Zetacult's Site Bias...
Event Horizon
"newsgroups" are. I tell them they are missing out on a vast and
terrific forum pertaining to just about anything they can imagine.
It's what I've used most in my six yrs on the internet.
Folks unaware of usenet who look at the Zetatalk usenet updates are
getting a biased picture of what's being posted. I just now noticed
this, and is yet another thing that needs to be made public about her
info.
My post "Zetacult member expatriates" *is* listed in her usenet
extraction area...thing is, only one small post is listed there (there
were many responses) and conveniently the post is entirely biased;
instead of showing what was really going on in that specific thread
(she didn't even include my original post in any context at all),
Nancy chose to list *only one* post that made her and her followers
look good.
Yet another reason I'm finding to completely disregard everything
Zetatalk has ever preached. The whole thing is becoming so obvious.
David Paterson
>Folks unaware of usenet who look at the Zetatalk usenet updates are
>getting a biased picture of what's being posted. I just now noticed
>this, and is yet another thing that needs to be made public about her
>info.
>
>My post "Zetacult member expatriates" *is* listed in her usenet
>extraction area...thing is, only one small post is listed there (there
>were many responses) and conveniently the post is entirely biased;
>instead of showing what was really going on in that specific thread
>(she didn't even include my original post in any context at all),
>Nancy chose to list *only one* post that made her and her followers
>look good.
Hmmm.... I've just checked the Zetatalk pages for my postings, and was
rather dismayed to find that a) they were there, and b) they had been
edited heavily, in some cases completely distorting my intended meaning.
What surprised me about this is that I mailed Nancy in January asking
her to remove these pages, and she agreed to do so. Since then she has
in fact added additional postings, rather than removing them as she said
she would.
Unfortunately I've been very busy at work lately and haven't had time to
either read or respond to many of the PX threads, nor to check if the
messages had in fact been removed from the site. I'll be more diligent
in the future :-)
I'd urge everyone who gets involved in these discussions, whichever side
of the fence you sit, to do a search on the Zetatalk site (using their
handy search engine) to see how well represented you are. By comparing
her versions to the original postings archived on Google you can see how
accurate and/or honest the versions on the site are.
If, like me, you feel your words or meaning have been misrepresented, or
been used in an inappropriate way, you might also consider asking Nancy
to remove your postings from her web site.
DP
David Paterson
>If, like me, you feel your words or meaning have been misrepresented, or
>been used in an inappropriate way, you might also consider asking Nancy
>to remove your postings from her web site.
PS - I should add that I've mailed her again to "remind her" that she
did agree to remove the pages, and asking that she now gets rid of them.
I also included a handy list of URL's so she wouldn't have any
difficulty finding them :-)
DP
Thomas McDonald
David,
Rots o Ruck. Nancy needs all the borrowed credibility that she can get.
She seems to have two purposes for posting on the NGs.:
1) To stimulate reply posts that she can 'mine' for the purpose of
editing and posting
on her websites;
2) To troll for people somehow disaffected from mainstream (read,
'real') science and/or]
sprituality, in order to funnel them into her little brood.
IOW, it is a complete misunderstanding of NanZetas' purposes to
suppose that she is posting here for any reasons other than the two I
give above. She, and possibly her flock, appear to wish to use the
'sci.' newsgroup quotes in order to help themselves think that there is
some scientificsupport for their delusion.
Nancy has twisted and edited some of my posts to suit her purposes.
I called her on it, but that post, of course, never wound up on her
sites. I suppose I should do what you're doing, and ask her to either
post my whole posts (and the sci.astro context in which they were made),
or to remove all of my posts. Perhaps if more people did it, she'd be
forced to comply, or her ISP might be lobbied to pull her sites. IIRC,
some of her discussions are on a Yahoo group, whose charter she may be
violating with the censoring she, Jan, and perhaps others are doing.
Don't imagine, however, that Nancy et al. will change their ways.
Nancy, herself, is in too deep, and her current desperation is proof
that she understands the hole she's put herself in.
Tom McDonald
David Storoy
"Event Horizon" <fourth...@yahoo.com> skrev i
> Nancy chose to list *only one* post that made her and >her followers
> look good.
Since it was a post that did not look good for you.....then you take it very
personally and screams like a child who wants to get more attention. But you
do not deserve more attention than the other who are screaming,whining and
are disappointed.
>The whole thing is >becoming so obvious.
It is obvious that you are insulted of Nancy Lieder and her responses to you
etc...
--
David Skywalker
Star Wars II - Attack of the Clones
22 May 2002 in Norway
Thomas McDonald
David,
I hope you grow up to be embarassed by posts such as these. You may
even, one day, understand the reasonably spectacular level of irony in
this post of yours. With luck, you'll some day have the maturity to
laugh at yourself a bit because of your posts here.
On the other hand, if you aren't a teenager, it may be too late for
you already.
Tom McDonald
David Paterson
>Send her Web Provider a DMCA Demand Letter with a copy of your prior
>correspondence. Because she admitted she was wrong and promised to
>remove your material, it makes your case stronger.
>
>With luck she could lose the site...
>
>You also need to start including a disclaim that will stop Nanzeta from
>abusing your articles.
Thanks for the info Bob.
I'll give her a week's grace to put it right by herself (since I've said
as much in my mail to her). If she hasn't removed the pages by then
I'll certainly do as you advise.
It's not so much that I mind people using my usenet postings in a
legitimate way, it's her editing of them in ways which distort my
intended meaning, and the attempt to use them to lend credence to her
nonsensical ideas.
If she was willing to post entire discussions, unedited, then I'd be
happy for my contributions to appear. That however doesn't seem to be
Nancy's way of doing things.
Cheers,
DP
zarathu
manual from back in about 97 will find that there's lots of stuff that is
different in the current volume.
In article <d0bjbu89d4slhp6mh...@4ax.com> , David Paterson
Bill Nelson
> You could also send a note to Yahoo groups and the Wisconsin Attorney
> General. I think she could even be currently prosecuted for fraud and
> misrepresentation. Just the fact she doesn't have tax free status and
> isn't a charity. Donations to her are not are not currently deductible.
Has the IRS ruled on that yet? I know that they had until March 31st to
send in the supporting paperwork - to obtain permanent non-profit status.
If that status is denied, then Lieder is going to get a nasty surprise,
a tax bill for all those past years. Both she and all the officers can
be held responsible - and the IRS will attach personal property, if
necessary, to satisfy the debt.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> "Event Horizon" <fourth...@yahoo.com> skrev i
>> Nancy chose to list *only one* post that made her and >her followers
>> look good.
> Since it was a post that did not look good for you.....then you take it very
> personally and screams like a child who wants to get more attention. But you
> do not deserve more attention than the other who are screaming,whining and
> are disappointed.
What is bothersome is that Lieder will pick a statement by someone, then
tack on a bunch of stuff from her pages - and put that on her "newsgroups"
page as if that were the end of the discussion. She never posts any
followups or posts that point out the errors in what she wrote.
This is misleading to the reader of the pages and dishonest. An honest
person would include all the posts, not just edited portions.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
David Paterson
>You could also send a note to Yahoo groups and the Wisconsin Attorney
>General. I think she could even be currently prosecuted for fraud and
>misrepresentation. Just the fact she doesn't have tax free status and
>isn't a charity. Donations to her are not are not currently deductible.
