Sammy's Smorgasbord

[Chester]

I tried to think of how I could create a "topically unrestricted" thread and thus the title of this thread.

Make sure not to interpret the previous statement to imply that the moderation of this forum is inflexible when veering off topic in most threads. In fact, my experience here is that there's a great deal of flexibility allowed in all sorts of threads along these lines. Still, I felt that if I created a "topic-less thread" with my name in the title, that would clear the way for what hopefully will follow.

And so having said all the above, I would have to be ready to have this thread totally derailed from any mini-topic trend that may erupt on it and so all I ask is that if this is so done, that its not done for the purpose of shutting down the conversation of the moment... whatever micro-topic might be currently under discussion.

[Aragorn]

I tried to think of how I could create a "topically unrestricted" thread and thus the title of this thread.

Make sure not to interpret the previous statement to imply that the moderation of this forum is inflexible when veering off topic in most threads. In fact, my experience here is that there's a great deal of flexibility allowed in all sorts of threads along these lines. Still, I felt that if I created a "topic-less thread" with my name in the title, that would clear the way for what hopefully will follow.

And so having said all the above, I would have to be ready to have this thread totally derailed from any mini-topic trend that may erupt on it and so all I ask is that if this is so done, that its not done for the purpose of shutting down the conversation of the moment... whatever micro-topic might be currently under discussion.

This seems like a very good candidate for the Topical Musings category, and given that you yourself don't have a thread in there yet, I'll move it there.

[Chester]

Thank you, Aragorn... ok here we go - (based on my discovery of this thread) -

ohhhh and before I do (as some around the forum world already know to some extent), I am funded by dead people. It is just enough funding that at age 61 I am essentially retired. Would I do "work" for money? It would all and only depend on the work as the last project I was involved with was immersed in an industry that is inherently parasitical ("soul sucking") and I simply had enough. I made a decision on or about May 1, 2019 from the "one life / material realm" level of my total being - a decision I made with my (theoretically derived and hoped for) "soul" in mind - that I would not involve myself any further in this particular lifetime (and hopefully, if there be more, any other lifetime) - whether paid or not - in anything which I did not believe with all my heart was "good for" others.

So before I comment (take the bait hook line and sinker), I wanted to make sure that the following statement was made and clear and hopefully believed. I am not paid by anyone to say (write) anything. I am not involved with any group whereby that involvement may push me to make statements it could be perceived by the reader were... pushed for me to make.

Hopefully this is clear and additionally, hopefully believed.

OK so...

I wish to make a comment as to what I have discovered of late to be a "go to" tactic of so many "out there" that somehow achieve some level of attention from the public (and this can include anything from Youtube to MSNBC or the Washington Examiner or farcebook (as examples) or a blog posted on the internet – a blog somehow discovered or recommended by another or mini-micro-forum celebrities (I might be one haha) that frequent (from time to time even with a break here or there) one of a zillion forums like this, etc.... and that is -

I so often find out that what "an individual" accuses another (or others) of doing, they are actually involved in doing themselves and usually far more insidiously. It is a clever tactic. And it appears to me that there is something terribly unfortunate about this tactic. The average human reacts by defending themselves. Once that happens, others who may not necessarily be consciously involved in a conspiratorial way but who happen to gravitate (and most specifically, emotionally and at times quite consciously) to what they sense is "shared agendas and goals," quickly jump on the attack bandwagon which results in a cyber-gang up on the target that had the courage to defend themselves – a target that the original finger pointer often intentionally attacked and who may actually have financial interest in attacking. They may actually be paid to do so! WoW! How ironic when an attacker accuses someone of being paid to say what they say or write what they write when they are being paid to do so themselves? But really folks... how would we know? Well, sometimes we do. "The truth always finds its way out, even years and years and years later. The truth always prevails." Tyler Hamilton (see here).

