Burisch Forum: Bill Ryan Q & A on Project Camelot

Project Serpo related discussion

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby billryan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:04 am

Hidden Hand wrote:A two-parter from me.

Bill wrote: (1) "After the information, comes the debate.

That’s not Camelot’s job to judge or preside over, any more than it is that of Rense, Pippin, Noory or any other information platform."

and

(2) "Remember, no-one ever erected a statue to a critic. It’s easy to knock, criticise and scoff... rather harder to build relationships, earn trust, align purposes, and have the guts to speak out openly under one’s own name. "

and in your email that Ry reposted in a diff thread (re your interview with Burisch) http://www.realityuncovered.com/forum/v ... t=272#3387
(3) "It’s NOT our place to judge claims or stories. Camelot will not be a kangaroo court."

Statement (1) is interesting in several respects - notably your choices of "information platforms" - I think that things like CNN and the Washington Post spring to mind as "information platforms" faster.

The reason I bring that up is that 1) those traditional "information platforms" do in fact have codes of ethics pertaining to accuracy - for example http://www.asne.org/ideas/codes/washingtonpost.htm; and 2) the "platforms" you cite all use disclaimers - see for example the "Disclaimer" at the bottom of http://www.rense.com/, or from an Art Bell bio: "he calls his show 'absolute entertainment', and further noting his statements that he does not necessarily accept every guest or caller's claims, but only offers a forum where they will not be ridiculed."

So my first question is - do you intend on having a similar disclaimer on Camelot's productions?


Not the bit about entertainment - Camelot is deadly serious - but it might be appropriate to put something there as a disclaimer. However, that sounds like something legal to me; in the US I'm always amused by caveats on coffee cups warning that the liquid is hot. Over here (for those who don't know, I'm a Brit living in California) an astonishing number of people and organizations are scared of lawsuits.

By my reading, you have framed this in an "interesting" context - you (ie Camelot) present yourself as a "David" versus the "Goliath" of.. well, I guess The Powers That Be.


Correct.

While anybody who asks questions is conducting a kangaroo court, a scoffer, and critic who will never be remembered.


Wrong. We may have already cleared this up (answering some of these Qs out of sequence), but most people reading this can tell the difference in their bones between someone with a destructive intention, trying to pull something down and leave nothing in its place, and those who are genuinely trying to mould things into a better form.

...In other words, anybody who questions the information you present is being destructive and dishonorable?


Not at all. See above. Some of these questions (on this and other forums) have been very useful for us and our thinking. Other remarks are clearly antagonistic and have a destructive intent. Most people can tell the difference, and I'll not name names.

billryan wrote:The critics to whom no-one erects statues are those who do nothing whatsoever debunk and discredit, and do not move the world forward one inch. Revolutionaries are essentially constructive inasmuch as they're always working towards a vision, whether they succeed or not.


Bill - Who decides?
If you do an interview with somebody, and later an investigator at RU (for example) digs up the evidence that debunks that person's claims - are you going to hold a grudge against the debunker, as a destructive force??


No, of course not. All we want is a level playing field, and a measure of intelligence, background knowledge, and ethics in the questioners.

Many disclosure issues are very complex - as I've learned - and there's a continual paradox inasmuch as the very evidence that could be presented to support a claim is also that which would also breach a pledge of confidentiality. This is a paradox which has been with the UFO field for half a century.

I think we are both just trying to get to the truth.


I do agree. These are intelligent questions you're asking. They go quite a way beyond the "you're just a lying scam artist trying to make a quick buck, aren't you?" kind of "question"... which of course is not a question at all, just an unintelligent prejudice.

Btw, this experience of the last two days has made it clear that we should have an FAQs page on the website. So thanks to all for catalysing that, which is very helpful.

Besl, Bill
billryan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:48 am


Postby billryan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:08 am

sandman wrote:Wow.
So much to read in a short time.
Just from seeing some of the questions and the answers that were given.
I have no desire to follow along after this.

I will not quote because there are so many things that jumped out at me right away.

I already see run around answers from Bill.
That’s exactly the way Slurpo started.
The currier of a story then turned a blind eye when information came out that did not support it or showed overwhelming inaccuracies.

Bill claimed at one time that Slurpo was hurting him financially and emotionally then he starts “PC" for absolutely no reason but for the good of man? Ummmm Ok.

I seen the quote that he followed the DB story for years. How can he not see how most of it was picked apart?

I guess the premise of interviewing Whistle Blowers is a little bit more safer then being the messenger again.

I'm not trying to attack but it seems Bill just wants to be in the spotlight once again. I guess someday we will have to figure out why.


Hi, sandman. Was there a question in there anywhere? Or do you have all your opinions fully formed? If you'd like any clarification on anything, please ask.
billryan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:48 am

Burisch

Postby secherd » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:11 am

Bill,

While interviewing Dr. Burish, did you encounter any Security teams around him, cameras,etc. ? I saw and heard Macia on the interview, did you see Dr. Burischs' wife or Dr. McDowells' sister?
User avatar
secherd
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 4:15 pm
Location: N.C. USA

Postby billryan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:18 am

MikeJamieson wrote:How secure do you think any legitimate leakers of inside information would feel in contacting you at the Camelot Project?


Wonderful Q. Given that I've steadfastly refused to name names in the serpo affair, I'd like to think they would trust us to quite a large extent.

Given that this is probably a highly sensitive matter, to our national security folks with access to classified information re: UFOs, wouldn't it be logical to presume that all possible forms of communication by you and others associated with Camelot would be monitored?


Kerry and I assume as a matter of fact that we are continually monitored, certainly by e-mail. I know for a fact that my e-mails have been re-routed recently - an insider placed a bug in one to see what was going on and we got extracted disk details from someone called David Olson (whom no-one knew, not even Rick Doty), who had on his disk a file intriguingly named landscapeserpo.jpg. None of us ever got to the bottom of that. We assume it was behind the scenes DIA.

Best, Bill
billryan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:48 am

Re: Burisch

Postby billryan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:23 am

secherd wrote:Bill,

While interviewing Dr. Burish, did you encounter any Security teams around him, cameras,etc. ? I saw and heard Macia on the interview, did you see Dr. Burischs' wife or Dr. McDowells' sister?


No, to all questions.

Best, Bill
billryan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:48 am

Postby Xena » Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:02 am

We're running out of time so I suppose I should take this opportunity to continue while we are still a few hours away from the "deadline". I'll cross post this to RU in case you do not return.



Bill

How does your belief set in the Ron's Org movement (or similar) influence your modus operandi in these activities?


What advantages or disadvantages do you see in communicating with people who might fit the criteria of your belief sytem, even though they may not yet be a "member" or inductee of such a belief system?


What level of responsibility do you accept for the mental well being of people you interact with in this field where you are potentially the owner of "suggestion" in communications with said people?


What level of liability do you accept for any mental or physical degradaton caused to an individual through interaction with you or the material / discussion which may be hosted by you on a website?
User avatar
Xena
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 1:25 am
Location: Australia

Postby billryan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:42 am

Xena wrote:How does your belief set in the Ron's Org movement (or similar) influence your modus operandi in these activities?


No connection.

What advantages or disadvantages do you see in communicating with people who might fit the criteria of your belief sytem, even though they may not yet be a "member" or inductee of such a belief system?


None... no relevance.

What level of responsibility do you accept for the mental well being of people you interact with in this field where you are potentially the owner of "suggestion" in communications with said people?


I don't think I understand this very strange question! Of course, I accept no responsibility for the mental well-being of those I communicate with. Everyone is responsible for themselves.

Best, Bill
billryan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:48 am

Postby I.P.Freely » Thu Aug 03, 2006 8:55 am

Xena wrote:We're running out of time so I suppose I should take this opportunity to continue while we are still a few hours away from the "deadline". I'll cross post this to RU in case you do not return.



