Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminari
Digi get back on track, in all of your empassioned posts on this thread not a single one has addressed the topic of this thread. Have you even read it? The article?
Just a reminder, this thread is entitled:
David Wilcock's latest Blog, ok?
NOT
David Wilcock's Ego.
I also posted the link to this article on the Wanderer Awakening thread before this one was created and was also attacked by another person with issues who only wanted to talk smack about David too.
Keep it on topic please, a discussion about the substance of the article would be great thanks,
L
|
I'm very neatly on track all ready, as no single person can decide the direction of conversation. Besides, I think the discussion of his ego is integral to any discussion about the information he presents in his article. It's a little odd that you're asking me to stay on topic, because all my posts have been responses to other peoples' posts - I haven't changed any topics here, only continued them. I'm therefore lead to believe you've singled me out because we have differing opinions.
I've actually done my utmost to remain dispassionate in writing my posts - my opinion that he's very egotistical is matter-of-fact - the passion you've detected must have been injected some time after I've hit the 'Submit' button, and so I can not be held accountable for it.
Yes, I've read the article. From start to finish, and many parts several times over. I liked it, and was educated by it. Though, as I've said, information has to be considered with an assessment of the filter through which it comes. This guy has a big ego, which tends to make him overstate his case, and move his role in things toward the centre. That's as pertinent to understanding what he writes as the words themselves. That kind of thing is especially pertinent when you have to take his word for a lot of his evidence. Secret witnesses, dream data, all that stuff comes solely through him, you can't judge it for yourself, and therefore you have to rely on his judgement of it. Knowing his prejudices is vital to properly assimilating that evidence.
It's interesting to me that you imply I've attacked you. Please, point to where I've done this, and I'll immediatly retract it. Perhaps you're confusing disagreement with combat. The things are virtual opposites. Criticism is not insult. Far from it, in fact.
Equally interesting is that you suggest I'm "talking smack" about David Wilcock. Saying someone has a big ego is not talking smack. It's just that I think it's true. I've been redundant in my attempts to make it clear that I am not trying to attack, or disparage David Wilcock. I think he has a big ego, but that's really up to him. I have no hatred of him for that; this isn't a value judgement. All I'm interested in is knowing it's there, because it effects the context of his very intriguing output.
Say something about the substance, that I feel I can add to, and I'll respond.