|
|
A continuation of the "White
Lie" theme brought Kid A into the frame. (Kid A produced the hoax photo
that Nancy claimed was genuine.)
TT-Watch
From: "kidapx" <kidapx@y...>
Date:
Thu May 22, 2003 11:44 pm
Subject:
An even MORE radical theory
Nancy lied, or was self-deceived by her own fantasies.
Occum's Razor -- "The simplest explanation for the same phenomenon is
more likely to be accurate than the more complicated explanation."
KidA
------o------
From: "maxxdevlinn" <maxxdevlinn@y...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 12:05 am
Subject:
Re: An even MORE radical theory
Considering Kid A (if your the real one)
You took an active role in creating a hoax.
Holding to Occum's Razor the answer is you wanted to destory the
messager, for the message was too hard for you to bear. Could it be
that every time KidA read nancy's claims a Kida had a mirror put up
to him and did not like what he saw in in himself. Therefore he set
out to smash that mirror.
Either way you set out to create a Lie a Hoax a STS traite, you were
the first lier.
Solst
------o------
From:
"kidapx" <kidapx@y...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 12:12 am
Subject:
Re: An even MORE radical theory
My intentions were to get the Zeta's to confirm my pic as genuine, so
I could turn around and expose her hoax. Nancy was smart enough to
not let Zeta's comment on any pic.
And if you could see half the emails that I get from Zeta believers,
you would be shocked at the lack of STO's in the crowd.
And, what's even more amazing to me, is that you folks will consider
the most insane theories about why this week was a non-event, yet you
still can't bear to consider that Nancy lied to you, and that you
were duped.
My question to you all: When it finally becomes clear that Nancy has
pulled a hoax, will you villify her as much as you have villified
me? I did one picture. She did 8-some-odd years of Zeta.
KidA (the same)
------o------
From:
None of yer beeswax <dizme@y...>
Date: Fri May 23, 2003 12:58 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: An even MORE radical theory
my problem with you kida is that nancy was not
hurting anyone and those that were interested stayed
with the program my ouestion to you is why!!!! you
would be so hurtfull and waste so much time to do this
also you are the one to send the fake photo so i would
say that you are the one who is such a fraud and a
troublemaker whats the matter can't stand the thought
that someone really dosen't care what you say and
think so you have to go and attack others.....your
------o------
From:
"kidapx" <kidapx@y...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 1:05 am
Subject:
Re: An even MORE radical theory
First off, find me one person that I hurt. I guarantee that not one
person was affected physically, financially, or socially by me.
Nancy, on the other hand, has hurt MANY.
- All the people that quit their jobs.
- All the families that were uprooted to move to a safe zone.
- All the pets that (hopefully not) were put to their sleep by their
owners following Nancy's advice.
We won't be hearing from all the people that Nancy hurt in the above
ways because who wants to admit that they were THAT duped?
The shame lies on Nancy. One day you will understand.
KidA
------o------
From:
"mlistman" <mlistman@i...>
Date: Fri May 23, 2003 4:45 am
Subject:
How many even know of ZT? Re: A Radical Theory
It's a nice sounding theory but...
Just how large do you think this audience of STOs and STSs is? ZT, no
matter how profoundly it has affected anyone here, is essentially
unknown to the vast majority of mankind. I would hazard a generous
guess and say that only 100,000 out of 6 billion people are familiar
with ZT (that's .0017%). If this 'white lie' was designed to 'weed
out' STSs in any significant numbers, it would decidedly be a failure.
I've always been amused at how grave and important for all of
humanity this has seemed to both pro and con Zeta forces. As
insignificant as Earth is to the rest of the galaxy, so is the ZT
community to the world.
I'm not saying that what is discussed here is not important, or that
the effects of a PS would not be global, only that the number of
people with direct knowlege of ZT, who would be directly effected by
the actions of the players (Nancy, debunkers, etc.), is terribly
small.
So when trying to figure out what and why things have happened, try
to remeber how tiny of a sandbox we're playing in here.
