16 Reply by IlikeIcke

  • IlikeIcke
  • Guest

Re: What point are you at?

Well...............they've been "consistently proven wrong" over the past 2,000 years.  But before that, there seemed to be many cataclysms that came and went, destruction, flooding, space debris impacts, shifting of the poles, etc. etc. if you only read the ancient accounts.   And by ancient I mean stories that pre-date 2,000 BC.    2,000 years isn't that long if you think about it, not in comparison to a 200,000 - 300,000 year timespan.   So sure, you're right, nothing has happened - yet - during the brief, flash-in-the-pan two thousand year period.   A butterfly probably feels like its one week life span is an eternity too, because it doesn't know what it is to live for 90 - 100 years like humans often do.

I specifically said something could very well happen.   However, that doesn't mean I'm going to take paranoid babbling seriously.  If you've been around the internet long enough, you may have read all the many, countless warnings that the world is going to end.  Tomorrow.  Ten years from now.  Two years from now.  And each babbler is proven wrong again and again.  Amusingly, they often justify their predictions with arguments as irrelevant as this one.  So  small scale ancient societies have MYTHS of destruction or have been destroyed- that doesn't prove anything one way or another, or make me believe that these scam artists are on to something.    If you want to continue wasting your time and making excuses for the next lot of babblers to come along, fine, I won't mention it again.   

The point is to illustrate that when your lifespan is short, then it may seem like stuff is never going to happen, only because you're not around long enough to see it.   2,000 years SEEMS like a long time for humans.....but is it?   Really?   For a Redwood tree that can live up to 1,000 years, that's only two generations.   For a giant sea squid that can live up to 700 years, 2,000 years isn't much either.   So stick around on the planet long enough and you're bound to see stuff happen.

As I said before, SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN!  You don't have to convince me of that. 

Yeah, you're right.  The Rapture has not happened yet.   And in my belief, it never will.  At least, not the way that the Christians believe it will.  I have no idea anymore whether or not a Rapture / Ascension / Great Shift is going to happen.   But even if it doesn't, so what?  That example alone is supposed to disprove everything else?   I don't think so.   You can't take one example of something "not working out" (YET.....)  and hold that up to the light and wave it around to disprove everything else.    Take everything on an individual basis.   It's a fallacy that most, if not all, conspiracy debunkers make in their zealous effort to debunk everything, using one or two things to disprove hundreds of others.  It's ridiculous.

No, what's ridiculous is that you can't see the paralells between something that you agree is silly, and your own beliefs.  I used an example to illustrate exactly how people of this community look to the rest of the world.  And I don't have to prove anything.  The burden of proof is on the believers.  By your logic I could say that pink elephants fly out of my ears sometimes, and everyone should take me seriously because I might be telling the truth.  Burden of proof- look into it. 


Well, nobody here advocated getting "flustered", "worried" or recommended that you "take anything seriously".   How you choose to react to the conspiracy / apocoloyptic / end times information that is floating around out there is up to you.   You are responsible for your own reactions.  I don't see anybody else on here getting flustered or worried yet.   Everything seems to be pretty calm, logical and level headed so far.  Unless I'm missing something.........

Perhaps you're missing something.  Look at all the threads created here, and tell me if there is not a general air of fear, paranoia and distrust of generally all society's conventions, safety and assurances.

Who's "they" ?   Who are you talking about?   Whose message regarding "saving earthlings" ?  This just seemed to come out of left field.

Who's they?  They is all the people out their with web sites and books telling you that the world is changing, ending etc.- telling us to change our ways and live differently, yet failing to give any reason whatsoever why we should take them seriously.   

Well, everybody is entitled to believe what they want to believe.  Nobody is trying to convince you of anything.

Well consider me the average American citizen.  I assume you're fed up with the direction the world is taking.  If you can't even convince me, someone who is very open to these ideas, how are you going to spread these messages to the rest of the world.  I've got news for you, it's not so much that a lot of people don't read/have access to alternative material that keeps them ignorant/in the dark of conspiracies/alternative knowledge, it's that they read it and don't believe it, can argue against it competently or see no reason why they should trust people that claim to get their knowledge from aliens and beings of different dimensions.

But yet, I do believe we're in interesting times, change is already taking place.  The signs are all around us.

Change is a given, times always change.  Maybe there seems to be signs because you look for them. The rest of the world doesn't notice anything. 

I think something screwball is happening with our planet's "biology", for lack of a better term.  Its weather patterns, climate, atmosphere, magnetics, etc. all seem to be changing, and very rapidly.

So you claim that we've only been around for 2000 measely years so we can't draw certain conclusions, but then assuredly claim that the weather is changing dramatically, with only about 150 years of weather data on record. 