Bill

How does your belief set in the Ron's Org movement (or similar) influence your modus operandi in these activities?


What advantages or disadvantages do you see in communicating with people who might fit the criteria of your belief sytem, even though they may not yet be a "member" or inductee of such a belief system?


What level of responsibility do you accept for the mental well being of people you interact with in this field where you are potentially the owner of "suggestion" in communications with said people?


What level of liability do you accept for any mental or physical degradaton caused to an individual through interaction with you or the material / discussion which may be hosted by you on a website?


may I ask you something Xena

Why does Mr,Ryans belief in ron,s org lead you to become automacticly bias against him.

How could it be possible for Mr,Ryan determine the outcome of any communication based on someones past, present, or future beliefs of someone he may have not even meet yet?

What level of liability are you Xena willing to accept for the mental and physical
damage you are currently causing me by posting such stupid questons that were never ment as serious inquiries. But only meant to push Mr,Ryans buttons. Do you not bear the responsablity for driving me crazy and causing me to have the urge to bang my head against the wall which I am soon to sucome to. And all because you could not take the time to even try and mask your true intent. Please be so kind and PM me your mailing address so I know where to send my medical bills to.
"You can either trust people or not. I choose to trust what people say and sometimes I get lied to. If I were to trust no one I would never hear the truth." - James (IPF) Martell
I.P.Freely
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:48 pm

Postby Shawnna » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:04 am

I.P.Freely wrote:
may I ask you something Xena

Why does Mr,Ryans belief in ron,s org lead you to become automacticly bias against him.

How could it be possible for Mr,Ryan determine the outcome of any communication based on someones past, present, or future beliefs of someone he may have not even meet yet?

What level of liability are you Xena willing to accept for the mental and physical
damage you are currently causing me by posting such stupid questons that were never ment as serious inquiries. But only meant to push Mr,Ryans buttons. Do you not bear the responsablity for driving me crazy and causing me to have the urge to bang my head against the wall which I am soon to sucome to. And all because you could not take the time to even try and mask your true intent. Please be so kind and PM me your mailing address so I know where to send my medical bills to.


You know what IPF - we (Ry, Hidden Hand and I) were discussing how sad we were that you decided to discontinue your relationship with our forum.

*sigh* Now I'm wondering why...........

How much thought do you give to what you are posting? All of Xena's questions are veryrelevant if you had taken the time to READ what is posted here and elsewhere about this. :roll:
"The only thing we found that makes the emptiness bearable is................... each other."

From the movie "Contact"

Shawnna's Reality
User avatar
Shawnna
Uncovers Reality
Uncovers Reality
 
Posts: 1243
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:30 pm

Postby billryan » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:36 am

Note to the exchange above: I understand Xena's Qs, but then we've never met before. I respect her intelligence and integrity.

Considering I exchanged personal e-mails with Shawnna about scientology and Ron's Org at some considerable length back in January, and it all went in one ear and out the other, Shawnna is not qualified to offer an opinion on this.

******

Copied from my post on Xena's forum, as it applies equally here:

******

Thanks, everyone, for the welcome and the chance to answer questions.

I may have missed some Qs somewhere along the line, but if so, this was not deliberate. It was quite challenging (and interesting) keeping up with it all.

Between this and the other forums, you can probably piece together who we are and what we stand for, and why we did what we did... although we do understand it's driven some of you crazy; please understand that this was never our intention. We do not want to make any enemies, and we ask for your support of Camelot's aims in general.

I support anyone who wants the truth.

This Q+A session has also made us realize we need an FAQs page on the site, so thanks for your part in that prompt, which is helpful.

This'll be my last post. Best to all, Bill
billryan
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 7:48 am

Postby kiwicocky » Thu Aug 03, 2006 9:56 am

Ahh darn it, knew I'd run out of time :(

billryan wrote:[

In the Burisch case, are you suggesting that we should not have met him, interviewed him, and posted the result? We've had a LOT of people who have contacted us to say that, believe the story or not, this is the best interview that has ever been done with him.

