Are the C's really Lizards?

Mal7 said:
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 completely opposed to the forum's purpose and common tenets, 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 bad, then I accept my argument has no foundation and apologize.

I think you're missing the point that the spelling errors, combined with the tone of the post, show a lack of sincerity and external consideration. If a person can't question themselves enough to even do a simple spell-check (most browsers underline them these days anyway), and charges in here posting with emotional energy like a bull in a china shop, is it worth engaging them in discussion?

What does it say about a person's spiritual growth that they still haven't learned that, when their emotions are so totally driving their thoughts, it is best to sit back, breathe, and carefully analyse their post bit by bit? It shows a use of System 1, rather than System 2, and therefore an inability to think, as Perceval put it.
 
Mal7 said:
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.

lastrevolutions spelling mistakes ain't really the issue Mal7. Everyone including me sometimes makes them and it's no big deal.

But in this case it reminds me of something similar to Robert Burns poem “To a louse On Seeing One On A Lady's Bonnet, At Church”
 
genero81 said:
I can see no reason to defend him/her in anyway based on the interaction so far.

I think even the worst of tyrants may have some qualities or attributes worth defending. Perhaps their fashion sense (e.g. Gaddafi, if he really was a tyrant), or their musical abilities (e.g. Nero's ability to play the fiddle [if Nero really was a tyrant]), or an uncanny ability to sound like they have mastered the arts of rhetoric as far as would be learned by a very good high school debating team (e.g. Tony Blair.)
 
Some thoughts regarding the spelling mistakes in LR's post, peoples comments on them and mal7's doubts about such comments -

It seemed to me that the way in which LR wrote here was off in several ways:
  • The factual content was not very strong.
  • The emotional style was heading towards angry (cf. "-flicking-"). Yet with no evident cause for such affect.
  • As an initial approach to the forum the post came across to me as quite rude because confrontational.
  • There was a series of spelling and grammar mistakes.

I don't know if I am right but I get the impression that the moderators use indicators of this sort to try to assess the intent of a new poster, especially if they don't really seem to get how to interact on this forum. If you look at various past posts of this rude and combative type they can usually be critiqued from any of these angles, so picking on the spelling and commas is as useful as addressing the errors of fact. Indeed such an approach has two advantages. Firstly it avoids getting into an argument with someone who only wants to start an argument and does not wish to learn anything. Secondly it flags to other forum members the type of dynamic that is being discerned in the thread.

Mal7, if you look at the way Anart in particular has responded many times to posts similar to LR's you might be interested to see how accurately she (sorry, `she' is a semi-guess) responds to nuances of style, vocabulary and presentation. She(? - sorry again) does not take any prisoners.

BTW. The spelling mistakes were very similar to ones I make all the time. I am English and also slightly dyslexic but I can still use a spelling checker.
As far as commas go, my old English teacher used to say (despairingly) "When in doubt leave them out!"
 
It's not the first time nor will it be the last that such kind of post is made on the forum.

Who in its right mind would say such things ?
Do I go over other forums where I don't agree with what's being said and try to prove them wrong ?
Do I insult & act rudely to people I haven't met or talked to ?
No.

Despite trying to present him/herself as well informed and coherent, it just shows a very childish behavior underneath.

I don't know but It's so obvious to me now, after years on the forum, that this person isn't looking for discussion at the moment.
Anybody can have doubts about the materials or the way things are presented here but there is a definite taste to these posts that are quite unpalatable to me ;)
 
I don't know but It's so obvious to me now, after years on the forum, that this person isn't looking for discussion at the moment.
Anybody can have doubts about the materials or the way things are presented here but there is a definite taste to these posts that are quite unpalatable to me ;)
[/quote]


How can someone question or dissent here sincerely with successful results?

I ask with all sincerity.

:D
 
Mal7 said:
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.