I believe the NWO with its micro chipping and RFID tags and electronic money and one world currency and ID cards is right in front of our face.   I think we're in for a lot more war in 2004 - 2008.

Agreed.   

Possible space debris impacts.

And when weren't they possible?  Why are you now worrying about it?  The power of suggestion. 

Thing is, I get the impression from your posts that you want to come on here and scoff at everything and promote a "Whatever, who cares, there's nothing you can do about ito so get over it and stop acting like a bunch of paranoid rambling fools" attitude, but I think you're wrong.   There are some things we CAN do something about, such as protesting the microchipping, the impending National ID cards, and the upcoming wars.   And we can do it WITHOUT fear and hysteria.   It doesn't have to be only one of two choices --   Mass fear and hysteria, or, zealous debunking and total apathy.   Create a third choice.   

That's just my opinion though.

Incorrect.  I come on here to learn and share my opionion on things.  But I consider my standards to be more rigorous than some people's here- who buy into dimensional shifts and apocalyptic scenarios because somebody got up the gusto to create a flashy website and use evidence out of context.  Then they interpret every, perhaps meaningless, experience of their life to be a message or a sign.   

I'm all for battling back against the NWO and spreading the word, but part of the reason why people like me are not taken seriously is because of the garbage plastered across the internet, and people that don't know how to back up what they read and explain it properly.  So I'm left to explain volumes of information to people that have already made up their minds that conspiracy theorists are crazy because most people don't know how to convey information accurately.

I've had long- very long- arguments with fairly intelligent, semi-unbiased people that truly believe the PNAC report and the Northwoods Documents are innocuous.  How are we going to convince these people that there's an evil force at work if we're lumped in with the same groups who spawn lies about UFO's based on paranoid internet chatter with no evidence.  I hate these people.  I hate these people that mix fantasy with logical, evident conclusions, and then make it that much harder to educate the masses.   I DID TAKE EVERYTHING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, and seperated the wheat from the chaff, but unfortuneatly, it's pretty hard to convince people when the conspiracy field is flooded with inaccurate garbage.  So I feel it's my duty to scoff at things presented here with absolutely no evidence, or evidence taken out of context.  Get used to be scoffed at if you want to disseminate this information in the real world.

17 Reply by BlackBox (edited by BlackBox 2004-04-05 14:52:26)

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: What point are you at?

Whew, IlikeLicke..."Icke", whos side are you on? Just for the record. smile

From the way you speak and the way you use "logic" seems to be far more left-oriented than the subjects at hand require you to be actually interested in. Why be on a forum that is based upon montalk's interest in hyperdimensional-reality, the unveiling of the universe, and channeled information?

I'm so confused. I don't want you to respond with the same tone as you're doing to lyra, and I hope you keep that fire with others, because I want to stay neutral and just discuss facts. I think you should understand that you writing among right-brain thinkers. We are right-brain, intuitive philosophers. I believe, in your terms "koo-koo" things like the fact that there have been two types of human history divided by two different types of technology and societal orientation. Back then, ending in the days of Atlantis (13,000 years ago from 2012) with the cataclysmic earth-tilt fiasco. Operation flush the toilet, so to speak.

SO!! Where am I going? Oh yes, I wanted to know if you believe in left-brain thinking VS right-brain thinking...

I know a great forum that you'd love. There's a guy there named CyberChrist, opetero, misturah, etc etc, that are completely living the same reality as you are. They have the same orientation. They are intelligent and good-hearted people and I would vouch for their truthful open-minds towards the same goals of left-brain theory. But I'm a right-brain theory guy and I ultimately find FAITH in knowing what I know. By identifying the web and how awfully tangled yet simple they are. It feels like an oxymoron but it's not, because everything is broken down to the subcategory and their subcategories. It's confusing at first but you'd rather have to be an eternal being to ever concieve of ever knowing everything there is to know.
( http://hraunfjord.com/whatreallyhappened/index.php )

I had a brief correspondence there and I may drop off notes every once in a while, but I realized my place is in my own orientation. See I'm ultimately still prejudice. Not due to race. Not because your black, white, mexican, mongolian. I'm prejudice to orient myself towards my goals and ambitions that are in favour for my destiny. Be it a density of good or evil or any of that subjective mumbo-jumbo SMOKE-screen, illusionary garbage. Conspiracy talk is garbage to a degree before you sit down and actually read the filthy waste.