In fact, at the heart of my decision to walk away from these forums when I did (about 1.5 years ago) had everything to do with being threatened by a forum community member in this very way, though I am all but certain they were on no one’s payroll in this case. I might add that if it were not for having the additional, convenient excuse I needed to put all my focus in a work project, I might not have had the strength and discipline to pull away from the desire to defend myself. But the matter wasn’t (and still isn’t) that simple. There was one other factor - in fact, the convincing factor.

This other factor that prevented me from taking on the threat in a public way. And I now see it as the most insidious factor of all... that being the pact that forms between two people when they become friends and at some point in the friendship, one or the other (and perhaps both) reveal something about themselves or, reveal an experience they had whereby they wish for the experience to remain private information. In this case, my defense would require some exposure of that "experience" which they wish to remain private. A true Catch 22.

To further expand on this… What ended up being the irony of ironies was that (and still is that) my defense would require this exposure (to some minor extent) of this seemingly innocuous but actually, because the heart of the story involved the development of my theories about synchronicity, I would have to reveal the completely integral relationships and experiences which alone appear to me (and likely others) to be a quite incredible set of synchronicities which my defense requires to be made "public."

Ha-ha... the irony of it all. [Be warned the upcoming massive run-on sentence] Here I found myself (about two years ago) in the midst of presenting a view/opinion about the phenomena... a view/opinion that I have yet ever to encounter, a view/opinion I believe would be resisted by a great number of bona-fide experiencers of synchronicity, thus majorly controversial... again - a view/opinion I have yet to come across from any other researcher or (sometimes self determined) "expert" on the phenomena of synchronicity but which might fit right in with the cutting edge considerations as to the true nature of consciousness (I almost wanted to write the word with the Big "C"), and suddenly the very method I chose to prove up the obstacles I face about the theory ended up entrapping me in the most impossible way and involved an absolutely impossible set of "coincidences" - synchronicities - (Synchronicity attempting to hide the inner workings of synchronicity? Synchronicity conspiring with 'itself' to prevent the revelation that “the signs” read and interpreted by experiencers are not necessarily “messages from the Universe?" Messages providing definitive confirmation of that which may only be a wish to be true by the experiencer?) …for it all to end up as it did where I found myself in a prison where the bars that kept me trapped are the structures that hold together what others but most importantly... myself refer to as - "one's own personal integrity" is massively ironic. (ohhh but I started the paragraph that way).

The choice was to defend or perform a series of defensive actions which would cost a friendship and likely cause damage to what decency I had to my reputation (if any was still left – an example would be “the Shaneolites”) in a world of cyber-friends... a grey world where some of these cyber-friendships were one act away (often talked about and in some cases planed) from becoming fully consummated by "meeting in the flesh."

I would be lying if I did not consider the writing of this post as an act of “toe-dipping” where it could go one of three ways – I either drop it here and now (nothing has been exposed of any substantive nature), somehow obtain the permission of my friend that I could now “tell the story” (where I would be willing to provide the text to him in advance for approval and possibly for editing as long as the critical details remain) or just take the risk that my friend had grown some “cojones” and/or didn’t give a damn anymore (the actual best possibility of the three).

sooooo…. I will now go back to the very subject that stimulated me to write for the last few hours presents (no, which forces me into) the task of having to write even more – That which this thread points to.

[Chester]

I decided to start "by picking up the ball" from here

I notice that the OP started off with a statement that is clearly an opinion. I believe the original title may have been - "Here we go . Globalises monetise climate change hoax" which I would consider to be an assertion based on an opinion. The writer (the now Permanently Banned) Christopher (I am curious as to why he was not just banned but permanently banned and so I would imagine this forum had, what many would agree would be, just cause) then seemed to quote (just my guess) a news item he found on the internet (just my guess).

Now I can imagine that "the global warming is man made and killing the planet swiftly" pundits (don't make the mistake of guessing where I personally stand on the matter as of today) would react as opposed to respond but my hope was that there would be response and I soon discovered it was just reaction. At least the very first response because I wish to pick the ball up there.

First, I readily admit that in my absence, a great deal of history occurred and that may have a great deal to do with the replies I saw that followed, but I am dismayed because I so badly seek mature, healthy discourse and nothing that followed appeared to be anything remotely resembling such.

