The 'censorship' discussion

[Bill Ryan]

I personally believe that when the few declare what everyone else can and cannot see it's censorship. It's the loss of liberty. You could even call it authoritarianism.

Here's a question. It'd be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and answers.

Richard Dolan now puts a lot of his material (and half of his video interviews) behind his RichardDolanMembers.com (http://RichardDolanMembers.com) paywall. You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

Please reply. :)

(Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)

[edina]

I personally believe that when the few declare what everyone else can and cannot see it's censorship. It's the loss of liberty. You could even call it authoritarianism.

Here's a question. It'd be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and answers.

Richard Dolan now puts a lot of his material (and half of his video interviews) behind his RichardDolanMembers.com (http://RichardDolanMembers.com) paywall. You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

Please reply. :)

(Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)

The criteria for having exclusive information behind the paywall is a bit different than removing a particular thread(s) from public view because it's problematic for some.

Lots of forums do what you've described. Usually having sample blogs or general information available for non-members, and often informing people of what is available for members only.

I may add, they are also usually producers of original content.

In the case of Richard Dolan, it's his content and he can decide how he wants to manage it. That's not censorship. That's ownership rights of the content creator.

However, people do often complain of lack of access to knowledge that tax payers pay for that lays hidden behind pay/membership walls. Understandably so.

It's getting harder and harder to access information these days. Maybe it's always been difficult?

[Bluegreen]

(Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)

I would suggest this sends the question into the "Apples & Oranges" category


:Avalon:

[T Smith]

I believe there is a discernible difference between censorship and membership.

Censorship is the deliberate manipulation, witholding, or control of information in the public domaine, usually coupled with an aim to manufacture a desired perception of reality in accordance with the wishes, objectives, and agenda of the censors.

Membership is the manipulation, withholding, or control of information in a private domaine, whereby access is granted in accordance with the wishes, objectives, and agenda of the censors, i.e., those who maintain legal rights to control the information.

[Praxis]

How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.

[Bill Ryan]

If I write a book, I might place it for sale as opposed to giving it away for free.

That means that anyone who wants access to the content, needs to meet a certain criterion. It's within my right to do that. (And it would be yours, too, if you wrote a book. Some Avalon members have.)

That's not censorship. It's saying:



You're welcome to read this, but please meet this condition first.

[ClearWater]

I don't think I can answer that question without a clearly defined definition of 'censorship'.

Does the video shown in this thread depict censorship? http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107562-GOOGLE-indoctrination-in-full-swing

It's not removing access to anything, it's just making it more difficult to access, based upon a decision made by the companies leadership, with that decision being made in accordance with their beliefs of what information is most credible.

[Bill Ryan]

There's another version of the book analogy, that goes wider.

If I hold a conference, and lots of people speak (not just me, as if I were writing a book all by myself), but no-one can enter the conference without paying at the door, and they can't later see the videos of the presentations without buying them — is that restricted access to the public 'censorship'?

[edina]

There's another version of the book analogy, that goes wider.

If I hold a conference, and lots of people speak (not just me, as if I were writing a book all by myself), but no-one can enter the conference without paying at the door, and they can't later see the videos of the presentations without buying them — is that restricted access to the public 'censorship'?

I don't know if I'm quite following you on this?

(What you describe seems more like a mutually agreed upon "exchange of goods".)



Let's say, I'm interested, I'm going to pay for the videos's, ect... except other people who have decided that they are offended by the topic intervene, and suppress my access to it.
Is that censorship?

Or another example, a book has been freely available at a library. It's a popular book, but a group of people in the community petition to have it censored, or suppressed access, because they don't like it.
Is that censorship?

I want to add, it's natural, human nature, for people to have a negative reaction when something is taken away from them.

And people don't mind rules, or criteria, as long as it's clearly communicated before they exchange their money, time, attention, (ect) and it feels fair to them.

Humans have an innate sense of fairness. And usually respond from that sense.

[Belle]

I don't see either of the book analogies as pertaining to what happened here.

I tend to think what has happened here is nearer to what Reddit calls 'quarantine' rather than 'censorship'. It is being treated as though the topic is a virus that may spread if we are not careful. Only approved 'personnel' may enter.

[ulli]

People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon. Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.
Has anyone ever considered that movies and music are psi-ops as well? Controlled emotional manipulation, to evoke a response in the viewer/listener.

Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
The entire atmosphere surrounding the sudden decision to quarantine the discussion behind a members only wall was one of hostility and bias. This in my view added to the feelings that this was an act of censorship.
Had there been an announcement that included the regulars on the thread in a more respectful manner this thread would not even be necessary now.

[Savannah]

How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.

Everyone on the Q thread has been censored to the general public. It has happened, or else we would not be having this discussion.

[Savannah]

I have made my perceptions of this situation very clear on the other thread. It is the assumption of those who post here that the content is available to them and the public. It has been the practice in the past to not censor content. Your question appears to propose that the content on Avalon is your property and thus you can put a wall behind it if you choose, as a respected researcher such as Dolan has done. However Edina has clearly explained the difference in her post and I reiterate it here: Dolan is the creator of that content and may do with it what he wishes. If I write a book and put effort into it, it is my decision to profit from it or give it away.

The people on this forum create the content. It is there work and ideas freely given. I underrated you own the web site and can ultimately control it. However if your decisions and the rationale for those decisions do not appear acceptable to the contributors they many not continue to be associated with this site. As I noted previously it is a moral, ethical dilemma I am now in. I am responding to these threads because you seem to be at least still considering opinions. Once you close the door to this and decide you will and can censor, I cant be a part of this Forum. That is not a hysterical threat for attention or sympathy or a desire to have others tell me to stay. It is simply that my principles will not allow me to contribute information to under these new circumstances.

Thus the difference between you and Dolan is that this is your platform but we are the creators of the information and thus you should not perceive you have a right to control other peoples work.

[Mike]

People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon. Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.
Has anyone ever considered that movies and music are psi-ops as well? Controlled emotional manipulation, to evoke a response in the viewer/listener.

Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
The entire atmosphere surrounding the sudden decision to quarantine the discussion behind a members only wall was one of hostility and bias. This in my view added to the feelings that this was an act of censorship.
Had there been an announcement that included the regulars on the thread in a more respectful manner this thread would not even be necessary now.



I understand people being disappointed that Paul left. hey I was too. but why 'upset'? he wanted to go!:) Who are you upset with?

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to as far as abuse and ridicule. Bill made a pretty cordial announcement regarding the Q threads, and what I recall next is a Q supporter strutting around like a rampaging toddler, threatening to bury the forum with a blog and insulting a bunch of people. She's still a member btw:). So, I would dispute the allegation that the mods are censorship happy.

Words like hoax and psi-ops are mere opinions. People are entitled to them. They're not insults. I mean, they don't belong in that thread, I'll grant you that..and fair enough.

I likely won't even make a dent disputing some of these things, but I'll try anyway: there was NO hostility involved in the decision. If you say it was dumb or unintelligent, or poorly thought out, I'd be perfectly willing to listen to you. Truly! I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or questioning my judgement - even aggressively - but I vehemently deny that any hostility whatsoever was involved in that decision. ZERO.

I don't know how the announcement could have been any more respectful. And as far as Paul not being here, it's a bummer to alot of people. I get it! But he's no longer an admin here, and has therefore forfeited his say in these matters.

[waves]

People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon....

Dead wrong, it was about the gatekeeping. Non-cult members were upset because Paul put a lock on his cult's thread and for the first time Avalon had a controlling thread gatekeeper kicking out valid, intelligent challengers..... the gatekeeper then even chased the people where he kicked them to and pushed HIS pro-Q opinions on them there. If you all are honest, Paul was the biggest factor in the alienation of longtime very lucid minded members with this behavior.

He more than anyone fomented a cult by locking the gate around a bunch of hopelessly cognitive dissonant people to gather tight, put fingers in their ears to valid challenges and have a superiority party, giddily repeating memes and fiercely glorifying and defending a savior. Funny how only the butt hurt indoctrinated are playing the victim and whining that Avalon owes them a public stage.



Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.......

In other words, you have chosen to completely ignore all the content of the threads discussing the long list of reasons why Q is a psyop and hoax by longtime respected Avalon members and Bill. And you forgot cult, larp and criminal enterprise.

After you can actually list those reasons other members think Q is a psyop... because you are at Avalon to learn, not stick your head in the sand and blindly defend a fixed opinion missing tons of info... right?...then please list for us what you still think those 'irrational accusations' are.

[Lost N Found]

How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.

Everyone on the Q thread has been censored to the general public. It has happened, or else we would not be having this discussion.

I completely agree with you Savannah. Here is what I see on this forum atm with regards to censorship. First of all The Q thread was at the top of most threads simply because it is a worldwide happening in the minds of the masses. It has been called all kinds of nasty things because the people that are doing that are afraid to step beyond their locked up little minds of safety. They don't want to be free, that is just my thought in sight. They will do anything to keep anyone from leaving the plantation, so to speak. We all have seen and read about how that works because most of these people have been psyoped with their own brand of so called enlightenment. So they project hatred and fear upon the slaves that are breaking the chains.

okay, so the Q thread has over 700.000 views and over 10,000 posts, I believe I heard one of the anti-Q mods, yes I am saying one of the moderators of this forum state that that is a problem in there bling eyes. They can't have something as open as freedom and good will or a warrior against all the corruption in this very sick world being so open to the public because it could be dangerous to them and this forum. Geezus, and I thought the very concept of this forum was free thought and good debate about most everything. But it would seem someone is jealous of the success of the Q phenomenon. Can't have that can we. So I see all these mods jump on the Q folks and cause the problems that they say the Q thread is causing. Somewhere I read something that discussed the Mods as being non partisan and just trying to keep the forum within the guidelines. That is clearly a total lie to me as I have see most of if not all of the mods that are now in control and running this gulaq as totally partisan in their beliefs. So the hypocritical jibber jabber we see from them is what is tearing this forum apart or began to.

The kind of thinking and actions taken by the mods and the few members that whine and cry and call the Q folks foul names and spew hatred at a majority of members is the same kind of thinking that resided in Pot Pol, Stalin, Hitler, Mau ce taung. not sure if that is spelled right, Mousilini, and many more dictators of the times. I am saying that is the thinking. We see this big time in the fakebook, Google, Youtube, twitty and instagram and many more of the big tech platforms today. This is very dangerous thinking folks and you all know it or maybe you don't in which case I am very sorry for you. I am sure you all think you are doing a great service to this forum but you are not and I mean definitely not. Your act just like mini brown shirts of the Hitler regime or other minions of the dictators that murdered their way to the top of the heap. It all started with a simple censorship of hiding something or anything away from the public all in the name of CONTROLLING THE NARATIVE TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Its all bull sh*t and you all know it.

I would have to ask if you were censored of any of the threads you partake in and or believe in would you be upset? Would you scream as loud about that on your own person? Why is it that you scream so loud about Q and Trump and yes I am using the TDS word so don't go ranting off the sidebar. It won't harm you. And you scream and rant and say the Q folk are being mean to you when it is you being mean to them. How is it that this forum did a 180 in its principals? Once you decided to hide the Q thread that was a major success and I am sure had a huge viewing by the public. Your turned yourselves into that dictatorial mind set.

You made all kinds of excuses of why you did what you did but none of it made any sense. It stuck out like a CYA to most of us. And to make things worse you started created more threads that dealt with Q all the while you cried and moaned about to many threads relating to Q. Gawd, what kind off crap was that? And then you had to make more excused for doing all of that and made it seem like you might be sorry. More crap piled upon more crap is all you have succeeded in doing. I finally understand why those mods left in a group and I understand why Paul left also. and now look you are making mods out of anyone that fits your little coven. Well that is enough of my rant and rave. sorry for going off but I have been watching all this twist and turn and it seems that it could have been left alone and none of the problems that were created by a stupid decision to move a very well successful thread into a behind closed door scene (censor from the public) would have ever happened. UN-intended consequences. Maybe the next time one of you mods gets the idea that you know better than anyone else and how others should think and be, you will take a long hard look at yourself.

So CENSOR is the only word that can be used here in this thread called Censorship. Thank you for listening to me.
If you choose to censor this rant then it only proves what I have said. Remember freedom of speech?

[Mike]

hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend:thumbsup:

Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

:heart:

[waves]

hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend:thumbsup:

Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

:heart:

I did for 590+ posts over 8 years, but I'm fed up. I don't see any helpful discussion here, I see the same tunnel visioned names repeating and repeating and repeating themselves, hopelessly unwilling to look outside their box.
I predict not ONE of them is going to ever get even a little what anyone they don't agree with is trying to tell them.
Nothing will change without a big house cleaning of those hopelessly not here to listen and learn.

[Mike]

it was a pretty good rant Lost N Found. i give it a 7.5:wink:

sure, there are a few mods who aren't Q fans. but there are also some that don't care either way, and a few who are mostly apolitical. by no means is it an anti-Q hit squad or anything.

it would be much easier for us to pick a side! we haven't done that. we've done everything we can to play this thing right down the middle, and to be as fair as we possibly can to both sides. and in the process, we've managed to disappoint everyone at one time or another:) we are well aware of this, but we've decided to do what we feel is right for Avalon anyway. it's not fun dodging all those arrows, let me tell you. but we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't....and if I have a criticism of our membership, it's that they're completely and utterly blind to that fact

It doesn't appear that you do know why those other mods left, with respect. Very little to do with Q, if anything.

You suggested we mods take a good long look at ourselves. I'll do that, but I'm asking you to do the same exact thing. You're angry, I can see that. But your anger doesn't make you right. It just makes you angry. Our decision to move the Q thread was not an emotional one, and it was not a hostile one. It was a logical one, based on quite a bit of deliberation and deep thought, you might be surprised to know:)

[Mike]

hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend:thumbsup:

Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

:heart:

I did for 590+ posts over 8 years, but I'm fed up. I don't see any helpful discussion here, I see the same tunnel visioned names repeating and repeating and repeating themselves, hopelessly unwilling to look outside their box.
I predict not ONE of them is going to ever get even a little what anyone they don't agree with is trying to tell them.
Nothing will change without a big house cleaning if those hopelessly not here to listen and learn.



fair enough!

but the Q folks are thinking the same exact things about you, just for the opposite reasons.

it's an emotional and intellectual wash. invectively hammering home the same points ad nauseum won't help:handshake:

we may not be able to make any head-way here, but let's not make things any worse! there's a big difference between mere tension and all out warfare. if we can merely keep it at the tension level, perhaps we will have succeeded. we don't need to be killing each other here

[greybeard]

I do my own censorship (for want of a better word)
Dont even know what Q is.
Never visited a Q thread even though the opening page was saturated by the Q posts.
Choice choice choice.

Chris

[waves]

hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend:thumbsup:

Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

:heart:

I did for 590+ posts over 8 years, but I'm fed up. I don't see any helpful discussion here, I see the same tunnel visioned names repeating and repeating and repeating themselves, hopelessly unwilling to look outside their box.
I predict not ONE of them is going to ever get even a little what anyone they don't agree with is trying to tell them.
Nothing will change without a big house cleaning if those hopelessly not here to listen and learn.



fair enough!

but the Q folks are thinking the same exact things about you, just for the opposite reasons.

it's an emotional and intellectual wash. invectively hammering home the same points ad nauseum won't help:handshake:

we may not be able to make any head-way here, but let's not make things any worse! there's a big difference between mere tension and all out warfare. if we can merely keep it at the tension level, perhaps we will have succeeded. we don't need to be killing each other here

But you'll just keep spinning wheels without getting real, the tension is for keeping trying to keep a lid on truth. The intelligent minds here have no more doubt about Q as a very dangerous and unhealthy psyop. Period.

So I really wish the denial would stop. It's not like there any equality in the maturity/education level of the two sides, even Bill has used the term 'cognizant dissonance' and meant it strongly.

What that means is the non-believers very much understand what has convinced Q believers to buy into the entire Q thing and why they've fallen for all the related cultish issues. I and my peers could discuss it for hours with examples galore.

But not ONE of the Q-believers truly understand the what is so convincing to non-believers - none could explain with a humble heart what is so intelligent and reasonable to the other side - nor do they have ANY interest.

They're not interested in learning it. It would take a lot humility and self-analysis. It's a deep mix of all the social engineering crafts many of us have been learning about for years - a very complex issue that requires knowledge about numerous facets of history, mind control history, cult history, politics and programming and more all in one big soup.

So fixation combined with obliviousness to anything outside of it is called cognitive dissonance. And the fixated are going to piss and moan and play the victim and get mad and get arrogant and feel censored blah blah blah.... and they do not represent the kind of open mind, the truly educated in mind control, resistant to cult, the resistant to programming, the curious and willing to learn minds Avalon once attracted.

So the truth is Avalon has a small faction of extremely fixated and deluded minds trying to make you all feel guilty for not giving them a platform to keep feeding their unhealthy addiction and it's never going to resolve.

You have to make a choice. You can create an inviting place that attracts and keep mature minds as members or you can attract more and more fixed, dissonant minds who are demanding, uncooperative, need lots of babysitting and get pissed when someone enters their thread to challenge them.

Anything untrue about any of that?
Did I write a poor me, poor victim message here. NO.

If the above is the truth, the only question is now what do you do.

I say Avalon needs to make a choice for healthy or unhealthy.

[Jayke]

Hold on a minute waves, I remember us addressing your concerns here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104245-Q-REVEALED-LARP-PSYOP-CRIMINAL-ENTERPRISE-and-CULT&p=1258005&viewfull=1#post1258005) (post 158) and here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104245-Q-REVEALED-LARP-PSYOP-CRIMINAL-ENTERPRISE-and-CULT&p=1258061&viewfull=1#post1258061) (post 160) in the Q LARP thread.

You brought up your concerns about the LARP idea, we addressed it and moved on. You even thanked me for addressing it. Now all of a sudden we’re the ones who are deluded fools for ignoring your concerns? Sorry, but your accusations are just untrue.

Unless you had any other concerns you wanted addressing, I don’t recall hearing anything else from you after that exchange of posts though. Until you jumped back on the thread to start calling Q people ‘parasites’ that is.

[waves]

Hold on a minute waves, I remember us addressing your concerns here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104245-Q-REVEALED-LARP-PSYOP-CRIMINAL-ENTERPRISE-and-CULT&p=1258005&viewfull=1#post1258005) (post 158) and here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104245-Q-REVEALED-LARP-PSYOP-CRIMINAL-ENTERPRISE-and-CULT&p=1258061&viewfull=1#post1258061) (post 160) in the Q LARP thread.

You brought up your concerns about the LARP idea, we addressed it and moved on. You even thanked me for addressing it. Now all of a sudden we’re the ones who are deluded fools for ignoring your concerns? Sorry, but your accusations are just untrue.

I really don't understand how our exchange 8 months ago has what to with the big picture I'm trying to paint currently after all the changes and escalation since. I did not use the phrase 'ignoring my concerns' and really don't know what you are specifically referring to.

Really wish you had read the whole thing, your reply doesn't give me any sense that you understood anything I said.

I used the word deluded because someone is deluded when they believe something despite being totally unaware of other facts that are necessary to a correct decision - and the additional facts, if included, change things enough to create good reasons for not believing the same thing.

I'm saying the Q believers have very deliberately shut off any effort to understand all the additional facts that changes everything for the other side. Whereas the non-believers do understand all the reasons that have convinced the believers. That's the big difference between the two sides.

Do I need to say it again? The non-believers fully understand what is convincing to the believers and the believers do not understand what is so convincing to the non-believers. The believers then want to be left alone, not questioned, not challenged, and get extremely indignant when anyone doubts them. They also bring that indignant mindset to other threads too. To me that's when forum behavior becomes unhealthy, then turns parasitical - spreading unhealthily too.

[Jayke]

Hold on a minute waves, I remember us addressing your concerns here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104245-Q-REVEALED-LARP-PSYOP-CRIMINAL-ENTERPRISE-and-CULT&p=1258005&viewfull=1#post1258005) (post 158) and here (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104245-Q-REVEALED-LARP-PSYOP-CRIMINAL-ENTERPRISE-and-CULT&p=1258061&viewfull=1#post1258061) (post 160) in the Q LARP thread.

You brought up your concerns about the LARP idea, we addressed it and moved on. You even thanked me for addressing it. Now all of a sudden we’re the ones who are deluded fools for ignoring your concerns? Sorry, but your accusations are just untrue.

I really don't understand how our exchange 8 months ago has what to with the big picture I'm trying to paint currently after all the changes and escalation since. I did not use the phrase 'ignoring my concerns' and really don't know what you are specifically referring to.

Really wish you had read the whole thing, your reply doesn't give me any sense that you understood anything I said.

I used the word deluded because someone is deluded when they believe something despite being totally unaware of other facts that are necessary to a correct decision - and the additional facts, if included, change things enough to create good reasons for not believing the same thing.

I'm saying the Q believers have very deliberately shut off any effort to understand all the additional facts that changes everything for the other side. Whereas the non-believers do understand all the reasons that have convinced the believers. That's the big difference between the two sides.

Do I need to say it again? The non-believers fully understand what is convincing to the believers and the believers do not understand what is so convincing to the non-believers. The believers then want to be left alone, not questioned, not challenged, and get extremely indignant when anyone doubts them. They also bring that indignant mindset to other threads too. To me that's when forum behavior becomes unhealthy, then turns parasitical - spreading unhealthily too.

Ok, can you point me to where you’ve stated what it is specifically you find so convincing to non-believers? I’m all ears and happy to address your concerns.

[Jad]

It’s a nice example with the Dolan reference, even David Wilcock charges people for his “ascension” mechanics although they didn’t seem to work on him to begin with but that’s another story. Which brings me to my point which is it’s kinda of an oxymoron effort to try to save humanity when you put the solution behind a paywall or something like that.

Again I am not pro Q or pro Trump or any politician, I am pro information. And with information comes also misinformation. Also misinformation can be achieved by withholding certain information and that’s what Q does too wether its fans accept that or not. So that’s why I feel the best way to deal with this Q phenomenon is to be transparent with it and present the information objectively. That’s what been happening on the Q thread until the Q haters started expressing their personal biases and started the childish name calling.

Which brings me to the mods, and I have full respect for all of them and their daily efforts in taking care of our precious little online oasis. I don’t care what domain or arena we are in, the mods/refs need to be transparent at ALL TIMES and not pick sides. They can’t cherry pick when they want to be transparent or not. They added the ignore button to help members choose for themselves what they want to read or not and I commend them for that. But the fact that they chose to hide the Q threads from public view seems to me like they chose a side and they are setting a dangerous precedent here. A Mod should always be neutral and transparent or else he/she is nothing but a regular member with extra privileges.

[yelik]

To answer Bill's questions my answer is no and no.

Paywalls help pay the bills for ‘original’ content should anyone wish to pay for it as well as protecting it from any future censorship.

Google can easily censor search engine results and more but are less likely to do so when sensitive information is not directly in the public domain.

[greybeard]

Tongue in cheek
I might have got fed up of Q posts monopolizing the opening page.
Avalon is so much more than that.
Thankfully I can find any section in this forum that I want without minding about whats on the buzz thread.
Q can be front page (headlines) but there is plenty of interesting information to be found in Avalon.
Moderators have a ifficult job I have nothing butpraise for them --I think they areas neutral as can be--the put Avalon ahead of their own preferences as far as I can see.

Chris

[Belle]

Can we all agree that, if nothing else, it has the appearance of being censorship/quarantine?

The timing doesn't help calm things down. The proofs that this is no larp are coming out now. The Jeffrey Epstein indictment thread is on the front page...big news. Yet those that read the Q drops knew this day was coming well over a year ago...and that what has been released to the news is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. NXIVM? Yep, knew that, too. What's coming next? Yep, know what to look out for. Coincidence? I think not.

To make a case against someone, there are times the 'intelligence' gathered cannot be used. Sometimes you need the information that can be found in the public domain. That is where the autists come in. They will dig and dig and dig until they find every scrap of information they possibly can...and that takes time. It also takes time to build a case for indictment.

Q has the appearance of being a larp. Time will tell if it is one, or not.

[edina]

People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon....

Dead wrong, it was about the gatekeeping. Non-cult members were upset because Paul put a lock on his cult's thread and for the first time Avalon had a controlling thread gatekeeper kicking out valid, intelligent challengers..... the gatekeeper then even chased the people where he kicked them to and pushed HIS pro-Q opinions on them there. If you all are honest, Paul was the biggest factor in the alienation of longtime very lucid minded members with this behavior.

He more than anyone fomented a cult by locking the gate around a bunch of hopelessly cognitive dissonant people to gather tight, put fingers in their ears to valid challenges and have a superiority party, giddily repeating memes and fiercely glorifying and defending a savior. Funny how only the butt hurt indoctrinated are playing the victim and whining that Avalon owes them a public stage.



Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.......

In other words, you have chosen to completely ignore all the content of the threads discussing the long list of reasons why Q is a psyop and hoax by longtime respected Avalon members and Bill. And you forgot cult, larp and criminal enterprise.

After you can actually list those reasons other members think Q is a psyop... because you are at Avalon to learn, not stick your head in the sand and blindly defend a fixed opinion missing tons of info... right?...then please list for us what you still think those 'irrational accusations' are.

There are a lot of inaccurate, or skewed perceptions in these comments.

And I'm not sure Paul's character ought to be maligned like this.

From what I saw Paul always expressed himself in clear, honest and balanced ways.

Paul behaved kindly and with good nature throughout all of this saga.

Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.

[Praxis]

How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.

Everyone on the Q thread has been censored to the general public. It has happened, or else we would not be having this discussion.

I completely agree with you Savannah. Here is what I see on this forum atm with regards to censorship. First of all The Q thread was at the top of most threads simply because it is a worldwide happening in the minds of the masses. It has been called all kinds of nasty things because the people that are doing that are afraid to step beyond their locked up little minds of safety. They don't want to be free, that is just my thought in sight. They will do anything to keep anyone from leaving the plantation, so to speak. We all have seen and read about how that works because most of these people have been psyoped with their own brand of so called enlightenment. So they project hatred and fear upon the slaves that are breaking the chains.

okay, so the Q thread has over 700.000 views and over 10,000 posts, I believe I heard one of the anti-Q mods, yes I am saying one of the moderators of this forum state that that is a problem in there bling eyes. They can't have something as open as freedom and good will or a warrior against all the corruption in this very sick world being so open to the public because it could be dangerous to them and this forum. Geezus, and I thought the very concept of this forum was free thought and good debate about most everything. But it would seem someone is jealous of the success of the Q phenomenon. Can't have that can we. So I see all these mods jump on the Q folks and cause the problems that they say the Q thread is causing. Somewhere I read something that discussed the Mods as being non partisan and just trying to keep the forum within the guidelines. That is clearly a total lie to me as I have see most of if not all of the mods that are now in control and running this gulaq as totally partisan in their beliefs. So the hypocritical jibber jabber we see from them is what is tearing this forum apart or began to.

The kind of thinking and actions taken by the mods and the few members that whine and cry and call the Q folks foul names and spew hatred at a majority of members is the same kind of thinking that resided in Pot Pol, Stalin, Hitler, Mau ce taung. not sure if that is spelled right, Mousilini, and many more dictators of the times. I am saying that is the thinking. We see this big time in the fakebook, Google, Youtube, twitty and instagram and many more of the big tech platforms today. This is very dangerous thinking folks and you all know it or maybe you don't in which case I am very sorry for you. I am sure you all think you are doing a great service to this forum but you are not and I mean definitely not. Your act just like mini brown shirts of the Hitler regime or other minions of the dictators that murdered their way to the top of the heap. It all started with a simple censorship of hiding something or anything away from the public all in the name of CONTROLLING THE NARATIVE TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Its all bull sh*t and you all know it.

I would have to ask if you were censored of any of the threads you partake in and or believe in would you be upset? Would you scream as loud about that on your own person? Why is it that you scream so loud about Q and Trump and yes I am using the TDS word so don't go ranting off the sidebar. It won't harm you. And you scream and rant and say the Q folk are being mean to you when it is you being mean to them. How is it that this forum did a 180 in its principals? Once you decided to hide the Q thread that was a major success and I am sure had a huge viewing by the public. Your turned yourselves into that dictatorial mind set.

You made all kinds of excuses of why you did what you did but none of it made any sense. It stuck out like a CYA to most of us. And to make things worse you started created more threads that dealt with Q all the while you cried and moaned about to many threads relating to Q. Gawd, what kind off crap was that? And then you had to make more excused for doing all of that and made it seem like you might be sorry. More crap piled upon more crap is all you have succeeded in doing. I finally understand why those mods left in a group and I understand why Paul left also. and now look you are making mods out of anyone that fits your little coven. Well that is enough of my rant and rave. sorry for going off but I have been watching all this twist and turn and it seems that it could have been left alone and none of the problems that were created by a stupid decision to move a very well successful thread into a behind closed door scene (censor from the public) would have ever happened. UN-intended consequences. Maybe the next time one of you mods gets the idea that you know better than anyone else and how others should think and be, you will take a long hard look at yourself.

So CENSOR is the only word that can be used here in this thread called Censorship. Thank you for listening to me.
If you choose to censor this rant then it only proves what I have said. Remember freedom of speech?

Please post one instance where you posts have been altered without your consent?

Please point to a thread where you are not allowed to participate because a mod thought your opinion was hurtful to people(even if you can source your claim)?

[edina]

How many of the people on the forum that are complaining about censorship have actually been censored? Have your posts been removed? Deleted?

How many of you have been muted in a thread and blocked from being able to defend yourself as you get attacked?

Once you get muted for expressing an opinion you have evidence for, then talk about censorship.

Everyone on the Q thread has been censored to the general public. It has happened, or else we would not be having this discussion.

I completely agree with you Savannah. Here is what I see on this forum atm with regards to censorship. First of all The Q thread was at the top of most threads simply because it is a worldwide happening in the minds of the masses. It has been called all kinds of nasty things because the people that are doing that are afraid to step beyond their locked up little minds of safety. They don't want to be free, that is just my thought in sight. They will do anything to keep anyone from leaving the plantation, so to speak. We all have seen and read about how that works because most of these people have been psyoped with their own brand of so called enlightenment. So they project hatred and fear upon the slaves that are breaking the chains.

okay, so the Q thread has over 700.000 views and over 10,000 posts, I believe I heard one of the anti-Q mods, yes I am saying one of the moderators of this forum state that that is a problem in there bling eyes. They can't have something as open as freedom and good will or a warrior against all the corruption in this very sick world being so open to the public because it could be dangerous to them and this forum. Geezus, and I thought the very concept of this forum was free thought and good debate about most everything. But it would seem someone is jealous of the success of the Q phenomenon. Can't have that can we. So I see all these mods jump on the Q folks and cause the problems that they say the Q thread is causing. Somewhere I read something that discussed the Mods as being non partisan and just trying to keep the forum within the guidelines. That is clearly a total lie to me as I have see most of if not all of the mods that are now in control and running this gulaq as totally partisan in their beliefs. So the hypocritical jibber jabber we see from them is what is tearing this forum apart or began to.

The kind of thinking and actions taken by the mods and the few members that whine and cry and call the Q folks foul names and spew hatred at a majority of members is the same kind of thinking that resided in Pot Pol, Stalin, Hitler, Mau ce taung. not sure if that is spelled right, Mousilini, and many more dictators of the times. I am saying that is the thinking. We see this big time in the fakebook, Google, Youtube, twitty and instagram and many more of the big tech platforms today. This is very dangerous thinking folks and you all know it or maybe you don't in which case I am very sorry for you. I am sure you all think you are doing a great service to this forum but you are not and I mean definitely not. Your act just like mini brown shirts of the Hitler regime or other minions of the dictators that murdered their way to the top of the heap. It all started with a simple censorship of hiding something or anything away from the public all in the name of CONTROLLING THE NARATIVE TO KEEP PEOPLE SAFE. Its all bull sh*t and you all know it.

I would have to ask if you were censored of any of the threads you partake in and or believe in would you be upset? Would you scream as loud about that on your own person? Why is it that you scream so loud about Q and Trump and yes I am using the TDS word so don't go ranting off the sidebar. It won't harm you. And you scream and rant and say the Q folk are being mean to you when it is you being mean to them. How is it that this forum did a 180 in its principals? Once you decided to hide the Q thread that was a major success and I am sure had a huge viewing by the public. Your turned yourselves into that dictatorial mind set.

You made all kinds of excuses of why you did what you did but none of it made any sense. It stuck out like a CYA to most of us. And to make things worse you started created more threads that dealt with Q all the while you cried and moaned about to many threads relating to Q. Gawd, what kind off crap was that? And then you had to make more excused for doing all of that and made it seem like you might be sorry. More crap piled upon more crap is all you have succeeded in doing. I finally understand why those mods left in a group and I understand why Paul left also. and now look you are making mods out of anyone that fits your little coven. Well that is enough of my rant and rave. sorry for going off but I have been watching all this twist and turn and it seems that it could have been left alone and none of the problems that were created by a stupid decision to move a very well successful thread into a behind closed door scene (censor from the public) would have ever happened. UN-intended consequences. Maybe the next time one of you mods gets the idea that you know better than anyone else and how others should think and be, you will take a long hard look at yourself.

So CENSOR is the only word that can be used here in this thread called Censorship. Thank you for listening to me.
If you choose to censor this rant then it only proves what I have said. Remember freedom of speech?

Please post one instance where you posts have been altered without your consent?

Please point to a thread where you are not allowed to participate because a mod thought your opinion was hurtful to people(even if you can source your claim)?

Praxis, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing "freedom of expression" with censorship.

And for what it's worth, it's illegal for a government body to censor, except for the exceptions written into the law now (ie pornagraphy, inciting violence).

It's perfectly legal for a private entity to censor (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/censoring).

Ergo, why the private entities were created to control the narrative.

It's a work around, a means to suppress information deemed "subversive" to their agendas without arousing public outcry.

[samildamach]

As a matter of interest project Avalon is a blacklisted site,
On my works Wi-Fi it is banned by draytak dns filter.
Most would consider this perfectly acceptable if I wish to use there Wi-Fi I can only view approved content.
What if the goverment owned the internet what then?

[edina]

As a matter of interest project Avalon is a blacklisted site,
On my works Wi-Fi it is banned by draytak dns filter.
Most would consider this perfectly acceptable if I wish to use there Wi-Fi I can only view approved content.
What if the goverment owned the internet what then?

Would you describe the practice of "black-listing" as censorship?

Yep, private entities are legally allowed to censor.

[Matthew]

...
From what I saw Paul always expressed himself in clear, honest and balanced ways.

Paul behaved kindly and with good nature throughout all of this saga.

Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.

Just goes to show how different peoples perspectives can be. You could switch the polarity of your opinion of Paul and Dennis, and that's my opinion. I'm very comfortable agreeing to disagree, especially on your quote of 'I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.' which is arguably maligning Dennis. But that's your opinion, fair enough. I'm glad for the chance to share my opinion that I couldn't disagree more, and Dennis did a great thing by stepping up and raising his concern

[edina]

...
From what I saw Paul always expressed himself in clear, honest and balanced ways.

Paul behaved kindly and with good nature throughout all of this saga.

Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.

Just goes to show how different peoples perspectives can be. You could switch the polarity of your opinion of Paul and Dennis, and that's my opinion. I'm very comfortable agreeing to disagree, especially on your quote of 'I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.' which is arguably maligning Dennis. But that's your opinion, fair enough. I'm glad for the chance to share my opinion that I couldn't disagree more, and Dennis did a great thing by stepping up and raising his concern


Thank you YoYoYo,

I did not see that in the posts I read.

Perspective does color how we see things.

Which is a point many have made regarding this current issue.

I'm very comfortable holding two or more apparently opposing views without feeling I have to choose one over the other for an extended period of time as I continue to take in information from a broad range of views.

For some people, that stance is very uncomfortable.

Paul seemed to me to be someone who could do that as well.

He considered the information and the Q phenom from many perspectives.

I wonder if this was not noticed.

If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.

[snoman]

I think you all might be missing a trick
If a forum has a hot topic that becomes more than one thread and ends up saturating the front page feed with its activity
then by default after a specified time-frame it then gets moved from the front newsfeed but still accessible through 'new posts'.

if i was any shop I would rotate my window display.

p.s no-one has been gagged or bound.. just asked to vacate the window. you all need to let it drop

¤=[Post Update]=¤

the griping is getting tedious and netflix is becoming more appealing

and yes, having a fist-fight is fun isn't it? spices the day up lol

[edina]

I think you all might be missing a trick
If a forum has a hot topic that becomes more than one thread and ends up saturating the front page feed with its activity
then by default after a specified time-frame it then gets moved from the front newsfeed but still accessible through 'new posts'.

if i was any shop I would rotate my window display.

p.s no-one has been gagged or bound.. just asked to vacate the window. you all need to let it drop

I've often thought this would be a good idea to implement.

Right now, the software determines front page based on the software algorithms.

This means that many very good threads from the past are buried.

I wondered if there was a way to rotate a mix of threads on the front page in a way that included older threads, too.

As far as letting it go... the OP question was asked just yesterday.

It's a fair question to ask, and indicates a willingness to explore the topic.

There's energy in the conversation, so it continues.

You're free to apply your energy in what ever conversations you chose. :)

[snoman]

'You're free to apply your energy in what ever conversations you chose.'

yeah, and the conflict junkies chew on the energy... nah thanks

[Matthew]

...

Paul seemed to me to be someone who could do that as well.

