Camelot - Removing video footage upon request?

[OMG]

Note: Parts 2 & 3 of the A'shayana Deane interview are being re-edited in order to remove statements she made regarding the Wingmakers at the request of James and Mark of Wingmakers.com. I apologize for the inconvenience. They will be re-uploaded as soon as possible. --Kerry Lynn Cassidy, Project Camelot

No disrespect intended. And I'm hoping it isn't some "legal reason" (sigh). But can anyone explain why AD's statements about the Wingmakers are being removed from these videos?

For goodness sakes if everyone got their wish that such and such be removed from this or that video, from this or that article, etc, then I imagine there would be hardly anything worthwhile available. Have we become so "politically correct" that we've lost our freedom of speech?

[Bill Ryan]

[QUOTE=omg;25815]

have we become so "politically correct" that we've lost our freedom of speech?

Freedom of speech doesn't include an interviewed witness making untrue statements to be published in a video that may be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

There's responsible journalism, also... Another freedom that we can all celebrate.

I'm very glad that Kerry is making the requested edits... There's no conflict here. While she and I have not always agreed on the material presented by Camelot, our honest intentions have always been to provide our visitors and viewers with what we each think is the best possible information: We've worked pretty hard at that.

A lot of time and thought goes into editing videos: Sometimes, under pressure, things get overlooked. Absolutely not everything in every interview gets published... We've always used our discretion to edit interviews to provide the best possible experience to the viewer. Although i was not part of that interview, and was not involved in the editing, the situation with Ashayana Deane is no exception.

If Kerry sees this, I trust she'll be comfortable with what i've written here to represent Camelot. I was a small part of the process of communicating on Camelot's behalf with Mark and James from WingMakers, and between us this has all been handled very amicably.

The most important thing i can say here - and it is important! - is that Kerry and I are totally united in supporting the very valuable body of material that is the mythology of the WingMakers. We were proud to feature the extraordinary, in-depth written interview with James on our site, and we're privileged to consider Mark and James as friends.

Very best wishes, Bill

[Jan Rodrigo]

ok but still that is not right every on is intiled to there way of thinking all so part 1 dose not work ethier it has become a sad world were you can not even exspress you ideas on a free thinking forum the hole world is being governed and we have to do this with people who are aprently open minded on two open minded forums it just dose not make sense . if you dont like the info then dont whatch it you sould let people make up there own minds you no i think its called free well and freedom to speak . but to me this is so ovyouse what ever next pulse all this information is not new and has been said before. any way this stuff that was said about wing makers why would u be botherd if it is not the truth so many people say things on the forum that is not true and it is ignored . now this is going to make people think there is truth in it . all so it reminds me of the news papers they edit the truth as well to fit what news they whant to go out when it is just news an idea . are people not aloud to think the way they whant any more as iv said whats the big deal if it is not true!

[lightblue]

bill:

Freedom of speech doesn't include an interviewed witness making untrue statements to be published in a video that may be seen by hundreds of thousands of people.

it does actually...

your response is emotional and i think you are getting into politics here...in addition, the interviewer doesn't always know if things said are true or not so to drive a witness into truth telling only...just how do you imagine you could police that...sorry, you are off on this one..

besides, i wish this were the only untrue statement made during that interview...best wishes l

[OMG]

This is an unfortunate situation which can still be rectified.

Although I understand what Bill is saying it behooves me (and many others I imagine) to understand exactly what has been deleted and how anyone can validate the claims that it is "untrue"?

Once the video is publically submitted I would not sanction further editing unless it was a legal issue.

What I would have done instead was if indeed there was an objective factual "untruth" (instead of a subjective/personal one) then I would have cited a disclaimer on the actual video during those sections while providing a link or the resource to which it could be substantiated.

p.s. It's nothing against the Wingmakers, nor AD. I'm just trying to be fair and calling it how I see it.

[shiva777]

yeah,like Bill said he supports wingmakers 100% so of course he will take their opinion of what is true and what isn't above what others think....just discuss with us what you believe was inaccurate and be open about it...no drama,no karma...maybe AD was mistaken,maybe not...just what do you base the untruth on?