I live in the UK, so I don't think my complaints would carry much weight
under US law - especially since I haven't myself been defrauded in any
way.
The DMCA route would probably be effective, since that does concern use
of my material, and also there are international agreements regarding
copyright.
I'll leave it to folks in the US to deal with Nancy's tax status and
possible frauds as they'll be much more familiar with the relevant laws
etc.
DP
Event Horizon
> "Event Horizon" <fourth...@yahoo.com> skrev i
> > Nancy chose to list *only one* post that made her and >her followers
> > look good.
>
> Since it was a post that did not look good for you.....then you take it very
> personally and screams like a child who wants to get more attention. But you
> do not deserve more attention than the other who are screaming,whining and
> are disappointed.
>
> >The whole thing is >becoming so obvious.
>
> It is obvious that you are insulted of Nancy Lieder and her responses to you
> etc...
#1, I was not taking anything personally, nor screaming, complaining
or whining in any way. I was simply pointing something out and in
turn doing a public service.
#2, Your interpretation of my post is yet further evidence of your
lack of grasping our language. I told you before you should hold out
until your understanding is better, because you open yourself up to
get ripped on somethin' aweful, every single time you attempt to
communicate. You may understand many meanings of words, but you're
not understanding them properly in the context of their delivery.
Lastly, I'm convinced that you're probably a teenager, as another
poster suggested. Get a better handle on english, listen to *every*
side of a story *always* (ie the folks in this ng commenting on
Nancy's scientific info as one example) find a new server or user name
and start over again in a couple years. You're not listening to
people when they/we tell you that you're making yourself look silly...
This isn't an insult, it's just friendly advice that I wish you would
take.
David Storoy
> or whining in any way. I was simply pointing something >out and in
> turn doing a public service.
You are TAKING it personally, since you WERE insulted by Nancy according to
you.
>You may understand many meanings of words, but you're
> not understanding them properly in the context of their >delivery.
I am from Norway and I am aware that my English is below average/average.
> Lastly, I'm convinced that you're probably a teenager, as >another
> poster suggested.
Then you are wrong. I am 29 - 12 may.
> You're not listening to
> people when they/we tell you that you're making yourself >look silly...
If I were a friend to these people(inc you) then you would not have said
this - but since I am a ZetaTalk-believer - of course you are interested to
do COWARDLY actions - with talking about my weak sides - for instance - my
very average/below average English and trying to put my down very badly with
these COWARDLY acts. I am used to skeptics who are talking about my weak
sides and try to laugh about it or put me down. It is only COWARDS who are
doing such things. I do not respect such people. I am not using
COWARD-tactics to win a debate or whatever.
> This isn't an insult, it's just friendly advice that I wish you >would
>take.
You are not a friend of me - and it is not a friendly advice. I agree of
course my English should have been better - but it is ANTI-DAVID STOROY
people(who do not like me) who are bickering about this. And laughing about
it(maybe you do not - but the other).
Michael L Cunningham
"Event Horizon" <fourth...@yahoo.com> skrev i#1, I was not taking anything personally, nor screaming, >complaining
or whining in any way. I was simply pointing something >out and in
turn doing a public service.
You are TAKING it personally, since you WERE insulted by Nancy according to
you.
You may understand many meanings of words, but you're
not understanding them properly in the context of their >delivery.
I am from Norway and I am aware that my English is below average/average.
English language is well under par.
Lastly, I'm convinced that you're probably a teenager, as >another
poster suggested.
Then you are wrong. I am 29 - 12 may.
at best in the 14th year of development due to your aptitude of supposed knowledge of Native Americans
and wannabee shaman ideas.
> You're not listening topeople when they/we tell you that you're making yourself >look silly...
If I were a friend to these people(inc you) then you would not have said
this - but since I am a ZetaTalk-believer - of course you are interested to
do COWARDLY actions - with talking about my weak sides - for instance - my
very average/below average English and trying to put my down very badly with
these COWARDLY acts. I am used to skeptics who are talking about my weak
sides and try to laugh about it or put me down. It is only COWARDS who are
doing such things. I do not respect such people. I am not using
COWARD-tactics to win a debate or whatever.
to the reception your comments would receive but yet you persist in speaking for the Zeta cult.
This isn't an insult, it's just friendly advice that I wish you >would>take.
You are not a friend of me - and it is not a friendly advice. I agree of
course my English should have been better - but it is ANTI-DAVID STOROY
people(who do not like me) who are bickering about this. And laughing about
it(maybe you do not - but the other).
--
David Skywalker
Star Wars II - Attack of the Clones
22 May 2002 in Norway
allowed on tt-watch. Same goes for you here since this group is called sci.astro which doesn't include
make believe by the likes of Zeta cult members.
-- Michael L. Cunningham So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT e-mail boge...@earthlink.net web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/ Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre Sept. 11, 2001 Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war! Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum! "There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure of the former". Albert. "If you want to be counted... stand up! If you want to be heard... speak up! If you want to be appreciated... shut up!" We've been notified by Building Security that there have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office. Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into custody. Security ad vised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the fourth cell member, Bin Workin, in our office. "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Bill Nelson
>>
>>I am from Norway and I am aware that my English is below average/average.
>>
> From our view point (and we're English speaking as our first language)
> your grasp of understanding the
> English language is well under par.
Michael, that is unfair. How is your Norse?
His English is not the problem. His belief that his ideas are all right,
and not be willing to listen to the arguments, ideas and experience of
other is where the problem exists.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
David Storoy
"Michael L Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net>If you'r 29 you need the help of therapy. Your mental state (if what you say is true) shows you to be
at best in the 14th year of development due to your aptitude of supposed knowledge of Native Americans
and wannabee shaman ideas.
David:When I talk about knowledge about Native American it is about some tribes spirituality and philosophy. Where do you think I got my Shaman ideas from?Not only from myself - also from persons who has a lot of experience with shamanism?Do you have experience with shamanism?Of course NOT!I do NOT take your words here seriously since you have not experienced shamanism in this lifetime.
It's not your English, it's your belief.
David:Attack the messenger`s weakness. Nancy Lieder were attacked because of her lacking knowledge in Physics - and my lacking English-writing.
Michael L Cunningham
of the English language, they'll have trouble with understanding anything described by it. If he cares
to understand this discussion in English, he damn well better have a working understanding.
-- Michael L. Cunningham So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT e-mail boge...@earthlink.net web site http://home.earthlink.net/~bogeystar/
Remembering the World Trade Center Massacre Sept. 11, 2001 Cry Havoc! ...and let slip the dogs of war! Visit the LX50 Web Site and join in our Discussion Forum! "There are two infinite things: universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure of the former". Albert. "If you want to be counted... stand up! If you want to be heard... speak up! If you want to be appreciated... shut up!" We've been notified by Building Security that there have been 4 suspected terrorists working at our office. Three of the four have been apprehended. Bin Sleepin, Bin Loafin, and Bin Drinkin have been taken into custody. Security advised us that they could find no one fitting the description of the fourth cell member, Bin Workin, in our office. "A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." Robert Heinlein
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Bill Nelson <bi...@spock.peak.org> wrote:
>Michael L Cunningham <boge...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I am from Norway and I am aware that my English is below average/average.
>>>
>> From our view point (and we're English speaking as our first language)
>> your grasp of understanding the
>> English language is well under par.
>
>Michael, that is unfair. How is your Norse?
