Clif High- halfpasthuman.com

[rawtruth]

Anart,

You have an interesting way of avoiding answers to direct questions.

I take it that you have not read Clif's latest report. My post was in reference to that report and that report only. However, you choose to respond to me by talking about "Clif's information, across the board," which I did NOT address or comment on.

BTW I have read Wave Book 1 and plan to start Book 2 shortly.

It may to surprise you to know that I DO understand Charlie's question. Your response to it, however, was made nearly 7 weeks later, which is why I didn't make the connection at first. I thought you were responding to Charlie's recent post.

I am not having any trouble "following the conversation here and understanding points being made."

And your reason for making such a disparaging remark is?

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Hi rawtruth, you asked:

Anart, I am not following you here. Did crazycharlie pose a question to Clif? It seemed to me he was just commenting on a few things from Clif's latest report.

And Anart answered to clarify your confusion. Yes, crazycharlie did pose a question to Clif, who adamantly denied reading channeling material despite his more recent reports having some information that seems strangely similar to what the C's have been telling us over the years. The idea that Israel will make a "big mistake" is also in line with that trend. You seem to have missed crazycharlie's question to Clif, and Anart was not specifically responding to a 7-week old entry, as far as I could see, she was responding to the latest entry by crazycharlie, and in her response she referenced data that we learned from the 7-week old entry, because this data is relevant to the latest discussion. So it does seem that you really weren't following the conversation, and I do not see why pointing that out is "disparaging", since it appears to be true. It's not "accusatory" or "insulting", it's just an observation, which I tend to agree with.

My post was in reference to that report and that report only. However, you choose to respond to me by talking about "Clif's information, across the board," which I did NOT address or comment on.

Well "across the board" is what this discussion has been about, you are the one choosing to focus on just the latest report, which seems to be the source of your confusion and apparent frustration with Anart's responses. In my view, whether the latest report matches up with the C's doesn't really matter since the fact that Clif's info has been similar to the C's in a more general sense is true regardless of the info in the latest report - however, if the info about Israel's "mistake" is from the latest report, then there you have one example already. I hope that helps clarify.

 

[anart]

My post was in reference to that report and that report only. However, you choose to respond to me by talking about "Clif's information, across the board," which I did NOT address or comment on.

Rawtruth, you seemed to have entirely missed the point that I was addressing Charlie, not you. You didn't understand my comment to Charlie, because you either have not been following the thread or you forgot his previous post. I was not responding to something from 7 weeks ago, I was responding to Charlie's post yesterday.

You appear to be so identified with Clif, that you took my comment to Charlie as some sort of attack on Clif, which it wasn't, it was merely an observation. Why you think your role here is to 'defend' Clif, I'm not sure but it's a waste of energy.

After your rather confrontational question to me about what I said to Charlie (not to you), you then state that Clif has never mentioned the Nephalim, as if the Nephalim is all the C's have ever referred to - which makes no sense. If you will just read the entire Wave series, all of this will make more sense to you, which is why I suggested it.

If, however, you intend to continue to be confrontational, then I request that you re-read the forum guidelines.

 

[rawtruth]

You appear to be so identified with Clif, that you took my comment to Charlie as some sort of attack on Clif, which it wasn't, it was merely an observation. Why you think your role here is to 'defend' Clif, I'm not sure but it's a waste of energy.

After your rather confrontational question to me about what I said to Charlie (not to you), you then state that Clif has never mentioned the Nephalim, as if the Nephalim is all the C's have ever referred to - which makes no sense. If you will just read the entire Wave series, all of this will make more sense to you, which is why I suggested it.

If, however, you intend to continue to be confrontational, then I request that you re-read the forum guidelines.

Anart,

This is beyond silly.

I asked for clarification because I didn't see a question in Charlie's recent post, which I assumed you were responding to. What is there about my request for clarification that you consider "confrontational?" I simply stated I was not following your response. I did NOT assume you were "attacking Clif." I simply had forgotten about Charlie's question from 7 weeks ago. Understood? Is it a sin to forget something on this forum?

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "defending Clif." I do not see "my role" here as "defending Clif." Another disparaging remark IMO.

If you're going to accuse me of something, please cite an example where I have done this. Otherwise, such a remark can be considered nothing other than "confrontational."

In fact, Clif's latest report offers much insight into how his view of his own work is changing and would be interesting fodder for discussion on this forum. But you, Anart, will not even respond to my direct question on whether or not you have read this report. So how can we have a meaningful conversation about it?

In my post I said that I didn't see much in Clif's May 25th report (other than "Israeli mistake", thank you, SAO, for correcting me on that) which correlates with predictions made by the C's, of which I gave 2 examples.

You then took issue with this statement and accused me of "selective perception" apparently because you are aware of general correlations in other information Clif has released. And this accusation is not "confrontational?"

Am I a good mirror for you today, Anart?

 

[anart]

Am I a good mirror for you today, Anart?

No, it's not really possible for someone to be a 'good mirror' when they're so angry, rawtruth. Perhaps refraining from posting until you calm down a bit will help.