[lightblue]

OMG:

What I would have done instead was if indeed there was an objective factual "untruth" (instead of a subjective/personal one) then I would have cited a disclaimer on the actual video during those sections while providing a link or the resource to which it could be substantiated.

you are then talking about the degrees of how true truth can be...sorry i think that's off too...l

[Tamara]

I don't think you can argue with Bill on that point. If someone said something about you or yours that was untrue, would you simply stand aside and let rumours spread because that person had the 'free will' to say what they wanted about you? I haven't watched the interview yet, but obviously something was said that the Wingmakers know is not accurate/true, and rightfully, they requested that it be removed. It's not that a big a deal, infact you should probably be happy that Bill and Kerry have the integrity to correct mistakes, errors, and inaccuracies, without making such a fuss about it. Bill's right, it's responsible journalism, and I would expect no less from the two people that I spend nearly every day in some form or another with on my computer screen.

[OMG]

Posted by lightblue (here)
OMG:

you are then talking about the degrees of how true truth can be...sorry i think that's off too...l

Thank you. Yes, in an idealistic world there would be no need to distinguish between objective and subjective. The problem with "subjective" however is that it usually can't be socially verified. And since I was discussing "untruths of facts" I made the assumption that "facts" had to be something socially verifiable. Hence, my reasoning.

But to your credit I too would prefer there NEVER be any reason to censor. God (Source) seemed to allow everything, whether we liked it or not. Maybe...

[shiva777]

simply stating what is considered to be untrue would clear things up...can you do us that courtesy?...otherwise we are just agreeing to Bill and Kerry and the "wingmakers" censoring things for us...think about it Tamara..that's how propaganda works...so many things on Proj Camelot are untrue but they didn't remove them...

considering the fact that most people here have probably already watched the videos it seems a little strange that you wouldn't just come out with what you consider to be untrue ...or do we need to watch the whole thing again to try to see what you have edited out...lol...see what I mean?.

...it would be good for people to watch these videos more than once anyway as there was a lot to take in and alot that would have thrown many people off balance who hadn't even considered these things as a possibility...this info obviously isn't for the "love,light and clueless" crowd

[Beth]

Some of the things said by AD could, and I stress COULD, be seen as slanderous, that puts Bill and Kerry in a pickle. I don't see the problem with edit.

[Fredkc]

Posted by yaya551 (here)
Some of the things said by AD could, and I stress COULD, be seen as slanderous, that puts Bill and Kerry in a pickle. I don't see the problem with edit.

Mod hat off!

Hear Hear! One more thing....
Camelot belongs to Kerry!
Avalon belongs to Bill!

So does the content.
So does the manner of presentation.
As does the decision whether or not to publish, and continue publishing what they choose.

Amazing this has to be explained.

[OMG]

Posted by Fredkc (here)
Mod hat off!

Hear Hear! One more thing....
Camelot belongs to Kerry!
Avalon belongs to Bill!

So does the content.
So does the manner of presentation.
As does the decision whether or not to publish, and continue publishing what they choose.

Amazing this has to be explained.

Good point. So we ALL should strive to own and rule our own spheres of influence and not be accountable to anyone but ourselves. And if we're really cleavor we can get some people to work for us for free (ok, I guess pragmatically speaking we could pay them too). Now that's a good system!

But in truth Fredkc is right and no one but Bill or Kerry can do anything to change anything at Avalon or Camelot.

Sarcasm is ok sometimes isn't it?

Cheers!

[unplugged]

I commented on the other AD thread about my concerns regarding the Wingmakers put-down by AD. On the one hand she claims to not have really studied the Wingmakers material. On the other she proceeds to state that the Guardian Alliance claims ALL the principals involved in the Wingmakers are of Dark Side origins, that the GA are her trusted sources of info, therefore she feels it is her right to state what she does.

That is pure, unadulterated poppycock.

The Wingmaker material is SUPERB -- far in advance of much of what passes as occult knowledge or spiritual teaching on this planet. To smear the origins of the material by stating it is ALL Dark Side is, in my opinion, a gross disservice to responsible humans who have toiled just as long and hard as AD to reveal something of value for humanity. While AD has a bunch of complex diagrams which are certainly mentally stimulating, Wingmakers has text, and art and music. It is a far more balanced explication of spirit in that it isn't stuck in the mental realm but advances the Whole-I Beingness of each and all thru emotional as well as mental stimulation.

I'm glad James and Mark requested these remarks be expunged from the AD record. It was -- IN MY OPINION -- the right thing to do.

Blessings!