>
>His English is not the problem.
[snip]
Indeed. He's just as incoherent in his native tongue (the lad has been
regurgitating Zetababble in certain Norwegian newsgroups for years),
and in my opinion y'all are wasting your time trying to explain anything
to him.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Stig Bull
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2002 04:15:26 +0000 (UTC), Bill Nelson
>>Michael, that is unfair. How is your Norse?
> It is called Norge? not Norse?
Norge is the name of the country in the Scandinavian languages. Norsk is the
language.
> Isn't Norse is a ethnic group?
More a definition of the inhabitants of the Nordic countries, Iceland,
Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
>> His English is not the problem. His belief that his ideas are all right,
>
> Those happen to be preconceived ideas based on some mythical story. The
> problem with beliefs that don't allow questioning.
>
> David will not allow anyone or anything to question his beliefs.
That's right. Everybody who doesn't wholeheartedly agree with him, are
against him, the way he sees it.
>>and not be willing to listen to the arguments, ideas and experience of
>>other is where the problem exists.
> Especially when he listen to a person that has lived a few months off
> and on with Native Americans, verses a person that has lived his whole
> life with Native Americans.
Because if you _are_ a Native American but not the way David imagines Native
Americans are in his New Age world, you are automatically a 'fallen' one
who have chosen a life outside the ways he believes are correct, because he
has read it somewhere, likes the sound of it and therefore thinks it _has_
to be the correct way, and everybody elses way are wrong.
As you probably has noticed, since you are not what David envisions a Native
American to be, you are spoiled by the European or Western way of thinking.
He is sometimes so lost in his own New Age romantic fantasies, nobody can
reason with him and convince him perhaps the world and history is not the
way he thinks it is.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
byte
Event Horizon
> "Event Horizon" <fourth...@yahoo.com> skrev i
> > #1, I was not taking anything personally, nor screaming, >complaining
> > or whining in any way. I was simply pointing something >out and in
> > turn doing a public service.
>
> You are TAKING it personally, since you WERE insulted by Nancy according to
> you.
I am seriously wasting my time discussing this, but you make it too
easy to deal with you...
HOW do you KNOW I was taking it personally and was insulted?
Last I knew, you were not me. How could you possibly claim to know
what I am thinking/feeling?
It's either that you're not grasping the language and delivery again
(ie "insulted by Nancy according to you"; David, I never said that,
and will challenge you to prove that I did), or you're lacking the
smarts enough to understand that you can't possibly know where a
person's at in their head unless you ARE THEM...which you are not and
never will be.
Common sense here.
> > Lastly, I'm convinced that you're probably a teenager, as >another
> > poster suggested.
>
> Then you are wrong. I am 29 - 12 may.
Why on earth you would admit that is beyond me...the excuse *I* will
make for you is that you still are relatively young.
David, your heart is in the right place, but you need to back yourself
off, cool down, and quit arguing with people on these issues. It's a
waste of your and everyone else's time.
Magnus Nyborg
posts that include my name, or to supply the full thread (entire discussion,
unedited) as this is required when publishing 'public' information in
someone elses name. If she does not comply with my wish, I will complain
before her ISP!
I recommend everyone to do the same if they believe their post has been
misused on Zetatalk!
Clear Skies,
Magnus
"Event Horizon" <fourth...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6aee72f3.02041...@posting.google.com...
David Storoy
"Stig Bull" <stig.bul...@cds.no> skrev i melding
> As you probably has noticed, since you are not what >David envisions a
Native
> American to be, you are spoiled by the European or >Western way of
thinking.
> He is sometimes so lost in his own New Age romantic >fantasies, nobody can
> reason with him and convince him perhaps the world and >history is not the
> way he thinks it is.
I have asked Bob Officer if he is interested in spirituality realms,if aura
exist,if he is open to ETcommunication etc - but he say it is all fantasy.
The Native American I knew and persons who have connections with Native
American is in the Alternative medicine area - all the Native American they
knew are healers,shamans,very open to spirituality realms etc. So Bob
Officer is not the RIGHT Native American guy for me. Because he seems to me
to lost something many of his fellow ELDERS or MEDICINEMEN/WOMEN has -
strong spirituality abilities - and open minded to the spiritual realms of
life. Of course there are many Native Americans who are not interested in
spiritual realms,healing,shamanism etc - Bob Officer is one of them.
David Storoy
> off, cool down, and quit arguing with people on these >issues. It's a
> waste of your and everyone else's time.
It is wise words of you here. YES,IT IS actually waste of my time and other.
How do you know my heart is in the right place?:-)
Btw: I have studied a lot of channeled material from different sources.
There are a lot of "Love-And-Light" message and "Feel-Good" messages there.
ZetaTalk is not one of them - they are talking as it is - not deleting bad
information.
You only love positive message from channeled materials?Not direct/blunt
speaking about how it will be when the pole-shift will arrive or
aftertime?Why not? It is very important to knew how it will be app. when the
pole-shift will arrive and aftertime so we KNOW how to prepare,Event
Horizon. I hope you will understand that.
David Storoy
>
> Last I knew, you were not me. How could you possibly claim to know
> what I am thinking/feeling?
>
> It's either that you're not grasping the language and delivery again
> (ie "insulted by Nancy according to you"; David, I never said that,
> and will challenge you to prove that I did), or you're lacking the
> smarts enough to understand that you can't possibly know where a
> person's at in their head unless you ARE THEM...which you are not and
> never will be.
>
> Common sense here.
Some people CAN READ between the lines here(if I am using the right words
here)...and SENSE something how you are writing and why do you write etc...
Nancy`s answer was not as you hoped I guess.....Insulted people want to
share with the people around how bad they were threated by a person they
hoped had better answers to come up with....
Michael L Cunningham
>Some people CAN READ between the lines here(if I am using the right words
>here)...and SENSE something how you are writing and why do you write etc...
>
>Nancy`s answer was not as you hoped I guess.....Insulted people want to
>share with the people around how bad they were threated by a person they
>hoped had better answers to come up with....
>
>--
>David Skywalker
>Star Wars II - Attack of the Clones
>22 May 2002 in Norway
>
David is another good example of why parents should know what their
children are doing on the internet.
Bill Nelson
> It is called Norge? not Norse?
Norse is the proper word. Look in any dictionary, if you don't
believe me.
> Isn't Norse is a ethnic group?
Yes. So what?
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Mind Splatter
> I guess David doesn't understand. Science does not want you to believe.
> It actually wants you not to believe. Test Everything you are told.
> Question everything. Turn over every stone. Science doesn't depend on
> belief, desires, or spiritualism. Science never really wants those to
> enter into the picture.
Well, neither do you Bob. Your belief system is tied up in the Science
Cult whereas David's is tied up in the Zeta Cult. You never really
accepted my challenge about dreams, you simply stated that they are not
real because, well, you don't BELIEVE them to be real. An anti-belief
is not the absence of belief, it is just belief with the sign reversed.
I would be willing to bet that you "believe" in the electron even though
you have little or no personal evidence that such a thing actually
exists. Perhaps you have in fact done experiments to suggest the
existence of the electron, but all you can say for sure is that the
electron explanation is consistent with all of your known experiments,
not that the electron actually exists in some objective way independent
of your observation.
