Never Be Ill Again - Saviors of Saviors of Earth

I believe we've already cov...

2009-05-14T19:14:44.999Z

I believe we've already covered the "let the members discern for themselves" excuse.

Hey guys. We turned off the...

2009-05-09T22:00:43.951Z

Hey guys. We turned off the traffic lights in the busiest part of town but it's OK, people can still figure out how to navigate the intersections *fingers crossed*

The problem Tony is that wh...

2009-05-09T18:11:58.200Z

The problem Tony is that while other people and other members come forward with information that maybe they've learned or that someone has told them or that they read somewhere or that they thought to themselves they tend to have a different kind of flavour when Brad comes out and says

"this is the way things are, if you do this this will happen, I have the final word on everything"

I have said this before but Brad dosen't want to dance around in the whole logic and differing opinions and debates and all that shit ever since he first started, even as he changes his mind around, he'll always come out saying shit like he knows its the truth. And hey he's even admitted his own channeling is fake, he has no problem using any of his fake channeling beings to tell people what to do, how the world works, didnt adronis.org say something like "to help people understand the true nature of reality"

Understanding the true nature of reality is a big fucking deal, Brad is not trying to add to the discussion and knowledge, he is simply trying to tell people what is, without any evidence or even any THOUGHT to the repercussion, you know sort of like when he told everyone that people were dead and they'd all ascend very soon and dont worry cause if you or someone you love dies they'll just ascend early not that you should commit suicide wink wink

Tony really has become like a snivelling little snake of a press secretary for SOE hasnt he?

Let me just add that a pers...

2009-05-09T16:55:48.595Z

Let me just add that a person with an actual conscience would see the potential harm they indirectly pose to members (who range in their gullibility) by letting this continue, and discuss it with Brad PUBLICLY yet politely. Even if that meant barring the conversation to only Brad, Antonella, and Clinton, people should at least see both sides make their case and "use their own discretion" as you put it. Why publicly? Because this issue concerned THEM, not just Brad, and it is a disservice to members to reach an "agreement" about an issue concerning them, but doing it all behind-the-scenes as if nothing's going on. This whole "zero-tolerance" policy is as Nazi as it sounds; it's just an attempt to run SOE with as much thought policing as possible, and it's a poorly hidden attempt at that.

Anyway I'm out you guys have fun.

The reason I used the word ...

2009-05-09T15:54:37.866Z

The reason I used the word "originator" to separate people who are the source of spreading misinformation apart from the people who inadvertently transmit that misinformation. It has nothing to do with knowing or not knowing the postee or how true the information is, which is where it seems you tried to make your distinction. I find it quite telling that you acknowledge that regardless of this little disclaimer, people are guaranteed to eventually make a bad judgment, yet the originator of the information is completely exempt from any responsibility himself.

Imagine that hypothetically 10 people refuse treatment after listening to Brad's bullshit and die. Now I know in real life this would probably not happen, but your principles would say that you wouldn't think twice of it because they being too trusting of Brad and taking his information to heart was THEIR mistake and oh well... You're just sick if you think like that.

Tony said:

- I'd like to suggest that the originator should have the freedom to post whatever content he wants, but he should also assume some responsibility for the content he chooses to post. Do you agree with that, Tony? If not, where do you see the lines being drawn between the judgment of the person dispersing information and the discretion of the people reading this information...?

I think we need two scenario's here;
1 - reposted content
Should someone who posts blossom, mark h., casper or any other source hold some responsibility for the content?
No, i don't think so. Maybe it would be appropiate to preceed every post with the discernment statement from the new-member section or at least credit given/link made available to the source along with a reminder that the content is made available at member discretion and discernment. It would be asking to much for the "postee" to take responsibility for the content, they simply wish to make the information available based on their (rightful/wrongful) assumption that other members may benefit from it.

2 - peronalised posts
IMHO these fall under the same category as if they were posted by blossom, mark. H, Casper etc etc. The fact that we think we know the person makes them no different from the formentioned persons. Do we really know the postee? I suggest we don't, therefor the same discernment statement would apply here. No post by any member has any more truth/falsehood to it that that of any source on the internet. It is up to me as an individual to decide how i receive this information and continue to verify it further or dismiss it in its entirety.

So in short the line between judgment and discretion is no mans land and has to remain so for your own safety. Take your own responsibility and self protection seriously in these matters. I suggest not to believe anything, but to question, explore, doubt and discover for yourself what is the truth.

Tony I'd like to see if you...

2009-05-09T14:36:38.707Z

Tony I'd like to see if you can answer my question as it seems you have come up with the excuse I predicted. Thanks.

OK the pattern I'm beginnin...

2009-05-09T14:20:33.100Z

OK the pattern I'm beginning to see is: when we bring up an issue, the response tends to be that "people can discern for themselves". Before you start with that again Tony, I'd like to suggest that the originator should have the freedom to post whatever content he wants, but he should also assume some responsibility for the content he chooses to post. Do you agree with that, Tony? If not, where do you see the lines being drawn between the judgment of the person dispersing information and the discretion of the people reading this information...?

I see the danger VERY clear...

2009-05-09T13:04:20.862Z

I see the danger VERY clearly and am joining Dues for some popcorn...

How bout you, my dear fellow countryman?

Hugs, -yes, I keep given them cuz I'm full of LOVE-

Linda.

2009-05-09T12:10:05.167Z