Gillian

[Beth]

First, anyone that owns a company, brand, or trademark will understand the reason for the need to remove. If it is deemed slanderous, a suit could take place for just being involved in the situation. Does someone really need to go out on a limb like that for someone elses word, doubtful.

Second, what does that say to all the other whistle-blowers that may want to come forward? They may ask themselves will I be trashed by another whistle-blower if I come forward. It just doesn't set a good precedent, nor is it very professional.

Just my opinion and I don't thinks it's a big deal considering what is being deleted, it's relevance was quite scarce.

[Northern Boy]

I have never watched it so Can`t comment directly on it but I NO longer need to view any whistle blower videos I have decide to follow my own path and take the knowledge I have gained and use it to my own advantage . So far its working great for me ultimately you are responsible for you and you alone . Others from my immediate family have taken it upon themselves to follow their paths, who am I to stop them, everyone should be their own leader and follow no one but whats right for them

[Shane_Original]

Posted by Fredkc (here)
So does the content.
So does the manner of presentation.
As does the decision whether or not to publish, and continue publishing what they choose.

Amazing this has to be explained.

^^Very glad I read page two before posting.

HUMOR: Would love to see a "Slander" case like this go to a court of law. :D <<not serious.

Not to say I agree with her at all, it was insulting perhaps, but slander could not be proven. (although I truly wish it could, it would make this issue so trivial we'd be dancing and singing love in the streets.) I'm fairly sure A'Shayana has been slandered all over this forum. (Not that I have an issue with that either)

Kerry, and Bill, are free to edit their videos however they want, whenever they want, regardless of their reason.. It is part of their presentation. Putting out information they do not perhaps 'agree" with is one thing.. opinions from one towards the others are different. That information is still available if you consider it info. Just not in a Camelot video, any longer. Quite simple, nothing violated, nothing different then has always been. I'm sure many such "comments/opinions" have been edited out in past videos.

If it were up to me.. I would omit the comments as well. Not because I believe either is true or false, but because I do not see it as important to the viewer. The sort of comment in question were 'tacky' and thats reason enough for their removal.

I love this show. Thanks to all of you for being here.

Shaynard

[Beth]

Posted by Shaynard (here)

HUMOR: Would love to see a "Slander" case like this go to a court of law. :D <<not serious.

Not to say I agree with her at all, it was insulting perhaps, but slander could not be proven.

I really know nothing of the wingmakers, I think they are called, but if they have a commodity that they sell and someone in the same market is saying it's rubbish, I believe that it would be considered slanderous.

I also made a post in the other thread that I as a business owner have to prove that my product is worth buying by our work alone, not by trashing another. Just some points I wanted to bring up. I myself suspect people that slander another, just never feels right. It's one thing to say "so and so believes this, but it feels more right for me to be on this path." I think had it come out in that manner, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

[Anchor]

If Ashayana Deane really has something important to say about this, and about her opinions on the Wingmakers then she has other avenues of expression available to her - upto and including posting on the forums, hers or this one.

TBH I think editing the video to remove the negative comments are probably doing AD a favour.

John..

[Shane_Original]

Posted by yaya551 (here)
It's one thing to say "so and so believes this, but it feels more right for me to be on this path." I think had it come out in that manner, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

I'm not sure she said any more than that. Besides, who can prove either one is correct? Can Wingmakers "prove" their 'product" is NOT "rubbish"? ( I do not believe it is either) I highly doubt such a case would be "entertained" in a court of law, but thats just speculation, and I may be wrong. (just thinking, all these people slander the court of law directly or indirectly, I'm sure thats frowned upon)

Not to "argue" just something that popped into my head is: Tonight I saw a "Sonic" commercial where two "sonic" employee's are at a Wendy's drivethru and order a Frosty (or w/e they call them). They go on about how it's "not real icecream'' effectively saying it's "not as good as Sonic" or "rubbish" compared to Sonic. A common tactic in advertising.

Nothing AD said was any different, if I remember correctly she actually went as far as to say she did not "hold it against" the people. Again, I stress, I do not support her comments at all.

Regardless of this trivial difference ... I support the removal. The idea of actually calling this slander makes me laugh a little ONLY because of the legal usage of the term, not because I disagree.


Love to you yaya.. I know little about the Wingmakers myself. About as little as I know about AD. ingested equal amounts of material from each.. which isn't much at all.

Shaynard