Michael Listman
------o------
From:
jw <jw@w...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 1:49 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: An even MORE radical theory
dude, I can relate! I took a picture, a real picture, no touchup or
anything, that had a wierd aberation in it
(http://kaput.com/twosuns.jpg), and after a number of people asked me to
show it to them on a recent ZTchat, IMMEDIATLY, and I mean with 15
seconds, I was permanantly banned from the group by QV as a lier and a
fraud! I was amazed at hpw un-STO these self-proclaimed STO-ers were.
They were more nasty to me then sco.astro zetahaters.
What I find ironic and quite funny, is you had a fake pic and everyone
believed it, I had a real pic, and was cursed as a debunker :)
------o------
From:
"txyall" <txyall@y...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 2:15 am
Subject:
Re: An even MORE radical theory
What would you expect them to do after all these people started coming
out of
the woodwork with fake pics, and entering chat sessions to insult,
interfere,
and laugh it up. Of course, people became suspicious and less tolerant
of
others. This does not make anyone STS. STO doesn't mean let people walk
all over you, insult you, and just assume everyone is good. Someone is
not
STS just because they ban you from a chat session, or because they don't
share your opinion and don't want you clogging their logs or groups with
the
same rant over and over again. With all that's going on in the world,
you
people believe that tt-watch and Zetatalk believers are evil or STS just
because they banned you from a session, didn't share your opinion, or
didn't
feel they needed to justify their choices to you? Please....don't let
your dislike
of others' beliefs or choices cloud your judgement by assuming that you
know
them or their character, or by becoming fixated on proving your right at
all
costs.
------o------
From:
jw <jw@w...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 2:34 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: An even MORE radical theory
I have never rediculed or criticized any of the ZetaHeads, being one
myself for the most part. I also told them I did not want to share the
picture because I did not want to become embroiled in a KidA-like soap
opera. I was asked to share the picture. I'll say it again. They
asked me to post the pictures. I did not make any claims and told all
that I was not interested in sharing.
Are you saying I should be tolerant of being kicked out of the group
because I was banned for provoding the picture they asked for? I should
be permanantly shunned from sharing with other because QV immediatly
judged me as a fraud? You're saying that she has the right to judge and
ban simply because she wants to and that no rationale other then her
own subjective and erroneous opinion? No questions, no curiosity, just
absolute condemnation. If that is STO, show me the door, thank you.
------o------
From: "txyall" <txyall@y...>
Date: Fri May 23, 2003 2:59 am
Subject:
Re: An even MORE radical theory
Your basing what's STO on QV's actions in a chat session? Who told you
to
make the images availabe in the session? Was it QV, or anyone else who
was a moderator? Were they expecting you? Are you aware of the chaos,
insulting and faking that goes on in those sessions? I think you're
being a
little harsh over being banned from a chat session; especially when you
consider all the fake pics being brought forward. People do make
mistakes
and people do have different levels of tolerance in their personalities.
None
of this is the litmus test for STO or STS. If it were only that simple.
If only we
were the judge.
------o------
From:
jw <jw@w...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 3:37 am
Subject:
Re: [tt-watch] Re: An even MORE radical theory
> Your basing what's STO on QV's actions in a chat session?<
Not just her, but otehr as well. Her actions were simply an example of
the intollerant attitude that has become more obvious since the white
lie.
> Who told you to make the images availabe in the session? Was it QV, or anyone else who was a moderator? Were they expecting you? Are you aware of the chaos, insulting and faking that goes on in those sessions?<
I said, twice, I was asked (by QV and others) to share the picure, which
I did by posting the url (and announcing that that was what I was about
to do). No one else was bent out of shape and they expressed real
interest.
> personalities. None of this is the litmus test for STO or STS. If it were only that simple. If only we were the judge.<
I disagree.
------o------
From:
"txyall" <txyall@y...>
Date:
Fri May 23, 2003 4:46 am
Subject:
Re: An even MORE radical theory
If this is the case, then it's possible that your banning was a mistake
in the chaos.
Who knows really know. But, it sounds like you've got a chip on your
shoulder about
it. It's a waste of time.
You think that you're in a position to judge who is STO and STS, and you
can
determine this from how you were treated in one of those crazy chat
sessions?
How
unfortunate.
------o------
Next
|
