Pro-God, Pro-Human Life, anti-New World Order, Anti-Nefarious Secret Societies, Pro-Civil Liberties, anti-Torture, anti-National ID Card, Pro-Family, Anti-Neo Conservativism, Pro-Net Neutrality, Pro-Home Schooling, Anti-Voting Fraud, Pro-Good Israelis & Pro-Good Palestinians, Anti-Human Trafficking, Pro-Health Freedom, Anti-Codex Alimentarius, Pro-Action, Anti-Bigotry, Pro-9/11 Justice, Anti-Genocide, and Pro-Gun Control. My name is Timothy and I'm from the state of Virginia.
FROM: J-MC Patriot Alert Task Force (jmc.pa.tf@gmail.com) TO: markcarroll2004@earthlink.net CC: Timothy Truthseeker (truthseeker24736587@yahoo.com) DATE: Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:08 PM SUBJECT: RE: Request clarification re your opinions about language, and communication... _______________________
Etherzone I previously recommended etherzone, but the publisher, Robert Momenteller, not only continues to post articles with foul language, but seems to be posting more of them, and I can no longer recommend it in good conscience. There are a few excellent columnists there, and it is a shame their reputation and credibility is being spoiled by the guttermouths that have lowered themselves to the level of the enemy. It makes you wonder about Mr. Momenteller's true motives.
I have never been to Etherzone, but I know what it's like to be accused by people who are not willing to address the issues, but whose strategy relies on accusing individuals of being 'guttermouths' or of 'racists' or such like, of attacking the individual's reputation, or form of speaking; as opposed to the message they are attempting to convey.
For example, many many poeple refused to hear Lenny Bruce's message, cause they said he was 'obscene'.
Many people refused to hear Brad Blanton's message, cause he occassionaly uses an alleged word that these 'Christian' people say 'God' considers to be 'foul language'.
When I have prayed to 'God'; one of my frequent questions used to be: 'GOD are you as petty, and trivial, as small minded, as pathetically fragile egotistic and fascistic as these people say you are? Are you -- the GOD who created the entire universe, so emotioanlly, and psychologically insecure, that you are offended by a little word, that some human with a terribly fragile emotional and psychological ego has decided -- ON YOUR BEHALF -- that you would be offended by it?'
God, surely you would know what many communications specialists have been telling us; not to mention anger specialists etc.. that general human communication, the message being conveyed is 10% in the words, 20% in the tone of the words, and 70% body language. So you know a persons intentions, you know their hearts; and surely God you would know that you could use politically correct words that are so intentionally malicious and so self righteous, so arrogant, so hateful, and without any attempt to listen to the other person; but you would pass the test by many of those who call themselves your 'Christian followers' cause you did not use 'gutter language'.
I am confused God, how it is these people choose to interpret the word 'discernment'. For me a word is just a word, it's a bunch of letters strung together, and the most allegedly 'abusive' or 'obscene' or hateful words, can be shared with love and humour, and the most loving words, can be turned by public relations Bernay's intentional malicious corporateers to enslave, and addict people, to consume as if they are not humans, but 'consumers'.
Some churches appear to not want humans in their churches, they don't want a dialogue a conversation about what we are here for, what it means to be a human, and how to share and relate; they just want 'consumers', individuals who will 'consume' their interpretation without any dialogue, without any discussion, without any experimentation for inner working, it's all just an intellectual exercise.
Isn't it sad, how people can simply be so offended by just a few words; without having made any effort, to further enquire from the person who said what they said what they meant.
Anyway, Mr. Carroll, so what I am writing to you is to ask: what do you mean by what you said? What are you trying to say? Please can you be more clear. Are you saying that even if Etherzone's real intent message may be an interesting and sharing diaologue of discussion and discovery into ways of deeper understanding; that it should be thrown out, by anyone and everyone with sensitive and fragile emotional and psychological ego's upset about any one or more particular words?
So, I'd appreciate if you could clarify for me, what you meant Mr. Carroll, what your intentions are?
If you were a member of the jury in my Crimen Inuria case; what would your decision be in my case? Would my intentions, my 70% body language, my 20% tone of voice message, be relevant to my 'crimen inuria' communication; or only the 10% words, that you found objectionable?
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
PS: I do agree with you that most AIDS research is about nothing much more than disaster capitalism fundraising, but I would say it's possible Mr. Duesberg falls within that category. The only seriously sincere investigator of AIDS origins that I found -- WITH THE DOCUMENTATION TO BACK UP HIS THEORY -- has been Dr. Leonard Horowitz, et al. Are you aware of Dr. Lenoard Horowitz' investigation into AIDS origins; and the the United States Goverment (MK-ULTRA) documentation he based his conclusions upon, namely the descriptions of the tests, where the various viruses were mixed, how they were mixed, etc; and how these mixed virsues (from monkeys, cats, sheep etc.) where then all put into vaccine lots; which were given to gays in America, and blacks in Africa?
