Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nancy still at it on sci.astro

Expand Messages
  • jtriv@home.com
    This is why I came here a few days ago. Nancy floods sci.astro with her posts. They may have raised awareness, but the so called debates (hard to call it
    Message 1 of 28 , Jun 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      This is why I came here a few days ago. Nancy floods sci.astro with
      her posts. They may have raised awareness, but the so called
      "debates" (hard to call it debate when it is primarily people
      laughing at and making fun of Nancy) are old and obnoxious.

      As I previously posted, on day 2 she posted a thread titled
      "Shepherds of the sheep of sci.astro". Does this sound like an
      attempt to convince others or to troll for reactions?

      Why not let things calm down until fall when Orion will again be
      easily visible and see if there is confirmation?

      This is obviously contrary to the philosophy of this board. While I
      do not share the beliefs of the majority here, I do respect the
      civilized manner in which discussions are conducted. I would ask for
      the same courtesy for sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur, although this
      would probably spoil Nancy's fun. This kind of fun is generally
      called trolling.

      Jim

      --- In tt-watch@y..., Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@z...> wrote:
      > 1. if you leave a debate too soon, the "last word" rings the
      loudest. This
      > is the debunking and guffawing.
      > 2. you will note that there have been many contributors to the
      magnitude
      > discussion, heads together on the issue, and postings on what it
      looks like
      > during the passage and if that rings true with what the Zetas have
      said,
      > etc. Some discussions take awhile to ripen, but they DO
      > 3. the discussion moves, from ridicule to valid subjects, and as it
      is
      > heavily responded to, attracts the curious, now and then, due to
      activity.
      > 4. I expect further sightings, and when posted will trigger
      interest
      in those
      > already curious. Plus the discussions and obvious interest will
      force the
      > "alternative explanation" the Zetas are expecting
      > 5. we are systematically killing the "explanations", one by one,
      and
      this
      > cannot be done in a day as they put them out one at a time.
      > 6. a heavy weight, like Scotti, may engage, and this is prestigious
      > 7. giving up too soon shows a lack of substance and confidence.
      >
      > Troubled Times may not be in the business of convincing anyone, on
      the
      > mailing lists. This is so we can attent to our work, and not be
      distracted.
      > But the sci.astro debates are SOLELY to convince others :-).
      >
      > 8. I'm having fun! We're winning! Always did, but this time it's
      easier!
      >
      > kevin wrote:
      >
      > > i must say, that it is a mystery to me as to why nancy
      > > would post at all on sci.astro. it appears to me that
      > > she is trying way too hard to convince them. that, in
      > > itself, seems contrary to the philosophy of many on
      > > this board. we do not feel the need to spend precious
      > > time trying to convince others.
    • Michael Cunningham
      ... Winning? Winning what? How can people believe you and your posts on the basis of because I say so with no independent authority to lend any validity to
      Message 2 of 28 , Jun 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:

        > 8. I'm having fun! We're winning! Always did, but
        > this time it's easier!

        Winning? Winning what?

        How can people believe you and your posts on the basis
        of "because I say so" with no independent authority to
        lend any validity to your postings.

        The easiest proof of your postings and web site would
        be for someone of a noted authority either
        professional or amateur to verify the existence of
        your rogue planet. Yet you bait and troll the very
        people who could lend authority to your words. As my
        father used to say, either put up or shutup.

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
        a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • Nancy Lieder
        Perhaps you re trolling here. If you don t share the opinion that there is something TO the history of geo changes, and the Planet X coverup, etc., then what
        Message 3 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Perhaps you're trolling here. If you don't share the opinion that there is
          something TO the history of geo changes, and the Planet X coverup, etc., then
          what are YOU doing HERE? Other than to try to troll.

          jtriv@... wrote:

