Re: [tt-welcome] 3,600 years
- At 12:21 31.08.2000 EDT, you wrote:
Actually, Euan wrote
> First, I have an inherent mistrust of folks who try to trademark theirOK, go read some of her books, and take some of her courses, and THEN tell
> supposedly philanthropic spiritual healing techniques. (That's just me, I'm
> sorry.) >>
>Euan, this is a reason for nothing. This tells more about you than about Ms.
>Hayes. Anna Hays has more and different material than anyone I know of.
>Therefore, I suppose, the labels. She says she is one of the Indigo
>Children. She has a much greater capacity to retain knowledge than anyone I
>have ever seen. I have never taken any of her courses, nor read any of her
>books, yet. From what I understand she gave 9 to 12 of them this year, each
>of them different. Each filled with information. No repeating information.
>I know of no other human who could do that. Do you?
me how great she is. To me, most of her stuff seems to me a rehash of stuff
I've read before - many, many times before.
> <<Second, the Ann Hayes Web site (<A HREF="http://www.annahayes.com)">http://Quite right. And ZetaTalk is not an easy way out - it's actually quite hard
>www.annahayes.com)</A> is nothing more
> than a marketing vehicle for this lady's books and tapes - I don't find this
> intellectually or spiritually fulfilling. >>
>This is a website owned and operated by someone charitable to her. Anna's
>website will be forthcoming. I hope it fills your needs for something
>interesting. I found the articles written by Anna at www.annahayes.com very
>stimulating. However, beware, they are not simple to understand if one is
>looking for an easy way out. Millions of years of history would not be
>simple to understand. Nor would 12-strand DNA, or alien agendas, or
>multidimensional reality. We were never taught these things in school.
>However, Einstein and other scientists seem to go along with it.
to accept, as you yourself demonstrate. Just because a message is NOT
clothed in New Age jargon and impressive sounding names for quasi-mystical
belief systems, it dosen't mean that message is easy to accept. I question
my beliefs every day.
> <<Third, here's a little story from my past (indulge me). When I was aNow this exchange was going on in a civilized way until I expressed my
> second-year student at Edinburgh University, a friend and I decided to sign
> up for Social Anthropology 1, figuring it would be an easy degree credit.
> We were right.
> During tutorials, we would compete with each other to construct
> syntactically correct sentences with zero semantic content (no meaning). We
> were majoring in linguistics, you see. We'd spout this psychobabble, and our
> tutor would lap it up.
> We got A's.>>
>This just tells me that you have no respect for others or education. If you
>don't respect others, how can you love them or yourself. Isn't what this is
doubts about Anna Hayes. That tells me a lot about YOU.
You draw your (illogical) conclusions from scant data. The reason I
participate in these lists is because I'm trying to help others (see note
below). Unlike you, I don't categorize myself as Service-to-Others, because
I know that very few humans have actually attained this level of spiritual
development. I also don't see much of a connection between determining one's
spiritual orientation and one's sex and star sign, which are merely aspects
of being incarnate.
I have the greatest respect for education, knowledge and the search for
truth. I have very little respect, on the other hand, for certain people who
claim to be educators, but who just end up wasting everyones' time (read my
Social Anthropology 1 tutor). Hense the little anecdote above, which
illustrated the point quite nicely, in my opinion.
> <<And if you want to see an example of the kind of rubbish we used toOK, guilty. I "attacked" Anna Hayes. But I peppered my post with lots of "in
> see the excerpt above.>>
>You attack by insulting. This again has no real basis in debate.
my opinion"s, which are intended to indicate that... well, this is my
opinion. If you're so inscure in your beliefs that you react so strongly to
someone holding a different opinion, you shouldn't get involved in a debate
in the first place.
