David Wilcock: New Blog And Radio Interview

reply to post by Nichiren


And I make the same offer to you Nichiren, as I did to Dereks above.

Have the courage to stand behind your many accusations and attempt to prove them as the "facts" you claim in a controlled debate.

If not, then I say it's obvious you have no credibility and know full well your arguments and accusations are false and cannot be substantiated.

Wow, the fervent Wilcock slanderers have so far proven to be a spineless bunch.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram


Have the courage to stand behind your many accusations and attempt to prove them as the "facts" you claim in a controlled debate.

m]

Malcram, you are asking individuals who to perform a task (civilized debate) they have demonstrated they are incapable of. You could ask again and again and they would either ignore you or simply not understand what you are asking of them.

W. the small chance they a agree to a formal debate, I would suggest starting off w. 3 basic bullet points or areas of discussion. Any subject matter beyond those bullet points (slanderous name calling, etc.) is irrelevant, and grounds for disqualification.

Nichiren, QS. What say you? You want to settle this like professionals, or amateurs?

Originally posted by Malcram
reply to post by Nichiren

 

And I make the same offer to you Nichiren, as I did to Dereks above.

Have the courage to stand behind your many accusations and attempt to prove them as the "facts" you claim in a controlled debate.

If not, then I say it's obvious you have no credibility and know full well your arguments and accusations are false and cannot be substantiated.

Wow, the fervent Wilcock slanderers have so far proven to be a spineless bunch.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by Malcram]

I would debate the con artist, aka Mr. Wilcock, any day. Appearing in a formal debate with one of his pawns (cult followers) ... No, thank you. Nice try, though

reply to post by NightVision


NightVision, the word lap dog comes to mind ...

Originally posted by Nichiren


NightVision, the word lap dog comes to mind ...

It's unfortunate that you think of yourself that way. I was having fun.

Adolescence is tough, but you will get through it.

Keep your chin up

Wow this still going?

this thread is giving Wilcock much more attention than he deserves that's why i stopped posting.

There is no reasoning with these two followers , they prod they poke they say the same crap over and over again.

Semantics, tag teaming , and repetition are there weapons, they goad and bait under the guise of championing a morale cause. when in my opinion there agenda is clear, Malcram makes some decent points but the ramming home of these points consistantly screams of motive wether they say they have one or not ..

This Thread is fail.

and when the same old tactic raises its head i will not give them a chuckle by posting again.

we are entitled to an opposite opinion, i tried to respect theres but its clear they do not respect ours in any shape or form. although they will say they do and have no feelings one way or the other.

reply to post by NightVision


i have not posted for ages? why would you call me out in this conversation you are having ?

i too have no wish to debate with Fanatics.. only open minded individuals.

Good luck in all your future posts / endeavors

QS

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel


There is no reasoning with these two followers , they prod they poke they say the same crap over and over again.

Fact: You can't quote me as posting anything Pro-Wilcock in this forum.

Your Post = FAIL.

Originally posted by NightVision

Originally posted by Quantum_Squirrel


There is no reasoning with these two followers , they prod they poke they say the same crap over and over again.

Fact: You can't quote me as posting anything Pro-Wilcock in this forum.

Your Post = FAIL.

i never said i could i said it was Clear to ME , its my opinion Grow up and deal with it.

Goodbye ! ! , i have never used my ignore button but i am pretty close. i need to screen out the repetitive religious like chanting.

[edit on 11/2/10 by Quantum_Squirrel]

Originally posted by Quantum Squirrel

There is no reasoning with these two followers

i never said i could i said it was Clear to ME , its my opinion Grow up and deal with it.

I'm sorry that my posts upset you. It would be kind of hard for me to be a 'follower' of Wilcock' as you say, and not post any positive opinion about him.

Sorry, but you've contradicted yourself.

When you come back to reality let me know.

[edit on 11-2-2010 by NightVision]

Let's focus on the TOPIC and not your fellow members.

