alright lets start with this then

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Tony on May 26, 2009 at 1:08pm

There were so many times pies i cant remember the last time. And no, you must have misread what i said. I said yes, people do get banned if they post things here for which they would be banned if they were said there.

As for the invite only, it just goes to show the world turns as we speak. I was making a last post here and need to check something out. Imagine my surprise when i couldnt get into soe with a new account i created which i will tell you about in a minute.

I just changed the option back and sent a message to Basilis, i think he is using an invite option between soe and his own site and messed up the setting when he should just be using the mail invite option only. There again maybe the invite only needs to be turned on for him to send/invite members between sites. So again, why always these hostile attacks without knowing the facts. And dont give me the "thats a bullshit excuse tony" i even have a mail i can post here showing my amazement towards Basilis (with time stamp before your post) that the option "invite only" has been turned on and that i changed it back.


ilikepies said:

so what your saying I'm making it up when I say I was banned the last time for posting nothing? You think I'm making it up that people were banned for postings they made on here? You think I'm making it up that there are so many other people who have been banned for stating your opinion even though the odd person gets by with saying "I dont believe in channeling doodeeladoo" Your fucking delusional man for christ sakes your sites a fucking private invitation only secretive cult now where people are banned for POSTING NOTHING.
god your annoying

Tony said:

As i see it there is no dictatorship. Wouldnt Dom have already been banned or Doc? Although i do miss Dom havent seen him here or there or on his private mail. Hope all is ok with him.

I guess we will always differ on this point. Depending on the "violation" some personal attacks only lead to the removal of the post and a mail warning to take personal matters offline with/without admin mediation. I have an an example if that isnt believed. Only the massive personal attacks lead to a direct ban. And i can only reiterate, there are plenty of posts which state they don't believe a thing in the channeling and thats ok it comes down to how it is put and their is no need to get personal it's as simpel as that.

ilikepies said:

Oh and if you INSIST on only sticking with me as the only example of anyone who has ever been banned because your too stupid and scared to deal with the larger picture then I'll just say this. I honestly can't remember alll the specific reasons that led to my banishment each time. If the rant your referring to is when I confronted brad about leading a meditation against the dark spirits in his wife (ex wife now.....) then thank you for bringing up one of my proudest moments, where I stood up for this poor family Brad was probably already thinking about abandoning. I can remember the first and last times I was banned though...The first time I was banned for nothing, just saying hi and saying that I was a skeptic...actually that happened 3 times in a row, the last time I was banned I was banned for nothing, just having the neighborhoodskeptic name in an account that had yet to post a single thing on SOE, and I didn't even plan to, but I was banned, for nothing. I can think of one time where I openly attacked brad and said he was a dickshit and he banned me and said "banned for unnaceptable blog comment" so there's one more example of me "ranting" or what have you and like I said that was after I had comments deleted where I was only stating and defending my opinion. If this isn't enough to make you fucking leave the sole example of me behind and attempt to get your caveman brain to deal with the larger issue of the dictatorship that SOE has become then someone needs to take you behind a shed and shoot you cause your broken

ilikepies said:

lol, yah but which time? I was banned and unbanned like 10 seperate times. but seriously for fuck sakes just forget about me like seriously fine I was banned for only spewing anti semitic devil worshipping shit FINE i'll give you that take it it dosent change the fact that many many other people have been banned and silenced for SPEAKING THEIR OPINION, opinions that might halt brads selfish desires for fame and new age whores

Tony said:

He was banned following a rant in chat. I saw the chat after he was banned.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by LeavingSOE on May 26, 2009 at 1:11pm

Wha? Why did you pick the Cain and Abel story?!? God, all-knowing God, asked the question and already knew the answer. No discernment needed there... it's God after all. And God held Cain responsible for his action and his lie. (Sidetrack for a second, some suggest an additional moral of the story is, "YES! You are your brother's keeper and he yours!") So I really don't understand your example.

P.S. Don't complicate this by adding in a third-party. Let's stick to the simple topic of the transmitter and the receiver. My question to you was whether or not you believe the transmitter is responsible for the transmission. I believe the transmitter is responsible for the transmission; yes, the receiver is responsible for what they do with that transmission, but that doesn't exempt the transmitter from accountability. My impression is that you believe the receiver is responsible for interpreting (discerning?) the transmission. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think we've reached an impasse. You certainly aren't going to convince me that the receiver is fully accountable, and I won't convince you that discernment is a lousy excuse.

Tony said:

well how shall i put it, as with all information ever since day one, so lets take for example the well known cain and abel story

"where is your brother?", answer "i do not know where he is, i am not my brothers keeper"........"

Now to a third party there are two questions, is that the truth or is he lying.

Hence our advice: discern carefully what appears to be, yet make up your mind about nothing, rather continue to search, remain open to discovery, remain in that state of "I don't Know", for in that state you can not be closed to further learning, and you will remain open to discovery without pre-judging anything

At first glance going by the question and answer the first discernment feeling would normally be "maybe he doesnt know", so no mind made up yet as per the advice. Yet on further discovery (as the observer was open to it) he discovers the brother knew damn well where his brother was.