"Science" does not depend on spiritualism not because such a thing does
not exist but only because we have not succeeded in creating hypotheses
about spiritual things that we can subsequently run experiments on. The
inability to design an adequate experimental protocol does not
invalidate reality, it only implies a limit on the imagination and
intelligence of the experiment designer.
> Irony?
Yes, but just how ironic you do not appreciate. You pick on David but
you cannot substantiate your own point of view except to point to David
and say "what a fool, he disagrees with Dr. Foo and Dr. Bar, who are
famous and respected scientists" but you do not practice the same
introspective questioning you claim to advocate.
Instead you claim dreams are not real and refuse to make the case. Who
is the true believer? Or is it just both of you?
>
> --
> Nokwsi
Chris Franks
"Mind Splatter" <Com...@net.org>
Your belief system is tied up in the Science
> Cult whereas David's is tied up in the Zeta Cult.
choose to join or fall away at my behest.
It has a discipline, a method of problem-solving that works well in the
Universe. I have tried to use other disciplines, including ESP,
channelling, vivid dreaming, hypnotism, psychedelics, faith healing, astral
projection. Their results are not repeatable and often contradictory.
You never really accepted my challenge about dreams, you simply stated that
they are not real because, well, you don't BELIEVE them to be real.
Perhaps I am unusual in being able to dream in full color, taste, smell,
etc, and then being able to recall most of the dream upon waking. But I
never confuse the dream world with the real world. I can remember some
dreams that I had 65 years ago just as vividly as those from last night. I
can relate elements of the dream to real world happenings, to discover what
caused the dream, but I have never confused the two. I do not have to
believe that the dreams are not real, I KNOW that they are only inside my
own mind, not accessible to you or anyone else.
> "Science" does not depend on spiritualism not because such a thing does
not exist but only because we have not succeeded in creating hypotheses
about spiritual things that we can subsequently run experiments on.
We have been trying to do this for thousands of years with no results,
and have been making scientific progress for hundreds of years with the
result of the computer you are reading this with. This says that the
scientific method is far superior for scientific subjects than the spiritual
method is. But the spiritual method is not yet successful by your own
admission. I am not saying that you will NEVER be successful, only that
you have a poor track record, compared to that of science. I would
rather combat Earth-crossing asteroids with science than with magic.
>
> Yes, but just how ironic you do not appreciate. You pick on David but you
cannot substantiate your own point of view except to point to David and say
"what a fool, he disagrees with Dr. Foo and Dr. Bar, who are famous and
respected scientists"
Nobody has said that David Storoy is wrong because he disagrees with a
famous person. He is wrong because he believes in something that his own
eyes could show him is false. Planet X, as described by Nancy, cannot
possibly exist. The Native American historically is no more or no less
"spiritual" than any other human. There is no homogenous culture that
you can call Native American, any more than you can talk of the Caucasian
culture.
Nancy Lieder
>... a complaint has been sent by me to Nancy , advising her to
> either remove posts that include my name, or to supply the full
> thread (entire discussion, unedited) as this is required when
> publishing 'public' information in someone elses name. If she
> does not comply with my wish, I will complain before her ISP!
Nice try, Magnus. I web wrap MY postings on Usenet, and I don’t think
I’ve EVER responded to one of your posts so have scarsely quoted you. I
think your postings are garbage, frankly.
Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it, publically posted
by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to your quote, then I can put this
on my web site included as a copy of my posting.
As I include the Message or Article ID of my postings on my web site,
this can be taken to the arhives and the ENTIRE thread researched. In
fact, Google does this quite nicely.
Don't thow a fit just because no one comes to YOUR web site, if you even
have one, Magnus, and that you're a nonentity. Can you display your
stuff on my web site? Hahahahahahahaha! No wonder I never read your
posts! You ARE an idiot!
Chris Franks
"Nancy Lieder" <na...@zetatalk.com> wrote
>
> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it, publically posted
> by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to your quote, then I can put this
> on my web site included as a copy of my posting.
Nancy, you are not permitted to quote part of a post out of context in a
manner that changes the meaning. If I reviewed a movie and said that
it was "terribly done, not funny at all, and people should not spend their
money to buy a ticket ." and you edited this to read that I said:
"Terribly funny, buy a ticket" you would have the Federal Trade Commission
at your door.
Sarah Mc
> In Article <LT_u8.32463$n4.65...@newsc.telia.net> Magnus wrote:
> >... a complaint has been sent by me to Nancy , advising her to
> > either remove posts that include my name, or to supply the full
> > thread (entire discussion, unedited) as this is required when
> > publishing 'public' information in someone elses name. If she
> > does not comply with my wish, I will complain before her ISP!
>
> Nice try, Magnus. I web wrap MY postings on Usenet, and I don't think
> I've EVER responded to one of your posts so have scarsely quoted you. I
> think your postings are garbage, frankly.
What goes around, comes around.
>
> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it, publically posted
> by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to your quote, then I can put this
> on my web site included as a copy of my posting.
Quoting yourself seems to be about all you're capable of doing. The
reason you quote yourself from sci.astro is because you *think* it
gives some validation to your doomsday cult. Quite the contrary, if
people follow the links you provide to sci.astro, they usually get the
complete opposite (and correct) information.
>
> As I include the Message or Article ID of my postings on my web site,
> this can be taken to the arhives and the ENTIRE thread researched. In
> fact, Google does this quite nicely.
>
> Don't thow a fit just because no one comes to YOUR web site, if you even
> have one, Magnus, and that you're a nonentity.
What, you believe you *are* some kind of "entity"? What kind of
"entity" is unable to give a magnitude for this incoming "planet" of
yours? Are we to believe the Almighty Zetas aren't capable of that?
After all, they can travel through time, by golly gee.
> Can you display your
> stuff on my web site? Hahahahahahahaha! No wonder I never read your
> posts! You ARE an idiot!
You just replied to one of his posts - now who's the idiot?
Stig Bull
>> It is called Norge? not Norse?
>
> Norse is the proper word. Look in any dictionary, if you don't
> believe me.
No. You're wrong.
>> Isn't Norse is a ethnic group?
>
> Yes. So what?
No it isn't.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Stig Bull
>>> Isn't Norse is a ethnic group?
>>
>>More a definition of the inhabitants of the Nordic countries, Iceland,
>>Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.
>
> I was under the impression Finns were a different ethnic group, or may
> the language was from a different group.
Their language has much more in common with Hungarian than any of the other
Nordic languages, or Germanic languages, but they are not from a different
ethnic group that I know of. I should ask my girlfriend, her parents are
from Finland.
> But then I do keep some traditions. I am a member of a clan, and active
> in tribal some traditions. I don't sing... because I have a poor voice.
Yes, but David wants every Native American to be 'in touch with his roots
and spirits' AND believe in all that mumbo jumbo David believes in. Unless
you do, you're a fallen one. Actually, the only 'true' Native Americans
David know of, is this Hollywood actor he keeps talking about all the time.
--
Stig Bull
No animals were hurt or killed in the process of creating this electronic
message. To reduce download time, this message is made of 100% recycled
bytes.
Stig Bull
> As I include the Message or Article ID of my postings on my web site,
> this can be taken to the arhives and the ENTIRE thread researched. In
> fact, Google does this quite nicely.
So how come you changed IM Openmindeds name to Idon't when you answered his
post?
> Don't thow a fit just because no one comes to YOUR web site, if you even
> have one, Magnus, and that you're a nonentity. Can you display your
> stuff on my web site? Hahahahahahahaha! No wonder I never read your
> posts! You ARE an idiot!
