|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 16, 2015 18:20:39 GMT -5
Sorry man but paranoid conspiracy theories are great comedy. Just the way it is. Tell that to our fire fighter friend. I already explained to you: to him I'd offer compassion and open listening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 18:29:51 GMT -5
you're hopeless, is all I can come up with for now  So that would be a 'no' then. So far, satchitananda, wren, Envy Adams, Reefs and enigma have all been unable or unwilling to discuss their disparaging comments about me when i asked and offered an opportunity to explain the reasoning behind such judgements. In light of you stating you are incapable of offering anything other that disparaging comments here, it seems reasonable to me to assume neither would\could you if i asked. But assumptions\speculations are not always correct, so i will ask. Please explain how you reached your judgement i am hopeless. I'm not sure exactly, its either dry humor, or wry humor, but the differences are kinda subtle, so maybe its a DWAD |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 16, 2015 18:47:43 GMT -5
youse guys are still debating the 9-11 incident? serial? this 'challenge everything that moves' mentality is a little weird.. and paranoid.. and overthink-ering extraordinare Debate: 1. To consider something; deliberate. 2. To engage in argument by discussing opposing points. Doesn't look like any debating going on in this thread. Andrew and i are discussing, open mindedly, while you and Envy Adams are closed minded to anything alternative to your established beliefs on the matter, and the main, perhaps only motive for participating is to repeatedly laugh at, insult, ridicule, taunt, scorn, sneer, scoff, deride, flout, make fun of others who do not share your beliefs. I think Envy Adams has honestly expressed himself when he said this... What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy....and from observation of his posts in other threads, seems to be his main reason for being in this forum...attack anything or one that he does not like or agree with. Do you also have anything other than disparaging comments to add to this discussion? Your conclusions about building 7 don't seem to be very open-minded and if you want an example of why I think you're a troll this post is a great example. You take an offhand light-hearted flippant comment about "debate", and quote the dictionary definition to spark a debate about debate. You have zero sense of humor when it comes to yourself. And you're also consistently inaccurate. What specific beliefs have I expressed about 9/11 in this thread, other than my opinions about the conspiracy theories themselves? There have been a few, but can you even discern what they are? Seems to me that you can't discern the absence of a belief from a belief. Just because I don't choose to take on your beliefs doesn't mean that I have a similar set of fixed opinions on the underlying questions. It seems to me that the genuine absence of opinion is a state that escapes you altogether. You, on the other hand have expressed dozens of opinions in this thread alone, and you've also expressed your conviction in them quite clearly, to the extent that any honest debate would obviously be a waste of time. This is another reason that you are a troll: you project your worst qualities out onto others. |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jul 16, 2015 21:28:32 GMT -5
Andrew: In what manner will "the truth of it all" come out? I notice in myself thoughts like these but on further investigation they are more like wishful thinking. The truth will come out and we shall have "conclusion", "closure", "set things right!", etc etc. It's a compelling thought, but what exactly does it point to? Where is this truth that will come out? From where will it come? Who shall hear it? "Truth" is a construct and we're not lacking in those. We can have an idea about an impartial observer in which the truth is "seen", but in actuality there is no such observer. So I'm curious how you imagine that something (the truth) will come out. The way I see is that 'Truth' and 'Love' go hand in hand, and although they are abstract constructs, they do manifest themselves physically. Specifically, they manifest as truthfulness, openness, transparency, honesty. In 'Truth' and 'Love', nothing is secret, there are no hidden agenda's, there are no manipulators and puppeteers. I believe a wave of 'Truth' and 'Love' is engulfing the planet and this is playing itself out in many ways, in all walks of life, and in all institutions. Folks are fed up with lies, manipulation and deceit, they want the truth, they want honesty, they want openness, and I would say the world IS changing in a big way, and fast. The alternative media is huge these days, there is a very healthy mistrust of the government, and slowly but surely a path is being paved to introduce us to the idea of life outside of this planet. I believe that this disclosure will also change things in a big way, as whole new understandings about who we are, why we are here, and where we come from, will spread across the planet. Suppressed technologies will come to the surface. New 'politicians' will come to the forefront, and these people will understand spiritual truths and their politics will reflect that. Though there MAY be some level of chaos that goes with that obviously, as old institutions and ways of functioning are torn down. Can you elaborate on the bolded part? I resonate with what you're saying. I guess I'm a little sceptical, though, if this new openness and love means that "the truth of it all" will come out, as in being told "what really happened and who's to blame". That's how I interpreted your first post. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 17, 2015 4:00:52 GMT -5
Please explain how you reached your judgement i am hopeless. I'm not sure exactly, its either dry humor, or wry humor, but the differences are kinda subtle, so maybe its a DWAD What do you judge about me as hopeless? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 4:07:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure exactly, its either dry humor, or wry humor, but the differences are kinda subtle, so maybe its a DWAD What do you judge about me as hopeless? I already said it was funny, so stop trolling me |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jul 17, 2015 9:48:52 GMT -5
It occured to me that if they really wanted to find out about Paul McCartney, checking his voice before and after should reveal some things, no? How would they find a look-a-like and a voice that's a 100% accurate? Sure, the voice changes but there would have to be some considerable change when listening to dead Paul and new Paul.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 17, 2015 15:58:17 GMT -5