He considered the information and the Q phenom from many perspectives.

I wonder is this was not noticed.

If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.

I was fine with Pauls posts in the Q swamp critters thread, it was Pauls posts in the LARP or anti-Q threads.

In the anti-Q threads he posted his thoughts while ignoring the latest posts, and disregarded the basic underlaying premise the thread was meant to be discussing. This, as far as I see, was the biggest cause of toxicity on the forum regarding Q. When people don't want to believe something a thread is discussing, they shouldn't go on and on about their point, perhaps leave a post or two and move on. It opened the flood gates for other pro-Q people to pile in, because Paul was a senior mod., and also encouraged dismissing basic premise of the thread as impossible etc. No, it is a matter of opinion, and he was welcome to his but why destroy an opposing thread?

This is why separate threads did not work. You had Paul carefully keeping the pro-Q thread clean, and the anti-Q threads became a 'dumping ground' or a place for pro-Q people to say how the opposing premise was impossible.

In the end a few pro-Q posters occupied the anti-Q threads to the point it was a joke, and I resigned, because there was no place to discuss anti-Q with other people sharing the same basic premise. The premise was smashed up by those who simply don't want other people to believe it, thinking they had proof, but this was their opinion including Paul.

When I read pro-Q people complaining, at no point to they seem to realise this awful situation was going on. But life goes on. I put it down to a matter of perspective

[edina]

'You're free to apply your energy in what ever conversations you chose.'

yeah, and the conflict junkies chew on the energy... nah thanks

that was your post #67 (smile)

[Praxis]

Praxis, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing "freedom of expression" with censorship.

And for what it's worth, it's illegal for a government body to censor, except for the exceptions written into the law now (ie pornagraphy, inciting violence).

It's perfectly legal for a private entity to censor (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/censoring).

Ergo, why the private entities were created to control the narrative.

It's a work around, a means to suppress information deemed "subversive" to their agendas without arousing public outcry.


First, it is not illegal for "a government" to censor. That is way to general a statement to mean anything. You literally just said it is illegal for Saudi Arabia to censor( as they fit your "a government") . I am also very confused about how you are using "illegal" and "written into the law".

Second, You just explained why Bill is perfectly within his right to not only hide the Q thread but to take a step further and delete the entire thing!



Finally The problem we are running into is the Q people think that all the stuff they are learning only could have come from Q.

"Look at how many people it has woken up" they say.

Great, Q has shown a bunch of people that there are indeed many and terrible things happening here.

The problem is that it is wrapped up in a bunch of Trust the Plan or Future proves past nonsense. Lets stop for a second and remember that

FUTURE PROVES PAST.

Do ya ll not realize that is another way of saying the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

Lets keep Gitmo open because we might want to put Hillary in there!


I dont want any of threads hidden actually. I want all the Q stuff to stay up for all time so that in the future people will use it for study, and not like the Q people hope. They will use it for sociological research into tribalism.

You want to have a good time? Go to the start of teh Q thread and start reading. The best part about the wheat from the chaff, is the chaff is very dated. Yes Q has some wheat and some really really good wheat. The problem is the chaf is Ethno nationalism and bigotry.



I

[Gemma13]

If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.

This is my observation also. And it isn’t isolated to the Q Social Movement. There are critical vocalizations about other thread topics getting attention that are made by people having no qualms saying they haven’t read the data and/or can’t be bothered reading the data. WTF??

How can one arrive at the conclusion that invested research work is “a waste of time” (and I’ve read that a few times) when one doesn’t even know why it is important, because one hasn’t given the time of day to look at the data before making an assumption?

And yet the predominant argument is that one is intelligent enough to make the criticism because those who are well informed by the data . . . aren’t!

The mind boggles!

Perhaps the critics could seriously consider doing their homework before critiquing. Maybe then the conversation could get past opinionated stalemate and develop into informed debate.

[edina]

...

Paul seemed to me to be someone who could do that as well.

He considered the information and the Q phenom from many perspectives.

I wonder is this was not noticed.

If people weren't reading the information they were critiquing, it would make sense as to why they perceived Paul in that way.

I was fine with Pauls posts in the Q swamp critters thread, it was Pauls posts in the LARP or anti-Q threads.

In the anti-Q threads he posted his thoughts while ignoring the latest posts, and disregarded the basic underlaying premise the thread was meant to be discussing. This, as far as I see, was the biggest cause of toxicity on the forum regarding Q. When people don't want to believe something a thread is discussing, they shouldn't go on and on about their point, perhaps leave a post or two and move on. It opened the flood gates for other pro-Q people to pile in, because Paul was a senior mod., and also encouraged dismissing basic premise of the thread as impossible etc. No, it is a matter of opinion, and he was welcome to his but why destroy an opposing thread?

This is why separate threads did not work. You had Paul carefully keeping the pro-Q thread clean, and the anti-Q threads became a 'dumping ground' or a place for pro-Q people to say how the opposing premise was impossible.

In the end a few pro-Q posters occupied the anti-Q threads to the point it was a joke, and I resigned, because there was no place to discuss anti-Q with other people sharing the same basic premise. The premise was smashed up by those who simply don't want other people to believe it, thinking they had proof, but this was their opinion including Paul.

When I read pro-Q people complaining, at no point to they seem to realise this awful situation was going on. But life goes on. I put it down to a matter of perspective

I agree, that can be frustrating.

It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?

When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.

I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?

[Gemma13]

Finally The problem we are running into is the Q people think that all the stuff they are learning only could have come from Q.


Not true. Q was a catalyst and at this point in time continues to contribute. The movement has evolved and gained a life of its own. The awakening and investment in time and research from that awakening cannot be unlearned.

Q is NOT the only catalyst in life for awakening. This forum proves that without any reasonable doubt.

No matter what Q is eventually revealed to be, (if ever it is as it may just stop), there will be a percentage that cannot continue as they relied only on Q. But there is a massive percentage that has demonstrated, over several years now, that they will not stop their investment into research and analysis and activism of the injustices of our world.

How can that not be a good thing!

[edina]

Praxis, with all due respect, you seem to be confusing "freedom of expression" with censorship.

And for what it's worth, it's illegal for a government body to censor, except for the exceptions written into the law now (ie pornagraphy, inciting violence).

It's perfectly legal for a private entity to censor (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/censoring).

Ergo, why the private entities were created to control the narrative.

It's a work around, a means to suppress information deemed "subversive" to their agendas without arousing public outcry.


First, it is not illegal for "a government" to censor. That is way to general a statement to mean anything. You literally just said it is illegal for Saudi Arabia to censor( as they fit your "a government") . I am also very confused about how you are using "illegal" and "written into the law".

Second, You just explained why Bill is perfectly within his right to not only hide the Q thread but to take a step further and delete the entire thing!




I said a government body, and I didn't clarify this was in context of the US Government. I don't know anything about censorship laws of other countries. Hope that clarifies my statement.

And yes, Bill is in his right to do exactly that.


Finally The problem we are running into is the Q people think that all the stuff they are learning only could have come from Q.

"Look at how many people it has woken up" they say.

Great, Q has shown a bunch of people that there are indeed many and terrible things happening here.

I don't know who thinks that. I certainly don't. I've been looking into the wide of range of information presented by Q for a very long time. Easily since the 90's. Some topics since the 70's.

I'm happy that the Q-phenom is galvanizing people who were not looking into those topics to do so on an heretofore unprecedented scale.


The problem is that it is wrapped up in a bunch of Trust the Plan or Future proves past nonsense. Lets stop for a second and remember that

FUTURE PROVES PAST.

Do ya ll not realize that is another way of saying the ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS?

Lets keep Gitmo open because we might want to put Hillary in there!


That's one way to interpret those words. I interpret them differently.

Would you be willing to hear how I interpret them?

Some people listen to understand. Others listen to refute.

I agree with Paul in that our current culture is struggling to have the difficult conversations in a healthy way, or in a way to handle what is happening well.

But we have been in a 40+ year "demoralization" (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79203-Former-KGB-Agent-on-Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-and-Normalization&p=925321&viewfull=1#post925321) campaign. So, to me, it's understandable.

I find I don't always know how to speak to it, myself, because I'm still taking in so much information.

I also feel there are huge historical patterns to consider as we are bringing the darker aspects of our culture into light of public awareness.

I often think that if people do not have that perspective, if people don't understand that these things have been happening for centuries, then humanity may still be susceptible to it re-occuring.

I'm for what works, and the energy of the Q movement, Q phenom, or whatever you want to call it, is in my opinion, working.

If your opinion is different, ... okay. :)

I didn't ask that threads that express your point of view be removed from public view.


I dont want any of threads hidden actually. I want all the Q stuff to stay up for all time so that in the future people will use it for study, and not like the Q people hope. They will use it for sociological research into tribalism.

You want to have a good time? Go to the start of teh Q thread and start reading. The best part about the wheat from the chaff, is the chaff is very dated. Yes Q has some wheat and some really really good wheat. The problem is the chaf is Ethno nationalism and bigotry.


Thank you Praxis. I feel historians will study this phenom for many reasons.

And yes, I have done that. I even downloaded the pdf that Bill posted earlier on the thread.

I happen to feel that just as strong states provide a counterbalance to the federal government.

And strong local governments provide a counterbalance to state governments, that

Strong nations accountable to the people they govern, are necessary for a check and balance on transnational corporations and the banker class.

There is tension in this arrangement, it's creative tension. It's not comfortable.

I felt we were one election away from the total capitulation of nations to the banker class.

We're still in danger of a total takeover. And the level of long term thinking and deception of the people orchestrating this is huge and should never be dismissed.




Related Threads:


Former KGB Agent on Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis and Normalization (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?79203-Former-KGB-Agent-on-Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-and-Normalization)

For an idea on the "big" picture (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?25102-For-an-idea-on-the-big-picture)

[ulli]

People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon. Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.
Has anyone ever considered that movies and music are psi-ops as well? Controlled emotional manipulation, to evoke a response in the viewer/listener.

Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
The entire atmosphere surrounding the sudden decision to quarantine the discussion behind a members only wall was one of hostility and bias. This in my view added to the feelings that this was an act of censorship.
Had there been an announcement that included the regulars on the thread in a more respectful manner this thread would not even be necessary now.



I understand people being disappointed that Paul left. hey I was too. but why 'upset'? he wanted to go!:) Who are you upset with?

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to as far as abuse and ridicule. Bill made a pretty cordial announcement regarding the Q threads, and what I recall next is a Q supporter strutting around like a rampaging toddler, threatening to bury the forum with a blog and insulting a bunch of people. She's still a member btw:). So, I would dispute the allegation that the mods are censorship happy.

Words like hoax and psi-ops are mere opinions. People are entitled to them. They're not insults. I mean, they don't belong in that thread, I'll grant you that..and fair enough.

I likely won't even make a dent disputing some of these things, but I'll try anyway: there was NO hostility involved in the decision. If you say it was dumb or unintelligent, or poorly thought out, I'd be perfectly willing to listen to you. Truly! I don't mind people disagreeing with me, or questioning my judgement - even aggressively - but I vehemently deny that any hostility whatsoever was involved in that decision. ZERO.

I don't know how the announcement could have been any more respectful. And as far as Paul not being here, it's a bummer to alot of people. I get it! But he's no longer an admin here, and has therefore forfeited his say in these matters.




Mike, we have a couple of misunderstandings here.

1) I never meant to argue against the decision itself, and didn’t find the decision nor Bill’s announcement disrespectful at all. If you read carefully what I wrote you will see that.
I believe you when you say there was no hostility in the decision.

No, I used the word “atmosphere”, and meant the vibe of the ensuing discussion on the forum after the announcement was made.
I was referring to the posts by other members, even from some mods, that was generated in the thread.

Perhaps I could have made myself clearer had I not used the word “decision”. But the level of hostility in the debate that ensued was quite extraordinary.
In the old Avalon days the moderators would have dealt with snide remarks, and from either side; not so much the opinions.
And there were always opposing opinions, on whistle blowers, on UFO disinfo, on channelings.


And 2) the way you picked on my choice of word -upset-, when you thought -disappointed- was the correct choice. You’re being picky. I personally find those two words interchangeable. If you want I can edit my post. No problem.

[Pam]

hey Waves, please keep it civil! Thanks my friend:thumbsup:

Folks, there's some potential to have a productive discussion here.

Before posting, please just ground yourself a little and release any tension or excessive emotion at the door.

:heart:

I did for 590+ posts over 8 years, but I'm fed up. I don't see any helpful discussion here, I see the same tunnel visioned names repeating and repeating and repeating themselves, hopelessly unwilling to look outside their box.
I predict not ONE of them is going to ever get even a little what anyone they don't agree with is trying to tell them.
Nothing will change without a big house cleaning if those hopelessly not here to listen and learn.



fair enough!

but the Q folks are thinking the same exact things about you, just for the opposite reasons.

it's an emotional and intellectual wash. invectively hammering home the same points ad nauseum won't help:handshake:

we may not be able to make any head-way here, but let's not make things any worse! there's a big difference between mere tension and all out warfare. if we can merely keep it at the tension level, perhaps we will have succeeded. we don't need to be killing each other here

But you'll just keep spinning wheels without getting real, the tension is for keeping trying to keep a lid on truth. The intelligent minds here have no more doubt about Q as a very dangerous and unhealthy psyop. Period.

So I really wish the denial would stop. It's not like there any equality in the maturity/education level of the two sides, even Bill has used the term 'cognizant dissonance' and meant it strongly.

What that means is the non-believers very much understand what has convinced Q believers to buy into the entire Q thing and why they've fallen for all the related cultish issues. I and my peers could discuss it for hours with examples galore.

But not ONE of the Q-believers truly understand the what is so convincing to non-believers - none could explain with a humble heart what is so intelligent and reasonable to the other side - nor do they have ANY interest.

They're not interested in learning it. It would take a lot humility and self-analysis. It's a deep mix of all the social engineering crafts many of us have been learning about for years - a very complex issue that requires knowledge about numerous facets of history, mind control history, cult history, politics and programming and more all in one big soup.

So fixation combined with obliviousness to anything outside of it is called cognitive dissonance. And the fixated are going to piss and moan and play the victim and get mad and get arrogant and feel censored blah blah blah.... and they do not represent the kind of open mind, the truly educated in mind control, resistant to cult, the resistant to programming, the curious and willing to learn minds Avalon once attracted.

So the truth is Avalon has a small faction of extremely fixated and deluded minds trying to make you all feel guilty for not giving them a platform to keep feeding their unhealthy addiction and it's never going to resolve.


You have to make a choice. You can create an inviting place that attracts and keep mature minds as members or you can attract more and more fixed, dissonant minds who are demanding, uncooperative, need lots of babysitting and get pissed when someone enters their thread to challenge them.

Anything untrue about any of that?
Did I write a poor me, poor victim message here. NO.

If the above is the truth, the only question is now what do you do.

I say Avalon needs to make a choice for healthy or unhealthy.


Waves, I was wondering if you could tell me what group I best fit into. I strongly believe people that follow the Q phenomena have a right to do so and should be able to do it unhindered and uncensored. I am neither for or against it. Does that put me in the Q group which you have just described as uneducated, cult like, uninterested in learning, fixated, oblivious, arrogant, deluded, addicted and dissonant, or do I belong to your group which you describe as intelligent and mature?

[RunningDeer]

I didn't catch the exchange between Dennis and Paul because I had loosely followed Q info through my YouTube subscriptions. I thanked edina's post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107825-The-censorship-discussion.--&p=1303228#post1303228) because I agree about what she said about Paul.

I express similar sentiments on June 12, 2019:





One thing that was hard to watch were people who claimed Paul was harsh or pulling his admin weight. I found him to use monstrous restraint when trying to moderate across the threads.


I’m not emotionally invested in all the back and forth, Q this, Q that, he said, she said. What bothers me is how it’s played out with Paul since he’s left and read comments from people I care for and held in high regard.

Once Paul’s status was changed, he no longer had access to administrative capabilities, so he couldn’t have unsubscribed his account. Four days ago, on July 7th, Paul popped in to add a post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a-Very-Bad-Day-Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters&p=1302115&viewfull=1#post1302115). Shortly after, his paul_test_2 was retired. I’ve forgotten when I notice that his paul_test account was retired but it was after Paul left and before he popped in one last time.



https://i.imgur.com/ximZRKR.jpg

[Matthew]

...

I agree, that can be frustrating.

It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?



Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.



When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.


I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.



I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?

I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.

[Matthew]

...
What bothers me is how it’s played out with Paul since he’s left and read comments from people I care for and held in high regard.
...

I'm truly sorry I'm not singing the praises of the senior mod who saved the server, invested significant toil as a developer and a mod, and a personal poster, and gave years of selfless service to Project Avalon. I almost feel like suggesting Paul deserves a gold coloured handle, like Bill! (apologies for my impertinence, and you won't hear that often).

But in this saga he does have a starring role. I'm not proud, I'm not being obtuse towards what the great man achieved. The truth is what it is, it's not pretty, I'm not proud. Paul, and it has been said by a better authority than me, was caught by the politics to an irrepressible level, and that was a big part of the problem.

But I take the point this is not a fair representation on its own

[Bill Ryan]

the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way

A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue. :flower:


Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.

Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads — to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

I felt that was important. Paul did not.

All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself. (Self-terminated, as Arnie would say. :) ) We were left guessing.

It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107445-A-very-important-announcement), which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.

His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.

The summary is:


You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.

[Eric J (Viking)]

Hmmm...

I always question once you have to start paying for 'truth'...

Did Jesus/Jmmanuel whatever label you give him charge for 'truths'...?

Viking

[edina]

...

I agree, that can be frustrating.

It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?



Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.



When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.


I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.



I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?

I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.

I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. I think that breaks down communication, and increased understanding.
I can't even remember who was involved.

So, that whole thread is based on the accusations against Pamphlet?

That issue was also discussed at length when it happened in the Q thread.

Eventually, the debunker was debunked himself, and no one really hears from that guy anymore.

Meanwhile, Pamphlet was doxxed. And his family threatened.

I remember listening to a video where he addressed the accusations made against him.

He started going by his real name and said that he wasn't genius enough to pull that off.

The Q posts continue.

If Pamphlet were behind the Q posts, I think that when he was doxxed and his family threatened and the "gig was up" so to speak, the Q posts would have stopped.
That's usually what happens when a LARPer/Hoaxer has been called out.

One point to add, I don't know how Pamphlet would ever have the capability to change the President's plane's call signs, do you?

[Matthew]

...

I agree, that can be frustrating.

It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?



Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.



When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.


I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.



I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?

I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.

I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. I think that breaks down communication, and increased understanding.
I can't even remember who was involved.

So, that whole thread is based on the accusations against Pamphlet?

That issue was also discussed at length when it happened in the Q thread.
...

*ehem*

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that it's not a hoax.

Especially considering how Pamphlet was exposed by a whistleblower then caught on video livestream.

I'm very comfortable to agree to disagree though. Perhaps we need separate threads to take our perspective, since our premise have diverged. We both understand the need to hold on to an underplaying premise, so we would not disrupt each others threads, once we had decided on incompatible 'proofs' (aka beliefs)

[AutumnW]

There's another version of the book analogy, that goes wider.

If I hold a conference, and lots of people speak (not just me, as if I were writing a book all by myself), but no-one can enter the conference without paying at the door, and they can't later see the videos of the presentations without buying them — is that restricted access to the public 'censorship'?

Bill,

A better analogy is your choice of fellow speakers would represent a form of editing or control through the selection process. You wouldn't ask someone to speak if they represented a neo-Nazi social media phenomenon.

[ulli]

the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way

A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue. :flower:


Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.

Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads — to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

I felt that was important. Paul did not.

All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself (self-terminated, as Arnie would say. :) ). We were left guessing.

It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107445-A-very-important-announcement), which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.


His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.


The summary is:


You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.


I hear you, Bill, and given your explanation I can see your point. There were too many things going on here that some will have to remain mystery. Too many levels of perception, too. Hopefully with time we will sort through this mess.

Im sorry I said “the -entire- moderator group, and I will take that back. But there were a few, who gave their strong opinion on the topic, as if the Q investigators were Flat Earthers. I must say I was surprised while reading along at how vehemently they expressed.

To me the role of a mod always meant to keep the conversation civil, without interfering with people’s personal opinions.
But then I wasn’t around when the earlier debates re Q were happening, so I didnt realize there was a bit of a history. People seemed fed up, and their minds seemed made up, and the fragmentation had already happened.


Which brings me to Paul’s position, as administrator. Maybe he had too much on his plate, with tech maintenance as well as moderating the conversations.

Like me, he felt that Q posts would help get everyone’s attention to the Deep State’s workings. Informative. Like when Cider Somerset used to post lots of videos on the Jimmy Saville case.

And unlike the others here did not attribute “the plan” to mischief making, but welcomed it as the priority measure to bring things back on track. A return to moraliy.
My take is always that mass movements are like a swinging pendulum.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your take on things.

[edina]

...

I agree, that can be frustrating.

It was frustrating when people came into the Q thread in that way, too.

I thought the premise of one of those threads was to explore pros and cons of the veracity of the Q material?



Looks like we have found a point of agreement. Correctly or not, I believe the scale of this irreverent posting was more severe against the 'q is a larp ' side.



When it first started I noticed the misunderstanding of the use of the word, "autists".
I tried to explain what it meant and was asked to leave the thread by the moderation staff.


I'm sorry to hear this, it sounds like you asked a single simple question and you were brushed off and dismissed, which is awful and rude. For what it's worth I believe it would be useful to pull that example out from the past, and name and shame with a new focus on that incident.



I've occasionally glanced that way and to be honest, it reads more like a gossip column building a case against people who read the Q material.

I honestly don't have time for that sort of conversation. So, I didn't participate.

Admittedly, I will have missed anything that happened in those threads.

What do you think the premise was for the alternative threads.?

I don't blame you, it's jolly hard to digest even ones own source info. from ones own side of the fence, let alone the shear volume of info. from the other side! I'm very happy to give a brief overview: an anon. by the alias 'Pamphlet' was caught on a video live stream posting as Q, after a whistleblower said Q was Pamphlet and his friends.

I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. I think that breaks down communication, and increased understanding.
I can't even remember who was involved.

So, that whole thread is based on the accusations against Pamphlet?

That issue was also discussed at length when it happened in the Q thread.
...

*ehem*

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that it's not a hoax.

Especially considering how Pamphlet was exposed by a whistleblower then caught on video livestream.

I'm very comfortable to agree to disagree though. Perhaps we need separate threads to take our perspective, since our premise have diverged. We both understand the need to hold on to an underplaying premise, so we would not disrupt each others threads, once we had decided on incompatible 'proofs' (aka beliefs)

Yeah, this is probably a point where things break down.

My understanding is the the supposed "video livestream" was not really a "video livestream".
That the "video livestream" was itself a hoax.

This was proved to my satisfaction.

And of course, the Q posts continue.

And they definitely are beyond Pamphlet's capabilities.

I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree on this.

It would be an inaccurate assumption to say I never considered that situation, because I did. I just came to different conclusions than some people.

[Matthew]

edina, I very much appreciate being able to demonstrate incompatible 'underplaying premise' by answering your questions and talking with you, and finding the edge of disagreement (in a positive way). Just a small point I would appreciate correcting: I actually said Pamphlet and his friends, but that is a crude approximation

Thank you for the disagreement!

[RunningDeer]

But I take the point this is not a fair representation on its own
Thanks for adding that part, YoYoYo.

Particle repost(s):

Paul’s countless hours of expertise for over the 8+ years are evident across the roadways of Avalon. The many who travel through benefit from his efforts to educate and foster balance of body, mind and spirit. His footprints are everywhere.

Paul created 334 threads in the categories listed here, a total of 27,725 posts, 816 of which are on the Q thread. There were a total of 10,214 Q posts. My guess is that Q number is higher because he took over when KiwiElf needed to step away. All while he performed administrative duties, forum maintenance and upgrades, other posts, etc.




Technical Q&A, News and Updates, General Discussion, Current Events, Conspiracy Research, Global Financial News, Free Energy and Future, Express Yourself, Alternative Medicine, 9/11, Astronomy and Cosmology, Climate and Environment, Ufology, Extraterrestrial Contact, The Lighter Side, History, The Internet, Geopolitics, Surveillance and Personal, What Does It Mean?, Personalities in the Alternative, Attacks on the Alternative, Science, Pedophilia/Human trafficking, etc.




...
What bothers me is how it’s played out with Paul since he’s left and read comments from people I care for and held in high regard.
...

I'm truly sorry I'm not singing the praises of the senior mod who saved the server, invested significant toil as a developer and a mod, and a personal poster, and gave years of selfless service to Project Avalon. I almost feel like suggesting Paul deserves a gold coloured handle, like Bill! (apologies for my impertinence, and you won't hear that often).

But in this saga he does have a starring role. I'm not proud, I'm not being obtuse towards what the great man achieved. The truth is what it is, it's not pretty, I'm not proud. Paul, and it has been said by a better authority than me, was caught by the politics to an irrepressible level, and that was a big part of the problem.

But I take the point this is not a fair representation on its own

[edina]

edina, I very much appreciate being able to demonstrate incompatible 'underplaying premise' by answering your questions and talking with you, and finding the edge of disagreement (in a positive way). Just a small point I would appreciate correcting: I actually said Pamphlet and his friends, but that is a crude approximation

Thank you for the disagreement!

It helps that we're not calling each other names, and we're respecting each other, right?

Your correction is duly noted. :)

That said, Pamphlet was the person who bore the brunt of those accusations.

[edina]

Paul created 334 threads in the categories listed here, a total of 27,725 posts, 816 of which are on the Q thread. There were a total of 10,214 Q posts. My guess is that Q number is higher because he took over when KiwiElf needed to step away. All while he performed administrative duties, forum maintenance and upgrades, other posts, etc.

This would have been a catch 22 for Paul, given the agreement that Bill said was made?

People have expressed this in other places, and I want to say it now.




I miss Paul.

He brought different perspectives to the topics discussed in the forum.

I would love to see him return as a contributing member, without the apparent conflict of interests that Bill noted in his response to ulli.



Post update:

Just thought of this. I seem to remember Bill thanking Paul for stepping up and taking on that task?

[Denise/Dizi]

I personally believe that when the few declare what everyone else can and cannot see it's censorship. It's the loss of liberty. You could even call it authoritarianism.

Here's a question. It'd be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and answers.

Richard Dolan now puts a lot of his material (and half of his video interviews) behind his RichardDolanMembers.com (http://RichardDolanMembers.com) paywall. You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

Please reply. :)

(Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)

Nope, (In my opinion).. he is just asking that people help him cover his expenses if they're going to benefit from his information. We pay for TV services, some websites, why not ask for people to help pay for your efforts? Right now my funds are a bit tighter than I thought they would be, so I wouldn't pay for something like that. But I do appreciate that others DO offer their sites as you do, for donations. (Thank You kindly Bill)

Censorship..
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.
"the regulation imposes censorship on all media"

asking for people to pay for the information isn't covered in this definition.

[sunwings]

1. The Q thread is not the first thread to be moved to members only!
2. The reaction is understandable but with time I believe it may be best. (Time will tell)
3. This is not censorship! Anyone can join and become a member and PARTICIPATE!

[RunningDeer]

If you see this Paul, rest and we’ll keep the light on for you. xo
http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/cow2.gifhttp://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/cow.gif
https://i.imgur.com/jI6tXsv.jpg

♡

People have expressed this in other places, and I want to say it now.




I miss Paul.

[justntime2learn]

I miss Paul!

Hello, wherever you are, Paul :waving:

[RunningDeer]

1. The Q thread is not the first thread to be moved to members only!
True, sunwings. The Q thread began on October 25, 2017 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a-Very-Bad-Day-Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters&p=1187161&viewfull=1#post1187161), that’s about 3 month shy of two years. I'm unable to say that about other threads. Maybe some one else has that information.

Off the top of my head and based on the same criteria, a lot could be moved to members only section beginning with the countless threads of Dave Wilcock, Corey Goode and Blue Chicken gang.

[Matthew]

I miss DNA and <too soon to be spoken>

[Ernie Nemeth]

I had no idea there was such contention ongoing over on the Q threads. I wont even say why for fear of being drawn into it.

It is nice to see opposing views acting civil, seems as though it might have been a hard fought battle to get there.

I miss Paul too. And DNA. And a bunch of others.

But can we get back to the censorship thing?

Like what is censorship? Is it the withholding of any information, in any format, regardless of copyright?

I have trouble splitting hairs so I am truly interested.

[Belle]

1. The Q thread is not the first thread to be moved to members only!
True, sunwings. The Q thread began on October 25, 2017 (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?100318-The-Qanon-posts-and-a-Very-Bad-Day-Scenario-for-some-elite-swamp-critters&p=1187161&viewfull=1#post1187161), that’s about 3 month shy of two years. I'm unable to say that about other threads. Maybe some one else has that information.

Off the top of my head and based on the same criteria, a lot could be moved to members only section beginning with the countless threads of Dave Wilcock, Corey Goode and Blue Chicken gang.

The thread I started (A Place for Dialogue) was moved in less than 1 hour of being created, iirc.

After it was moved, Bill asked that we not dialogue about Q to allow the forum time to heal...which I honored.

Shortly after (1 day? 2 days?) three Q threads were moved to members only.

[Tintin]

the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way

A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue. :flower:


Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.

Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads — to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

I felt that was important. Paul did not.

All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself. (Self-terminated, as Arnie would say. :) ) We were left guessing.

It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107445-A-very-important-announcement), which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.

His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.

The summary is:


You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.


There is no need for me to add anything further to Bill's message here other than to say that this is indeed an accurate account, in every way and detail, of what occurred. I am witness to this :flower:

[Savannah]

the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way

A needed correction, if I may. What you said there is inaccurate and actually quite untrue. :flower:


Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.

Here's the accurate history. The idea of making the thread opt-in was mine, a few weeks before Paul retired. It seemed like a positive, bright idea. Paul beseeched me (his word) not to do that.

So I respected that, and we didn't. Paul, almost always stoically unemotional, has never used such a strong expression to express something he wanted.

But he wanted it for personal reasons. Not because of what might be best for the forum and its members.

He had become more of a Qanon supporter than a moderator, as long ago as last August (2018). He became very partial in his views, and although I had respected his request not to touch the main Qanon thread, he ignored my own requests (which were agreed to by pretty much every other moderator, except maybe Dennis) NOT to post on the Q threads — to ensure moderators' impartiality. I had also undertaken that myself.

I felt that was important. Paul did not.

All that contributed to the mods' logjam that rendered us unable to make a single step forward in finding creative solutions to the issue of strongly opposed opinions among the members. Every mod in the team, past and present, would confirm that it was Paul who was the moderator that was the obstacle to our obtaining consensus on many issues.

I don't say that critically. I'm just reporting what was happening, like reporting a vote in parliament, or a board room. What I say is simply what occurred.

Whatever anyone else might think, I respected Paul enough not to overrule him, which I did not want to do, and did not do. But that meant no progress could be made. We could barely talk about the issues. It was very difficult.

Again, I want anyone reading this to understand that I'm reporting how things were. Nothing more. Everything I write here is exactly accurate.

Paul did not expressly explain why he stepped down. He retired himself. (Self-terminated, as Arnie would say. :) ) We were left guessing.

It was NOT because of the Qanon issue. It was connected to the mods' hiatus of 5-10 June, reported to the members on this thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107445-A-very-important-announcement), which was only partially connected with the Qanon question. I certainly feel like talking about that, but it is best if I do not.

After Paul retired himself, he forfeited the right to contribute to moderators' decisions. He need not have done that. He could have stayed and worked with us to benefit the forum and the community.

His departure was 100% his choice and his action. We didn't even know about it until after it happened. He simply left us a one-line message that he had left the forum.

The summary is:


You can't have moderators' decisions voted on by a ghost who's no longer present round the table.
You can't have business decisions made by someone who's left the company.
And you can't have household decisions made by someone who's chosen to divorce and leave the family.


Thank you for clarifying some things that went on behind the scenes, however I remain confused and this information does not appear to justify the censorship, which is an extreme action. From this explanation, the tread was not the problem but moderator that was not acting in an unbiased way. This seems like throwing he baby out with the bath water. However you have clearly indicated your rationale for censoring the thread in a previous post:

“the crux of the matter is that the 'Q' material has become contentious to a degree that it really doesn't look as if the contention will ever go away. (Until 'Q' does, of course, which will happen sometime!)
It's not only about 'Q', of course: it's about partisan politics in general, and the unpleasant divisiveness which that all too often engenders. So we might move some other threads there, too.”

Again censorship is a radical intervention that to me has to be warranted and it seldom can be to those in the alternative community who clearly see this tactic being done by some governments to control people. Thus in this setting it needs to be justified (some may feel it never is and there is some good augments for that, such as self-censoring and crowd policing).

Since Q was shadow banned so can any other thread or aspect of it, this goes beyond Q and it’s clear from previous posts that is your intent in the future. These tactics create decisiveness, unpleasantness at first but those who disagree will drop off or shut up (sorry not speak up, keep their opinions to themselves). If it’s the quest to have only non-emotional issues discussed in purely intellectual detached almost academic fashion (although some degree of respectable passion appears to be allowed and dignified indignation) with accurate spelling grammar and in the preferred bullet point format, or avoidance of long paragraphs, then the forum will certainly be censored of some information and people. That information may be important or meaningless depending on the persons interests. I may read PA on occasion but don’t think I will remain a member given these new rules. You will not find the truth that way, but you may reinforce your own truth.

[mojo]

... could never say as eloquently as the post above. PLEASE stay and let your voice be heard...

[Denise/Dizi]

People were upset that Paul had retired. People were upset that there was a chorus from members and the entire moderator group sending ridicule and even abuse their way, simply for following the Qanon phenomenon. Many of the accusations were really quite irrational, showing far more party political bias than anyone whom they accused. Words like hoax and psi-ops were being used.
Has anyone ever considered that movies and music are psi-ops as well? Controlled emotional manipulation, to evoke a response in the viewer/listener.

Paul had expressed a wish that the thread would not become closed to non-members, yet that wish was ignored.
The entire atmosphere surrounding the sudden decision to quarantine the discussion behind a members only wall was one of hostility and bias. This in my view added to the feelings that this was an act of censorship.
Had there been an announcement that included the regulars on the thread in a more respectful manner this thread would not even be necessary now.

Ulli, I have a question, you think the site is censoring the thread now, based upon your reply.. I respect that you feel that way, but I do not follow the thread, and I went there to see what all the fuss was about the other day and I was horrified with what I found..

Bill has said all along that he doesn't want political debates on Avalon. Period. Perhaps if the members didn't hop that fence, this would not be happening now? What is your take on that?

If you had a house party and told everyone to stay away from the pool and out of the pool house, and you caught people drowning in the pool, and fist fighting in the pool house, would you allow them to stay, and just "Move it to another room", and hope that behavior stopped? Or would you ask them to leave your party? Come back when they can follow the rules? Some going to the pool just because they see others swimming and they love to swim, thinking surely it is allowed now right?

In that light,

Bill owns and operates this site. He has asked multiple times the we please not discuss politics here. Yet people are still discussing the issues.. Whether it is censorship, etc. Completely diverting the focus of what Bill has been asking all along. Please take that subject elsewhere. People are now crying foul, and drowning in the pool essentially.

Do none of the people posting on those threads care about what Bill Ryan wants on his site? I know if Bill ever told me that I broached a subject that he would rather not have on his site, rather than argue with the man, I would politely apologize and ask him to remove it. If caught in your pool realizing it WASN'T sanctioned, I would jump out and apologize and run away from it embarrassed for my blunder.... It isn't at all about Paul's wishes or anyone else's, and many feelings are getting hurt because that is what everyone is making it about.

That's like saying.. Paul drowned in the pool but before he died, he waved his hand and said "Party on".. And now everyone wants to support that. Neglecting that the pool was supposed to be off limits..

It is about the subject matter and what happens when it is addressed plain and simple, you can point to those other things and suggest that now THAT is the problem, but if you deal with the original subject, that is was uninvited discussion to begin with, all the rest falls away, leaving only the damage it caused while it was allowed. Being in personal feelings, and "Sides" only makes the matter worse, thereby supporting the reason for why it never should have been a topic in the first place. This could go on FOREVER if everyone debates about what principle it hits them on.

This is like those in the pool saying, "It's HOT outside we should be allowed to swim"..

In even creating the thread, it is really being disrespectful to Bill's wishes of what he wants this site to be, plain and simple. I have seen people get removed for much less. Really it isn't about censorship at all, it is about showing the man some RESPECT. and honoring the wishes for what he wants on his site.

In this context does it seem like maybe the members are kind of asking from Bill, more than he was offering them? He is the one who risks a death in the pool, for allowing the rest to keep swimming, this is his site.

I will quote Edina here


In the case of Richard Dolan, it's his content and he can decide how he wants to manage it. That's not censorship. That's ownership rights of the content creator.

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

I just think that even continuing the thread is being extremely disrespectful to Bill, even when he states that he doesn't want people in his pool, rather than people getting out, they're threatening him with a bad party review, claiming that he is ruining their fun, or worse taking away their right to the water. It is an embarrassment at this point, and sad.

People are now so caught up in whether not they're being abused by not being allowed to do it, they're neglecting the fact that they weren't allowed in the pool to begin with. Instead they're getting angry when someone pushes them off of the diving board. And complaining to the Mods to stop that person from pushing them in, whn they are shocked they're even in the pool to begin with.

