Is TT-Watch uncontrolled now?

"Vanilla Gorilla (Monkey Boy)" wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 09:36:55 -0700, (Lisa
Gardner) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:

DrPostman wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:32 -0700, "John Griffin"
wrote:


"DrPostman" wrote
On 20 Jun 2003 11:01:30 -0700, (Lisa
Gardner) wrote:

Guy, I meant that I am not so ready to believe *Nancy's*
assertion.

How can you be ready AT ALL to believe it, especially now that
her dates have come and gone and The White Lie is the excuse?

Lisa wants to believe crazy stuff, as a sort of solidarity thing.

Uh, what is with you guys?

Are you functioning on auto-reply, or something?

**Did you actually read what I wrote above**?

No one reads what you write.

That is quite clear to me with regards to some of you people.

Lisa Agnes Gardner

DrPostman wrote in message . ..
On 21 Jun 2003 09:36:55 -0700, (Lisa
Gardner) wrote:

DrPostman wrote in message . ..
On Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:36:32 -0700, "John Griffin"
wrote:


"DrPostman" wrote
On 20 Jun 2003 11:01:30 -0700, (Lisa
Gardner) wrote:

Guy, I meant that I am not so ready to believe *Nancy's*
assertion.

How can you be ready AT ALL to believe it, especially now that
her dates have come and gone and The White Lie is the excuse?

Lisa wants to believe crazy stuff, as a sort of solidarity thing.

Uh, what is with you guys?

Are you functioning on auto-reply, or something?

**Did you actually read what I wrote above**?

I said that I was not too willing to believe this assertion of
Nancy's.

And did you read what I asked? How can you be willing AT ALL
to believe Nancy's nonsense?


Somehow that got translated into me wholeheartedly believing.

Not from my question. What tiny, itty bitsy part are you willing to
believe? She has been proven entirely wrong.
[...]

Uh, actually. I don't believe any of it straight out, but it is
possible that she is looking psychically at someone's 'inner space'
and misinterpreting what she senses there.

Or, it is possible that she is being fed bull**** by people who
are intentionally looking to decieve and lead others astray.

Incidentally, I can't believe you gave this bull**** answer. How
is it that you can give such unthinking replies and still be
taken somewhat seriously? Or are you just not taken seriously?

Lisa Agnes Gardner

STAPLETONSASTROLOGY wrote in message ...
Lisa Gardner wrote:

]

I have never really looked much into her stuff, but in general
I do believe that channeling is a part of the whole bad of ****
that eats at me. I also believe that it is possible that many
so-called channelers are really just people who are having
fed to them public opinion management propaganda by some
organization or another, either from here here on earth or elsewhere,
albeit through psychic communication.

What matters is the content of what is said, though. If the stuff
makes sense and seems right to you, than its origin is not all that
important. The *content* is what should be paid attention to.

If it *doesn't* make sense, than it doesn't make sense - no matter
who claims to be channeling whom.

But yeah: the whole phenomenon of 'channeling' is something
that could easily be used to direct the opinions of the certain
groups of people. I think it *is* used to do such a thing.

Lisa, "chaneling" is just some made-up-bull**** done to impress people,
get attention, and make money.

It's not real. It's fake. It doesn't really happen.

It would be cool it it were real, but it isn't. Sorry.

Yes, some of it is fake. However, I have known several channels
personally who were not "faking" it. Exactly what the process consists
of is open for debate, but it is not always being "faked".

I

"Idon't" wrote in message
m...
STAPLETONSASTROLOGY wrote in message
...
Lisa Gardner wrote:

]

I have never really looked much into her stuff, but in general
I do believe that channeling is a part of the whole bad of ****
that eats at me. I also believe that it is possible that many
so-called channelers are really just people who are having
fed to them public opinion management propaganda by some
organization or another, either from here here on earth or elsewhere,
albeit through psychic communication.

What matters is the content of what is said, though. If the stuff
makes sense and seems right to you, than its origin is not all that
important. The *content* is what should be paid attention to.

If it *doesn't* make sense, than it doesn't make sense - no matter
who claims to be channeling whom.

But yeah: the whole phenomenon of 'channeling' is something
that could easily be used to direct the opinions of the certain
groups of people. I think it *is* used to do such a thing.

Lisa, "chaneling" is just some made-up-bull**** done to impress people,
get attention, and make money.

It's not real. It's fake. It doesn't really happen.

It would be cool it it were real, but it isn't. Sorry.

Yes, some of it is fake. However, I have known several channels
personally who were not "faking" it. Exactly what the process consists
of is open for debate, but it is not always being "faked".

I

How could one verify if it were possible or not? It's just
a buncha talk.

-Ugly Bob

In article ,
(Idon't) wrote:

It's not real. It's fake. It doesn't really happen.

It would be cool it it were real, but it isn't. Sorry.

Yes, some of it is fake. However, I have known several channels
personally who were not "faking" it. Exactly what the process consists
of is open for debate, but it is not always being "faked".

