| RETURN TO TELEKINESIS PAGE - TELEKINESIS -> Moderation | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Moderation |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jun 22, 2005 Views: 1290 | Moderation Keith, if Peter Flack is anything to go on, you'd have to be blind not to see why I disagree with your views on moderation and censorship ;) |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 23, 2005 Views: 1285 | RE: Moderation I know Placebo, I know! Okay, so he's nuts, but at least it makes tkers like you seem sane! All things are relative! |
| Posted By: Placebo Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 1283 | RE: Moderation So it seems, but he's ruining your board ;) |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 1280 | RE: Moderation Ruin is not a metaphor for slavery. Any old past-time "thing" like telekinesis, deserves that fantasy Keith is asking for. All quantative. Nothing compared to the relative of fact. What is asked that makes a world better off? The sun is the same in a relative way, but your older...shorter of breath, and one day closer to death. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 1278 | RE: Moderation Telekinesis - (1890) : The apparent production of motion in objects (as by a spiritualistic medium) without contact or other physical means - Telekinetic. Thing - 10 b : something (as an activity)that makes a strong appeal to the individual : FORTE Letting the thing exist, is much the same not slavery to a past-time. Saying it doesn't exist is living in the past, not letting go, and making sure there is no future left for that "thing". What question of a world being better off, is unanswered so dangerously, in an unquestioned ansewer? One can only wonder. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 24, 2005 Views: 1277 | RE: Moderation Thing-ness (1896) : The quality or state of objective existence or reality. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 25, 2005 Views: 1273 | RE: Moderation Yep, nutty as a fruit cake. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 25, 2005 Views: 1270 | RE: Moderation I make TKers like Placebo look sane? So between me (nuts/crazy/anything less polite is insane) and Placebo. But not one of us has TK because you say it doesn't exist? You have a lot of ground to cover to go around that great big circle between sanity and insanity to eliminate the evidence in between, do you not? As if it were some "Torus" ring. You go from one side of the ring to the other in a way that defies the laws of gravity, and in a quantative energy that defines the center. Meaning, you leave point 'A' at one end of the circle, to cross to get to point 'B' at the other. It means you have a choice of the two directions split up to 'cross over' or it is one crossing over the center. Still, in the consequence of reaching a point 'C' without a problem in that center, correct? Maybe? Compare virtuality with reality. If the center was of the greatest magnitude of TK possible and requires definition (which it does), you of course cross without deviating from 'normal' permanently. Consider the center is 'paranormality in its purest form'. You know you cannot stay there or you risk insanity, or possibly death. In order for you to consider one is sane (seemingly) and for you to adress them as a TKer, ( technically a 'telekinetic' ), you must cross the ring without disturbance. If, that central region was crossed as a whole, not in just the two directions of the ring but in a complete ( moderate? ) system that allows all three 'crossing' methods, you would know TK exists. Or that it does not. You would define sanity and insanity and the striking difference. If gravity permitted this ring to have wieght, quantity and gravity, yet was suspended by anti-gravity, ones telekinetic mind would cross from one end to the other and make it spin. Therefore cancelling the three directional mode and making it one mode, so as to deviate from normal, hold the weight of the ring at the center in paranormal form, and go back to normal again when the ring makes a revolution back to it's original position. When the telekinetic spins the ring one way and the other, it proves they have no favortism for one direction or the other. Correct? No, I don't think so. Is it not enough just to shut down the whole anti-gravity field as a whole and see if one can hold the ring up as it is? That is telekinetic, one way. Make it spin, and that is even more powerful than the first method. You may use the 'Torus' ring as a metaphor to play around with the facts that TK exists in the center in some virtual world if you wish. Point out sanity on one end to the other, and insanity in the center. The moment you stay in that center, you must say TK exists in a verifiable and repeatable environment on a permanent basis. Of course, having a way out of the insanity and risk of death in that viruality. Just virtuality. Or, you say it doesn't exist, and do not stand a chance at escaping the insanity or death, unless you are the telekinetic and control the power itself. Therefore proving it does so exist, by demonsration of that power. You may have to supply the anti-gravity although, this is purely based upon how 'light' the ring is. It is also a levitational factor. It does mean when you prove it does, you have a right to say it does not - only before you prove it. If you are the telekinetic. Don't speak for other people you don't know, it is ignorance in the purest of forms. Fruitcake anyone? Regards, Peter. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 25, 2005 Views: 1264 | RE: Moderation *Yawns* It's been a warm sunny day today. i walked my dog around the loch and then washed my car. After that I had lunch. Then I watched the tennis at Wimbledon. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 28, 2005 Views: 1252 | RE: Moderation How did you know Placebo was a TKer? Who is Placebo? |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 28, 2005 Views: 1250 | RE: Moderation Why does Placebo, just, ....... ( 'voice' in the background.. 'yes. .. go on old chap...) seem sane? They are either sane or they are not. What is seeming so much that is the "TKer", that they do not demonstrate "TK", yet they are telekinetic? They are either telekinetic or they are not. Why should one take your word for it? Did you know if Placebo was telekinetic? Do you know Placebo? |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 28, 2005 Views: 1243 | RE: Moderation Why don't you take a walk across the 'loch', intead of the 'lake'? |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 29, 2005 Views: 1236 | RE: Moderation You can't answer these questions either can you? If the TKer seems to be a telekinetic, they are not telekinetic. If they seem sane, they are not sane. If you know Placebo is a TKer, and say TK does not exist, what about Placebo's TK? It isn't just words, it is demonstration. Therefore, to you it is existence. So, you don't believe in anything until it is demonstrated first. You find it suprizing that I can claim to have TK, to nobody yet, and that I defend the existence of it. Not moderate enough? I am still nutty? You see, Keith, all of these posts are all turning into one post. You do understand that once there is nothing left to debate, it is meant for a closing. You can have the power to close the post, but you cannot argue your way out of a closed mind. Keep in mind that "TK is a load of ****" is going to go on forever until you close the debate with me. If TK didn't exist, I wouldn't have found this website in the first place. You said it was rare. Yeahh, it is rare, granted - I didn't expect you to be more rare than the site itself. |
| Posted By: Peter Flack Posted On: Jun 30, 2005 Views: 1228 | RE: Moderation Placebo has telekinesis? Did I ruin this message board? The only way I see it that I did, was that there is nothing left to close. If the "imposter" continues to say it is not personal, what is the real Keith Mayes to say about it except what he did? I accept that personal statement about everyday life. Yet, imagine yourself with telekinesis that is not seen nor heard. Unseen of, unheard of. A kind never discovered before in human history. Do you actually think I don't take it personally that the "Keith Mayes" typing, says my telekinesis doesn't exist? I do take it personally. He makes it known that this site is uncensored, yet says through a name "Keith Mayes" in one of the unclosed posts that he "doesn't take it personally". Maybe, you didn't read that Placebo, maybe you did. You have telekinesis don't you? How is "he" speaking for you, if he removes all of the imposters? When even the imposter says they remove the imposters? One says telekinesis doesn't exist. One says it does. One votes "I don't know". I don't vote "I don't know" and I don't vote "No". How am I supposed to vote "Yes" with someone here saying that telekinesis, simply does not exist? Claiming to be Keith Mayes, whom I see as a skeptic. Keith Mayes should be proud of using his own name, not seeing that to claim it is "not below him". This is not of the skeptical mind speaking, this is of the convinced mind, and not convincing. |