Just imagine if?.........

[Awoken2]

truth cannot be outdone by any AI or bots because it would be programmed with inaccuracies..

Hey you've seen the disaster thesbians thread.... We are tbe ones being programmed with inaccuracies...would you not agree?

 

[polymoog]

Hey you've seen the disaster thesbians thread.... We are tbe ones being programmed with inaccuracies...would you not agree?

im not sure what youre trying to say. in my post, i was referring to the bots providing inaccurate information which is easily debunked and refuted.
the public at large is being programmed, of course, but youre doing a fine job of exposing the FF hoaxes in that thread.

 

[Awoken2]

[QUOTE="polymoog, post: 118642, member:
the public at large is being programmed, of course, [/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I meant, you understood what I meant perfectly well.

Vegas, Grenfell Tower, London Bridge, Manchester bombing and all those school shootings will go down in history as real events.

Me and you at least....well we both know different.

 

[polymoog]

[/QUOTE]
Vegas, Grenfell Tower, London Bridge, Manchester bombing and all those school shootings will go down in history as real events.
.[/QUOTE]

ive said this in another thread about a year ago, but it bears repeating.

truth is an inextinguishable flickering flame. it cannot be extinguished, even in its darkest moments of oppression. it will remain glowing embers during those times until conditions are right and then it will burn once more.
before the internet, the spread of truth was only by books and word of mouth. almost all young people were indoctrinated to believe things a certain way, so that one would figure that the keepers of truth would simply be squeezed out by sheer numbers of non-believers. i often think of the moon landing hoax-- how few people were aware of it. they kept the flame alive and burning until recently, when the internet allowed so many people to see their case. the flame is burning far brighter than it ever has.

the same applies to these false flag events. keep the flame burning, my friend. truth always rises.

 

[Maes17]

Vegas, Grenfell Tower, London Bridge, Manchester bombing and all those school shootings will go down in history as real events.
.[/QUOTE]

ive said this in another thread about a year ago, but it bears repeating.

truth is an inextinguishable flickering flame. it cannot be extinguished, even in its darkest moments of oppression. it will remain glowing embers during those times until conditions are right and then it will burn once more.
before the internet, the spread of truth was only by books and word of mouth. almost all young people were indoctrinated to believe things a certain way, so that one would figure that the keepers of truth would simply be squeezed out by sheer numbers of non-believers. i often think of the moon landing hoax-- how few people were aware of it. they kept the flame alive and burning until recently, when the internet allowed so many people to see their case. the flame is burning far brighter than it ever has.

the same applies to these false flag events. keep the flame burning, my friend. truth always rises.[/QUOTE]
With all the tech and access today, everything is out there.
All these false flags have eerily spooky connections etc. Definitely agree.


As for bots/sock accounts. I find it best to ignore them.
Less attention and they tend to fade away.

 

[rainerann]

Bots have really poor punctuation I have found. There are a lot more trolls than bots, but the definition of troll exists on a spectrum between someone goofing off or trying to prank people to someone with a full blown agenda.

Then, there are those of us who are in between who believe what we believe because of what we have experienced. However, in our day to day life, we might not have many opportunities to express this. So expressing these things at first can create challenges in seeing how people respond to you. I have been shocked and appalled by some of the things people have said to me. I have gotten upset myself.

I don't know, overall, I don't really consider this a conspiracy theory forum. It is more of an alternative discussion forum. Most of the people who come here haven't experienced many of the things that are discussed as conspiracy, which is really the same thing as experiencing something that is censored by the mainstream media. Conspiracy means censored, in my opinion. They have normal experiences and the posts reflect this for the most part.

Therefore, most of what everyone says a lot of the time is based on speculation and is often not something that is very well researched especially some of the posts about popular culture. There is a reason why VC is popular for writing about popular culture and it is because his posts have more substance, require more research, and this research allows some unique conclusions to be formed that are interesting.

I have read some of the stuff on predictive programming by the OP and I am just not that impressed. There is no method. The only research that is being done is essentially watching a video from popular culture. The comments are pure speculation based on a premise that has very little evidence to support it and this thread is a reflection of these same things.