What do you judge about me as hopeless? I already said it was funny, so stop trolling me Well that examination\exploration didn't take long. You're just like the others i mentioned...only having the capacity to insult, and feeling good about yourselves when doing so, but feeling very uncomfortable when calmly and politely confronted, lacking the capacity to stand your ground and rationally explain yourselves, resulting in either ending the conversation or offering more insults. My original question was not asking you if you thought calling me hopeless was funny or not. I asked, "Please explain how you reached your judgement i am hopeless." It was already quite evident you find it funny to think me hopeless. I was and still am asking how you reached your conclusion i am hopeless, what elements of my being do you see and have reasoned i am hopeless? I have no interest at this time in knowing how you feel during your mental process of classifying me as hopeless. This is all academic of course because you have already expressed you do not have anything to offer other than disparaging comments. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 17, 2015 16:26:38 GMT -5
I already said it was funny, so stop trolling me Well that examination\exploration didn't take long. You're just like the others i mentioned...only having the capacity to insult, and feeling good about yourselves when doing so, but feeling very uncomfortable when calmly and politely confronted, lacking the capacity to stand your ground and rationally explain yourselves, resulting in either ending the conversation or offering more insults. My original question was not asking you if thought calling me hopeless was funny or not. I asked, "Please explain how you reached your judgement i am hopeless." It was already quite evident you find it funny to think me hopeless. I was and still am asking how you reached your conclusion i am hopeless, what elements of my being do you see and have reasoned i am hopeless? I have no interest at this time in knowing how you feel during your mental process of classifying me as hopeless. This is all academic of course because you have already expressed you do not have anything to offer other than disparaging comments. "hopeless" was a joke that refers to this endless cycle that you're in. It was in response to this, which was overtly hostile and condescending, and in reply to something that wasn't even directed to you personally. So now you characterize your "please explain how you reached your judgement" as "calm" and "polite" but it was anything but, if, for no other reason that it was prefaced by this: In light of you stating you are incapable of offering anything other that disparaging comments here You took yet another light joke and took it literally. Literally speaking, your conclusion is incorrect: popee might very well be capable of adding to the discussion if he were interested in it. What you wrote was rude and obviously very insulting and you know what? -- in terms of your correspondence with members you don't like/oppose, it's a very apt description of what you write. Your image of yourself is completely out of whack with your content. It's as if Bill Gates were to claim he wasn't greedy or Charlie Manson were to think of himself as kind and gentle. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 16:52:45 GMT -5
: popee might very well be capable of adding to the discussion if he were interested in it. wasn't very hungry to begin with  |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 17, 2015 17:54:59 GMT -5
It occured to me that if they really wanted to find out about Paul McCartney, checking his voice before and after should reveal some things, no? How would they find a look-a-like and a voice that's a 100% accurate? Sure, the voice changes but there would have to be some considerable change when listening to dead Paul and new Paul. You would have to find undoctored recordings of Paul's voice and compare it to undoctored young Faul's voice. Comparing voices from albums could not be used due to possible modifications during recording sessions. It has been suggested that the issue can be instantly cleared up if current Paul"Faul" did a DNA test, but then one has to have DNA from pre 1966 Paul. I don't know if that's possible, if there is any pre 1966 Paul DNA anywheres. Look and sound alikes do not have to be 100% accurate. The majority of people are not operating at a high level of observation. There is no need to when life is all going reasonably well. It's another reason why people find it difficult to accept conspiracies, as they assume they were wide awake, thus already have the truth or know the facts of events, have seen clearly all there is to see. So when someone who has been alert and discovers and shares the discrepancies, some simply are unable to accept them as valid due to being locked into their current beliefs\knowledge. Been spending a little time researching this conspiracy. This page has several more clearer photos showing the differences in the two Pauls. And concerning the importance of doing one's own research instead of accepting as fact, the research of others, be it a small amount or highly detailed. This vid clearly shows George calling current Paul, Faul. Meaning George knows current Paul is fake and refuses to call him Paul, instead, calling him Faul, which is the accepted term to use for the fake Paul. Case closed. Here's a former Beatle, calling another former Beatle a fake, not the real Paul. Surely George was there, fully in all the experiences that the conspiracies refer to, thus he would know if Paul died and who this current Paul is. But then you go to the full tv interview footage posted by someone else... And throughout this one, and part one, George always calls Paul, Paul, not Faul. The first vid was doctored, though very difficult to detect with minimal examination. This does not mean genuine Paul is alive. It just means everyone has the capacity to lie or make mistakes, and it pays to be discerning and do your own research as to what is a mistake, a fear or emotionally influenced lie to cover up truth, a false flag intentional lie to divert one away from truth, a false flag conspiracy that is intentionally full of holes in order to discredit the real ones. Regarding who benefits from this minor lie being perpetrated against the public, during my research i read about how The Beatles were either a world wide phenomena or on the verge of becoming one at the time of the alleged death of Paul, so even though on the 'harm to humanity' scale, this lie is very minor, there are huge financial gains to be made by numerous people, and one person mentioned the social impact on the impressionable youth of the 60's if the band were to abruptly end, that supposedly the british government were concerned many youth would suicide or become unproductive citizens upon hearing of Paul's death. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jul 17, 2015 18:54:13 GMT -5
Man I must be way too deep in the consensus trance perpetuated by the lizard people as I can't find enough oomph to care about fake beatles...
