|
black rain (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lilith |
Abovetopsecret.com
IP Address 213.206.128 213.206.129 213.206.130
Node Name Gov-bb21-lan-14 Gov-bb22-lan-15 Gov-bb23-lan-16
Location Langley, Virginia
MS 60
Network Used whois.nic.mil
lol |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
No William, I was merely laughing at the fact you waste time at ATS, the bottomfeeders of conspiracy theorists. I’m sure you fit in nicely.
lol @ lilith. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
.mil |
PARANOIA, PARANOIA, EVERYBODY'S COMIN' TO GET MEEEEEEEEE. |
|
|
| w_ashley |
1. You start by saying I am like the people at above top secret
2. You call them paranoid
Way to paint. " painting someone in a false light in the public eye."
1. I don't frequent abovetopsecret.com I only occasionally find links when I am researching a topic.
2. Only a few people are usually close to an event horizon. Everyone else gets second hand information. Paranoia is actually more on the side of government with legislating laws over things as little as 7 people getting injured in a year because of something - so they require the other 800000 to partake in some new program so that only 3 people who don't use the device properly are injured instead.
Personally I'm not a paranoid person. Not being paranoid doesn't mean you can't exercise caution on some things. Some people may be more timid than others when crossing a log strewn across a chasm, some people might not even cross it, others might walk gingerly across. People have different inbuilt responses to different situations.
Who are you to tell people how much caution someone can exercise.
Fact is the government has run programs in the past that target their own populations. creep operations etc.. sort of what about 10 people on this board regularly do to other members.
If you arn't on the event horizon you have no clue. The least you can do is gather evidence if the event is still ongoing.
Do I think the stuff really happened. I don't know. Are there people who do, yes. Are there people who say they arn't aware of it happening, yes. Does it matter if it happened or not. Yes. What is the cautious approach, beleive it happened or beleive it didn't happen. Cautious people will pick the first, reckless people the second. The only time you may not be able to put "unsubstantiated information" into the picture is when it is critical. - In instances of critical situations, cases should exist without knowledge being required only contexts of relations, and viable outomes. False information can poison actions. All information can be utilized, but if time critical a priority of potential justifiations and adequette responses to meet all needs is the primary point of reasoning. This means you don't need to be blind but see the oncoming SUV befor the cat 7 houses down, as the point of relativity to the situation for priority in response. Different people may see different threats in different objects - or perhaps none at all. Most of it is hardwired, or lingering. Do you drink the water that someone told you is contaminated - or do you wait to test it befor you drink it? If someone tells you a bar is full of hoodlums or a beach full of theives, do you go there with your gold chains and purse in clear sight? What about someone saying that someone has HIV? Do you sleep with them and get tested later, if they said they didn't? Some things you can't avoid. While hearsay exists there, you look for a verifiable source, or an authority - sometimes even authorities are wrong. If you lable someone paranoid just beause they don't trust authorities you deem as "perfect" then you are simply more reckless than they are. There is nothing wrong with being paranoid regardless it is a life choice. It is their life to live, not yours.
Hearsay is not grounds to attack an individual though, hearsay information should only be used in defence of the self against potential harm, not destructive behaviour that is related to an unsubstantiated threat. If you go on an offensive based on false information you risk friendly fire.
Unfortunately the government routinely chooses to penalize people without substantial evidence - people lie to people like police and judges. These are just facts of life. But when you call people paranoid when you know even less about a situation than they do, you are the one who is being irresponsible and reckless.
Also I've never seen them break to the level of accusing one another of being coinintel pro in the 20 or so threads I've read on that website over the last few years.
PKC your painting of me is immature and inappropriate, kindly refrain from using ad hominem, it is seen as harassing and inappropriate behavoiur. When false it is a form of defamation. Kindly stop in the activity.
Personally I've seen judges lie, as well as corruption and illegal activities perpetuated by government actors, I've seen doctors give false information - I don't trust authorities, I trust reasonable judgement you can make by collecting facts and testing them. You on the otherhand support a blind cowish society that doesn't think for itself. |
|
|
| shaw |
| :stongue: :stongue: :stongue: |
|
|
| bARTovsky |
| Dance, dance, dance, dance, dance, to the radio. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
1. You start by saying I am like the people at above top secret
2. You call them paranoid
Way to paint. " painting someone in a false light in the public eye."
1. I don't frequent abovetopsecret.com I only occasionally find links when I am researching a topic.
2. Only a few people are usually close to an event horizon. Everyone else gets second hand information. Paranoia is actually more on the side of government with legislating laws over things as little as 7 people getting injured in a year because of something - so they require the other 800000 to partake in some new program so that only 3 people who don't use the device properly are injured instead.
Personally I'm not a paranoid person. Not being paranoid doesn't mean you can't exercise caution on some things. Some people may be more timid than others when crossing a log strewn across a chasm, some people might not even cross it, others might walk gingerly across. People have different inbuilt responses to different situations.
Who are you to tell people how much caution someone can exercise.
Fact is the government has run programs in the past that target their own populations. creep operations etc.. sort of what about 10 people on this board regularly do to other members.
If you arn't on the event horizon you have no clue. The least you can do is gather evidence if the event is still ongoing.
Do I think the stuff really happened. I don't know. Are there people who do, yes. Are there people who say they arn't aware of it happening, yes. Does it matter if it happened or not. Yes. What is the cautious approach, beleive it happened or beleive it didn't happen. Cautious people will pick the first, reckless people the second. The only time you may not be able to put "unsubstantiated information" into the picture is when it is critical. - In instances of critical situations, cases should exist without knowledge being required only contexts of relations, and viable outomes. False information can poison actions. All information can be utilized, but if time critical a priority of potential justifiations and adequette responses to meet all needs is the primary point of reasoning. This means you don't need to be blind but see the oncoming SUV befor the cat 7 houses down, as the point of relativity to the situation for priority in response. Different people may see different threats in different objects - or perhaps none at all. Most of it is hardwired, or lingering. Do you drink the water that someone told you is contaminated - or do you wait to test it befor you drink it? If someone tells you a bar is full of hoodlums or a beach full of theives, do you go there with your gold chains and purse in clear sight? What about someone saying that someone has HIV? Do you sleep with them and get tested later, if they said they didn't? Some things you can't avoid. While hearsay exists there, you look for a verifiable source, or an authority - sometimes even authorities are wrong. If you lable someone paranoid just beause they don't trust authorities you deem as "perfect" then you are simply more reckless than they are. There is nothing wrong with being paranoid regardless it is a life choice. It is their life to live, not yours.
Hearsay is not grounds to attack an individual though, hearsay information should only be used in defence of the self against potential harm, not destructive behaviour that is related to an unsubstantiated threat. If you go on an offensive based on false information you risk friendly fire.
Unfortunately the government routinely chooses to penalize people without substantial evidence - people lie to people like police and judges. These are just facts of life. But when you call people paranoid when you know even less about a situation than they do, you are the one who is being irresponsible and reckless.
Also I've never seen them break to the level of accusing one another of being coinintel pro in the 20 or so threads I've read on that website over the last few years.
PKC your painting of me is immature and inappropriate, kindly refrain from using ad hominem, it is seen as harassing and inappropriate behavoiur. When false it is a form of defamation. Kindly stop in the activity.
Personally I've seen judges lie, as well as corruption and illegal activities perpetuated by government actors, I've seen doctors give false information - I don't trust authorities, I trust reasonable judgement you can make by collecting facts and testing them. You on the otherhand support a blind cowish society that doesn't think for itself. |
couldn't agree with you more! |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
Way to paint. |
 |
|
|
|
|