          > While I do not share the beliefs of the majority here, I do respect the
          > civilized manner in which discussions are conducted. I would ask for
          > the same courtesy for sci.astro and sci.astro.amateur, although this
          > would probably spoil Nancy's fun. This kind of fun is generally
          > called trolling.
        • Nancy Lieder
          As Steve Havas has ALREADY told you, this is admitted, in private, by astronomers at very high levels. I ve likewise had this experience. The suspicous early
          Message 4 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            As Steve Havas has ALREADY told you, this is admitted, in private, by
            astronomers at very high levels. I've likewise had this experience. The
            suspicous early death of Harrington, who had set out to monitor Planet X from
            New Zealand as a private individual, tells you nothing? You're pretty dumb,
            aren't you Michael. You're in here trolling too. Else the potential reality
            of this inbound planet has you so scared you're in here to argue AGAINST it
            to ease your anxieties. Trolling scardie-cat. Lovely.

            Michael Cunningham wrote:

            > The easiest proof of your postings and web site would
            > be for someone of a noted authority either
            > professional or amateur to verify the existence of
            > your rogue planet.
          • Michael Cunningham
            ... levels. Steve has never been in contact with very high level astronomers. Only two alleged members of the Canadian group who were amateurs like me. ...
            Message 5 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:
              > As Steve Havas has ALREADY told you, this is
              > admitted, in private, by astronomers at very high >
              levels.

              Steve has never been in contact with "very high level"
              astronomers. Only two alleged members of the Canadian
              group who were amateurs like me.

              > I've likewise had this experience. The suspicous
              > early death of Harrington, who had set out to
              monitor > Planet X from New Zealand as a private
              individual,
              > tells you nothing? You're pretty dumb, aren't you
              > Michael. You're in here trolling too. Else the
              > potential reality of this inbound planet has you so
              > scared you're in here to argue AGAINST it
              > to ease your anxieties. Trolling scardie-cat.
              > Lovely.

              Now you're ranting and resorting to name calling.

              I only came to this forum due to the claims of three
              independent sightings that you quoted as proof.
              Problem is, those sightings did not and still do not
              conform to the conditions you yourself stated as
              necessary to view the object. You still have yet to
              explain why these three sightings were made contrary
              to your instructions. Please comment on the question
              at hand as we would like to be able to view this object.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
              a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            • Michael Cunningham
              ... of geo changes, and the Planet X coverup, etc., then ... troll. The same can be said of your postings to sci.astro as you imply it is a game. Yet, when
              Message 6 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:
                > Perhaps you're trolling here. If you don't share
                > the opinion that there is something TO the history
                of > geo changes, and the Planet X coverup, etc., then
                > what are YOU doing HERE? Other than to try to
                troll.

                The same can be said of your postings to sci.astro as
                you imply it is a game.

                Yet, when we approach you in your own forum you refuse
                to comment on certain observations of the rogue
                planet. I would think you would embrace this chance to
                prove your position within this community.

                We're not trolling as you do on sci.astro but rather
                seeking answers to the very questions you have raised.

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
              • milly@webtv.net
                bogeystar2100@yahoo.com wrote:
                Message 7 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  bogeystar2100@... wrote:
                  <<Yet, when we approach you in your own forum you refuse
                  to comment on certain observations of the rogue
                  planet. I would think you would embrace this chance to
                  prove your position within this community.>>


                  The Zetas have that information, not Nancy.
                  You need to ask your questions on sci.astro, as that is where Nancy and
                  the Zetas are operating now. They are not here on this list. Go, ask
                  your questions there and report back to us here, for those who can't or
                  don't have time to follow sci.astro. Again, the Zetas have the
                  answers, not Nancy, and the Zetas are on sci.astro, not here. This list
                  is for those who accept the premise of future earth changes and want to
                  support each other in preparing for them.
                • Steve Havas
                  Two alleged amateur members of the Canadian group? I didn t even know there was a Canadian group... I guess I must be getting around (hehe)! ... From: Michael
                  Message 8 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Two alleged amateur members of the Canadian group? I didn't even know there was a Canadian group... I guess I must be getting around (hehe)!
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2001 10:03 AM
                    Subject: Re: [tt-watch] Re: Nancy still at it on sci.astro

                    --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:
                    > As Steve Havas has ALREADY told you, this is
                    > admitted, in private, by astronomers at very high >
                    levels.