I mean, sometimes I even have the ability to react with some emotion on this topic, above normal, and wish that I could just get some extra support on my belief structure. I've found Montalk to have these qualities in his learning curve and I know if people are put behind these theories and allow pioneers like Montalk not to get a peculiar stroke or heart-attack due to studies in topics that are highly sensitive. Unified Field Theory. Unified Field Theory. Unified Field Theory. Sound-Wave Technology, U-N-V-E-R-S-A-L truths. If he doesn't have support, watch him get sick or die, so I'm going to join his forum and comment and give my time to support the thoughts and process of whatever is in-store for this supposed "exciting-time to be alive".

I'm realizing that unless your a shaman and strict yourself away to de-attachments and prejudice towards STS traits and privileges a.k.a pleasure. In my view that would not be "me" since I enjoy and realize that my time here has to be nothing of whatever I do not wish it to be. I mean this not to sound cocky but to suggest the ycyor (you create your own reality) way of life where I know I'm here for a reason, just like everyone else. It can seem to some as like going to see the fireworks with the friends and family or being gathered to send to the slaughter house, or a sad conspiracy-theorist who I would call people who have their heads in the smoke permanently. Well, they may realize they have some faults when their brain starts shutting down and the illusion begins to fade and they realize that perhaps orientation has a purpose and our collective orientation sums up the reason for existence itself. The holy grail. The eternal knowledge of micro/macro existence.

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: What point are you at?

IlickeIcke,

Skeptics are often biased. What is skepticism unbacked by logical reasoning other than mere prejudice?  So far you given lots of excuses and rationalizations. Rationalizations are the ramblings of the intellect in defense of an emotional bias - you can spot them because despite sounding intellectual, they are based on logical fallacies.

And I don't have to prove anything.  The burden of proof is on the believers.

Typical - those that don't have it, don't give it. The "believers" have given their case in books, websites, posts, etc... It is available for anyone to analyze and disprove, should he or she have at least the willingness to do so.

If skeptics who give no logical reasons behind their dismissal of certain ideas are inherently biased, what sense is there in giving them the luxury to subjectively judge what evidence presented them is good enough? Won't they keep raising the bar and rationalize away everything that doesn't support their bias? That isn't discernment on their part, that's ignorance. This type of blindness goes by the medical name of hysteria.* To avoid this problem, the burden of disproof should be on the skeptic.

Sometimes "believers" are kooks, and sometimes they have loose standards that make them gullible. But in the case where you yourself can't even refute certain ideas on logical grounds (resorting instead to "scoffing"), the problem is instead  ignorance of evidence available.

Lastly, if you hate my website, hate the people here, hate the topics we discuss, and hate what we do - find a different forum. Your opinions are appreciated, but not the way in which you give them.

There's a difference between disagreeing on logical grounds and attacking on subjective grounds. Notice that when members of this forum disagree, they state their opinion calmly, objectively, and curteously. I recommend that you do the same.

- Tom

*hysteria - in psychology, a disorder commonly known today as conversion disorder, in which a psychological conflict is converted into a bodily disturbance. It is distinguished from hypochondria by the fact that its sufferers do not generally confuse their condition with real, physical disease. Conversion disorder is usually found in patients with immature, histrionic personalities who are under great stress.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/hy/hysteria.html

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • From: Curren body:UK
  • Registered: 2004-04-02

Re: What point are you at?

Hi everybody.    Just like to say that I am very impressed with the quality of balanced thinking in this forum!

here is my little opinion about "proof"

Truth and proof are not the same,  it took me ages to work it out.  I am a regular Astral projector and use to set experiments up for myself so validate my experiences.    I would get somebody to leave a message in another room - then i would try to fly in and read it.    I failed many times....

...and I gave up.

But gradually over many months,  I realised that I was missing out on some really interesting experiences,  I stopped because of lack of "proof" but all the time I was actually having SOME kind of experience that I for some reason discounted as being worthless without proof - how stupid was that thinking!     So I continued, and I am still doing it to this day, learning more and more about the way our minds work, about different levels of reality, about the whole thing -  all without any material "proof" at all.     My ideas that I have learnt from within resonate with much of what the C's / Montalk have said on this web site - which is why I am here!   Self trust came first, proof followed.   Not the other way round.     

The "truth" is knowable.  It is within us.  .  We have to learn to trust ourselves, develop our intuition to high levels  etc.     To seek nothing but material "proof"  actually holds us back from realising truth...  It leads to "believing because you have *no choice* NOT to believe!"    And no choice is never healthy. 

Of course material proof has it's part to play, but it's just a learning aid - as is everything.   You may THINK you need material proof,  but it will only prolong your forgetting of the fact that you've had your red shoes on all the while wink

It is up to each and every one of us to realise this ourselves.   It is a personal journey.   A personal choice.    I think a lot of great minds right here on this forum are getting very close to realising this...

