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

2353RE: [ufodiscussion] Icke's Shape-shifting Reptilians.

Expand Messages
  • Jahnets
    Nov 6, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      The possitive and negative thing I got from a PHD in language. The words
      with the " ' " in them actually cancel themselves out in your mind. So
      "will" is possitive and "not" is negative and cancel themselves out. It is
      like computer language being used incorrectly so the computer spits out what
      it thinks you want because you have not asked correctly. There did I explain
      that better?

      Although I'm not sure what I said "hurt", especially about my first
      encounter, I have a feeling it's a misinterpretation. I wasn't hurt
      physically although I was scared on my first encounter as I was 5. But then
      my fear was a misinterpretation too because I was too young to understand
      the strangers. Prometheus has been my friend for a long time. I have a
      picture somewhere around that I drew of him as I have still not seen a good
      one anywhere else. I thought I would frame it and put it next to the one
      done by Parrish with a little note below saying, "Prometheus then" and
      "Prometheus Now". ha ha

      -----Original Message-----
      From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
      Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 2:33 AM
      To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Icke's Shape-shifting Reptilians.

      Jahnets wrote:

      > Now after reading the above, please tell me why you keep saying this:
      > "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
      > in your mind so that sentence really comes out,"I argue with you about
      > benevolent encounters with ET's." lol


      There is no positive/negative reversal in the statement "I won't argue with
      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
      "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?

      The only reason I put that statement in there often is because on the P4C
      we had some VERY nasty arguments, if you remember, when I was talking about
      perception of the action of "negative greys" and I suggested once that
      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
      with you, although I DO try to fit your encounter stories into my scenario;
      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
      here, unless there is something specific that interests me. LOL To tell
      truth, I mainly use this list for the info on current UFO, space and

      I was, and still am, curious about your "Egyptian-type" encounters, though.
      you ever have anymore, I would definitely be interested in hearing about

      > You don't have to agree with me Don, it's nice if we have some things we
      > 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
      > 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
      > but is close so I try to clarify it. I think we agree on quite a bit
      > it's just nuances that we disagree on...

      I think we agree some on spiritual/metaphysical things and other "far out"
      stuff. ;-)
      I think, though, that the "nuances" of which you speak concern areas where
      are more certain about some things and where I am more "cautious/uncertain".
      certainly have had much more direct contact experiences than I have, so that
      would play a BIG role in itself.


      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: DRxDON [mailto:drxdon@...]
      > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 3:09 PM
      > To: ufodiscussion@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: Re: [ufodiscussion] Icke's Shape-shifting Reptilians.
      > Janet,
      > I won't argue with you about your benevolent encounters with ETs. I
      > certainly
      > 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
      > benevolent
      > and had no other alterior motives. I also believe that they *could* have
      > had
      > alterior motives and that they were just fooling you into having you think
      > they
      > 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,
      > NOT
      > nessarily all. I hope you can see that I am being open and honest with
      > here
      > and accept what you say at face value.
      > I DID NOT "seem to have answered your(my) own question to me about
      > Since
      > you and Jeff seemed to agree that "the visitors" were peaceful, I was just
      > curious
      > 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
      > 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
      > accept.
      > 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
      > intuitions,
      > 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
      > extreme
      > position to another regarding what he "knows"(believes) is going on.
      > Don
      > --
      > What If --------------------------?
      > DRxDON
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      > [Image]
      > Get unlimited calls to
      > U.S./Canada
      > [Image]
      > --------------------
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufodiscussion/
      > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      > ufodiscussion-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

      What If --------------------------?

      Yahoo! Groups Links
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic