Are the C's really Lizards?

[genero81]

Lastrevolution, why so angry? Perhaps all your spelling errors that made some of the points you were trying to make unclear, were the result of haste? It seems that if the activities on this forum are so upsetting to you, that you could not visit here. Simple enough.

 

[irjO]

So this already discredits the statement Laura has made:
"I'm actually rather amused at being called a lizard on my own forum."
What this means is that Laura has already subconsciously identified herself with the C's (because the C's say they is her in the future), but she is not, she is in a human body. But because she believes this, any attack or critical questioning on the C's is viewed as an attack on herself.

wait a minute!. if YOU in the future are communicating with YOU in the past.. don't you still been the same soul/conscience or entity? i mean the same YOU just in different realm or density but just with more knowledge? if you can see it that way then you are having problems to understand simple concepts..

Secondly, I definately can relate to the rest of the OP's post. People here are puppets to knowledge, slaves to knowledge, just as the New Agers are puppets and slaves to wishful thinking by the name of love and light. Nowhere do I find truth (=not synomous with knowledge). Knowledge binds you, truth does not, it sets you free. You all appear to be amazingly scared of loosing your knowledge, because you have an unquestioned belief that your spirituality is dependant on your knowledge. No, the only measure of spirituality is capacity/ability of speaking Truth, which is the voice of the Universe. Truth is supposed to raise your "vibration". If it does not, it is either not truth, or you are simply not listening.

What? don't you see that the more knowledge you gain, the more you will see the truth in things.. bucause when you get knowledge you KNOW more and when you know more you also see more the REALITY.. so yeah "the only measure of spirituality is capacity/ability of speaking the truth" and how do we do that? knowing more... another simple concept!

Take also this message by Ra of the Law of One material:
11.12 Questioner: Where are these three entities now?

Ra: I am Ra. These entities are in the dimension known to you as fourth. Therefore the space/time continua are not compatible. An approximation of the space/time locus of each would net no actual understanding. Each chose a fourth-density planet which was dedicated to the pursuit of the understanding of the Law of One through service to self, one in what you know as the Orion group, one in what you know as Cassiopeia, one in what you know as Southern Cross; however, these loci are not satisfactory. We do not have vocabulary for the geometric calculations necessary for transfer of this understanding to you.

they are talking about the fourth density not sixth density.. and every realm has STS and STO from the first to the fourth density.. remember that all realms have different densities but they are hardly connected to each other in one way or another... do you see jupiter with people and cities? maybe in the fourth density exist something like that totally different of what we see in 3D

Sorry Laura, your esoteric books and the Wave series are ultimately unimportant. If they do not raise the reader's vibration, they may aswell be thrown in the cosmic garbage can. I especially despise places where people measure eachother spirituality. This is absolutely laughable in my eyes, and everyone who does this is so far in denial of the true nature of spirituality. It's supposed to remove boundaries, not take one away, and replacing them with a more sophisticated one. Not the biggest fan of the spiritual ego here.

do you even understand what is the meaning of "raise your vibration" could you explain me how do we do that according to you understanding? and if so you think that about laura's marerial and work what are you doing in this forum anyways?..

STO beings don't serve light, they are light, they create light. Likewise, STS beings also don't serve darkness, they are it, and they create it by absorbing light into them. It is said that the ultimate manifestation of STO is a star (radiation of light), whereas the ultimate manifestation of STS is a black hole (absorbtion of light). And if sixth-density beings are indeed trying to merge polarities, then they are not a good source of information. I suggest instead that if you want to follow the STO path, you listen to 4-5D STO beings. If you want to follow the STS path, you listen to 4-5D STS beings.

what is light for you? and Where do you got that the ultimate manifestation of STS is a black hole? weren't the C's the same ones who said that? the ones you claim are STS? hmm i see a little contradiction in your statement ..

 

[Peam]

Hi lastrevolution, I'm not sure a 'thank you' is in order because I don't think it was your intention, but from just your first two posts, I think I now understand a bit better, as Laura suggested, what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is.

Also, I agree with Perceval about all your many spelling mistakes, which in context also, I'm sorry to say, kind of points towards the above effect.

Maybe, if you're willing, you too can learn from this. I wish you well.

 

[Mal7]

I didn't see too many spelling errors in Lastrevolution's post. There is quite a bad one, "lineair", repeated several times, and quite a few missing spaces. And a few others:

"definately"
"dependant" instead of "dependent"
"loosing" for "losing"

But not too bad overall imo for a quite long post probably written in quite a hurry.

 

[history]

I didn't see too many spelling errors in Lastrevolution's post. There is quite a bad one, "lineair", repeated several times, and quite a few missing spaces. And a few others:

"definately"
"dependant" instead of "dependent"
"loosing" for "losing"

But not too bad overall imo for a quite long post probably written in quite a hurry.

Are the mistakes possibly mistakes due to Lastrevolution not speaking English as a first language?