So even in this simpel example if it is true, then it just goes to show you just never know until you know for sure 100%. So follow the advice, BELIEVE NOTHING.

So you are stating that cain should take full responsibility and be truthful. Well the facts have proven time and time again (be it tv, newspapers, word of mouth, friends, family, neighbours, you name it) that PEOPLE DON'T or believe they are and ARE NOT. So you have to discern for yourself or through authorities or hope someone helps you. You accuse me of things yet all you are trying to do is crucify one person.

You know as well as me the chain of responsibility ranging from parents through local government to the individual. And as i have stated before, no one, yet all are welcome, have come forward to any admin with the complaints and accusations that are brought forward here at sosoe. If they do they will be helped to the full extent. As stated elsewhere there are currently police and social services involved in some matters when they came to our attention.

So if you believe what you believe then why isnt anyone here who is a victim of anything you accuse anyone of, not taking legal action, as is happening in cases behind the scenes here at soe for matters that are being investigated. Rather than cut/copy/paste anything you guys love to jump on and bitch about to fill your days. It just doesnt add up. And if all that bothers you are money making schemes by any member then guess what, there are millions in the world doing so.


LeavingSOE said:

Examine the content for its authenticity (for example, could a personal motive been consciously or subconsciously injected into the message, could the entity itself have injected inauthentic information, could there be negative repercussions if this message is taken seriously by its consumers, etc).

Going with your example, do you not think it wildly irresponsible of the originator of that message to have distributed the information to a trusting public without analysis to the point of smoking gun evidence or, minimally, a preface stating this information may or may not be true? The elected officials and a good deal of the public initially trusted the messenger and believed the message (as well they should -- we are are right to trust those who have the experience we lack). Personally, I think both in your example and in the case of channelers/mediums (including Brad), it is wildly irresponsible for a channeler/medium to distribute information they channel without serious reflection, analysis, and preface. In the case of the news, as you mentioned, there is a legal responsibility to be truthful. Hence such phrases as, "the alleged robber" versus "the robber." Please don't turn this into a conversation about whether or not the media can be trusted. That's not the point. The point is that they have a legal obligation to be truthful and responsible for their content, else they can face legal action.

I think we'll continue going around in circles on this, because your answer has been and continues to be one of forcing the discernment on the consumer rather than the producer. I'm completely unable to wrap my brain around that, especially consider the nature of a spiritual environment. I believe we are all students essentially, we should be able to have a reasonable level of trust in the teachers and experts around us, and those who are spreading a message (teachers or otherwise) should be held accountable for their words and actions. This is particularly important in the world of spirituality, because people are at their most vulnerable - in a seeking position. It is even more important at SOE, because you have young and impressionable members who don't realize that the concepts SOE broadcasts are the same recycled concepts from when we were infants. If they saw the original GFOL television broadcasts, for example, perhaps they would be better armed to discern for themselves. But, instead, they've chosen SOE for their spiritual needs. And those on that site who have positioned themselves as spiritual leaders (yes, being one of the few who can channel on-demand are a minority and can easily been seen as spiritual leaders) have a responsibility to ensure the work they are doing is as authentic as possible and as harmless as possible. DO NO HARM! I leave you with a recycled article that I posted before, because I find it relevant to this conversation.

Council on Spiritual Practices

Tony said:

examine the content for what exactly?
but whilst awaiting your answer i will say no. couldn't his analysis be wrong? It is up to those hearing/reading what they hear/read to discern for themselves what they wish to discern. Same with any news report or world leader speak, viewsers discern for themselves what is true or what is bullshit. A prime example being the WMD, how many sons/daughters/mothers/fathers would still be alive if the BS wasnt swallowed.

LeavingSOE said:

Let me get back to my original question. I asked if you believed Brad was channeling an external entity, and you stated you don't know. Irrespective of whether or not an external entity was responsible for the quoted channeling, do you think Brad has a responsibility to examine the content of his channelings before sharing the information with other individuals?

Tony said:

Let me check, it was so long ago. As i just stated it looked all jibberish to me.

here is the complete first post in that container. Preceding this were many attempts which lead to absolutely nothing (i think over a period of several weeks. Basically the procedure was eyes shut, meditation, fingers on keyboard with eyes shut. In this attempt something readable appeared on the screen after the session.

======
For myself I created a blog on my home page (under construction) describing step by step how i came to where i am now. After several attempts at channeling (with great help from Brenda and sources unknown) this came out.

.......
know this , for this is now. it is not . for it is without doubt that that which i speak of is meant for someone. They will discover in their own good time. Force not, want not all will come in due time. For thats the way it is and always will be . Search not , seek not.. All will be revealed. Riddles, yes? no? it is. For that which is pure, demands, not only gives. That nourishes that within, that always was. rejoice oh blessed one, Love is , love was love. Thirst, always for that is. be not afraid, all has happened all will happen. there is but one, all. you grow tired, until then.
i am .
.......