1 comment:
FROM: J-MC Patriot Alert Task Force (jmc.pa.tf@gmail.com)
TO: markcarroll2004@earthlink.net
CC: Timothy Truthseeker (truthseeker24736587@yahoo.com)
DATE: Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:08 PM
SUBJECT: RE: Request clarification re your opinions about language, and communication...
_______________________
Mr. Carroll,
At your Favourite Links page you say the following:
Etherzone I previously recommended etherzone, but the publisher, Robert Momenteller, not only continues to post articles with foul language, but seems to be posting more of them, and I can no longer recommend it in good conscience. There are a few excellent columnists there, and it is a shame their reputation and credibility is being spoiled by the guttermouths that have lowered themselves to the level of the enemy. It makes you wonder about Mr. Momenteller's true motives.
I have never been to Etherzone, but I know what it's like to be accused by people who are not willing to address the issues, but whose strategy relies on accusing individuals of being 'guttermouths' or of 'racists' or such like, of attacking the individual's reputation, or form of speaking; as opposed to the message they are attempting to convey.
For example, many many poeple refused to hear Lenny Bruce's message, cause they said he was 'obscene'.
Many people refused to hear Brad Blanton's message, cause he occassionaly uses an alleged word that these 'Christian' people say 'God' considers to be 'foul language'.
When I have prayed to 'God'; one of my frequent questions used to be: 'GOD are you as petty, and trivial, as small minded, as pathetically fragile egotistic and fascistic as these people say you are? Are you -- the GOD who created the entire universe, so emotioanlly, and psychologically insecure, that you are offended by a little word, that some human with a terribly fragile emotional and psychological ego has decided -- ON YOUR BEHALF -- that you would be offended by it?'
God, surely you would know what many communications specialists have been telling us; not to mention anger specialists etc.. that general human communication, the message being conveyed is 10% in the words, 20% in the tone of the words, and 70% body language. So you know a persons intentions, you know their hearts; and surely God you would know that you could use politically correct words that are so intentionally malicious and so self righteous, so arrogant, so hateful, and without any attempt to listen to the other person; but you would pass the test by many of those who call themselves your 'Christian followers' cause you did not use 'gutter language'.
I am confused God, how it is these people choose to interpret the word 'discernment'. For me a word is just a word, it's a bunch of letters strung together, and the most allegedly 'abusive' or 'obscene' or hateful words, can be shared with love and humour, and the most loving words, can be turned by public relations Bernay's intentional malicious corporateers to enslave, and addict people, to consume as if they are not humans, but 'consumers'.
Some churches appear to not want humans in their churches, they don't want a dialogue a conversation about what we are here for, what it means to be a human, and how to share and relate; they just want 'consumers', individuals who will 'consume' their interpretation without any dialogue, without any discussion, without any experimentation for inner working, it's all just an intellectual exercise.
Isn't it sad, how people can simply be so offended by just a few words; without having made any effort, to further enquire from the person who said what they said what they meant.
Anyway, Mr. Carroll, so what I am writing to you is to ask: what do you mean by what you said? What are you trying to say? Please can you be more clear. Are you saying that even if Etherzone's real intent message may be an interesting and sharing diaologue of discussion and discovery into ways of deeper understanding; that it should be thrown out, by anyone and everyone with sensitive and fragile emotional and psychological ego's upset about any one or more particular words?
So, I'd appreciate if you could clarify for me, what you meant Mr. Carroll, what your intentions are?
If you were a member of the jury in my Crimen Inuria case; what would your decision be in my case? Would my intentions, my 70% body language, my 20% tone of voice message, be relevant to my 'crimen inuria' communication; or only the 10% words, that you found objectionable?
Respectfully,
Lara Johnstone
PS: I do agree with you that most AIDS research is about nothing much more than disaster capitalism fundraising, but I would say it's possible Mr. Duesberg falls within that category. The only seriously sincere investigator of AIDS origins that I found -- WITH THE DOCUMENTATION TO BACK UP HIS THEORY -- has been Dr. Leonard Horowitz, et al. Are you aware of Dr. Lenoard Horowitz' investigation into AIDS origins; and the the United States Goverment (MK-ULTRA) documentation he based his conclusions upon, namely the descriptions of the tests, where the various viruses were mixed, how they were mixed, etc; and how these mixed virsues (from monkeys, cats, sheep etc.) where then all put into vaccine lots; which were given to gays in America, and blacks in Africa?
Post a Comment