The mods are then policing the pool party and the hurt feelings, and it has gotten out of hand. Now when I come to the party, All I am seeing in the house is people worn out, and angry about the pool party. I don't swim.. (I do but I won't engage others in matters of politics)

I would have drained the pool. End of problem. Bill was kind, he MOVED IT.. And now people are pissed because the people on the beach can't watch them swim. What a mess. If it was your house and you said "Stay out of the pool" and all of this happened, would you drain the pool? Or continue to let people get held underwater, and drown? Because members are drowning, never to surface again.

[Strat]

I personally believe that when the few declare what everyone else can and cannot see it's censorship. It's the loss of liberty. You could even call it authoritarianism.

Here's a question. It'd be interesting to hear everyone's thoughts and answers.

Richard Dolan now puts a lot of his material (and half of his video interviews) behind his RichardDolanMembers.com (http://RichardDolanMembers.com) paywall. You sign up, and pay a small amount, and then it's all there. (I'm not a member, btw.)

When he decided to do this, was this censorship?

Please reply. :)

(Note: Avalon may be significantly preferable: there's no paywall for members to join.)

I'll address Mariner then you Bill:

To Mariner, it's a broad subject. I could string a few vulgar words together that would quickly get me suspended and rightfully so. Maybe it is censorship, but I think that's a good thing. I've uploaded a few videos to youtube and I don't allow comments because apparently everyone that comments on youtube videos are morons. I don't want to deal with their bull****. Censorship? Yes, and thank god it's an option.

To Bill regarding Dolan's material, I wouldn't call that censorship I'd call it marketing.

We're dealing with folks who run their own independent websites and they are free to publish what they wish and how. If one doesn't like it then they can start their own site/forum. Frankly, removing the ability of these independent owners to censor as they see fit is a form of censorship and a stripping of their rights to free speech.

[Belle]

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

Does anyone know?

[Strat]

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?
Unless there were a pre arranged agreement, absolutely. My house isn't your storage facility.


That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?
I think intellectual property and posts are 2 different things. That being said, yes, all rights are given up regarding posts. If I were to make vulgar calls to action and folks followed through with it the law would look at Bill for allowing it to happen.


Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?
100%.

[edina]

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

Does anyone know?

You raise interesting questions here.

Right now, people who have bought and paid for books on ebook platforms, thought they "owned" the book.
Only to discover that some platforms have been quietly disappearing books and they no longer have access to books they thought they "owned'.

And then there's this, Foxie Loxie emailed me a link to this yesterday:

https://gizadeathstar.com/2019/07/disappearing-ebooks/

This is why I convert as much as I can into a pdf form and keep it offline to ensure I don't lose access to information as I research it.

Articles, books, blogposts, ect...

[ulli]

I’m not on that thread for the politics. I never really really noticed that part. Maybe some of the videos which people share contain political content, but that doesn’t make the whole thread about politics.
And being accused of bad manners is incredibly unfair, when I have greatest respect for Bill and have defended him many times in the past when members became unruly.

I’m not even American, nor am I interested in the least in party-political debates. You obviously don’t know me at all.
Like Dennis, I actually believe in a massive system change which requires getting rid of politicians altogether, and have the people of the earth find a new way of governing themselves.
But how to get there from here? Lets use some common sense, please.

To me this Q investigation is about the disclosure of huge worldwide crime networks, that kidnap people and children for organ harvesting and sex slavery. Or think the massive 9/11 crime. Or think the wars that were started for oil in the middle east, and possibly not only oil, but even for alien artifacts that Saddam was collecting. It is disclosing the war that is going on behind the scenes.
All these terrible crimes against humanity are subjects which I saw being discussed frequently on Avalon before.
So we have some cynics here who think that no one on that world stage is capable of being good, and seeing those crimes for what they really are, and have the means to bring about law and order, even if it is only temporary?


If you took a bit more time investigating some of the videos you might even agree with me. I’m there expecting the process of the unfolding of the disclosure we all have been waiting for. What is wrong with that?

Which included many types of disclosure; the disclosure of alien abduction, secret military projects, MKUltra programming, and hidden government cover-ups. The poisonous plot to kill a large percentage of humanity, and take control of the planet for the next 50,000 + years. So much fear has been thrown at us, all our lives.

That disclosure is what I see that thread moving towards. That thread which you only see as “political” while at the same time admitting that you don’t even follow the thread.
Maybe Bill doesnt either, but maybe he is irritated that there is so much activity there. People are getting excited.

The fact that a boorish man (Donald Trump) who is not even a politician at all took on the challenge to seek the highest seat of power to sneakily combat those same crimes against humanity to me is a very clever act, an act of bravery. He has more clout than any of us here. And I believe he also knows a lot more than any of us, and also has a lot more patience. And he knows how to play dumb and not appear too clever, which to me is the real scoop.

[Denise/Dizi]

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

Does anyone know?

I don't know honestly. I would guess the one who posted it should be allowed to copy their material. But I do not know what the rules are for others copying material to another site are. Good question actually.

I believe in the guidelines it does suggest that everything left on the forum becomes the property of the site Avalon. But it doesn't clarify about reproducing it either with or without permission?

But the fundamental issue I was addressing was that while it is here, it is noted that the agreement is that it belongs to Bill.

[ulli]

Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so don’t like to be misread.
The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust I’m gone.

[thepainterdoug]

No. Its not censorship

[Dennis Leahy]

...Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.


...I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. ...but you've decided to make an exception to name and shame Dennis Leahy. Actually, what you've done is termed "slander."

The tl/dr in the Q thread was me, entering that thread to ask if it was true, that Q was actually broadcasting the same message as the Zionists for the past decades. I quickly found out 1.) it was true, Q came out as a Zionist and warmonger, 2.) not one single qanon researcher at Avalon, not one, even noticed, and 3.) when the actual exact words/meme/tweet that Q had 'dropped' were repeated in the thread, with alarms ringing and searchlights highlighting that this was Q overtly coming out as a Zionist and warmonger, the qanon "researchers" wanted to blast me out of the thread rather than sit in stunned silence and recognize reality. One qanon researcher declared that Q's words actually meant the exact opposite of what was written by Q. (If it hasn't been edited, go take a look, it would be hilarious if it wasn't deadly serious war propaganda that was the subject.)

So, the whole Q mystery unraveled at that moment.

It was over.

Now, everyone knew for certain that Q is a Zionist, a warmonger, and that the whole Q thing is propaganda.

Everyone knew.

Everyone.

But, at the speed of light, cognitive dissonance performed its miraculous task of disengaging the critical thinking pathways, and the new issue instead became the rude interruption of Dennis Leahy. How dare he! How dare he read Q's words and figure out that those words are a declaration of solidarity with the primary agenda of the Zionists! Slander him! Attack his character!

Q: "What was the first thing that you did when you heard Q come out as a Zionist and warmonger?"
A: "Oh, I chased after Dennis Leahy with a big stick. Damn party pooper!"

Turns out, I wasn't the only one (https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/05/26/how-you-can-be-100-certain-that-qanon-is-bull****/) that heard the sound of the needle scratching across the record.

There are Q loyalists that would (and will continue to) create excuses for Q no matter what. Q could dig up your grandma's corpse and have sex with it, and some of the Q loyalists would find a way to excuse it.

Now, here we are, months later, with the qanon "researchers" still averting their eyes and pretending that Q is not a Zionist and a warmonger and partisan cheerleader for the Deep State's Commander-in-Chief du jour (currently conducting war in at least 4 sovereign nations - all of which were on the Deep State agenda before trump came to office.)

What to do?

Oh, I know! Slander Dennis Leahy some more! He's a witch! See if he floats!

-----------------

Paul. I gave Paul my friendship, and "worked" with him for years here. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I thought we had a deep bond more like family than just friends - it was evidently all in my head. I also admit that I tried to save Paul from the Q cult, because he was my friend, and he was falling for a con. He did later (in the mods area) make it very clear to me that he was not my friend. In the mods area, he basically ruled the Q thread - for instance, when members complained about one poster placing his "my take" links to an online blog/column in (I think it was) the New York Times, Paul overruled everyone, said it was fine, said that it helped spread the Q message to the NYT crowd, and "case closed." Most of the mods just shut up (now, they all left.) Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable. Bill and the mods were trying to figure out just where the negativity and assholishness was coming from, and sure, some came from "Voice_", but I could see the 2 main vectors: I called them the elephants in the room. One was the Q thread protected from dissent (every other thread on Avalon allowed dissent), and the other is that Bill has stated that he supports Trump (which I'm convinced is actually not true, I believe that he supported -past tense- warlock trump against witch hillary, and doesn't actually support a single one of trump's actions.) In both cases, it helped to feather a nest for one of the US duopoly political parties and for Q supporters.

----------------

Censoring:
The 'flat earth' cult and blue chicken cult are subjects that have been shoved off the table here. In my opinion, the Q thread is ruined, permanently toxic because it did not allow dissent. There SHOULD have been a Q thread here at Avalon, just not a US republican party cheerleading thread. Having a thread opposing Q (started by a qanon believer, and overrun with pro-Q rhetoric) was NOT the same as having unbiased people examine the "Q drops" one-by-one, in real-time, and post dissenting commentary. If the existing thread remains (I'm sure it will), it should include disclaimers that it is not from normal Project Avalon discourse with dissent, that it is nearly 100% pro-Q and pro-Trump biased thread created by Q supporters and Trump supporters. Embarrassing for Avalon to be associated with Q believers and Trump defenders. There is no good solution when I consider that the thread that the Q supporters and Trump supporters want is utterly biased, and worst of all, never ending.

Don't forget this is Bill's forum. Not Paul's, not Dennis', not edina's. Why doesn't someone start a Q forum? Here's free software: phpbb (https://www.phpbb.com/). You can have a whole forum without Q dissent, a whole forum of people to cheer on the Shadow Government's latest lackey, Trump. Why settle for one or two threads at Avalon?

[RunningDeer]

Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so don’t like to be misread.
The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust I’m gone.
50, no wait, 55+ minutes and counting…

I write part of a sentence. Delete it. Write another. And delete again. https://i.imgur.com/F8DcMlm.gif

I’m waiting for my fingers to knock out something profound or comforting or, or, or. I got a nothin’. Only to say, ulli, I understand your reservations.

I’d suggest do what I do - log off and try again tomorrow. It use to be I’d hit that wall every month or so. Now it’s almost daily. No blame. Just honest sharing.

It could be I’m at a cross roads. Maybe we all are at a cross road and we’re fighting it and fighting one another.

http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/hypnotize.gif http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/im-ok.gif


♡

[Lost N Found]

Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so don’t like to be misread.
The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust I’m gone.

I totally agree with you Ulli, this place does not even adhere to its basic principals. It has become a dead slot in the bingo game.

[ulli]

So Trump is a Zionist and a warmonger?
If he really is a zionist where will it leave those bankers when he gets rid of fiat currency?
And besides, if the Zionist win world dominion I’m happy it wasn’t the Vatican nor China nor the Muslims. As a woman I would rather live under Zionist rule. And what is the worst that can happen? Porn movie makers can’t influence me as I don’t watch that stuff. And nor can the Zionist bankers as we don’t let ourselves slip into debt.

And what about that warmongering he is supposedly doing? So what happened in NK, and then later it was 150 Iranian lives that stopped him striking Iran. When it was the opposition that wanted to set him up, and even did a happy dance after they convinced him to go to war. Then he changed his mind minutes later, but their secret plot was recorded on camera, as they danced in the carpark outside.
I look at all the propaganda, all sides, I read a lot, and I also follow his astro chart. He makes people believe he is going to do A and then says he will do B but in the end does C. And he has Bolton and Pompeo on a leash, to use only when absolutely necessary.

[mojo]

Is anyone else sensing hatred let me strike that word emotional anger is a better one. It's not the same us members being years on the forum... I'm afraid that we are not listening to each other and attacking our own members. The Q phenomenon was never about division we can use some love.

[Ti]

Hey yall, I'm new in these parts. Part of the reason I joined was the lack of public access to the Q threads as I am quite interested in reading some intellectual debunking.

My thoughts are this.

This forum is kind of like, I imagine a bar with a bouncer out front and there's an event inside and he's like, "hey. $5 for cover, bro." Me personally? I balk at cover fees. I have entered a location ONCE where they asked for a cover fee, because I knew the band. Is this censorship? I know the real reason (they expect you will spend more money if you were willing to spend money to get in) is just to juice up the crowd.

So Avalon Forums doesn't ask for a cover fee, it asks for you to read what are easily the longest rules I've EVER encountered for a forum and for you to fill in an application. While this brings up questions with the thread which suggested it was an "easy application process", it also conclusively demonstrated the quality standard of the forum.

Say I want access to the back area of the hospital, to get that job I have to fill in an application and get hired and then I have access to more areas. Is that censorship? Say you want to get into a college class, and they require you have math 3 and chemistry 3, is that censorship?

So taking these two examples in mind, I view the choice to "censor" the Q threads as not in fact censorship at all. It's bait. If they hadn't been hidden from the public, I probably would not have joined the forum. They took an appealing subject and said, "hey if you want to talk about this, join our forum" and really anyone can join, as long as they're willing to spend fifteen minutes filling out the form.

I don't have a problem with the Q threads being non-public as I see the potential in it to draw in other new members who would be so interested in the content they'll get over the membership hurdle of writing a little bit more. This could be beneficial, especially as my skim of this thread suggests a measure of dissatisfaction among older members. While there are degrees of censorship here I DO take umbrage with in my observations, eh, it's not my forum, it has very high standards and thus needs rules to maintain that, and the internet's huge enough I can deal with it or find somewhere else to post if it becomes problematic now that I'm cautiously attempting to engage here. Which is why of course I'm picking this extremely controversial topic for my first real post... for real, I'm dropping my thoughts because the very reason I joined is encompassed in this notion, along with a motley of other relevant interests.

I see the decision as having benefit for growing the forum. I actually think it would be great if a summary of member's only subjects was stuck in a very visible place in the public side as a lure to get people to join the forum and hopefully be willing to engage rather than lurk.

Similarly, my thoughts on "paid access" material are that it is not a form of censorship to have to buy a product. Public libraries exist as a step in the direction of making as many books as possible available to people but when it comes to rapidly changing technology, their databases have not always caught up. Yet one of my public libraries has a Maker Space which gives access to all sorts of wild technology like 3D printers and growing fast! So I do not believe it's the responsibility of the creator of information to offer it for free, but for organizations such as libraries to take efforts to offer access to video course databases and such for free. It would be awesome if there was a way to "audit" material like it's possible to "audit" a university class for no credit. Right now, our world is dependent on a notion of money, and while I struggle against it at every possible moment by offering goods and services freely for trade and barter, encouraging a life of abundance in ways other than money exchange, as things stand the only way for dedicated information providers to make their living is by doing things like selling courses, books, and videos. I support exactly one person by a monthly donation for their videos at this time, and wish I could do more.

My feelings are likely swayed by being a content creator myself, though not in this field. I love giving away pieces of my product and even to this day, make plans to offer free downloadables. But my main income comes from people buying, not people downloading and reading my tutorials. That brings me joy knowing the world is a better place. I can't eat joy. Neither can Richard Dolan.

Peace and love.

[enfoldedblue]

I just see deep deep division...a chasm that seems impossible to bridge. Its weird in a way because I know this is the elites agenda....and if there is any group that should be able to be immune to, or at least conscious of this programming it is Avalon members. But alas, it seems even we awake and aware types are un able to build bridges and keep the community operating as a united whole.

Edit....this was a response to Mojos post about sensing hatred.

[RunningDeer]

Hey yall, I'm new in these parts.
Peace and love.


http://avalonlibrary.net/paula/smilies/s-welcome.gif Welcome to Avalon.
Peace and Love back, Tae.

https://i.imgur.com/jNyCGlI.jpg

[Hym]

Hmmmm....
And Welcome to the jungle Tae.
There's a clearing out ahead and when we reach it, we may realize that the jungle is what WE make it.

As I don't remember commenting on Q, irregardless of it's veracity, I singularly write here about the rarity of this forum.

In the community we share I have always felt the need, the prerequisite of inclusion here, to take on the singular, personal responsibility of growing into a way to communicate any opinion I have, looking for a common understanding if it can be found. In watching my thought processes I have found my lacks and my strengths, both in the form of communicating and the content of my intentions.

Through this all I must say that I have experienced the heartfelt intention of care and honest introspection that formed the forum in the first place. I wouldn't be here if there would not have been the community of brothers and sisters whose communications, way beyond those of the founder, have made it what it is.

The great gift of this sense of ownership I feel in this forum gives me much more than mere discussions upon subjects. It has given me the perspective of how I discuss those things I do and how much emotion I instill into my objections. Did I forget that I was talking to myself, since the natural form of Avalon gave me the space to create it?

I have written more, about the intricacies within all of the Q'nesses presented here, that I will not include because I see those opinions and insights as obvious, in your face truths, both revealing and at times highly manipulated, with subtleties that every effort worth it's core becomes.

It seems that instead of those threads existing on Avalon as means to grow, to learn, to wash away bias they have tested the power of our abilities to become the better. That in itself is not a failure, but a learning and hopefully an impetus to do the real meditation that finds truth beyond the words.

It is more important to me to get back to the strong-hearted intent of this forum, beyond any pain that dissension may create. Getting to the heart of why it is painful is a gift that only self-searching can remove.

In Gratitude............

[Denise/Dizi]

I’m not on that thread for the politics. I never really really noticed that part. Maybe some of the videos which people share contain political content, but that doesn’t make the whole thread about politics.
And being accused of bad manners is incredibly unfair, when I have greatest respect for Bill and have defended him many times in the past when members became unruly.

I’m not even American, nor am I interested in the least in party-political debates. You obviously don’t know me at all.
Like Dennis, I actually believe in a massive system change which requires getting rid of politicians altogether, and have the people of the earth find a new way of governing themselves.
But how to get there from here? Lets use some common sense, please.

To me this Q investigation is about the disclosure of huge worldwide crime networks, that kidnap people and children for organ harvesting and sex slavery. Or think the massive 9/11 crime. Or think the wars that were started for oil in the middle east, and possibly not only oil, but even for alien artifacts that Saddam was collecting. It is disclosing the war that is going on behind the scenes.
All these terrible crimes against humanity are subjects which I saw being discussed frequently on Avalon before.

So we have some cynics here who think that no one on that world stage is capable of being good, and seeing those crimes for what they really are, and have the means to bring about law and order, even if it is only temporary?


If you took a bit more time investigating some of the videos you might even agree with me. I’m there expecting the process of the unfolding of the disclosure we all have been waiting for. What is wrong with that?


Which included many types of disclosure; the disclosure of alien abduction, secret military projects, MKUltra programming, and hidden government cover-ups. The poisonous plot to kill a large percentage of humanity, and take control of the planet for the next 50,000 + years. So much fear has been thrown at us, all our lives.

That disclosure is what I see that thread moving towards. That thread which you only see as “political” while at the same time admitting that you don’t even follow the thread.
Maybe Bill doesnt either, but maybe he is irritated that there is so much activity there. People are getting excited.

The fact that a boorish man (Donald Trump) who is not even a politician at all took on the challenge to seek the highest seat of power to sneakily combat those same crimes against humanity to me is a very clever act, an act of bravery. He has more clout than any of us here. And I believe he also knows a lot more than any of us, and also has a lot more patience. And he knows how to play dumb and not appear too clever, which to me is the real scoop.

Thank you Ulli, for replying..

First I want to apologize to you if I offended you in any way, that was not my intent. Truly that first part of my post was the only part directed at you, and that was about the censorship. My apologizes for not clarifying that. (The question was broken up so I could see how you thought the entire post was directed at you, sorry for that)

I want to tell you I do agree with you.. And on many things.. But the censorship issue is not one of them.. That's all. And I was trying to ask you a question, it just came out wrong.

You bring up so many good points that others are/may be missing.. For example the other topics that you mentioned that the "Q" subject brings to the table. Avalon does indeed have places for all of those topics.. You mentioned many of them, and I have seen other threads that address those topics individually giving them the attention that they deserve. So moving or removing the thread wouldn't at all censor those conversations. They're all over Avalon.

So my question is, is it censorship when really the only thing that Bill has suggested he not want on the site was the politics? And if we do have all of these things here already, is it truly censorship, to just ask the people to move those same conversations (And videos) to the appropriate threads? Instead of one that is highly political in nature and containing topics that Bill has asked that we not address?

The conversations on specific topics could continue. I respect that people get something out of that thread, but if the politics in that thread are chasing people away, or causing really nice members to begin to have really negative reactions towards others, is it really that important to keep that one thread? When all of the other topics are being covered and the only one NOT, is the politics that we were kindly asked not to in the first place?

I just had another friend tell me they are leaving Avalon today. This really hurts my heart. But I see why.. So rather then either of us pick a side ( I have no side in this other than watching people drop around me and getting frustrated seeing it happen).. can we try to help find a solution in the middle somewhere? Even in this thread I am seeing people becoming very hostile, and it hurts my heart. So as a pro Q supporter, and myself, one who could take it or leave it, what could we make forward momentum on, that could set a good example for others on a larger scale to work with?

[Gemma13]

So, the whole Q mystery unraveled at that moment.

It was over.

Now, everyone knew for certain that Q is a Zionist, a warmonger, and that the whole Q thing is propaganda.

Everyone knew.

Everyone.

But, at the speed of light, cognitive dissonance performed its miraculous task of disengaging the critical thinking pathways, and the new issue instead became the rude interruption of Dennis Leahy. How dare he! How dare he read Q's words and figure out that those words are a declaration of solidarity with the primary agenda of the Zionists! Slander him! Attack his character!

Q: "What was the first thing that you did when you heard Q come out as a Zionist and warmonger?"
A: "Oh, I chased after Dennis Leahy with a big stick. Damn party pooper!"



WOW so sorry the Q debate appears, perhaps in your mind, to be all about you because some people don’t agree with your political perspectives and don’t take your article links as gospel evidence to back up your opinions.

Do you even consider that your oracle may not hold the absolute truth? Maybe if you talked to people with a shred of equality you would hold more sway.



There are Q loyalists that would (and will continue to) create excuses for Q no matter what. Q could dig up your grandma's corpse and have sex with it, and some of the Q loyalists would find a way to excuse it.

Bloody hell mate, seriously? Hey, don’t hold back . . .

Talk about “elephants in the room”.

[Iloveyou]

As a follower from the sidelines with an intense desire to look through there‘s one thing I‘d love to hear/read above all:

I‘d love the Q-researchers to name three, five, oh better ten examples where Q drops seemed to be misleading, meaningless or somehow disturbing and made them unsecure about the whole thing for a split second.

And I‘d love the Q-critics to name the three, five, oh better ten examples where the Q group did great work, published important and verifyable messages and made them think ‚hmm Q . . . not bad‘ for a moment.

Such moments must exist. If it is a hoax and psy-op all together there must be valuable information in it, too . . . and vice versa. If Q truly were the chance of the century to get rid of the deep state/evil/controllers part of it is coopted and infiltrated, too, of course.

I know the topic is Q-related censorship/or not - so it is slightly edge-topic. It‘d belong to another Q-thread, I‘ve lost the overview of which is which. Apologies for the imprecise choice of words. To think along the lines suggested above would require genuine courage, I guess. It would not change a thing about who/what Q in reality is but it would change the opponent’s attitude towards each other, maybe.

I‘m tempted to make the 100% right prediction that this post will go unnoticed and drown in this sea of irrationality and hurt feelings. Or not.

[Gemma13]

As a follower from the sidelines with an intense desire to look through there‘s one thing I‘d love to hear/read above all:

I‘d love the Q-researchers to name three, five, oh better ten examples where Q drops seemed to be misleading, meaningless or somehow disturbing and made them unsecure about the whole thing for a split second.

And I‘d love the Q-critics to name the three, five, oh better ten examples where the Q group did great work, published important and verifyable messages and made them think ‚hmm Q . . . not bad‘ for a moment.

Such moments must exist. If it is a hoax and psy-op all together there must be valuable information in it, too . . . and vice versa. If Q truly were the chance of the century to get rid of the deep state/evil/controllers part of it is coopted and infiltrated, too, of course.

I know the topic is Q-related censorship/or not - so it is slightly edge-topic. It‘d belong to another Q-thread, I‘ve lost the overview of which is which. Apologies for the imprecise choice of words. To think along the lines suggested above would require genuine courage, I guess. It would not change a thing about who/what Q in reality is but it would change the opponent’s attitude towards each other, maybe.

I‘m tempted to make the 100% right prediction that this post will go unnoticed and drown in this sea of irrationality and hurt feelings. Or not.

:bump:

I think this is an excellent suggestion. Even to just open up a level playing field for people to gain a perspective from an informed neutral point as it is impossible to expect members wishing to discuss the censorship topic to spend hundreds of hours reading Q threads to try and piece together what is being said from both sides of the fence.

[Jad]

Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.

[Chuck]

Don't forget this is Bill's forum. Not Paul's, not Dennis', not edina's. Why doesn't someone start a Q forum? Here's free software: phpbb (https://www.phpbb.com/). You can have a whole forum without Q dissent, a whole forum of people to cheer on the Shadow Government's latest lackey, Trump. Why settle for one or two threads at Avalon?

Great idea! Anyone have a friendly forum in mind I (we) can go?

[PurpleLama]

There are old friends and family that I have, coming to tell me this or that about various deep state shennanigans which I've know about for years, if not decades. Whether Q is a larp or a military intelligence operation doesn't really matter to me, as the value is in people who are open to such ideas who before were not.

Is there disinfo or misinfo in the drops, sure, but a lot of it is true, too. It is definitely legitimate in a way that none of the previous witnesses/whistleblowers/insiders have been, as they've come and gone in the alt media.

I disagree with the action taken in removing the threads from public view, but I understand that the mods wish to not have the Q discussion as part of the public face of the forum. My own reading and research will go on, unimpeded.

[Gracy]

Don't forget this is Bill's forum. Not Paul's, not Dennis', not edina's. Why doesn't someone start a Q forum? Here's free software: phpbb (https://www.phpbb.com/). You can have a whole forum without Q dissent, a whole forum of people to cheer on the Shadow Government's latest lackey, Trump. Why settle for one or two threads at Avalon?

Great idea! Anyone have a friendly forum in mind I (we) can go?

Well, besides the friendly forum you're already on Chuck, and the suggestion from Dennis as a supplement, i hear 8 chan is just lovely this time of year to satisfy all of ones q needs. :flower:

In all seriousness though, there is always room for differering parties of good faith to find agreeable middle ground. Actually wasnt it already found?

[Pam]

...Last year, when I called out Dennis for his behavior in the Q thread, at the time, it was because I felt Dennis was essentially harrassing Paul.

For three or more pages people tried to have a civil conversation with him. I felt he did not reply in kind.

He painted all members of that thread with broad negative stereotyping.

And refused to consider or respect the information others presented to him.

Paul remained calm and gentlemanly throughout the whole exchange. As he always does.

It sounds to me as if someone in the background has stirred up a case against Paul?

I often felt that people were taking advantage of Paul's good nature.

Paul left for many reasons, and in a positive way that continued to support and respect Avalon.

Maligning his character is completely uncalled for.


...I'm not really into the whole "name and shame" thing. ...but you've decided to make an exception to name and shame Dennis Leahy. Actually, what you've done is termed "slander."

The tl/dr in the Q thread was me, entering that thread to ask if it was true, that Q was actually broadcasting the same message as the Zionists for the past decades. I quickly found out 1.) it was true, Q came out as a Zionist and warmonger, 2.) not one single qanon researcher at Avalon, not one, even noticed, and 3.) when the actual exact words/meme/tweet that Q had 'dropped' were repeated in the thread, with alarms ringing and searchlights highlighting that this was Q overtly coming out as a Zionist and warmonger, the qanon "researchers" wanted to blast me out of the thread rather than sit in stunned silence and recognize reality. One qanon researcher declared that Q's words actually meant the exact opposite of what was written by Q. (If it hasn't been edited, go take a look, it would be hilarious if it wasn't deadly serious war propaganda that was the subject.)

So, the whole Q mystery unraveled at that moment.

It was over.

Now, everyone knew for certain that Q is a Zionist, a warmonger, and that the whole Q thing is propaganda.

Everyone knew.

Everyone.

But, at the speed of light, cognitive dissonance performed its miraculous task of disengaging the critical thinking pathways, and the new issue instead became the rude interruption of Dennis Leahy. How dare he! How dare he read Q's words and figure out that those words are a declaration of solidarity with the primary agenda of the Zionists! Slander him! Attack his character!

Q: "What was the first thing that you did when you heard Q come out as a Zionist and warmonger?"
A: "Oh, I chased after Dennis Leahy with a big stick. Damn party pooper!"

Turns out, I wasn't the only one (https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/05/26/how-you-can-be-100-certain-that-qanon-is-bull****/) that heard the sound of the needle scratching across the record.

There are Q loyalists that would (and will continue to) create excuses for Q no matter what. Q could dig up your grandma's corpse and have sex with it, and some of the Q loyalists would find a way to excuse it.

Now, here we are, months later, with the qanon "researchers" still averting their eyes and pretending that Q is not a Zionist and a warmonger and partisan cheerleader for the Deep State's Commander-in-Chief du jour (currently conducting war in at least 4 sovereign nations - all of which were on the Deep State agenda before trump came to office.)

What to do?

Oh, I know! Slander Dennis Leahy some more! He's a witch! See if he floats!

-----------------

Paul. I gave Paul my friendship, and "worked" with him for years here. I'm actually embarrassed to admit that I thought we had a deep bond more like family than just friends - it was evidently all in my head. I also admit that I tried to save Paul from the Q cult, because he was my friend, and he was falling for a con. He did later (in the mods area) make it very clear to me that he was not my friend. In the mods area, he basically ruled the Q thread - for instance, when members complained about one poster placing his "my take" links to an online blog/column in (I think it was) the New York Times, Paul overruled everyone, said it was fine, said that it helped spread the Q message to the NYT crowd, and "case closed." Most of the mods just shut up (now, they all left.) Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable. Bill and the mods were trying to figure out just where the negativity and assholishness was coming from, and sure, some came from "Voice_", but I could see the 2 main vectors: I called them the elephants in the room. One was the Q thread protected from dissent (every other thread on Avalon allowed dissent), and the other is that Bill has stated that he supports Trump (which I'm convinced is actually not true, I believe that he supported -past tense- warlock trump against witch hillary, and doesn't actually support a single one of trump's actions.) In both cases, it helped to feather a nest for one of the US duopoly political parties and for Q supporters.

----------------

Censoring:
The 'flat earth' cult and blue chicken cult are subjects that have been shoved off the table here. In my opinion, the Q thread is ruined, permanently toxic because it did not allow dissent. There SHOULD have been a Q thread here at Avalon, just not a US republican party cheerleading thread. Having a thread opposing Q (started by a qanon believer, and overrun with pro-Q rhetoric) was NOT the same as having unbiased people examine the "Q drops" one-by-one, in real-time, and post dissenting commentary. If the existing thread remains (I'm sure it will), it should include disclaimers that it is not from normal Project Avalon discourse with dissent, that it is nearly 100% pro-Q and pro-Trump biased thread created by Q supporters and Trump supporters. Embarrassing for Avalon to be associated with Q believers and Trump defenders. There is no good solution when I consider that the thread that the Q supporters and Trump supporters want is utterly biased, and worst of all, never ending.

Don't forget this is Bill's forum. Not Paul's, not Dennis', not edina's. Why doesn't someone start a Q forum? Here's free software: phpbb (https://www.phpbb.com/). You can have a whole forum without Q dissent, a whole forum of people to cheer on the Shadow Government's latest lackey, Trump. Why settle for one or two threads at Avalon?

So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach. Your intervention happened happened while Bill stepped away from the forum for a few days? You state you were asked because you will not shy away from getting things done? I am not sure how anyone could expect you to react objectively with your intense feelings about it. Correct me if I am misunderstanding what you said.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

I've uploaded a few videos to youtube and I don't allow comments because apparently everyone that comments on youtube videos are morons. I don't want to deal with their bull****. Censorship? Yes, and thank god it's an option.

Yes, thank god that is an option. But that censorship is done by you, on your own channel, taking control of your own content. This matter is quite different.

[Bill Ryan]

Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.
I actually thought of posting that as a rhetorical question, to continue to make the point.

Like:

Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?

[Bill Ryan]

Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so don’t like to be misread.
The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust I’m gone.

The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.

Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.

[edina]

Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.
I actually thought of posting that as a rhetorical question, to continue to make the point.

Like:

Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?

If you were to take such an action it would need to happen in a way that was consistent with the principles of the forum.

Also, there would be the problem of many people feeling as if there has been a "break in trust" in that the overall historical agreement was to keep the information open and easily accessible.

This would become an issue apart from the "censorship" question.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?

An interesting point. I wouldn't count making the whole forum private as censorship. Censorship is more cherry-picking what you do or don't want visible. Blanket privacy however would definitely be a disservice to the viewing public at large. When you remove their access to the content, you remove any incentive to join.

It would also turn Avalon into a sort of private club, accessed only by special referral. Applications would likely be few and far between. This would lead to intellectual and spiritual stagnation. A true echo chamber. To stay alive, as it always has, Avalon needs a constant flow of information, of ideas and energy, and for that its needs a constant flow of people. Just my opinion.

[gini]

:sun:

Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so don’t like to be misread.
The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust I’m gone.

The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.

Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.

Bill,I thank you for this post ,because of the clarifying position you have about Avalon not being a platform for partisan polititcal debate.I didnt knew that for sure,now i do. To close all political threads would be a pity in my personal view,but it would indeed neutralize the feelings of choosing sides and biased 'censorship'. Btw i find this a most interesting and refreshing debate.Thanx everybody for being so involved,it warms my heart:sun:

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.

I understand why you'd want to do that Bill, I really do. And part of me agrees, 100%. I don't like the beating of those drums either - I've never owned a drum or any drumsticks of my own. But I imagine it'd be a thankless task to moderate every political discussion of every single kind across the board, because so many things, one way or another, come back to politics.

What you're trying to do is discipline an unruly classroom after the fight has broken out. Ideally, more rigorous rules of conduct need to be laid down before the students walk in. Not to impose obedience or conditioning, but to inculcate a standard of what is expected. Something that promotes self-moderation.

Usually Avalon is very good at that. It's a very kind, open, and nurturing space. Q I think has been it's most difficult test. People have drawn lines in the sand, and that's wrong. And I mean that for both sides of the argument. Enlightened civilizations don't even have any lines - not from what I understand. They don't even have politics. The people govern themselves, by governing their own actions, and interactions, and by taking responsibility. I'd much rather see that beginning to take shoot on Avalon once again, rather than the teacher's stick coming out.

[Frank V]

Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable.

So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach.

It is quite peculiar, then, that Paul was not being held up to those very same standards by the QAnon fans, while it seems perfectly fine with them to slag Dennis.

Ahhh, those double standards are so convenient, aren't they? :facepalm:



https://i1.wp.com/bsahely.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cognitive-dissonance.jpg?resize=800%2C600&ssl=1

[Pam]

Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable.

So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach.

It is quite peculiar, then, that Paul was not being held up to those very same standards by the QAnon fans, while it seems perfectly fine with them to slag Dennis.

Ahhh, those double standards are so convenient, aren't they? :facepalm:



https://i1.wp.com/bsahely.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/cognitive-dissonance.jpg?resize=800%2C600&ssl=1

I do not represent Q anon fans. What I say is my opinion only. Isn't the ability to be unbiased and unemotional a good trait while moderating? I would certainly think so. I know if I was a moderator I would never moderate sights related to Veganism or animal cruelty because I would not be able to to be objective, unbiased and unemotional. You read a lot in there that I didn't say.

I find it interesting that it seems hard to understand that something can be defended on principal without being a part of it.

[mojo]

I do not represent Q anon fans. What I say is my opinion only. Isn't the ability to be unbiased and unemotional a good trait while moderating?



It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.
Hi Bill,
Im sorry if it was any doing on my part that caused angst to anyone but do have a question thats seems begging to be asked. Doesn'tt the responses provided by the mods/admin in this very thread sound political

[Frank V]

Paul wasn't just publicly protecting the Q thread from dissent, he controlled it from the admin/mod standpoint as well.

As Bill has already told everyone, Paul wasn't listening to Bill either. I think it is wonderful that a number of people are praising Paul for all the work he did - he put in more hours than you could believe - but the reality is that Paul did create a huge problem by protecting the Q thread from dissent. Protected, some members (like that "Voice_" guy) started taking the alt-right trump pep rally out into other various threads, and a forum exodus of frustrated, fed-up, long-time members began.

The reason Bill has asked me several times to come back into the mods and help out is because he knows I'll be honest, and will not shy away from something just because it is uncomfortable.

So you were asked to come back as a moderator to help out? Personally, I find it rather strange that someone with such strong, emotional opinions about the topic would be selected to deal with the Q issue since a moderator is supposed to maintain an unbiased approach.

It is quite peculiar, then, that Paul was not being held up to those very same standards by the QAnon fans, while it seems perfectly fine with them to slag Dennis.

Ahhh, those double standards are so convenient, aren't they? :facepalm:

I do not represent Q anon fans. What I say is my opinion only. Isn't the ability to be unbiased and unemotional a good trait while moderating? I would certainly think so. I know if I was a moderator I would never moderate sights related to Veganism or animal cruelty because I would not be able to to be objective, unbiased and unemotional. You read a lot in there that I didn't say.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying your vantage. But you are (obviously) not the only person who's been "criticizing" Dennis ─ and that's a euphemism for what has been going on here lately ─ and it is all too obvious that (certain) people aren't willing to give him the same credit as they've given Paul.