I have no idea what it is, that is what this container is for. I have only corrected major spelling mistakes and typing errors. The minor ones have been left alone. as has the rest of the message.
======

end of post in container.

LeavingSOE said:

Thanks for your reply.

When you tried your hand at channeling, did you channel things that were specific to you, or did you channel things that were specific to other people?

Tony said:

@lsoe will check back in a few hours for your reply or follow-on question(s).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by james_uk on May 26, 2009 at 1:19pm

Tony said:

For now, without even looking at the links I will fully believe that Brad cencored posts on those links. I am sure many site owners censor posts. I can't be interested in what Brad did outside of SOE, i didnt know him then. Since being an administrator at soe i have had several issues taken up with brad and all brought to a mutualy acceptable solution. The unbanning of NSI members for example. Leaving the banning to admins a second one. and many many more. The only last incident i recall where brad deleted a post was when i wasnt on top of a post where members (some no older than 36 or less hrs) began openly attacking each other, brad in that instance sent a message to the admins stating he had deleted the post as there was no admin around at the time.



james_uk said:

Tony said:

have you seen the number of replies here?

on top of that a quick switch to soe and the last mail heading i read was "have you seen my mail yet". So sorry James i just dont have all the time to read them just yet.



james_uk said:

Tony said:

For your information James all members who went through me (i didnt click all your links) and were unbanned. In fact DOC is stil a member as is i-dom. When they were unbanned it was made clear that it was under the provision that they abide by the rules.

james_uk said:

In regards to what pies said. I should add that in the past Brad has banned people that shared views that conflicted his own interests. This is no different than what he's done as SOE.
http://saviorsofsaviorsofearth.ning.com/forum/topics/looks-like-peo...

Hell you've only got to look at the contents of this one link to see that people saw the asshole that Brad was back then.
http://projectcloverfield.com/2007/08/04/wtf-1-18-08newscom/

I stopped reading at "(i didnt click all your links)". Why did'nt you click on the links provided? Is it because by any chance you dont want to run the risk of being exposed to the cold hard unadulterated truth of the person your managing the community for?

Ok well in any case when you do please just give a straight to the point opinion free of any sidestepping around the core issues so we can have an opinion on the unjust censoring that Brad has clearly exhibited in said links. Thanks. As before NO sidestepping this time around please. With said links there really is only one conclusion that one can come to.

No offense Tony but by refusing to look at the contents of said links your still missing (sidestepping) around the core issue here which is the fact that Brad was still censoring and deleting peoples views that did'nt match his own. There's no need to just take my word for it. Just take a look for yourself. People who went to his site saw him for what he was back then. Why wont you accept that?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony on May 26, 2009 at 1:25pm

quick reply to this as i am trying to find out what someone has done with the sign-up to soe.

If you really read what i said, i said to a thrid party i.e. me, you anyone confronted with that scenario. God asking the question and us hearing the answer without knowing what we know.

as for transmitter/receiver i believe the receiver cant trust the transmitter to hold that responsibilty and accountability, Hence that simpel example of cain and abel whitnessed by a third party. We know the stroy now, but if at the time we were just whitnesses to the question and answer then it would be obvious in hindsight that the lesson learned is that you can't trust the transmitter to hold that responsibility and accountability.


LeavingSOE said:

Wha? Why did you pick the Cain and Abel story?!? God, all-knowing God, asked the question and already knew the answer. No discernment needed there... it's God after all. And God held Cain responsible for his action and his lie. (Sidetrack for a second, some suggest an additional moral of the story is, "YES! You are your brother's keeper and he yours!") So I really don't understand your example.

P.S. Don't complicate this by adding in a third-party. Let's stick to the simple topic of the transmitter and the receiver. My question to you was whether or not you believe the transmitter is responsible for the transmission. I believe the transmitter is responsible for the transmission; yes, the receiver is responsible for what they do with that transmission, but that doesn't exempt the transmitter from accountability. My impression is that you believe the receiver is responsible for interpreting (discerning?) the transmission. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think we've reached an impasse. You certainly aren't going to convince me that the receiver is fully accountable, and I won't convince you that discernment is a lousy excuse.

Tony said:

well how shall i put it, as with all information ever since day one, so lets take for example the well known cain and abel story

"where is your brother?", answer "i do not know where he is, i am not my brothers keeper"........"

Now to a third party there are two questions, is that the truth or is he lying.

Hence our advice: discern carefully what appears to be, yet make up your mind about nothing, rather continue to search, remain open to discovery, remain in that state of "I don't Know", for in that state you can not be closed to further learning, and you will remain open to discovery without pre-judging anything

At first glance going by the question and answer the first discernment feeling would normally be "maybe he doesnt know", so no mind made up yet as per the advice. Yet on further discovery (as the observer was open to it) he discovers the brother knew damn well where his brother was.