OK,  now.... to prove this point.....

here is all the material proof anybody would ever need. 
http://www.victorzammit.com/book/index.html

Read that book then realise...  Did it change anything?  probably not.  You asked for proof, there it is, loads of it... yet you still have a personal CHOICE to make whether you accept it or not! 

Trust yourselves... 

smile
DALE

20 Reply by Christine B. (edited by Christine B. 2004-04-06 04:26:42)

  • Registered: 2004-03-25

Re: What point are you at?

Hi Everyone,

(sorry, but I can't find the post wherein Montalk tells us how to put those great lines around the quote...maybe someone will clue me in.  In the meantime...IlikeIcke wrote:)

"I've had long- very long- arguments with fairly intelligent, semi-unbiased people that truly believe the PNAC report and the Northwoods Documents are innocuous.   How are we going to convince these people that there's an evil force at work if we're lumped in with the same groups who spawn lies about UFO's based on paranoid internet chatter with no evidence.   I hate these people.   I hate these people that mix fantasy with logical, evident conclusions, and then make it that much harder to educate the masses.     I DID TAKE EVERYTHING ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, and seperated the wheat from the chaff, but unfortuneatly, it's pretty hard to convince people when the conspiracy field is flooded with inaccurate garbage.   So I feel it's my duty to scoff at things presented here with absolutely no evidence, or evidence taken out of context.   Get used to be scoffed at if you want to disseminate this information in the real world."

To me the "problem" seems one of marketing.  You don't market baby strollers to pre-teens, or teeny bopper t-shirts to college freshman.  Unless you don't want to make a sale.

Ergo, when talking to friends, acquaintances, neighbors etc., it behooves one to communicate so that you aren't rejected "out of hand" for being WAY off the mark.  In other words, find something that meets their current reality and go from there.

It would be a bit nuts - IF, your intention was to help people grow their awareness - to talk to a friend, relative etc about reptilian shapeshifters IF that person were a couch potato CNN type guy.  Better perhaps to find something he dislikes, ie high gas prices perhaps, and start by talking about the Afghan pipeline. - as a loose example.

In other words, IF your intention is to help raise the awareness (which mind you is pretty darn subjective and also can be pretty arrogant) of whomever you are talking with...then to bludgeon someone with conspirarcy theories etc is obviously going to bring about nothing but an argument - which does nothing but create more illwill.

This message board and Montalk's site, including the articles there, are presented for our discernment and for me, show me other possible points of view.  I understand almost nothing that is physics type stuff BUT the other articles (on enlightenment for example) are incredible - to me.

One thing that I enjoy is knowing that indeed there are others who are working to understand more.
Having been married to someone who was "into" conspiracies" before many of you were born <grin>, the conspiracy stuff is not very shocking to me.  What has astounished me, is how many of the things my ex-husband said years ago that are now normal fare. (ATM cards for example.  Joel Skoulsen told us about them back in 1981 and we couldn't believe anyone would fall for them.  Who knew? <grin>)

(Joel Skoulsen, security specialist - brother of Mark Skoulsen - hard money guy. And no, I'm not a Mormon).

So, perhaps the problem, IlikeIcke, is that you are finding yourself rather alientated from your peers - an enormous assumption on my part but I'm having trouble understanding where you are coming from.

The Dalai Lama said when asked - what is the purpose of life - "The purpose of life is to be happy and to make others happy"

I like that.  It's short and sweet and ENORMOUSLY difficult to achieve and yet, seems worthwhile. A starting point, to me, is to make oneself REAL to others and to oneself.

Warm regards,
Christine

21 Reply by IlikeIcke

  • IlikeIcke
  • Guest

Re: What point are you at?

If skeptics who give no logical reasons behind their dismissal of certain ideas are inherently biased, what sense is there in giving them the luxury to subjectively judge what evidence presented them is good enough?

Please explain exactly why I have "an inherent bias."  Because I don't believe people that don't present evidence, or evidence clearly out of context, or because you claim to intuit the truth, and I don't trust that?  How about those bombers killing people in the name of Allah?  Or how about that woman who just killed her children on divine order?  She looked inside for the truth as well.  CLEARLY, as stated with endless examples, believing, using intuition and arriving at the truth using feeling, is not trustworthy.  Those are the true subjective methods- methods that have caused great prejudice, racism, bigotry, lies, control and hatred throughout the world since the dawn of time.

My reasons for disregarding some of the material presented here are not logically flawed, quite the contrary.  I point out, time and time again, that people blindly trust belief because they have an attachment to that belief.  They, then, misinterpret daily occurences as signs to reinforce that belief, and convinve themselves that they're right.  They use evidence out of context, and refuse to listen to sound reason.  Finally, when they see formidable reasons why their belief is not true, they resort in either anger or excuses, which come 2012, there will be plenty of. 

