Anart,
I guess what I meant to say was this writer has put together some interesting points to add to millions of other articles that also have good points and maybe bad points, even though we love information, how much can we consume?
Even though we must track what is being said online, it seems to affect us in strange ways when we begin to interpret it, starting up conversations that end up being useless in many cases.
I was intending to weigh the value of the piece by applying all the rules I could conceive for it in relation to our total journey, and this may have been too off base for some. I appreciate the fact that people do the work, find the information and provide it for us to see how people are actually thinking and may affect perceivably an outcome or possible affect creating more chaos.
These affects start with (1: wasted time), (2: confusion), and this may be the intention of the author, to help cloud our time, and increase his energy. It is also a collection of ideas combined together nicely to give the illusion of a news piece, osit. It was also posted by Henry and the last time I checked, this is referred to as school, so I was replying in that respect.
Again, I don’t think it has much value in the overall picture in helping us to awaken, but all is lessons agreed. This can go on forever if nothing is learned from them. What is the best way to learn from them? Maybe this is a good question to ask.
If we assume we must continue to read and search all of these references to this group for preventive measures only it seems, what are we doing? Will we ever be able to move beyond them?
It would be to our benefit to increase our defenses so that writers who seem to not have our best interests at heart, as implying we are creating fear which is nonsense, are not even a concern, and the credibility of the group overcomes it alone. Just don’t want us to be held back from the true potential.
There have already been many discussions about how much time is wasted from people who not only talk about the group or Laura, but come here to spout off more nonsense. It is quite educational to read the posted articles at SOTT as they are in the correct setting, but it seems the (political) connection or politeness to anyone who can paint a picture may be considered a good time consumer. Please note the word political is just a conversion from the word polite.
There is also the thought that articles for entertainment as this is presented, are included in what I refer to as mud. The people who are professionals at mud work are geniuses as they are smart enough to know how all this mud affects your mind. You can only really be good at that after about 20 years of doing it. I know of 2 alive today. I personally don’t have the time when it can be learned how to warden it off.
Now, you might immediately say that by creating a defensive mechanism for information that is being silly salad. I can accept that. It’s your decision and everyone has a right to it. My defense lays in the way it is just more mud. Here is one example of misleading readers and implying a religious and political connotation.
She has baptised these entities
Do you feel this is an appropriate dative language in describing Laura’s work? If so, then I apologize.
Hope this helps explain any confusion I may have caused in replying to Henry’s post.