So even in this simpel example if it is true, then it just goes to show you just never know until you know for sure 100%. So follow the advice, BELIEVE NOTHING.

So you are stating that cain should take full responsibility and be truthful. Well the facts have proven time and time again (be it tv, newspapers, word of mouth, friends, family, neighbours, you name it) that PEOPLE DON'T or believe they are and ARE NOT. So you have to discern for yourself or through authorities or hope someone helps you. You accuse me of things yet all you are trying to do is crucify one person.

You know as well as me the chain of responsibility ranging from parents through local government to the individual. And as i have stated before, no one, yet all are welcome, have come forward to any admin with the complaints and accusations that are brought forward here at sosoe. If they do they will be helped to the full extent. As stated elsewhere there are currently police and social services involved in some matters when they came to our attention.

So if you believe what you believe then why isnt anyone here who is a victim of anything you accuse anyone of, not taking legal action, as is happening in cases behind the scenes here at soe for matters that are being investigated. Rather than cut/copy/paste anything you guys love to jump on and bitch about to fill your days. It just doesnt add up. And if all that bothers you are money making schemes by any member then guess what, there are millions in the world doing so.


LeavingSOE said:

Examine the content for its authenticity (for example, could a personal motive been consciously or subconsciously injected into the message, could the entity itself have injected inauthentic information, could there be negative repercussions if this message is taken seriously by its consumers, etc).

Going with your example, do you not think it wildly irresponsible of the originator of that message to have distributed the information to a trusting public without analysis to the point of smoking gun evidence or, minimally, a preface stating this information may or may not be true? The elected officials and a good deal of the public initially trusted the messenger and believed the message (as well they should -- we are are right to trust those who have the experience we lack). Personally, I think both in your example and in the case of channelers/mediums (including Brad), it is wildly irresponsible for a channeler/medium to distribute information they channel without serious reflection, analysis, and preface. In the case of the news, as you mentioned, there is a legal responsibility to be truthful. Hence such phrases as, "the alleged robber" versus "the robber." Please don't turn this into a conversation about whether or not the media can be trusted. That's not the point. The point is that they have a legal obligation to be truthful and responsible for their content, else they can face legal action.

I think we'll continue going around in circles on this, because your answer has been and continues to be one of forcing the discernment on the consumer rather than the producer. I'm completely unable to wrap my brain around that, especially consider the nature of a spiritual environment. I believe we are all students essentially, we should be able to have a reasonable level of trust in the teachers and experts around us, and those who are spreading a message (teachers or otherwise) should be held accountable for their words and actions. This is particularly important in the world of spirituality, because people are at their most vulnerable - in a seeking position. It is even more important at SOE, because you have young and impressionable members who don't realize that the concepts SOE broadcasts are the same recycled concepts from when we were infants. If they saw the original GFOL television broadcasts, for example, perhaps they would be better armed to discern for themselves. But, instead, they've chosen SOE for their spiritual needs. And those on that site who have positioned themselves as spiritual leaders (yes, being one of the few who can channel on-demand are a minority and can easily been seen as spiritual leaders) have a responsibility to ensure the work they are doing is as authentic as possible and as harmless as possible. DO NO HARM! I leave you with a recycled article that I posted before, because I find it relevant to this conversation.

Council on Spiritual Practices

Tony said:

examine the content for what exactly?
but whilst awaiting your answer i will say no. couldn't his analysis be wrong? It is up to those hearing/reading what they hear/read to discern for themselves what they wish to discern. Same with any news report or world leader speak, viewsers discern for themselves what is true or what is bullshit. A prime example being the WMD, how many sons/daughters/mothers/fathers would still be alive if the BS wasnt swallowed.

LeavingSOE said:

Let me get back to my original question. I asked if you believed Brad was channeling an external entity, and you stated you don't know. Irrespective of whether or not an external entity was responsible for the quoted channeling, do you think Brad has a responsibility to examine the content of his channelings before sharing the information with other individuals?

Tony said:

Let me check, it was so long ago. As i just stated it looked all jibberish to me.

here is the complete first post in that container. Preceding this were many attempts which lead to absolutely nothing (i think over a period of several weeks. Basically the procedure was eyes shut, meditation, fingers on keyboard with eyes shut. In this attempt something readable appeared on the screen after the session.

======
For myself I created a blog on my home page (under construction) describing step by step how i came to where i am now. After several attempts at channeling (with great help from Brenda and sources unknown) this came out.

.......
know this , for this is now. it is not . for it is without doubt that that which i speak of is meant for someone. They will discover in their own good time. Force not, want not all will come in due time. For thats the way it is and always will be . Search not , seek not.. All will be revealed. Riddles, yes? no? it is. For that which is pure, demands, not only gives. That nourishes that within, that always was. rejoice oh blessed one, Love is , love was love. Thirst, always for that is. be not afraid, all has happened all will happen. there is but one, all. you grow tired, until then.
i am .
.......

