impersonability given us via the Internet or what, I just know that many (especially those more than five years younger than I) tend to be increasingly more and more rude as well as arrogant in today's world. People used to send you a letter via snail mail (at minimum) to tell you yes or no about an inquiry or proposition, now they just ignore you -- no reply whatsoever and they call such indignation "Professionalism". . . I call it a bold insult and a gross lack of respect let alone being nothing remotely close to what "professionalism" was seen to be a few short years ago. Hell, I remember when it was considered proper to send a thank you card to those that interviewed you for a job position; I even had an agent that insisted that I send them out within 3 days of an interview or audition. She was tops in the biz with a Beverly Hills practice so she must have known something. . .
In Winston's defense I will attempt to shine a bit of light onto things -- the knee jerk retort, as it were.
Winston has a cornucopia of "paranoia" based ideas, most of them being way outside the proverbial box. As someone that has a handful of abstract ways of looking at the world I can readily empathize because one is in a near constant defensive mode not knowing who can be trusted and too, who is honestly seeking to understand your/our perspective on things. Left Brained thinkers tend to has a assholiness thing going for themselves in which they ask questions in a way that makes you feel trapped at times; you're on a constant level of having to defend your beliefs as well as your experiences. I can fully relate to this and thus, table the idea that Winston's off-handed retort about someone being "rude" because they ask questions MAY come from said paradigm. BUT, there is another side to this when it comes to the psychological elements most of us here see in our dear host (and please don't take this as anything but the honest concern it's intended to be, Winston); I think some of us ask simple questions in response to your posts because we do like you and we simply want to help you to learn how to question things. Take a look at your history of postings and how much of it is WAAAAAAY outside the frame of common logic and pragmatism; you've never found a Conspiracy Theory you didn't like or attempt to cling to. This typically means that you suffer from both, grotesque paranoia as well as the need to be perpetually unique. It's a cruel state of mind to put yourself into, which is what you are doing when it comes to the plethora of things you keep insisting to be real. . . it's as if you only see the National Enquirer, Star, Globe and similar publications as being "real news" and credit nut jobs like Sloan, Icke and two or three others for being far more "legit" as scientists and researchers than you do actual Nobel Prize Winners.
I'm not saying this to be harsh, but to encourage you to step away from the keyboard a bit and allow yourself a few months to study and try to understand why these "teachings" are taken with a very large grain of salt by the establishment. Understand too that I'm not saying that it's wrong to question or even doubt "authority" -- we must! But we must likewise do so in sound, pragmatic ways vs. living in an abstract that will never be accepted by the status quo. If the only arguments one puts forth always lean on questionable foundations, then you'll never be taken even remotely serious and will always endure challenge. If we knowingly walk into the lion's den then we are volunteering to be an ardent victim; not because of some covert scenario "they" have in play towards people like you, but because your argument is not founded on anything outside of the abstract. On the other hand, when you have solid and reputable details that can be brought to the table and when the majority of your arguments bring the air of genuine meat that can be digested and savored; then you will fell less put upon when a simple question is asked. We become less defensive on a great number of levels because we cautiously choose which battles we'll embrace -- what conflicts we are prepared to endure.
I have deep seated reasons for my belief in things Spiritually based and what some refer to as the Paranormal; a lifetime of hands-on study, experience and investigation. At the same time I'm not a gullible and blind follower of such things, I know for fact that much of it is ill-defined and not recognized for what it is. . . and that's from either side of the question; the believers are in just as much denial as the naysayers, sometimes worse because they NEED to mysticism vs. acceptance of a more mundane sense of reality that robs them of the fantasiful. Because I see either side of things I do fairly well at bridging the two points of view; helping the gullible to realize it's time to wake-up and smell the coffee while encouraging the pseudo-intellectual that there is far more to it all than science is able to negate and explain away. . . and that's ok.
I can't say for certain that Winston's unwillingness to reply to a question is based on his inner-knowing that he's creating this reality in which everyone seems to challenge him, but it certainly would seem as if he is dependent on the idea that some kind of Jabberwoky is out there in the shadows, waiting to destroy us all. The irony being that people hosting such a mind-set, fail to realize how it's their own paranoia that gives the beast, it's life and power.Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 16 Feb 2012, 21:48
]]>