2348Re: [ufodiscussion] Icke's Shape-shifting Reptilians.
- Nov 6, 2004Jahnets wrote:
> Now after reading the above, please tell me why you keep saying this:Janet,
> "I won't argue with you about your benevolent encounters with ETs."
> ha ha I was taught once that possitives and negatives cancel each other out
> in your mind so that sentence really comes out,"I argue with you about your
> benevolent encounters with ET's." lol
There is no positive/negative reversal in the statement "I won't argue with you",
unless by that you mean that I have some "hidden agenda" or "issue" concerning your
encounters. I don't know where you're getting that "arguing" statement from. ;-)
The positive/negative reversal of the ENTIRE above statement would actually be,
"I WILL argue about your NEGATIVE encounters with ETs"! LOL But since you
say you have never had a negative encounter how can I argue with you at all? LOL
The only reason I put that statement in there often is because on the P4C list
we had some VERY nasty arguments, if you remember, when I was talking about my
perception of the action of "negative greys" and I suggested once that perhaps
your earliest encounter was negative because you said it hurt. You got VERY
angry and defended your position. Since then, I just don't bring up the subject
with you, although I DO try to fit your encounter stories into my scenario; I
just don't talk about it here with you. I rarely post or ask questions here
anyway from anyone. I usually don't even get into reading ANYBODY's discussions
here, unless there is something specific that interests me. LOL To tell the
truth, I mainly use this list for the info on current UFO, space and conspiracy
I was, and still am, curious about your "Egyptian-type" encounters, though. If
you ever have anymore, I would definitely be interested in hearing about them.
> You don't have to agree with me Don, it's nice if we have some things weI think we agree some on spiritual/metaphysical things and other "far out" stuff. ;-)
> agree on so we have stuff to discuss. OK... I realise I get into depth on
> some stuff and really look at the details sometimes, but I'm really not
> trying to force you to think the same way as me, rather I am trying to find
> out if you and I are on the same wave length in regard to whatever we are
> discussing. You or someone else will say something that doesn't quite click
> but is close so I try to clarify it. I think we agree on quite a bit really,
> it's just nuances that we disagree on...
I think, though, that the "nuances" of which you speak concern areas where you
are more certain about some things and where I am more "cautious/uncertain". You
certainly have had much more direct contact experiences than I have, so that aspect
would play a BIG role in itself.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:09 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Icke's Shape-shifting Reptilians.
> I won't argue with you about your benevolent encounters with ETs. I
> believe that you are telling the truth as you have experienced it. I
> believe that
> *your* truth could be THE truth, meaning that these ETs certainly were
> and had no other alterior motives. I also believe that they *could* have
> alterior motives and that they were just fooling you into having you think
> were generally benevolent to humanity in general, just because they were
> nice to
> you. Again, Janet, I am not saying that I believe one of these scenarios
> over the
> other; I just don't know, so I am NOT *accusing* you of anything. I,
> myself, am
> just a more suspicious person by nature than you, I guess, and therefore I
> am more
> suspicious than you on the nature of a lot of ETs' intentions toward us, but
> nessarily all. I hope you can see that I am being open and honest with you
> and accept what you say at face value.
> I DID NOT "seem to have answered your(my) own question to me about me(you)".
> you and Jeff seemed to agree that "the visitors" were peaceful, I was just
> as to whether you felt this way about ALL visitors or was this just in
> reference to
> some or those that Icke talked about.
> As for Icke, he has some ideas with which I "find commonality". I won't say
> that I
> agree, because, like with myself, Icke's ideas are merely speculation,
> though he
> promotes them as THE TRUTH. Some of his ideas, namely that ALL Reptilians
> are evil
> conspiratorial partners with our corrupt government, I do not *necessarily*
> Mostly, I do not like Icke's viewpoints precisely because he IS an
> extremist. He is
> an extremist first because he FIRMLY *believes* that he KNOWS the "Truth"
> when these
> are just his speculations. If he said that "these are my speculations and
> in which I hold a great deal of truth", I wouldn't dismiss him. I always
> try to preface
> my own ideas in this way or at least make this clear in my presentations.
> He is also
> an extremist because he sees TOTAL "Evil" in his antagonistic ETs and some
> kind of
> "angelic" grace and beauty in his "Good Guys". This is a very polarized
> view that has
> poisoned most all Western religions. He also seems to flip-flop from one
> position to another regarding what he "knows"(believes) is going on.
> What If --------------------------?
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> Get unlimited calls to
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
What If --------------------------?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>