I used to read New Dawn and the other conspiracy magazine, but never felt like it went anywhere and that there was some weird insular dark dynamic with the whole thing - forever telling people the intricacies of how they were being lied to and manipulated and forever offering solutions of how to be free (EMF protectors, colodial silver etc).
I think they were more interested in the exciting drama of the whole thing rather than actually being free.
|
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 17, 2015 18:57:51 GMT -5
Well that examination\exploration didn't take long. You're just like the others i mentioned...only having the capacity to insult, and feeling good about yourselves when doing so, but feeling very uncomfortable when calmly and politely confronted, lacking the capacity to stand your ground and rationally explain yourselves, resulting in either ending the conversation or offering more insults. My original question was not asking you if thought calling me hopeless was funny or not. I asked, "Please explain how you reached your judgement i am hopeless." It was already quite evident you find it funny to think me hopeless. I was and still am asking how you reached your conclusion i am hopeless, what elements of my being do you see and have reasoned i am hopeless? I have no interest at this time in knowing how you feel during your mental process of classifying me as hopeless. This is all academic of course because you have already expressed you do not have anything to offer other than disparaging comments. "hopeless" was a joke that refers to this endless cycle that you're in. It was in response to this, which was overtly hostile and condescending, and in reply to something that wasn't even directed to you personally. So now you characterize your "please explain how you reached your judgement" as "calm" and "polite" but it was anything but, if, for no other reason that it was prefaced by this: In light of you stating you are incapable of offering anything other that disparaging comments here You took yet another light joke and took it literally. Literally speaking, your conclusion is incorrect: popee might very well be capable of adding to the discussion if he were interested in it. What you wrote was rude and obviously very insulting and you know what? -- in terms of your correspondence with members you don't like/oppose, it's a very apt description of what you write. Your image of yourself is completely out of whack with your content. It's as if Bill Gates were to claim he wasn't greedy or Charlie Manson were to think of himself as kind and gentle. Like i said, when calmly and politely confronted, those i mentioned feel uncomfortable, feeling threatened, attacked, even a simple question is perceived as one. I forgot to mention in the list of responses of ending a conversation or offering more insults, many of you gush forth with really badly constructed arguments, in order to divert attention away from the current issue of discussing yourselves while making a case to show you are the actual victims in the exchanges. Dood, if popee(or anyone else of similar characteristics) does not have the capacity to stand up for himself, you do not have to intercede on his behalf...though you do seem to get so disturbed that you have to say something. Nor does it bother me how you interpret reality. I clearly see popee said disparaging things about me, so i confronted him calmly and politely. Nor do i accept people's excuse that their insults were not actually insults because they were just having fun and were joking around. As for the rest of your post, i had chosen a long time ago to not waste my time sorting issues out with someone who argues with immature arguments like, 'You weren't there, so you wouldn't know.' Your venting only adds weight to my speculations, and for future reference, if i am asking a person about something about themselves, this is not a signal that i want your input, though it seems some trigger went off in you. If popee has nothing further to discuss about his disparaging comments to\about me and andrew, then my convo with him is over. But please, and with genuine sincerity, Envy Adams and popee, this in no way means i am trying to influence you two and others like you, from ceasing expression of your usual self righteous, condescending, disrespectful, insultive thoughts about things and people you do not like or agree with. Most of you seem to really enjoy being this way, and appear to perceive you are not doing anything wrong that would require adjustment of your behavior for the well being of others, even when they either request it or clearly express they do not appreciate your current mode of interaction. Me, i think the more you express what's really in your hearts and minds is helpful for others to make informed decisions on whether they should engage in conversation with you, whether they see any worthwhile benefit to the topic of discussion. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2015 20:32:33 GMT -5
Best wishes Jay. Apologies for my poorly worded comment.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 17, 2015 21:11:59 GMT -5
: popee might very well be capable of adding to the discussion if he were interested in it. wasn't very hungry to begin with Jimmygoats double bind was obviously misconceived, as there's nothing really all that substantive about conspiracy theories and if you hadn't created the thread noone would have had any interests in pursuing the topics in the MT anyway. |
|