Not only that, but they're even overextending the credit given to Paul ─ and for the record, I am speaking of his role as a staff member on account of the QAnon threads now, because Paul certainly does deserve credit for his technical contributions to Project Avalon as an administrator.


I find it interesting that it seems hard to understand that something can be defended on principal without being a part of it.

But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.

[petra]

Bill have you ever considered making the whole forum private and not just some threads? That extra step to view the content might be a blessing in disguise.
I actually thought of posting that as a rhetorical question, to continue to make the point.

Like:

Some people here think that making a small part of Avalon private is 'censorship'.

So would making the whole forum private also be censorship, but far, far worse?

No... I think it'd be better.

I don't call that censorship... I call that "privileged information" :)

If you were privatize ALL the content, robots won't be able to secretly download / catalogue / analyze it (unless they have an account). I imagine it'd be obvious to Admins here if I tried to download/catalogue the entire Member Only area.

I didn't need to read any postings before I joined either. The introduction on the main page, and referral from a friend were enough to make me know I wanted to join.



An interesting point. I wouldn't count making the whole forum private as censorship. Censorship is more cherry-picking what you do or don't want visible. Blanket privacy however would definitely be a disservice to the viewing public at large. When you remove their access to the content, you remove any incentive to join.

It would also turn Avalon into a sort of private club, accessed only by special referral. Applications would likely be few and far between. This would lead to intellectual and spiritual stagnation. A true echo chamber. To stay alive, as it always has, Avalon needs a constant flow of information, of ideas and energy, and for that its needs a constant flow of people. Just my opinion.

I read this part afterward, and this is a really good point - there's probably a good many member applications due to the public postings - I just wasn't one of them.

[Jad]

[I][B] Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)



Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.

Thanks for letting us know that you are considering closing all the political threads. I genuinely appreciate your transparency about this issue. I hope that you don’t go through with it though because the political issues are part of our human experience on earth, and we can’t just pretend it doesn’t exist. As for the Q material, now that it’s in the members area, can we put it under one section called Q research and we can put a red disclaimer on top that states that Project Avalon and BR don’t endorse any of this information just like what’s happening on the channeling thread. Again I’m not pro Q or Trump or any politician, but I think the data is very important and who knows it might be beneficial in the future as a case study.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.

Defending neutrality..? It's the exact opposite. In taking this stance, neutrality has been abolished. It's unfathomable to me that this point is just not getting across.

And yes I see the other side of the fence. Paul probably did plant his flag too deep in the ground on the side of Q. He should, with hindsight, have taken a more even stance himself; contribute where he thought it apt, and moderate, as was his job, where necessary. Mistakes have been made, on both sides, but that's all said and done now. Regrettably, to Avalon's vast detriment, he has gone. How to set about picking up the pieces is what's important now. I don't see a whole lot of positive feedback to that effect taking place in this thread right now. And I include Dennis in that as well.

[PurpleLama]

But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.

Defending neutrality..? It's the exact opposite. In taking this stance, neutrality has been abolished. It's unfathomable to me that this point is just not getting across.

And yes I see the other side of the fence. Paul probably did plant his flag too deep in the ground on the side of Q. He should, with hindsight, have taken a more even stance himself; contribute where he thought it apt, and moderate, as was his job, where necessary. Mistakes have been made, on both sides, but that's all said and done now. Regrettably, to Avalon's vast detriment, he has gone. How to set about picking up the pieces is what's important now. I don't see a whole lot of positive feedback to that effect taking place in this thread right now. And I include Dennis in that as well.

Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

I like Dennis and Paul, and I've never had any significant disagreement with either of them. That said, in my less than vigilant observation of their interaction with the various aspects of the discussion around Q, Paul's approach seemed the more balanced, the less emotional, of the two. At various times I would find myself in agreement with either man, and no respect was lost from me for either in the event of any opinions expressed that I happened to disagree with. We already lost Paul over this matter, and I wouldn't run Dennis off over what should rapidly be becoming water under the bridge, so to speak.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

But isn't that what Dennis was doing, then? As I understand him ─ and I think I understand him very well ─ he was only defending Project Avalon's neutrality in this matter.

Defending neutrality..? It's the exact opposite. In taking this stance, neutrality has been abolished. It's unfathomable to me that this point is just not getting across.

And yes I see the other side of the fence. Paul probably did plant his flag too deep in the ground on the side of Q. He should, with hindsight, have taken a more even stance himself; contribute where he thought it apt, and moderate, as was his job, where necessary. Mistakes have been made, on both sides, but that's all said and done now. Regrettably, to Avalon's vast detriment, he has gone. How to set about picking up the pieces is what's important now. I don't see a whole lot of positive feedback to that effect taking place in this thread right now. And I include Dennis in that as well.

Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

I like Dennis and Paul, and I've never had any significant disagreement with either of them. That said, in my less than vigilant observation of their interaction with the various aspects of the discussion around Q, Paul's approach seemed the more balanced, the less emotional, of the two. At various times I would find myself in agreement with either man, and no respect was lost from me for either in the event of any opinions expressed that I happened to disagree with. We already lost Paul over this matter, and I wouldn't run Dennis off over what should rapidly be becoming water under the bridge, so to speak.

Yes agree totality. I also have a great deal of respect and admiration for Dennis and Paul and everyone else. It's unfortunate they ended up locking horns on this issue.

I just think that emotion has thrown too much of its weight into reaching conclusions and making decisions, and that's also unfortunate. That's really the point I was trying to make: let's uphold neutrality/transparency and maintain an equitable point of view, at least until the jury is completely out. And I guess that's the crux of the issue. The jury is not out on Q. Not with many of us - we're still working on this - and that needs to be respected (but isn't).

[greybeard]

Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
Chris

[edina]

Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
Chris

This conversation is supposed to be about censorship.

It seems Bill is considering some changes in how the forum will operate.

I think he's putting this out to listen to people's thoughts on the issue.

The action taken regarding the Q threads seemed to have served as a catalyst for rethinking and maybe re-imagining Avalon.

It's understandable the catalyst for the topic would slip into the topic itself.

I may add I consider this a very healthy process.

[AutumnW]

It's strange that there is an easy consensus around the Blue Chicken cult and Emery Smith's bogus material, but there is a stubborn resistance by Q-cultists to recognize Q-anon is just as silly and even more counter-productive.

It's astonishing to me that simply making hoax material for members only has engendered such howls of anguish and sorrow. It's as if Bill Ryan has stolen a Mormon's sacred underpants and forbidden them from going door to door.

Some people have to just get a grip and get a life!

[Bubu]

I found it interesting that the Q threads were move to members only right after Q was proven hoax beyond doubt. I am against any form of hiding. Including Q thread and I am anti Q right from start. "Let the children learn from their mistakes as long as it does not put them in grave danger". that's is one of my principles which I think applies to Q phenom as well. Is Q putting members in grave danger?

No to all banning, political or otherwise. Let the members learn from experience rather than curtail freedom which is wrong beyond doubt.

So my question to myself; What did I learn from this?

[AutumnW]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

[mojo]

Wanted to add a critical point....
I too wish to hear Dennis' voice on the forum even though we disagree on points of view and others with the same philosophy as him. There's an old Proverb that has stuck in my mind...


As iron sharpens iron,
so one person sharpens another.

[Frank V]

Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

Now that's what I call "putting an insidious spin on things" ─ shoot the messenger, rather than the message, right?

If you want to throw The One Truth into this equation, then I'd appreciate it if you were at least being honest about the facts.



First of all, The One Truth is not my forum. The owner of the forum, for those who do not know this, is a man named Malcolm Taylor ─ with the colorful screen name The One ─ and you know this very well. In fact, you yourself were already a member at The One Truth long before I ever knew that it existed.


Secondly, I don't run The One Truth on my own. Apart from Malc ─ who, granted, doesn't spend a lot of time online anymore, but he does still speak his mind when it comes to important matters, such as the abuse of The One Truth by your friend turiya as a platform for outspoken far-right propaganda and hate speech ─ I work with four other team members, and we always decide on things as a team.


Thirdly, in spite of the obvious denial of the facts among many members here at Project Avalon ─ and the same denial that also still lives on in one or possibly two of the members at The One Truth ─ our information was sufficiently convincing to classify the whole QAnon phenomenon as a LARP that turned into a psyop when one of the individuals posting as Q at the 8Chan message board was contacted by an agent of the Israeli intelligence.

All of our staff members were in agreement on that. Ergo, we've put the QAnon thread under our Proven Hoaxes & Misinformation category, along with turiya's propaganda threads. Nevertheless, the main QAnon thread over at The One Truth still remains open and is also still regularly being posted to, albeit at a far lower frequency than is the case here at Project Avalon, because ─ I repeat ─ only one or possibly two of our members are interested in that stuff.

[Belle]

Are we or are we not all sovereign beings having a right to our individual beliefs?

When does trying to force one's will and beliefs on others ever work? ever cause anything other than division, ill will, anger?

It's like nothing but full and complete capitulation to someone else's viewpoint is unacceptable...and so, the battle continues...and we all lose...PA most of all.

[PurpleLama]

It's strange that there is an easy consensus around the Blue Chicken cult and Emery Smith's bogus material, but there is a stubborn resistance by Q-cultists to recognize Q-anon is just as silly and even more counter-productive.

It's astonishing to me that simply making hoax material for members only has engendered such howls of anguish and sorrow. It's as if Bill Ryan has stolen a Mormon's sacred underpants and forbidden them from going door to door.

Some people have to just get a grip and get a life!

There is a wise old saying about not picking the speck out of your brother's eye before pulling the log out of your own eye. Your comments seem especially unhelpful, which I am coming to expect from you. Take a few steps back and reassess your relationship to this community before offering any more invectives, please.

[greybeard]

Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
Chris

This conversation is supposed to be about censorship.

It seems Bill is considering some changes in how the forum will operate.

I think he's putting this out to listen to people's thoughts on the issue.

The action taken regarding the Q threads seemed to have served as a catalyst for rethinking and maybe re-imagining Avalon.

It's understandable the catalyst for the topic would slip into the topic itself.

I may add I consider this a very healthy process.

I honestly dont thing its censorship as any member can fully discuss Q
Non members can join.
I could point out that the mass of Q pots were pushing other interesting subjects of the main page--if you werent quick you would miss something new of note.

I really dont mind but I do feel that the warring factions on that thread created a situation where Bill and the mods are much discussion decided to move the thread.
They brought it on their own head and now shout "This should not be"
Long term members leaving.
Its down to respect.
Any post including this one, will be subject to an opposing point of view--thats fine but civility costs nothing.
Chris

[PurpleLama]

Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

Now that's what I call "putting an insidious spin on things" ─ shoot the messenger, rather than the message, right?

If you want to throw The One Truth into this equation, then I'd appreciate it if you were at least being honest about the facts.



First of all, The One Truth is not my forum. The owner of the forum, for those who do not know this, is a man named Malcolm Taylor ─ with the colorful screen name The One ─ and you know this very well. In fact, you yourself were already a member at The One Truth long before I ever knew that it existed.


Secondly, I don't run The One Truth on my own. Apart from Malc ─ who, granted, doesn't spend a lot of time online anymore, but he does still speak his mind when it comes to important matters, such as the abuse of The One Truth by your friend turiya as a platform for outspoken far-right propaganda and hate speech ─ I work with four other team members, and we always decide on things as a team.


Thirdly, in spite of the obvious denial of the facts among many members here at Project Avalon ─ and the same denial that also still lives on in one or possibly two of the members at The One Truth ─ our information was sufficiently convincing to classify the whole QAnon phenomenon as a LARP that turned into a psyop when one of the individuals posting as Q at the 8Chan message board was contacted by an agent of the Israeli intelligence.

All of our staff members were in agreement on that. Ergo, we've put the QAnon thread under our Proven Hoaxes & Misinformation category, along with turiya's propaganda threads. Nevertheless, the main QAnon thread over at The One Truth still remains open and is also still regularly being posted to, albeit at a far lower frequency than is the case here at Project Avalon, because ─ I repeat ─ only one or possibly two of our members are interested in that stuff.


I understand you well, Aragorn. I don't expect you to see past your own biases and opinions in regard to the whole matter, my point was salient enough to start with. You have many characteristics I admire, but unfortunately I can not say so without some qualification. I see propaganda coming from the left and the right, readily enough. I would just as soon not discuss politics, especially American politics, with you, so as to maintain a healthy aquaintance. Others on this board might not realize how entrenched your own perspective is around the matter, hence my passing remark, as it isn't really a secret over on TOT.

[edina]

Seems that Q ,in disguise , is still occupying most of the space on the front page of the forum--- smiling
Chris

This conversation is supposed to be about censorship.

It seems Bill is considering some changes in how the forum will operate.

I think he's putting this out to listen to people's thoughts on the issue.

The action taken regarding the Q threads seemed to have served as a catalyst for rethinking and maybe re-imagining Avalon.

It's understandable the catalyst for the topic would slip into the topic itself.

I may add I consider this a very healthy process.

I could point out that the mass of Q pots were pushing other interesting subjects of the main page--if you werent quick you would miss something new of note.


I'm not sure what you're saying is accurate.

The Q thread was just one thread. Then later a couple of more added. 3 threads, tops.

And new posts to each thread, would only update that thread.

On the main page, there are many threads listed. Many.

On the new posts page there are even more threads listed, and it goes on for many pages.

I often click through all those pages to get a sense of what's been posted.

New posts and especially new threads never miss my attention when I look for them.

That said, I use the subscription function of the forum to keep myself focused.

Often I have time to only look at what I have subscribed to. It's super efficient.

[Matthew]

...
In my opinion, the Q thread is ruined, permanently toxic because it did not allow dissent
...

I couldn't agree more. With unmitigated scepticism I could seriously enjoy the Q phenomenon. Sound strange? Feels exactly right. But without the distance dissent would give me, I fight to get that distance. I'm an ignorant and obtuse dreamer: I hope both sides can go back to forum public one day. Before possibly loosely affirming a protocol that agreeing to disagree is probably OK, combined with awareness of hit and run posting (it's value and when it goes wrong). I'm still thinking the light at the end of the tunnel is an oncoming train though, but it might be a party train. And it's a polite, brave as it can muster and honest to a fault train. Thanks for sharing your perspective on this painful, traumatic errr.. episode? chapter? series? bull****?

[Bubu]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

I have thought of that too. But I think hiding it will hamper learning more than help. In fact people often only learn when damage been done.

[Bubu]

There was some mention of Paul being "nice and missed". I just want to mention this for reminders. Let's not forget that one of the forums nicest members was retired recently for deliberately causing troubles. The wolf will normally wear a sheeps clothing ... I normally look for intent than niceness. That being said I dont have any regret for loosing Paul.

Back to topic.

[Ratszinger]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

All imagination not based on fact at all! Live in fear much? What was Goode and Wilcock and what is Gaia TV but much of the same? Based on this logic the entire forum should be shut down for being controversial and prone to being taken over by cults! Grow up! What are we helpless children now? You all are pathetic wimps! Seriously! Grow a pair!

[Mike]

I found it interesting that the Q threads were move to members only right after Q was proven hoax beyond doubt. I am against any form of hiding. Including Q thread and I am anti Q right from start. "Let the children learn from their mistakes as long as it does not put them in grave danger". that's is one of my principles which I think applies to Q phenom as well. Is Q putting members in grave danger?

No to all banning, political or otherwise. Let the members learn from experience rather than curtail freedom which is wrong beyond doubt.

So my question to myself; What did I learn from this?



Bubu, thanks for that. I do understand where you're coming from.

Ok, let's just say Q is a hoax for a moment. You suggested we let the members go thru the process of making the mistake of indulging that material.

But for how long? And at what cost?

What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?

What then?

I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem

[Frank V]

Keep in mind, on Aragorn's forum, all Q threads are under the subforum "known hoaxes", so his assessments are rather unadmittedly slanted around this whole issue.

Now that's what I call "putting an insidious spin on things" ─ shoot the messenger, rather than the message, right?

If you want to throw The One Truth into this equation, then I'd appreciate it if you were at least being honest about the facts.



First of all, The One Truth is not my forum. The owner of the forum, for those who do not know this, is a man named Malcolm Taylor ─ with the colorful screen name The One ─ and you know this very well. In fact, you yourself were already a member at The One Truth long before I ever knew that it existed.


Secondly, I don't run The One Truth on my own. Apart from Malc ─ who, granted, doesn't spend a lot of time online anymore, but he does still speak his mind when it comes to important matters, such as the abuse of The One Truth by your friend turiya as a platform for outspoken far-right propaganda and hate speech ─ I work with four other team members, and we always decide on things as a team.


Thirdly, in spite of the obvious denial of the facts among many members here at Project Avalon ─ and the same denial that also still lives on in one or possibly two of the members at The One Truth ─ our information was sufficiently convincing to classify the whole QAnon phenomenon as a LARP that turned into a psyop when one of the individuals posting as Q at the 8Chan message board was contacted by an agent of the Israeli intelligence.

All of our staff members were in agreement on that. Ergo, we've put the QAnon thread under our Proven Hoaxes & Misinformation category, along with turiya's propaganda threads. Nevertheless, the main QAnon thread over at The One Truth still remains open and is also still regularly being posted to, albeit at a far lower frequency than is the case here at Project Avalon, because ─ I repeat ─ only one or possibly two of our members are interested in that stuff.


I understand you well, Aragorn. I don't expect you to see past your own biases and opinions in regard to the whole matter, my point was salient enough to start with.

And here you go, doing it again, PurpleLama. My "own biases and opinions". What you are doing here, and what you did in your other post that I was replying to ─ and as is still quoted-in here-above ─ is raising a not-so-subtle innuendo among the Project Avalon members who do not know me, and/or who do not know The One Truth. And for that matter, it is an untruthful innuendo ─ I believe it even qualifies as gaslighting.


You have many characteristics I admire, but unfortunately I can not say so without some qualification. I see propaganda coming from the left and the right, readily enough. I would just as soon not discuss politics, especially American politics, with you, so as to maintain a healthy aquaintance. Others on this board might not realize how entrenched your own perspective is around the matter, hence my passing remark, as it isn't really a secret over on TOT.

"How entrenched my own perspective is"? More gaslighting? Look, I don't care much for politics, and I certainly don't care much for US-centric matters either. And when it comes to The One Truth, then when someone posts left-wing propaganda ─ and it has already happened, even though not even by a long shot comparable to the infestation with right-wing propaganda that we've had to fight off ─ then that person will also be put in their place, and by myself personally.

Propaganda is propaganda, period, and neither Malc, nor I myself, nor any of our other staff members will allow The One Truth to be used for any kind of propaganda. I have actually even already banned someone for posting ─ or rather, spamming ─ Islamic propaganda.

There is news, there is research, there are opinions, and then there is propaganda. All four of those things are distinct concepts. And if you're going to accuse me of being opinionated in this matter, then you should first and foremost acknowledge that you too have your "opinions and biases" in that very same matter ─ as does everyone. In the end, all of individuated life is subjective ─ thesis and antithesis ─ and only the Source is objective, because Source is the sole holder of ultimate synthesis.

The best we can do is try and obtain a neutral and as-objective-as-possible outlook. And unfortunately ─ and now this puts us back onto the topic of this thread ─ there are all too many people whose personal political preferences and lack of an international perspective cause them to rebel against the host of the house where they are guests.

Only a few days ago, and on another thread, I was chewed up and spat out because of a photo of Bill that had been posted at The One Truth by another member in the past ─ a photo of which it was claimed that it had been doctored, while (as I've been able to ascertain in the meantime) the link to that photo actually points to the Project Avalon server itself ─ and I was told that if the person who chewed me up and spat me out had been the owner of The One Truth, then they would have kicked me off of the forum.

And yet at the same time, there is another person here who threatened to "finish off" Project Avalon on their blog if the QAnon threads are not made public again, and this person is allowed to remain a member here? If anyone were to utter such a threat over at The One Truth, then I would personally kick them off the forum.

Now there is a perspective for you, Purple One. Foodses for thoughtses, Preciousss.



Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.

Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

[Constance]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

I have thought of that too. But I think hiding it will hamper learning more than help. In fact people often only learn when damage been done.

There are two ways we can learn, through suffering or inspiration.

[edina]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

I have thought of that too. But I think hiding it will hamper learning more than help. In fact people often only learn when damage been done.

There are two ways we can learn, through suffering or inspiration.

Humans learn best by discovering for themselves.

This can be done through many methods.

It's uncanny because where others are seeing a "cult" or "hoax", I see people becoming "inspired".

It's possible that the high-energy of the Q movement is coming from people doing their own research and in doing so discovering for themselves what many of us have discovered in our own journeys.

Inspiration is a higher energy state, for sure.

[PurpleLama]

The best we can do is try and obtain a neutral and as-objective-as-possible outlook. And unfortunately ─ and now this puts us back onto the topic of this thread ─ there are all too many people whose personal political preferences and lack of an international perspective cause them to rebel against the host of the house where they are guests.

The problem is, it is all a matter of perspective. What I see on tot is anything right wing being deemed as propaganda, while left wing propaganda reigns unchecked, by members and staff alike. Perhaps you have your own precious, that you've yet to recognize.

I know you are a good dude. If I really wanted to gaslight you, I would just make a long post about the correlation between vaccines and autism.*. Seriously, though, a lot of people rightly accuse people on either side of a debate of wearing blinders, all the while ignoring their own. Recognizing one's own biases while approaching a discussion is laudable, and I how we can each do that as we continue this discussion of what is or isn't censorship, and what should or shouldn't be allowed in the realm of public forum discourse.

*This is just an overt poke at Aragorn, meant to be a joke and not to introduce another topic into the thread.

Addendum:. Just because you happen to agree/disagree with something does not mean it is/isn't propaganda.

[PurpleLama]

I found it interesting that the Q threads were move to members only right after Q was proven hoax beyond doubt. I am against any form of hiding. Including Q thread and I am anti Q right from start. "Let the children learn from their mistakes as long as it does not put them in grave danger". that's is one of my principles which I think applies to Q phenom as well. Is Q putting members in grave danger?

No to all banning, political or otherwise. Let the members learn from experience rather than curtail freedom which is wrong beyond doubt.

So my question to myself; What did I learn from this?



Bubu, thanks for that. I do understand where you're coming from.

Ok, let's just say Q is a hoax for a moment. You suggested we let the members go thru the process of making the mistake of indulging that material.

But for how long? And at what cost?

What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?

What then?

I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem

From my own perspective, I see a very small number of people very energetically for or against Q, while the rest of the forum seems to run on without impediment.

[edina]

I found it interesting that the Q threads were move to members only right after Q was proven hoax beyond doubt. I am against any form of hiding. Including Q thread and I am anti Q right from start. "Let the children learn from their mistakes as long as it does not put them in grave danger". that's is one of my principles which I think applies to Q phenom as well. Is Q putting members in grave danger?

No to all banning, political or otherwise. Let the members learn from experience rather than curtail freedom which is wrong beyond doubt.

So my question to myself; What did I learn from this?



Bubu, thanks for that. I do understand where you're coming from.

Ok, let's just say Q is a hoax for a moment. You suggested we let the members go thru the process of making the mistake of indulging that material.

But for how long? And at what cost?

What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?

What then?

I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem

From my own perspective, I see a very small number of people very energetically for or against Q, while the rest of the forum seems to run on without impediment.

Thanks PurpleLama, my life is much larger than the Avalon forum.

I'm talking about the Q movement as a whole.

And I agree, the forum seems to run quite well.

I never saw the "impediment".

[Frank V]

The best we can do is try and obtain a neutral and as-objective-as-possible outlook. And unfortunately ─ and now this puts us back onto the topic of this thread ─ there are all too many people whose personal political preferences and lack of an international perspective cause them to rebel against the host of the house where they are guests.

The problem is, it is all a matter of perspective. What I see on tot is anything right wing being deemed as propaganda, while left wing propaganda reigns unchecked, by members and staff alike

That is not true. But perhaps you maintain another definition of propaganda. We have no objections to opinions being posted ─ the discussions that spring from opinions are always food for thought, and everyone benefits from that ─ but propaganda is biased and misleading information. And when that gets posted at The One Truth, then we will object to it, whether it's left, right, up or down.

On the other hand, in turiya's case, it was overt propaganda, and there was no discussion whatsoever, nor did he abide by the staff's requests (and later, insistence) to stop doing it. He simply flipped us the bird and carried on. And whenever we then closed down whatever thread he was posting propaganda to, he would then quickly start an innocent and unrelated thread as a diversion tactic, and then by the next day already, he would continue building up the propaganda again on yet other, already existing threads that he himself hadn't even started. So there was no alternative but to ban him. He was disfiguring our front door, and he was flipping us the bird on account of the rules of the house.

The people who post left-wing stuff ─ and occasionally left-wing propaganda ─ are being slapped on the wrist just the same, but the difference is that they then acknowledge that they've gone too far, and they will refrain from doing it again ─ barring an occasional slip-up. But that's a long way from an endless and non-stop stream of far-right propaganda being posted, including hate speech and offensive cartoons, and it is an equally long way from people who respect neither the rules of the house nor the members of the staff.

[Constance]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

I have thought of that too. But I think hiding it will hamper learning more than help. In fact people often only learn when damage been done.

There are two ways we can learn, through suffering or inspiration.

Humans learn best by discovering for themselves.

This can be done through many methods.

It's uncanny because where others are seeing a "cult" or "hoax", I see people becoming "inspired".

It's possible that the high-energy of the Q movement is coming from people doing their own research and in doing so discovering for themselves what many of us have discovered in our own journeys.

Inspiration is a higher energy state, for sure.

All the false realities that dwell within duality (including politics) are a bottomless pit. They really do go on forever.
Information without inspiration is just that, information. It doesn't cultivate true community, nurture our souls or lead to true growth. If I want to teach a child to read, I will inspire a child to read through having fun. I wouldn't try to inspire them by creating suffering for them.

I would infinity prefer to learn through inspiration :star:

[PurpleLama]

The best we can do is try and obtain a neutral and as-objective-as-possible outlook. And unfortunately ─ and now this puts us back onto the topic of this thread ─ there are all too many people whose personal political preferences and lack of an international perspective cause them to rebel against the host of the house where they are guests.

The problem is, it is all a matter of perspective. What I see on tot is anything right wing being deemed as propaganda, while left wing propaganda reigns unchecked, by members and staff alike

That is not true. But perhaps you maintain another definition of propaganda. We have no objections to opinions being posted ─ the discussions that spring from opinions are always food for thought, and everyone benefits from that ─ but propaganda is biased and misleading information. And when that gets posted at The One Truth, then we will object to it, whether it's left, right, up or down.

On the other hand, in turiya's case, it was overt propaganda, and there was no discussion whatsoever, nor did he abide by the staff's requests (and later, insistence) to stop doing it. He simply flipped us the bird and carried on. And whenever we then closed down whatever thread he was posting propaganda to, he would then quickly start an innocent and unrelated thread as a diversion tactic, and then by the next day already, he would continue building up the propaganda again on yet other, already existing threads that he himself hadn't even started. So there was no alternative but to ban him. He was disfiguring our front door, and he was flipping us the bird on account of the rules of the house.

The people who post left-wing stuff ─ and occasionally left-wing propaganda ─ are being slapped on the wrist just the same, but the difference is that they then acknowledge that they've gone too far, and they will refrain from doing it again ─ barring an occasional slip-up. But that's a long way from an endless and non-stop stream of far-right propaganda being posted, including hate speech and offensive cartoons, and it is an equally long way from people who respect neither the rules of the house nor the members of the staff.

I know you mean well. I also know you don't know what I'm pointing at. Really, it's fine, either way.

My own views tend to run the spectrum of any given debate, I care a lot about the environment but I think anthropormophic climate change is propaganda, just by way of example.

I believe a lot in personal freedom, specifically the first amendment, and I don't believe in hate speech as violence, rather I am more concerned with the violence of antifa against the proponents of free speech, yet I believe absolutely in the right of antifa to argue their views in a non-violent manner.

I believe in what is endowed in the individual human spirit, and all of it's manifold expressions, and I wouldn't squash it for anything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

I am perfectly willing to give you or anyone the benefit of a doubt, but at the same time I will call it as I see it. You are welcome to ascribe to me any attributes you perceive as well, and perhaps we we'll find some meeting of the minds. I am not especially hopeful, but life is full of surprises.

While we sit here tap tap tapping away on keyboards, there's a whole world out there needing our attention, and rather than argue about what is or isn't propaganda, we should be analyzing both to work on our solutions of where do we go from here.

Leftist neoliberal (corporate controlled) governments have had their heyday, and there is a rise of populism as a result. Populism isn't right or left, regardless of the propaganda to the contrary

[edina]

Bubu,

Avalon was becoming recruitment platform for a cult based on a hoax. Not something Avalon should be seen as endorsing. And as it always sat at the very top of the New Posts page, it was looking like that

It can take years and a lot of damage before people learn from their mistakes, if ever.

I have thought of that too. But I think hiding it will hamper learning more than help. In fact people often only learn when damage been done.

There are two ways we can learn, through suffering or inspiration.

Humans learn best by discovering for themselves.

This can be done through many methods.

It's uncanny because where others are seeing a "cult" or "hoax", I see people becoming "inspired".

It's possible that the high-energy of the Q movement is coming from people doing their own research and in doing so discovering for themselves what many of us have discovered in our own journeys.

Inspiration is a higher energy state, for sure.

All the false realities that dwell within duality (including politics) are a bottomless pit. They really do go on forever.
Information without inspiration is just that, information. It doesn't cultivate true community, nurture our souls or lead to true growth. If I want to teach a child to read, I will inspire a child to read through having fun. I wouldn't try to inspire them by creating suffering for them.

I would infinity prefer to learn through inspiration :star:

Politics has been given a bad rap in my opinion.

It's like there is cultural programming to treat political discussion like a sports discussion where people identify with one team or another, and there are winners and losers.

I remember soon after the 2016 election reading where one of the Senators or Congressman said, "We made a mistake by taking civics out of our school curriculum."

It was written in the context that there had been a hope (probably in the "demoralization" campaign) to have a disengaged Sovereign Public, so they could get away with doing whatever they want.

But, in this past election that strategy backfired. They only created a disenfranchised people, and lost control. They've been trying to regain control since.

Politics ought to be something everyone engages. It is where we make decisions, together. Every voice matters.

The problem is that the art and science of civil discourse was lost when civics was removed from the classroom. (I think in the 60's).

The Mockingbird Media is designed to keep people agitated with each other, in every direction.
That is where most of the manipulation is at.

Media was supposed to serve to engender an informed public. It was high-jacked.

The Mockingbird media isn't just Mainstream Media. Over the last ten or so years, I've been surprised to discover that much of so-called alternative media has also been hijacked.

Politics is a uniquely human activity, therefore it is also a spiritual activity. It's a part of the unity.

Anytime we try to push something away from us as if it doesn't have a right to exist, it creates duality. This is how the shadow-self is created.

What we reject goes underground and affects us in ways that we are less consciously aware of.

[Constance]

That is right. That old saying, "Whatever we resist persists." rings true to me.

From where I stand, to be spiritual is to honour the "spirit-in-u-all. So whenever I share it comes from a place that is all-inclusive, relevant, has to be accessible and attainable, practical and it has to honour all beings.

It is very true - we can decide that we are going to entertain all the false realities such as politics and then there is something else we can also do, we can decide that we can turn our backs on all of the dualistic false realities that no longer serve us. We can transcend all of that and head in a direction that truly serves ourselves and each other.

It isn't a matter of resisting politics here, we just don't need to entertain it any more as a way of being - we have other possibilities and potentials that can come through divine inspiration. We can turn our backs on the whole lot and start all over again.

We can focus with laser-like intention on what we really want for ourselves and each other. All the solutions to humanities plight are already on the earth.

We can truly inspire ourselves and each other if we were to gather around in the hugest huge campfire the world has ever seen, gathering all the brightest hearts and minds from every corner of the globe. If we were to sit in a round table discussion with every sector of community imagine the potentials and possibilities right there?

All the darkness, where does it go when we switch on the light? I was only sharing this morning that the darkness itself has no real substance - to try to rid ourselves of the dark forces is like scrubbing shadows off the wall. If we can truly put back what is missing (which is the love, light, life) then the darkness cannot resist this. :muscle:




Politics has been given a bad rap in my opinion.

It's like there is cultural programming to treat political discussion like a sports discussion where people identify with one team or another, and there are winners and losers.

I remember soon after the 2016 election reading where one of the Senators or Congressman said, "We made a mistake by taking civics out of our school curriculum."

It was written in the context that there had been a hope (probably in the "demoralization" campaign) to have a disengaged Sovereign Public, so they could get away with doing whatever they want.

But, in this past election that strategy backfired. They only created a disenfranchised people, and lost control. They've been trying to regain control since.

Politics ought to be something everyone engages. It is where we make decisions, together. Every voice matters.

The problem is that the art and science of civil discourse was lost when civics was removed from the classroom. (I think in the 60's).

The Mockingbird Media is designed to keep people agitated with each other, in every direction.
That is where most of the manipulation is at.

Media was supposed to serve to engender an informed public. It was high-jacked.

The Mockingbird media isn't just Mainstream Media. Over the last ten or so years, I've been surprised to discover that much of so-called alternative media has also been hijacked.

Politics is a uniquely human activity, therefore it is also a spiritual activity. It's a part of the unity.

Anytime we try to push something away from us as if it doesn't have a right to exist, it creates duality. This is how the shadow-self is created.

What we reject goes underground and affects us in ways that we are less consciously aware of.

[edina]

Politics has been given a bad rap in my opinion.

It's like there is cultural programming to treat political discussion like a sports discussion where people identify with one team or another, and there are winners and losers.

I remember soon after the 2016 election reading where one of the Senators or Congressman said, "We made a mistake by taking civics out of our school curriculum."

It was written in the context that there had been a hope (probably in the "demoralization" campaign) to have a disengaged Sovereign Public, so they could get away with doing whatever they want.

But, in this past election that strategy backfired. They only created a disenfranchised people, and lost control. They've been trying to regain control since.

Politics ought to be something everyone engages. It is where we make decisions, together. Every voice matters.

The problem is that the art and science of civil discourse was lost when civics was removed from the classroom. (I think in the 60's).

The Mockingbird Media is designed to keep people agitated with each other, in every direction.
That is where most of the manipulation is at.

Media was supposed to serve to engender an informed public. It was high-jacked.

The Mockingbird media isn't just Mainstream Media. Over the last ten or so years, I've been surprised to discover that much of so-called alternative media has also been hijacked.

Politics is a uniquely human activity, therefore it is also a spiritual activity. It's a part of the unity.

Anytime we try to push something away from us as if it doesn't have a right to exist, it creates duality. This is how the shadow-self is created.

What we reject goes underground and affects us in ways that we are less consciously aware of.

That is right. That old saying, "Whatever we resist persists." rings true to me.

From where I stand, to be spiritual is to honour the "spirit-in-u-all. So whenever I share it comes from a place that is all inclusive, has to be accessible and attainable, practical and it has to honour all beings.

It is very true - we can decide that we are going to entertain all the false realities such as politics and then there is something else we can also do, we can decide that we can turn our backs on all of the dualistic false realities that no longer serve us. We can transcend all of that and head in a direction that truly serves ourselves and each other.

It isn't a matter of resisting politics here, we just don't need to entertain it any more as a way of being - we have other possibilities and potentials that come through divine inspiration. We can turn our backs on the whole lot and start all over again.

We can focus with laser-like intention on what we really want for ourselves and each other. All the solutions to humanities plight are already on the earth.

We can truly inspire ourselves and each other if we were to gather around in the hugest huge campfire the world has ever seen, gathering all the brightest hearts and minds from every corner of the globe. If we were to sit in a round table discussion with every sector of community imagine the potentials and possibilities right there?

All the darkness, where does it go when we switch on the light? I was only sharing this morning that the darkness itself has no real substance - to try to rid ourselves of the dark forces is like scrubbing shadows off the wall. If we can truly put back what is missing (which is the love, light, life) then the darkness cannot resist this.

You've just described a part of the meaning of the phrase "Dark to Light." :)

[Constance]

Politics has been given a bad rap in my opinion.

It's like there is cultural programming to treat political discussion like a sports discussion where people identify with one team or another, and there are winners and losers.

I remember soon after the 2016 election reading where one of the Senators or Congressman said, "We made a mistake by taking civics out of our school curriculum."

It was written in the context that there had been a hope (probably in the "demoralization" campaign) to have a disengaged Sovereign Public, so they could get away with doing whatever they want.

But, in this past election that strategy backfired. They only created a disenfranchised people, and lost control. They've been trying to regain control since.

Politics ought to be something everyone engages. It is where we make decisions, together. Every voice matters.

The problem is that the art and science of civil discourse was lost when civics was removed from the classroom. (I think in the 60's).

The Mockingbird Media is designed to keep people agitated with each other, in every direction.
That is where most of the manipulation is at.

Media was supposed to serve to engender an informed public. It was high-jacked.

The Mockingbird media isn't just Mainstream Media. Over the last ten or so years, I've been surprised to discover that much of so-called alternative media has also been hijacked.