Wow, you really _ARE_ a scumbag.
Bill Nelson
> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it, publically posted
> by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to your quote, then I can put this
> on my web site included as a copy of my posting.
It does NOT allow you to use the quote in a manner that is misleading.
That is the main problem I have with your messages on that site. You
post a statement by someone - out of context - then append a reply.
That is all that is there. There is no indication of any followup
posts that disagree with your appended reply.
As such, your entries on that site are misleading - whether intentionally
or through ignorance is something I cannot judge.
I have emailed you asking that you either include the complete threads
for any time you quote me - or remove my quotes from your site. The choice
is yours.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
> Bill Nelson wrote:
>>> It is called Norge? not Norse?
>>
>> Norse is the proper word. Look in any dictionary, if you don't
>> believe me.
> No. You're wrong.
>>> Isn't Norse is a ethnic group?
>>
>> Yes. So what?
> No it isn't.
Maybe not in Norway. But in the US dictionaries, what I stated is true.
I just checked to verify my memory.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
David Paterson
>Yes, but David wants every Native American to be 'in touch with his roots
>and spirits' AND believe in all that mumbo jumbo David believes in. Unless
>you do, you're a fallen one. Actually, the only 'true' Native Americans
>David know of, is this Hollywood actor he keeps talking about all the time.
AFAIK this belief in the special "spirituality" of native americans goes
back to 19th century European (or probably British) spiritualists, who
seemed to start a trend for having native american "spirit guides".
This probably comes from the "red indian" (no offence intended Bob, but
that's how they described them) and his way of life being seen as more
mysterious and closer to nature than any other group. After all, the
British Empire had stretched across Africa, through India and the Middle
and Far East, so to add an air of mystery they had to choose an ethnic
group that the public would know very little about.
Most people I know went through a sort of spiritual phase in their late
teens and early 20's - in my "hippy" generation it was more a belief in
Eastern mysticism :-) Most of us grew up to realise there really isn't
anything in it, but there will always be a few people who want so badly
to believe in mysteries and psychic powers, they can't move on to the
real things life has to offer.
One question springs to mind - what kind of "spirit guides" do native
american spiritualists have? Roman Legionnaires? !K'ung trackers?
English missionaries? Hmmm....
DP
Jonathan Silverlight
<chris_...@agilent.com> writes
Are you sure? I thought that was S.O.P. :-) Not quite as blatant,
perhaps, but close.
David Storoy
"Bob Officer" <bobof...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
> No, I point to David and What a fool to accept 2 and >third hand stories
> from people that are selling him a product for a profit.
You are not a good listener,Bob. I have mentioned I also have met several
people who have never sold any book or whatever - living with some native
american tribes in USA and Sout-America. And they are very spiritual.
You are the fool here. You do not understand spiritual values from several
tribes in USA.You are not an Elder or Medicine man or wise man.
Bill Nelson
> David:When I talk about knowledge about Native American it is about some tribes spirituality and philosophy. Where do you think I got my Shaman ideas from?Not only from myself - also from persons who has a lot of experience with shamanism?Do you have experience with shamanism?Of course NOT!I do NOT take your words here seriously since you have not experienced shamanism in this lifetime.
You need to learn to use a carriage return after about 60 characters or so
on a line.
You are a wanna-be Native American "shaman", yet you have a dead human as
your "guide". That in itself shows that you did not learn much from your
so-called Native American "shamans".
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
David Storoy
"Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> skrev i melding
> You are a wanna-be Native American "shaman",
NO!I love shamanism - but I am not a shaman at the moment. In the future I
hope so..
> yet you have a dead human as
> your "guide". That in itself shows that you did not learn >much from your
> so-called Native American "shamans".
Dead or living - what is the main difference? When you are dead - your body
is dead - your soul is still living - in another density/dimension. When you
communicate with spiritual world - you communicate with souls who have not
physical body as you and me. Reincarnation exist. You can only get 100 %
proof when you are leaving the body for good. When you are dead.
Nancy Lieder
> Nancy Lieder <na...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
>> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
>> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it,
>> publically posted by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to
>> your quote, then I can put this on my web site included as a
>> copy of my posting.
>
> misleading. That is the main problem I have with your
> messages on that site. You post a statement by someone - out
> of context - then append a reply.
Oh please! Tell this to Limbaugh, or Pat Robinson, or all the ZetaTalk
bashers who have merry with this rule endlessly here on sci.astro
alone! Not taken out of context? As in the Hale-Bopp issue, where it
is endlessly repeated that the Zetas said "it's not a comet" without
mentioning the YEAR of the statement? They said it was a nova on
August, 1995 and the ESO subsequently found that what was being pointed
to, "outgassing" more than a year before it ought, had no comet
emissions! Then they said on June 17, 1996 that the supposed orbit was
being connected to where a real comet located long before by the NEAT
program, which tracks thousands of dark objects, was due to appear.
http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p46.htm
Out of context? Once again, what's good for the GOOSE is not to be good
for the GANDER. You think that NASA has a link to where NASA bashers
opinions might be found, including the ZetaTalk site? The White House
links to the Bush Watch site? Is this not out of context to OTHERS
OPINIONS, which is your real complaint. YOUR opinion, in full, the
jokes, the endless praddle that waters down any thread I start with what
the debunkers hope will hopelessly discourage anyone from following the
thread. So sorry that a list of relevant postings, for those who wish
to hear what the ZETAS had to say, on the ZETATALK exists! Tisk.
The current Earth Changes, predicted with stunning accuracy by ZetaTalk
in 1995, are no joke. The fact that an infrared object was sighted and
imaged at the coordinates given by ZetaTalk months and even years
earlier is also stunning and no joke. The implications for mankind, who
is NOT getting the truth from NASA and the Hubble or the White House is
more than immense and life threatening. It affects every human on
Earth, massively. Whether they live or die, and if they live the
quality of their life afterwards. But the agencies paid for by your tax
dollars, and the government that is supposed to be looking out for your
interests rather than Enron interests, or the paid debunkers, or the
self-appointed Shepherd of the Sheep of sci.astro, would rather YOU not
know what THEY know. Now that's fair, right?
So I'll do what no OTHER web site does and point to where the readerhip
can read everyone else's opinion.
Since postings are made every few days, readers are currently checking
for new "postings as of" pages, at the Spring 2002 page:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use20021.htm
The following is now (or will be within the hour) the text at the top of
this and the two pages covering 2001 Spring and Fall posting dates:
Since this is the ZetaTalk web site, the list of Usenet postings
referenced is almost exclusively those postings that include
ZetaTalk or Nancy responses or initiatives. Usenet archives
such as Google
[http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=sci.astro]
provide easy access to all postings made by anyone, regardless
of substance, so for those wishing to view everything said on
the matter by anyone else, simply plug the Message or Article
number or thread Subject into the search field.
Greg Neill
news:3CBEF394...@zetatalk.com...
> In Article <a9javq$rni$2...@quark.scn.rain.com> Bill Nelson wrote:
> > Nancy Lieder <na...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
> >> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
> >> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it,
> >> publically posted by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to
> >> your quote, then I can put this on my web site included as a
> >> copy of my posting.
> >
> > It does NOT allow you to use the quote in a manner that is
> > misleading. That is the main problem I have with your
> > messages on that site. You post a statement by someone - out
> > of context - then append a reply.
