Self Analysis

M

Marius

Guest
I thought it would be interesting, due to the nature of this website, for the editors to analize themselves. Specifically, In the event that there are counter-intelligence agents active in representing a half truth/ half lie -creating websites to lure people into a trap of impotence- how do people know that this isn't one of them? I heard this arguement from Laura (I believe) on a podcast.
One way for people to form an opinion about this is to see the editors render a list of all possible reasons to disbelieve them. If this list is "complete" and the refutations are legitimate, the website would gain that much more credibility.
One of my major concerns is this "Cassiopean experiment." The other is possible profit gained from a community of ignorant people from sale of books. But I am not volunteering to make the list. I ask for you guys, yourselves, to make it. I want to see how transparent you will allow yourselves to be, including personal doubts of your own ideas.
Not only do I ask for a refutation of the possibility of this website to be itself a project of CI, I also ask for possibilities of this website being a lure into vice or mind control.
I thought this was a clever way for the editors to gain trust from myself and others.

Whatever the results of this topic may be, I have gained something important from reading these pages.
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
Considering that you state that you have gained something important from these pages, I find this proposal of yours to be most unusual, if not illogical.

Quite frankly, the answer to your doubts will be easily found if you simply take the time to read the information readily available on not only this forum, but also it's associated web sites.

The proof is in the pudding - you shall know them by their fruits -- this statement -

Marius said:
One of my major concerns is this "Cassiopean experiment." The other is possible profit gained from a community of ignorant people from sale of books. But I am not volunteering to make the list. I ask for you guys, yourselves, to make it. I want to see how transparent you will allow yourselves to be, including personal doubts of your own ideas.
This statement indicates either an ignorance about the material presented, or some sort of internal struggle that is causing you to question your own understandings - either way, it is not the 'editors' responsibility to help you feel better about the truth they present.

Take the time to understand what is being presented before you propose an exercise to present results that are blatantly obvious to most of the people here.
 

domi

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Marius said:
I thought it would be interesting, due to the nature of this website, for the editors to analize themselves. Specifically, In the event that there are counter-intelligence agents active in representing a half truth/ half lie -creating websites to lure people into a trap of impotence- how do people know that this isn't one of them? I heard this arguement from Laura (I believe) on a podcast.
One way for people to form an opinion about this is to see the editors render a list of all possible reasons to disbelieve them. If this list is "complete" and the refutations are legitimate, the website would gain that much more credibility.
One of my major concerns is this "Cassiopean experiment." The other is possible profit gained from a community of ignorant people from sale of books. But I am not volunteering to make the list. I ask for you guys, yourselves, to make it. I want to see how transparent you will allow yourselves to be, including personal doubts of your own ideas.
Not only do I ask for a refutation of the possibility of this website to be itself a project of CI, I also ask for possibilities of this website being a lure into vice or mind control.
I thought this was a clever way for the editors to gain trust from myself and others.
It just seems that you worry a lot about what others (editors) do and you're asking them to do all kinds of things for you so they "may gain your trust". Aren't you asking a lot of your hosts as a guest who just walked through the door of their house (so to speak)? Stick around for a while and get to know "their fruits".
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Marius said:
One way for people to form an opinion about this is to see the editors render a list of all possible reasons to disbelieve them. If this list is "complete" and the refutations are legitimate, the website would gain that much more credibility.
There is just one simple reason to besbelieve us. The reason is: do not believe anything. Check everything, check and re-check, and even if it all seems alright, still keep doubts in your mind.

Marius said:
One of my major concerns is this "Cassiopean experiment." The other is possible profit gained from a community of ignorant people from sale of books.
We do not aim at "ignorant" people, as you probably know. We aim at intelligent people, from whom we ourselves can learn.

Marius said:
But I am not volunteering to make the list. I ask for you guys, yourselves, to make it. I want to see how transparent you will allow yourselves to be, including personal doubts of your own ideas.
We are not going to make such as a list. One reason is that, as I wrote, we aim at intelligent people. Those who do not believe, those who can think for themselves and use their intelligence to discern.

Marius said:
Not only do I ask for a refutation of the possibility of this website to be itself a project of CI, I also ask for possibilities of this website being a lure into vice or mind control.
If you think that what I wrote above is a "lure" or a CI project, then it is your right. But then YOU can be a lure or a CI project yourself! What about that :)
 

Ryan

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Marius said:
Not only do I ask for a refutation of the possibility of this website to be itself a project of CI, I also ask for possibilities of this website being a lure into vice or mind control.
Reminds me of something else I heard once...

Former White House Press Secretary said:
"I think the burden is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are."
Marius said:
I thought this was a clever way for the editors to gain trust from myself and others.
What? So you can avoid having to think for yourself and deflect your responsibility for making your own choices onto us? If you're too lazy to read the material on the website and come to your own conclusions based on thinking critically about what is presented, then it's probably better that you don't waste your time and energy on this forum, because you won't get what you want here.
 

ScioAgapeOmnis

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Marius said:
Specifically, In the event that there are counter-intelligence agents active in representing a half truth/ half lie -creating websites to lure people into a trap of impotence- how do people know that this isn't one of them?
By checking and verifying everything that the editors say for themselves. What other way is there?

Marius said:
One of my major concerns is this "Cassiopean experiment."
What concerns do you have about it?

Marius said:
The other is possible profit gained from a community of ignorant people from sale of books.
Legitimate concern since there is plenty of deceptive marketing and half-truths sold as truths in this world. But the editors here make every effort to make sure the content and importance of the books is not distorted or exaggerated in any way - no deception or subjective appeals to ignorance and wishful thinking is ever made, because manipulating people into purchasing the books just to gain profit is not the point. Of course, that's what all the liars say too. So as always, the proof of the pudding is in eating. Look for yourself.

Marius said:
Not only do I ask for a refutation of the possibility of this website to be itself a project of CI
I don't think you can refute a possibility. The possibility is always there - you can always say "what if...". But the proof of the reality of the situation, again, is in the pudding - look for yourself, the content of the website speaks for itself.

Marius said:
I also ask for possibilities of this website being a lure into vice or mind control.
But the possibilities are always there. To find out whether it is or is not, one needs to look at the website itself and decide whether there is any evidence to suggest lures and mind control operations.

Marius said:
I thought this was a clever way for the editors to gain trust from myself and others.
But they don't want your trust or anyone else's. They don't need followers or fans or believers who trust them because they provided convincing reasons to trust them. That is totally missing the whole point, which is, truth. And truth cannot be found through trusting any source, ever. You must always question everything from every source, and as Ark says, check and recheck everything yourself. And if you do that, you will see that by their fruits you shall know them, not by their words.

Marius said:
Whatever the results of this topic may be, I have gained something important from reading these pages.
But did you gain anything important from reading this thread? I think it's an extremely point to understand why, if the aim is to seek truth, trust and belief only hinder that aim.
 
P

paulnotbilly

Guest
Marius said:
I can respond in many different ways. That's about it.
Please do, you're not the first to say "j'accuse". Odds are you won't be the last.
 
Top Bottom