGUTe2E
Back to a time where they ruled. The irony is complete with the mind of the slain.
When they are bound and gagged upon the altar, the victim tries to convince themselves this is all a dream; that all this horror is just a nightmare they need to wake up from; that those eating them alive, their friends and family, would never do this to them.
The victim will wish they were home. "There's no place like home... There's no place like home..."
Home to these monsters is in the hunt. They are Predators, and we are the Prey. To tear flesh and destroy is their "normal." That's their "home", or so they believe...
Where do they get the leather?
Doesn't matter what I think, since I'm not accredited enough to have an opinion.
You're just like those freaks on twitter who think a blue check mark makes their opinions more valid.
Doctors didn't have to be accredited until the Rockefellers said you did. Until then, titles just denoted occupation -- nothing more and nothing less.
Define "education"
Define "accreditation"
Define "training"
Define "experience"
Define "formal"
If it varies at all, then being a chef means someone calls you a chef as your occupation, nothing more and nothing less.
You are obsessed with semantics. You're in a semantic fantasy land.
They don't seem all that convinced of their own definitions, huh?
Chef, based on etymology, is one who leads a kitchen. Root word, Chief -- leader or head.
You are arguing semantics. You will not win, I will not win.
You need to understand that people can have opinions other than you. No institution of man can validate your opinion and force reality to bend to your whim.
Why did you even bother then? Because you can't accept that there is someone who doesn't share in your opinion? Come down off your high horse.