Re: New study challenges timeline | Forum

E

Evergreen Dazed Dec 4, 2012 13:25:12

Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:

tiompan wrote:

No coincidence that the dodgy stuff tends to be very "I" based too, not really about the people of the past but more often how someone usually an "I " has an ability to garner info that is otherwise unavailable to everyone else . There is never any evidence to support the ability or the info , what is important is the "I" and their "abilities " .This is also coupled with a disdain for those who actually do garner the genuine info often relatively anonymously .

Yup. We had this problem with Kevin and Mike Crowley some years back – it wasn’t so much that we (most of us at least) weren't willing to listen to their ideas it was that they continuously referred back to them; they were their default settings and you couldn’t talk to them on any level other than the ones they’d set for themselves. Mind you, that sort of fanaticism isn’t only confined to the more ‘spiritual’ sectors of society (or this forum for that matter) it’s found everywhere.

Maybe the best way is to put our cards (experiences/beliefs/politics) on the table (at least on forums such as this) once or twice and leave it at that – perpetually banging on about them is a turn off for most other contributors if we don't.

But it is the curiosity that enabled them to continue.
We are curious, superstitious creatures, even now. You still remember Kevin because of the force of the point made. The extreme "I".
You can dismiss claims with your modern mind and education but the people of the neolithic, I would imagine, were more vulnerable to the extreme "I".
I would imagine people could rise in notoriety by simply insisting they were correct. Acting, in every way, as if they knew things that the majority didn't. Curiosity, superstition, fear.

T

tiompan Dec 4, 2012 13:32:03

Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:

tiompan wrote:

No coincidence that the dodgy stuff tends to be very "I" based too, not really about the people of the past but more often how someone usually an "I " has an ability to garner info that is otherwise unavailable to everyone else . There is never any evidence to support the ability or the info , what is important is the "I" and their "abilities " .This is also coupled with a disdain for those who actually do garner the genuine info often relatively anonymously .

Yup. We had this problem with Kevin and Mike Crowley some years back – it wasn’t so much that we (most of us at least) weren't willing to listen to their ideas it was that they continuously referred back to them; they were their default settings and you couldn’t talk to them on any level other than the ones they’d set for themselves. Mind you, that sort of fanaticism isn’t only confined to the more ‘spiritual’ sectors of society (or this forum for that matter) it’s found everywhere.

Maybe the best way is to put our cards (experiences/beliefs/politics) on the table (at least on forums such as this) once or twice and leave it at that – perpetually banging on about them is a turn off for most other contributors if we don't.

Before my time ,thankfully . Although there ws a recent problem at Cahokia ?where punters were burying crystals to boot it up or something . Strong beliefs without any basis is one aspect of the problem , incapable of debate , making Mormons seem comparatively reasonable , there are often other issues too .
BTW what has happened to the Mayan stuff ,have they taken to the hills ? it's been incredibly quiet .maybe preparing calendars for the next one .

B

bladup Dec 7, 2012 03:31:33

Replying to Littlestone

Littlestone wrote:

tiompan wrote:

No coincidence that the dodgy stuff tends to be very "I" based too, not really about the people of the past but more often how someone usually an "I " has an ability to garner info that is otherwise unavailable to everyone else . There is never any evidence to support the ability or the info , what is important is the "I" and their "abilities " .This is also coupled with a disdain for those who actually do garner the genuine info often relatively anonymously .

Yup. We had this problem with Kevin and Mike Crowley some years back – it wasn’t so much that we (most of us at least) weren't willing to listen to their ideas it was that they continuously referred back to them; they were their default settings and you couldn’t talk to them on any level other than the ones they’d set for themselves. Mind you, that sort of fanaticism isn’t only confined to the more ‘spiritual’ sectors of society (or this forum for that matter) it’s found everywhere.

Maybe the best way is to put our cards (experiences/beliefs/politics) on the table (at least on forums such as this) once or twice and leave it at that – perpetually banging on about them is a turn off for most other contributors if we don't.

This is complete rubbish, of course you only need to tell someone something once but sometimes you may be telling a new person the story you've already heard, and if you've already heard it you will think "oh here we go again" but you'd be selfish as a unselfish person would think "i've heard it all before but they haven't though", you lot like to just chat to each other but i'd like to see more newbies, and that's not going to happen when they don't feel welcome because of all your digs and the rules you seem to want to lay out, as long as it isn't abuse people can say what they want on here, the rules of conduct aren't made by you, thank fuck - i really thought you were one of the more open minded on here, it shows what i know.