This reminds me a little bit of a lady I talked to several years ago now named Eleanor White who was an advocate for targeted individuals and a targeted individual herself. She would often talk about the importance of credibility within a community filled with amateur or hobbyist researchers.

I met her because when I was 17, I was kidnapped. It doesn't really matter to anyone but me who did this, but they had started stalking me at about 15-1/2 and had severely invaded my privacy. It was the year 2000, and I was young, and I had no idea that like 18 years later I would even have the opportunity to say anything about it. Even in a place as insignificant as this is still pretty huge considering.

When this experience and others started to affect my life pretty badly, I started trying to find information about how to overcome the way my life was being damaged. That is when I found Alex Jones. A little later on, I found information on targeted individuals before I found most of the information I have on PTSD and dissociation. It seemed like something that could fit because I could relate to the experience because of the kidnapping and I found a group that Eleanor White was a part of years ago.

When I first started in this group, I remember saying something like it was amazing to me that people were getting so upset over their privacy being violated like the TI community does. For me, it had always seemed normal. How fast things have changed with everything about Facebook coming out and privacy continues to be a thing people get upset over when it is violated. It still fascinated me that people do this.

I watched her talk to people who would come in with this or that new idea that had very little credibility or evidence and she would tell them that in order for the public to take these things seriously, you need to present credible information, which in the context of a discussion with targeted individuals includes presenting information on technologies that have evidence to support their existence.

I think credibility does require some participation in what is called main stream. People should not have to alienate themselves. I think this is just a way for some people to try to get attention by making themselves appear to live on some kind of island. However, the problem is created because in giving up "main stream" they end up biting off more than they can chew and demonstrate poor delivery of their research and the quality really starts to decline when people start assuming that people are rejecting them because they are bots or something else; especially when it seems like any of the things we talk about here rarely seem to affect anyone personally and there doesn't really seem to be any target audience that these things are supposed to help.

I don't really see what is wrong with the thread about the waxing place and the transgender. There are silly things happening right now and if people could take just a moment to appreciate the fact that with everything that has happened in the last fifty years, we have the opportunity to talk about these things in a way that is beneficial to the ones who are trying to overcome the ways that these things have directly affected their lives. There are many things to be grateful for. I never imagined there would be anything like this when I was 20 or so. It's hard to see sometimes, and not everyone believes in divine intervention around here, but it truly a miracle to me sometimes.

Anyways, the point I was trying to make was to reiterate what someone with a great deal more experience in life and in gathering research had said to me about the importance of credibility. I think that it is because many people don't feel like credibility is important that they can be mistaken as trolls or bots more often. Sometimes, people are just growing and learning to communicate. We learn to communicate by communicating and there are challenges in developing a way to communicate where you stand because not everyone is always going to be on the same page at the same time.

The older I get, the more I realize the importance of standing for something you believe in that is not affected by whether people agree with you or not, it just requires a lot more patience.

I think sometimes in conspiracy circles, simple things get lost in a fervor of trying to tell someone about what is causing the oppression. People forget the simple things we learn as we mature like how to improve in the way we communicate with others.

 

[Awoken2]

Bots have really poor punctuation I have found. There are a lot more trolls than bots, but the definition of troll exists on a spectrum between someone goofing off or trying to prank people to someone with a full blown agenda.

Then, there are those of us who are in between who believe what we believe because of what we have experienced. However, in our day to day life, we might not have many opportunities to express this. So expressing these things at first can create challenges in seeing how people respond to you. I have been shocked and appalled by some of the things people have said to me. I have gotten upset myself.

I don't know, overall, I don't really consider this a conspiracy theory forum. It is more of an alternative discussion forum. Most of the people who come here haven't experienced many of the things that are discussed as conspiracy, which is really the same thing as experiencing something that is censored by the mainstream media. Conspiracy means censored, in my opinion. They have normal experiences and the posts reflect this for the most part.

Therefore, most of what everyone says a lot of the time is based on speculation and is often not something that is very well researched especially some of the posts about popular culture. There is a reason why VC is popular for writing about popular culture and it is because his posts have more substance, require more research, and this research allows some unique conclusions to be formed that are interesting.

I have read some of the stuff on predictive programming by the OP and I am just not that impressed. There is no method. The only research that is being done is essentially watching a video from popular culture. The comments are pure speculation based on a premise that has very little evidence to support it and this thread is a reflection of these same things.