                    Steve has never been in contact with "very high level"
                    astronomers. Only two alleged members of the Canadian
                    group who were amateurs like me.

                    > I've likewise had this experience.  The suspicous
                    > early death of Harrington, who had set out to
                    monitor > Planet X from New Zealand as a private
                    individual,
                    > tells you nothing?  You're pretty dumb, aren't you
                    > Michael.  You're in here trolling too. Else the
                    > potential reality of this inbound planet has you so
                    > scared you're in here to argue AGAINST it
                    > to ease your anxieties.  Trolling scardie-cat.
                    > Lovely.

                    Now you're ranting and resorting to name calling.

                    I only came to this forum due to the claims of three
                    independent sightings that you quoted as proof.
                    Problem is, those sightings did not and still do not
                    conform to the conditions you yourself stated as
                    necessary to view the object. You still have yet to
                    explain why these three sightings were made contrary
                    to your instructions. Please comment on the question
                    at hand as we would like to be able to view this object.

                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                    a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                  • Nancy Lieder
                    If you re trying to goad Steve into revealing who he talked to, this ploy won t work. Nor will Veronique (who is a space mechanic in France, as a vocation, by
                    Message 9 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      If you're trying to goad Steve into revealing who he talked to, this ploy
                      won't work. Nor will Veronique (who is a space mechanic in France, as a
                      vocation, by the way, and no dummy) give out the name of the Neuchatal
                      astronomer. If Steve's report of his attendance at a Hubble lecture in
                      Vancouver, posted on sci.astro on May 11th, does not tell you that HE WAS NOT
                      TALKING TO AMATEURS, I don't know what does. You calling him a liar? He did
                      not state, in his postings, "amateurs", he stated "astronomers". This was
                      clarified also on our TT Team pages, where this is differentiated.

                      To quote from Steve's report at http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use00757.htm

                      .....

                      I attended a meeting tonight (May 8) hosted by the Royal Astronomical Society

                      of Canada at the H.R. Macmillan Space Center where Ray Villard (director of
                      public relations of the Space Telescope Science Institute ((operated for
                      NASA By Aura)) who manages the public information activities for the Hubble
                      Space Telescope) was giving an update presentation on the Hubble. The
                      presentation lasted about 1 1/2hrs with an audience of maybe 200-300
                      hundred. ...

                      Since
                      there were so many astronomers there I decided to ask some people (2 of
                      which were staff of the R.A.S.C.) and one other guy if an object could be
                      accurately located if someone gave only the RA/Dec to a competent operator
                      at a modern observatory. The answer was YES in all cases. In fact appears
                      that this is an EXTREMELY accurate method of locating an object according to
                      the nice and helpful people I spoke to. So that makes FOUR knowledgeable
                      astronomers that I have asked this question and come back with a positive
                      answer.

                      ........

                      So RASC staff are amateurs? Your ability to take this in, Michael, is akin
                      to the cancer patient I was using as an analogy, who argues that cancer can't
                      exist, and researchers into a cure should do something else with their time,
                      etc. etc. If this SCARES you so, Michael, please stop beating on the
                      messenger, such as Steve, who has GUTS and went out and talked to folks and
                      got a hell of a lot of information, much of which he can't divulge without
                      putting individuals in danger or in the way of retaliation! Got talk to
                      NASA, Micheal, get your OWN information and reactions and vocal admissions
                      and the like! Stop beating on the folks who have the guts to have done that!

                      Michael Cunningham wrote:

                      > --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:
                      > Steve has never been in contact with "very high level"
                      > astronomers. Only two alleged members of the Canadian
                      > group who were amateurs like me.
                    • Nancy Lieder
                      You misquote. Point to where game was said. I said it was more fun this time and we were winning. Last time I was called a whore, etc., in graphic
                      Message 10 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        You misquote. Point to where "game" was said. I said it was more fun this
                        time and we were winning. Last time I was called a whore, etc., in graphic
                        language, as in "could make an elephants trunk disappear". So this time the
                        debate has been more focused.

