The nature of reality.

Rorschach

Rorschach

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,149
Location
W2
No John, after 15 years of suffering mental illness, feeling paranoia ooze out of the radio, the TV, people around me, movies, books...basically undergoing a living hell where everything appeared to have a synchronistic meaning I think you coming here and spouting this shit is highly freaking irresponsible.

If you do have mental illness, you obviously have it quite lightly. I say this because you are showing absolutely no respect or consideration for that fact!!! As I said only 4% of the traffic of this site is membership. You have no idea what a living hell mental illness is, it’s not just voices, it’s as if you are living in more than one reality with it incoming from every direction, and if you aggravate anyone's condition, I mean it, you'll have made an enemy of me and you really don't want me as an enemy.
 
J

John A

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
207
Location
Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
If you want to go into those it would be far more healing than holding all the childhood stuff in.
But there isn't any really juicy "childhood stuff" for me to tell you about, not that's remotely relevant to anything I am involved in here or in my day to day life. I'm 54, for goodness' sake.

I was brought up to be truthful. Some people regard my inability to lie as a character flaw, but I don't.

Most of my life's trauma occurred after the age of 40.
 
Rorschach

Rorschach

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,149
Location
W2
See...you even made me say 'fact' I must be getting angry. Now tell us about the big bad boys...
 
Rorschach

Rorschach

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,149
Location
W2
But there isn't any really juicy "childhood stuff" for me to tell you about, not that's remotely relevant to anything I am involved in here or in my day to day life. I'm 54, for goodness' sake.

I was brought up to be truthful. Some people regard my inability to lie as a character flaw, but I don't.

Most of my life's trauma occurred after the age of 40.

I suppose sidestepping your childhood, as in 'I'm over it' isn't lying per se, but it's certainly in the same ballpark.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
...and whom learning the facts about V2K weapons has helped immensely...
How exactly? Very hard to believe. We only have your word for it, for starters. Secondly - given that V2k weapon use on the general population is unproven - how do they or you know it's V2K weapons?, & the more likely reality, that they & you are not simply delusional? Given the fact you say you only know the potential for the technology to exist, from some dodgy document you found on the net. You have admitted you know nothing about who may be behind things or in fact anything else at all about any of it! How do you know the document is genuine? Even whether it is miss or diss information? How does it help people to know they are being experimented on!!??, if it is a given this is true, which it isn't! With any rational thought applied to this it simply doesn't add up!, or make any sense! at all.
 
J

John A

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
207
Location
Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
No John, after 15 years of suffering mental illness, feeling paranoia ooze out of the radio, the TV, people around me, movies, books...basically undergoing a living hell where everything appeared to have a synchronistic meaning I think you coming here and spouting this shit is highly freaking irresponsible.
I have a not dissimilar experience set behind me. What set me free was understanding how this experience set can be inflicted on people artificially and maliciously, and gaining the enthusiastic support in my work to make this public knowledge of my mother, my then wife, my close friends, one of my sisters, one of my daughters, and various people in my faith community who didn't believe that I was "mentally ill". I find it immensely rewarding emotionally when people express gratitude to me for that work.

The most miserable years of my life occurred when I was targeted, but had no information about the weapons that enabled this, and nobody to talk to about it. The very thing that you consider "freaking irresponsible", my attempting to reach out to people with my experience set and yours, offering them a rational explanation that doesn't amount to demanding that they consider there to be something seriously wrong with them, I consider to be a duty.

I don't try to bully anybody into deciding to believe that they are targeted. But I think it's "freaking irresponsible" to try to continue to suppress the fact that people can be targeted in this way, even after the US DoD has decided to declassify this formerly "secret" information.

Do you understand that we have different points of view, diametrically opposed? I want everybody to know about the weapons mentioned in "Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons", because of the great harm not knowing about them did me once (and is still doing to others), and the great good that knowing about them has done me (and has done to others). You would prefer people in this forum to be kept in ignorance, and consider that spreading the truth is "irresponsible" of me. Can't we just agree to differ, like gentlemen, or to discuss this core difference of opinion?

If you do have mental illness, you obviously have it quite lightly. I say this because you are showing absolutely no respect or consideration for that fact!!! As I said only 4% of the traffic of this site is membership. You have no idea what a living hell mental illness is, it’s not just voices, it’s as if you are living in more than one reality with it incoming from every direction, and if you aggravate anyone's condition, I mean it, you'll have made an enemy of me and you really don't want me as an enemy.
I have never come across anybody whose health was made worse by exposure to the information that certain bioeffects of possible electromagnetic directed energy, anti-personnel, non-lethal weapons were feasible. I don't anticipate that the new development, that it has now been declassified that weapons that inflict such bioeffects were actually developed prior to 1998, and that this remained officially secret until 2006, will make publicising this truth any more likely to cause anybody any harm.