This reminds me a little bit of a lady I talked to several years ago now named Eleanor White who was an advocate for targeted individuals and a targeted individual herself. She would often talk about the importance of credibility within a community filled with amateur or hobbyist researchers.

I met her because when I was 17, I was kidnapped. It doesn't really matter to anyone but me who did this, but they had started stalking me at about 15-1/2 and had severely invaded my privacy. It was the year 2000, and I was young, and I had no idea that like 18 years later I would even have the opportunity to say anything about it. Even in a place as insignificant as this is still pretty huge considering.

When this experience and others started to affect my life pretty badly, I started trying to find information about how to overcome the way my life was being damaged. That is when I found Alex Jones. A little later on, I found information on targeted individuals before I found most of the information I have on PTSD and dissociation. It seemed like something that could fit because I could relate to the experience because of the kidnapping and I found a group that Eleanor White was a part of years ago.

When I first started in this group, I remember saying something like it was amazing to me that people were getting so upset over their privacy being violated like the TI community does. For me, it had always seemed normal. How fast things have changed with everything about Facebook coming out and privacy continues to be a thing people get upset over when it is violated. It still fascinated me that people do this.

I watched her talk to people who would come in with this or that new idea that had very little credibility or evidence and she would tell them that in order for the public to take these things seriously, you need to present credible information, which in the context of a discussion with targeted individuals includes presenting information on technologies that have evidence to support their existence.

I think credibility does require some participation in what is called main stream. People should not have to alienate themselves. I think this is just a way for some people to try to get attention by making themselves appear to live on some kind of island. However, the problem is created because in giving up "main stream" they end up biting off more than they can chew and demonstrate poor delivery of their research and the quality really starts to decline when people start assuming that people are rejecting them because they are bots or something else; especially when it seems like any of the things we talk about here rarely seem to affect anyone personally and there doesn't really seem to be any target audience that these things are supposed to help.

I don't really see what is wrong with the thread about the waxing place and the transgender. There are silly things happening right now and if people could take just a moment to appreciate the fact that with everything that has happened in the last fifty years, we have the opportunity to talk about these things in a way that is beneficial to the ones who are trying to overcome the ways that these things have directly affected their lives. There are many things to be grateful for. I never imagined there would be anything like this when I was 20 or so. It's hard to see sometimes, and not everyone believes in divine intervention around here, but it truly a miracle to me sometimes.

Anyways, the point I was trying to make was to reiterate what someone with a great deal more experience in life and in gathering research had said to me about the importance of credibility. I think that it is because many people don't feel like credibility is important that they can be mistaken as trolls or bots more often. Sometimes, people are just growing and learning to communicate. We learn to communicate by communicating and there are challenges in developing a way to communicate where you stand because not everyone is always going to be on the same page at the same time.

The older I get, the more I realize the importance of standing for something you believe in that is not affected by whether people agree with you or not, it just requires a lot more patience.

I think sometimes in conspiracy circles, simple things get lost in a fervor of trying to tell someone about what is causing the oppression. People forget the simple things we learn as we mature like how to improve in the way we communicate with others.

Thanks for this, I've been wanting to provoke/stimulate a debate about this for quite some considerable time now.

I'll respond to this when I have adequate time to do so as there are many points I would like to pick up on.

 

[Awoken2]

Bots have really poor punctuation I have found. There are a lot more trolls than bots, but the definition of troll exists on a spectrum between someone goofing off or trying to prank people to someone with a full blown agenda.

But trolls and bots have the same objectives. Create diversion, muddy the waters and prevent community cohesion so it doesn't matter what they are, what matters is what they are trying g to do. Let's call a spade a spade here.

Most of the people who come here haven't experienced many of the things that are discussed as conspiracy, which is really the same thing as experiencing something that is censored by the mainstream media. Conspiracy means censored, in my opinion. They have normal experiences and the posts reflect this for the most part.

But It's quite important to realise that what the mainstream is censoring is truth...and that I have a major problem with, and so should everyone. Here is my opinion on mainstream from another site.

by Awoken2 on Mon Nov 20, 2017 10:45 am

I see many nefarious agendas in play and the common denominator is the mainstream . If your immersed in the mainstream then your flowing in the intended direction. Your energy just gets swallowed up by the powerful current.