Best, Bill


Thanks Bill for your answers - unfortunately as I said yesterday, my on-line time here is constrained by my business, and I have not had time to really give this the attention it warrants, so off the top of my head;

I was suggesting that there are many reputable (in the ufer field) people who have done research into the Burisch case and found it wanting. It appears both you and Kerry have had some contact with many of them, so I find it unusual you would not be aware of this?

Have you been following the Burisch forums?

Have you read the 'insider' posts identified as coming from their paid for, private IP?

Have you followed the systematic character assassinations of anyone who questions their information?

Have you read anything Alan Gudaitis has posted?

In light of all the above, and much more besides, I'd reply, yes I guess I would be suggesting you not interview them and post the result - IMO of course.

To be frank; from where I'm sitting, are you one of the ' 21 agents' you mentioned earlier?

21 agents of what group exactly?

Cheers
kiwicocky
Reality Is In Sight
Reality Is In Sight
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 5:13 am

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:14 pm

Bill's response to kiwicocky on Eaglesdisobey.org:

kiwicocky wrote:
The following are my observations and comments on your posts, if you're reading Bill, no need to respond unless you wish to.

I disagree re the ability to do good research by e-mail and Google, we here, for example, have made contact with any number and all manner of people who have helped us in our research of DB. Look at what RU have achieved, and so quickly, by the same means.


RU may not be correct in their claims or assumptions. I've said publicly, previously, that their "findings" are premature and a product of simplistic thinking. There's information they don't know, and they seem to believe they have it all. This is not personal against Ryan and Steve, whom I respect.

Quote:
You obviously wish to distance Camelot from your earlier interests - I would suggest this is going to be difficult, as more and more people realise it's not only the message that is important, but also the background and motivations of the messenger.


And, after all the questions I've answered, you think our motivations are...?

I believe I did a pretty good job with the Serpo site. I presented 100% of the information without spin or editing, even when I didn't want to post something, because the quality of the information was so poor.

My intention was to get the information, verbatim and intact, to a wider audience, and that's what happened. I was never an advocate of the story. I was an advocate of the suspension of disbelief and to consider that an exchange program might have happened. Many serious researchers do believe this is a possibility.

I've already published my own personal conclusion: that it was disinformation (implanted fiction upon a basis of fact) mixed with natural compounded errors (relayed information, memory over 25 years, elderly sources, errors in audio transcripts, etc)... but there was a core of truth to it all. Many insiders agree.

Quote:
I'm not specifying you alone in this comment - the ufology field appears to be littered with people whose credibility hasn't stood up to scrutiny, or who have ideas of forming cults and what-not, so the yardstick is applied to all.

Since late 2003, using the internet, I've had no problem making 'sound judgement' of the evidence presented - in collaboration with many others. Yes, we've done this largely without personally meeting any ufers, or whistleblowers - I really don't think it would make any difference to my view.


How do you know? Meeting someone face to face can change everything. It's essential context. E-mails are a poor substitute. The phone is a little better.

Quote:
It is an interesting phenomenon - we have a link to a blog here which pretty much sums it up: "Internet Killed the Alien Star" by Douglas Kern.

I can see why you'd be inclined to liken it to gossip - however we're not trying to persuade you of our opinions, I see it more as interested observers and truthseekers discussing information amongst ourselves. So far I've found it reliable too in the main.


With the best will in the world, the internet is riddled with compounded errors of fact, as people copy and paste whatever they find in Google to their sites.

When I was researching the tribute information on http://projectcamelot.org/tributes.html, I was staggered by the inaccuracies that had crept into reports written by well-meaning people who just hadn't bothered (or had the time) to check what they were posting.

I cleaned it all up as best I could, and it was an illuminating experience. Some readers here might have experienced the same when researching something technical.

Quote:
You (and all the ufers and whistleblowers) put the info out there and we'll discern it - our way.

It's not us that are making any claims now is it?

As far as Burisch info is concerned, we here have had volumes of info and debate already, I'd say we're fairly well decided, bar a few loose ends. Do you really expect us to sit back and say nothing?