I have no idea what it is, that is what this container is for. I have only corrected major spelling mistakes and typing errors. The minor ones have been left alone. as has the rest of the message.
======

end of post in container.

LeavingSOE said:

Thanks for your reply.

When you tried your hand at channeling, did you channel things that were specific to you, or did you channel things that were specific to other people?

Tony said:

@lsoe will check back in a few hours for your reply or follow-on question(s).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony on May 26, 2009 at 1:33pm

arent we saying the same thing? i believe you without looking, now there is faith for you. It doesnt change the matter. I will repeat your words then "Brad was still censoring and deleting peoples views that did'nt match his own"

That is what he was/did then. In fact i recall a post somewhere on here where brad actually admits to it himself.

or are you saying he is stil doing it now over at those sites? i really am trying to switch over to soe but after each reply i find another one to reply to. I have to go and sort our website out, i will check the links later if needed. But let me assume the worst now and say that you say he is doing it to this day. Well all i could say in response is that that is his own affair. I am an admin at soe, if it happened there (within the rules) then there would be an issue if brought to my attention. To date that hasnt happened or when accused of doing so it was within the rules and agreements made with the admins.


james_uk said:

Tony said:

For now, without even looking at the links I will fully believe that Brad cencored posts on those links. I am sure many site owners censor posts. I can't be interested in what Brad did outside of SOE, i didnt know him then. Since being an administrator at soe i have had several issues taken up with brad and all brought to a mutualy acceptable solution. The unbanning of NSI members for example. Leaving the banning to admins a second one. and many many more. The only last incident i recall where brad deleted a post was when i wasnt on top of a post where members (some no older than 36 or less hrs) began openly attacking each other, brad in that instance sent a message to the admins stating he had deleted the post as there was no admin around at the time.



james_uk said:

Tony said:

have you seen the number of replies here?

on top of that a quick switch to soe and the last mail heading i read was "have you seen my mail yet". So sorry James i just dont have all the time to read them just yet.



james_uk said:

Tony said:

For your information James all members who went through me (i didnt click all your links) and were unbanned. In fact DOC is stil a member as is i-dom. When they were unbanned it was made clear that it was under the provision that they abide by the rules.

james_uk said:

In regards to what pies said. I should add that in the past Brad has banned people that shared views that conflicted his own interests. This is no different than what he's done as SOE.
http://saviorsofsaviorsofearth.ning.com/forum/topics/looks-like-peo...

Hell you've only got to look at the contents of this one link to see that people saw the asshole that Brad was back then.
http://projectcloverfield.com/2007/08/04/wtf-1-18-08newscom/

I stopped reading at "(i didnt click all your links)". Why did'nt you click on the links provided? Is it because by any chance you dont want to run the risk of being exposed to the cold hard unadulterated truth of the person your managing the community for?

Ok well in any case when you do please just give a straight to the point opinion free of any sidestepping around the core issues so we can have an opinion on the unjust censoring that Brad has clearly exhibited in said links. Thanks. As before NO sidestepping this time around please. With said links there really is only one conclusion that one can come to.

No offense Tony but by refusing to look at the contents of said links your still missing (sidestepping) around the core issue here which is the fact that Brad was still censoring and deleting peoples views that did'nt match his own. There's no need to just take my word for it. Just take a look for yourself. People who went to his site saw him for what he was back then. Why wont you accept that?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony on May 26, 2009 at 1:36pm

off to soe to sort out the sign-up.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by LeavingSOE on May 26, 2009 at 1:38pm

And again, I'm asking you not to complicate things with a third party. Let us simply talk about two individuals. That's all. Just two people, ok? One doing the talking, and one doing the listening. A doctor tells you that you have cancer. If the doctor is wrong or lied--you don't really have cancer, who's fault is it? The doctor's or yours?

Tony said:

quick reply to this as i am trying to find out what someone has done with the sign-up to soe.

If you really read what i said, i said to a thrid party i.e. me, you anyone confronted with that scenario. God asking the question and us hearing the answer without knowing what we know.

as for transmitter/receiver i believe the receiver cant trust the transmitter to hold that responsibilty and accountability, Hence that simpel example of cain and abel whitnessed by a third party. We know the stroy now, but if at the time we were just whitnesses to the question and answer then it would be obvious in hindsight that the lesson learned is that you can't trust the transmitter to hold that responsibility and accountability.


LeavingSOE said:

Wha? Why did you pick the Cain and Abel story?!? God, all-knowing God, asked the question and already knew the answer. No discernment needed there... it's God after all. And God held Cain responsible for his action and his lie. (Sidetrack for a second, some suggest an additional moral of the story is, "YES! You are your brother's keeper and he yours!") So I really don't understand your example.

