04-28-2009, 05:20 AM
Quite a post Quantum... I've read all of it. In spite of the fact that I have the attention span of, well an internet user.
You've added together a lot of questions about the man. And you have some points. The man has his quirks we all do. I could just respond and word for word answer any point you posted. But considering the size of your post and the uncertainty I often experienced about where you were trying to go with your statements this is going to take a very long time and likely ends up with me barking up several random trees.
Could you pick your own strongest arguments and summarize your post please?
From my perspective at this time it seems you dislike the guy and have added a whole lot of reasons that together form some kind of negative halo around the guy. I'm not sure exactly what your intent is, at one point you attack his person, at another you attack his theories, and yet at another point you attack his sources which are at one point too elusive (secret information). And at other points you consider him only recompiling existing information out there. Yet you also repeatedly state good things about him.
Considering the topic of our discussion I would suspect you to primarily aim at his academic value. Yet if I ask myself to point at the arguments you use to discredit him in that area I only find the Law of One (LOO, sounds too British for me) notions where David states that in spite of the quarantine and free will we're being visited by aliens. Which is true, but David didn't invent the stories about visiting aliens. He just reports on them. What is he to do ignore the stuff from the real word for something Ra said decades ago? Who is to say the agenda has not changed? Who is to say that these incursions do not remain below the accepted level of infiltration? Also David referred to the quarantine as a reason why the Blossom Goodchild prophecy about mass landing at the end of last year could not be true.
So not only is he not denying the Law of One in this regard, he's actually using it to strengthen the point you're saying he's breaking.
I'll give you that he's a character. Rockstar, movie producer, public speaker. Full of himself and his material. From a distance this comes with all the ego and self promotion associated with such a role.
However, just because he sounds arrogant doesn't mean he's unreliable. Just because he is incredibly certain of his material does not mean he's unreliable. Just because he's controversial and not as friendly to Carla as we'd all like doesn't mean he's unreliable.
Let me rephrase the most important request in my message. "Please put forward one or more concrete points that you're willing to clarify and defend in an open discussion."
I could just cherry pick random points to respond to from your message. But I'd rather have a real conversation instead of the strawman argument I'd make of it.
You've added together a lot of questions about the man. And you have some points. The man has his quirks we all do. I could just respond and word for word answer any point you posted. But considering the size of your post and the uncertainty I often experienced about where you were trying to go with your statements this is going to take a very long time and likely ends up with me barking up several random trees.
Could you pick your own strongest arguments and summarize your post please?
From my perspective at this time it seems you dislike the guy and have added a whole lot of reasons that together form some kind of negative halo around the guy. I'm not sure exactly what your intent is, at one point you attack his person, at another you attack his theories, and yet at another point you attack his sources which are at one point too elusive (secret information). And at other points you consider him only recompiling existing information out there. Yet you also repeatedly state good things about him.
Considering the topic of our discussion I would suspect you to primarily aim at his academic value. Yet if I ask myself to point at the arguments you use to discredit him in that area I only find the Law of One (LOO, sounds too British for me) notions where David states that in spite of the quarantine and free will we're being visited by aliens. Which is true, but David didn't invent the stories about visiting aliens. He just reports on them. What is he to do ignore the stuff from the real word for something Ra said decades ago? Who is to say the agenda has not changed? Who is to say that these incursions do not remain below the accepted level of infiltration? Also David referred to the quarantine as a reason why the Blossom Goodchild prophecy about mass landing at the end of last year could not be true.
So not only is he not denying the Law of One in this regard, he's actually using it to strengthen the point you're saying he's breaking.
I'll give you that he's a character. Rockstar, movie producer, public speaker. Full of himself and his material. From a distance this comes with all the ego and self promotion associated with such a role.
However, just because he sounds arrogant doesn't mean he's unreliable. Just because he is incredibly certain of his material does not mean he's unreliable. Just because he's controversial and not as friendly to Carla as we'd all like doesn't mean he's unreliable.
Let me rephrase the most important request in my message. "Please put forward one or more concrete points that you're willing to clarify and defend in an open discussion."
I could just cherry pick random points to respond to from your message. But I'd rather have a real conversation instead of the strawman argument I'd make of it.