                        I don't think you're looking for answers, you're looking to have I and Steve
                        and this group disappear, like the cancer patient who can't BEAR to think of
                        the facts as reality. My debate on sci.astro is presenting FACTS. You can't
                        bear to hear them. So go on a picnic, Michael, go play cards, go cut your
                        lawn and have a beer and tell yourself that nothing is amiss. If you've
                        satisfied yourself that it's all a troll, they LEAVE. Spare yourself, you're
                        not up to the calibre of this group, as they at least have taken a deep
                        breath and are THINKING about it and taking tha fact in.

                        Michael Cunningham wrote:

                        > --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:

                        > The same can be said of your postings to sci.astro as
                        > you imply it is a game.
                      • jtriv@home.com
                        As I said, I came here to ask for the same courtesy that those in this group show. I m not here to have fun or mock anyone who believes something that I
                        Message 11 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          As I said, I came here to ask for the same courtesy that those in
                          this group show. I'm not here to have "fun" or mock anyone who
                          believes something that I don't.

                          Will you show our group some courtesy? The debates are being ignored
                          by most and your chances of getting amateurs to assist in exposing
                          the cover-up are certainly being diminished by this. I thought you
                          said you went to sci.astro to get amateurs looking for Planet X?

                          Jim

                          --- In tt-watch@y..., Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@z...> wrote:
                          > Perhaps you're trolling here. If you don't share the opinion that
                          > there is something TO the history of geo changes, and the Planet X
                          > coverup, etc., then what are YOU doing HERE? Other than to try to
                          >troll.
                          >

                          > jtriv@h... wrote:
                          >
                          >> While I do not share the beliefs of the majority here, I do
                          >> respect the civilized manner in which discussions are conducted. I
                          >> would ask for the same courtesy for sci.astro and
                          >> sci.astro.amateur, although this would probably spoil Nancy's fun.
                          >> This kind of fun is generally called trolling.
                        • Nancy Lieder
                          Discussing matters in HERE, in a closed room, won t do it. If you have an issue, why aren t you posting it for the WORLD to see? In fact, you re trying to
                          Message 12 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Discussing matters in HERE, in a closed room, won't do it. If you have an
                            issue, why aren't you posting it for the WORLD to see? In fact, you're
                            trying to draw me away from this public forum, are you not?

                            jtriv@... wrote:

                            > The debates are being ignored
                            > by most and your chances of getting amateurs to assist in exposing
                            > the cover-up are certainly being diminished by this. I thought you
                            > said you went to sci.astro to get amateurs looking for Planet X?
                          • jtriv@home.com
                            Actually like the majority, I refuse to take part in the debates and therefore am posting this in your group instead of mine. I would prefer that you remove
                            Message 13 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Actually like the majority, I refuse to take part in the "debates"
                              and therefore am posting this in your group instead of mine. I would
                              prefer that you remove yourself from the sci.astro.amateur public
                              forum, for my own selfish reasons of once again enjoying a group with
                              dialog on the topic of the group.

                              For your reasons, I have to admit I don't understand why the flood to
                              sci.astro. For your stated reason of getting amateur astronomers to
                              find and confirm Planet X, you are hurting your cause. If you want to
                              spread the word of the Zeta message, why the flood to sci.astro? You
                              access a relatively small audience of a few thousand in these groups.
                              With the many posts over the last 2 months, I think you have the word
                              out to these people.

                              Jim

                              --- In tt-watch@y..., Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@z...> wrote:
                              > Discussing matters in HERE, in a closed room, won't do it. If you
                              have an
                              > issue, why aren't you posting it for the WORLD to see? In fact,
                              you're
                              > trying to draw me away from this public forum, are you not?
                              >
                              > jtriv@h... wrote:
                              >
                              > > The debates are being ignored
                              > > by most and your chances of getting amateurs to assist in exposing
                              > > the cover-up are certainly being diminished by this. I thought you
                              > > said you went to sci.astro to get amateurs looking for Planet X?
                            • Nancy Lieder
                              You re not here in this mailing list because you DON T want the debate, that s why you came in here! My posts are showing science and geological evidence,
                              Message 14 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                You're not here in this mailing list because you DON'T want the debate,
                                that's why you came in here! My posts are showing science and geological
                                evidence, quite appropriate.