I agree with your points in general, but I think that the entire thread context needs to be considered. Of course spelling and grammar errors are small potatoes and many very intelligent people can't spell or punctuate worth a hoot. I think the place where that comes from is our tendency to have to rely on written communications here PLUS the fact that we have made a rather long study of detecting whackos (that's a precise, scientific term!) by the way they write. The point was the rather frenzied nature of it that was revealed by the errors and such frenzies often are signs of certain whacko categories. Whackos may or may not be seriously disturbed, at the very least they suffer from Dunning-Kruger Effect, one of the signs of which can be spelling and grammar errors.

So, all taken in context, that's what was being conveyed, not a specific attack on spelling/punctuation/grammar, but the noticing of that sign.
 
history said:
How can someone question or dissent here sincerely with successful results?
I ask with all sincerity.

Given that usually most topics on this forum are backed up by hard data I think it comes down to if you're able to take a step back and ask yourself if you really do know what you're talking about.

I guess you need to make room for the painfull experience of realizing that you're not so smart after all and that you actually need the input of others to see the reality as objectively as possible.

That's how I see it though.
 
I probably would have spelled whacko as whackoe. Like toe, tomatoe, or potatoe. :D


history said:
I don't know but It's so obvious to me now, after years on the forum, that this person isn't looking for discussion at the moment.
Anybody can have doubts about the materials or the way things are presented here but there is a definite taste to these posts that are quite unpalatable to me ;)


How can someone question or dissent here sincerely with successful results?

I ask with all sincerity.

:D

If one has researched a topic and come to a conclusion, has questions, or merely is curious as to what others think, do speak up. Don't just say something because one thinks so because other people have said so. Do some research and present the results, along with supporting detail for group examination & open discussion. This may be a good start. Think of presenting a scientific paper perhaps, maybe a business proposal, presenting a potential conclusion based upon data points all while being involved in a mature discussion. As a professional would, not as an emotional child stomping feet on a playground, nor should they have the attitude to proselyte hellfire.

And most importantly (methinks), have an open mind. Have a discussion. Do not get on a soapbox and start preaching subjective opinions.
Anyway: Who is "right"? What is "truth"? Our subjective/emotional perceptions of whatever may be what needs to be looked at.

and btw, I inserted a [ quote ] heading tag to break out Tigersoap's quote.
 
I'm aware of my grammatical errors, but I do not find these any measure of spiritual growth or polarity. I used to be among the top in spelling class back in the days (I am Dutch, not English, which a couple of posters correctly remarked), but if the spelling is good enough so others can understand the meaning of your words, what else purpose does spelling have, outside elitism? If anything, I wish the world would have moved towards one language by now as to reduce misunderstanding, caused by such language barriers. It is amusing how the old world is in panic of the new "rude", "impolite" slang of "disgraceful" SMS and internet communication, which I actually find to be a good thing, as soon the new generation will all speak the same language, leaving less room for misunderstanding and elitism (the people who speak the world's primary language natively have always had an advantage).

In fact, as you should have realised by now, the means of 4D communication and up is telepathy. How is this possible if not by the removal of language? How do you think higher-density aliens can communicate with us in English? They can't, they don't know nor use English, they establish a vibrational link to your brain ("channel"/"tunnel"). Hence it appears to you that they know English but they don't. You are just talking to yourself. One part of you is under control of the channeled entity, the other part of you remains under control of you. The moment you are channeling you are that entity, but the moment you stop you are them no longer.

It is recognized everywhere that 3D density is the only density where the veil of forgetfullness/separation applies. How is this possible? Language. Remove language and you become telepathic. No other (non-3D) beings in the entire universe create dull, boring words with their mouths (instead, I imagine they create music). Sure, dogs bark, but that's incredibly limited:

19.15 Questioner: I would assume that an entity can continue— can start, say, in second density with service totally to self and continue right on through and just stay on what we would call the path of service to self and never ever be pulled over. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. The second-density concept of serving self includes the serving of those associated with tribe or pack. This is not seen in second density as separation of self and other-self. All is seen as self since in some forms of second-density entities, if the tribe or pack becomes weakened, so does the entity within the tribe or pack.

The new or initial third-density entity has this innocent, shall we say, bias or distortion towards viewing those in the family, the society, as you would call, perhaps, country, as self. Thus though a distortion not helpful for progress in third density, it is without polarity.

Do you see? There is no true STS nor STO before 3/4th density. In 1st, 2nd and the beginning of 3rd density, these polarities are mixed (one Big road). After mid 3rd, the Big road starts splitting up (beginning of the "choice"). A person who does not wish to choose between the high road and the low road, remains stuck in mid 3rd. This is the case with buddhists for example. Buddhists want balance, they want to sit on the fence, they want to remain harmless, not only to STO, but also STS. This is why the negative authorities leave them alone (no threat to their plans), but also why they will never achieve their desired Nirvana (=7th density state). Buddhists think they can go directly from 3rd to 7th density (roads coming back together at mid 6th density so a new Big road, a new 1st density can begin), which is pure 3rd density delusion caused by the veil of forgetfullness. If they do not get rid of that mindset soon they will have to wait for the ending of the next Grand Cycle.

That aside, yes, perhaps you are right, perhaps my spiritual growth is indeed very low. But what does that have to do with polarity? I see no evidence of there being any link with spiritual maturity and spiritual polarity, do you? Perhaps this is just another trap, another trap of separation? Did this thought never occur to any of you? Or perhaps it was too uncomfortable for you to consider, because it downplays the "work" you've been doing, and thus not necessarily putting you miles ahead of those pesky organic portals?
By that logic one may aswell throw any freshly incarnated soul out of the window, as given their young incarnated age, they will not be mature, civilized, polite, enlightened, grammatically punctual enough to make it to the 4th density shore. Where is the logic, where is the reason?

And yes, I am emotional, for as far as I'm aware, emotion must come before reason. It is the hidden phoenix within you. This is the nature of the positive path (imho, if that makes you more comfortable). Physical balance (reptilian brain) -> emotional balance (limbic system) -> mental balance (neocortex) -> spiritual balance (pineal gland). I am learning not to think before I am emotionally balanced/fulfilled. If I have an emotional problem/imbalance, I try to refrain from thought, until I have it sorted out. Likewise, I will no longer go into spiritual matters until I have my mind sorted out. Anger is also not as bad as you have been led to believe, it could lead to courage, courage for speaking out for example. Courage is a high vibration, if it is based on love for others.

The negative path I am finding out everyday more and more, is clearly one of control. Not only of others, but also of yourself. There is no balance within you, so you must control your lower bodies. "If you want to be spiritual, you must control your mind, you must control your emotions, you must control your instincts." I can imagine the rapists and drunkards of old, are now the politician, the priest, the CEO, ... Overtime, you automatically start imposing this control unto others. If one does loose control once in a while, it is of a highly primitive and distorted kind. I'd imagine TPTB do this purposely once in a while in organized rituals.

What I'm saying is that no STS thinks of himself as STS. It is not any less or more about spirituality then STO, so I find it weird that you think of spiritual growth as exclusively STO. They are just heading into opposite directions. So, it does not bother me whatsoever if you think of me of spiritually immature, ignorant, retarded, (nor does it bother me what diagnosis self-appointed guru Laura labels me with)..., for if that is how you greet a newcomer, then I care little for your labels. "You do it my way, or take the highway!" Here it is: "You read the entire Wave series, or refrain from posting!" The highway is fun you know. The only reason of my posts is because there are always some in the canyon who secretly wish to get out, but don't know where to start. I have no problem throwing some ropes.

Didn't Alan Watts tell you not to be scared of the outsider?
 
Mal7 said:
But not too bad overall imo for a quite long post probably written in quite a hurry.

If that's the case, that's another problem: hurriedly writing a posting while attempting to deconstruct the decades-long work of many people is not a good idea. Also, including the claim, in your first post, that everyone on this forum "kisses her butt" is not the way to win friends and influence people. Quite apart from that, it's a spurious and massively ignorant statement to make.
 
lastrevolution said:
The only reason of my posts is because there are always some in the canyon who secretly wish to get out, but don't know where to start. I have no problem throwing some ropes.

No, the reasons for your posts are:
1. You have a ego the size of a Hippo on steroids.
2. You don't understand the concept of a topic specific forum.
 
lastrevolution said:
The only reason of my posts is because there are always some in the canyon who secretly wish to get out, but don't know where to start. I have no problem throwing some ropes.

Hmmm... are you under the insane delusion that anybody has any difficulty clicking the X at the upper right corner of the screen in the event that there is anything about this forum that they do not like?

Well, there is actually a scientific study about such thoughts; it's called "The Third Person Effect"

David McRaney writes:

The Misconception: You believe your opinions and decisions are based on experience and facts, while those who disagree with you are falling for the lies and propaganda of sources you don't trust.

The Truth: Everyone believes the people they disagree with are gullible, and everyone thinks they are far less susceptible to persuasion than they truly are.

Richard M. Perloff in 1993 and Bryant Paul in 2000 reviewed all the studies since researcher W. Phillips Davison first coined the term "third person effect" in 1983. Davison noticed some people saw certain messages in the media as a call to action, not because of what was being said, but because of who might hear it. He pointed to the third person effect as the source of outrage from religious leaders over "heretical propaganda" and the ire of political rulers over some speech out of a "fear of dissent." Furthermore, Davison saw such censorship as arising out of a belief that some messages might harm "more impressionable minds." Perloff and Paul found that the third person effect is magnified when you already have a negative opinion of the source, or if you personally think the message is about something you aren't interested in. In all, their meta-analysis showed the majority of people believe they aren't like the majority of people.

You don't want to believe you can be persuaded, and one way of maintaining this belief is to assume that all the persuasion flying through the air must be landing on other targets. Otherwise, how could it be successful? ...

When you watch your preferred news channel or read your favorite newspaper or blog, you tend to believe you are an independent thinker. ...On the other side of the television, networks and producers design programming based on statistics and ratings, on demographic analysis that cuts through the third person effect so you can keep on believing you aren't the kind of person who watches the shows you watch. You tend to think that you are not like the people who live in your town, got to your school, work at your business, and so on. You are unique. You dance to the beat of a different drummer. You fail to realize just by living in your town, attending your school, and working at your job, you ARE the kind of person who would do those things. You you weren't, you would be doing something else. ...

The third person effect is a version of the self-serving bias. You excuse your failures and see yourself as more successful, more intelligent and more skilled than you are. Research into the self-serving bias shows subjects tend to rate themselves as more skilled than their coworkers, better drivers than the average person, more attractive ... {etc} It follows, then, that most people would believe that they were less gullible than the majority. ...

{Also related to the Dunning-Kruger Effect}

When the Third Person Effect leads you to condone censorship, take a step back and imagine the sort of messages people on the other side might think are brainwashing you, and then ask yourself if those messages should be censored too.

In other words, this is just a milder version of what Lobaczewski described as the schizoid psychopath, the one that believes only a strong and powerful authority can be right and people are so weak they can't think on their own and need to obey such an authority. Plus, when it reaches the pathological level, such individuals really believe that they, and they alone, know the answers and everyone should conform to their version of reality.

That is to say, you suffer from that which you project onto others.
 
history said:
How can someone question or dissent here sincerely with successful results?

I ask with all sincerity.

:D

Success in that area would depend on the strength of your argument and how much sense it made to most people here. But it also depends on what you mean by "successfully dissent".

People here tend to forget that facts, if they are REAL facts, cannot be disputed by anyone, and no sane person would want to. Some of what we discuss here however is not based in proven fact, but is rather a theory based on some facts and some speculation based on other facts or "data". When you're dealing with theories, there is a lot of personal perspective and awareness involved, which makes the particular view point pretty personal, even if it is shared by a group of members here.

So the idea that someone could come to this forum and "successfully dissent" in terms of getting everyone here to agree with their perspective which is, by definition, not entirely fact-based and based on their subjective interpretation of data and their own personal experiences and beliefs, well, that's not really realistic. Many people tend to get to the point where they believe that their subjective beliefs are actually objective fact.

Weird.
 
Back
Top Bottom