05-06-2009, 06:34 AM
Surgery performed with a scalpel can kill as easily as surgery performed with a hammer. There is also use for a hammer in surgery. If you pick a scalpel over a hammer every time, you'll end up killing people.
I by now am reaching terminal confusion. We're talking about David Wilcock, The topic name happens to be David Wilcock, you made statements about David Wilcock. But we have not come to actually exploring the truth of these statements because you do not wish to back up these statements.
Instead you want to take a step back and consider if in a hypothetical situation we'd object or not object to the things you objected about initially? If this sentence sounded confusing it reflects how I feel.
Sorry but no... I am not interested in talking about a hypothetical situation while the name of a real person is on top of this thread. Because while we're not really talking about that person we're still drawing conclusions that are going to rub off on that person. And we'll secretly be talking about him anyway. Or very likely some of us will and some of us wont. It's best to talk about what we talk about. As the Americans say: "Say what you mean and mean what you say."
I have explained to you that I HAVE read his material, and have not come to your conclusions. Rereading will obviously not change my mind unless I know what I am looking for. I told you that I cannot re-read all of his material asking myself at every paragraph. Is this what Quantum meant? If it is so clear you can come with references in 10 minutes tops. Which is a fraction of the time that you have already spent on this highly ambiguous discussion.
If I hear you its easy for you to come up with evidence for your claims. You're almost surprised that I have not discovered this myself. So it won't take you long. And then we would be able to come to conclusions as opposed to all these theoretical hypothetical cloaked vague accusations. Which are about a real human being who is not here to defend himself. So come up with real accusations. Real statements of fact. Or at least references that explain to me why you believe this.
Your accusations are about David not being Scholarly enough. Yet you yourself refuse to support your statements. What do you expect me to conclude? That you're right? I would if I could. In spite of my confusion I think you're a gentleman Q... I'd be very happy to agree to disagree. But how can I make any statement about what I feel about your position if I do not know what it is? I'd really understand if you don't like his style or personality. I think his style is easy to dislike. But do not elevate this dislike (Or whatever your disagreeance is) to "Scholarly disagreeing" unless you can back up your words with evidence. Because without evidence, it is not.
I don't have to agree with you. I just want to understand you. I would much prefer it if you did not hide your motives or confuse the issues.
I by now am reaching terminal confusion. We're talking about David Wilcock, The topic name happens to be David Wilcock, you made statements about David Wilcock. But we have not come to actually exploring the truth of these statements because you do not wish to back up these statements.
Instead you want to take a step back and consider if in a hypothetical situation we'd object or not object to the things you objected about initially? If this sentence sounded confusing it reflects how I feel.
Sorry but no... I am not interested in talking about a hypothetical situation while the name of a real person is on top of this thread. Because while we're not really talking about that person we're still drawing conclusions that are going to rub off on that person. And we'll secretly be talking about him anyway. Or very likely some of us will and some of us wont. It's best to talk about what we talk about. As the Americans say: "Say what you mean and mean what you say."
I have explained to you that I HAVE read his material, and have not come to your conclusions. Rereading will obviously not change my mind unless I know what I am looking for. I told you that I cannot re-read all of his material asking myself at every paragraph. Is this what Quantum meant? If it is so clear you can come with references in 10 minutes tops. Which is a fraction of the time that you have already spent on this highly ambiguous discussion.
If I hear you its easy for you to come up with evidence for your claims. You're almost surprised that I have not discovered this myself. So it won't take you long. And then we would be able to come to conclusions as opposed to all these theoretical hypothetical cloaked vague accusations. Which are about a real human being who is not here to defend himself. So come up with real accusations. Real statements of fact. Or at least references that explain to me why you believe this.
Your accusations are about David not being Scholarly enough. Yet you yourself refuse to support your statements. What do you expect me to conclude? That you're right? I would if I could. In spite of my confusion I think you're a gentleman Q... I'd be very happy to agree to disagree. But how can I make any statement about what I feel about your position if I do not know what it is? I'd really understand if you don't like his style or personality. I think his style is easy to dislike. But do not elevate this dislike (Or whatever your disagreeance is) to "Scholarly disagreeing" unless you can back up your words with evidence. Because without evidence, it is not.
I don't have to agree with you. I just want to understand you. I would much prefer it if you did not hide your motives or confuse the issues.