 

[Alana]

I didn't see too many spelling errors in Lastrevolution's post. There is quite a bad one, "lineair", repeated several times, and quite a few missing spaces. And a few others:

"definately"
"dependant" instead of "dependent"
"loosing" for "losing"

But not too bad overall imo for a quite long post probably written in quite a hurry.

Are the mistakes possibly mistakes due to Lastrevolution not speaking English as a first language?

Spelling mistakes aside, Lastrevolution's perception mistakes are still a puzzle to me. Many people whose first language is not English (myself included) read the material and from their communications, one can tell that they understood what they read. What do I read in LV's post? A lot of assumptions and unsubstantial claims.

Take my word folks, the game is almost up. 3D Earth is ready to be replaced by two independent 4D STO and 4D STS Earths. Energetic vortices are acting as portals, you can already visit if you like (if your vibration is high you can't fall into a negative vortex, only in a positive one, and vice versa). Failing to choose energetically will transfer you another 3D planet, where you'll have to wait for the end of their Grand Cycle.

Thanks, but no.

 

[Don Genaro]

I didn't see too many spelling errors in Lastrevolution's post. There is quite a bad one, "lineair", repeated several times, and quite a few missing spaces. And a few others:

"definately"
"dependant" instead of "dependent"
"loosing" for "losing"

But not too bad overall imo for a quite long post probably written in quite a hurry.

Well, apart from the spelling errors there's the abuse of the comma repeatedly where it seems that lastrevolution doesn't seem to know when to end a sentence and begin another. Sometimes he/she/it uses commas where a period or a semicolon should be used. Indeed it's probable that the post was written in a hurry because lastrevolution gives the impression of someone who's writing emotionally and whose rational processes need a bit of work.
So yes, apart from the spelling, there is the style (and there are more mistakes there if you read it again), there is also the abovementioned Dunning-Kruger Effect where it's probably not worth even trying to point out lastrevolution's errors of grammar and thinking because he/she/it is probably not capable of realizing how dumb he/she/it really is. Also, and maybe as a result of that, lastrevolution struck me as condescending and rude but that's just me and I'm probably totally wrong here since I'm "blinded by knowledge" :D

 

[Mal7]

On the whole, I did not find lastrevolution's use of commas vs. periods too bad either.

This sentence was pretty bad, and could have been expressed more clearly:

"And if lineair time is an illusion, then separation is an illusion (because without separation, then everyone is you and vice versa, then the C's are you), for separation is based on space, which only exists again because of lineair time."

There are many other sentences that could have been made into two. Considered as a rapidly composed first draft, it is I think intelligible.

I would agree the post was "condescending and rude". I suspect lastrevolution may be so caught up in the idea that "I am right and you are all wrong" that they may not even have realised how condescending and rude it was. I can understand why others would not feel inclined to exert themselves in replying point-by-point to a poster who may have already made up their mind and be quite inflexible in their thinking. Especially perhaps after having dealt with uninformed criticisms or troll-like behaviour over and over again in the past. Still, if people do respond, I think it should be done fairly and rationally, rather than making an emotional response to an emotional posting.

As a side-note on the original thread topic "Are the C's really lizards?": I think it is possible for someone to think the C's might be lizards, without thinking that Laura is a lizard. The C's said: "We are you in the future", but someone could hypothesize that the C's were actually lizards telling lies when they said this, from which it would not follow that Laura was necessarily a lizard. "Are the C's really lizards?" could be considered a reasonable question for someone confronting the material for the first time and performing due diligence on the accuracy of channeled information and channeled sources.

Also, and maybe as a result of that, lastrevolution struck me as condescending and rude but that's just me and I'm probably totally wrong here since I'm "blinded by knowledge" :D

Was that a reference to lastrevolution's post? Their term was "knowledge binds", as opposed to "truth" setting you free. :)

In defending lastrevolution's spelling and grammar, I hope I am not also taken to be defending their beliefs and positions, as far they can be made out, or the general "rude and condescending" tone of their post.

 

[genero81]

Fact #1 It was lastrevolutions first posts. Fact #2 The posts had attacking tones to them. The rest that I will say is my opinion; spelling and grammer issues aside, they made little sense and lacked substance. Lastrevolution lacked humility and a sincere desire to network. It was rude not only to Laura, but also to all sincere forum members. I can see no reason to defend him/her in anyway based on the interaction so far.

 

[John G]

The main thing is the Cs' inspiration fits well with things you can research via sources that have nothing to do with modern channeling. The comet science, comparative mythology, theoxeny, diet, breathing/meditation, 4th Way, information theory/physics, psychology, etc. information here is better than I've come across anywhere. If you are going to attack the Cs' inspiration, you need to say where it is wrong with respect to researchable things. An esoteric rough draft isn't helpful. It seemed too rough in tone too!

 

[irjO]

]

Spelling mistakes aside, Lastrevolution's perception mistakes are still a puzzle to me. Many people whose first language is not English (myself included) read the material and from their communications, one can tell that they understood what they read. What do I read in LV's post? A lot of assumptions and unsubstantial claims.

Exactly!

 

[Laura]

What astonishes me again and again are two things about human behavior:

1) The fact that people think it is okay to come onto a forum and write rudely. You wouldn't do that if you walked into someone's home, would you?

2) In respect of the second part of number 1, the fact that so many people are obviously socially retarded, have never had any training within their families about how to "win friends and influence people" in terms of acceptable social behavior.

Either people are not taught good manners as they grow up, or manners/decent social behavior are becoming a thing of the past. That's not too difficult to understand in a world run by pathological elements that have risen to the top, and who set the example that others follow, but it bodes ill for humanity as a whole.

Long experience has demonstrated to us that it is usually not worth the time and effort to engage with someone who is so anxious to "set us straight" that they sign up for an account just to enter the room blasting from both barrels. My suggestion for such is: if you think you have the answers to give all humanity, go write your own texts, create your own website, and set about helping humanity according to your own lights.

But that's not what they do; not only do they not have the capacity to create, they seek only to destroy what others have created. That, more than anything else, reveals their "choice."

 

[Eva]

There are many other sentences that could have been made into two. Considered as a rapidly composed first draft, it is I think intelligible.

I would agree the post was "condescending and rude". I suspect lastrevolution may be so caught up in the idea that "I am right and you are all wrong" that they may not even have realised how condescending and rude it was. I can understand why others would not feel inclined to exert themselves in replying point-by-point to a poster who may have already made up their mind and be quite inflexible in their thinking. Especially perhaps after having dealt with uninformed criticisms or troll-like behaviour over and over again in the past. Still, if people do respond, I think it should be done fairly and rationally, rather than making an emotional response to an emotional posting.

As a side-note on the original thread topic "Are the C's really lizards?": I think it is possible for someone to think the C's might be lizards, without thinking that Laura is a lizard. The C's said: "We are you in the future", but someone could hypothesize that the C's were actually lizards telling lies when they said this, from which it would not follow that Laura was necessarily a lizard. "Are the C's really lizards?" could be considered a reasonable question for someone confronting the material for the first time and performing due diligence on the accuracy of channeled information and channeled sources.
[...]
In defending lastrevolution's spelling and grammar, I hope I am not also taken to be defending their beliefs and positions, as far they can be made out, or the general "rude and condescending" tone of their post.

I may be wrong but it seems that you are indeed defending something other than just the spelling and grammar mistakes, while at the same time saying the replies were "emotional". On the contrary I found the replies calm, rational and respectfully polite.
I'm not necessarily implying you are defending LR's views and positions here, but I can't help wondering if a be-nice program was activated.

 

[Tristan]

As far as I can see the LRV's posts are written in a disrespectful manner, attacking Laura's work and lacking external considering to all forum members. Nevertheless, as always everything could be useful to us to gain knowledge and sort out doubts
Obviously, this person suffers from illusory superiority because if anything we learned here is that to discern, one must have a great battle against tampering, disinfo, lies in any form that will be tested through networking.

 

[Mal7]

I may be wrong but it seems that you are indeed defending something other than just the spelling and grammar mistakes, while at the same time saying the replies were "emotional". On the contrary I found the replies calm, rational and respectfully polite.
I'm not necessarily implying you are defending LR's views and positions here, but I can't help wondering if a be-nice program was activated.

I will try to be brief. I agree LR's first post was rude, and already had enough in it to justify removing their posting privileges (which is not my decision though, of course). I agree the forum is for networking between individuals with a common purpose, not a public open soap-box for anyone to say anything they like, or a light to attract moths with completely antithetical viewpoints. I am not defending, or interested in engaging with, the semantic content of what LR had to say. It seemed to me their spelling errors though were relatively few (or just moderately few if grammar and style are included loosely under spelling). One reply pointed out the spelling errors, and two other replies agreed the spelling errors were a problem. Now you may agree with those posters that the spelling and grammar errors were excessive. I thought they were not too excessive, and hence that dismissing LR's post on those grounds seemed off-target.

However, in regards to a be-nice program, I am not primarily concerned with whether the delicate feelings of a troll, or of someone who is just plain rude, are offended, but rather with how it reflects on the tone of the forum itself, i.e. on the one hand as a place where trolls are fairly and rationally and swiftly dispatched back under the bridge, or on the other hand as a place where trolls are confronted with a bevy of comments such as "you can't even spell", "that's right, you can't spell", "you can't even punctuate properly". [I am exaggerating the tone of the replies here, I agree the actual replies were calmer and more polite.]

I haven't been as brief as I wanted to be. Did you think LR's spelling was particularly bad? If it is generally accepted that their spelling was unacceptably bad, then I accept my argument has no foundation and apologize.