Politics is a uniquely human activity, therefore it is also a spiritual activity. It's a part of the unity.

Anytime we try to push something away from us as if it doesn't have a right to exist, it creates duality. This is how the shadow-self is created.

What we reject goes underground and affects us in ways that we are less consciously aware of.

That is right. That old saying, "Whatever we resist persists." rings true to me.

From where I stand, to be spiritual is to honour the "spirit-in-u-all. So whenever I share it comes from a place that is all inclusive, has to be accessible and attainable, practical and it has to honour all beings.

It is very true - we can decide that we are going to entertain all the false realities such as politics and then there is something else we can also do, we can decide that we can turn our backs on all of the dualistic false realities that no longer serve us. We can transcend all of that and head in a direction that truly serves ourselves and each other.

It isn't a matter of resisting politics here, we just don't need to entertain it any more as a way of being - we have other possibilities and potentials that come through divine inspiration. We can turn our backs on the whole lot and start all over again.

We can focus with laser-like intention on what we really want for ourselves and each other. All the solutions to humanities plight are already on the earth.

We can truly inspire ourselves and each other if we were to gather around in the hugest huge campfire the world has ever seen, gathering all the brightest hearts and minds from every corner of the globe. If we were to sit in a round table discussion with every sector of community imagine the potentials and possibilities right there?

All the darkness, where does it go when we switch on the light? I was only sharing this morning that the darkness itself has no real substance - to try to rid ourselves of the dark forces is like scrubbing shadows off the wall. If we can truly put back what is missing (which is the love, light, life) then the darkness cannot resist this.

You've just described a part of the meaning of the phrase "Dark to Light." :)

Actually, what I was describing was the exact opposite. It is the top down, bottom up experience. The love/light/life aspect is what is real. All the false realities we experience are only because we are missing the love/light/life aspects from our lives. It really is just a matter of putting back what is missing from our lives.

The darkness has no real substance of its own, it is only in the absence of light we have darkness.:sun:

[edina]

Politics has been given a bad rap in my opinion.

It's like there is cultural programming to treat political discussion like a sports discussion where people identify with one team or another, and there are winners and losers.

I remember soon after the 2016 election reading where one of the Senators or Congressman said, "We made a mistake by taking civics out of our school curriculum."

It was written in the context that there had been a hope (probably in the "demoralization" campaign) to have a disengaged Sovereign Public, so they could get away with doing whatever they want.

But, in this past election that strategy backfired. They only created a disenfranchised people, and lost control. They've been trying to regain control since.

Politics ought to be something everyone engages. It is where we make decisions, together. Every voice matters.

The problem is that the art and science of civil discourse was lost when civics was removed from the classroom. (I think in the 60's).

The Mockingbird Media is designed to keep people agitated with each other, in every direction.
That is where most of the manipulation is at.

Media was supposed to serve to engender an informed public. It was high-jacked.

The Mockingbird media isn't just Mainstream Media. Over the last ten or so years, I've been surprised to discover that much of so-called alternative media has also been hijacked.

Politics is a uniquely human activity, therefore it is also a spiritual activity. It's a part of the unity.

Anytime we try to push something away from us as if it doesn't have a right to exist, it creates duality. This is how the shadow-self is created.

What we reject goes underground and affects us in ways that we are less consciously aware of.

That is right. That old saying, "Whatever we resist persists." rings true to me.

From where I stand, to be spiritual is to honour the "spirit-in-u-all. So whenever I share it comes from a place that is all inclusive, has to be accessible and attainable, practical and it has to honour all beings.

It is very true - we can decide that we are going to entertain all the false realities such as politics and then there is something else we can also do, we can decide that we can turn our backs on all of the dualistic false realities that no longer serve us. We can transcend all of that and head in a direction that truly serves ourselves and each other.

It isn't a matter of resisting politics here, we just don't need to entertain it any more as a way of being - we have other possibilities and potentials that come through divine inspiration. We can turn our backs on the whole lot and start all over again.

We can focus with laser-like intention on what we really want for ourselves and each other. All the solutions to humanities plight are already on the earth.

We can truly inspire ourselves and each other if we were to gather around in the hugest huge campfire the world has ever seen, gathering all the brightest hearts and minds from every corner of the globe. If we were to sit in a round table discussion with every sector of community imagine the potentials and possibilities right there?

All the darkness, where does it go when we switch on the light? I was only sharing this morning that the darkness itself has no real substance - to try to rid ourselves of the dark forces is like scrubbing shadows off the wall. If we can truly put back what is missing (which is the love, light, life) then the darkness cannot resist this.

You've just described a part of the meaning of the phrase "Dark to Light." :)

Actually, what I was describing was the exact opposite. It is the top down, bottom up approach. The love/light/life aspect is what is rea. All the false realities we experience is only because we are missing the love/light/life in our lives. It really is just a matter of putting back what is missing from our lives.

The darkness has no real substance of its own, it is only in the absence of light we have darkness.

I look at it as more an inside out, there's the old saying, "Knowledge empowers."

Like you said, a flip of switch.

I'm seeing where we agree, and you are seeing where we disagree.

[Words of Joy]

Censorship... Is it censorship if one can still access the information with really a small bit of effort?

Might it help to get to the why of it all? Why censor? If you know the 'why' then it is easier to have an opinion about it?

Reading parts of Bill's statement in the topic about Q topic being moved to member's section:
"It's not only about 'Q', of course: it's about partisan politics in general, and the unpleasant divisiveness which that all too often engenders. So we might move some other threads there, too.
...
It's really a first step to fix the perception that might be out there, among non-members, that Avalon is a pro-'Q' forum (or even a pro-Trump forum) — which it's not. The discussions, pro and con, have only really ever been primarily between a couple of dozen members.

But the impression given may be that this is all we care about."

If I understand this correctly the action of moving certain topics is to manage external optics/opinions regarding this forum. Why would we want to do that? I mean if there is divisiveness between people within the topic (or maybe even in other topics), it's between forum members. I personally think there's nothing wrong with division (at this point of time). What I do think is important is the way the difference in perspective is communicated. Though is that managed effectively by putting it in a members only section? I'd say it is very important for the public to be able to see the process of opposing perspectives moving ahead. Though the manner in which it moves ahead should be managed according to forum guidelines. If too strong partisan mentality/communication is an issue, then I'd say update the forum guidelines and manage them accordingly.

Looking at the communication offered by Bill to me it feels like a move as a result of not having been able to manage certain topics neutrally/effectively as a moderators collective. Not saying it's an easy task. Though when done right, the public will see the moderators having a neutral role in upholding the forum guidelines. Though if moderators are not displaying neutrality, then yes, I can imagine the perspective of the public being influenced by that. From my perspective it is a management challenge more than anything. Not about left not about right, but about neutrality of the moderators and their capability to uphold the forum guidelines. I know that might be easier said then done, but I think that could be an effective basis.

If the forum leaders would decide to give the moderators the possibility to show their political preference, then I think it would be good to be open about that and present the forum as such to the public.

Based on the explanation given by Bill, personally I feel there's no need to hide anything. If there are other motivations, that haven't yet been communicated, then please share, so we all can ponder on it a bit.

:flower:

[enfoldedblue]

Feeling very uncomfortable about posting now, just to let you all know. I so don’t like to be misread.
The forum has changed so much from how I knew it, I now regret that I returned after my two year absense. Once I lose trust I’m gone.

The main change is that the forum has become [partly] politicized. It was never meant to be a platform for partisan political debate.

It's only a very few people who have been pushing this. Maybe a better solution would be to close all the political threads. (We could do that, too. I'm not saying that just as a joke.)

So for anyone reading this, ask yourself whether you (not addressed just to Ulli, but to anyone) might be part of the problem, by continually beating political drums.

Really, really, really think about that. That's a sincere request.

I'm a moderator on a large FB group. We decided to allow no political posts through at all. The tiniest whisper of politics had the effect of getting everyone riled up and slagging and attacking. But the group is a spiritual one created to connect and uplift people. It is easy to see how politics doesn't fit with the mission of the group.

However, Avalon, is very much about exposing and discussing the hidden mechanics of society, of which politics is an integral part.
So I don't see how politics could be completely avoided without negatively affecting the forum's ability to effectively explore important topics.

It's funny becauee when pondering the situation I thought, 'the key is really creating a space in which everyone feels safe. A space in which we speak to one another with kindness and respect....never treating another as wrong, only differing. Holding central to the discussion the fact that none of us hold the whole picture.'

And then I laughed to myself as I realized that even the concept of 'safe space' has become politicized. This division really does go to the heart of human interaction.

Ultimately I trust that we all want to move forward .... but there seems to be a fork in the road... some people are convinced the path to the right is the right way, others that the left is way. Personally I think maybe there is a middle road, an uncut trail that has not been paved for us, one that we must forge ourselves, that will take us beyond programming to a destination that actuallly works for humanity as a whole.

[Bill Ryan]

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

Does anyone know?

Here's one answer, at the foot of every page:
Comments owned by the poster. Copyright © Project Avalon
That may not be as contradictory as it sounds! What I believe this means is that Avalon has the copyright for the structure and layout, etc — though none of this copyright thing was established by myself. My guess is that Richard (the senior admin before Ilie and Paul) put that there.

But much more importantly, each member 'owns' each of their own posts.

I don't care a jot about copyright, anyway. At Camelot, we never copyrighted a thing. And I've never copyrighted any video I've ever published. We wanted things to be copied far and wide.

Copyright is all about control. Contrary to the opinions of some, I really stand against that.

:)

[Frank V]

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

Does anyone know?

Here's one answer, at the foot of every page:
Comments owned by the poster. Copyright © Project Avalon
That may not be as contradictory as it sounds! What I believe this means is that Avalon has the copyright for the structure and layout, etc — though none of this copyright thing was established by myself. My guess is that Richard (the senior admin before Ilie and Paul) put that there.

But much more importantly, each member 'owns' each of their own posts.

I don't care a jot about copyright, anyway. At Camelot, we never copyrighted a thing. And I've never copyrighted any video I've ever published. We wanted things to be copied far and wide.

Copyright is all about control. Contrary to the opinions of some, I really stand against that.

:)

There is actually a term for that, Bill ─ it's called copyleft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft). It mainly pertains to software licensing, but it can also be applied to just about everything else. Sadly enough, it has no legal bearing. :ohwell:

[Denise/Dizi]

Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.

Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

[Belle]

Does this site belong to BILL RYAN? Or us, his house guests?

This site does indeed belong to Bill Ryan.

BUT PA would not exist if it were not for the posters. No posters....no forum, just an empty site.

If a house guest leaves a piece of his/her property at his house, does that mean the guest forfeits his property to the owner to do with as he pleases?

That does beg a question...because Bill does own the site, does that include ownership of the posts? In other words....Do we as members give up ownership of our intellectual property (posts) when we become a member?

Do members have the right to copy and share posts from PA to other forums? With permission from the poster? Without permission from the poster? With or without Bill's permission?

Does anyone know?

Here's one answer, at the foot of every page:
Comments owned by the poster. Copyright © Project Avalon
That may not be as contradictory as it sounds! What I believe this means is that Avalon has the copyright for the structure and layout, etc — though none of this copyright thing was established by myself. My guess is that Richard (the senior admin before Ilie and Paul) put that there.

But much more importantly, each member 'owns' each of their own posts.

I don't care a jot about copyright, anyway. At Camelot, we never copyrighted a thing. And I've never copyrighted any video I've ever published. We wanted things to be copied far and wide.

Copyright is all about control. Contrary to the opinions of some, I really stand against that.

:)

Thank you for the response, Bill. :)

My curiosity is going to get me in trouble at some point, but the only way to get answers is to ask the questions. I just have this insatiable appetite for information, knowledge, understanding...no matter how important or unimportant it may be.

I stand with you on the issue of copyright. Respect.

[AriG]

Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.




Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

Well..... hmmm..., the “thank button” truly is just a means for measurement by those in control- a way to take the temperature of the room. And why would we need to have such a measuring stick? For message control or perhaps pandering to the populist opinion?

Whether it’s a Facebook like, or a forum thank, it’s still a mechanism of control. A popularity contest.

[edina]

Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.




Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

Well..... hmmm..., the “thank button” truly is just a means for measurement by those in control- a way to take the temperature of the room. And why would we need to have such a measuring stick? For message control or perhaps pandering to the populist opinion?

Whether it’s a Facebook like, or a forum thank, it’s still a mechanism of control. A popularity contest.

thanked your post, LOL... had too!!!! :ROFL:
for the fun of it....

[AriG]

Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.




Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

Well..... hmmm..., the “thank button” truly is just a means for measurement by those in control- a way to take the temperature of the room. And why would we need to have such a measuring stick? For message control or perhaps pandering to the populist opinion?

Whether it’s a Facebook like, or a forum thank, it’s still a mechanism of control. A popularity contest.

thanked your post, LOL... had too!!!! :ROFL:
for the fun of it....Marketing via demographics sucks. It is dehumanizing and reduces us to numbers. Market researchers are the worst. Humanity cannot and should not be corralled into some bracket identified by trends. We are all unique, regardless of how or when we arrived here.

[edina]

Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.




Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

Well..... hmmm..., the “thank button” truly is just a means for measurement by those in control- a way to take the temperature of the room. And why would we need to have such a measuring stick? For message control or perhaps pandering to the populist opinion?

Whether it’s a Facebook like, or a forum thank, it’s still a mechanism of control. A popularity contest.

thanked your post, LOL... had too!!!! :ROFL:
for the fun of it....Marketing via demographics sucks. It is dehumanizing and reduces us to numbers. Market researchers are the worst. Humanity cannot and should not be corralled into some bracket identified by trends. We are all unique, regardless of how or when we arrived here.

True, it's the wild cards that throw wrenches into the mix.

Censorship, in a sense, throws out the wild cards.

I looked at a book earlier on game theory.

It's all related. :)

Marketing is now more about psycho-graphics rather than demographics.

[waves]

Bill, I'm writing this to you.

Censorship or Boundary Issue?

I think the word censorship is being unfairly used as a weapon when the issue is boundaries and maturity standards.

What irks me the most is that the people whining the loudest about censorship are the people who censored all dissenters from their thread for over a year.

Bill, you said: "we don't want to censor anyone at all. We applaud and support open discussion, if it's conducted with respect, care and understanding."

"Not censoring anyone at all' can't be practical. Avalon has always had boundaries which is a form of censorship - kicking out people out who 'aren't a good fit' either for personality type or topic. Additionally Avalon has always had some % of threads for members only and no one ever said a word about it - until a pack of obsessed fixed minds started acting entitled and making demands.

Would you have let a Jim Jones-like evangelical extremist cult get more and more closed off and let them angrily tell you to leave their party alone or you're a big evil censor?? NO. Why not? Because you know they're an isolated unhealthy bunch of deluded people you don't want to help feed. So why feed ANY UNHEALTHY SUBJECT let alone any unhealthy minds obviously not in the least here at Avalon to listen/learn? Q may be a valid discussion topic but not as a feeding trough for unhealthy one-sided cult forming.

What you really have now is a pack of evangelical Q extremists who want to be left alone and are trying to push you around. They've complained loudly every time a dissenter crossed their boundary, then they lost their gatekeeper and are now frantically trying to guilt-trip you with the loaded word 'censorship' to get you to take orders for continued special treatment. I don't see any difference between this entitled behavior than I got from my righteous, disrespectful, demanding, immature teenager who was hopelessly resistant to logic and reasoning until he grew up and the light went on.

You are acutely aware that this small, tightknit faction is completely ignoring everything that has firmly convinced you otherwise and they're driving away many of the people you've respected for years who know it too.

So I don't see why you should feel guilty about tightening Avalon's member qualification boundaries to a higher standard of behavior and maturity and removing anyone who's hopelessly indoctrinated/cognitive dissonant regardless of the subject. Do you really want Avalon to be a place to coddle, babysit and wait and wait and wait for hopelessly deluded minds to grow up while they keep repeating their entitled behavior? It's like an oil leak started and kept spreading, and oil and water will never mix in a forum. Hopelessly.

OIL: Cognitive Dissonant Minds/Only attracted to sources and other people that further support their fixed decision about what ONLY can be true -
ALWAYS COCKSURE, INDIGNANT, VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF AWARENESS OF A SUBJECT, EASILY EGO THREATENED WHEN CHALLENGED, ANGRILY DISMISS INCONVENIENT FACTS, HOPELESSLY STUCK IN THEIR FIXED OPINION.

WATER: Flexible open minds /Always on the lookout for where they might improve and eliminate wrong thinking -
LISTENERS/LEARNERS, WILLING TO CHANGE, NATURALLY RESPECTFULLY DISCUSS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND OTHER, EGO IS FAR MORE INTERESTED IN TRUTH AND ACCURACY THAN BEING PERSONALLY RIGHT - IN AN EFFORT TO GET SMARTER INSTEAD OF CLING TO ANY MISTAKEN THINKING.

To me these are the questions on the Avalon table right now regarding about 10-20 or so of your 10,000 members:

1. You continued: "... if it's conducted with respect, care and understanding." OK, then what do you owe any member who has proven themselves to be hopelessly unwilling to try to understand other - either within the Q subject or anyone making lots of interruptive, clueless comments with a superiority attitude in threads totally over their head?

2. What would you really lose by kicking out the hopelessly closed minded? Do you really care if only the hopelessly deluded/indoctrinated call you a censor?

It's like you're afraid to lose any member - like there aren't multitudes of much more mature minds looking for a high standard place to meet. If the house was cleaned and standards raised those others would start being attracted here again. AGAIN is the operative word.

As it stands, long time respected members are running off or starting less and less threads for being disheartened by the abundance of shallow, arrogant mindsets that keep disrupting threads with dead wrong assumptions, projections and fixed thinking narrow opinions - like is massively happening by many of the group in question on just this thread.

I think any of these types throwing a tantrum right now with their arms crossed - especially those flatly refusing to understand what is so convincing to so many others regarding Q - gives you every right to say "you don't belong here until you figure out why because you're unable to grasp any explanation I can give you right now."

Imagine a year from now when Avalon is back to high level, challenging posts, great minds who listen, comprehend and consider before posting become the norm again and boundaries are known... or you know you'll get kicked out. I think you'd be glad you did and the deluded will still be the poor victims cursing you. You already know destiny is just dragging out way too long already for exposing who another round of history's manipulated have been.

Bill, I urge you to take a bold stand for what your knowledge and experience has taught you, plug the oil leak and raise the bar here by tightening the boundaries of who/what fits and doesn't fit at Avalon.

~~~~~~~~~~

Further, considering the very suspicious worldwide escalation of flagrant weather warfare genocide and massive infrastructure destruction going on RIGHT NOW, I say it's time to let the hopelessly cognitive dissonant fend for themselves, they're not listening, possibly truly unable for now. They can return when the light comes on and by next year we might really appreciate having begun to re-attract back the truth community's most mature, educated and non-deluded minds in one place for soon to be very needed cohesive unity and leadership.

[Denise/Dizi]

Addendum: I find it quite telling that ─ just as over at The One Truth ─ the Thanks button always ends up being used as a means to let one's passive-aggressiveness seep through. I've only been back for a short while, and yet it is always the same people who will not thank my posts while eagerly thanking the posts of the people who disagree with me.




Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:

For the record, I "Thank" all posters on a thread that I am reading, (Unless I accidentally miss some).. whether I agree or not with what they're saying, merely because they took the time to share what they were thinking, good, bad, or otherwise...

It is just "Polite" to thank others for their contribution of time.. So for the record, please do not assume that I agree with a particular view of a member, merely because I am "Thanking them" that I agree with what someone has shared. You gave me the opportunity to express my stance on that, Thank You.

Well..... hmmm..., the “thank button” truly is just a means for measurement by those in control- a way to take the temperature of the room. And why would we need to have such a measuring stick? For message control or perhaps pandering to the populist opinion?

Whether it’s a Facebook like, or a forum thank, it’s still a mechanism of control. A popularity contest.

thanked your post, LOL... had too!!!! :ROFL:
for the fun of it....

:waving::ROFL::o:Party: HAHAHAHA Sorry.. Couldn't help it, and thought the laugh would be appreciated for a change..

[Gemma13]

What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?

What then?

I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem

Thanks Mike for another reminder that backstage there is much more going on than what we are discussing on this and other threads.

So I’m going to make a hypothesis. DISCLAIMER: “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth”.

Several months ago I received a PM asking me to join forces to help publicly shut down a researcher (R) and his thread. (Not Q thread) In attempts to convince me that (R) had no place on Avalon I was told that moderators and other members felt the same way.

A tactic that: (a) implied this person was part of a privileged inner circle, and (b) was attempting to apply group pressure to sway me behind closed doors.

I refused to engage in this plan and made it clear I thought it was unethical to speak on behalf of others this way, especially when I had no way of verifying if it was true.

It deeply concerned me that members who are acutely aware of the lack of transparency in covert operations that control societies with secret task forces were actually engaging in the same type of behaviour that they opposed.

HYPOTHESIS 1

From my observations since – (way too many to list here and I am deliberately choosing not to specifically name members or topics; except for you Dennis, sorry, nothing personal) – my hypothesis is that there is a tight group of members, with loose affiliates, who have made a “behind closed doors” pact to target the removal of a few topics on Avalon that have been gaining more press coverage than their own threads/posts.

This group were struggling so they needed a leader who was well liked, prone to being dogmatic, and had sufficient clout to engage in the mods arena. Dennis became the voice and hero the group needed and although Q is predominantly focussed on at the moment there have been remarks made in the same vein for other topics. Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel.

WHY

I think the long standing members of this group have grown accustomed to Avalon being “their garden” and any topics they don’t see value in become weeds. So they march over to the weeds and cry for help to pluck them out of existence.

Problem is the weeds are not viewed by everyone to be weeds. There has been amazing intellectual discourse and debate over the Q topic being removed from public view, so much so that the weed killers are clutching at straws by making fanatical, extremist, insulting remarks as to what Q researchers are; e.g. sociopathic Nazis sympathizers, necrophiliacs.

I view Avalon as a garden that is growing and expanding; not a garden for "a self appointed privileged membership” to choose what flowers are planted and tended to. Avalon has proved over time that if real weeds do pop up they will eventually wither and die because of the strength of the garden. And as many have pointed out, weeds need to be investigated and studied, along with flowers.

I think members who aren’t happy that their “flowers” are currently dormant need to remind themselves that all members have the right to grow flowers and that flowers can be, and are, seasonal.

And the argument to clean out the “little flower growers” so Avalon can become a place solely for “the self appointed privileged intellectuals” is ludicrous. How is preaching only to the choir going to change the world?

HYPOTHESIS 2

Emotional Terrorism? Hope this isn’t happening, but from pieces of the puzzle I can’t rule it out.

Did long standing members threaten to leave if Q thread wasn’t removed from public viewing, and are these long standing members threatening to leave if the Q thread is put back into public view, via PM’s to moderators and Bill Ryan. And how is this a problem when there are also members publicly saying they are considering leaving re the “censorship” because it goes against their value system?

Doing it behind closed doors is cowardly and is emotional blackmail because the language is most likely appealing and exploiting along the lines of “friendship and caring” and “Avalon owes me” and “Avalon will crumble without me and those like me”, etc which clouds the intellectual determinations. It also doesn’t allow the intelligence within this community to engage openly to support those struggling with retirement decisions.

So I say: Call the bluff! Longstanding members may leave. Some may never return. But history reveals that many will return because they are invested in this garden. At any rate Avalon will survive; and who knows maybe some of the lurkers will come out and plant a few seeds because they will feel safe from the intimidation that oozes from some long standing members who blatantly and literally label themselves as being more intelligent, sophisticated, aware, awake, blah blah, when they judge and whine over what others contribute. These judgments are extreme hubris demanding privileges and fracturing equality in the process.

I’ve been browsing Avalon daily for years. Many times I see a new thread pop up and think Oh God, not another one. No biggie. I just glide on down and select what I have the time to be interested in. I could never justify going into those threads and demanding they be removed from public view, or slinging off about them in other threads, because I’m done with that topic so everyone else should be.

IS IT TIME TO FINISH THIS

We’re never going to know the full story. No matter how many well informed, intelligent, reasonable, civil discourses we have, (which are a testament to the Avalon membership), there’s always going to be the missing pieces of this Q puzzle that prevent clarity over what’s happening.

We cherish the right to vote. So let’s actually vote. (No opinion poll)

YES or NO. SHOULD THE Q THREADS BE PLACED BACK INTO PUBLIC VIEW.

Perhaps allow 2 weeks for voters to contribute. And whatever the result, let’s all concede to live with it.

[greybeard]

Can we not trust Bill and the moderators, who took quite sometime, before deciding to move the Q thread to members only?
Is there a forum elsewhere that is a Q forum?
If not members here could start one without leaving Avalon.
I dont know just a passing thought

Just some times Avalon looked like it was a Q forum and that may attract or detract new members.
Chris

[Iloveyou]

What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?

What then?

I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem

Thanks Mike for another reminder that backstage there is much more going on than what we are discussing on this and other threads.

So I’m going to make a hypothesis. DISCLAIMER: “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth”.

Several months ago I received a PM asking me to join forces to help publicly shut down a researcher (R) and his thread. (Not Q thread) In attempts to convince me that (R) had no place on Avalon I was told that moderators and other members felt the same way.

A tactic that: (a) implied this person was part of a privileged inner circle, and (b) was attempting to apply group pressure to sway me behind closed doors.

I refused to engage in this plan and made it clear I thought it was unethical to speak on behalf of others this way, especially when I had no way of verifying if it was true.

It deeply concerned me that members who are acutely aware of the lack of transparency in covert operations that control societies with secret task forces were actually engaging in the same type of behaviour that they opposed.

HYPOTHESIS 1

From my observations since – (way too many to list here and I am deliberately choosing not to specifically name members or topics; except for you Dennis, sorry, nothing personal) – my hypothesis is that there is a tight group of members, with loose affiliates, who have made a “behind closed doors” pact to target the removal of a few topics on Avalon that have been gaining more press coverage than their own threads/posts.

This group were struggling so they needed a leader who was well liked, prone to being dogmatic, and had sufficient clout to engage in the mods arena. Dennis became the voice and hero the group needed and although Q is predominantly focussed on at the moment there have been remarks made in the same vein for other topics. Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel.

WHY

I think the long standing members of this group have grown accustomed to Avalon being “their garden” and any topics they don’t see value in become weeds. So they march over to the weeds and cry for help to pluck them out of existence.

Problem is the weeds are not viewed by everyone to be weeds. There has been amazing intellectual discourse and debate over the Q topic being removed from public view, so much so that the weed killers are clutching at straws by making fanatical, extremist, insulting remarks as to what Q researchers are; e.g. sociopathic Nazis sympathizers, necrophiliacs.

I view Avalon as a garden that is growing and expanding; not a garden for "a self appointed privileged membership” to choose what flowers are planted and tended to. Avalon has proved over time that if real weeds do pop up they will eventually wither and die because of the strength of the garden. And as many have pointed out, weeds need to be investigated and studied, along with flowers.

I think members who aren’t happy that their “flowers” are currently dormant need to remind themselves that all members have the right to grow flowers and that flowers can be, and are, seasonal.

And the argument to clean out the “little flower growers” so Avalon can become a place solely for “the self appointed privileged intellectuals” is ludicrous. How is preaching only to the choir going to change the world?

HYPOTHESIS 2

Emotional Terrorism? Hope this isn’t happening, but from pieces of the puzzle I can’t rule it out.

Did long standing members threaten to leave if Q thread wasn’t removed from public viewing, and are these long standing members threatening to leave if the Q thread is put back into public view, via PM’s to moderators and Bill Ryan. And how is this a problem when there are also members publicly saying they are considering leaving re the “censorship” because it goes against their value system?

Doing it behind closed doors is cowardly and is emotional blackmail because the language is most likely appealing and exploiting along the lines of “friendship and caring” and “Avalon owes me” and “Avalon will crumble without me and those like me”, etc which clouds the intellectual determinations. It also doesn’t allow the intelligence within this community to engage openly to support those struggling with retirement decisions.

So I say: Call the bluff! Longstanding members may leave. Some may never return. But history reveals that many will return because they are invested in this garden. At any rate Avalon will survive; and who knows maybe some of the lurkers will come out and plant a few seeds because they will feel safe from the intimidation that oozes from some long standing members who blatantly and literally label themselves as being more intelligent, sophisticated, aware, awake, blah blah, when they judge and whine over what others contribute. These judgments are extreme hubris demanding privileges and fracturing equality in the process.

I’ve been browsing Avalon daily for years. Many times I see a new thread pop up and think Oh God, not another one. No biggie. I just glide on down and select what I have the time to be interested in. I could never justify going into those threads and demanding they be removed from public view, or slinging off about them in other threads, because I’m done with that topic so everyone else should be.

IS IT TIME TO FINISH THIS

We’re never going to know the full story. No matter how many well informed, intelligent, reasonable, civil discourses we have, (which are a testament to the Avalon membership), there’s always going to be the missing pieces of this Q puzzle that prevent clarity over what’s happening.

We cherish the right to vote. So let’s actually vote. (No opinion poll)

YES or NO. SHOULD THE Q THREADS BE PLACED BACK INTO PUBLIC VIEW.

Perhaps allow 2 weeks for voters to contribute. And whatever the result, let’s all concede to live with it.


! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! !





YES or NO. SHOULD THE Q THREADS BE PLACED BACK INTO PUBLIC VIEW.

Perhaps allow 2 weeks for voters to contribute. And whatever the result, let’s all concede to live with it.

!

[Jad]

I think a poll would be a good idea to see how the rest of the forum feels about this now that we know where the moderators stand. It doesn't mean that we have to implement the results, but it would give Bill and the Mod team a chance to see how the forum feels about this which could help them run the forum better.

[Liz.]

Bill, I'm writing this to you.

Censorship or Boundary Issue?

I think the word censorship is being unfairly used as a weapon when the issue is boundaries and maturity standards.

What irks me the most is that the people whining the loudest about censorship are the people who censored all dissenters from their thread for over a year.

Bill, you said: "we don't want to censor anyone at all. We applaud and support open discussion, if it's conducted with respect, care and understanding."

"Not censoring anyone at all' can't be practical. Avalon has always had boundaries which is a form of censorship - kicking out people out who 'aren't a good fit' either for personality type or topic. Additionally Avalon has always had some % of threads for members only and no one ever said a word about it - until a pack of obsessed fixed minds started acting entitled and making demands.

Would you have let a Jim Jones-like evangelical extremist cult get more and more closed off and let them angrily tell you to leave their party alone or you're a big evil censor?? NO. Why not? Because you know they're an isolated unhealthy bunch of deluded people you don't want to help feed. So why feed ANY UNHEALTHY SUBJECT let alone any unhealthy minds obviously not in the least here at Avalon to listen/learn? Q may be a valid discussion topic but not as a feeding trough for unhealthy one-sided cult forming.

What you really have now is a pack of evangelical Q extremists who want to be left alone and are trying to push you around. They've complained loudly every time a dissenter crossed their boundary, then they lost their gatekeeper and are now frantically trying to guilt-trip you with the loaded word 'censorship' to get you to take orders for continued special treatment. I don't see any difference between this entitled behavior than I got from my righteous, disrespectful, demanding, immature teenager who was hopelessly resistant to logic and reasoning until he grew up and the light went on.

You are acutely aware that this small, tightknit faction is completely ignoring everything that has firmly convinced you otherwise and they're driving away many of the people you've respected for years who know it too.

So I don't see why you should feel guilty about tightening Avalon's member qualification boundaries to a higher standard of behavior and maturity and removing anyone who's hopelessly indoctrinated/cognitive dissonant regardless of the subject. Do you really want Avalon to be a place to coddle, babysit and wait and wait and wait for hopelessly deluded minds to grow up while they keep repeating their entitled behavior? It's like an oil leak started and kept spreading, and oil and water will never mix in a forum. Hopelessly.

OIL: Cognitive Dissonant Minds/Only attracted to sources and other people that further support their fixed decision about what ONLY can be true -
ALWAYS COCKSURE, INDIGNANT, VERY LIMITED SCOPE OF AWARENESS OF A SUBJECT, EASILY EGO THREATENED WHEN CHALLENGED, ANGRILY DISMISS INCONVENIENT FACTS, HOPELESSLY STUCK IN THEIR FIXED OPINION.

WATER: Flexible open minds /Always on the lookout for where they might improve and eliminate wrong thinking -
LISTENERS/LEARNERS, WILLING TO CHANGE, NATURALLY RESPECTFULLY DISCUSS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND OTHER, EGO IS FAR MORE INTERESTED IN TRUTH AND ACCURACY THAN BEING PERSONALLY RIGHT - IN AN EFFORT TO GET SMARTER INSTEAD OF CLING TO ANY MISTAKEN THINKING.

To me these are the questions on the Avalon table right now regarding about 10-20 or so of your 10,000 members:

1. You continued: "... if it's conducted with respect, care and understanding." OK, then what do you owe any member who has proven themselves to be hopelessly unwilling to try to understand other - either within the Q subject or anyone making lots of interruptive, clueless comments with a superiority attitude in threads totally over their head?

2. What would you really lose by kicking out the hopelessly closed minded? Do you really care if only the hopelessly deluded/indoctrinated call you a censor?

It's like you're afraid to lose any member - like there aren't multitudes of much more mature minds looking for a high standard place to meet. If the house was cleaned and standards raised those others would start being attracted here again. AGAIN is the operative word.

As it stands, long time respected members are running off or starting less and less threads for being disheartened by the abundance of shallow, arrogant mindsets that keep disrupting threads with dead wrong assumptions, projections and fixed thinking narrow opinions - like is massively happening by many of the group in question on just this thread.

I think any of these types throwing a tantrum right now with their arms crossed - especially those flatly refusing to understand what is so convincing to so many others regarding Q - gives you every right to say "you don't belong here until you figure out why because you're unable to grasp any explanation I can give you right now."

Imagine a year from now when Avalon is back to high level, challenging posts, great minds who listen, comprehend and consider before posting become the norm again and boundaries are known... or you know you'll get kicked out. I think you'd be glad you did and the deluded will still be the poor victims cursing you. You already know destiny is just dragging out way too long already for exposing who another round of history's manipulated have been.

Bill, I urge you to take a bold stand for what your knowledge and experience has taught you, plug the oil leak and raise the bar here by tightening the boundaries of who/what fits and doesn't fit at Avalon.

~~~~~~~~~~

Further, considering the very suspicious worldwide escalation of flagrant weather warfare genocide and massive infrastructure destruction going on RIGHT NOW, I say it's time to let the hopelessly cognitive dissonant fend for themselves, they're not listening, possibly truly unable for now. They can return when the light comes on and by next year we might really appreciate having begun to re-attract back the truth community's most mature, educated and non-deluded minds in one place for soon to be very needed cohesive unity and leadership.

You know that head-banging moment when you start off thinking 'Oh the irony!'.
It morphs in to a desire to calm the apparent brain-fever, a desire to point out the many logical inconsistencies.
Closely followed by the realization that to highlight these deficiencies will have inevitable, or should I say 'oily' consequences.

But I have seen too much of the world to turn the other cheek when the jack-boots start to march in lock-step.
Maybe you could explain what has brought you to these conclusions? What has caused you to react in this way to other people who 'want to be left alone'? Do you see them as your teenage child who needs to be protected? From information? What has caused such fear in you that information is evil?

Meh, I'm still a bit on the fence (as are many who have an interest in the Q material), but I do find the timing of all this outrage and suppression/censorship quite interesting. It is not just this channel feeling push-back, could it be that certain people of a criminal/paedophillic bent are starting to feel the approach of justice?
Just where does all this incoherent rage come from?

[Matthew]

...
Here's a hint for the petty-minded: it's a "thanks" button, not a "like" button. :rolleyes:
I sort of disagree

:fencing:

It's slightly less expressive than a car horn, and it's rubbish at it's function... But it can have the effect of a cheer or a boo (snub) and as a communication protocol, it's simplicity goes in it's favour

[Belle]

just wanted to mention...

I've read posts on this thread mentioning being/not being *awake and aware* and being/not being *love and light*.

You do realize that both of those are just the beginning, don't you? that there is so much more to come after reaching that point?

[Wind]

I'm sure many here will not agree with me, but it's quite obvious that the Q-material (hoax or not) has been detrimental to the spirit of this forum.

For the powers that be something like this is very convenient. As long as there is political division, humanity will never ever know peace and unity. That's why I believe that politics won't ever solve the problems of humanity, it has to be deeper than that. The only solution is a spiritual integration, but I wonder how long it will take for people to truly realize that. As people are still under the spell as many have been ever since Trump got into power (anyone remember Obama's Hope and Change btw?), this will just be another observation that many will discard.

[NX.P]

I want to take a moment to say thank you to both Richard Dolan and Bill Ryan for the work they have put in to the field--both inspire confidence when i engage with others on these matters.

No it's not censorship what Rich did, not really--it's something else, something like trying to build some momentum the best he knows how.

Same thing here, imo. I deal with similar issues sometimes in my line of work. Some decisions just seem to polarize half of the stakeholders, no matter what you choose to do.

Best way I've found is to just make a choice and stick with it...

[Belle]

The only solution is a spiritual integration, but I wonder how long it will take for people to truly realize that.

Spiritual integration with what?

There comes a point where the spiritual, intellectual, and physical need to balance. After all, we are mind, body and spirit.

When all three are in balance, "miracles" can happen.