I remember the days on this forum where the rules were adjusted to deter ad hominems and yet what followed the OP seemed nothing but.

Let's look at just the first comment - "Jesus H. Christ...who is paying you to say things that any decent human would find completely shameful."

First there's the use of an expression which "...is typically uttered in anger, surprise or frustration..."

Then there is an insinuation which borders on being an accusation.

And then there is the last resort of "shaming."

There is so many options for a far more productive response. I was very surprised to see this here. Again, I may be missing history, but I am wondering if "having doubts about the commonly purported (and believed) truth about a.) the degree to which "man's activities" increase the rate of a climate change transition, b.) what that transition is headed towards and c.) what might that future look like is automatically something that could be labeled "alt-right" which by so doing doesn't exactly nail down what may actually be the premise(s) for such a statement and thus then, makes it real hard to counter.

I am already a wee bit disillusioned but I have to lay blame at my own feet if I become so quickly disillusioned because to become so may have a great deal to do with predetermined expectations... I had returned expecting better.

Its funny how when writing a post one can come upon their own answers. I see it this very moment. Expectations versus wishes and desires. My wish and desire was for adult, mutually respectful discourse. To expect such though... that's my error and I can only blame myself. But also perhaps, I just stumbled upon the one thread (which maybe involved a "bad guy" OP poster) and much of the rest of this forum emulates my hope, wish and desire.

Gosh, I sure hope so.

[Aragorn]

Considering the built-in disclaimer about potential and possibly intentional randomness in this thread, I'm going to comment on just these two little snippets.

[...] I wish to make a comment as to what I have discovered of late to be a "go to" tactic of so many "out there" that somehow achieve some level of attention from the public (and this can include anything from Youtube to MSNBC or the Washington Examiner or farcebook (as examples) or a blog posted on the internet – a blog somehow discovered or recommended by another or mini-micro-forum celebrities (I might be one haha) that frequent (from time to time even with a break here or there) one of a zillion forums like this, etc.... and that is -

I so often find out that what "an individual" accuses another (or others) of doing, they are actually involved in doing themselves and usually far more insidiously. It is a clever tactic. [...]

While it is true that for some people, this would be a conscious tactic, it is my own observation that sadly enough, many (if not most) people are doing this entirely subconsciously, courtesy of their detachment from their role in reality and ─ indeed ─ from their own Self. It is almost as if most people are simply inert but self-biased spectators to their existence. They see the splinter in somebody else's eye, but they completely miss the beam in their own.

This other factor that prevented me from taking on the threat in a public way. And I now see it as the most insidious factor of all... that being the pact that forms between two people when they become friends and at some point in the friendship, one or the other (and perhaps both) reveal something about themselves or, reveal an experience they had whereby they wish for the experience to remain private information. In this case, my defense would require some exposure of that "experience" which they wish to remain private. A true Catch 22. [...]

I have found myself in similar situations on a few occasions, and I believe that this particular conundrum might be intended ─ by the universe ─ as more of a challenge than as an obstacle. Because ─ at least, in my own experience, and yours may of course vary ─ a situation like that cannot continue to persist and must eventually come to some kind of resolution, whereby you then need to reveal whatever you need to reveal in order to protect yourself and/or someone else. As if the universe is coercing you to throw the cards out on the table in order to force everyone to face the truth about themselves.

Feel free to comment on that, but don't let my short interlude derail your, um, rail-less thread, Brother.

[Aragorn]

[...] (I am curious as to why he was not just banned but permanently banned and so I would imagine this forum had, what many would agree would be, just cause) [...]

Ah yes, this is one of the things that changed during your absence, but I can assure you that there's nothing nefarious going on with that.

See, earlier, we didn't have a distinction yet between temporarily banned and permanently banned members. Any "normal" ban was always of the permanent type, but it didn't say so yet underneath the member's name. However, given that some members have been temporarily banned ─ either by direct staff action or because they had gathered enough infraction points for themselves to trigger an automatic temporary ban ─ I have split up the Banned Members user group into two distinct groups, each with their own "member title", reflecting whether a member was either temporarily banned or permanently banned. So that in itself was only an administrative change.

