|
Post by Tamrin on Aug 18, 2013 8:49:28 GMT 10
I see where in response to your question about what if anything specific anyone had learnt there, LorrB remarked on 12 August:Whatever their declared aim or purpose, they (she and her fellow staff fantasist Russell Holland, aka "Paul") presume to inform (i.e., teach) people of Woo (in the context of Freemasonry) as if it were factual and then to ban openly sceptical members and to delete posts expressing rational disagreement, denying the right of reply. Note too, back on 25 March 1010, when declaring the forum open, she specifically stated:Seems as if people were intended to learn something there.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Aug 18, 2013 17:38:20 GMT 10
..there is no such thing as a dumb question ..there is no such thing as a dumb answer Plenty of proof there that, despite the popular platitude, there are plenty of dumb questions. Plenty of proof there too, if there was ever any doubt, that there are plenty of dumb answers. Most were not even wrong. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrongOn the subject of questions, a member there complained that I failed to answer difficult questions. 1. I was not aware that I was obliged to do so. 2. Other than rhetorical questions, I was not aware of any I had not answered. 3. My posts had a short shelf life there as most were quickly deleted, along with any answers. 4. When asked to repeat any specific question he wanted answered he declined to do so. Case dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Oct 17, 2013 19:51:52 GMT 10
Unless and until then you are welcome to discuss exoteric masonic matters but have not business or credibility in discussing esoteric masonic matters. Your misguided presumption in doing so counts against your acceptance, as does you being the only known source of tales suggesting you may be "the one," whatever that means. More semi-literate fantasies from Stewart Edwards "The One" (with delusions of grandeur). Read more at a406.proboards.com/post/21324
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Oct 17, 2013 19:57:59 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Oct 28, 2013 17:50:12 GMT 10
From reading some recent posts at A406, the following reminder may be in order. [The claim that] The Baileys' channeled 'Tibetan Master' Djwhal Khul (DK) leaves me so cold I'm frosty. On one hand, we find Alice's work with D.K. began around the time she met Foster Bailey; she moved into a closer relationship with D.K. around the time she and Foster married; and, when she died, Foster became the mouth-piece for D.K.!? On the other hand, we find that for a 'Master of the Wisdom,' D.K. was surprisingly anti-Semitic: Speaking often of the obsolete 'Jewish Dispensation;' referring to their stereotypical materialism; denying the holocaust; and attributing much of the evil in the world to them. / Foster Bailey / Djwhal Khul
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 3, 2014 7:34:05 GMT 10
Over on A406, Russell Holland (aka "Paul") said: > "The Song of Songs (renamed in the Middle Ages as the Song of Solomon - at about the time of Suleiman the Magnificent)..." I'm reminded of this exchange on an episode of The Simpsons: The book has NOT been renamed. The first verse reads, “The song of songs, which is Solomon's.” Thus, the ascription to Solomon is given in the text and, since time-immemorial, its alternative titles have included "Solomon's Song of Songs," the "Song of Solomon," or "Solomon's Song." They certainly predate Suleiman's reign beginning in 1520 (after the Middle Ages). The only alternative name with even remotely medieval (monastic) origins is Canticles (which does not serve Holland's fantasy).
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Jan 28, 2014 14:44:23 GMT 10
The *** are at it again - deleting every reasoned and reasonable posts for which they have no adequate response. They claim freedom of expression as an excuse to spread lies yet they hypocritically deny any right of reply, even deleting valid points of order.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 5, 2014 16:11:46 GMT 10
For some reason this quote touches a nerve with Peter, Paul or what ever name Russell is going under now (Mary perhaps).
"If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end; if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin, and in the end, despair." - C. S. Lewis
Appropriately this was under the thread "even that which he hath shall be taken"
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 5, 2014 18:10:23 GMT 10
The debate now appears to round off with an Alice Bailey homily about good will. “When you demand the nature of my motives, you reveal the style of your thinking to be callow, captious, superficial, craven, uncertain and impudent.” - Jack Vance.
|
|
|
Post by Smithee on Feb 5, 2014 18:55:37 GMT 10
In summary he claimed "there is a lot" of evidence for life continuing after death. I simply asked "such as." He simply replied "Google is your friend." I reminded him the debate was not with Google and he bore the burden of proof. He said that if I wanted a debate, I would have to find someone else. I asked if he was pulling out of the debate we had been having. He spat the dummy and began deleting the most damaging posts.
|
|