And just how do you know its real?

On 21 Jun 2003 21:27:13 -0700, (Lisa
Gardner) wrote in alt.fan.art-bell:

Or are you just not taken seriously?

Dr. Postman is only taken seriously by other people who are taken
seriously. I'll leave the math for you to do at your convenience.
--
V.G.

"People are more violently opposed to fur than leather, because it is easier to harrass
rich women than it is motorcycle gangs." - Bumper Sticker
(This sig file contains not less than 80% recycled SPAM)

Sarcasm is my sword, Apathy is my shield.

"STAPLETONSASTROLOGY" wrote in message
...
Lisa Gardner wrote:

]

I have never really looked much into her stuff, but in general
I do believe that channeling is a part of the whole bad of ****
that eats at me. I also believe that it is possible that many
so-called channelers are really just people who are having
fed to them public opinion management propaganda by some
organization or another, either from here here on earth or elsewhere,
albeit through psychic communication.

What matters is the content of what is said, though. If the stuff
makes sense and seems right to you, than its origin is not all that
important. The *content* is what should be paid attention to.

If it *doesn't* make sense, than it doesn't make sense - no matter
who claims to be channeling whom.

But yeah: the whole phenomenon of 'channeling' is something
that could easily be used to direct the opinions of the certain
groups of people. I think it *is* used to do such a thing.

Lisa, "chaneling" is just some made-up-bull**** done to impress people,
get attention, and make money.

It's not real. It's fake. It doesn't really happen.

It would be cool it it were real, but it isn't. Sorry.

[filler








filler]

****************************
'filler' is there to get around restrictions on quoted text being less than
new text.
I like to include the full text of the quoted article these days so that if
someone's
message experiences bad propagation for certain reasons, the quoted version
of
it can get through in my message, which might experience better propagation.

I may stop doing this if it gets to be a problem, though. Or maybe I will
just
start including a large .sig file.

*********************

If you are going to be impressed should someone prove to you that *it is
real*, i.e., that is *really is happening via physic channels* and isn't
just
'made up', than you might be a bad place to excercise caution with regards
to it should this turn out to be the case.

IMHO, the CIA or other agencies might even be able to 'broadcast'
bull**** psychically. This might impress the **** out of many impressionable
people who did not believe beforehand in the possibility of such stuff
but who will be blown away when and if it ever is **proven** to them
that such things are possible.

Lisa Agnes Gardner

"DrPostman" wrote in message
...
On 21 Jun 2003 20:26:10 -0700, (Lisa
Gardner) wrote:



I have never really looked much into her stuff, but in general
I do believe that channeling is a part of the whole bad of ****
that eats at me. I also believe that it is possible that many
so-called channelers are really just people who are having
fed to them public opinion management propaganda by some
organization or another, either from here here on earth or elsewhere,
albeit through psychic communication.

Or it could be just another case of schizophrenia.

Yes. And there could be interesting things going on with schizophrenia.

What matters is the content of what is said, though. If the stuff
makes sense and seems right to you, than its origin is not all that
important. The *content* is what should be paid attention to.

Jim Jones had a lot of content that seemed right to his followers.

However, I was not one of them and I don't think it would have
seemed right to me.

If it *doesn't* make sense, than it doesn't make sense - no matter
who claims to be channeling whom.

But yeah: the whole phenomenon of 'channeling' is something
that could easily be used to direct the opinions of the certain
groups of people. I think it *is* used to do such a thing.

Or it could be the delusional following delusions.[...]

Yes, it could. But then, so could other things.

Lisa Agnes Gardner

[filler









filler]

The above is here so that the article will post with the amount of quoted
text
I have here. I don't want to cut any of the quoted text out.

Matthew Kriebel wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Idon't) wrote:

It's not real. It's fake. It doesn't really happen.

It would be cool it it were real, but it isn't. Sorry.

Yes, some of it is fake. However, I have known several channels
personally who were not "faking" it. Exactly what the process consists
of is open for debate, but it is not always being "faked".

And just how do you know its real?

Real what? I only said that the people I knew personally were not
intentionally "faking" it. That is the catch-all used to dismiss the
entire phenomenon, but it is not universally applicable. It's not
nearly that simple.

I

On 22 Jun 2003 14:34:21 -0700, (Idon't) wrote:

Matthew Kriebel wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Idon't) wrote:

It's not real. It's fake. It doesn't really happen.

It would be cool it it were real, but it isn't. Sorry.

Yes, some of it is fake. However, I have known several channels
personally who were not "faking" it. Exactly what the process consists
of is open for debate, but it is not always being "faked".

And just how do you know its real?

Real what? I only said that the people I knew personally were not
intentionally "faking" it. That is the catch-all used to dismiss the
entire phenomenon, but it is not universally applicable. It's not
nearly that simple.

Yes, it is exactly that simple. Although not quite as simple as your
barely functioning mind.

Pete Charest
Founding Father
DIY Insult Program
Pete Charest
Insult Yourself, I'm Busy