PDA

View Full Version : Brainwashing



NEIL HADDON
07-05-2005, 01:25 AM
hi! all,
well, dragon, you seem to be standing your corner quite well on your own, but i
suppose a little support wouldn't go amiss?

i have noticed over recent months that many regular and valuable contributors
seem to have stopped posting to the forum; i have found myself losing interest,
and i think it's because just lately we seem to be sawing sawdust: same old
subject, same old points, laboured to death.

this is perhaps the most important and well run forum on the net ( although
subject groups would help - but we've laboured that one before) yet just lately,
i read the subject heading - again! - sigh! - and delete the message: not
interested, don't have time, heard it all before.

the discussion moves from a valuable contribution to a point-scoring exercise,
which i don't see as loo at all.
we've just had wimbledon tennis championships over here, and it's inspiring to
see venus williams and sharapova exercising their determination on the tennis
court - but not why i subscribe to this forum.

the ping-pong exercise becomes even more questionable when speculation is
introduced, because no-one can authenticate or deny it anyway: no harm in
mentioning a possibility, but remember that is what it is - a possibility. much
of david's work is revolutionary to established science, but it is backed up
with reference to sound experiment and testing.

quantum scientists can talk of parallel universes till the cows come home - last
count we had twenty-two, didn't we? - but they cannot prove diddleysquat. so
until they can, i don't ignore the possibility, but i keep it in its proper
place - the 'maybe file'. and that's where a lot of 'channelled material'
belongs for now. thereafter i keep an open mind and revise my assessment as more
evidence comes in.

last night we had a tv programme about 'deep impact' - the nasa probe into
tempel 1 comet: in the first few minutes of introduction, the anchor man (boy,
actually) told us that a comet is a dirty snowball, that it was formed umpty-ump
million years ago, that it contained some of this and some of that which was how
life was seeded on earth .......made me wonder why nasa spent the dollars, just
ask him!

so, speculation about what 5d and on is about - i noted that the discussion
often leap-frogged 4d - is ...speculation. we have a few points of guidance from
ra, and the consistency of the loo material leads some of us to give ra
credibility, but beyond that - and a few points from q'uo - none of us know -
unless there's another ra out there who hasn't introduced himself to the forum
yet.

higher inspiration or insight was introduced into the discussion, and i'm sure
we all know the value of that to each one of us personally. however, beyond the
personal value of our insight, when we broadcast it to others - with the
exception perhaps of soul mates - the question of credibility needs must raise
its head: with the very best will in the world, was this inspiration coloured by
personal imagination, wishful thinking, or similar - or even influences more
sinister?

of course i'm not suggesting malicious or pernicious intent - the influence may
have been entirely sub-conscious - but it is a fair, and wise question for a
third person to raise. ultimately, we come back to ra and q'uo's advice that if
this does not resonate with you, please discard it and move on.

my post, then, is a plea: having made a point, offered a contribution, expressed
an opinion, introduced a relevant and reasonable 'maybe' - can we move on?
please?

i'll second the dragon's motion that we concentrate on living this life, that's
what we're here for isn't it? there'll be time (now there's an interesting
point, will there?......) to reflect after this incarnation on what might have
been, and speculate on what may be to come.

meantime,
love.
neil.



[non-text portions of this message have been removed]

lealdragon
07-05-2005, 07:42 AM
thanks neil! all very well said! i too had noticed that people who
used to contribute haven't been around as much lately...


--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=857emawrsk6mfmrcg5tt4vilh5uheelkkevif0 fctp60g9jiqrq-gy78ksskrn6vfsj-nx0o58b_eyq), "neil haddon" <wayshower@g...> wrote:
>
>... i have noticed over recent months that many regular and valuable
contributors seem to have stopped posting to the forum; i have found
myself losing interest, and i think it's because just lately we seem
to be sawing sawdust: same old subject, same old points, laboured to
death.
>

Malai
07-05-2005, 06:49 PM
--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=bkjxlcqa-spz6tr63c43jsvgviiquqkgkroijnnkurdudoxrfql5gr7zth6 rrsokdajmqhagq-yp9j8), "neil haddon" <wayshower@g...> wrote:

>
> i'll second the dragon's motion that we concentrate on living this
life, that's what we're here for isn't it? there'll be time (now
there's an interesting point, will there?......) to reflect after
this incarnation on what might have been, and speculate on what may
be to come.
>

hi neil

in case you haven't noticed, everything we all do and say in this
life is living it.
you may arbitarily define where you won't go and what you think is
not "living this life", but that is just you.

if you think you are witnessing a "point scoring" exercise, then
that surely is within you to see it as such. i would only see it as
discussion/debate, which is the purpose of getting together on this
forum.