>
> Oh please! Tell this to Limbaugh, or Pat Robinson, or all the ZetaTalk
> bashers who have merry with this rule endlessly here on sci.astro
> alone!
Unlike ZetaBabble websites, here in sci.astro every post to
every thread is there for all to see and judge the context.
It is not carefully pruned and manipulated to show one
person's personal agenda at the expense of honor and truth.
[claptrap snipped]
David Storoy
"Bob Officer" <bobof...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding > No Nancy they
will take it up your web provider. Get your lawyer and go
> over your Web providers TOS. They go over every page one at a time. You
> are Violation several laws of Wisconsin and the US right now. I suggest
> you get good legal counsel before the fecal mater hits the rotating air
> circulating device.
I suggest Bob "Non-SpiritualNativeAmerican" to listen more to your beloved
medicine men,Elders and shamans about life and dead.
Michael L Cunningham
>So I'll do what no OTHER web site does and point to where the readerhip
>can read everyone else's opinion.
>
And the magnitude of the object currently is...?
Bill Nelson
> "Bill Nelson" <bi...@spock.peak.org> skrev i melding
>> You are a wanna-be Native American "shaman",
> NO!I love shamanism - but I am not a shaman at the moment. In the future I
> hope so..
Which is exactly what I said - you want to be a "shaman". Why you would
want to be one is beyond me.
>> yet you have a dead human as
>> your "guide". That in itself shows that you did not learn >much from your
>> so-called Native American "shamans".
> Dead or living - what is the main difference? When you are dead - your body
> is dead - your soul is still living - in another density/dimension. When you
> communicate with spiritual world - you communicate with souls who have not
> physical body as you and me. Reincarnation exist. You can only get 100 %
> proof when you are leaving the body for good. When you are dead.
Native Americans did/do not have human guides. That was my point. You are
again displaying your abundant ignorance of spiritualism.
There is no proof that the "soul" exists - or reincarnation - or communication
with the "spirit world".
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Bill Nelson
>>> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
>>> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it,
>>> publically posted by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to
>>> your quote, then I can put this on my web site included as a
>>> copy of my posting.
>>
>> It does NOT allow you to use the quote in a manner that is
>> misleading. That is the main problem I have with your
>> messages on that site. You post a statement by someone - out
>> of context - then append a reply.
> Oh please! Tell this to Limbaugh, or Pat Robinson, or all the ZetaTalk
> bashers who have merry with this rule endlessly here on sci.astro
> alone! Not taken out of context? As in the Hale-Bopp issue, where it
What Limbaugh or Robinson do is immaterial.
Most posts here include enough of preceeding posts to provide some
context for the discussion. Further, if people what more information,
or want to see if there is a followup, it is easy to obtain since the
whole thread is available.
That is NOT true on your site. It may sometimes be possible to tell that
there was a followup to one of your responses, but no way to tell how
much was written. That is because you will selectively choose a sentence
or paragraph from that response - and post your comments based on that
out of context and misleading quote that you selected.
> is endlessly repeated that the Zetas said "it's not a comet" without
> mentioning the YEAR of the statement? They said it was a nova on
> August, 1995 and the ESO subsequently found that what was being pointed
Your Zetas are supposed to be 100% accurate. This is just one of the
first examples that proves that these voices are wrong more often than
they are right.
> to, "outgassing" more than a year before it ought, had no comet
> emissions! Then they said on June 17, 1996 that the supposed orbit was
> being connected to where a real comet located long before by the NEAT
> program, which tracks thousands of dark objects, was due to appear.
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p46.htm
Which was a bunch of hooey - and just another example of the voices being
wrong.
> Out of context? Once again, what's good for the GOOSE is not to be good
> for the GANDER. You think that NASA has a link to where NASA bashers
> opinions might be found, including the ZetaTalk site? The White House
Nasa does NOT quote parts of messages posted to newsgroups. This is just
a "straw dog" arguement. Please try to stick to the subject.
> links to the Bush Watch site? Is this not out of context to OTHERS
> OPINIONS, which is your real complaint. YOUR opinion, in full, the
> jokes, the endless praddle that waters down any thread I start with what
> the debunkers hope will hopelessly discourage anyone from following the
> thread. So sorry that a list of relevant postings, for those who wish
> to hear what the ZETAS had to say, on the ZETATALK exists! Tisk.
The point is, which you keep belittling, that if you are going to quote
others, you need to do your best to make sure you are communicating what
they mean - not just a few words or sentences taken out of context.
The only way to do that is include enough that there is no confusion.
> The current Earth Changes, predicted with stunning accuracy by ZetaTalk
> in 1995, are no joke. The fact that an infrared object was sighted and
It IS a joke - regardless of your claim. There is no evidence that any
changes you claim are occurring.
> imaged at the coordinates given by ZetaTalk months and even years
> earlier is also stunning and no joke. The implications for mankind, who
There never was any such object imaged. The "object" you claim is just a
"knot" in an interstellar gas cloud. You would know this, if you bothered
to read and try to comprehend the followup postings that are made to your
claims.
> is NOT getting the truth from NASA and the Hubble or the White House is
> more than immense and life threatening. It affects every human on
> Earth, massively. Whether they live or die, and if they live the
> quality of their life afterwards. But the agencies paid for by your tax
> dollars, and the government that is supposed to be looking out for your
> interests rather than Enron interests, or the paid debunkers, or the
> self-appointed Shepherd of the Sheep of sci.astro, would rather YOU not
> know what THEY know. Now that's fair, right?
Know what? That your ravings about a conspiracy are false? That there has
not been any previously unknown object that is approaching the solar
system?
> So I'll do what no OTHER web site does and point to where the readerhip
> can read everyone else's opinion.
No, your site does not point to where people can read anyone's opinion
except your own. You slash and censor anyone else's followups when they
are in disagreement with your own views.
> Since postings are made every few days, readers are currently checking
> for new "postings as of" pages, at the Spring 2002 page:
> http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use20021.htm
> The following is now (or will be within the hour) the text at the top of
> this and the two pages covering 2001 Spring and Fall posting dates:
> Since this is the ZetaTalk web site, the list of Usenet postings
> referenced is almost exclusively those postings that include
> ZetaTalk or Nancy responses or initiatives. Usenet archives
> such as Google
> [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=sci.astro]
> provide easy access to all postings made by anyone, regardless
> of substance, so for those wishing to view everything said on
> the matter by anyone else, simply plug the Message or Article
> number or thread Subject into the search field.
That is better, but still not enough. You are still quoting people
out of context - which is not allowed. And any responses to your
comments should also be included in the same article.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
Chris Franks
"David Storoy" <kee...@clean.no> wrote:
>
> I suggest Bob "Non-SpiritualNativeAmerican" to listen more to your beloved
> medicine men,Elders and shamans about life and dead.
>
you need more Ritalin to stay on topic.
David Storoy
> want to be one is beyond me.
Since it is fantasy for you I guess it was not a surprising answer from you.
> Native Americans did/do not have human guides. That <was my point. You are
> again displaying your abundant ignorance of spiritualism.
Mostly of them have used animals as spirit guides. But they have chosen the
outlook of the spirit guides. I have chosen human beings/archetypes as
outlook of my spirit guides. But mainly it is the same type of souls -
spirit guides.
> There is no proof that the "soul" exists - or reincarnation >- or
communication
> with the "spirit world".