You are obviously very sincere in your opinion that these facts should remain poorly publicised, because knowing them might harm vulberable people. I am equally sincere in my opinion that the very people whom you fear might be harmed, are the very people who most need accurate information, so that they can make fully informed decisions as to what they belief is causing their symptoms, even if they reject the idea that they might be being targeted in the same was as others testify that they have been targeted, which is their choice.

I say, given people the information, and let them make up their own minds. You take the view that some people cannot be trusted to make up their own minds wisely, and need to be protected from learning the information. That is the crux of the matter, isn't it?
 
Rorschach

Rorschach

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,149
Location
W2
That's fine John. But to be honest you are awaking all kinds of things in me, and I'm only glad I'm taking my medication, if I wasn't I have no doubt that as a result of no medication and your discourse I'd end up in hospital. If added to that I was smoking weed, it would be tres rapide.

Personally i think you're missing the point. I think you've internalised early experiences. I've been there, projection, alienation, marginalisation. These things burrow in deep, soak in, then come out again. That the whole process didn't happen until you were in your forties could be as a result of numerous things. Your late teen, early 20s peer group at college, the fact you probably didn't drink alot, I'm guessing you didn't do drugs.

I guess that I'm using occum's razor, as someone who as part of his degree studied psychology; that you are externalising, internal conflict is far more likley than 'they' are out to get you. The use of 'they' is a psychological tell, it reeks of assimilated negative projection. Let me tell you, this isn't solely coming out of textbooks, I've lived it.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
I don't try to bully anybody into deciding to believe that they are targeted. But I think it's "freaking irresponsible" to try to continue to suppress the fact that people can be targeted in this way, even after the US DoD has decided to declassify this formerly "secret" information.
Your still at it! What Fact!!!???.It is totally unproven anywhere that this stuff is going on. Advances in biological, Genetic, Chemical & Atomic technology - does not mean that they are using all this technology to experiment on unsuspecting members of the public. What evidence do you have they are using this specific technology in this way??? Have you seen their weapons? What are you going on about?

I can just as easily say that that it's "freaking irresponsible" to try to continue to suppress the fact that people are continually abducted by Aliens.
 
J

John A

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
207
Location
Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Given the fact you say you only know the potential for the technology to exist, from some dodgy document you found on the net.
It isn't a "fact" that I "say" anything of the sort. The sources are impeccable.

How does it help people to know they are being experimented on!!??
Leaving aside the use of the phrase "experimented on", which isn't the only possible scenario of deployment, the information empowers people with that perception to prove that what they perceive to be happening is perfectly feasible. That is liberating for them, sometimes - well, always, in my experience. It enables their families, for example, to regain lost respect for them. It throws into question any diagnosis of "psychosis". It is a stabilising influence on a troubled life.

The existence of weapons that inflict specific symptoms is one piece of information that people with those symptoms ought to be allowed to have, so that they can make their own informed decisions as to how relevant they consider the information to be to their own attempts to understand what is happening to them. How can anybody possibly disagree with letting people know all the facts, and decide for themselves?
 
J

John A

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
207
Location
Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
Compact Oxford Dictionary said:
internalize
(also internalise)

• verb make (attitudes or behaviour) part of one’s nature by learning or unconscious assimilation.

— DERIVATIVES internalization noun.
I think you've internalised early experiences.
I should jolly well hope so! I'd be a rum sort of bloke if I hadn't done this. Doesn't everybody? <shrug>

I'm not "missing the point". The central question of today for me has become this: on what basis do you decide that certain factual information in the public domain, which MIGHT explain certain symptoms in SOME cases, should be withheld from adults with those symptoms, by others who fear that the adults concerned might assimilate that information into their worldviews unwisely? No matter how much psychobabble anybody writes, what is so right about your wishing to decide for other people what I would like them to be free to decide for themselves?
 
Rorschach

Rorschach

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,149
Location
W2
I'm gonna say one word, but you're going to ignore it 'Vulnerable'. How vulnerable? So vulnerable that the law makes exception for them.
 
J

John A

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
207
Location
Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
I'm gonna say one word, but you're going to ignore it 'Vulnerable'. How vulnerable? So vulnerable that the law makes exception for them.
My take on all this is that the law makes certain people even more vulnerable than they might be naturally, by making exceptions to ordinary human rights legislation and natural justice that are exceptions against them, not exceptions "for" them.