P.S. Don't complicate this by adding in a third-party. Let's stick to the simple topic of the transmitter and the receiver. My question to you was whether or not you believe the transmitter is responsible for the transmission. I believe the transmitter is responsible for the transmission; yes, the receiver is responsible for what they do with that transmission, but that doesn't exempt the transmitter from accountability. My impression is that you believe the receiver is responsible for interpreting (discerning?) the transmission. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think we've reached an impasse. You certainly aren't going to convince me that the receiver is fully accountable, and I won't convince you that discernment is a lousy excuse.

Tony said:

well how shall i put it, as with all information ever since day one, so lets take for example the well known cain and abel story

"where is your brother?", answer "i do not know where he is, i am not my brothers keeper"........"

Now to a third party there are two questions, is that the truth or is he lying.

Hence our advice: discern carefully what appears to be, yet make up your mind about nothing, rather continue to search, remain open to discovery, remain in that state of "I don't Know", for in that state you can not be closed to further learning, and you will remain open to discovery without pre-judging anything

At first glance going by the question and answer the first discernment feeling would normally be "maybe he doesnt know", so no mind made up yet as per the advice. Yet on further discovery (as the observer was open to it) he discovers the brother knew damn well where his brother was.

So even in this simpel example if it is true, then it just goes to show you just never know until you know for sure 100%. So follow the advice, BELIEVE NOTHING.

So you are stating that cain should take full responsibility and be truthful. Well the facts have proven time and time again (be it tv, newspapers, word of mouth, friends, family, neighbours, you name it) that PEOPLE DON'T or believe they are and ARE NOT. So you have to discern for yourself or through authorities or hope someone helps you. You accuse me of things yet all you are trying to do is crucify one person.

You know as well as me the chain of responsibility ranging from parents through local government to the individual. And as i have stated before, no one, yet all are welcome, have come forward to any admin with the complaints and accusations that are brought forward here at sosoe. If they do they will be helped to the full extent. As stated elsewhere there are currently police and social services involved in some matters when they came to our attention.

So if you believe what you believe then why isnt anyone here who is a victim of anything you accuse anyone of, not taking legal action, as is happening in cases behind the scenes here at soe for matters that are being investigated. Rather than cut/copy/paste anything you guys love to jump on and bitch about to fill your days. It just doesnt add up. And if all that bothers you are money making schemes by any member then guess what, there are millions in the world doing so.


LeavingSOE said:

Examine the content for its authenticity (for example, could a personal motive been consciously or subconsciously injected into the message, could the entity itself have injected inauthentic information, could there be negative repercussions if this message is taken seriously by its consumers, etc).

Going with your example, do you not think it wildly irresponsible of the originator of that message to have distributed the information to a trusting public without analysis to the point of smoking gun evidence or, minimally, a preface stating this information may or may not be true? The elected officials and a good deal of the public initially trusted the messenger and believed the message (as well they should -- we are are right to trust those who have the experience we lack). Personally, I think both in your example and in the case of channelers/mediums (including Brad), it is wildly irresponsible for a channeler/medium to distribute information they channel without serious reflection, analysis, and preface. In the case of the news, as you mentioned, there is a legal responsibility to be truthful. Hence such phrases as, "the alleged robber" versus "the robber." Please don't turn this into a conversation about whether or not the media can be trusted. That's not the point. The point is that they have a legal obligation to be truthful and responsible for their content, else they can face legal action.

I think we'll continue going around in circles on this, because your answer has been and continues to be one of forcing the discernment on the consumer rather than the producer. I'm completely unable to wrap my brain around that, especially consider the nature of a spiritual environment. I believe we are all students essentially, we should be able to have a reasonable level of trust in the teachers and experts around us, and those who are spreading a message (teachers or otherwise) should be held accountable for their words and actions. This is particularly important in the world of spirituality, because people are at their most vulnerable - in a seeking position. It is even more important at SOE, because you have young and impressionable members who don't realize that the concepts SOE broadcasts are the same recycled concepts from when we were infants. If they saw the original GFOL television broadcasts, for example, perhaps they would be better armed to discern for themselves. But, instead, they've chosen SOE for their spiritual needs. And those on that site who have positioned themselves as spiritual leaders (yes, being one of the few who can channel on-demand are a minority and can easily been seen as spiritual leaders) have a responsibility to ensure the work they are doing is as authentic as possible and as harmless as possible. DO NO HARM! I leave you with a recycled article that I posted before, because I find it relevant to this conversation.

Council on Spiritual Practices

Tony said:

examine the content for what exactly?
but whilst awaiting your answer i will say no. couldn't his analysis be wrong? It is up to those hearing/reading what they hear/read to discern for themselves what they wish to discern. Same with any news report or world leader speak, viewsers discern for themselves what is true or what is bullshit. A prime example being the WMD, how many sons/daughters/mothers/fathers would still be alive if the BS wasnt swallowed.

LeavingSOE said:

Let me get back to my original question. I asked if you believed Brad was channeling an external entity, and you stated you don't know. Irrespective of whether or not an external entity was responsible for the quoted channeling, do you think Brad has a responsibility to examine the content of his channelings before sharing the information with other individuals?