The only proof you can get is through personal experience.
Magnus Nyborg
Thank you for keeping your word, and for processing the posts copied to your
website that includes my name to it! And I really hope you will keep your
word because I now have email confirmation from you that you _will_ do it!!
Whether you in the future copy entire threads for everyone to read, or if
you decide to skip copying posts that include my name to it are entirely up
to you, but I _will_ keep a close eye at your site...have no doubt about
that!!
Clear Skies,
Magnus
"Nancy Lieder" <zeta...@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
news:3CBEF394...@zetatalk.com...
Sarah Mc
> In Article <a9javq$rni$2...@quark.scn.rain.com> Bill Nelson wrote:
> > Nancy Lieder <na...@zetatalk.com> wrote:
> >> Even if I did, copyright fair use allows a quote, especially of
> >> something PUBLICALLY posted so the world can read it,
> >> publically posted by YOU. If I quote you, and respond to
> >> your quote, then I can put this on my web site included as a
> >> copy of my posting.
> >
> > It does NOT allow you to use the quote in a manner that is
> > misleading. That is the main problem I have with your
> > messages on that site. You post a statement by someone - out
> > of context - then append a reply.
>
> Oh please! Tell this to Limbaugh, or Pat Robinson, or all the ZetaTalk
> bashers who have merry with this rule endlessly here on sci.astro
> alone!
Your Zetas are showing their liberal political alignment again.
>Not taken out of context? As in the Hale-Bopp issue, where it
> is endlessly repeated that the Zetas said "it's not a comet" without
> mentioning the YEAR of the statement?
Does that "matter"? (To quote you)
>They said it was a nova on
> August, 1995 and the ESO subsequently found that what was being pointed
> to, "outgassing" more than a year before it ought, had no comet
> emissions!
So, they were wrong twice. 100% accuracy, my ass.
> Then they said on June 17, 1996 that the supposed orbit was
> being connected to where a real comet located long before by the NEAT
> program, which tracks thousands of dark objects, was due to appear.
> http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p46.htm
So they were wrong three times. 100% accuracy, my ass again.
>
> Out of context? Once again, what's good for the GOOSE is not to be good
> for the GANDER. You think that NASA has a link to where NASA bashers
> opinions might be found, including the ZetaTalk site?
Do you really think NASA gives a damn about your foolish little
website? My, my, what visions of grandeur we have today.
> The White House
> links to the Bush Watch site? Is this not out of context to OTHERS
> OPINIONS, which is your real complaint. YOUR opinion, in full, the
> jokes, the endless praddle that waters down any thread I start with what
> the debunkers hope will hopelessly discourage anyone from following the
> thread. So sorry that a list of relevant postings, for those who wish
> to hear what the ZETAS had to say, on the ZETATALK exists! Tisk.
You're rambling again Nancy.
> The current Earth Changes, predicted with stunning accuracy by ZetaTalk
> in 1995, are no joke.
sure they are. World wide food shortages by the millenium. Drought and
famine worldwide, causing hysteria and food stockpiling. Volcanic and
tectonic activity ever increasing, etc, etc, etc. All you have to back
tht up is that there's a conspiracy to hide the fact that it's all
happening.
LMAO.
The fact that an infrared object was sighted and
> imaged at the coordinates given by ZetaTalk months and even years
> earlier is also stunning and no joke.
Sure it is, because it never happened. Imaged by who, and and verified
by who? Where are the subsequent images? Where's the ephemeris of this
now-being-tracked infrared object?
The only thing "stunning" here is your inability to accept the truth
that your planet is nowhere to be found, at mag 2, mag 11, or mag 20.
Nowhere. No images. No tracking. No sightings. NADA, zilch, nichts.
> The implications for mankind, who
> is NOT getting the truth from NASA and the Hubble or the White House is
> more than immense and life threatening. It affects every human on
> Earth, massively. Whether they live or die, and if they live the
> quality of their life afterwards. But the agencies paid for by your tax
> dollars, and the government that is supposed to be looking out for your
> interests rather than Enron interests, or the paid debunkers, or the
> self-appointed Shepherd of the Sheep of sci.astro, would rather YOU not
> know what THEY know. Now that's fair, right?
Yep, there's that damn conspiracy theory I was talking about earlier.
That's all you have Cult Leader - a non-existant, undocumented,
unsubstantiated, created by supposition conspiracy theory to back up
your non-existant, undocumented, unsubstantiated, created by
supposition Planet X.
>
> So I'll do what no OTHER web site does and point to where the readerhip
> can read everyone else's opinion.
>
> Since postings are made every few days, readers are currently checking
> for new "postings as of" pages, at the Spring 2002 page:
> http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use20021.htm
> The following is now (or will be within the hour) the text at the top of
> this and the two pages covering 2001 Spring and Fall posting dates:
>
> Since this is the ZetaTalk web site, the list of Usenet postings
> referenced is almost exclusively those postings that include
> ZetaTalk or Nancy responses or initiatives. Usenet archives
> such as Google
> [http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&group=sci.astro]
> provide easy access to all postings made by anyone, regardless
> of substance, so for those wishing to view everything said on
> the matter by anyone else, simply plug the Message or Article
> number or thread Subject into the search field.
Well, that's a start. I'd suggest you start perousing the rest of your
pages for any possible violations of copyrite and/or private emails or
text that wasn't approved by the original authors as well. As we get
closer to your non-event next year, people are going to want any
references to them removed from your site. Best start doing it now and
avoid the rush.
Gustav Bjerke
"Michael L Cunningham" <boge...@earthlink.net> skrev i melding
news:3CBC8EF5...@earthlink.net...
> >
> David is another good example of why parents should know what their
> children are doing on the internet.
>
Unfortunately David is 29 years old. The thing that scares me is that this
guy is actually working in a kindergarten...
Sarah Mc
Wow.
I tend to give David a little leeway, since he obviously has a problem
with the English language, or the translator he's usng isn't quite up
to par. I also tend to nullify any "information" posted about people's
personal lives since mine has been stated here (and elsewhere) many
times, all of them being incorrect - from my location, name, job and
political/religious persuasions, and even whether I have PMS or not :)
.
However if your information is correct, that **is** a fear invoking
thought to behold. Definately scarier than Planet X.
Michael L Cunningham
-- Michael L. Cunningham So Cal SleeperS - 2001 Grand AM GT e-mail boge...@earthlink.net
Leif Magnar Kj|nn|y
Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
>
>I tend to give David a little leeway, since he obviously has a problem
>with the English language, or the translator he's usng isn't quite up
>to par.
Don't bother, he's just as incoherent on the Norwegian newsgroups.
--
Leif Kj{\o}nn{\o}y | "Its habit of getting up late you'll agree
www.pvv.org/~leifmk| That it carries too far, when I say
Math geek and gamer| That it frequently breakfasts at five-o'clock tea,
GURPS, Harn, CORPS | And dines on the following day." (Carroll)
Sarah Mc
> In article <3c09ad3.02042...@posting.google.com>,
> Sarah Mc <sara...@hotpop.com> wrote:
> >
> >I tend to give David a little leeway, since he obviously has a problem
> >with the English language, or the translator he's usng isn't quite up
> >to par.
>
> Don't bother, he's just as incoherent on the Norwegian newsgroups.
Hehehe, OK. :) I'll take your word for it since I don't speak the
language, nor do I visit the NOrwegien groups.
Stig Bull
>> >I tend to give David a little leeway, since he obviously has a problem
>> >with the English language, or the translator he's usng isn't quite up
>> >to par.
>>
>> Don't bother, he's just as incoherent on the Norwegian newsgroups.
>
>
> Hehehe, OK. :) I'll take your word for it since I don't speak the
> language, nor do I visit the NOrwegien groups.
Well, for instance, he once claimed that the aura around his body was hot
and had a temperature of 98 degrees *celsius*...
He also claim he _can_ see auras. Since he don't live that far from me, I
volunteered to travel to where he live and test him on this, but he
naturally stated the he didn't need to be tested at all.
Sarah Mc
> Sarah Mc wrote:
>
>
> >> >I tend to give David a little leeway, since he obviously has a problem
> >> >with the English language, or the translator he's usng isn't quite up
> >> >to par.
> >>
> >> Don't bother, he's just as incoherent on the Norwegian newsgroups.
> >
> >
> > Hehehe, OK. :) I'll take your word for it since I don't speak the
> > language, nor do I visit the NOrwegien groups.
>
>
> Well, for instance, he once claimed that the aura around his body was hot
> and had a temperature of 98 degrees *celsius*...
>
> He also claim he _can_ see auras. Since he don't live that far from me, I
> volunteered to travel to where he live and test him on this, but he
> naturally stated the he didn't need to be tested at all.
The ZetaCult has always seemed to be comprised of people that are
self-proclaimed channelers, psychics, new age "photon-belt" believers
and "inter-dimensional travelers". I guess they feel safer when
huddled together in a cave looking for phenomena that backs up their
predictions and soothsaying.
So, it's no wonder that David, Jan et al, compare sci.astro to the
Inquisition or the burning of witches. I'm starting to think the real
fear they have is of the rest of the world, outside the Zetacult, and
not Planet X or the 'pole shift" itself. The likely possibility that
their nonsense will be shown as false creates waves of fear in them.
The more they post here, the more foolish they look, and even more
people get turned away from Nancy Lieder's little doomsday cult.
Sapphire
news:3c09ad3.02042...@posting.google.com:
I'm currently putting together a website which will document Nancy's 8
year deception and its history. It will also detail the players behind
the scenes (some of whom are not obvious) and hopefully having this
website as an online record of "what happened" will serve to lessen its
negative effects and perhaps prevent similar deceptions and distortions
of reality from happening in the future. (maybe too big a hope)
After I have an online documentation of Zetatalk and Troubled Times, I
hope to have a psychological analysis of Nancy's believers and also a
broader examination of how the Internet can be used for better or worse
to create a false belief system.
Right now my focus is the documentation of the phenomena. It is likely
that Nancy and friends will disperse or self destruct by May-June 2003,
possibly leaving the world with a much larger Heaven's Gate scenario on
its hands.
If anyone has any relevant material that hasn't been already posted
here, please feel free to contact me.
mike_vegas30(nospam)@hotmail.com
Sarah Mc
>
> I'm currently putting together a website which will document Nancy's 8
> year deception and its history. It will also detail the players behind
> the scenes (some of whom are not obvious) and hopefully having this
> website as an online record of "what happened" will serve to lessen its
> negative effects and perhaps prevent similar deceptions and distortions
> of reality from happening in the future. (maybe too big a hope)
Not really. No such thing as "too big" a hope. Any prevention, no
matter how small, of future deceptions is a step forward.
>
> After I have an online documentation of Zetatalk and Troubled Times, I
> hope to have a psychological analysis of Nancy's believers and also a
> broader examination of how the Internet can be used for better or worse
> to create a false belief system.
There are many others besides Nancy's. The only reason she gets
spanked so much here and the others don't, is that the others are
smart enough to stay away.
>
> Right now my focus is the documentation of the phenomena. It is likely
> that Nancy and friends will disperse or self destruct by May-June 2003,
> possibly leaving the world with a much larger Heaven's Gate scenario on
> its hands.
We certainly hope they'll disperse, however Nancy will certainly be
looking for something else to give her the current status she now has
as High Priestess. She thrives on attention and the devotion of her
followers. When her planet doesn't show, I'm certain she'll find some
other method to keep her flock in the field.
>
> If anyone has any relevant material that hasn't been already posted
> here, please feel free to contact me.
Good luck on your endeavor. Be prepared to take the wrath of those
that look to Nancy as being their god and saviour., Certainly they'll
only see your website as blasphemy.
>
> mike_vegas30(nospam)@hotmail.com
Chris Franks
"Stig Bull" <stig...@no.spam.cds.no> wrote
>
> He also claim he _can_ see auras. Since he don't live that far from me, I
> volunteered to travel to where he live and test him on this, but he
> naturally stated the he didn't need to be tested at all.
>
Anybody can "see auras". I showed a "new age" friend of mine how to
do this. Humans have a vision problem something like reciprocity failure
in film. If you stare at something for 10 to 30 seconds, and then look
away to a blank surface, you will "see" the same image that you were staring
at, only 180 degrees out of color phase to the original. That is, if
yellow and purple are complementary colors, then staring at a yellow object
for 30 seconds will fatigue those rods and cones so much that when you look
at a white surface, you will see a purple outline of the yellow subject.
So if you stare at the person,and then slightly shift your vision, you will
see a purple haze about the same size as the person, next to the person.
tho...@antispam.ham
> As in the Hale-Bopp issue, where it is endlessly repeated that the
> Zetas said "it's not a comet" without mentioning the YEAR of the
> statement?
What difference does the year of the statement make, Nancy?
> They said it was a nova on August, 1995
YOU said it was a nova, Nancy, and you were wrong. Novas don't move,
yet Hale-Bopp's movement was noted immediately (otherwise it wouldn't
have been announced as a comet).
> and the ESO subsequently found that what was being pointed
> to, "outgassing" more than a year before it ought,
When a comet "ought" to start outgassing depends on the volatiles
present, Nancy, which were not known in advance. Not all
volatiles begin to sublime at the same temperature. Any comet
can start to outgas before it "ought" if you assume that water
is the trigger, because comets can also have some carbon dioxide
or even methane, which can sublime at lower temperatures, hence
earlier than would be the case for water.
> had no comet emissions!
Still incorrect, Nancy. And to think of the number of times I've
corrected you on this point. There is a big difference between
no comet emissions and no DETECTABLE comet emissions. Just because
you cannot detect the emission from KGU (760 kHz) on your AM radio
does not mean KGU isn't broadcasting. You're simply too far away.
To be sure, as the comet got brighter, the comet emissions became
possible to detect.
> Then they said on June 17, 1996 that the supposed orbit was
> being connected to where a real comet located long before by the NEAT
> program, which tracks thousands of dark objects, was due to appear.
That's what YOU said, Nancy, without any proof whatsoever.
> The current Earth Changes, predicted with stunning accuracy by ZetaTalk
> in 1995, are no joke.
The joke here is your alleged "stunning accuracy", Nancy.
> The fact that an infrared object was sighted and
> imaged at the coordinates given by ZetaTalk months and even years
> earlier is also stunning and no joke.
The fact that the object you've been pointing to in the recent images
is nowhere close to magnitude 11 is also no joke, Nancy, which is why
you've been avoiding that particular piece of evidence for your LACK
of stunning accuracy.