                                jtriv@... wrote:

                                > Actually like the majority, I refuse to take part in the "debates"
                                > and therefore am posting this in your group instead of mine. I would
                                > prefer that you remove yourself from the sci.astro.amateur public
                                > forum, for my own selfish reasons of once again enjoying a group with
                                > dialog on the topic of the group.
                              • jtriv@home.com
                                Possibly I did not make myself clear. I should have said: Actually like the majority in sci.astro.amateur, I refuse to take part in the debates which flood
                                Message 15 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Possibly I did not make myself clear. I should have said:

                                  Actually like the majority in sci.astro.amateur, I refuse to take
                                  part in the "debates" which flood our group and therefore am posting
                                  this in your group instead of mine. I would prefer that you remove
                                  yourself from the sci.astro.amateur public forum, for my own selfish
                                  reasons of once again enjoying a group with dialog on the topic of
                                  the group.

                                  I'm also not in this group to debate the issue. I have made a couple
                                  of posts related to your topic and posted a couple of links to some
                                  information. I hope I was polite in doing so. I would not want to
                                  force my beliefs on anyone.

                                  Your posts on science and geological evidence of a pole shift are not
                                  appropriate for a group on amateur astronomy. We talk of equipment
                                  and observation. We are amateurs with a love for astronomy.

                                  Jim

                                  --- In tt-watch@y..., Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@z...> wrote:
                                  > You're not here in this mailing list because you DON'T want the
                                  > debate, that's why you came in here! My posts are showing science
                                  > and geological evidence, quite appropriate.
                                  >
                                  > jtriv@h... wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Actually like the majority, I refuse to take part in the "debates"
                                  > > and therefore am posting this in your group instead of mine. I
                                  would
                                  > > prefer that you remove yourself from the sci.astro.amateur public
                                  > > forum, for my own selfish reasons of once again enjoying a group
                                  with
                                  > > dialog on the topic of the group.
                                • Michael Cunningham
                                  ... Ok then, what organization did you say the two gentlemen were with at the observatory in Vancouver? __________________________________________________ Do
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- Steve Havas <shavas7@...> wrote:
                                    > Two alleged amateur members of the Canadian group? I
                                    > didn't even know there was a Canadian group... I
                                    > guess I must be getting around (hehe)!

                                    Ok then, what organization did you say the two
                                    gentlemen were with at the observatory in Vancouver?

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                                    a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                                  • Michael Cunningham
                                    ... Not the ones I know of. The RASC is made up of a vast majority of amateurs like myself with very very professional astronomers among them but we all share
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@...> wrote:

                                      > So RASC staff are amateurs?

                                      Not the ones I know of. The RASC is made up of a vast
                                      majority of amateurs like myself with very very
                                      professional astronomers among them but we all share a
                                      common vision.

                                      > If this SCARES you so, Michael, please stop beating
                                      > on the messenger, such as Steve, who has GUTS and
                                      > went out and talked to folks and got a hell of a lot
                                      > of information, much of which he can't divulge
                                      > without putting individuals in danger or in the way
                                      > of retaliation!

                                      Why haven't you made any effort to view this object
                                      yourself Nancy? Why haven't you made the effort to get
                                      a group of amateurs together with our scopes and
                                      obtain a sighting conformation that will put this
                                      question to rest?

                                      > Got talk to NASA, Micheal, get your OWN information
                                      > and reactions and vocal admissions and the like!
                                      > Stop beating on the folks who have the guts to have
                                      > done that!

                                      It's one thing to get repeated and independent
                                      observations. It's another to claim something and fail
                                      to search for it yourself.

                                      Discoveries of minor planets require follow up
                                      observations with verification of the data by
                                      independent observers. This is very important for
                                      those NEO's (Near Earth Orbiters) should they pose a
                                      probable impact threat in the near of far future.

                                      Making a visual observation without beneifit of follow
                                      up observations or independent verifications doesn't
                                      lend any validity to the sighting. If something is
                                      there, I want to see it. Believe me, if I saw
                                      something there, I wouldn't be reporting it on this
                                      list. I'd be on the phone to Brian Marsden and three
                                      other observatories to get independent observations.
                                      I'd follow up with more observations to establish it's
                                      orbital parameters.

                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                                      a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                                    • Clipper Ordiway
                                      Possibly I did not make myself clear. I should have said: Actually like the majority in sci.astro.amateur, I refuse to take part in the debates which flood
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Possibly I did not make myself clear. I should have said:

                                        Actually like the majority in sci.astro.amateur, I refuse to take
                                        part in the "debates" which flood our group and therefore am posting
                                        this in your group instead of mine. I would prefer that you remove
                                        yourself from the sci.astro.amateur public forum, for my own selfish
                                        reasons of once again enjoying a group with dialog on the topic of
                                        the group. 
                                         
                                            Possibly, I did not make myself clear either. As I posted earlier today, I will post once again.
                                         
                                         "Some want more information for sure, but time will give all that up. sci.astro is a different story.  A "species" all it's own. The tt-lists and its members are not of that species and should not be treated as such. If you wish to contribute, please do so, but useless and endless debates do not accomplish anything here. Filling our lists with negativity at every turn also serves no purpose"
                                         
                                        Clipper
                                         
                                        TT-watch (tt-watch@yahoogroups.com)
                                        Troubled Times Watch - chatters about the topics in The Word section such as the government, UFO's, weather, news articles and yes, even a few conspiracy theories once in a while (until it gets personal). Not for social chatter, jokes, scientific rantings or ones personal dreams. We are not in the business of selling our ideas, or "converting" anyone, as these types of discussions seem to escalate into never ending debates. As time goes by and more and more members join this and our other groups, we will have much less time for tolerance of disruptive members and they will be removed without lengthy discussions. Those who do not abide by the list rules will be removed. The premise of Troubled Times is that cataclysmic changes are potentially in our future, and that preparation means assuming the worst of what geological and written history tell us. Please, visit http://www.zetatalk.com/thub.htm for more info.


                                      • jtriv@home.com
                                        Clipper, My apologies. I came to ask for the same courtesy that you demand here. Obviously you feel we are another species and not deserving of the same
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Clipper,
                                          My apologies. I came to ask for the same courtesy that you demand
                                          here. Obviously you feel we are another "species" and not deserving
                                          of the same courtesy. Our group is an open group. Anyone can join and
                                          contribute. Anyone can also create "useless and endless debates" and
                                          we do not like those any more than you do. It disrupts the focus of
                                          the group, which in our case is amateur astronomy.

                                          I have no desire to debate this topic. I will sign off your group and
                                          respect your wishes.


                                          --- In tt-watch@y..., "Clipper Ordiway" <clip642@m...> wrote:

                                          > Possibly, I did not make myself clear either. As I posted
                                          > earlier today, I will post once again.
                                          >
                                          > "Some want more information for sure, but time will give all that
                                          > up. sci.astro is a different story. A "species" all it's own. The
                                          > tt-lists and its members are not of that species and should not be
                                          > treated as such. If you wish to contribute, please do so, but
                                          > useless and endless debates do not accomplish anything here.
                                          > Filling our lists with negativity at every turn also serves no
                                          > purpose"
                                          >
                                          > Clipper
                                          >
                                          > TT-watch (tt-watch@y...)
                                          > Troubled Times Watch - chatters about the topics in The Word
                                          > section such as the government, UFO's, weather, news articles and
                                          > yes, even a few conspiracy theories once in a while (until it gets
                                          > personal). Not for social chatter, jokes, scientific rantings or
                                          > ones personal dreams. We are not in the business of selling our
                                          > ideas, or "converting" anyone, as these types of
                                          > discussions seem to escalate into never ending debates. As time
                                          goes
                                          > by and more and more members join this and our other groups, we
                                          will
                                          > have much less time for tolerance of disruptive members and they
                                          > will be removed without lengthy discussions. Those who do not abide
                                          > by the list rules will be removed. The premise of Troubled Times is
                                          > that cataclysmic changes are potentially in our future, and that
                                          > preparation means assuming the worst of what geological and written
                                          > history tell us. Please, visit http://www.zetatalk.com/thub.htm for
                                          > more info.
                                        • Clipper Ordiway
                                          Clipper, My apologies. I came to ask for the same courtesy that you demand here. Obviously you feel we are another species and not deserving of the same
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Jun 2, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Clipper,
                                            My apologies. I came to ask for the same courtesy that you demand
                                            here. Obviously you feel we are another "species" and not deserving
                                            of the same courtesy. Our group is an open group. Anyone can join and
                                            contribute. Anyone can also create "useless and endless debates" and
                                            we do not like those any more than you do. It disrupts the focus of
                                            the group, which in our case is amateur astronomy.

                                            I have no desire to debate this topic. I will sign off your group and
                                            respect your wishes. 
                                             
                                            I respect your view points, but this list is not a news group and it will not be treated as one. "We" are not posting on sci.astro as a group. A few members may be, but "we" are not.  How sci.astro may or may not be treated is not a reflection of this group. You don't even have to leave our group, just respect our guidelines.
                                             
                                            Clipper 
                                          • GreenTek@aol.com
                                            In a message dated 6/2/01 10:35:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, milly@webtv.net ... That s just it. Nancy has responded repeatedly to these questions and results
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Jun 3, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              In a message dated 6/2/01 10:35:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, milly@...
                                              writes:


                                              bogeystar2100@... wrote:
                                              <<Yet, when we approach you in your own forum you refuse
                                              to comment on certain observations of the rogue
                                              planet. I would think you would embrace this chance to
                                              prove your position within this community.>>



                                              That's just it.  Nancy has responded repeatedly to these questions and
                                              results and because the explanation doesn't fit our conventional reasoning or
                                              theory, it must be explained again and again.  That has happened enough.  
                                              Believe it or not.  If not, then please stop creating more superfluous
                                              postings that we have to sift through because that is what this forum is
                                              about.  The question of whether it is or isn't has been answered in our eyes
                                              and now this forum is about solution/resolution theory.

                                              Your input is valued but changing our minds is completely out of the question.

                                              Charlane
                                            • munypenny@anonymous.to
                                              ... I agree that this is the most valid suggestion of all, and one that should be followed immediately. those that wish to ban michael cunningham for being
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Jun 4, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                >
                                                > Why haven't you made any effort to view this object
                                                > yourself Nancy? Why haven't you made the effort to get
                                                > a group of amateurs together with our scopes and
                                                > obtain a sighting conformation that will put this
                                                > question to rest?
                                                >

                                                I agree that this is the most valid suggestion of all, and one that
                                                should be followed immediately.

                                                those that wish to ban michael cunningham for being disruptive should
                                                at least remember that he has the determination to continuously
                                                resuggest the pertinent issues that are being continuously
                                                reorganised to the sidelines. I dont think that michael distorts or
                                                fails to address issues anymore than any other person, and stinks of
                                                an agenda no less than I, nancy, or anyone else. i do agree,
                                                however, that these conversation strings are losing some of their
                                                prior focus but i think it is in a healthy direction because it sheds
                                                light on one very important psychological trap that we can all fall
                                                predator to:

                                                If we take the premise of tt-watch entirely literally and just assume
                                                that the zeta's are factual, then we shut the door on the
                                                openmindedness that led us to the zetatalk website in the first place.

                                                as much as one may claim that michael is posting on this webboard
                                                insolently to defame our agenda out of 'fear,' think about WHY
                                                exactly Nancy hasnt been more aggressive in organising a public
                                                disclosure of the coordinates herself, and continuously insists that
                                                if she were to view in a telescope she would 'not know which end to
                                                look in to.':

                                                *Because if she were to organise a public viewing and aggresively
                                                scan; if she were to look into a telescope at the given coordinates
                                                and NOT see the 12th planet after continuous scanning, pruning,
                                                magnification, and CVD imaging of the coordinate range she would be
                                                in total emotional, and psychological disarray.*

                                                Anyone who does not realise this, at least subconsciously, as the
                                                reason for why she has not organised a public viewing is in denial.
                                                She has too much stake placed into zetatalk to ever take a
                                                confrontational step to actually settle, once and for all, whether it
                                                is real or not. And because of this psychological block of hers, I
                                                will never expect her to take the proper steps to actually take her
                                                theory to the crucible, and see if fits the mold of factuality.


                                                therefore i welcome people that will continuously and constantly
                                                badger us on the points that are important but would be otherwise be
                                                brought to the sidelines, merely because they are not addressed in a
                                                rational way. I also would like to point out that peopel that argue
                                                with nancy cannot be considered more fearful than us, or her.

                                                Brian Kelly
                                              • kevin
                                                ... proper steps to actually take her theory to the crucible, and see if fits the mold of factuality... ... ================= brian, there is one simple fact
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Jun 4, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  --- munypenny@... wrote:
                                                  ....And because of this psychological
                                                  > block of hers, I will never expect her to take the
                                                  proper steps to actually take her theory to the
                                                  crucible, and see if fits the mold of factuality...
                                                  > Brian Kelly
                                                  =================

                                                  brian,
                                                  there is one simple fact that transcends all
                                                  speculation for nancy's 'theory'. the 12th will (or
                                                  will not) be visible in about 18 months (plus or minus
                                                  a few). i, for one, have seen enough proof. i, for
                                                  one, am willing to to accept responsibility for MY
                                                  intuition and accept any and all ridicule if nothing
                                                  appears in our skys. i will embrace that ridicule. 18
                                                  months is not a long time to give
                                                  theory' ..."scientists" usually ask for a lot more
                                                  time. if asking for 18 months 'ain't takin' somethin'
                                                  to crucible' i don't know what is.
                                                  in the meantime...i will prepare.
                                                  kevin
                                                  >
                                                  >


                                                  __________________________________________________
                                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                                  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                                                  a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                                                • mikepip@aol.com
                                                  I will prepare too. However, there is still no reason that Nancy shouldn t be doing the same thing she is trying to enlist others to do.
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Jun 4, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    I will prepare too. However, there is still no reason that Nancy
                                                    shouldn't be doing the same thing she is trying to enlist others to
                                                    do.


                                                    --- In tt-watch@y..., kevin <_the_magician@y...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > --- munypenny@a... wrote:
                                                    > ....And because of this psychological
                                                    > > block of hers, I will never expect her to take the
                                                    > proper steps to actually take her theory to the
                                                    > crucible, and see if fits the mold of factuality...
                                                    > > Brian Kelly
                                                    > =================
                                                    >
                                                    > brian,
                                                    > there is one simple fact that transcends all
                                                    > speculation for nancy's 'theory'. the 12th will (or
                                                    > will not) be visible in about 18 months (plus or minus
                                                    > a few). i, for one, have seen enough proof. i, for
                                                    > one, am willing to to accept responsibility for MY
                                                    > intuition and accept any and all ridicule if nothing
                                                    > appears in our skys. i will embrace that ridicule. 18
                                                    > months is not a long time to give
                                                    > theory' ..."scientists" usually ask for a lot more
                                                    > time. if asking for 18 months 'ain't takin' somethin'
                                                    > to crucible' i don't know what is.
                                                    > in the meantime...i will prepare.
                                                    > kevin
                                                    > >
                                                    > >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > __________________________________________________
                                                    > Do You Yahoo!?
                                                    > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                                                    > a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.