Tony said:

Let me check, it was so long ago. As i just stated it looked all jibberish to me.

here is the complete first post in that container. Preceding this were many attempts which lead to absolutely nothing (i think over a period of several weeks. Basically the procedure was eyes shut, meditation, fingers on keyboard with eyes shut. In this attempt something readable appeared on the screen after the session.

======
For myself I created a blog on my home page (under construction) describing step by step how i came to where i am now. After several attempts at channeling (with great help from Brenda and sources unknown) this came out.

.......
know this , for this is now. it is not . for it is without doubt that that which i speak of is meant for someone. They will discover in their own good time. Force not, want not all will come in due time. For thats the way it is and always will be . Search not , seek not.. All will be revealed. Riddles, yes? no? it is. For that which is pure, demands, not only gives. That nourishes that within, that always was. rejoice oh blessed one, Love is , love was love. Thirst, always for that is. be not afraid, all has happened all will happen. there is but one, all. you grow tired, until then.
i am .
.......

I have no idea what it is, that is what this container is for. I have only corrected major spelling mistakes and typing errors. The minor ones have been left alone. as has the rest of the message.
======

end of post in container.

LeavingSOE said:

Thanks for your reply.

When you tried your hand at channeling, did you channel things that were specific to you, or did you channel things that were specific to other people?

Tony said:

@lsoe will check back in a few hours for your reply or follow-on question(s).

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by james_uk on May 26, 2009 at 1:47pm

Tony said:

arent we saying the same thing? i believe you without looking, now there is faith for you. It doesnt change the matter. I will repeat your words then "Brad was still censoring and deleting peoples views that did'nt match his own"
That is what he was/did then. In fact i recall a post somewhere on here where brad actually admits to it himself. or are you saying he is stil doing it now over at those sites? i really am trying to switch over to soe but after each reply i find another one to reply to. I have to go and sort our website out, i will check the links later if needed. But let me assume the worst now and say that you say he is doing it to this day. Well all i could say in response is that that is his own affair. I am an admin at soe, if it happened there (within the rules) then there would be an issue if brought to my attention. To date that hasnt happened or when accused of doing so it was within the rules and agreements made with the admins.


james_uk said:

Tony said:

For now, without even looking at the links I will fully believe that Brad cencored posts on those links. I am sure many site owners censor posts. I can't be interested in what Brad did outside of SOE, i didnt know him then. Since being an administrator at soe i have had several issues taken up with brad and all brought to a mutualy acceptable solution. The unbanning of NSI members for example. Leaving the banning to admins a second one. and many many more. The only last incident i recall where brad deleted a post was when i wasnt on top of a post where members (some no older than 36 or less hrs) began openly attacking each other, brad in that instance sent a message to the admins stating he had deleted the post as there was no admin around at the time.



james_uk said:

Tony said:

have you seen the number of replies here?

on top of that a quick switch to soe and the last mail heading i read was "have you seen my mail yet". So sorry James i just dont have all the time to read them just yet.



james_uk said:

Tony said:

For your information James all members who went through me (i didnt click all your links) and were unbanned. In fact DOC is stil a member as is i-dom. When they were unbanned it was made clear that it was under the provision that they abide by the rules.

james_uk said:

In regards to what pies said. I should add that in the past Brad has banned people that shared views that conflicted his own interests. This is no different than what he's done as SOE.
http://saviorsofsaviorsofearth.ning.com/forum/topics/looks-like-peo...

Hell you've only got to look at the contents of this one link to see that people saw the asshole that Brad was back then.
http://projectcloverfield.com/2007/08/04/wtf-1-18-08newscom/

I stopped reading at "(i didnt click all your links)". Why did'nt you click on the links provided? Is it because by any chance you dont want to run the risk of being exposed to the cold hard unadulterated truth of the person your managing the community for?

Ok well in any case when you do please just give a straight to the point opinion free of any sidestepping around the core issues so we can have an opinion on the unjust censoring that Brad has clearly exhibited in said links. Thanks. As before NO sidestepping this time around please. With said links there really is only one conclusion that one can come to.

No offense Tony but by refusing to look at the contents of said links your still missing (sidestepping) around the core issue here which is the fact that Brad was still censoring and deleting peoples views that did'nt match his own. There's no need to just take my word for it. Just take a look for yourself. People who went to his site saw him for what he was back then. Why wont you accept that?

No Tony what I'm saying is that Brad does it at SOE and the fact that Brad has done it on his past sites and at SOE itself reinforces that fact. It is history repeating itself. Brads not doing it now on his previous sites because they've been dead for some time now. See no offense to the position your in but if you really came out and said "My lord you were all right all along. Brad really is a self promoting obnoxious person" Brad would slam his ban hammer down on you so quick I can tell you. See the trouble with faith is its not something I wish to fall back on. You've either actually looked at the content of the links or you've side stepped around them then expect me to take your word for it. Not a chance that we take in the real world............