No, not at all. But what has Camelot got to do with that info and debate? All we've done is provided more information, on the record, to be dissected if you wish. If you find major smoking-gun inconsistencies resulting from listening to our video, you may come to thank us for helping to facilitate that. I think it's interesting that we should come to be criticized for posting a high quality video packed with data.

Quote:
I really don't see the need for yet another 'information platform' that some will view as entertainment, others derision, and (the ones I'm concerned for) some fear.

However it's your credibility, reputation and bank balance at stake isn't it?


Yes for the first two. The bank balance remark sounded a little cheap, unless you intended it (as you may have) by observing that by working full-time on Camelot we're both foregoing other more lucrative money-earning opportunities elsewhere - which is quite true.

Best, Bill
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:19 pm

Bill's response to Toni at Eaglesdisobey.org

Toni wrote:
You are aware that Dan has been in front of the camera for about three years now basically going over the same material -- rehearsal rehearsal rehearsal. Marci's background is in part in re-enactments, (Improv), stage performance and theatre.


Hi, Toni - no, I've not visited any of these forums in which these matters are discussed.

Quote:
billryan wrote:
Able, informed and intelligent people have been wrangling for years about whether the technicalities of Dan's revelations stand scrutiny. There was no way to try to verify these in a few days; we don't have the time or resources - and, in this case certainly, it was not our job.

Mr Ryan -- this last statement sounds to me like someone passing the buck. It reminds me of SERPO and how easily you have dismissed it now. Are you now saying that you have committed yourself to discussing Dan and yet you have not investigated all these detail and accounts that have been documented - including those by people who have met Dan and Marci first hand? And you made this decision based on the fact that they communicate via the internet? (and is not your very own Camelot project an internet based information outlet? - what are you saying? you do not trust your own information either? wink)


See above - neither of us have been part of this or any other Burisch forum, pro or con. We came to this afresh. Our sources of information were the video done of Dan by Marci and Bill Hamilton in 2002/3, Bill H's Aquarius book, and some other non-specialist internet sites. We knew, of course, that the story was important and controversial - or else it would not have triggered this enormous volume of debate.

That's the reason we featured it on Camelot...because it was important. If it's not important... what are you all doing here, spending so much time and energy on it??

We think we did a good job posting the interview. It contains a lot of data. If it's hogwash, then you are free to demonstrate that. You know more than we do about the claims. What we wanted to do was to get the story straight. It's only a small minority who understand it all.... maybe it's easy to lose sight of that when the members here are engrossed in the minutiae and have been for a while.

For you and many others here, all is obvious. But I got a message from someone yesterday saying "The story is great, but what's a J-rod?" I'm not kidding. But there was a point for all of us when we didn't know what a J-Rod was. We mustn't forget that. This forum is very specialized.

Quote:
What is up with that? I guess to many of you it really is not a matter of truth or any sort of moralistic journalistic ideals but more of a good propaganda job? Is it all merely about content creation? Like Marci's favorite TV show The Jerry Springer Show? Who will you be interviewing next? The Ghost of Kenneth Lay? Charley Manson? where are your limitations..? I think that is really what people are trying to determine here...


No, no propaganda, and no crazy stuff. You have to remember that for many outside this forum, Burisch is not crazy. The claims are so important that if there's a chance he's right, he needs an airing. As best I know, there's no good quality video interview out there. All we did was interview him. Some people seem to be upset that we gave him an opportunity to speak. Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

Quote:
It seems to me that the more far out and unbelievable the story has gotten -- the more it is to your tastes as it is easier now to laugh at and therefor no longer a threat in any way... or safe fodder to the propagana meme machine? What is your thoughts on this premiss?


Wrong.

Best, Bill
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:20 pm

Toni's response to Bill

Bill Ryan wrote:
See above - neither of us have been part of this or any other Burisch forum, pro or con. We came to this afresh. Our sources of information were the video done of Dan by Marci and Bill Hamilton in 2002/3, Bill H's Aquarius book, and some other non-specialist internet sites. We knew, of course, that the story was important and controversial - or else it would not have triggered this enormous volume of debate.