[Pam]

Just like Ulli so eloquently stated, for many it is not about the Q drops- it's about making the masses aware that something is very wrong in our social structures. Even for those that hang on every word of Q, if it turns out to be a lie, it still awakens them to what is happening.. It has the ability to awaken far more to reality than any forum, any book, any one person like it or not. Maybe it takes something like Q to do that in this day and age. Once you become aware you can't turn back no matter how you got there. Hell, David Wilcock got me interested in looking at things from a different perspective but that doesn't mean I'm still following him in wide eyed wonder as he and Corey scam the world for every dime they can get, we evolve if we are willing.

My major concern is the censorship and shadow banning that is happening to anyone that doesn't follow the party line, the pseudo liberal movement. Don't any of you find it terrifying conservative leaning and alternative health educators are essentially having their speech controlled by the likes of google, face book and others? That they only want you to have the information and viewpoint that they are promoting? That is why I am so sensitive to the issue. If you don't see this as threat because it doesn't effect you, think again. Don't be so naive as to think this isn't going to intensify. This is just the beginning. These corporations are the modern village square, and they hold very, very strong influence.

For those of you that like to throw the word "Nazi" around. I am going to do the same. I see this censorship and masked development of "hate" groups that have nothing to do with hate as very similar to the very beginnings of Nazi oppression. Of course it's been updated for modern times.

I am very observant of anything that smacks of hiding information in this particular age we are in. Giving into a few whining, name calling, highly emotional, irrational members seems a step in the wrong direction.


nd

[Wind]

Spiritual integration with what?

There comes a point where the spiritual, intellectual, and physical need to balance. After all, we are mind, body and spirit.

When all three are in balance, "miracles" can happen.

Yes. Emotional, mental, physical and spiritual parts need to be integrated within the individual and thus in society too. That way there can be healing and harmony, but it requires a lot of self-observation.

[Belle]

Spiritual integration with what?

There comes a point where the spiritual, intellectual, and physical need to balance. After all, we are mind, body and spirit.

When all three are in balance, "miracles" can happen.

Yes. Emotional, mental, physical and spiritual parts need to be integrated within the individual and thus in society too. That way there can be healing and harmony, but it requires a lot of self-observation.

Yes!

Now, how do we get from here to there? That is the big question.

If it can happen anywhere, I believe it can happen right here at PA.

[Wind]

Yes!

Now, how do we get from here to there? That is the big question. If it can happen anywhere, I believe it can happen right here at PA.

The first step is to go beyond politics and realize that if you get sucked into it again then you are being "played". You are not your conditioning.

[Belle]

The first step is to go beyond politics and realize that if you get sucked into it again then you are being "played". You are not your conditioning.

Ah, but who are 'you'?

How many people really know themselves? are aware when ego takes over? know why they need to be 'right'?

If you don't know yourself, how can you see others?

I believe you were right when you said it requires a lot of self-observation.

[DeDukshyn]

The first step is to go beyond politics and realize that if you get sucked into it again then you are being "played". You are not your conditioning.

Ah, but who are 'you'?

How many people really know themselves? are aware when ego takes over? know why they need to be 'right'?

If you don't know yourself, how can you see others?

I believe you were right when you said it requires a lot of self-observation.

Well for me its this simple ... if you are discussing politics from the perspective of a point on a political spectrum, then you are doing it wrong. It doesn't need to be more complex than that, and surely people can tell when their discussing that level of politics or not? No complex self observation is required.

If a person can't even tell if they are discussing politics or not, then surely anything they might say on the topic would have no value anyway.

[Pam]

Can we not trust Bill and the moderators, who took quite sometime, before deciding to move the Q thread to members only?
Is there a forum elsewhere that is a Q forum?
If not members here could start one without leaving Avalon.
I dont know just a passing thought

Just some times Avalon looked like it was a Q forum and that may attract or detract new members.
Chris

The most important thing we can do is to stand up for what we believe is highest good for all, whether popular or unpopular. Two of the greatest things we can learn on this earth is to feel gratitude and display courage.

[Belle]

The first step is to go beyond politics and realize that if you get sucked into it again then you are being "played". You are not your conditioning.

Ah, but who are 'you'?

How many people really know themselves? are aware when ego takes over? know why they need to be 'right'?

If you don't know yourself, how can you see others?

I believe you were right when you said it requires a lot of self-observation.

Well for me its this simple ... if you are discussing politics from the perspective of a point on a political spectrum, then you are doing it wrong. It doesn't need to be more complex than that, and surely people can tell when their discussing that level of politics or not? No complex self observation is required.

If a person can't even tell if they are discussing politics or not, then surely anything they might say on the topic would have no value anyway.

I was speaking to Wind's comment prior to what is quoted above when she said,


Yes. Emotional, mental, physical and spiritual parts need to be integrated within the individual and thus in society too. That way there can be healing and harmony, but it requires a lot of self-observation.

There is very little in today's world that has not become highly political...which can leave us gazing at our navals for lack of anything to discuss.

Are we looking for healing and harmony or are we looking for a temporary fix?

[greybeard]

Can we not trust Bill and the moderators, who took quite sometime, before deciding to move the Q thread to members only?
Is there a forum elsewhere that is a Q forum?
If not members here could start one without leaving Avalon.
I dont know just a passing thought

Just some times Avalon looked like it was a Q forum and that may attract or detract new members.
Chris

The most important thing we can do is to stand up for what we believe is highest good for all, whether popular or unpopular. Two of the greatest things we can learn on this earth is to feel gratitude and display courage.

Think Bill and the mods did exactly that.
Trouble in standing up for what you believe in is sometimes you step on someones toes --smiling.
Sometimes its a no win situation.
This why we have moderators.
Chris

[Pam]

Can we not trust Bill and the moderators, who took quite sometime, before deciding to move the Q thread to members only?
Is there a forum elsewhere that is a Q forum?
If not members here could start one without leaving Avalon.
I dont know just a passing thought

Just some times Avalon looked like it was a Q forum and that may attract or detract new members.
Chris

The most important thing we can do is to stand up for what we believe is highest good for all, whether popular or unpopular. Two of the greatest things we can learn on this earth is to feel gratitude and display courage.

Think Bill and the mods did exactly that.
Trouble in standing up for what you believe in is sometimes you step on someones toes --smiling.
Sometimes its a no win situation.
This why we have moderators.
Chris

Your point is well taken. I have the deepest respect for you Chris. I believe it is a healthy thing if we get our toes stepped on some times. If one is willing, it can be a great way to learn about ourselves. One of the most valuable tools for self analysis that I have found is looking at why I am aggravated about something. It almost always comes back to something about me that I don't want to acknowledge.

[DeDukshyn]

The first step is to go beyond politics and realize that if you get sucked into it again then you are being "played". You are not your conditioning.

Ah, but who are 'you'?

How many people really know themselves? are aware when ego takes over? know why they need to be 'right'?

If you don't know yourself, how can you see others?

I believe you were right when you said it requires a lot of self-observation.

Well for me its this simple ... if you are discussing politics from the perspective of a point on a political spectrum, then you are doing it wrong. It doesn't need to be more complex than that, and surely people can tell when their discussing that level of politics or not? No complex self observation is required.

If a person can't even tell if they are discussing politics or not, then surely anything they might say on the topic would have no value anyway.

I was speaking to Wind's comment prior to what is quoted above when she said,


Yes. Emotional, mental, physical and spiritual parts need to be integrated within the individual and thus in society too. That way there can be healing and harmony, but it requires a lot of self-observation.

There is very little in today's world that has not become highly political...which can leave us gazing at our navals for lack of anything to discuss.

Are we looking for healing and harmony or are we looking for a temporary fix?

Consider this ... the action of not getting oneself caught up in the mind manipulation that is political alignments (or religious alignments or whatever), by expelling such dichotomous programs from the thoughts is the medicine for a permanent fix. However the mind is hard to reprogram, but it is much easier to reprogram if you can back it with action - such as committing to not carry on discussion at that level of divide. That physical action will reinforce the ability to prevent such thoughts from entering your mind.

The tiny simple actions we use daily all the time go towards reinforcing our thoughts and beliefs like a feedback loop -- you can disrupt this loop simply by adjusting your daily actions, not carrying on a discussion topic that was designed for, and is very good at creating polar opposites, prevents that polarization from occurring in your mind.

Humans tend to over-complicate everything, likely because it is enabling ..

One doesn't need to find the right way be "political" -- one needs to fully abandon all the thought systems and programs that create the polarization, and create or use new systems of thought.

But I will agree that many people don't understand that sometimes the appearance of opposite of what you were doing that was causing the problem, is also not at all the solution to the problem - when people get disillusioned with the (left/right) they erroneously believe that changing their thought program towards the opposite pole is the answer -- only abandoning such thought systems will help correct this issue. Which can be had more easily by changing small daily habits on how you interact with others and your environment.

You can't change "others" - so I agree in that difficulty, you can only change yourself, and when you show others with these daily actions and commitments, others may observe and learn of your "better way" (even if subconsciously).

Almost nothing good ever comes out of political discussions, its when the discussion falls outside of that that it tends to have the potential for productivity.

If one believes there's nothing to discuss but politics, then I'd say one must have strong political thought programs if that is all they can observe. If I tell my friend to stop talking politics with me, because I think its stupid an immature, maybe that can allow me to influence his relationship to that thought program, a positive effect.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

What if the members indulging the hoax grow in numbers, and, while they're sorting out the Q thing, begin taking over the energy of the entire forum....causing many long standing members to leave?

What then?

I appreciate your sentiment but it's not quite as cut and dry as it may seem

Thanks Mike for another reminder that backstage there is much more going on than what we are discussing on this and other threads.

So I’m going to make a hypothesis. DISCLAIMER: “a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth”.

Several months ago I received a PM asking me to join forces to help publicly shut down a researcher (R) and his thread. (Not Q thread) In attempts to convince me that (R) had no place on Avalon I was told that moderators and other members felt the same way.

A tactic that: (a) implied this person was part of a privileged inner circle, and (b) was attempting to apply group pressure to sway me behind closed doors.

I refused to engage in this plan and made it clear I thought it was unethical to speak on behalf of others this way, especially when I had no way of verifying if it was true.

It deeply concerned me that members who are acutely aware of the lack of transparency in covert operations that control societies with secret task forces were actually engaging in the same type of behaviour that they opposed.

HYPOTHESIS 1

From my observations since – (way too many to list here and I am deliberately choosing not to specifically name members or topics; except for you Dennis, sorry, nothing personal) – my hypothesis is that there is a tight group of members, with loose affiliates, who have made a “behind closed doors” pact to target the removal of a few topics on Avalon that have been gaining more press coverage than their own threads/posts.

This group were struggling so they needed a leader who was well liked, prone to being dogmatic, and had sufficient clout to engage in the mods arena. Dennis became the voice and hero the group needed and although Q is predominantly focussed on at the moment there have been remarks made in the same vein for other topics. Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel.

WHY

I think the long standing members of this group have grown accustomed to Avalon being “their garden” and any topics they don’t see value in become weeds. So they march over to the weeds and cry for help to pluck them out of existence.

Problem is the weeds are not viewed by everyone to be weeds. There has been amazing intellectual discourse and debate over the Q topic being removed from public view, so much so that the weed killers are clutching at straws by making fanatical, extremist, insulting remarks as to what Q researchers are; e.g. sociopathic Nazis sympathizers, necrophiliacs.

I view Avalon as a garden that is growing and expanding; not a garden for "a self appointed privileged membership” to choose what flowers are planted and tended to. Avalon has proved over time that if real weeds do pop up they will eventually wither and die because of the strength of the garden. And as many have pointed out, weeds need to be investigated and studied, along with flowers.

I think members who aren’t happy that their “flowers” are currently dormant need to remind themselves that all members have the right to grow flowers and that flowers can be, and are, seasonal.

And the argument to clean out the “little flower growers” so Avalon can become a place solely for “the self appointed privileged intellectuals” is ludicrous. How is preaching only to the choir going to change the world?

HYPOTHESIS 2

Emotional Terrorism? Hope this isn’t happening, but from pieces of the puzzle I can’t rule it out.

Did long standing members threaten to leave if Q thread wasn’t removed from public viewing, and are these long standing members threatening to leave if the Q thread is put back into public view, via PM’s to moderators and Bill Ryan. And how is this a problem when there are also members publicly saying they are considering leaving re the “censorship” because it goes against their value system?

Doing it behind closed doors is cowardly and is emotional blackmail because the language is most likely appealing and exploiting along the lines of “friendship and caring” and “Avalon owes me” and “Avalon will crumble without me and those like me”, etc which clouds the intellectual determinations. It also doesn’t allow the intelligence within this community to engage openly to support those struggling with retirement decisions.

So I say: Call the bluff! Longstanding members may leave. Some may never return. But history reveals that many will return because they are invested in this garden. At any rate Avalon will survive; and who knows maybe some of the lurkers will come out and plant a few seeds because they will feel safe from the intimidation that oozes from some long standing members who blatantly and literally label themselves as being more intelligent, sophisticated, aware, awake, blah blah, when they judge and whine over what others contribute. These judgments are extreme hubris demanding privileges and fracturing equality in the process.

I’ve been browsing Avalon daily for years. Many times I see a new thread pop up and think Oh God, not another one. No biggie. I just glide on down and select what I have the time to be interested in. I could never justify going into those threads and demanding they be removed from public view, or slinging off about them in other threads, because I’m done with that topic so everyone else should be.

IS IT TIME TO FINISH THIS

We’re never going to know the full story. No matter how many well informed, intelligent, reasonable, civil discourses we have, (which are a testament to the Avalon membership), there’s always going to be the missing pieces of this Q puzzle that prevent clarity over what’s happening.

We cherish the right to vote. So let’s actually vote. (No opinion poll)

YES or NO. SHOULD THE Q THREADS BE PLACED BACK INTO PUBLIC VIEW.

Perhaps allow 2 weeks for voters to contribute. And whatever the result, let’s all concede to live with it.

Thanks Gemma! really on the money that.

As far as the shadowban goes, it is what it is. If it sticks then so be it. I think I can live with it. But this has been a very bitter experience, to be thrown into the basement like some bastard inbred that the 'others' are too embarrassed to keep upstairs. That's a pretty shocking thing to me all round, that this could be allowed to happen in the open garden that Avalon is supposed to be, as you described. Especially when you consider:

...that Q has been posting and posting chiefly about ONE thing. He said it loud and clear, and very early on. THIS IS ABOUT THE CHILDREN. It's about bringing to the light of day all those behind the scenes in places of power and influence who've been running, organizing, and profiteering in a terrible global paedophile/sex trafficking/organ harvesting/satan worshipping network. Are people here seriously trying to tell us that THAT is not going on? Are they disputing that messages and clues pointing to this evil have not been at the heart of Q from the beginning? Or that that an unprecedented one hundred-thousand sealed indictments is not a reality? That none of these drops have born fruit, have lead to nothing but blind alleys and misinformation? Or that the reality of this network (NXIVM and Epstein are just the beginning) isn't taking shape on the news channels and in newspapers before their very eyes?

Even if Q is not what we think it is, as peterpam said, many people, myself included, have been awakened to what it is truly going on in this world.

But right now, here on the wonderful board, I am hearing the terrible march of the jack-boot coming to take us away, to gag us, burn our work, and close us down for good - with thread deletion if necessary. Simply because they don't agree with it. And I'm not talking about Bill. Eventually yes, I fear, being 'disappeared' entirely is possible. Don't think it isn't. Because there are people on this forum who are radically, loudly, vehemently and quite viciously trying to take sole control of the narrative here, being violently opposed to anything outside or beyond their personally perceived truth. And when that includes what the Q-thread is trying to research (in peace), things that are irrefutably real - regardless of the real source and nature of Q - I really do have have to ask, why? Because I haven't seen a single good reason for it, nothing that appeals to good conscience at any rate.

For one, these antagonists have used the word 'indoctrinated' against us several times. Which is pretty daft (and insulting), seeing as there isn't a doctrine involved here. Only pieces of information. Lists. Connections. Clues. They also see it as a 'Qult'. People's minds are getting swept away in a religious fervour, they say. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some who are getting behind this information, and are learning so much from it - me included - may display the enthusiasm and optimism of someone who has seen a bit of light. That is the only perceived 'qultishness' associated with Q. Optimism. There's a BIG bloody difference between a follower of something optimistic, and a member of a cult. What's happening here with Q is not unlike Deep Throat in the 70s. Except this time Q, as Deep Throat, is not talking to a reporter, but the whole world. Sceptics and debunkers see a drop they think is conflicting, incongruous, subversive, and as such write it off as Fake/Phony, or a Psyop. Yes it's a Psy-op people! because not all the messages he/she/it/they drop are for the general public, but for those who are ALSO watching. That's the counter-intelligence level. And there are multiple levels involved, multiple layers. Q bashers just don't get that.

Hand on my heart, I don't know what the REAL truth is behind Q. No one does (except the Q bashers of course, they got it all figured out). Me, I'm still somewhat clinging on to the fence. Trying to figure this out.

And also to be honest, I would have walked away from this long ago - LONG AGO - if this was all just bullsh!t, as I think more than one mod has termed it. But this is nothing like the Flat Earth movement or the blue chicken cult, whose absurdities are roundly self-evident. The very nature of Q evinces a profound complexity at its centre, involving something quite extraordinary, more than many people can imagine I think. But I do understand the scepticism. Scepticism is after all a healthy thing, but only when the evidence tilts so far to one side that the truth (or the lie), whatever it may be, is self-evident. And that's a very important word, and perhaps the most important word in the science of enquiry. Because self-evidence doesn't judge. It bypasses all filters of perception and expectation and bias. It lands right at the heart of the logic centre in your brain. And once you see it you cannot unsee it, and you cannot ignore it. The existence of Q as a voice in the deep state is, to many of us at least, self-evident. What it reveals is open to discussion. What it all means is open to discussion. Whether it is for good, for the betterment of humankind, ultimately, is open to discussion too, and should be visible to all.

I don't expect any doubters to suddenly say "a-ha, now I get it." Their minds are already made up, and that's fine. I really don't care. They are free to believe what they want to believe, to read, study, and be interested in whatever they choose. As is their sovereign right. But how dare they tell me, or us, or anyone else, what and what not to be interested in, what and what not to research, or what should or shouldn't be up for general discussion.

The so-called insidious or subversive angle to Q that others are so vociferous in crying about, I personally I have not detected. But why trust my word on any of this? I mean, who am I? I'm not a youtube star or a TV pundit or a internationally renowned speaker and author who you might otherwise pay attention to... I'm just a bloke on a computer typing words. But I'd like to think I've conducted myself quite well over the years as a member here, and there was some value somewhere in at least some of my posts. I'd like to think I had friends on Avalon who respect my opinion and my judgement - as I respect theirs. And if not my judgement, how about Paul's? How about the thousands of quality posts he made? How about his pearls of wisdom, or his amazing grasp of so many different topics? How much work did he put in over the decade on Avalon, or over the decades that came before, to train his nose to smell bullsh!t wherever it lurked? I think it was a bit more sensitive than many of ours. When he expressed an opinion or an insight I listened to it and I respected it, because he had damn well earned that. Too bad others don't think so. No he's not infallible, no one is. But the respect - and the benefit of the doubt - he deserved, for his dedication and endurance and his powers of restraint in this affair particularly, he just didn't get from those members in dissent of his opinion (and his judgement!). Not enough by far.

However, people are, I've observed, quick to jump onboard with what their favourite Youtube personalities have to say about this. Many will cite the likes of Farrell, Dolan, and the Dark Journalist, in their disavowing of Q. They're my favourites too, don't get me wrong. I listen to them frequently. Brilliant stuff. But their personal appraisal of things is not the be all and end all, is it. Because I ask, would not falling in line with their opinion, just because it is their opinion, also qualify as 'cultish' behaviour? Something to think about...

I submit that they don't really have time for it, or won't make the time for it, except to paint broad strokes. I heard Daniel Listz in a webcast just recently mentioning the "cult" of Q in the same breath as "JFK Jr. being still alive.." [at which point there was sniggering] This is what I mean. This shows how far he is behind the curve, in that, he doesn't know a whole lot about Q. JFK Jr is not alive, that idea was always silly to me. There was no evidence for it for one, and for two, lots of evidence against it. Q also said categorically, to quash this nonsense once and for all, that no, JFK JR was not alive. End of story. That this rumour proliferated as it did was possibly an effort to discredit the movement. It worked it seemed with the Dark Journalist. Beyond that I don't think he looked much more into it (I might be wrong, he may have made in-depth analysis videos on Q that I haven't seen). He seems to be concentrating on his steganography series at the moment, and I doubt he's given Q much of a thought. Nor Dolan. His plate's full with the various developments in the disclosure movement. This isn't particularly in their sphere of interest - with the exception of Farrell perhaps, but from what I've seen (so far) of his and their commentary on it, focusing on only this aspect over here and that over there, without zooming in and really doing a proper deep dive, (while getting stuck on what the movement Q has become, rather than the evidence, data, and details that created it) it's all rather superficial. They haven't done much homework on it, so it's of little surprise to me they summarily dismissed it as bunk.

The deeply cynical, snarky, side to this is especially galling to me. I've spent my entire adult life - and much of my childhood too - being told by people who 'knew better than me' that what I believed in was insane. UFOs and little green men, they smirked. 'Lunacy', some said. 'Hysteria'. 'Fantasy'. I heard it all as a kid. Some even said I must be stupid somehow, and I'd do well NOT to be interested in these things at all, and to go ride my bike with the other boys. Like I'm being told to now. Especially galling.. Particularly when their opinions arose from: reading NO books on the subject of flying saucers/aliens/crop circles/bigfoot/ghosts/atlantis/reincarnation/conspiracies of this type and that type/you-just-name-it, attending no lectures, listening to no testimonies, reading no transcripts, seeing no documentaries, reviewing no case-studies. AT ALL. But still, they professed to know better than me on these subjects...

What the anti-Q side professes to know about Q, from which it has formed its not so faintly haughty opinion, is, I have to believe, considerably less than what those working in the Q-thread know about Q. Hundreds of hours of research, each, testify to that. Have I formed an obsessed, over-zealous belief-system after those hundreds of hours, thus qualifying 'cultishness'...? Well, I'm not the one screaming here. But I firmly say no, I don't belief so, but again you have to define what a cult is. For a start you have to have a doctrine for that, as stated earlier. And there isn't a doctrine present here, again for reasons stated earlier. This is not a populist movement, either. All that has been sought here, and gained here, is insight. Especially into the (proven) nefarious network of corruption in high places across the world, whose goal is the destruction of liberty, economic, social and spiritual slavery, and total global control. And the antagonists call us right-wing, or neo-nazi. Sick! Those in this network, right there, are your damn nazis! The only losers in the ultimate equation, Q researchers maintain, are them. The enemies of humanity.

Once more, I absolutely understand the scepticism. I also understand and sympathise with those who have no interest in Q, and don't want to see links to it plastered across the front page all the time. I get it. Hopefully, with new versions of the forum software (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107819-We-re-working-on-establishing-an-upgraded-platform-for-the-forum.) on the cards, an 'Ignore' function that properly works might be part of the toolkit. Something that could even remove all Q stuff from the feed of new topics, freeing that list up for other things. I believe this would be the most equitable solution. I'd even want to use that myself. Q is just one of many, many threads I visit, and it bothers me sometimes that some days it does dominate that list of New Posts.

This has gone on too long. I didn't mean to write this much and I'm sorry. I'd be happy to hold my silence, to carry on reading and analysing and researching in peace -- without being judged, humiliated, insulted, or censored. Because I'm happy to differ. I'd be even happier if everyone else was happy to differ, too. Seemingly they are not, but want to be very unhappy in their differing, and that is a very troubling thing.

[mojo]

Gemma's post And Star Mariner thank you...


And I'm not talking about Bill. Eventually yes, I fear, being 'disappeared' entirely is possible. Don't think it isn't. Because there are people on this forum who are radically, loudly, vehemently and quite viciously trying to take sole control of the narrative here, being violently opposed to anything outside or beyond their personally perceived truth.

I also personally never thought Bill was the reason for this to happen....

[AutumnW]

It's a hoax that plays on suggestibility using the old propaganda canard, "it's about the CHILDREN! It's not relegated to the basement. It's confined to the attic, chained to a wall, like a Victorian age raving evangelist.

[greybeard]

The only real difference that I can see is that guests cant see the posts on Q.
Members are completely free to discuss till the cows come home.
To my mind censorship is where free discussion is not permitted
Its permitted here in a different section of Avalon.
Many sections in Avalon--many subjects up for discussion for members only.

Chris

[mojo]

It's not as easy as that greybeard. The q phenomenon has been censured across multiple platforms. Imagine if you invested in sharing some important information/discoveries that you felt needed exposure to the world. After months of investment that thread is now closed to the once viewers of said material. I can understand this narrow definition of censorship doesnt appear to fit but when people can no longer see the information... And also having a hyper vigilant group of people ie conservatives sensitive to all the censoring happening around it should make sense and maybe help you understand.

[greybeard]

The only real difference that I can see is that guests cant see the posts on Q.
Members are completely free to discuss till the cows come home.
To my mind censorship is where free discussion is not permitted
Its permitted here in a different section of Avalon.
Many sections in Avalon--many subjects up for discussion for members only.

Chris

I had not realized that members offline could not read the threads nor can ex members.
So I apologize for simplifying the subject.
Im not for or against any Q post and im not for censorship.
I can see most points of view on this thread and im no invalidating them but like it or notBill and the mods made a decision right or wrong I think that should be respected

An old and Grey member smiling
Chris

[Iloveyou]

There‘s a deeply rooted disease of divisiveness running rampant throughout (though not exclusively) Western culture and the crisis has hit Avalon, too.

Even if Q were not legit, if it were fake and dangerous (which I make no statement about, I simply don‘t know) - removing the threads from public would be treating only the visible symptom. If we make the symptom disappear and then expect to return to business as usual it will be only a matter of time until the disease breaks out again, this time more violently than before. Moving the threads from public view will not heal the division. Putting them in public view with a banner/announcement on top of every page as well as a link to this thread - would that be no option?

I suppose the threads will remain where they are now and Bill and the mods will stand by their decision. I do not know any treatment or cure to address or even identify the roots of the disease except staying in contact and continue the dialogue.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

The only real difference that I can see is that guests cant see the posts on Q.
Members are completely free to discuss till the cows come home.
To my mind censorship is where free discussion is not permitted
Its permitted here in a different section of Avalon.
Many sections in Avalon--many subjects up for discussion for members only.

Chris

Chris, imagine if certain people on the forum thought spirituality, reincarnation, the soul, all that was false. Garbage. And they even called you names for believing in it. Then, arbitrarily, they remove all those threads, all your posts and contributions on the subject, out of view. Imagine they shadowbanned it. And your opinion on the matter was irrelevant. Imagine that.

It's the principle (or lack of) we're opposed to here.

[mojo]

Putting them in public view with a banner/announcement on top of every page as well as a link to this thread - would that be no option?


That sounds so reasonable... both pro and against Q threads...

[greybeard]

The only real difference that I can see is that guests cant see the posts on Q.
Members are completely free to discuss till the cows come home.
To my mind censorship is where free discussion is not permitted
Its permitted here in a different section of Avalon.
Many sections in Avalon--many subjects up for discussion for members only.

Chris

Chris, imagine if certain people on the forum thought spirituality, reincarnation, the soul, all that was false. Garbage. And they even called you names for believing in it. Then, arbitrarily, they remove all those threads, all your posts and contributions on the subject, out of view. Imagine they shadowbanned it. And your opinion on the matter was irrelevant. Imagine that.

It's the principle (or lack of) we're opposed to here.

See my post 186.
I accept your point.
The subject I post on is thousands of years old and people have been crucified tortured etc for what I post.
What is true will survive.
If Q is the real deal it will survive.
I have no knowledge of it--so no opinion on validity.
Best wishes
Chris

Loads of members never visit my posts I dont mind--choice

[mojo]

Hi Chris, Your a great guy and much respected around here. I realize there's a lot more emotion behind Star Mariners post that is not directed at you... hope that helps...

[Valerie Villars]

Star Mariner, your post was incredible.

Not to take away from it, but dammit I am tired of the anti-Q people just repeating the same thing over and over. "It's a cult. It's a psy-op" etc, like they actually KNOW this.

It's like saying you know what God wants or means because somehow you have some special inside track and damn it, you are going to shove that belief down everyone's throats BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM.

[snoman]

none of you know anything about q really.
and if you did know, source and validity.. then what?
all of you who take a position on q.. are fools.
you know nothing in reality
posturing and positioning is in fact the root of all this nonsense and discord here on avalon
you are fools
i personally love that something has got your knickers in a twist
you all need a good shake

[waves]

There's a big, very telling reason only the pro-Q people are deliriously angry at being moved out of non-membership view (which is not censorship), and the just as passionate disbelievers aren't in the least upset at their discussion being moved out of public view and don't feel 'censored'.

[edina]

none of you know anything about q really.
and if you did know, source and validity.. then what?
all of you who take a position on q.. are fools.
you know nothing in reality
posturing and positioning is in fact the root of all this nonsense and discord here on avalon
you are fools
i personally love that something has got your knickers in a twist
you all need a good shake

conflict junkie... lol ;)

[AutumnW]

There‘s a deeply rooted disease of divisiveness running rampant throughout (though not exclusively) Western culture and the crisis has hit Avalon, too.

Even if Q were not legit, if it were fake and dangerous (which I make no statement about, I simply don‘t know) - removing the threads from public would be treating only the visible symptom. If we make the symptom disappear and then expect to return to business as usual it will be only a matter of time until the disease breaks out again, this time more violently than before. Moving the threads from public view will not heal the division. Putting them in public view with a banner/announcement on top of every page as well as a link to this thread - would that be no option?

I suppose the threads will remain where they are now and Bill and the mods will stand by their decision. I do not know any treatment or cure to address or even identify the roots of the disease except staying in contact and continue the dialogue.

Q anon is a symptom of a disease. You could say it's like an allergic rash.

Avalon could be doing a better job of dealing with some of the root causes of despair that lead people down constricted mental pathways looking for answers. But Avalon is us. So we have to discuss the practical mundane concerns that are life diminishing for so many, imho.

People are angry disillusioned and feel despair. They are living in a country, the U.S. that is becoming third world when they grew up in the first world. In many ways it echoes what happened in Russia, post collapse. The difference being, Russia didn't have as far to fall.

I think this is what makes me so angry about Qanon. Whoever is operating it is taking advantage of the dispossessed. It is VERY frustrating to witness people participating in just another program that hastens their demise.

[edina]

There's a big, very telling reason only the pro-Q people are deliriously angry at being moved out of non-membership view (which is not censorship), and the just as passionate disbelievers aren't in the least upset at their discussion being moved out of public view and don't feel 'censored'.

Correct me if I've misunderstood, but from your various comments in this thread, you got what you wanted, the first Q thread removed from view.
And I figured that's why you're not complaining.

The other two threads were only removed from view when someone pointed out the inconsistency.

You'll also note that the people raising questions are advocating all 3 threads be returned to public view.
So, if you don't feel censored, we feel you were censored, too.

Or rather, shadow-banned. It's a more accurate description of the action.

[mojo]

Putting them in public view with a banner/announcement on top of every page as well as a link to this thread - would that be no option?

If any consideration is given to this suggestion might we also be able to clean up some of the non-subject matter inside of the threads? Some would see this a growth solving difficult issues... thank you...

PS edit: Wow edina thats the precise word that nobody thought of at least not me, Shadow Banning...

[Dennis Leahy]

I note that many people are framing the discussion as if the issue was supporting one of the US political parties, or denigrating one of the US political parties. Look wider and deeper.

I'd hazard a guess that there are no agents of the Ruling Elite cabal here. (If there are, you are pretty pitiful at your job.) All of us, all of us - even those who are unconscious of this reality and are infighting and helping the cabal - are on the same side.

Even edina.

She's my "cosmic sister", a regular old member of humanity, whether she likes me or not (she doesn't), or whether I like her or not (I don't.) She's not one of the Ruling Elite. Paul's not one of the Ruling Elite. "KiwiElf" isn't one of the Ruling Elite. None of you are one of the Ruling Elite. We're on the same team. All of us.

We have a common enemy. Even after all these years of trying to figure out if our common enemy should be called "the Ruling Elite", "the Controllers", "the Global Controllers", "the Rulers of the World", "the Illuminati", "The Zionists", "the International Banking Cartel", "the Unelected Government", "the Shadow Government", "the Bilderberg Group", "American Empire", "Global Empire", "Freemasons", "New World Order", "the Deep State", "Corporatocracy/Corporations", "Plutocracy/Plutocrats", "Oligarchy/Oligarchs, "the Military Industrial Complex"... none of us can firmly affix a label to this global control group. Whatever their actual name is, or whether these are all just names for segments of it, this is who us regular people are fighting against. This is our common enemy, the common enemy of mankind (and womankind, and non-humankind too.)

There have been hundreds of topics here at Avalon regarding the malevolence of this cabal and their control mechanisms, and their plans for us "useless eaters" - well, maybe they will keep 500,000 of the 8 billion useless eaters around, they carved it in granite. I guess someone has to clean the toilets. We Avalon members have always stood together against this cabal.

Whether the topic is UFO disclosure or hidden energy technology or the surveillance state or genetically modified foods or millimeter wave technology or chemtrails or pollution or extractive exploitation or human exploitation or oil drilling/pipelines/fracking aquifer destruction or aiding and abetting in the genocide of the people of Yemen and Palestine or war profiteering or imperialism or false flag operations...

...the pain and suffering and death and ecocide is brought to bear on us by the same unnamed group/cabal. Humanity's enemy. Life's enemy. It's not the exact same people, some of the cabal (dulles and ghw bush and david rockefeller jump to mind) members are dead. It's more of a club with a club-centric agenda than a specific group of people. It changes over time, but their malevolence against us only increases with time.

I stand against this cabal. Openly. That's my photo, that's my real name, that's my real city and state and country. I'm not a coward hiding behind anonymity. I'm not playing dungeons and dragons, I'm actually here to oppose this cabal. I'm of average intelligence. You don't have to be a genius to see that donald trump is a member of the same cabal, and is executing the duties of the cabal just as obama did, and just as w bush did, and just as bill clinton did, and just as ghw bush did. Same game plan. Same game planners. Same cabal.

This thread was supposed to be about censorship. Let me invoke "Godwin's Law":
Avalon is a cyber-meeting spot, not the entire Internet, and was never intended to be a place where the worst misanthropes - members of the cabal, zionists, nazis - are defended. There are not very many people on this forum that want neo-nazis here, carefully, articulately, politely rationalizing nazism. There are men that openly lobby for pedophilia, trying to normalize raping children, trying to get laws changed to legalize pedophilia. There are not many Avalon members that want that here. White supremacy proponents. Sex slavery proponents. Genocide proponents. You want that here at Avalon, under the guise of Avalon being encyclopedic, all-encompassing? Avalon FILTERS out that garbage. "Filters" is more accurate and honest that "censors."

I have a very bright (real life) friend, a phd anthropologist/archeologist, very articulate. She is a hillary clinton supporter/apologist. She loves hillary, and lauds her greatness. She can take any facts about hillary's actual actions, and she can make it sound like hillary is just misunderstood, a victim of being a woman in a man's world, yadda yadda yadda and ultimately she will defend everything about hillary. Shall I invite her to join Avalon? Would that make Avalon a better place? Would Avalon be more balanced to have a rabid US democrat on-board, spewing that "side" of the cabal's agenda? I have a family member that swallowed the horsesh!t that bernie sanders was spewing, and (in their mind) sanders is a hero and mighty warrior against the bad guys. Shall I invite that family member to become an Avalon member, so that Avalon includes topics about how wonderful that cabal member is?

As I said before, Avalon members should most certainly be talking about the political ramifications of the actions of the cabal lackeys that have assumed all high office positions of governance. Cabal control of politicians is quite a valid topic. Cabal control mechanisms that they employ to control elections is a valid topic. Cabal infiltration of alternative media, and narrative control, are valid topics. Lauding members of the cabal is not. Ignoring the deeds of the cabal members is not. Pretending that the cabal members are good guys is not.

Maybe, just maybe, we should find out from Bill what his forum platform is about. Hint: it's about fighting AGAINST the cabal, not picking out our favorite cabal member, ignoring all their actual deeds, worshiping them, and putting ribbons in their hair.

[mojo]

Let's work together in the best way we know how. Also my apologies for calling it censorship which in fact it's a sub category and personally did not know the meaning shadow banning?

[greybeard]

If we are really into defeating these people I would suggest a full read of Shadowmans book here.
Once he has set the context so you can see where he is coming from
He outlines how we can change the situation thats gone on since time began.
He speaks of all the things that Dennis has mentioned.
Believe what he says or not--I trust him.
Chris

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107614-The-Real-Life-Adventures-of-Shadowman&p=1300538&viewfull=1#post1300538

[Pam]

The best we can do is try and obtain a neutral and as-objective-as-possible outlook. And unfortunately ─ and now this puts us back onto the topic of this thread ─ there are all too many people whose personal political preferences and lack of an international perspective cause them to rebel against the host of the house where they are guests.

The problem is, it is all a matter of perspective. What I see on tot is anything right wing being deemed as propaganda, while left wing propaganda reigns unchecked, by members and staff alike

That is not true. But perhaps you maintain another definition of propaganda. We have no objections to opinions being posted ─ the discussions that spring from opinions are always food for thought, and everyone benefits from that ─ but propaganda is biased and misleading information. And when that gets posted at The One Truth, then we will object to it, whether it's left, right, up or down.

On the other hand, in turiya's case, it was overt propaganda, and there was no discussion whatsoever, nor did he abide by the staff's requests (and later, insistence) to stop doing it. He simply flipped us the bird and carried on. And whenever we then closed down whatever thread he was posting propaganda to, he would then quickly start an innocent and unrelated thread as a diversion tactic, and then by the next day already, he would continue building up the propaganda again on yet other, already existing threads that he himself hadn't even started. So there was no alternative but to ban him. He was disfiguring our front door, and he was flipping us the bird on account of the rules of the house.

The people who post left-wing stuff ─ and occasionally left-wing propaganda ─ are being slapped on the wrist just the same, but the difference is that they then acknowledge that they've gone too far, and they will refrain from doing it again ─ barring an occasional slip-up. But that's a long way from an endless and non-stop stream of far-right propaganda being posted, including hate speech and offensive cartoons, and it is an equally long way from people who respect neither the rules of the house nor the members of the staff.

I know you mean well. I also know you don't know what I'm pointing at. Really, it's fine, either way.

My own views tend to run the spectrum of any given debate, I care a lot about the environment but I think anthropormophic climate change is propaganda, just by way of example.

I believe a lot in personal freedom, specifically the first amendment, and I don't believe in hate speech as violence, rather I am more concerned with the violence of antifa against the proponents of free speech, yet I believe absolutely in the right of antifa to argue their views in a non-violent manner.

I believe in what is endowed in the individual human spirit, and all of it's manifold expressions, and I wouldn't squash it for anything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of another.

I am perfectly willing to give you or anyone the benefit of a doubt, but at the same time I will call it as I see it. You are welcome to ascribe to me any attributes you perceive as well, and perhaps we we'll find some meeting of the minds. I am not especially hopeful, but life is full of surprises.

While we sit here tap tap tapping away on keyboards, there's a whole world out there needing our attention, and rather than argue about what is or isn't propaganda, we should be analyzing both to work on our solutions of where do we go from here.

Leftist neoliberal (corporate controlled) governments have had their heyday, and there is a rise of populism as a result. Populism isn't right or left, regardless of the propaganda to the contrary



Bumpety, bumpety bump this meaningful, articulate post to the toppppp!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[AutumnW]

Maybe, just maybe, we should find out from Bill what his forum platform is about. Hint: it's about fighting AGAINST the cabal, not picking out our favorite cabal member, ignoring all their actual deeds, worshiping them, and putting ribbons in their hair DENNIS LEAHY

Thank you!!:thumbsup:

[justntime2learn]

Greetings All,

I've made an observation lately on Avalon that I would like to share.

It's never about what a person says, but how they say it. Its simply not helping you or others making your point.

I don't see where name-calling and generalizations are helpful in a healthy debate.

I think more and more members are noticing how others are 'presenting' to make their point.

Also, it's not always what you say but what you don't say. Perhaps more if you're an administrator. More and more are noticing.

Much love to all as we learn and grow, together.



none of you know anything about q really.
and if you did know, source and validity.. then what?
all of you who take a position on q.. are fools.
you know nothing in reality
posturing and positioning is in fact the root of all this nonsense and discord here on avalon
you are fools
i personally love that something has got your knickers in a twist
you all need a good shake

[edina]

I note that many people are framing the discussion as if the issue was supporting one of the US political parties, or denigrating one of the US political parties. Look wider and deeper.

I'd hazard a guess that there are no agents of the Ruling Elite cabal here. (If there are, you are pretty pitiful at your job.) All of us, all of us - even those who are unconscious of this reality and are infighting and helping the cabal - are on the same side.

Even edina.

She's my "cosmic sister", a regular old member of humanity, whether she likes me or not (she doesn't), or whether I like her or not (I don't.) She's not one of the Ruling Elite. Paul's not one of the Ruling Elite. "KiwiElf" isn't one of the Ruling Elite. None of you are one of the Ruling Elite. We're on the same team. All of us.

We have a common enemy. Even after all these years of trying to figure out if our common enemy should be called "the Ruling Elite", "the Controllers", "the Global Controllers", "the Rulers of the World", "the Illuminati", "The Zionists", "the International Banking Cartel", "the Unelected Government", "the Shadow Government", "the Bilderberg Group", "American Empire", "Global Empire", "Freemasons", "New World Order", "the Deep State", "Corporatocracy/Corporations", "Plutocracy/Plutocrats", "Oligarchy/Oligarchs, "the Military Industrial Complex"... none of us can firmly affix a label to this global control group. Whatever their actual name is, or whether these are all just names for segments of it, this is who us regular people are fighting against. This is our common enemy, the common enemy of mankind (and womankind, and non-humankind too.)

There have been hundreds of topics here at Avalon regarding the malevolence of this cabal and their control mechanisms, and their plans for us "useless eaters" - well, maybe they will keep 500,000 of the 8 billion useless eaters around, they carved it in granite. I guess someone has to clean the toilets. We Avalon members have always stood together against this cabal.

Whether the topic is UFO disclosure or hidden energy technology or the surveillance state or genetically modified foods or millimeter wave technology or chemtrails or pollution or extractive exploitation or human exploitation or oil drilling/pipelines/fracking aquifer destruction or aiding and abetting in the genocide of the people of Yemen and Palestine or war profiteering or imperialism or false flag operations...

...the pain and suffering and death and ecocide is brought to bear on us by the same unnamed group/cabal. Humanity's enemy. Life's enemy. It's not the exact same people, some of the cabal (dulles and ghw bush and david rockefeller jump to mind) members are dead. It's more of a club with a club-centric agenda than a specific group of people. It changes over time, but their malevolence against us only increases with time.

I stand against this cabal. Openly. That's my photo, that's my real name, that's my real city and state and country. I'm not a coward hiding behind anonymity. I'm not playing dungeons and dragons, I'm actually here to oppose this cabal. I'm of average intelligence. You don't have to be a genius to see that donald trump is a member of the same cabal, and is executing the duties of the cabal just as obama did, and just as w bush did, and just as bill clinton did, and just as ghw bush did. Same game plan. Same game planners. Same cabal.

This thread was supposed to be about censorship. Let me invoke "Godwin's Law":
Avalon is a cyber-meeting spot, not the entire Internet, and was never intended to be a place where the worst misanthropes - members of the cabal, zionists, nazis - are defended. There are not very many people on this forum that want neo-nazis here, carefully, articulately, politely rationalizing nazism. There are men that openly lobby for pedophilia, trying to normalize raping children, trying to get laws changed to legalize pedophilia. There are not many Avalon members that want that here. White supremacy proponents. Sex slavery proponents. Genocide proponents. You want that here at Avalon, under the guise of Avalon being encyclopedic, all-encompassing? Avalon FILTERS out that garbage. "Filters" is more accurate and honest that "censors."

I have a very bright (real life) friend, a phd anthropologist/archeologist, very articulate. She is a hillary clinton supporter/apologist. She loves hillary, and lauds her greatness. She can take any facts about hillary's actual actions, and she can make it sound like hillary is just misunderstood, a victim of being a woman in a man's world, yadda yadda yadda and ultimately she will defend everything about hillary. Shall I invite her to join Avalon? Would that make Avalon a better place? Would Avalon be more balanced to have a rabid US democrat on-board, spewing that "side" of the cabal's agenda? I have a family member that swallowed the horsesh!t that bernie sanders was spewing, and (in their mind) sanders is a hero and mighty warrior against the bad guys. Shall I invite that family member to become an Avalon member, so that Avalon includes topics about how wonderful that cabal member is?

As I said before, Avalon members should most certainly be talking about the political ramifications of the actions of the cabal lackeys that have assumed all high office positions of governance. Cabal control of politicians is quite a valid topic. Cabal control mechanisms that they employ to control elections is a valid topic. Cabal infiltration of alternative media, and narrative control, are valid topics. Lauding members of the cabal is not. Ignoring the deeds of the cabal members is not. Pretending that the cabal members are good guys is not.

Maybe, just maybe, we should find out from Bill what his forum platform is about. Hint: it's about fighting AGAINST the cabal, not picking out our favorite cabal member, ignoring all their actual deeds, worshiping them, and putting ribbons in their hair.

Thanks for this Dennis,

There is good grounds for a positive constructive conversation in these comments.

I want to come back to them and expand on them, it will take some time, as I'm working on another project. And I would like to give it the thoughtful attention that it deserves.

Let me correct one thing. I can't say I don't like you, because in all honesty, I don't know you.

Some of your communication style comes off as soft-bullying to me in that it seems to not allow psychological space for people to have an opinion different than yours.

Whether that is actually true, or not, I don't know.

I call you "passionately erudite".

You use a lot of "persuasion (https://www.media-studies.ca/articles/influence.htm)" techniques.

Sounds lovely, but sometimes it breaks down communication.
Sometimes it feels like a landmine about to explode.
And I'm speaking about this energetically, as well as from your choice of words.

I truly appreciate that you have clarified your thoughts here:


She's not one of the Ruling Elite. Paul's not one of the Ruling Elite. "KiwiElf" isn't one of the Ruling Elite. None of you are one of the Ruling Elite. We're on the same team. All of us.

Because sometimes your comments were so loaded that I thought that you may have thought we were in cahoots with the Ruling Elite.

Thank you again, there is much common ground in these comments that I hope we can work with going forward.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

post deleted to consider other replies that appeared since writing post.

[Bubu]

Dennis, every single aspect of humanity's life is hijacked by the elite. How can they not if they want to control the masses. Education, medicine, America name it.. and of course avalon. Yes there are agents of the elite on avalon. I'm glad there is a lot of good energies on avalon that they cannot subdue it easily. You are one of the knights in shining armor I count on to defend avalon. I am wondering though "what happened"

[Dennis Leahy]

...HYPOTHESIS 1

From my observations since – (way too many to list here and I am deliberately choosing not to specifically name members or topics; except for you Dennis, sorry, nothing personal) – my hypothesis is that there is a tight group of members, with loose affiliates, who have made a “behind closed doors” pact to target the removal of a few topics on Avalon that have been gaining more press coverage than their own threads/posts.

This group were struggling so they needed a leader who was well liked, prone to being dogmatic, and had sufficient clout to engage in the mods arena. Dennis became the voice and hero the group needed and although Q is predominantly focussed on at the moment there have been remarks made in the same vein for other topics. Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel.

WHY

I think the long standing members of this group have grown accustomed to Avalon being “their garden” and any topics they don’t see value in become weeds. So they march over to the weeds and cry for help to pluck them out of existence.

Problem is the weeds are not viewed by everyone to be weeds. There has been amazing intellectual discourse and debate over the Q topic being removed from public view, so much so that the weed killers are clutching at straws by making fanatical, extremist, insulting remarks as to what Q researchers are; e.g. sociopathic Nazis sympathizers, necrophiliacs.

I view Avalon as a garden that is growing and expanding; not a garden for "a self appointed privileged membership” to choose what flowers are planted and tended to. Avalon has proved over time that if real weeds do pop up they will eventually wither and die because of the strength of the garden. And as many have pointed out, weeds need to be investigated and studied, along with flowers.

I think members who aren’t happy that their “flowers” are currently dormant need to remind themselves that all members have the right to grow flowers and that flowers can be, and are, seasonal.

And the argument to clean out the “little flower growers” so Avalon can become a place solely for “the self appointed privileged intellectuals” is ludicrous. How is preaching only to the choir going to change the world?

....

Ya know, I'm going to take your attack on me as a compliment. I think I may have written something that cracked your cognitive dissonance just a tiny bit. Let me guess, it was the string of facts about how trump and the previous (d and r) presidents all followed the same cabal game plan. It's really hard to ignore, once you look - isn't it?

You are angry, and you don't know what to do so you attack me. (If you want to attack me, don't just make sh!t up, attack me for attacking the cabal.) You make Paul out to be weak. He isn't.

"Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel."

Quote me, don't just make sh!t up. I said I admit that I tried to save Paul from the Q cult. I've never asked Paul, or you, to accept ANYTHING that I say. Not just not as 'gospel', but just like every other source of information you come across, anything I write should also be scrutinized, examined, analyzed. When I say that trump is following EXACTLY the cabal's game plan, just as all the other modern US presidents have, I want you to RESEARCH that. You may need to read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", (or just watch the cartoon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RozOiZAK9lQ)), so that you will understand that the first phase of modern war is economic, and be able to recognize that the United States of America, under potus trump as commander-in-chief, is directly conducting war on Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, as well as aiding and abetting in the genocide in Palestine by the Zionist Israeli government, and aiding and abetting in the genocide in Yemen by the Saudi Arabian monarchy. The destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan are about complete, and potus trump is also presiding over the cabal's resource extraction (theft) in those destroyed countries. Potus trump is also sitting on the knowledge of who planned, executed, and covered-up 9/11 - and his response is to become yet another member of the cover-up team.

Trump is low hanging fruit. No fancy decoder ring or even AI needed to see that he is a member of the financial elite that has now also become a member of the ruling elite, the cabal. The data is all there for you to ascertain that trump, and his main propagandist Q, are cabal assets. In addition to the cheerleading of US republicans, the whitewashing of evil warmongers, is Q also going after cabal democrat pedophiles? Well, good, but how about the cabal republican pedophiles? I'm going after the cabal. So, if you want to crucify me, then crucify me for what I am actually advocating: fighting the entire cabal.

Glad to see that I'm getting through to you.

[Pam]

I note that many people are framing the discussion as if the issue was supporting one of the US political parties, or denigrating one of the US political parties. Look wider and deeper.

I'd hazard a guess that there are no agents of the Ruling Elite cabal here. (If there are, you are pretty pitiful at your job.) All of us, all of us - even those who are unconscious of this reality and are infighting and helping the cabal - are on the same side.

Even edina.

She's my "cosmic sister", a regular old member of humanity, whether she likes me or not (she doesn't), or whether I like her or not (I don't.) She's not one of the Ruling Elite. Paul's not one of the Ruling Elite. "KiwiElf" isn't one of the Ruling Elite. None of you are one of the Ruling Elite. We're on the same team. All of us.

We have a common enemy. Even after all these years of trying to figure out if our common enemy should be called "the Ruling Elite", "the Controllers", "the Global Controllers", "the Rulers of the World", "the Illuminati", "The Zionists", "the International Banking Cartel", "the Unelected Government", "the Shadow Government", "the Bilderberg Group", "American Empire", "Global Empire", "Freemasons", "New World Order", "the Deep State", "Corporatocracy/Corporations", "Plutocracy/Plutocrats", "Oligarchy/Oligarchs, "the Military Industrial Complex"... none of us can firmly affix a label to this global control group. Whatever their actual name is, or whether these are all just names for segments of it, this is who us regular people are fighting against. This is our common enemy, the common enemy of mankind (and womankind, and non-humankind too.)

There have been hundreds of topics here at Avalon regarding the malevolence of this cabal and their control mechanisms, and their plans for us "useless eaters" - well, maybe they will keep 500,000 of the 8 billion useless eaters around, they carved it in granite. I guess someone has to clean the toilets. We Avalon members have always stood together against this cabal.

Whether the topic is UFO disclosure or hidden energy technology or the surveillance state or genetically modified foods or millimeter wave technology or chemtrails or pollution or extractive exploitation or human exploitation or oil drilling/pipelines/fracking aquifer destruction or aiding and abetting in the genocide of the people of Yemen and Palestine or war profiteering or imperialism or false flag operations...

...the pain and suffering and death and ecocide is brought to bear on us by the same unnamed group/cabal. Humanity's enemy. Life's enemy. It's not the exact same people, some of the cabal (dulles and ghw bush and david rockefeller jump to mind) members are dead. It's more of a club with a club-centric agenda than a specific group of people. It changes over time, but their malevolence against us only increases with time.

I stand against this cabal. Openly. That's my photo, that's my real name, that's my real city and state and country. I'm not a coward hiding behind anonymity. I'm not playing dungeons and dragons, I'm actually here to oppose this cabal. I'm of average intelligence. You don't have to be a genius to see that donald trump is a member of the same cabal, and is executing the duties of the cabal just as obama did, and just as w bush did, and just as bill clinton did, and just as ghw bush did. Same game plan. Same game planners. Same cabal.

This thread was supposed to be about censorship. Let me invoke "Godwin's Law":
Avalon is a cyber-meeting spot, not the entire Internet, and was never intended to be a place where the worst misanthropes - members of the cabal, zionists, nazis - are defended. There are not very many people on this forum that want neo-nazis here, carefully, articulately, politely rationalizing nazism. There are men that openly lobby for pedophilia, trying to normalize raping children, trying to get laws changed to legalize pedophilia. There are not many Avalon members that want that here. White supremacy proponents. Sex slavery proponents. Genocide proponents. You want that here at Avalon, under the guise of Avalon being encyclopedic, all-encompassing? Avalon FILTERS out that garbage. "Filters" is more accurate and honest that "censors."

I have a very bright (real life) friend, a phd anthropologist/archeologist, very articulate. She is a hillary clinton supporter/apologist. She loves hillary, and lauds her greatness. She can take any facts about hillary's actual actions, and she can make it sound like hillary is just misunderstood, a victim of being a woman in a man's world, yadda yadda yadda and ultimately she will defend everything about hillary. Shall I invite her to join Avalon? Would that make Avalon a better place? Would Avalon be more balanced to have a rabid US democrat on-board, spewing that "side" of the cabal's agenda? I have a family member that swallowed the horsesh!t that bernie sanders was spewing, and (in their mind) sanders is a hero and mighty warrior against the bad guys. Shall I invite that family member to become an Avalon member, so that Avalon includes topics about how wonderful that cabal member is?

As I said before, Avalon members should most certainly be talking about the political ramifications of the actions of the cabal lackeys that have assumed all high office positions of governance. Cabal control of politicians is quite a valid topic. Cabal control mechanisms that they employ to control elections is a valid topic. Cabal infiltration of alternative media, and narrative control, are valid topics. Lauding members of the cabal is not. Ignoring the deeds of the cabal members is not. Pretending that the cabal members are good guys is not.

Maybe, just maybe, we should find out from Bill what his forum platform is about. Hint: it's about fighting AGAINST the cabal, not picking out our favorite cabal member, ignoring all their actual deeds, worshiping them, and putting ribbons in their hair.

I remember a guy that came here with his "alien" videos. He said aliens were visiting his house and doing all sorts of things. He was also hoping to build up his youtube platform. He had a bunch of blurry moving videos and one that even showed a hand moving things. No one was rude to the guy but we made observations and asked him valid questions. I can't remember how long he lasted, maybe a week but he ended up calling members names and he left. That is what Avalon does best. There are very bright members here with a great knowledge base, they can ask the right questions, observe with an eagles eye and practice discernment. I would love to have a Hillary defender come on this forum. I would just love it. If she did and we could present facts about Hillary it might be a eye opener for someone out their that has yet to learn some discernment skills. Who knows maybe she could convince us that old Hillary is a saint :sun:.

Sometimes advancement of human consciousness doesn't happen the way we think it will. When I step back and look at the much, much bigger picture I see Trump and Q as possible catalysts of great potential. Great potential, whether they intend to be that or not.

[mojo]

edit : actually better yet is being able to see a different perspective.

[Mark (Star Mariner)]

Maybe, just maybe, we should find out from Bill what his forum platform is about. Hint: it's about fighting AGAINST the cabal, not picking out our favorite cabal member, ignoring all their actual deeds, worshiping them, and putting ribbons in their hair.

I applaud that, I don't want to put any ribbons in Donald Trump's hair either thanks, such as it is! I don't want to see any of that stuff any more than you do. Of ribbon tying or drum banging that is. For Trump/Hillary, May/Corbyn, whoever your favourite horse is. I'd rather see that stuff left at the door.

But here's the thing. Not everyone is ready to draw the ironclad conclusions that you have drawn for yourself: that Trump is just another pawn of the cabal. Are you saying it's not all right for the rest of us to have a different opinion than that, or to express that opinion?

Sorry if I'm not understanding your post as much as maybe I should - it's getting very late here and I need to turn in. Though there's a lot in it that I fully support and admire. You're a true warrior Dennis and I greatly respect you for that! But you seem to be saying in a roundabout sort of way, (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that your position, and therefore the quasi-official position of Avalon, is: that Trump is to be considered [without argument] just another deep state stooge, an enemy of humanity.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm not ready to say you're right, either. Isn't that my right? Am I not allowed to differ, and express those views (without beating a drum of course) but by association, in the Q thread? I would also ask whether I am entitled to express those opinions without being slandered by my fellow members (and mods) and without being censored?

And for the record, if you want to invite a Bernie Sanders supporter or even a Hillary supporter to the forum, as long they didn't bang any drums either, I've got no problem with that at all. Why would I? Avalon is not a political forum. Everyone's entitled to their opinions. And to express them. Aren't they?

And @Bill, I'm really hoping this post will not be forgotten:



Again, 'campfire stories' (unprovable claims) should maybe be heard, remembered, noted, and not erased from the public record. Unless it's an almost certainly established psy-op, they shouldn't be censored or silenced. There's value in considering them as potentially real.

But more is needed if important decisions are to be made. Otherwise, it's a mixture of entertainment, and preaching from a pulpit.

And in both those instances, the people are kept captive as an audience, may be inspired and fed with hope, but ultimately they may be disempowered, as they are mere observers. They're doing nothing at all, and it's really just more TV. (And the Secret Space program so-called 'whistleblowers' do this, too.)
:focus:


not erased from the public record

they shouldn't be censored or silenced...

Because it wasn't that long ago when it was Alex Jones who was in the firing line. Many here leapt to his defence when social media banned him shamed him and smashed him all to pieces. Even when they didn't agree with him, or anything he stood for! But they fiercely defended his right to speak, his right to a platform, and his right to dignity! And quite right.

Does that standard not extend to everybody, even if they disagree with Dennis?

[enfoldedblue]

When I joined this forum back in 2010 there was a large number of spiritually minded members. The channelled information section was very active.

I personally had learned heaps about reality through channelled material. The Seth speaks books helped me to make sense of so much.

However, I also understood there was a real range in terms of what came through...Some channels offered absolutely beautiful and pure transmissions, others offered information distorted by their own filter, and still others offered material that was part of a psyop designed to appear high frequency, yet if examined carefully was full of subtle negative programming.

Eventually Bill and the mods decided that due to the fact that the source of this information was unknown, and the content could potentially be dangerous it was decided that it would be moved to the members only section.

Sound familiar?

Many of the spiritually focused members weren't happy with this move. I personally didn't think it was necessary as discernment is an extremely important skill to develop. But i also understood the fact that this is this is Bill's forum and he has the right to set the tone and boundaries that feel right to him. There are many other forums that share channeled information. If i want to read or discuss related topics I am totally free to go elsewhere to meet those needs.

[Matthew]

...
you all need a good shake


...

Do you recall the nascence of the alternative media? You know, when the internet allowed us to explore the murky dealings of the amoral power-brokers? Places like Avalon began pretty much in that shared distrust of the PTB.. remember the days when they were referred to as the PTB?

... Why try to reorganize a forum that is intrinsically not political into a pro and anti pantomime?

Although arguably harsh, this was a stunning post imho. Under the frustration of the first quoted post I see a great message about the value of uncertainty. Careful with that razor sharp perception though, it doesn't always mix well with the endless frustration available. I thought it was expressed better in the post I quoted second :P

[Post-Structuralist Comet]

Chris, imagine if certain people on the forum thought spirituality, reincarnation, the soul, all that was false. Garbage. And they even called you names for believing in it. Then, arbitrarily, they remove all those threads, all your posts and contributions on the subject, out of view. Imagine they shadowbanned it. And your opinion on the matter was irrelevant. Imagine that.

It's the principle (or lack of) we're opposed to here.
Hi Star Mariner,

I actually had a similar thought experiment but applied it in the opposite way.

Imagine if lots of people on Avalon began to think that spirituality, the soul, alternative science, and anything other than mainstream physicalism are out-and-out false. And imagine the most active and therefore prominent threads on the forum became folks talking about how neuroscience has once again proved we are really mostly just water and proteins, and that the truth is best found in the pages of Nature Reviews Neuroscience. And suppose people start thinking that Avalon is a forum about physicalism, reductive views of humans, and acceptance of mainstream truths.

Would it be moral for the moderation team be to intervene to try and steer the forum elsewhere, perhaps putting those threads behind a membership wall or giving them their own subform? My gut tells me it would be entirely moral: they want to cultivate a particular community for a particular goal (discussion of 'where science and spirituality meet'); laissez faire moderation come-what-may doesn't always fit with that; and I don't think there would be anything wrong in principle with decisions like moving threads to members only in my hypothetical situation.

I'm fairly convinced by this that the action is ok in principle, but I'm not sure how convincing this will be to others.

I suspect that people will either not be convinced that hiding topics behind a membership wall in my hypothetical would be ok (denying that the decision can be ok in principle), or think that mainstream physicalism is too far from what's reasonable or relevant to Avalon to make for a good comparison to Q (so the principle applying in the hypothetical is irrelevant).

Hopefully it's an interesting hypothetical anyway! :dog:



p.s. For what it's worth I'm very much into mainstream science and do have a very reductive view of what humans are made of, so I'm not comparing belief in Q to something which I take to be obviously ridiculous or false.

[Praxis]

But here's the thing. Not everyone is ready to draw the ironclad conclusions that you have drawn for yourself: that Trump is just another pawn of the cabal. Are you saying it's not all right for the rest of us to have a different opinion than that, or to express that opinion?


It is not that it is not alright to state an opinion but an opinion without evidence is basically worthless.

And I am sorry but you need to prove that he is a good guy.

THere are literally quotes about his buddy epstein from his mouth. Literally the Labor secretary just had to resign because he got a sweetheart deal FOR A PEDOPHILE.

You know how pizza gate had the Q people thinking podesta eats children(and I am not saying that this is incorrect)? Well literally we have one rung lower than that being made officially public and Trump is LITERALLY ONE DEGREE separation from that very CHILD PREDATOR. Better yet, there are pictures of them together and like I said a quote about him but also court cases from the 90s where allegations that fit in line with what we KNOW Epstein does that put trump doing child predator things.

Beyond that, He gave Saudi Nuclear secrets, he moved the Embassy to Jerusalem, is clearly massively in favor of Zionism( did you see the settlement or whatever that Netanyahooo had Trumps name put on it? Are you gonna tell me Netanyahoo is also a good dude?), he is keeping guantanamo bay open, he is letting ICE murder immigrants just seeking a better life . . .


I know you will probably just say, oh well the Epstein is 13d level chess to expose the cabal or whatever but I have enough evidence to prove to myself that Trump is at least a horrible human being, which we know from his business practices and stiffing contractors, but at worst is exactly what the Q people is saying Hillary is. I dont like hillary. I think of her just like i do trump because I dont wear partisan goggles.

I wear evidence goggles. What evidence do you have that can prove to me Trump is good?


EDIT.

This is why the Q thread was hidden IMHO and why it lead Dennis and Paul to clash. Some of us would post things with evidence of clearly pushing the Cabal agenda, LIKE KEEPING GUANTAMO BAY OPEN( if you cant see the connection to Assange being in prison and GITMO then I cant help you), and then people would respond with trust the plan.

That is blind faith.

I dont think Avalon tends to traffic in blind faith.

[mojo]

What evidence do you have that can prove to me Trump is good?
The MSM, the farleft, most Dems, the Cabal, Hollywood, the elite. the globalist and even the Pope oppose him... there you go....

[Praxis]

What evidence do you have that can prove to me Trump is good?
The MSM, the farleft, most Dems, the Cabal, Hollywood, the elite. the globalist and even the Pope oppose him... there you go....

How does one verify your claims?


For example. THE MSM and most dems and the cabal and the elite all hate Ocassio Cortez. By your logic, You also like her?


By that is me getting sucked down to your game of not actually giving references or pointing to things which are within the purview of the president(like you know when Trump let the CIA hide those JFK files, which btw are still hidden in contradiction to the law).

I like to deal with evidence, which you have not furnished.

[Sadieblue]

I edited this post, but will repeat this

I dislike name calling...some harsh slings have been made in some post, that can be very hurtful, cult, Nazi, etc....how sad.

[Pam]

What evidence do you have that can prove to me Trump is good?
The MSM, the farleft, most Dems, the Cabal, Hollywood, the elite. the globalist and even the Pope oppose him... there you go....

How does one verify your claims?


For example. THE MSM and most dems and the cabal and the elite all hate Ocassio Cortez. By your logic, You also like her?


By that is me getting sucked down to your game of not actually giving references or pointing to things which are within the purview of the president(like you know when Trump let the CIA hide those JFK files, which btw are still hidden in contradiction to the law).

I like to deal with evidence, which you have not furnished.

Praxis, I was wondering the same thing. How do you verify your claims?

[Praxis]

What evidence do you have that can prove to me Trump is good?
The MSM, the farleft, most Dems, the Cabal, Hollywood, the elite. the globalist and even the Pope oppose him... there you go....

How does one verify your claims?


For example. THE MSM and most dems and the cabal and the elite all hate Ocassio Cortez. By your logic, You also like her?


By that is me getting sucked down to your game of not actually giving references or pointing to things which are within the purview of the president(like you know when Trump let the CIA hide those JFK files, which btw are still hidden in contradiction to the law).

I like to deal with evidence, which you have not furnished.

Praxis, I was wondering the same thing. How do you verify your claims?

Lets start with the JFK files one.

Are you claiming that I am making a false claim?

I assure you I am not.

Go here. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

You will note that April 26th was the last one we got.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-45

"WASHINGTON —

In accordance with President Trump’s direction on October 26, 2017, the National Archives today posted 19,045 documents subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act). Released documents are available for download. The versions released today were processed by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction that agency heads be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.

The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, established by the National Archives in November 1992, consists of approximately five million pages. The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s. As permitted by the JFK Act, agencies appealed to the President to continue postponement of certain information beyond October 26, 2017. The President provided agencies with a temporary certification until April 26, 2018 to allow for a re-review of all documents withheld in full or in part under section 5 of the JFK Act and directed agencies to “identify as much as possible that may be publicly disclosed” and to be “extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.”

Based on reviews conducted by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction, the National Archives released 3,539 documents on Dec. 15, 10,744 documents on Nov. 17, 13,213 documents on Nov. 9, and 676 documents on Nov. 3 of last year. The 19,045 documents released today represent the final release of documents in accordance with the President’s direction on October 26, 2017.

All documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act have been released in full or in part. No documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act remain withheld in full. The President has determined that all information that remains withheld under section 5 must be reviewed again before October 26, 2021 to determine whether continued withholding from disclosure is necessary.

"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________


Ok So now we need to look at the Presidential directive

It is reported on here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jfk-assassination-files-release-trump-blocks-private-a8324111.html

"While the remaining documents are set to be revealed by October of 2021, national security agencies could still continue to postpone their release."

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________

And since you are a document nerd and want the source

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Temporary_Certification_for_Certain_Records_Related_to_the_Assassination_of_President_John_F._Kenned y

"Administration of Donald J. Trump , 2017

October 26, 2017

By the President of the United States of America

A Memorandum

Subject: Temporary Certification for Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Memorandum for the Archivist of the United States and the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

The American public expects -- and deserves -- its Government to provide as much access as possible to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records (records) so that the people may finally be fully informed about all aspects of this pivotal event. Therefore, I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted. At the same time, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice --today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our Nation's security. To further address these concerns, I am also ordering agencies to re-review each and every one of those redactions over the next 180 days. At the end of that period, I will order the public disclosure of any information that the agencies cannot demonstrate meets the statutory standard for continued postponement of disclosure under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) (the "Act").

Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby certify that all information within records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act must be temporarily withheld from full public disclosure until no later than April 26, 2018, to allow sufficient time to determine whether such information warrants continued postponement under the Act. This temporary withholding from full public disclosure is necessary to protect against harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.

I hereby direct all agencies that have proposed postponement of full disclosure to review the information subject to this certification and identify as much as possible that may be publicly disclosed without harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations.

Any agency that seeks to request further postponement beyond this temporary certification shall adhere to the findings of the Act, which state, among other things, that "only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records." The need for continued protection can only have grown weaker with the passage of time since the Congress made this finding. Accordingly, each agency head should be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement of full disclosure of records. Any agency that seeks further postponement shall, no later than March 12, 2018, report to the Archivist of the United States (Archivist) on the specific information within particular records that meets the standard for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act. Thereafter, the Archivist shall recommend to me, no later than March 26, 2018, whether the specific information within particular records identified by agencies warrants continued withholding from public disclosure after April 26, 2018.

The Archivist is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. "


___________________________________________________________________

I know you want the straight juice, so here it is from a .gov

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/31/2017-23795/temporary-certification-for-certain-records-related-to-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy


Which you will note that the WIKISource text is actually accurate. But Hey I didnt want you to think I was trying to get you to trust my plan

___________________________________________________________________

Which all put together means, I can back up my claim that Donald Trump Helped the Cabal Directly by helping them hide evidence of one of the greatest crimes of our time.

[waves]

Oh my oh my, you know what, I can take Q or leave Q, but I do find it interesting.
But all the name slings Waves that you have thrown at all the readers and posters in the Q forum is this:::::: I hope you never become a Mod here!!!!!!
So if Bill chooses he can admonish me for speaking out to you....or you can too, but I really do mean what I said. How rude of you to sling such names to the readers and posters in the Q thread.....not just now, but over and over and over. I rest my case, and will say no more.

I said it all shamelessly too. Is there ever a wrong time to tell the truth? Even the rude truth? It's just not 'official' yet and I'm willing to stick my neck out... again... because I have zero doubts. I have a perfect record so far at Avalon for calling out big frauds who still had lots of hardcore devotees not even feeling the first doubts.

The bottom line is, if Q is not the dangerous mind control psyop/larp and the followers truly as deluded and in denial for the many reasons I've put on the table, I will be the dead wrong fool. I am unhesitatingly taking that chance again.

If Q is the dangerous mind control psyop/larp and the followers truly as deluded and in denial for the many reasons I've put on the table, everything exactly as I've characterized it will simply be dead right...... and not even a big deal as it reads now.

There is quite the educational history now of countless dangerous cults formed on totally deluded, dead wrong reasons and their successful formulas that keep working. The formulas are not rocket science, this one even has more red flags, mistakes, dead giveaways and sloppiness than most.

I appreciate your plain english, I mean that. Thank you for expressing it though it felt like taking a risk.

[Dennis Leahy]

...But here's the thing. Not everyone is ready to draw the ironclad conclusions that you have drawn for yourself: that Trump is just another pawn of the cabal. Are you saying it's not all right for the rest of us to have a different opinion than that, or to express that opinion?

Sorry if I'm not understanding your post as much as maybe I should - it's getting very late here and I need to turn in. Though there's a lot in it that I fully support and admire. You're a true warrior Dennis and I greatly respect you for that! But you seem to be saying in a roundabout sort of way, (and forgive me if I'm wrong) that your position, and therefore the quasi-official position of Avalon, is: that Trump is to be considered [without argument] just another deep state stooge, an enemy of humanity.

I'm not saying you're wrong. But I'm not ready to say you're right, either. Isn't that my right? Am I not allowed to differ, and express those views (without beating a drum of course) but by association, in the Q thread? I would also ask whether I am entitled to express those opinions without being slandered by my fellow members (and mods) and without being censored?
...

Does that standard not extend to everybody, even if they disagree with Dennis?

No, a few members here are mistakenly asserting that my opinion - on anything - is Bill's or Avalon's opinion. Avalon is a collection of opinions. If you read what I write and what Bill writes, you'll see that Bill has his own opinions (most things we agree on; some we don't.) I sense that a few members really want to yell at Bill, but they don't want to get booted out, so they yell at me, arguing against Bill's opinions.

Opinions are just that, opinions. Not facts (though an opinion may or may not be based on actual facts and context.) "Trump has a lovely smile" is an opinion. "Trump is at war with Venezuela" is a fact.

Before the 2016 election, all I could offer about trump was my opinion. It has been 3 years - now there are facts. I am asking everyone to examine the facts. All of the current US wars, (really including Venezuela), and all of the lies used to justify the USA pouncing on some victim nation, were happening before trump. So we know that the wars are not trump's personal agenda, the wars are the agenda of the cabal. Whether trump is a warmonger by direct action or by acquiescing to the cabal wars and war-profiteering agenda doesn't really matter: after obama handed the cabal's war baton to trump, trump ran with it. That's not conjecture, it is history.

Note that when the war baton was handed from w bush to obama, all the wars continued, unabated. This should have been the wake-up call to all of the US democrats, waving it right in their face that obama was just another puppet, another lackey for the cabal. obama also pardoned w for anything to do with 9/11, and aggressively pursued and punished whistleblowers. Note that when the war baton was handed from obama to trump, all the wars continued, unabated. Julian Assange, the greatest publisher of whistleblower information ever, was aggressively pursued and is being punished by trump and UK members of the cabal.

Entire books could be (and will be) written about all that donald trump has done for the cabal and against the people of the world - his actions, not just his words - but all it really requires to assess trump is to take one step back and note what happens on the world stage, in what the US considers their "military theater" - the globe - when modern US presidents take the reigns of Imperial Empire from the previous US president. The continuity of cabal agenda is damning evidence of collusion with the cabal.

[Gemma13]

Ya know, I'm going to take your attack on me as a compliment. I think I may have written something that cracked your cognitive dissonance just a tiny bit. Let me guess, it was the string of facts about how trump and the previous (d and r) presidents all followed the same cabal game plan. It's really hard to ignore, once you look - isn't it?

You are angry, and you don't know what to do so you attack me. (If you want to attack me, don't just make sh!t up, attack me for attacking the cabal.) You make Paul out to be weak. He isn't.

"Dennis has also publicly stated that he tried very hard behind closed doors to convert Paul to accept his beliefs as gospel."

Quote me, don't just make sh!t up. I said I admit that I tried to save Paul from the Q cult. I've never asked Paul, or you, to accept ANYTHING that I say. Not just not as 'gospel', but just like every other source of information you come across, anything I write should also be scrutinized, examined, analyzed. When I say that trump is following EXACTLY the cabal's game plan, just as all the other modern US presidents have, I want you to RESEARCH that. You may need to read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman", (or just watch the cartoon (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RozOiZAK9lQ)), so that you will understand that the first phase of modern war is economic, and be able to recognize that the United States of America, under potus trump as commander-in-chief, is directly conducting war on Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Venezuela, as well as aiding and abetting in the genocide in Palestine by the Zionist Israeli government, and aiding and abetting in the genocide in Yemen by the Saudi Arabian monarchy. The destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan are about complete, and potus trump is also presiding over the cabal's resource extraction (theft) in those destroyed countries. Potus trump is also sitting on the knowledge of who planned, executed, and covered-up 9/11 - and his response is to become yet another member of the cover-up team.

Trump is low hanging fruit. No fancy decoder ring or even AI needed to see that he is a member of the financial elite that has now also become a member of the ruling elite, the cabal. The data is all there for you to ascertain that trump, and his main propagandist Q, are cabal assets. In addition to the cheerleading of US republicans, the whitewashing of evil warmongers, is Q also going after cabal democrat pedophiles? Well, good, but how about the cabal republican pedophiles? I'm going after the cabal. So, if you want to crucify me, then crucify me for what I am actually advocating: fighting the entire cabal.

Glad to see that I'm getting through to you.

Thank you Dennis. Now we are getting somewhere. I am grateful for your post as it reveals much.

The biggest misunderstanding is in your assumptions e.g. I am not as well read as you; I need convincing the political system is corrupt no matter who is POTUS; I do not read or analyse data that you have read and/or shared; etc.


I want you to RESEARCH that. You may need to read John Perkins' book, "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

In other words you need to educate me to get me up to your level of awareness and this couldn’t be further from the truth. (Very familiar with Perkins, by the way.)

I’m not blaming you for those assumptions when you are only using my forum footprint as a litmus test. So I will explain your misinterpretations and hope to engage in a conversation about how “assumptions” of people’s awareness/intellect is predominantly an overarching problem in this debate.

If I don’t get the chance to get back to chat with you today, I will return in a few days.

And sorry you think I am angry and was “attacking” you – observations only, made from my assumptions of your forum footprint.

[Bubu]

Maybe, just maybe, we should find out from Bill what his forum platform is about. Hint: it's about fighting AGAINST the cabal, not picking out our favorite cabal member, ignoring all their actual deeds, worshiping them, and putting ribbons in their hair DENNIS LEAHY

Thank you!!:thumbsup:

If we just subscribe to what Bill wants then how pitiful are we? I'm sure Bill wants to give what members want, cant you see that? There was a question ask by Edina in the past it goes like this; If something happened to Bill what happened to avalon forum? dont we have a plan...?

Yep so what are our plans. Do we suck at making plans based on observations. Are we just going to argue and wait till avalon collapse? Before I continue. To those who have access to, please save contact details of all members if you can. Why? because avalon is ones again under attack. This time however it is not to gather and brainwash. They want to scatter members to all direction. Already one respected member Uli express intent to leave. If you do that you will invite members to follow you. Is that how weak our forum is? They can throw us all out at will? Sure avalon is Bills forum so what about our forum? will the discussion continue without members? Will the discussion continue without Bill? What is avalon discussion forum why would they want to quash it? This forum is the only global gathering of consciousness which has the capacity to start a global consciousness revolution. Already the physical aspect of control is being challenge by many countries led by Russia. Religion, the spiritual aspect of control, is being questioned on all fronts just listen to the new artist songs. Its the voice of the masses. Now consciousness/awareness is where we come in do we loss or do we win.

By the way our good friend Dennis seemed to be under attacked lately his post are confrontational, definitely different from the good ole Dennis I know. Maybe there is some sort of psychotronic weapon directed and heats up his head. Lets pray for him.

[Dennis Leahy]

... So I will explain your misinterpretations...

Well, it's wonderful that you want to continue riffing off of your initial attack on me, but I'm not interested. I'm not trying to win an argument with you. I'm tired of being engaged by you in drama. I have added a little bit to the discussion of censoring, and have no more to add. You are trying to overrule Bill's decisions with your opinions, but too frightened to confront him, and are trying to go through me. I refuse to be your strawman. Leave me out of your trajectory.

If Q is a "movement", it needs a whole forum. You could go start one. It is easy to start a forum - no need to be frightened.

I don't have the influence on Bill's opinion that you seem to think I do. Bill is an independent thinker - he solicits team input but his thoughts are his own. I noticed you tried to jamb a binding referendum down Bill's throat yesterday. I will give you a tip that psychological manipulation was probably not the way to go with Bill, and if you have a beef with one of Bill's decisions, go to Bill and talk straight, with no manipulation or hidden agenda.

[greybeard]

Ive also suggested that people could start their own Q forum an still remain members here.
However if a new forum was started I suspect all of a sudden it would have boundaries rules mods and massive fall outs.
Avalon has survived for many years through sensible moderation.

Times way back I had a major disagreement with Bill--it was resolved.
I dont disagree or agree with decisions made by Bill an the team but they are necessary and Im glad its not my responsibility

Chris

[Iloveyou]

I thought the topic is not the continuing question whether Q is fake or legit or else. It is about what is perceived as censorship and why - and even assumed Q is not legit, could the threads eventually be allowed to stay in public for educational or similar reasons (free speech?) and under what conditions. What would be the risk?

What I‘ve learnt by now? In terms of energy internet forums are (for a major part) pits full of wild beasts, some good, well-meaning individuals (plus some truly innocent ones) thrown in and a large audience watching. Usually glossed over nicely. It is not advisable to determine who is who because that changes continuously.

This from a passing stranger who tried to settle and rest here for a while.

[Dennis Leahy]

...
By the way our good friend Dennis seemed to be under attacked lately his post are confrontational, definitely different from the good ole Dennis I know. Maybe there is some sort of psychotronic weapon directed and heats up his head. Lets pray for him.

Hey Bubu, I'm hoping that this is attempted humor. If not, it's pretty mean spirited - especially when I have just had a couple of members that want the forum their way harassing me to try to get to Bill. Yeah, it is Bill's forum. We are here by invitation. It's different than other forums. Avalon is not collapsing, it is experiencing an attempted "takeover" by a dozen people trying to strongarm Bill. Most of the long term members who are Q afficionados or just curious onlookers are not so upset by Bill's decision to move some threads to members only (remember, the actual subject here does not involve blood or psychotronic weapons, the subject here is simply moving threads on a forum on the Internet) that they would quit Avalon. I have a forum that I go to that is dedicated to my make and model of car. I have a forum that I go to that is dedicated to making musical instruments. I don't go to Avalon for those things. That's not what Avalon is. I can't believe there isn't already a forum for Q, but if not, someone can start a Q forum. When you want information on a 1981 Yugo, go to that forum, and then come back to Avalon to share information on other stuff. When you want to immerse in Q, go to the Q forum, and then come back to Avalon to share information on other stuff. No pearl clutching necessary. What would be pitiful would be if long term, interactive members - the vast majority of whom are not engaged with the Q stuff - got bullied by a dozen people who couldn't accept Bill moving some threads. Please don't let those bullies rile you up. It's just noise. How long have you known Bill - a long time, right? Can you have a little faith that Bill knows what he's doing, and that he has been more considerate with some extremely disruptive individuals than most people would ever dream of being. Bill and Avalon could use your support right now. Thanks.

[greybeard]

A massive row going on in UK regarding press censorship.
Basically private emails by the UK Ambassador in USA about Donald Trump these were leaked to the press.
These e mails were covered by the Secrets act--only for the eyes of top level Government officials.
So under investigation by the police
Todays headlines more leaks The UK ambassador e mailed that Trump in order to get back at the former President cancelled an agreement with Iran.

The ambassador resigned.Trump refuse further dealings with him.
So the discussion is ---in the name of national interest is it right that these communications are not shown to the public--in the name of public interest is it right that the newspapers publish these sensitive documents.

Is that censorship to try to stop them publishing these communications that were intended only for high ranking officials.
The publishing has caused untold harm to diplomacy between UK and USA.

Chris

[Gemma13]

... So I will explain your misinterpretations...

Well, it's wonderful that you want to continue riffing off of your initial attack on me, but I'm not interested. I'm not trying to win an argument with you. I'm tired of being engaged by you in drama. I have added a little bit to the discussion of censoring, and have no more to add. You are trying to overrule Bill's decisions with your opinions, but too frightened to confront him, and are trying to go through me. I refuse to be your strawman. Leave me out of your trajectory.

If Q is a "movement", it needs a whole forum. You could go start one. It is easy to start a forum - no need to be frightened.

I don't have the influence on Bill's opinion that you seem to think I do. Bill is an independent thinker - he solicits team input but his thoughts are his own. I noticed you tried to jamb a binding referendum down Bill's throat yesterday. I will give you a tip that psychological manipulation was probably not the way to go with Bill, and if you have a beef with one of Bill's decisions, go to Bill and talk straight, with no manipulation or hidden agenda.

Dennis I really don’t know how you are arriving at this??

I’m expressing my opinions for all to see in a debate amongst members that I also believe is a very important topic.

I have no issue accepting whatever decisions are made from time to time re the Q threads.

From discussions on this thread I was under the impression that the debate was still open and the transfer wasn’t set in stone.

My bad for this misinterpretation.

And as I respect your choices I won't chat with you further.

[Bubu]

...
By the way our good friend Dennis seemed to be under attacked lately his post are confrontational, definitely different from the good ole Dennis I know. Maybe there is some sort of psychotronic weapon directed and heats up his head. Lets pray for him.

Hey Bubu, I'm hoping that this is attempted humor. If not, it's pretty mean spirited - especially when I have just had a couple of members that want the forum their way harassing me to try to get to Bill. Yeah, it is Bill's forum. We are here by invitation. It's different than other forums. Avalon is not collapsing, it is experiencing an attempted "takeover" by a dozen people trying to strongarm Bill. Most of the long term members who are Q afficionados or just curious onlookers are not so upset by Bill's decision to move some threads to members only (remember, the actual subject here does not involve blood or psychotronic weapons, the subject here is simply moving threads on a forum on the Internet) that they would quit Avalon. I have a forum that I go to that is dedicated to my make and model of car. I have a forum that I go to that is dedicated to making musical instruments. I don't go to Avalon for those things. That's not what Avalon is. I can't believe there isn't already a forum for Q, but if not, someone can start a Q forum. When you want information on a 1981 Yugo, go to that forum, and then come back to Avalon to share information on other stuff. When you want to immerse in Q, go to the Q forum, and then come back to Avalon to share information on other stuff. No pearl clutching necessary. What would be pitiful would be if long term, interactive members - the vast majority of whom are not engaged with the Q stuff - got bullied by a dozen people who couldn't accept Bill moving some threads. Please don't let those bullies rile you up. It's just noise. How long have you known Bill - a long time, right? Can you have a little faith that Bill knows what he's doing, and that he has been more considerate with some extremely disruptive individuals than most people would ever dream of being. Bill and Avalon could use your support right now. Thanks.

phsycotronic? yes a humor. that your head is hot in this instance? is serious. That it is mean spirited? yes from your perspective. Coming from me absolutely not, but rather concern. Why is that? I recon we are on same side of the argument at least 8 out of ten times, including the Q thing. The big difference is that I only posted ones or twice in each Q thread then leave alone those who want to be deluded. Why? because I respect their choice. I simply want to express my opinion and that's it. What about you? what did you do? You see we have some similarities we are both "not cowards" passionate in defending the truth and the innocents, at times we go overboard. So i will say i am aware that in this case you are going overboard and I am trying to caution you to calm you. Avalon is in the midst of a storm and your hot head is certainly wont help.

No I dont trust Bills decision to move the Q threads. I dont trust anyone decision unless it resonates with mine. And I think its perfectly fine. To be clear I trust that Bill is doing his best for the good of this forum and its members. And I respect it. I dont insist.

Have you read my appeal to Uli on previous post. How did you interpret it? Is it support to avalon or otherwise.

Yes I have known Bill for quite sometime. I have yelled at him many times. And each time I can only marvel at his actions. So yes Bill has my respect. Hands down the best among forum starters that I have been so far.

Calm down brother. Your one of the superstars here, one of my superstars actually, your actions affects the forum more than most members

[Jad]

I don’t understand why this is being made as if some people are trying to fight Bill for control or make him do things he don’t want. Bill certainly don’t need any forum body guards to protect him from anyone. It’s not about Q at this point. It’s simply a difference of opinions, and since this is Bill’s forum he made his choice and was gracious enough to open a conversation about censorship. No one is forcing Bill to change his mind. The people who don’t like it and find that it’s too much then they can simply leave the forum and save the world somewhere else. If one thing I strongly agree with Dennis is that we are all on the same team and we should never forget that.

[Pam]

What evidence do you have that can prove to me Trump is good?
The MSM, the farleft, most Dems, the Cabal, Hollywood, the elite. the globalist and even the Pope oppose him... there you go....

How does one verify your claims?


For example. THE MSM and most dems and the cabal and the elite all hate Ocassio Cortez. By your logic, You also like her?


By that is me getting sucked down to your game of not actually giving references or pointing to things which are within the purview of the president(like you know when Trump let the CIA hide those JFK files, which btw are still hidden in contradiction to the law).

I like to deal with evidence, which you have not furnished.

Praxis, I was wondering the same thing. How do you verify your claims?

Lets start with the JFK files one.

Are you claiming that I am making a false claim?

I assure you I am not.

Go here. https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/release

You will note that April 26th was the last one we got.




____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr18-45

"WASHINGTON —

In accordance with President Trump’s direction on October 26, 2017, the National Archives today posted 19,045 documents subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act). Released documents are available for download. The versions released today were processed by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction that agency heads be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.

The John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection, established by the National Archives in November 1992, consists of approximately five million pages. The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s. As permitted by the JFK Act, agencies appealed to the President to continue postponement of certain information beyond October 26, 2017. The President provided agencies with a temporary certification until April 26, 2018 to allow for a re-review of all documents withheld in full or in part under section 5 of the JFK Act and directed agencies to “identify as much as possible that may be publicly disclosed” and to be “extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement.”

Based on reviews conducted by agencies in accordance with the President’s direction, the National Archives released 3,539 documents on Dec. 15, 10,744 documents on Nov. 17, 13,213 documents on Nov. 9, and 676 documents on Nov. 3 of last year. The 19,045 documents released today represent the final release of documents in accordance with the President’s direction on October 26, 2017.

All documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act have been released in full or in part. No documents subject to section 5 of the JFK Act remain withheld in full. The President has determined that all information that remains withheld under section 5 must be reviewed again before October 26, 2021 to determine whether continued withholding from disclosure is necessary.

"
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________


Ok So now we need to look at the Presidential directive

It is reported on here.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jfk-assassination-files-release-trump-blocks-private-a8324111.html

"While the remaining documents are set to be revealed by October of 2021, national security agencies could still continue to postpone their release."

____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________

And since you are a document nerd and want the source

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Temporary_Certification_for_Certain_Records_Related_to_the_Assassination_of_President_John_F._Kenned y

"Administration of Donald J. Trump , 2017

October 26, 2017

By the President of the United States of America

A Memorandum

Subject: Temporary Certification for Certain Records Related to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

Memorandum for the Archivist of the United States and the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies

The American public expects -- and deserves -- its Government to provide as much access as possible to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records (records) so that the people may finally be fully informed about all aspects of this pivotal event. Therefore, I am ordering today that the veil finally be lifted. At the same time, executive departments and agencies (agencies) have proposed to me that certain information should continue to be redacted because of national security, law enforcement, and foreign affairs concerns. I have no choice --today -- but to accept those redactions rather than allow potentially irreversible harm to our Nation's security. To further address these concerns, I am also ordering agencies to re-review each and every one of those redactions over the next 180 days. At the end of that period, I will order the public disclosure of any information that the agencies cannot demonstrate meets the statutory standard for continued postponement of disclosure under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (44 U.S.C. 2107 note) (the "Act").

Accordingly, by the authority vested in me as President and Commander in Chief by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, I hereby certify that all information within records that agencies have proposed for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act must be temporarily withheld from full public disclosure until no later than April 26, 2018, to allow sufficient time to determine whether such information warrants continued postponement under the Act. This temporary withholding from full public disclosure is necessary to protect against harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or the conduct of foreign relations that is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in immediate disclosure.

I hereby direct all agencies that have proposed postponement of full disclosure to review the information subject to this certification and identify as much as possible that may be publicly disclosed without harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations.

Any agency that seeks to request further postponement beyond this temporary certification shall adhere to the findings of the Act, which state, among other things, that "only in the rarest cases is there any legitimate need for continued protection of such records." The need for continued protection can only have grown weaker with the passage of time since the Congress made this finding. Accordingly, each agency head should be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement of full disclosure of records. Any agency that seeks further postponement shall, no later than March 12, 2018, report to the Archivist of the United States (Archivist) on the specific information within particular records that meets the standard for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the Act. Thereafter, the Archivist shall recommend to me, no later than March 26, 2018, whether the specific information within particular records identified by agencies warrants continued withholding from public disclosure after April 26, 2018.

The Archivist is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register. "


___________________________________________________________________

I know you want the straight juice, so here it is from a .gov

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/31/2017-23795/temporary-certification-for-certain-records-related-to-the-assassination-of-president-john-f-kennedy


Which you will note that the WIKISource text is actually accurate. But Hey I didnt want you to think I was trying to get you to trust my plan

___________________________________________________________________

Which all put together means, I can back up my claim that Donald Trump Helped the Cabal Directly by helping them hide evidence of one of the greatest crimes of our time.

Praxis, my question was meant to be something for self reflection. I was in no way accusing you of anything. It looks to me like you do really good, tough research. I could learn something from you. I do get the importance of research, and I am learning that through the school of hard knocks, which good or bad seems to my best teacher. Thanks for your thorough response. I did not mean to threaten your research skills and I apologize if you felt I did.

[Billy]

No I dont trust Bills decision to move the Q threads. I dont trust anyone decision unless it resonates with mine. And I think its perfectly fine. To be clear I trust that Bill is doing his best for the good of this forum and its members. And I respect it. I dont insist.


Yes I have known Bill for quite sometime. I have yelled at him many times. And each time I can only marvel at his actions. So yes Bill has my respect. Hands down the best among forum starters that I have been so far.

Just to clarify, the decision to move the threads was unanimous between all the existing moderators. Not just Bill.

To date the moderators, admin and Bill have absolutely no regrets about the decision :handshake:

[edina]

I have a question for Bill, regarding this thread.

When you started this thread, what was your intent, and what did you hope to accomplish?

Thanks

[Gemma13]

Just to clarify, the decision to move the threads was unanimous between all the existing moderators. Not just Bill.

To date the moderators, admin and Bill have absolutely no regrets about the decision :handshake:

Thanks Billy for this clarification. I wrongly interpreted otherwise and this has been reflected in my posts e.g. calling for a vote.

I will ensure my future posts do not resound this error again.

[Iloveyou]

I have one last suggestion to make (including to myself). Take a step aside, sit back, breathe deeply and maybe you‘ll have a big laugh. It is not worth the exhaustive turmoil. Whether Trump or Q are bad or not, whether threads are moved or not, it is not worth the energy-draining excitement. Decisions and changes are made in our own personal lives and surroundings. This is just about typing on a keybord. Don‘t waste your time in useless shadow fights and going in circles. Get back to a place where you love and be loved.

And a big thank you to all who have invested their time and put their heart into this. I‘ve learnt a lot.

[samildamach]

Ive also suggested that people could start their own Q forum an still remain members here.
However if a new forum was started I suspect all of a sudden it would have boundaries rules mods and massive fall outs.
Avalon has survived for many years through sensible moderation.

Times way back I had a major disagreement with Bill--it was resolved.
I dont disagree or agree with decisions made by Bill an the team but they are necessary and Im glad its not my responsibility

Chris

How would you feel if asked to take your thread somewhere else, because your teachings no longer fit in pa?
Maybe a good cleansing as we switch sites just case we contaminate the forum.
With respect Chris I find this a poor idea even though the intent is kind

[samildamach]

...
By the way our good friend Dennis seemed to be under attacked lately his post are confrontational, definitely different from the good ole Dennis I know. Maybe there is some sort of psychotronic weapon directed and heats up his head. Lets pray for him.

Hey Bubu, I'm hoping that this is attempted humor. If not, it's pretty mean spirited - especially when I have just had a couple of members that want the forum their way harassing me to try to get to Bill. Yeah, it is Bill's forum. We are here by invitation. It's different than other forums. Avalon is not collapsing, it is experiencing an attempted "takeover" by a dozen people trying to strongarm Bill. Most of the long term members who are Q afficionados or just curious onlookers are not so upset by Bill's decision to move some threads to members only (remember, the actual subject here does not involve blood or psychotronic weapons, the subject here is simply moving threads on a forum on the Internet) that they would quit Avalon. I have a forum that I go to that is dedicated to my make and model of car. I have a forum that I go to that is dedicated to making musical instruments. I don't go to Avalon for those things. That's not what Avalon is. I can't believe there isn't already a forum for Q, but if not, someone can start a Q forum. When you want information on a 1981 Yugo, go to that forum, and then come back to Avalon to share information on other stuff. When you want to immerse in Q, go to the Q forum, and then come back to Avalon to share information on other stuff. No pearl clutching necessary. What would be pitiful would be if long term, interactive members - the vast majority of whom are not engaged with the Q stuff - got bullied by a dozen people who couldn't accept Bill moving some threads. Please don't let those bullies rile you up. It's just noise. How long have you known Bill - a long time, right? Can you have a little faith that Bill knows what he's doing, and that he has been more considerate with some extremely disruptive individuals than most people would ever dream of being. Bill and Avalon could use your support right now. Thanks.

I don't think a dedicated q forum would be a particular nice place Dennis,one of the reasons you and the mods are appreciated.it takes effort and commitment to keep pa clean.
I appreciate your warnings against a larp or hoax ,and likely psyop.
I will watch with diligence the events and predictions surrounding q and not get drawn in.for that thank you Dennis your words haven't gone on deaf ears.
I follow q but iam not a q follower in that like so many here there is a big difference ,and in this we would like your support if you are so inclined to help protect are right to learn without being called a cultist and many of the other rude and abusive labels thrown at people here who just wish to investigate,in a quiet secure inviroment unique to pa were do many of the wall things are protected for people who else were might be persecuted

[Praxis]

Praxis, my question was meant to be something for self reflection. I was in no way accusing you of anything. It looks to me like you do really good, tough research. I could learn something from you. I do get the importance of research, and I am learning that through the school of hard knocks, which good or bad seems to my best teacher. Thanks for your thorough response. I did not mean to threaten your research skills and I apologize if you felt I did.



I did not feel threatened.

If one feels threatened when asked for evidence of a claim, that speaks volumes about ones internal feelings about the veracity of the claim.

When you asked me for evidence, I know you were doing as more of a meta question or meta point but I wanted you to see what should happen when claims are made. If one claims Trump is fighting the deep state, one needs to provide evidence. As I showed you with one example, I can provide solid evidence that comes from government sources and is confirmed in other MSM sources( not saying I like or read or believe the MSM but many do and so therefore it is a part of the puzzle to keep in mind). Your question did not threaten me at all.

Quite the opposite. I love getting to show why I believe the things I do based on the stuff I read from the horses mouth. When challenged for evidence, it is thrilling!

Here is how it all connects back to putting the Q anon threads into the member only and why Dennis(and myself with many others) and Paul clashed.

When confronted to prove a claim or when presented with counter evidence to one of their claims, nothing productive would ever be produced.
So the Q thread is less about research and claims and evidence and more about something else. And that something else is fine for members but not for public consumption on what is a reputable and diverse forum.




Lets get back to what Edina just asked about: Why did Bill start this?

And I will repeat my questions from the start:

Have any of your posts been modified or changed without your consent?

Have any threads you have started been removed ?

Have you been muted in any thread on the forum?


Ill bet that most people on here will have to answer a straight no to all these questions.

If you answered no to these questions, then you are mad that this forum is no longer validating your beliefs and not so much at "censorship".

You are not being censored. You can still post.

[Sandy123]

I have followed Q on a few YouTube channels but now many of them have been banned. And if they are still there you can't find them because of the algorithms won't allow those channels to come up any more. And now Project Avalon has followed suit. We don't live in China, we are still allowed to watch and listen to whatever we want, right? We are free, yes?
My friend works at a hostel where mostly young people stay while travelling. She was alarmed by their hatred against President Trump and that they want to buy guns to defend themselves. What kind of world do they live in? It's very sad to me that they don't live in a beautiful and free world. Free to research conspiracy theories if they choose to investigate, while information is still available, that is.
Project Avalon is a treasure trove of knowledge with hundreds of rooms to visit, but Q is now located in the back room. The door is wide open, you just need to come in and introduce yourself. Be careful where you sit, some members are quite feisty.

[edina]

Before I begin let me address an earlier comment. I had not intended my comments to “shame” you, Dennis. That thought never occurred to me.

If you felt hurt, or shamed, I apologize.

Also, Dennis you are one of the most loved and respected members on this forum. Your words carry as much weight, if not more, than Bill and when Paul was a member, Paul.

You are in a position of power in this forum.

Anyone who speaks up about concerns they may have about your behavior is in fact, vulnerable. It takes courage to speak out when addressing a concern about a person in power.

I do not feel you are being crucified or persecuted. And there is certainly not a “witch” hunt going after Dennis Leahy. That accusation is simply not accurate.

And thank you again for clarifying your thoughts regarding me, Paul and KiwiElf. Because I honestly felt you had taken on a “they are the enemy” mindset toward us.

That clarification was very helpful to me.

The common ground I saw in your comments was the desire to address the issue of the criminal cabals. That is not necessarily a discussion for this thread.

But maybe it is, I don’t know?


When I first joined Avalon it was during the Atticus threads. I found them invigorating and full of vitality. Others found them stressful and wanted nothing to do with them. While engaging with other people on various topics in those threads, I noticed a pattern.

A controversial topic was thrown out in an opened-ended way, often one where people had polarized intense opinions.

There would be an intense period of discussion that would eventually lead to a point in the discussion where equilibrium would happen organically.

I saw this pattern over and over and over.

Some people were very angry with Bill. They thought he should control it more. It felt chaotic to a lot of people. In fact, it was chaotic. But it was a creative chaos.

I was intrigued with Bill’s mention of David Bohm’s book, On Dialogue. (http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/David%20Bohm%20-%20On%20Dialogue.pdf) So I looked at the book.


I've been thinking a lot about what is going on in the Charles Interview related threads. And, in noticing and thinking about the patterns I am seeing in these threads, I decided to take a closer look at the book that Bill Ryan references in the interviews and in many other places about his idea of having a dialogue in the vein of how David Bohm suggests in his book "On Dialogue". (http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-David-Bohm/dp/0415149126)

I think people will feel a better understanding of what is going on here if they were familiar with the concepts presented in this book.

Here's a Bohm Dialogue - Wilipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue) link

Here's a link to Amazon, On Dialogue by David Bohm (http://www.amazon.com/Dialogue-David-Bohm/dp/0415149126)

The wikipedia article starts out this way:

Bohm Dialogue (also known as Bohmian Dialogue) is a freely-flowing group conversation that makes an attempt, utilizing a theoretical understanding of the way thoughts relate to universal reality, to more effectively investigate the crises that face society, and indeed the whole of human nature and consciousness.

It lists these principles:

Principles of Dialogue

"Bohm Dialogue" has been widely used in the field of organizational development, and has evolved beyond what David Bohm intended: rarely is the minimum group size as large as what Bohm originally recommended, and there are often other numerous subtle differences. Specifically, any method of conversation that claims to be based on the "principles of dialogue as established by David Bohm" can be considered to be a form of Bohm Dialogue. Those principles of "Bohm Dialogue" are:

1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"

2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"

3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)

4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals' ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)

Usually, the goal of the various incarnations of "Bohm Dialogue" is to get the whole group to have a better understanding of itself. In other words, Bohm Dialogue is used to inform all of the participants about the current state of the group they are in.

As I looked deeper into this book, and Bohm's ideas on Dialogue, then much of what we are seeing in the forum discussions began to make much more sense to me.

This information may help answer some people's questions as to why we don't hear much from either Atticus, or Bill. This may be why so many people feel as if they are experiencing much personal growth from participating in the conversation.

Even though I am posting this relevant to the Charles material, I think it applies to all the various discussions going on here at Avalon, and in our other communities.



Note Added:

This book in pdf format is now available in the Avalon Library.

http://avalonlibrary.net/ebooks/David%20Bohm%20-%20On%20Dialogue.pdf

I think Bill still feels very highly about this book. He continues to mention it from time to time.


I bring this up, because this is often on the back of my mind when Bill opens up an open-ended question thread such as this one.

It’s also why I decided to ask Bill directly about his intent. Perhaps I’m assuming this process is in play in this thread, and maybe that assumption is wrong.


I have a question for Bill, regarding this thread.

When you started this thread, what was your intent, and what did you hope to accomplish?

Thanks

I have a lot of thought processes going on in my mind. And this post is already long, so, I’ll gradually develop them in other posts.

Meanwhile, I’ll wait to post again until Bill responds to my above questions.

This will help me clarify where my ideas best fit.

[greybeard]

Ive also suggested that people could start their own Q forum an still remain members here.
However if a new forum was started I suspect all of a sudden it would have boundaries rules mods and massive fall outs.
Avalon has survived for many years through sensible moderation.

Times way back I had a major disagreement with Bill--it was resolved.
I dont disagree or agree with decisions made by Bill an the team but they are necessary and Im glad its not my responsibility

Chris

How would you feel if asked to take your thread somewhere else, because your teachings no longer fit in pa?
Maybe a good cleansing as we switch sites just case we contaminate the forum.
With respect Chris I find this a poor idea even though the intent is kind

Im smiling
Its not really my thread I just post videos--very little personal comment.
Many times ive felt that the thread does not really fit well in Avalon--not many members visit it.
However-- I have started the same on other forums basically posting the same there as here--saves time.

No one asked me to post elsewhere--im just reminded of choices I made
You can post Q material here and elsewhere.
My posts remain in the little cubby hole where most members dont venture.

When Krishna Murty was asked his secret he said "I dont mind"
I follow his example.

If I was asked to go by Bill I would go.
Its his house.
He pays the rent.
I havent been asked to go. at least not recently-- and neither has the Q thread been asked to go.

There have been a few subjects that have banned --several whistle blowers started of very popular here and then found out they had to go for the benefit of the Avalon community.
One I pointed out suspect and got rounded on.
I was visited by a moderator who said I was miscalling another member .
I was correct but censored from further comment at that time.
So I have been there.

Dont mind me I just take the middle path--sometimes the polarities will disagree with that--Im ok with this.

Chris

[mojo]

Members ask questions and get no responses??????

Especially when a moderator says:

To date the moderators, admin and Bill have absolutely no regrets about the decision

Every response on this thread by members with pov different have thought this thread was a possibility to explain why the decision needed more thought.. Other alternatives were offered and an effort to explain why shadow banning is wrong...

[mojo]

For what is believed to be a wrong decision some have spoken out... The comment, 'to date the management is happy' has negated the feelings and position of many. To me it felt like a stab in the heart... And no offense to the messenger. When many question are posed and crickets it just emphasizes the divide... Now self reflection is needed for myself to heal and not be an impediment here. Also important to recognize my own shortcomings.

[Hervé]

Maybe it's time to talk about the same things:


Shadow ban: my understanding of it is that a posted post is only visible to the poster, only. No one else sees it. No such function available on Avalon.



Censorship: removing material from ever being accessible by anyone. Book burning is the ultimate in such endeavor. We could censor the Q material and completely delete it from the database or send it to some obscure oubliettes in some remote, inaccessible Avalon archives.



Quarantine: no one is allowed in or out. No contact or exchange permitted.



Restricted: One needs to provide some proof of ID/age to access the great beyond.



Sand box... let 'em play all they want in there.

So, since neither the opt in/out nor the "Ignore thread" plug-in would work on this vB version, the fall back decison was to set up the Q materials in a restricted area.

[greybeard]

Maybe it's time to talk about the same things:


Shadow ban: my understanding of it is that a posted post is only visible to the poster, only. No one else sees it. No such function available on Avalon.



Censorship: removing material from ever being accessible by anyone. Book burning is the ultimate in such endeavor. We could censor the Q material and completely delete it from the database or send it to some obscure oubliettes in some remote, inaccessible Avalon archives.



Quarantine: no one is allowed in or out. No contact or exchange permitted.



Restricted: One needs to provide some proof of ID/age to access the great beyond.



Sand box... let 'em play all they want in there.

So, since neither the opt in/out nor the "Ignore thread" plug-in would work on this vB version, the fall back decision was to set up the Q materials in a restricted area.

I think one would have to come up with an entirely different definition, name, for what did happen.
None of the definitions that Herve posted apply.

Chris

[mojo]

right on Greybeard...

[Jayke]

Whitehouse definition of shadow-banning from the recent social media summit.

“The subjective hiding or demotion of a social media users visibility.”

How is shadow banning not what’s happened with the Q thread here on Avalon? Certainly feels like a demotion to the sandbox for me, based on the mod teams subjective opinions. No one’s been able to successfully debate away the Q threads viability at least. A lot of personal opinions thrown around, lots of aspersions cast, but when it comes to actual evidence-based discourse, not one person has been able to prove anything one way or the other.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_Ns21bWsAAm6nJ.jpg

[RunningDeer]

The Power Of Teamwork Geese flying in a Λ formation (2:14 minutes)




Geese help each other. Scientists also discovered that when one goose becomes ill, is shot or injured, and drops out of the formation, two other geese will fall out of formation and remain with the weakened goose.  They will stay with and protect the injured goose from predators until it is able to fly again or dies. Likewise, human teams work best when they do more than just work together, but care for the well being of each other.


a9HgNXdBEBc

https://i.imgur.com/F5VZkI8.gif

5 Things Geese Can Teach Us About Teamwork
article (https://lenwilson.us/5-thing-geese-can-teach-us-about-teamwork/)

Every fall thousands of geese fly from Canada to the southern part of the United States to escape the bitterly cold Canadian winter.  As soon as a flock of geese take flight from Canadian waters they quickly form a v-shape flying pattern, with one rotating goose in the center lead and all the other geese trailing behind in two close lines.

Wildlife scientists have conducted extensive studies to determine why geese and other migratory birds always fly in a distinctive v-formation.  They found some fascinating results:





1. When geese fly together, each goose provides additional lift and reduces air resistance for the goose flying behind it.  Consequently, by flying together in a v-formation, scientists estimate that the whole flock can fly about 70% farther with the same amount of energy than if each goose flew alone.  Geese have discovered that they can reach their destination more quickly and with less energy expended when they fly together in formation. When people work together harmoniously on teams, sharing common values and a common destination, they all arrive at the destination quicker and easier, because they are lifted up by the energy and enthusiasm of one another.

2. When a goose drops out of the v-formation it quickly discovers that it requires a great deal more effort and energy to fly.  Consequently, that goose will quickly return to the formation to take advantage of the lifting power that comes from flying together. Sometimes people playing on teams will drop out of the group and try to accomplish goals on their own.  However, like the geese, they usually discover that they miss the synergy and energy that comes when they are an active part of a cohesive team moving toward their destination, and want to return to the group.

3. Geese rotate leadership. When the goose flying in the front of the formation has to expend the most energy because it is the first to break up the flow of air that provides the additional lift for all of the geese who follow behind the leader.  Consequently, when the lead goose gets tired, it drops out of the front position and moves to the rear of the formation, where the resistance is lightest, and another goose moves to the leadership position.  This rotation of position happens many times in the course of the long journey to warmer climates.  When a team is functioning well, various members of the team may take the leadership role for a while because of a particular expertise or experience.  Consequently, on good teams, everyone has the opportunity to serve as a leader as well as a follower.

4. Geese honk at each other. They also frequently make loud honking sounds as they fly together.  Scientists speculate that this honking is their way of communicating with each other during their long flight. Similarly, when working on teams, it is exceedingly important for each team member to communicate regularly with all the other team members.  Teams frequently fall apart because of the lack of adequate communication among the various members of the team.  Perhaps human teams can learn from flying flocks of geese that constant communication among members is exceedingly important in moving effectively towards a common destination.

5. Geese help each other. Scientists also discovered that when one goose becomes ill, is shot or injured, and drops out of the formation, two other geese will fall out of formation and remain with the weakened goose.  They will stay with and protect the injured goose from predators until it is able to fly again or dies. Likewise, human teams work best when they do more than just work together, but care for the well being of each other.