Enough with the "spineless", "Lapdog" and "Cult Follower" comments.

Springer...

I see Springer has intervened, and, in accord with his signature, I'm editing out my response to this recent exchange.

But if anyone feels confident enough in their position to take this discussion to the formal debate board where it can be arbitrated, please let me know.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by Malcram]

reply to post by Springer


Fair enough!

I get pissed at W and his supporters because he is one of the reasons the field has such a bad rep. If you cry "wolf" and nothing happens time after time you are doing a big disservice to the cause.

Look, his statements are all based on "inside knowledge", "sources", "Higher Intelligence", "automatic writing" and it's always conveniently wrapped up in a big "if", just to cover his behind. These are classic signs of a Scheister.

reply to post by Malcram


When it comes down to it I can't really find anything worth debating about Wilcock's new blog and very very long radio interview. I am however intrigued by Dr Pete Peterson Mystery Man. I saw a thread about him going on last year maybe I'll dig that up.

So long folks.

reply to post by Nichiren


Likewise, I get irritated with posts from those who who resort to lies and false accusations and show a complete disregard for conclusive evidence in order to attack someone. I think such dishonesty and slander should be challenged, no matter who presents it, and no matter who it is aimed at, even if it is at a figure who is not popular. Everyone should be treated fairly and not falsely accused.

That's why I'd loved to see those who employ such underhand tactics attempt to present their case in a formal controlled debate at ATS, where these dishonest antics will not be tolerated and verifiable fact and sound logical argument would be the determining factor. Sadly, they consistently avoid such a fair debate, despite being prepared to argue at length here, where they cannot be held accountable for fallacy and deception.

I'm always available for a formal debate, if they feel they have a legitimate case.



[edit on 11-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by cripmeister
When it comes down to it I can't really find anything worth debating about Wilcock's new blog and very very long radio interview.

Yeah, he's never short of words alright LOL.

I am however intrigued by Dr Pete Peterson Mystery Man. I saw a thread about him going on last year maybe I'll dig that up.

I'd like to read it. Actually, I couldn't get all the way through the Camelot Peterson interviews. I got bored eventually LOL. I also didn't much like Peterson's demeanor. It just jarred with me. But that's a personal thing and I'm not making any judgement about the veracity of the things he said. I don't know a great deal about Peterson - or if there is a great deal that can be confirmed. I just know that his existence and comments in the Camelot videos confirmed him as Wilcock's source, and hence confirmed that Wilcock had a source who gave him this info, and didn't just make it up himself, as some falsely claimed. Who exactly Peterson is and whether he's worth listening to is another matter.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Nichiren

I get pissed at W and his supporters because he is one of the reasons the field has such a bad rep. If you cry "wolf" and nothing happens time after time you are doing a big disservice to the cause.

Interesting. Neither Malcram nor I are supporters of Wilcock. We've stated this numerous times here. Yet again and you FAIL to comprehend this simple concept:

We are simply against the kind of malice you represent here, even if it's directed toward someone you feel is dishonest.

Springer was referring to your spewing insults at Malcram and I. So lets not be deceptive and say that he and I are Wilcock supporters as means of justifying your adolescent behavior. That would be lying. And lying is classic 'Scheister behavior' as you put it.

Pot: meet kettle....

I wish people would just stick to the facts about wilcock, as for blaming him for pete petersons bad insider informant. Wilcock cops way more than he should I used to hate the guy for the same reasons everyone on here does it wasnt till i actually sat down and read and cross- checked his material that I slowly and very reluctlently found myself admiting he was right all along and the sooner more people do the better. His three BOOKS ARE FREE you only need to pay if you dont wanna read it off the screen or print it out or if your deaf and wanna hear him sing. It would have saved me a heap of research if id just read them earlier instead of leaving at the sight of his haircut and singing. Give the guy a chance but only if your already well along your search for the truth as he has one of the last peices of the puzzle available in his philosophy.