You will lose the ability to think rationally for yourself, you will lose the ability to seperate fact from fiction. Your thoughts and fears will be directly controlled by other people. You will not have the capacity to critically analyse any information nor see the need to. You will just live a life of self imposed servitude and slavery in an Orwellian existence.

Turn on the mainstream news and you will be subjected to staged events, propaganda and crisis actors all parading as truth. It will create an enemy that doesn't even exist to keep the masses pre-occupied. It will eventually diminish your energy to such an an extent that the only place you will have the power to go is with the flow.

If you then seek some relief from the mainstream entertainment industry you will then be subjected to predictive programming, subliminal messaging and other forms of nefarious mind control.

The way I see it is if you are living a mainstream life and hold mainstream beliefs then unfortunately somebody else is now pulling the strings.

I have been shocked and appalled by some of the things people have said to me. I have gotten upset myself.

This shouldn't be happening if you truly understand how trolls operate.

Therefore, most of what everyone says a lot of the time is based on speculation and is often not something that is very well researched especially some of the posts about popular culture. There is a reason why VC is popular for writing about popular culture and it is because his posts have more substance, require more research, and this research allows some unique conclusions to be formed that are interesting.

I'm not sure what your getting at here. From what I can see people aren't speculating without valid reason. People are posting links, articles and information openly to substantiate their claims and to open up debate.

I think It's also important to point out at this time that popular culture and the music industry are firmly in the hands of TPTB and always has been.

I have read some of the stuff on predictive programming by the OP and I am just not that impressed. There is no method. The only research that is being done is essentially watching a video from popular culture. The comments are pure speculation based on a premise that has very little evidence to support it and this thread is a reflection of these same things.

I don't post this stuff to impress people, I do it to warn people. My method is very very simple. I have evidenced numerous examples of staged "events" being programmed by mainstream music artists. I have also stated openly that there is going to be a mass shooting at a football game. This has yet to happen. Once is does happen then people will start looking at this more closely. I've posted examples of events that have happened and also events that have yet to happen. Time will tell if this is speculation or foresight......

.....before I go on, can somebody tell me how I do multiple quotes to which I can respond singularly?

 

[mecca]

...before I go on, can somebody tell me how I do multiple quotes to which I can respond singularly?

Like this:
You select the part you want to reply to... then click the reply button that shows up.
Example:

Then the quoted text will show up between two quote boxes and you write your reply underneath the quoted text. If you want to quote another part of their comment within your same comment, you select the new quote and do the same thing over again.
It will look like this:

Also you have to make sure that your comments are not within the two quote boxes because that makes it look like the person you're quoting is saying your words and not their own.

 

[rainerann]

QUOTE][/QUOTE]

Just use the code and put the quoted text in between the first and second quote tag. You need the opening bracket around the first quote tag too. I left it off so you could see the code.

 

[rainerann]

Awoken2 said

I see many nefarious agendas in play and the common denominator is the mainstream . If your immersed in the mainstream then your flowing in the intended direction. Your energy just gets swallowed up by the powerful current.

You will lose the ability to think rationally for yourself, you will lose the ability to seperate fact from fiction. Your thoughts and fears will be directly controlled by other people. You will not have the capacity to critically analyse any information nor see the need to. You will just live a life of self imposed servitude and slavery in an Orwellian existence.

Turn on the mainstream news and you will be subjected to staged events, propaganda and crisis actors all parading as truth. It will create an enemy that doesn't even exist to keep the masses pre-occupied. It will eventually diminish your energy to such an an extent that the only place you will have the power to go is with the flow.

Right, but how do you define mainstream? What are the boundaries on something that could be considered mainstream? Is anything that is published or produced that has an audience of a certain number considered mainstream? If you are going to make a statement like this, you need to have a definition of what is considered mainstream to distinguish it from what it is not.

I would define mainstream as propaganda that receives the most media attention through censorship of other ideas and monopolization of outlets for which media can be produced and published. Therefore, CNN would be considered a mainstream media outlet. However, mainstream is usually not defined and it is a broad way of saying that people believe that a large number of people believe in some narrative that they don't agree with.