That's the reason we featured it on Camelot...because it was important. If it's not important... what are you all doing here, spending so much time and energy on it??


Bill -- You are not that naive and do not pretend that you are.

That is the problem... what am I doing here? I have asked myself that question every day for about 3 years. Why has this Saga sucked the life out of my family, bank account and mental health? What and Who IS behind it?

I am the poster-child of trust and stupidity. Hey, I am not proud - I admit it. I should have seen it coming - and actually I think in many ways I may have -- I just did not realize the blatant disrespect any human could have for another. How do you trust people who have habitually misrepresented facts... to your face?

Are you perhaps unwittingly allowing something similar to happen to others by ignoring the "Bursich/Deppeller Affair" .

You do realize that the choice of what information you distribute to the public on your site -- you are in fact supporting or influencing the way people interpret a particular subject matter in a particular light. It is a very very basic concept in journalism and/or propaganda. You ARE taking a stand -- and you cannot say you are merely presenting the information if you are only presenting half of it.

I believe you understand this very well. Please don't play dumb. If you are that unaware of the subject matter - you really have no right to espouse your uninformed opinion on the unaware public.

Personally I find your answers glib and you tap dance as well as Dan. I believe you know exactly what you are doing and I also believe that you have followed the Saga as closely as many other Ufers including your peers Collins and Doty.

---------------

Bill's response

Toni, you're wrong on all counts. I've not been following the ins and outs of the drama as you have. I don't know about these relationships, nor what happened to Don Deppeller. I have no idea even why I got the hostile reception I did on the other board. I meant everything I said in my previous reply. Few people in the world have been tracking this as you have. Most don't have the time... and most don't even understand Dan's claims.

The claims were our entry level. We've received a lot of appreciation for helping people understand the story - that's what we wanted to do, as is evident from Kerry's questions. If you want to see a different interview, maybe you should do one yourself. It's a free world, and I'm sure you have Dan's contact details.

If you don't believe me, with respect, that is not my problem... I'm being totally honest and have been in answer to every question.

Best, Bill
Last edited by ryguy on Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby ryguy » Thu Aug 03, 2006 2:23 pm

Xena's final post to Bill - he is no longer welcome at Eaglesdisobey.org & Xena won't promote Project Camelot

--------------

Bill now the 48 hours is drawing to a close, I would like to say thank you for your time. It is however a pity you were unable to return, within the offered time frame, to address the questions posed here and at the other forums.

I'm sorry to say that I will be unable to promote your cause here at Eagles or to advocate it at any of the other haunts that I frequent. While I do appreciate your recent efforts to address each questioner as an individual, I also noted attempts to belittle and antagonize some of those that you addressed. Add this to your attempt to cry foul and sow dissent between the admin/membership at RU, just as you did at ATS, gives me the overall picture of one who is not really looking with honest intentions to any of the membership and lurkers of any forums except maybe OM, but I doubt that either.

I have noticed a pattern of skirting around many of the questions placed, while appearing to favour a style of belittling the questioner or choosing an uninformative one word answer, which in my opinion is also rather insulting. This hardly portrays an image of one who wishes to clear up the misconceptions and inaccuracies that you claim we have, regarding you and your venture. Such actions make it hard for the readers to believe you are truly looking for support when an honest effort to clear up our misperceptions and endear yourself and objectives is no where in sight.

This type of behaviour to me is typical of one who has embraced a mind set; that being to gather and mold those receptive to one's own desires and objective. The end result of this will not be conducive to free and independent thought, as along the way thought processes and defense mechanisms get broken down and replaced by an external set of mechanisms and memes, thus creating clones or sheep. This should be familiar to you so I don't need to explain it further but you are not welcome here again and will likely receive nothing of benefit, if you should make the decision to return.
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

PreviousNext

Google

Return to Project Serpo

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron