Free will respect in sharing info

[paralleloscope]

In the past I have had a hard time in sharing thruth only when it's asked for, in other words at some point I used every situation to get some (to me) important questions or bits of cosmic info in to conversations. This culminated before I came to this forum with high frustration of suspecting the soulsmashing choice in not choosing to pursue wake-up data, so to speak. I let it go for a while as I had no means to explain the terror of the situation in plain english. This was before I grasped the Free will principle, I came here and relaxed my unwarranted spillings as I explore the factor of self importance, untill a week ago; I came across some disinfo clips on youtube, ie. Dolores Cannon, S. Greer. I made some comments to some of the commentators mainly along the lines of densities and the negative cosmologic lineage in resonse to 'we are all one' type 'questions';

Where to draw the line in sharing thruth? is it strictly when asked personally or are we to allow the context guide our actions, let our subtle perception know when a lie is asking for truth.

How open ended does a question have to be, and how precise or how limited should ones disclosure adhere to the question. Are we only to share on home turf like here, our own blog or private situation.

I realize this is context dependant, but I would appreciate any thougths.

an example (comment #9 and #21, nick is M L R): _http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/05may/RIR-100513.php

:added #

 

[manitoban]

Where to draw the line in sharing thruth? is it strictly when asked personally or are we to allow the context guide our actions, let our subtle perception know when a lie is asking for truth.

How open ended does a question have to be, and how precise or how limited should ones disclosure adhere to the question. Are we only to share on home turf like here, our own blog or private situation.

I realize this is context dependant, but I would appreciate any thougths.

It can be quite tricky to determine when and when not to share the truth. Remember that there is good and there is evil and there is the specific situation that determines that. So I don't think general advice can be given - we have to examine each situation individually.

I think that sharing information in a general way on the internet is not interfering with people's free will as they have the choice to read it or not, it is simply being made available. However, it's always good when sharing info to simply state facts in a polite manner, being externally considerate, and so on.

fwiw, others may have other input.

 

[Peam]

I realize this is context dependant, but I would appreciate any thougths.

an example (comment #9, nick is M L R): _http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2010/05may/RIR-100513.php

Regarding theologic maturity: cosmologic negative densities would be a point to explore, and the multi tiered psyco-logic behind this (ie. read John A. Keel, RA, Cassiopaean material)

S. Greer, though well trained in sympathetic 'informed' rhetoric, is spinning sly Cointelpro ! Get Richard Dolan on, to balance this toxic binge. Please.

I must admit that I have a hard time understanding writen concepts. I have a limited vocabulary so to speak. I've noticed it's one of the things which holds me back from posting. So would you mind clarifying,

What is a cosmologic negative density?

What is sympathetic 'informed' rhetoric?

Thanks.

 

[paralleloscope]

that's me trying too hard to condense

by negative cosmologic density I basically mean STS, but for the unitiated into that term I thougth that cosmologic as word would describe order and relations in cosmology. sympathetic 'informed' rhetoric = hmm, trying to describe his sweettalking disinfo demeanor. Actually I was having a physical reaction at listening to him eel his way in the interview when it is apparent to me he is a snake. I usually don't write antagonistic comments but this guy and his apparent lies makes me angry, perhaps a reflection to me of something of my own illness, I have discovered (and am writing a swamp post on it) a ponerized shell around my being (false personality), this discovery was brewing when I wrote that and clearly cluttered my communication.

So if I should make one general rule of thumb for disclosure; be clear on what you are saying and from where you are saying it from, so it is free from reactionary tripping. It reminds me of the advice that one should be able to walk the walk before talking the talk, especially when commenting on esoteric nature. I still think the density concept should be known far and wide or atleast as far as seekers go, but should be explained with more simplicity or room then I can do it justice atm, all I can do is hint at it or link to sources like here for the best explanation.

 

[Peam]

by negative cosmologic density I basically mean STS, but for the unitiated into that term I thougth that cosmologic as word would describe order and relations in cosmology.

Well, what is an STS density? As far as I understand densities, and I could be wrong, a density is a density and there is a duality. Doesn't 4th density encompass both STS and STO, and although we currently experience a 3d STS environment on this planet, that's not to say there aren't any STO planets in this density somewhere else or even a mixture of both.

I'm not sure of what I'm trying to express here, but wouldn't someone be spreading disinfo by saying there are negative cosmologic densities?

sympathetic 'informed' rhetoric = hmm, trying to describe his sweettalking disinfo demeanor. Actually I was having a physical reaction at listening to him eel his way in the interview when it is apparent to me he is a snake. I usually don't write antagonistic comments but this guy and his apparent lies makes me angry, perhaps a reflection to me of something of my own illness, I have discovered (and am writing a swamp post on it) a ponerized shell around my being (false personality), this discovery was brewing when I wrote that and clearly cluttered my communication.

Yeah but I still don't get what you mean by 'sympathetic 'informed' rhetoric'. Could you express it in more simplistic terms?

 

[paralleloscope]

but wouldn't someone be spreading disinfo by saying there are negative cosmologic densities?

I guess you could say so. What I confused was alignment within densities. I have been under stress by not communicating feelings lately and loosing a major battle with my predator in the middle of the week. I can see what you mean it really does not make much sense, including the 'sympathetic 'informed' rhetoric' line which is just as convoluted nonsense. I'm sorry but the most simplistic explanation is really that I was fast asleep while writing, maybe one could say that I was talking in my sleep of my own rhetoric, the sympathetic part could be paralelled to an unadmitted aggression glossed over by fancy words and nice boy image control. This makes the most sense rigth now as this is what I have been trying to get at in the swamp post I have been trying to post for a month or two. I hope this makes more sense. Thanks for showing me.