However, that doesn't really create a defense for the person using the term. They could just be wrong about something and that is why the majority don't agree with them. So there has to be other characteristics that demonstrate or persuade another person to see the term in the same way.

So, according to my definition of mainstream, because this media gets the most attention, it is hard to not be aware of mainstream narratives. Therefore, if you are someone who works full time and has three or more children, it is probably likely that you don't have the time to seek out something that may not be the most obvious thing. If you are working full time with three or more children, it is likely that even though you know the mainstream narrative, it doesn't matter that much to you and you don't have the time to really agree or disagree a lot of the time.

So when people make themselves into martyrs because they do have the time to do things like this as though the problem were that they were being rejected, I think this is again because there are no boundaries to your definition. This is an example of one exception where someone experiences mainstream narratives without choosing to reject or accept these things. So the general statement about the person that accepts mainstream narratives is false in at least one case and the definition needs to be redefined because of this.

Like if a college course teaches on research writing, does this become something that is a mainstream influence that you have to reject because I think most people could learn many things from a class like this that would benefit their presentation of material that has a much more limited audience. If you were to write a thesis statement like mainstream media is presenting predictive programming to the public in a way that is affecting them negatively. There are many things that would be wrong with this statement, but the primary thing is that it is too broad of a focus.

This brings me back to the issue of people biting off more than they can chew when they generalize and define anything with a certain level of popularity to be a mainstream influence and reject this information as a result. Posting links is not the problem to articles where people have taken the time to learn how to narrow their subject down to a point where they can present information that is useful.

I don't think it is a problem to post links to articles because research takes time and effort, but presenting research is different than posting articles. Research writing is when you can take information and integrate this in a way that is unique. Good research will always limit direct quotations and be able to paraphrase or put something in their own words. So using the term research is really a loose definition if all it entails is posting a link to a music video and saying that it demonstrates predictive programming techniques because of a lyric or an image without explaining why these could be defined as predictive programming.

It is more or less posting your notes or even possibly collaborating on the subject, but it is not presenting something that is researched as an individual in the same way that some of the articles that are posted on the forum would be able to do.

 

[kittybratxx]

Ugh now theirs a thought.... Bots creating fake social media accounts and writing stupid liberal thing's pretending to be real :/

 

[Awoken2]

Awoken2 said


Right, but how do you define mainstream? What are the boundaries on something that could be considered mainstream? Is anything that is published or produced that has an audience of a certain number considered mainstream? If you are going to make a statement like this, you need to have a definition of what is considered mainstream to distinguish it from what it is not.

I would define mainstream as propaganda that receives the most media attention through censorship of other ideas and monopolization of outlets for which media can be produced and published. Therefore, CNN would be considered a mainstream media outlet. However, mainstream is usually not defined and it is a broad way of saying that people believe that a large number of people believe in some narrative that they don't agree with.

However, that doesn't really create a defense for the person using the term. They could just be wrong about something and that is why the majority don't agree with them. So there has to be other characteristics that demonstrate or persuade another person to see the term in the same way.

So, according to my definition of mainstream, because this media gets the most attention, it is hard to not be aware of mainstream narratives. Therefore, if you are someone who works full time and has three or more children, it is probably likely that you don't have the time to seek out something that may not be the most obvious thing. If you are working full time with three or more children, it is likely that even though you know the mainstream narrative, it doesn't matter that much to you and you don't have the time to really agree or disagree a lot of the time.

So when people make themselves into martyrs because they do have the time to do things like this as though the problem were that they were being rejected, I think this is again because there are no boundaries to your definition. This is an example of one exception where someone experiences mainstream narratives without choosing to reject or accept these things. So the general statement about the person that accepts mainstream narratives is false in at least one case and the definition needs to be redefined because of this.

Like if a college course teaches on research writing, does this become something that is a mainstream influence that you have to reject because I think most people could learn many things from a class like this that would benefit their presentation of material that has a much more limited audience. If you were to write a thesis statement like mainstream media is presenting predictive programming to the public in a way that is affecting them negatively. There are many things that would be wrong with this statement, but the primary thing is that it is too broad of a focus.