So far you given lots of excuses and rationalizations. Rationalizations are the ramblings of the intellect in defense of an emotional bias - you can spot them because despite sounding intellectual, they are based on logical fallacies.

That's rich.  What excuses?  What rationalizations?  I've given examples to support that we cannot trust certain methods of seeking truth.

The "truth" is knowable.  It is within us.  .  We have to learn to trust ourselves, develop our intuition to high levels  etc.     To seek nothing but material "proof"  actually holds us back from realising truth...  It leads to "believing because you have *no choice* NOT to believe!"    And no choice is never healthy.

So radical Muslims that want to kill innocent people in the name of Allah have found the truth within themselves? 

I think I've made it quite clear what I'm getting at here: WE CANNOT TRUST RANDOM BELIEF BASED ON UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION, FEELING OR INTUITION.  If you want to look at something for what it is, a mere philosophy, that's fine.  But as soon as that philosophy starts veering off into fantasy, it becomes just that.

To avoid this problem, the burden of disproof should be on the skeptic

Are you kidding?  I'll restate my example: I tell people that pink elephants fly out of my ears.  Who then, does the burden of proof rest with? 

But in the case where you yourself can't even refute certain ideas on logical grounds (resorting instead to "scoffing"), the problem is instead  ignorance of evidence available

No, my scoffing is a result of logically and soundly dismantling a belief system that rests on distorted information, suggestion and divine communication.  Still waiting for this evidence that you speak of...

Lastly, if you hate my website, hate the people here, hate the topics we discuss, and hate what we do - find a different forum.

This is not what I said.  Do I have to elaborate, or will you back and read my initial statement more carefully.

There's a difference between disagreeing on logical grounds and attacking on subjective grounds. Notice that when members of this forum disagree, they state their opinion calmly, objectively, and curteously. I recommend that you do the same.

Where wasn't I courteous?  Where did I attack anybody?  I simply refuted their opinions with my own, and in doing that revealed my observations of this community. 

Lastly, you seem to have a loose understanding of the words subjective and objective.  You keep claiming I'm the one that sees things subjectively.  Incorrect.  I judge all information on the same objective basis, while you choose to look at some information in higher regard for whatever reasons have. 

For example, If someone tells me that we should kill innocent people because their God says so,  I disregard it.  If someone tells me to live in light and love because they are communicating with divine entities, I say, ok, good message, but I'm going to disregard this unless they have any other reasons to convince me.  You seem to misunderstand objective evaluation and subjective interpretation.

I'm not "wasting my time making excuses" for anybody.   In which of my few posts that I've contributed so far do I "make excuses" for the specific people you reference?  Not only have I never made excuses for those you refer to, but I never will.  But, by all means, please locate those posts you refer to.

You  have disagreed with every example I've given to support that we can't trust information based on channeling, beliefs, feelings, distorted evidence etc.  That, in its essence, is defending the very "problem people,"  I refer to.

Really?   So......you know me then?   Since it seems that you know me so well, then you MUST know how I've recently told Tom that I can no longer go around talking about the whole possible upcoming Shift.   Even though I have my own personal evidence for it, the fact is, I don't have enough proof to continue talking about it at the moment.    That could change down the line, but it's where I stand at the moment.   This newfound decision in fact caused me to go back and revise one of my articles last week.

But you already knew that......right?

I'm not arguing over your own beliefs.  I'm using examples and paralells to prove how people can convinve themselves of things without any proof. 

It seems that you look down on the "people of this community."     Nobody made you come to "this community" with us people and the way in which we "look to the rest of the world."   Maybe you'd fit in better in another community since you seem to have so much disdain for this one?

Where did I say I look down on this community?  If it's any concession, I consider myself more like the people here than anywhere else, but I also think I have a pretty good perception of where the mass populus is at right now and how they would think about these topics.  However, I do consider myself to more rigorous standards than most here when it comes to sorting through esoteric/conspiracy material- meaning I actively seek out people to try and disprove whatever I'm currently swayed by.  If it's any consolation, I actually believed in the dimension shift for a few months, but some skeptics got me thinking about all the flaws in evidence, reasoning and validity of the claims. 

You're the only one getting on here demanding that nobody is showing any or enough proof for our beliefs.

I didn't ask for proof from people here initially, I said that there is no good evidence to trust some of the material discussed here.

Fear?  Nope.   I don't see that "around here."

Well perhaps you could explain what posting random apocalyptic dates helps to insure.  People who usually talk about apocalyptic events are the ones that build bomb shelters and gear up for them.  But I guess you just want to be ready for those 2 minutes before death so you know what's going down.   

Many of them do tell you reasons.   You just choose to not mention them here.