 

[RyanX]

What is there about my request for clarification that you consider "confrontational?" I simply stated I was not following your response. I did NOT assume you were "attacking Clif." I simply had forgotten about Charlie's question from 7 weeks ago. Understood? Is it a sin to forget something on this forum?

rawtruth,

You sound really upset and because of this it might be hard to see that what you just wrote above is confrontational. Like Anart said, it might be helpful to refrain from posting and cool off for a bit. Your predator is running away with you here.

 

[rawtruth]

No, it's not really possible for someone to be a 'good mirror' when they're so angry, rawtruth. Perhaps refraining from posting until you calm down a bit will help.

Hmmm....I am actually quite calm, Anart. Another disparaging remark from you? They are getting to be rather routine. Is there some reason you're not telling me about why you find my presence here so threatening to you?

And you do not consider the possibility that your accusations to me may be "confrontational?" Curious, indeed.

Is correcting inaccurate perceptions considered "anger" here?

Is any deviation from the "groupthink" often exhibited on this forum considered "anger?"

I had thought this was a place where independent thought was valued.

I had thought this was a place where one could raise questions and discuss issues with courtesy and respect.

Perhaps I have been mistaken.

 

[Beau]

No, it's not really possible for someone to be a 'good mirror' when they're so angry, rawtruth. Perhaps refraining from posting until you calm down a bit will help.

Hmmm....I am actually quite calm, Anart. Another disparaging remark from you? They are getting to be rather routine. Is there some reason you're not telling me about why you find my presence here so threatening to you?

Not disparaging at all. Her comments are the result of her interactions with you. Have you stopped to consider how you are being perceived?

And you do not consider the possibility that your accusations to me may be "confrontational?" Curious, indeed.

I am fairly certain anart has considered all possibilities.

Is correcting inaccurate perceptions considered "anger" here?

No, not at all.

Is any deviation from the "groupthink" often exhibited on this forum considered "anger?"

No, not at all.

I had thought this was a place where independent thought was valued.

It is, and will continue to be.

I had thought this was a place where one could raise questions and discuss issues with courtesy and respect.

It is, and will continue to be.

 

[Joe]

Since I'm something of a newbie to the C material, perhaps there are some forecasts I've not run across yet.

Since your are something of a newbie to the C material AND to this forum rawtruth, if I were you I would think it prudent to step back and take a deep breath, the tone of some of the recent posts notwithstanding. Of course, I'm not you, so it's really up to you to decide how you proceed. Just trying to offer a little advice here.

 

[un chien anadolu]

rawtruth, you are saying that you are a newbie to the C material.

[quote author=rawtruth]
Since I'm something of a newbie to the C material, perhaps there are some forecasts I've not run across yet.
[/quote]

And you are talking about "groupthink" which should be the thoughts about the correlation between C material and Clif's predictions (in this thread). If this is a case how come your lack of knowledge about the first part of this equation (C material) constitutes a deviation from the "groupthink" (in your terms) or independent thought ?

 

[Laura]

Rawtruth, let me just step in here and say a couple of things.

You note in your post above that this forum is different (by implication). Well, that is for a reason. The mods on this forum have been repeatedly required to deal with some unbelievably crazy people (as you will discover when you read some of the threads where they show up since we leave them intact instead of deleting them). Once in awhile something comes across a certain way that triggers the defense mechanisms, so I'm sure that you will understand and forgive that - especially if you are able to benefit from the cleaner atmosphere that we maintain here.

It's easy to be decent to somebody if they are decent to you, but a little harder if you feel you have been wronged. That's when you see what a person is really made of.

 

[anart]

They are getting to be rather routine. Is there some reason you're not telling me about why you find my presence here so threatening to you?

I am not at all threatened by you, or your presence here, rawtruth. I apologize that the way I have expressed myself gave you that impression.

 

[shijing]

Hi rawtruth --

...Clif's latest report offers much insight into how his view of his own work is changing and would be interesting fodder for discussion on this forum.

In my post I said that I didn't see much in Clif's May 25th report (other than "Israeli mistake", thank you, SAO, for correcting me on that) which correlates with predictions made by the C's, of which I gave 2 examples.

I think it would be interesting to discuss the contents of the report, with a view toward comparing and contrasting it with info from the C's as well as just looking at the information in general. Would you be willing to do a short paraphrase/summary of the main points, in a way that would be concise and easy to understand for members who don't have their own copies? I continue to be concerned about what is going on with Clif for reasons mentioned both on this thread and others, but there could be some potential benefit from an objective discussion of the report itself.

 

[Spur]

Shiing, that seems a reasonable request. Perhaps I could be of some assistance.

Cliff has already given 5 possible scenarios based upon his interpretations of the data sets. Number 5 is a 'non of the above', so we will discount that scenario at this time (even though it is likely the most probable).

A question could be formulated, "The latest data analysis from Cliff High gave 5 possible scenarios based upon various interpretations of the data. Of the first 4 scenarios, which scenario has the highest incidence of being true?"

Say the reply is number 3.

You can then go to scenario number 3 and take the first sentence, read it out and ask if this is true.

If the answer is no, then a follow up question could be "of the other three scenarios between 1 and 4, which one of the scenarios has the better interpretation of the data relating to the first sentence of scenario number 4?"

From that point on you can continue to discect the various scenarios.

 

[Leo40]

imho these 5 scenarios are in Cliff's words projections "of the monkey mind", i.e. strictly 3D projections
without consideration of the larger picture involving 4D activities and intents.