This brings me back to the issue of people biting off more than they can chew when they generalize and define anything with a certain level of popularity to be a mainstream influence and reject this information as a result. Posting links is not the problem to articles where people have taken the time to learn how to narrow their subject down to a point where they can present information that is useful.

I don't think it is a problem to post links to articles because research takes time and effort, but presenting research is different than posting articles. Research writing is when you can take information and integrate this in a way that is unique. Good research will always limit direct quotations and be able to paraphrase or put something in their own words. So using the term research is really a loose definition if all it entails is posting a link to a music video and saying that it demonstrates predictive programming techniques because of a lyric or an image without explaining why these could be defined as predictive programming.

It is more or less posting your notes or even possibly collaborating on the subject, but it is not presenting something that is researched as an individual in the same way that some of the articles that are posted on the forum would be able to do.

I think your over complicating things here.

Please take a look at this thread and if just ONE of those "victims" is an actor then that means the entire news media cannot be trusted, It's as simple as that really.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-best-disaster-thesbians-thread.3763/

This is a very informative documentary. It may well change the way you see things

After watching this you would have to be pretty naive to think that the mainstream music industry is not using exactly the same practices.

 

[rainerann]

I think your over complicating things here.

Please take a look at this thread and if just ONE of those "victims" is an actor then that means the entire news media cannot be trusted, It's as simple as that really.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-best-disaster-thesbians-thread.3763/

This is a very informative documentary. It may well change the way you see things

After watching this you would have to be pretty naive to think that the mainstream music industry is not using exactly the same practices.

Right, I have seen things on this before. Crisis actors are not a new phenomenon. This doesn’t prove that I am over complicating anything if I expect something pertaining to researching this subject to be specified. It may seem like you are making something simple to understand with minimalism, but you are actually making it more difficult. It is like if someone were to show me a picture of beef Wellington and tell me it is beef wrapped in a pastry dough and then try to tell me that they are making the recipe simple to understand and I am complicating it by asking for the specifics of the recipe.

Where are you defining the boundaries for what is called mainstream? What do think they are predicting if they are implementing predictive programming? How do you prove that someone is accepting mainstream narratives or simply doesn’t have the time to investigate these things?

The reality is that everyone is exposed to certain media outlets like CNN and a certain percentage of celebrity figures. Within this group, you would have what I would call a swing state. They don’t necessarily accept mainstream narratives just because they are exposed to them. However this group isn’t going to be persuaded by vague statements either.

Considering that you find creating focus to be something that over complicates the discussion, it is really even harder to take what you are saying seriously. It isn’t that I don’t think the subject has potential, but if you want someone to take it seriously or consider it research, you need to take it more seriously and put more effort into it.

I don’t have time right now to watch these videos, but I have seen videos like this over the past 10 years or so many times. So this isn’t really something new to me. It would be better if you could try to create something similar to an abstract which is a researched summary that might help me respond. Obviously, you don’t have to, but I also don’t have to take what you are saying seriously the way I would consider something that evidenced some degree of research behind it the way I consider some documentaries on the subject that I have already watched in the past.

I don’t want to give the impression that this is something that is required and I am not trying to pressure you in any way. Just trying making a friendly suggestion.

 

[Awoken2]

Crisis actors are not a new phenomenon

Does this not trouble you? Why should the news media need to employ these frauds at all? If the news they are reporting is factual they wouldn't need crisis actors would they?

Where are you defining the boundaries for what is called mainstream?

Any medium which is presented to the masses as factual news or any music which is marketed to the masses.as being commercially successful.

What do think they are predicting if they are implementing predictive programming?

They are not predicting anything, they are informing us through our subconscious what will be happening in the future. Let me be very clear here, they have been systematically and continuously foreshadowing the following...

Lights in the sky
Asteroids
Aliens
UFO's
Drowning
Fires
Destruction
Death
Transhumanism
Transgenderism
Androgony

How many hundred examples do you want? I can provide thousands.

How do you prove that someone is accepting mainstream narratives or simply doesn’t have the time to investigate these things?

I'm not trying to prove that at all. What would be the point in trying to prove that?

However this group isn’t going to be persuaded by vague statements either.

I don't make vague statements. I make clear concise points with clear examples of what I'm claiming

but if you want someone to take it seriously or consider it research, you need to take it more seriously and put more effort into it.