I haven't seen any good reasons to believe them.  Please direct me towards a channeler, alien investigator etc. that provides "good reasons" to believe them.

I'm not trying to convince you.   You keep stating this.   I put my ideas out there in the world, and my philosophy has ALWAYS been, "Take it or leave it."   Doesn't matter to ME whether you believe it or not.    The one thing I don't ever do, in the "real world" or via the written word is to try to "convince" anybody of anything.  It's stupid and a waste of time.   It's all take it, or leave it.   If you leave it, it doesn't matter to me.  Your choice.   I just put it out there for your consideration.   It seems there's a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of my "motives."  You have assumed I have the same outlook / motives as others, lumping me into their category, when in fact, I don't.   You've come on to this webforum like gangbusters, attacking and making assumptions from the getgo without first bothering to get to know people.   Your mistake, not mine.

My mistake, I assumed since this was a discussion forum, the object is to exchange ideas, knowledge and opinions to reach some sort of conclusion.  I didn't know that people wanted just to post there beliefs and opinions and have people tell them how great they are.

And you've been designated the official spokesperson for the rest of the world?  Interesting!   I'm sure they'll appreciate their new, self-appointed ambassador!

I'd say, seeing that I attend a public university with 20,000 people, have friends that don't read any of this stuff, have a family that doesn't read any of this, actually own a television set etc., that I'm more inclined to opinions on mass perceptions than most here.

I made a one line brief opinion about the matter, and you pulled that out and attacked me for it.   For having an opinion.   That shows you're just desparate to prove anybody here to be wrong about any little thing.   Even an opinion.   Wow.   I didn't know we weren't allowed to have opinions!   Not when "IlikeIcke" is around!   He'll attack you for even having an opinion!

So disagreeing is considered attacking.  Sounds like I'm the only one here who can't post an opinion.   

Could have fooled me.   Attacking, anger, hostility, disdain, scorn and "hate" are all words that come to mind.  Hate being your own word, which I address further on.

Care to point out where I've shown disdain, scorn, anger and hostility, or does my disagreeing now constitute those things.  Go back and read what I was referring to when I used "hate."  As I replied to montalk, if you still don't get it, and choose to make it personal to you, I'll elaborate.

it seems you're possibly mismatched with this forum?


This type of blindness goes by the medical name of hysteria

You'd possibly be happier, less angry and hostile in a forum where everybody agrees with your beliefs, and have had the same experiences...or lack thereof.....that you've had?   Why you post here when the material fills you with "hate" is beyond me.

whos side are you on? Just for the record

From the way you speak and the way you use "logic" seems to be far more left-oriented than the subjects at hand require you to be actually interested in.

Attacking, anger, hostility, disdain, scorn and "hate" are all words that come to mind


Seeing that I've now been accused of hysteria, subjectively and objectively wrong, angry, scornful, mismatched for this forum and possessing the wrong thinking processes to participate on this forum, this will be my last post here.  Good luck, and hopefully some of you will finally realize that truth based on perceptions, feeling, intuition and beliefs is never to be trusted- that's how we got into a lot of the messes the world is in today.

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: What point are you at?

Note to the group: ILikeIcke is no longer subscribed to this forum. Hope he finds a place better suited to his temperament...

ChristineB - to make quotes, do the following:

 [quote]text[/quote]
or [quote=Barney]text[/quote] to have it include "Barney wrote:" before the quoted text.

For more formatting tricks, click on the "help" file in the menu at the top of this page.

ChristineB wrote:

To me the "problem" seems one of marketing.  You don't market baby strollers to pre-teens, or teeny bopper t-shirts to college freshman.  Unless you don't want to make a sale.

This is useful advice, to "find something that meets their current reality and go from there" as you said. But it can be tricky deciding just how much to say.

If you overestimate them, then either their eyes will glaze over or else they dismiss/harass you. If you underestimate them, then you have done them a disservice by not giving them the opportunity to hear something from which they might benefit, or from which you can benefit if they end up correcting one of your mistaken perceptions.

In the past, someone might have told me something that was over my head and I dismissed them out of hand. But it did plant a seed. If they had judged me to not be ready and withheld that idea, then that seed would never have been planted. Some related piece of evidence could have come my way later which, without that original suggestion I dismissed but kept in the back of my mind, would have no meaning and would go by unnoticed. So sometimes it's worth speaking your mind even if you get burned for it. The question is, is it always worth it? Should you always speak your mind openly?

Some might say that speaking your mind openly is a form of preaching.  But I would distinguish between speaking without discretion and speaking when asked. Preaching means forcing opportunities to impose your views upon those who have already made up their mind to ignore you - a form of freewill violation. It's like salesmen who know their product is unwanted but try tricks and intimidation to sell it anyway.  That's very different from a salesman who simply shares his full opinion on a product when an interested customer asks him for details. Both speak openly, but only the latter speaks honestly and at the appropriate time. Another way to sell a product is to simply make it available, and those interested will buy it, which is like a website which anyone is free to read or leave.

Sure, to get your point across, you have to start with what the other person can understand and find relevant, otherwise what's the point of talking if no one's listening. But the question is, how far do you take it from there? Do you stop the moment they frown, or do you keep going and let them take or leave what comes?

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

23 Reply by BlackBox

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: What point are you at?

their eyes will glaze over

That's funny! You should be on T.V. yourself monty. To say their eyes are glazed due to complete stupidity (being childishly rude here but I mean no disrespect to those on the bottom of the learning curve...uh oh, still being rude) or possible Organic Portal? Damn damn damn, "sychronicities" are what I think many of us will continue to feel enter our lives if we continue on these discussions. Which is beautiful.

Coincidences, and the reason I'm bringing this up, is that I was just talking about this exact subject today.

Some might say that speaking your mind openly is a form of preaching.

Sadly, I'm known as a preacher to my family currently due to benevolent wishes on my part. I've learned recently though that you become better at knowing which situations to speak up, speak down, or speak around to be able to steer around whatever direction a conversation is leading. The problem is with me that I meet "mary-jane" a lot, everyday due to the post-secondary system being sooo boring, and I begin to talk like a hippie yet with such complex material that "those" who are interested, which means their FRV is compatible, then it becomes like one of those awesome camp-fire story-sessions except there's only one small fire burning and it's not that big...hint hint.

Sure, to get your point across, you have to start with what the other person can understand and find relevant, otherwise what's the point of talking if no one's listening. But the question is, how far do you take it from there? Do you stop the moment they frown, or do you keep going and let them take or leave what comes?

I think we're, for the most part, on the same boat in these regards. We all seem to be "talkers" when the time comes to talk, or so I think. At least I know I am.

The thing is, to be a little serious here for a second, I believe our orientation is not designed for this society. If you want me to sound more crazy, I have a strong hunch that me, monty, and others perhaps like lyra are incarnates from the Atlantean times, but perhaps most people are. What I mean by this is that we are heavily influenced and oriented in right-brain theory. And at the same time, we must be careful to share too much as it will get to a point where the left-brain wall you're throwing rocks at will come crushing back on top of you. I'm probably overestimating what kind of things could occur to just "us" but seeing that "nobody is a nobody" and that "it is no trouble" for the powers-that-be to give attention to insignificant philosophers, scientists, scholars, etc, etc. Monty openly says he's researching certain taboo topics, hehe. Dun dun dun!

24 Reply by BlackBox

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: What point are you at?

Also, here's another thing I wanted to share and please get some feedback on. Look at my last post and look at the time it was posted: 11:11...

Now see, I really need some closure on this. In the casschat discussions we were headed to answering some of these "number" sign clues until they banned me for speaking...however, I guess I need to search for new venues to learn from.

Now, for the past year I've been noticing numbers, as if when I look at the clock or a house number or something, it is designed for me to raise an eyebrow and attain theories that signs are constantly in multiple forms as magnetic markers to whatever your mind or destiny is steering.

Like looking at my last post and seeing 11:11 is something I need to issue...hehe.

  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: What point are you at?

That's a big subject, BlackBox. So I started another topic called "Synchronicity and Number Sightings" under the "General" category. Check it out, and I hope everyone visits and contributes their thoughts and experience with synchronicities. I think synchronicities are the biggest indicators of a hyperdimensional reality, proof that linear time as we know it is illusion.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

26 Reply by murphy (edited by murphy 2004-04-08 00:26:25)

  • From: USA
  • Registered: 2004-04-05

Re: What point are you at?

IlikeIcke wrote:
Did you know that telekinesis has never been documented in a laboratory setting?

Roll back time to say, the 17th century.

Guy One tells Guy Two, "Anne van Leeuwenhoek was telling me that I'd be able to hear her even if she's far away, as long as she'd have something called a radio transmitter and I'd have a receiver".

Guy Two responds:

Did you know that radio transmitters/receivers have never been documented in a laboratory setting?

Seriously, my head was swimming trying to read all the above, though some really great stuff was posted in response to yours. I think that no matter which reality anyone believes in, people should just "let live" and try to refrain from hurting others, to the extent possible. Even if one doesn't believe in Karma.

My intent in posting the above was not sarcasm, but rather to perhaps allow you to see your post in a different light, by giving it a new "twist".

For the record, my belief is that the more complex and convoluted people become, the more negative entities have fodder to manipulate, and the less common ground there is between people intellectually as well. That's why young children can relate to each other so much better, because their "intellectual" paths haven't yet taken all the twists & turns that adults' have. I also think it might prove refereshing if some intelligent Amish people were to post on these boards.

Won't be aboard anymore due to disillusionment by teflonanity.
Warm wisdom is my preference.
Can be contacted via PM only, unless that's disabled.

27 Reply by BlackBox

  • BlackBox
  • Guest

Re: What point are you at?

For the record, my belief is that the more complex and convoluted people become, the more negative entities have fodder to manipulate, and the less common ground there is between people intellectually as well. That's why young children can relate to each other so much better, because their "intellectual" paths haven't yet taken all the twists & turns that adults' have. I also think it might prove refereshing if some intelligent Amish people were to post on these boards.

Very well-said.

However, you know that IlikeIcke is no longer registerred on the forum, so he wont be reading anything you write. tongue I enjoyed your response though! smile

  • From: USA
  • Registered: 2004-04-05

Re: What point are you at?

BlackBox wrote:

Very well-said.

However, you know that IlikeIcke is no longer registerred on the forum, so he wont be reading anything you write. tongue I enjoyed your response though! smile

Actually, I didn't know that he's not registered (typical of my bad timing). I'm not too observant, how does one know who's registered?

Anyway, thanks! wink

Won't be aboard anymore due to disillusionment by teflonanity.
Warm wisdom is my preference.
Can be contacted via PM only, unless that's disabled.
  • montalk
  • montalk
  • forum-keeper-upper
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-03-24

Re: What point are you at?

Hi Murphy,

If beneath a poster's name it says "Guest" then that means they are no longer registered with this forum. 

I also mentioned in one of my later posts in this thread that he's no longer here...poor fellow blew his top arguing his case, and after some of us recommended he find a more suitable forum, he made his last post and was gone.

Acquiring fringe knowledge is like digging for diamonds in a mine field.

montalk's Website

  • rofo
  • Member
  • Offline
  • Registered: 2004-04-03

Re: What point are you at?

Hi to everyone, this is my first posting.

Sorry for my English, I speak Spanish.

I have followed thoroughly the argumentation of this topic and I would want to express some concern regarding the tolerance to critics and the capacity of defending our point of view using arguments.

Ex user IlikeIcke presented a critycal point regarding what I think is the causality of todays world affairs as considered by this site (Montalk.net). Like him I have my doubts regarding not the effects and outcomes, specially social, psychological and political ones that can be easily checked, but the causality attributed to them.

I explain myself: I read with delight several articles of this site and found them very interesting, specially those dealing with psychological issues, i.e those dealing with  psychopaty and narcissistics traits in humans. Another article regarding the nature of time and the possibility of parallels realities and phase times is full of excelent and intriguing  speculations, most of all backed by actual theories of Quantum Field Theory and Quantum Physics. (my expertise area). Too is very interesting all the metaphysical research in topics related to our relation to the 3D reality we live in.

But, what I question is that the main flaws and mistakes in human behaviour is attributed to external manipulation; it could very well be that the case, but it could not. What if we are left alone with our mistakes and flaws and is entirely up to us to overcome our present situation? Have you considered the possibility of the hole alien stuff simply dissinformation trying to distract and divert us from acting against the real and human power structures that rule the world today?

This very idea of negative STS hyperdimensional beings controlling our beliefs, behaviour and our minds, or, like Castaneda says in “The Active Side of Infinity“?, gave us their minds, seems to be a problem entirely out of our reach with no hope at all for freeing ourselves. It reminds me all the devils of the Dark Ages, like demons, incubus and sucubus twisting human actions and possesing human minds; in the middle age human beings were completely helpless under the control of evil spirits against which people have no defense at all. We all know the real reasons behind that mithology and the service given to the power catholic elite of that times and how this ideas were useful to prevent people thinking by themselves and fighting effectively against the power structures. Could it be that nowadays we are in the same predicament?

I am not a reductionist materialist; I am sure there exists realms trascending our 3D world and, moreover, we are directly involved colectivelly, though unconsciouslly,  in the creation of the entire 3D realm. All the failures and drawbacks as individuals and as a community could be completely our fault and maybe is healthy to admit this reality and face our mistakes and fight actively against the violence and perversion of the power elites that rule the world; but is important to keep in mind that the evilness of our politics and social systems is our own evilness, our elite simply reflect ourselves.

Skepticism is a healthy component in a debate and is crucial in the development of new ideas and paradigms. And, as I have read in another site, Allowance is one of the Laws of the Universe that must be respected if we consider ourselves spiritually developed human beings.

Rodolfo Baett