Why don't you come along to the London TI meeting on this Saturday coming at 4 p.m., to meet me and a few of my pals? We really aren't a bad bunch of folk, honestly. You'll have a much clearer idea of who we are if you take me up on this offer. Phone me if you'd like to come.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
It enables their families, for example, to regain lost respect for them. It throws into question any diagnosis of "psychosis". It is a stabilising influence on a troubled life.
A very odd choice of words. The only people who would respect someone less for suffering a serious illness are the types of bigoted, judgemental & prejudiced fools I tend to stay away from. Where is the shame in suffering a serious illness? It is precisely this attitude some people are trying to change. The people that matter to me have, if anything, respected me more for having to deal & cope with a serious mental illness. Where are you coming from? Is your insistence of mind control a reaction to your Fear of maybe accepting the fact that you could well indeed be mentally ill yourself?

The existence of weapons that inflict specific symptoms is one piece of information that people with those symptoms ought to be allowed to have, so that they can make.....
.....so that they can make themselves more delusional!

The existence of such weapons is totally unproven, even if we take some wishy washy science as fact. It is also totally unproven that even if such weapons exist - that they are being used on the general population. However much you want to believe it John, I'm sorry, but believing it doesn't make it true. Your insistence of this material as viable doesn't make it so, & it is highly irresponsible to try to expound this material as having a basis in objective reality. It is within the same sphere of knowledge as that of UFO's. It has no more objective or provable validity as this subject. I know you don't "believe" in them. If we are looking at proved & unproven, you can no more disprove Aliens as I can prove them. Your non-belief in Aliens no more negates their existence, if they do exist, as my non-acceptance of your twaddle, any more disproves that. However the onus is very firmly on you to PROVE the validity & truth of what you have been prattling on about. The onus of proof is on the one saying something is true. The onus is on you! Time to put up or shut up John. This is something you have not done, you are no more making anyone aware of any facts or truth than the paranoid conspiracy theorist who is telling us the end of the World is nigh & the reptilian Aliens are on their way back. You are in fact the same - A tin foil hat wearing Fruit Cake.
 
Ashami

Ashami

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
1,033
Location
The Wilderness
John

Please understand this, you are upsetting people.

You've told us about your weapons, please leave it at that. You don't have to keep on.....
 
J

John A

Well-known member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
207
Location
Launceston, Cornwall, United Kingdom
The only people who would respect someone less for suffering a serious illness are the types of bigoted, judgemental & prejudiced fools I tend to stay away from. ... You are in fact ... A tin foil hat wearing Fruit Cake.
How on earth is one expected to reply to somebody capable of writing that?

The existence of such weapons is totally unproven
On the contrary, the document clearly says that the existence of such weapons from 1998 onwards was classified as "secret" until 6 December 2006, when the information was declassified.

you are no more making anyone aware of any facts or truth than the paranoid conspiracy theorist who is telling us the end of the World is nigh
http://www.slavery.org.uk/Bioeffects_of_Selected_Non-Lethal_Weapons.pdf
I didn't write Bioeffects of Selected Non-Lethal Weapons back in 1998. I didn't take the 1998 decision to classify the information in it as "secret". I didn't take the 2006 decision to release the information to the general public. If you don't find the information to your satisfaction, don't attack me over this; attack the US DoD. It's not me that's saying anything. It's them.
 
A

Apotheosis

Guest
How on earth is one expected to reply to somebody capable of writing that?
Try replying with something intelligent addressing the points I've raised, but don't worry I won't be holding my breath.

On the contrary, the document clearly says that the existence of such weapons from 1998 onwards was classified as "secret" until 6 December 2006, when the information was declassified.
This "document" you keep wittering on about - I would be capable of producing on my PC in photoshop in an hour or two, in fact it would look more authentic than the rag you have produced, & be more interesting. We only have your word about your "impeccable" sources, yeah OK. Pffffft.

Lets hypothetically suspend any critical analysis for a moment & take the document as "truth". All this document is saying is that certain technology has been researched. No where in any of this document does it say weapons have been developed using this technology for present use. No where does it say these supposed weapons (on your part) are in use against the public. So what John are you talking about by your parroting on about this uninteresting rag?

This is the last time John that I try to engage you in rational debate on this subject. I have tried, you blindly ignore sense. You are closed minded to the point of incredulity. You also remind me of an armadillo.

 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
F Hearing Voices Forum 1

Similar threads