if the subject of parallel universes/worlds comes up, is it not
within the scope of general discussion, after all, it is still part
of "life".

there is lots of information "out there". some of it is similar in
part to that of ra. surely there is a core truth that is evident and
this is a given, it is just the differences that can be discussed,
as none of us has the whole truth, as yet. to "throw the baby out
with the bathwater" by limiting one's discussion to one's own
understanding, is to risk missing more of the expanding truth.

i am sure we all feel good that opinions can be expressed here, as
you have done, but remember, they are just that, opinions. any
personal degree of credibility you may assign to an idea you may
hold, is strictly yours, as what you deem as credible, others may
not. again, your opinion is appreciated, but you should allow the
same courtesy to others, who's opinion/understanding, does not align
with yours. surely an sto action.

cheers

malai5

lealdragon
07-05-2005, 07:42 PM
i don't want to speak for everyone else on this forum, but it is in
the forum guidelines that this is a forum based on the law of one
books and the work of david wilcock. we have covered many, many
controversial topics here, and many opinions and much speculation. i
doubt that anyone has any problem with that - we are an open-minded
group!

however, we do share one common denominator, and that is the
loo/wilcock material. i would venture to say that it is probably not
certain topics that are 'off-limits', but rather when those topics
seem to have no relationship to the foundation of the forum.

in other words, discussion of other dimensions, or whatever, is fine
when it can relate back to the loo/wilcock material in some way. i
definitely agree that none of us has the 'whole truth'.

i'd like to clarify that i was not suggesting that certain topics
be 'off limits'. nor was i suggesting that only topics that i
personally happen to be interested in be allowed.

rather, i was just suggesting that when dealing with topics such as
other dimensions and what 'level' someone is supposedly at, we use
consideration in our choice of words and attitude.

just my 'opinion'! =)

*blessings*


>
> there is lots of information "out there". some of it is similar in
> part to that of ra. surely there is a core truth that is evident and
> this is a given, it is just the differences that can be discussed,
> as none of us has the whole truth, as yet. to "throw the baby out
> with the bathwater" by limiting one's discussion to one's own
> understanding, is to risk missing more of the expanding truth.
>
> i am sure we all feel good that opinions can be expressed here, as
> you have done, but remember, they are just that, opinions.

Malai
07-05-2005, 07:53 PM
lealdragon, i thought i was speaking my truth of self, on the
subject. i will not, however gag my own truth of self for the sake
of someone else's idea of what is "politically correct" speak.
my attitude, is just forthright. i just say it as i see it. it's
just me, nothing personal.

for what it is worth, i do not come from the "new age" "pink bubble
club" of everything is "light and love", that to me is the very
opposite of the search for personal truth.

cheers

malai

--- in asc2k@yahoogroups.com (/group/asc2k/post?postid=9kcr1-gycxmpcmjhzpkgneeorfdtap5klmjunhq2adu8fpekdrabq2ci k4rhedk1_wlnwe-eumkmxku), "lealdragon" <lealdragon@g...> wrote:
> i don't want to speak for everyone else on this forum, but it is
in
> the forum guidelines that this is a forum based on the law of one
> books and the work of david wilcock. we have covered many, many
> controversial topics here, and many opinions and much speculation.
i
> doubt that anyone has any problem with that - we are an open-
minded
> group!
>
> however, we do share one common denominator, and that is the
> loo/wilcock material. i would venture to say that it is probably
not
> certain topics that are 'off-limits', but rather when those topics
> seem to have no relationship to the foundation of the forum.
>
> in other words, discussion of other dimensions, or whatever, is
fine
> when it can relate back to the loo/wilcock material in some way. i
> definitely agree that none of us has the 'whole truth'.
>
> i'd like to clarify that i was not suggesting that certain topics
> be 'off limits'. nor was i suggesting that only topics that i
> personally happen to be interested in be allowed.
>
> rather, i was just suggesting that when dealing with topics such
as
> other dimensions and what 'level' someone is supposedly at, we use
> consideration in our choice of words and attitude.
>
> just my 'opinion'! =)
>
> *blessings*
>
>
> >
> > there is lots of information "out there". some of it is similar
in
> > part to that of ra. surely there is a core truth that is evident
and
> > this is a given, it is just the differences that can be
discussed,
> > as none of us has the whole truth, as yet. to "throw the baby
out
> > with the bathwater" by limiting one's discussion to one's own
> > understanding, is to risk missing more of the expanding truth.
> >
> > i am sure we all feel good that opinions can be expressed here,
as
> > you have done, but remember, they are just that, opinions.