I find this a little patronising to be honest. I've put quite a lot of effort in to my work, not to win some type of intellectual popularity contest but to try and expose the sheer scale of this deception. Link below goes into quite specific detail.

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/predictive-programming-in-the-music-industry.2693/

I don’t have time right now to watch these videos, but I have seen videos like this over the past 10 years or so many times

Well if that's the case we should be singing from the same hymn book then shouldn't we? I'd strongly recomnend you give it an hour.

want to give the impression that this is something that is required and I am not trying to pressure you in any way. Just trying making a friendly suggestion.

Thanks for the suggestions.

(Big thanks to Mecca for the tip, got the hang of it now)

 

[rainerann]

"Any medium which is presented to the masses as factual news or any music which is marketed to the masses.as being commercially successful."

"I don't make vague statements. I make clear concise points with clear examples of what I'm claiming"

Lol, you understand that your clear, concise statement here about mainstream media includes yourself right? You are presenting information as though it were factual to the same masses. So you clearly need to narrow your definition a bit. How do you define masses? 100,000 or 100,000,000? This is why your definition should be narrow enough to not include yourself in the same definition and the reason that I brought up the subject of credibility into the discussion.

It is a statement like this that causes the alternative research community to lose credibility, and this is unfortunate. You are not describing anything in particular.

Then, you say that you are not saying they are predicting anything, but follow this with examples of predictions that you believe were made through media because predictive programming can be defined as knowledge that is known beforehand being introduced in such a way so that the audience is given the impression that a prediction was made between the first introduction of the image to the manifestation. It is not hard to make a definition for what predictive programming means. However, most of the time your postings about the subject are very uninformed about the subject.

So you can say that I am patronizing if you want, but don't complain the next time a post doesn't get enough likes in comparison with something else or when no one responds to your accusation about being bots on the forum. I have very clearly explained why I find what you are posting difficult to respond to, and I truly have done so because I do personally find the subject interesting, and I would like to see it discussed in greater detail, but at this point in my life, I am not just going to ooh and aah when someone posts a video with some dark themes or whatever. I personally would like to be challenged a little more than this. If that is not something you are interested in that is fine. I leave you to

 

[Awoken2]

Lol, you understand that your clear, concise statement here about mainstream media includes yourself right?

How?

You are presenting information as though it were factual to the same masses

Wrong, I am presenting my information to no more than 40 or 50 people...and a few bots (verifiable by checking member, current visitors at any time) not to millions and millions of people as the mainstream is.

You are presenting information as though it were factual to the same masses.

I'm sure if I put any information up that wasn't factual there would be a long line of people just like you ready to refute it. So far that hasn't happened.

. You are not describing anything in particular

Oh yes I am.

Then, you say that you are not saying they are predicting anything, but follow this with examples of predictions that you believe were made through media because predictive programming can be defined as knowledge that is known beforehand being introduced in such a way so that the audience is given the impression that a prediction was made between the first introduction of the image to the manifestation. It is not hard to make a definition for what predictive programming means. However, most of the time your postings about the subject are very uninformed about the subject.

Now your just waffling.

So you can say that I am patronizing if you want, but don't complain the next time a post doesn't get enough likes in comparison with something else or when no one responds to your accusation about being bots on the forum

Enough likes? You think that has any baring on what I do or say? ....Here, have your lol back

 

[Tikawanda]

I don't think anyone who posts on this forum on a regular basis is a bot tbh. I disagree with a lot of opinions that people talk about, but I can't accuse anyone of being disingenuous just because their ideas don't match mine. Anyway, it's a slippery slope if we start a witch hunt against each other.

 

[Maes17]

Ugh now theirs a thought.... Bots creating fake social media accounts and writing stupid liberal thing's pretending to be real :/

Bots creating fake accounts are all over.
They push agendas both liberal and conservative.

Imo, it's easy to pick them up, cause they're responses are generally robotic. They're also kinda...plain in response. Very generic

 

[kittybratxx]

Bots creating fake accounts are all over.
They push agendas both liberal and conservative.

Imo, it's easy to pick them up, cause they're responses are generally robotic. They're also kinda...plain in response. Very generic

makes sense when you go to their profiles they isn't any information and like 1 pic.. Fake accounts