> <<In my opinion, Bob Frissel makes much better reading -- if you like theThis is just patronizing. In fact, there are many ways to the truth, and
> of stuff Anna Hayes produces. He has a bit of humility, and he's not out to
> sell his stuff to you. Of course, he's terribly wrong about some things, and
> terribly confused about some others (in my opinion), but he has some
> interesting things to say too.>>
>Bob Frissel was OK. I know of better books. He was taking all of his
>material from Drunvelo's Flower of Life Course. Frissel is not original nor
>a great intellect. There is so much more to learn. And he doesn't even
>touch on the spiritual. It's like a history course (some of which is
>distorted, BTW), History 101, with some sacred geometry thrown in. Euan,
>you've got a ways to go and the ride will be so very interesting, if you care
many things to learn. For instance, I could learn something by memorizing
baseball stats. I'd certainly have gained knowledge, but would this
knowledge be useful?
I could learn something by memorizing the works of Anna Hayes, but I don't
believe this would be as useful to me as Zetatalk. Again, I stress, THIS IS
MY OPINION. You're quite free to believe what you want to believe, just as I
am free to believe what I believe.
As this exchange has descended to the level of personal insults, I will
withdraw before the shit starts flying.
NOTE: Forgive me all (especially John), but I thought the purpose of this
list was to answer questions from newcomers about Zeta material? If I recall
correctly, this exchange was initiated by Susan's broad question on the
Zetas' agenda, which I now percieve was a hook on which to draw others into
debate on the merits of another source, as well as smear the Zetas.
In an earlier post, you wrote:
Zetas have less than 12 [DNA strands] and are unable to
ascend as we will be able to. They are a dying race. They need the Earth
because they have destroyed their own. Now if this sounds like sci-fi, so be
it. Too many people have been abducted by ETs, Zeta ETs, and harmed, to just
pass it off as untruth.
The Zetas refute all this themselves. However, I don't think we can have an
intelligent debate on this without you having read Zetatalk.
- I'm really glad we all understand each other, folks. I think you understand exactly what happened, Euan, you let yourself to be led on by your desire to help another person understand.I'm also happy that you understand what me and the other moderators here tried to do (thanks guys! A man needs to know he's not alone, and I always have a fear that I get carried away when I have to post warnings and rules and stuff, I don't like people thinking I'm into control or anything.) I think Michel summarized this very well, this is a list to help newcomers understand 'the message' better, but we can't let it get carried away and have every person bending it his own way. Attention to what we're doing is necessary all the time, as your dean no doubt repeatedly told you (:-) - and this is also the main precept of the Shao Lin monks.So far, only one person has been 'kicked off' this list, I think you remember who it was and how much of a disruption he was causing with his blatantly derogatory language and a total unwillingness to listen to what the moderators tell him. "Bill Ross" is no longer a member here either, but he unsubscribed by himself, understandably feeling unwelcome. You can view his postings on psdisc, and then every morning say a thank-you prayer that he's no longer here. But it's good that we have that other group, where everybody can say all they want and as much as they want it. It doesn't mean that anybody else reads it!Sol----- Original Message -----From: Michel DavelaarSent: Friday, September 01, 2000 12:27 PMSubject: Attention grabbers: (was Re: [tt-welcome] 3,600 years)
Euan MacDonald wrote:
>NOTE: Forgive me all (especially John), but I thought the purpose of this
> list was to answer questions from newcomers about Zeta material? If I recall
> correctly, this exchange was initiated by Susan's broad question on the
> Zetas' agenda, which I now percieve was a hook on which to draw others into
> debate on the merits of another source, as well as smear the Zetas.
I agree with Euan on this. The focus here has been on
other things than Zetatalk or Troubled Times, lets not
forget our Troubled Times. I agree with Euan because of
the mere fact that some on this list - subconsciously -
draw attention away from the focus of this list, which
is to my understanding meant for newcomers to Troubled
Times (and ZetaTalk), to answer questions about the
sites' content etc. I for one did expect that there was
always an 80 percent chance that newcomers would bend
foruc to their own 'interest', so to a certain point
this is acceptable. But, not if such slowly but
steadily draws away the attention from Troubled Times
and ZetaTalk, as such simply denies the goal of this
list in the first place.