[...] First, I readily admit that in my absence, a great deal of history occurred and that may have a great deal to do with the replies I saw that followed, but I am dismayed because I so badly seek mature, healthy discourse and nothing that followed appeared to be anything remotely resembling such.

I remember the days on this forum where the rules were adjusted to deter ad hominems and yet what followed the OP seemed nothing but.

Let's look at just the first comment - "Jesus H. Christ...who is paying you to say things that any decent human would find completely shameful."

First there's the use of an expression which "...is typically uttered in anger, surprise or frustration..."

Then there is an insinuation which borders in being an accusation.

And then there is the last resort of "shaming."

There is so many options for a far more productive a response. I was very surprised to see this here. Again, I may be missing history, but I am wondering if "having doubts about the commonly purported (and believed) truth about a.) the degree to which "man's activities" increase the rate of a climate change transition, b.) what that transition is headed towards and c.) what might that future look like is automatically something that could be labeled "alt-right" which by so doing doesn't exactly nail down what may actually be the premise(s) for such a statement and thus then, makes it real hard to counter. [...]

Well, the short answer is that, yes, you have been missing out on a lot.

The longer story is that Christopher was both a member here and at Eye-Rise ─ which, completely unrelated to the rest of my reply, has now been down for over a week, and we still don't know what's going on ─ and on both forums, not only did he adopt an ultra-right-wing vantage, thereby citing tabloids and right-wing news sources as an excuse for posting slander, libel, propaganda and other misinformation, but he was also behaving himself as an utterly pompous narcissist who repeatedly insulted both myself and others out on open threads.

And that is why Christopher received the comments he did on that particular thread, as well as that it was ultimately also the reason why he was permanently banned, both here and at Eye-Rise. We simply ran out of patience with the guy, and he never even deserved any of it in the first place.

[Emil El Zapato]

Looks like I made the hit parade. Unfortunately, the Ad Hominem was the formula for the day. We shouldn't miss the fact that 'he wanted to play'...and I'm always game. That is why it started like that. Would anybody and this was my point from much earlier on in our ongoing 'debate', that was serious about discourse much less civil discourse start with a statement that in fact was something a teenage solipsist would be embarrassed to present. That was his 'style' and I replied in kind. Both statements are pretty outrageous...but it was fun nevertheless.

Is he your friend? I thought he was a plant 'seeded' by what's her name...Turiya (whose white supremacist attitude seeped from every pore...and that isn't an ad hominem, that is an admitted truth)...my bad, I guess.


For whatever it's worth: I'm not strident, at all, regarding global warming...it's just another reference point for me. It is the mindset/mind of those that refuse to consider reality when formulating their world view...that is what is distressing, frustrating, and yes angering to me.

[Aragorn]

[...] I thought he was a plant 'seeded' by what's her name...Turiya [...]

turiya is a male, NotAPretender, but I don't think there was any connection. turiya is a US American, and Christopher is British.

We can see our members' IP addresses, remember?

[Aianawa]

Two important past members both, imo.

[Emil El Zapato]

yeah...the world moves though...

I thanked your post because it's you, Aianawa...very few would get that much respect from me...

[Aianawa]

You are not that important NAP in the scheme of things imo, as I have said before, you NAP I enjoy when you are you and I tire of you when your conditioning appears, a nicer way of saying this may be that I love n respect you dear soul, as anyone choosing to be here especially in these our times is indeed a great energy n soul. I know my observations sometimes can irritate and I withhold them often, so thankyou for the opportunity NAP.

[Emil El Zapato]

One of us is misunderstanding... I never claimed to be important...period...it simply isn't about that...it is much more. But isn't it always true that we never really 'see' each other....

[Aragorn]

Two important past members both, imo.

Yes, just as important as the plague was.

[Aianawa]

Imo as important as you n NAP in the larger scheme of things imo .

[Wind]

Everyone and everything has it's role to play.