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by DeusEx on May 26, 2009 at 1:55pm

What would I have done? I would contact Vaddix personally and get him somewhere like chat or ventrilo where I could talk to him personally. Get him to understand that perhaps his discernment needs a bit of tuning since he believes in this magic alien homeworld. Maybe get to understand that life can be pretty crappy sometimes but that is what helps us grow and makes life so fulfilling. Just a few ideas off the top of my head.

Now onto the real questions for you, Tony. When did you lose your humanity? Your compassion? When did the members of SOE become just numbers to you? When was the exact moment you stopped caring for each individual as they were just martyrs for the cause? That's the thing I find most abhorrent in what you have allowed yourself to become. It is not that the needs of the many outweigh the need of the few as you are so often keen of quoting, in fact what you have demonstrated time and time again is the needs of no one matter above that of the cause. The most humorous part in all this is the cause is a man, Brad Johnson. The cause is not that of being a lightworker nor any other worthy ideal. How does it feel? To know that it is only because of your ego and your need to protect the cause that under your watchful eye people like Kerry have been allowed to be misled and taken advantage of? How does it feel to let down the people that elected you as an admin? You were put there to serve and protect the community not some cause that you have created in your mind.

Tony said:

It does as much to me as it does to you?

They have and always will happen.

I don't see your point deusx. As for vaddix what else do you think should be done? What have you done in the matter with your account over there?

DeusEx said:

Do you not think they could have been prevented in some way? Doesn't matter to you does it? The numbers speak to you and say events like these are bound to happen.

Tony said:

wow you are seeing events which take place every day in real life only on a much larger scale. Take for example the 6000000 million divorces, and the millions of suicides, the hundreds of thousands of murders and rapes. So what is new Deux?

DeusEx said:

Looks like discernment is doing wonders for Vaddix because he clearly seems so happy with his life here on Earth and has no thoughts of returning to some promised alien homeworld where everything tastes like cotton candy.

Looks like discernment is doing wonders for Kerry. She stayed home with her kids and family and is happy with her life. She didn't send money from herself and her family for a money making scheme called EoS. She also didn't spend money on a gold chain from Argos or purchased a ticket to go across the world to meet her soulmate cult leader.

You're right, Tony. High vibrations....high vibrations...oh noz chemtrails....high vibrations....high vibrations ahhh everything is OK.

P.S. - Tony, about connecting the dots on things for me. I think I spend more than enough time trying to reach across to you and explain things so you can understand them. Perhaps you can try to do the same or you might seem snarky and I love it when people get snarky with me. See Twiddly for an example of that.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony on May 26, 2009 at 4:17pm

well on the rare occasion that this is here is the latest mail from Vaddix, as stated no doubt a lot of people sent him advice.

From Vaddix to Tony
Sent 3 hours ago

Oh wow. I dont like this place. I really really dont. But i dont really think suicide is an option. actually i think im gonna delete my blog now, no sence in getting people worried. . Sure im not having a good time here like at all But i would never consider that. Im just hoping some aliens will pop down and steal me But thats not gonna happen so ill concentrate on escapeing in other means. Like astral or something.
My life goal is to make this place better in anyway i can. I just hate it the way it is right now. Im hear fpr a reason. I just wish i knew what it was and i wish somebody would give me a break really from the constant stress im under right now. Sorry i just like to vent here. cuase people listen. Its more than what anyone else does for me.
Thanks for the link and the concern, and thank the people who were concerned too since i don't know who they are. I dont think ill be needing it however anytime soon.
Vaddix

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tony on May 26, 2009 at 4:19pm

>>Now onto the real questions for you, Tony. When did you lose your humanity? Your compassion? When did the members of SOE become just numbers to you?>>

As pointed out to you guys many times before, members are what matters to me most. You have no idea what goes on behind the scenes. Maybe for that concern for members i have been banned myself. The only shame about that is that all the new-member section and framework went with it.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by DeusEx on May 26, 2009 at 5:00pm

Thanks again for contacting, Vaddix. It's a shame that it had to wait until we kept bugging you to do something about the situation...

Tony said:

well on the rare occasion that this is here is the latest mail from Vaddix, as stated no doubt a lot of people sent him advice.

From Vaddix to Tony
Sent 3 hours ago

Oh wow. I dont like this place. I really really dont. But i dont really think suicide is an option. actually i think im gonna delete my blog now, no sence in getting people worried. . Sure im not having a good time here like at all But i would never consider that. Im just hoping some aliens will pop down and steal me But thats not gonna happen so ill concentrate on escapeing in other means. Like astral or something.
My life goal is to make this place better in anyway i can. I just hate it the way it is right now. Im hear fpr a reason. I just wish i knew what it was and i wish somebody would give me a break really from the constant stress im under right now. Sorry i just like to vent here. cuase people listen. Its more than what anyone else does for me.
Thanks for the link and the concern, and thank the people who were concerned too since i don't know who they are. I dont think ill be needing it however anytime soon.
Vaddix

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9