Camelot responds to St Clair's blurb

[Myplanet2]

Why do those with the least understanding, claim the biggest voices?

Maybe Bill and Kerry should also create a "support your local illuminati" sub forum, and the "reptilian corner"?

How about putting these ideas into walk the talk dim wittedness:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

It's B & K's group. They can do what they like. If someone stabs them in the back, they can pull their content. How many times did Michael St Clair mention his books in the Camelot interviews?

Why should they continue to promote Michael's work when he's taken to promoting them as little more than tools of the illuminati?

Freedom of speech must by it's nature include freedom to not speak. You are advocating enforced speech. B&K must keep St Clair's material on their site. That's not freedom of speech. If they let YOU tell them what they must have on their site, then must they also let the Mainstream media tell them what must be there? The Rockefellers? CFR? Builderbergers?CIA? It's their choice what they present.

If you got what you know of this situation with Bill, Kerry and Michael from this thread, then you have no idea what's going on, because most of it hasn't been said in this thread. And that might tell you something about these disembodied opinions being floated by the mal(mis)(un)informed.

[Sarahmay]

Originally Posted by Myplanet2

Why do those with the least understanding, claim the biggest voices?

Maybe Bill and Kerry should also create a "support your local illuminati" sub forum, and the "reptilian corner"?

Smile

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Myplanet2

Why should they continue to promote Michael's work when he's taken to promoting them as little more than tools of the illuminati?

You seem to exhibit the "an eye for eye" attitude...

Originally Posted by Myplanet2

If you got what you know of this situation with Bill, Kerry and Michael from this thread, then you have no idea what's going on, because most of it hasn't been said in this thread.

I have no idea what's going on. Do you? We both should, should we?

And while we, as individuals, may not agree with everything presented on our site, we fully support freedom of thought and speech as well as the Quest for truth. --31 December 2008

-feeler

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Kathleen

Maybe the quest for truth precludes them from keeping the stuff there....and why in the world would you think that Bill and Kerry should tell the public everything that is going on?They do not owe us anything. Just because they are public figures does not mean they owe us an explaination of their every thought and finding. This constant haranguing reminds me of papparazi.

Paparazzi? I'm only interested in the public comments or action either side takes. I respect the personal (private) life of either side.

The stuff being kept here might very well include information provided by the disinfo agents. How do you identify those in the quest for truth? The disinfo agents likely come in the form of the sweetest, and the most vulnerable person, in appearance. St. Clair (with his public criticism of K&B) doesn't fit the profile.

-feeler

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Kathleen

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist)

No sweetness and vulnerability

Some "experts" are sweeter than the others. And the vulnerability is hard to resist.


22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

-feeler

[orthodoxymoron]

I just thought about something. When Billy Graham's organization had a problem with a bill, individual, organization, or company...it is my understanding, at least, that they paid whatever was owed(or claimed to be owed)...and just simply stopped doing business with that individual, organization, or company. No fighting. No comment. Nothing. They simply went quietly in another direction. There may be some real wisdom in that. No comment. No fighting. No invitations. No interviews. Nothing. It's very easy to second guess and criticize when one is not directly involved in a situation. However...just as a hypothetical...what if something like this happens again...and the previously posted interviews are left alone...but no further contact or comment is made regarding the problem individual? Both parties might just move on...without stirring up a hornets nest.

[feeler]

Originally Posted by orthodoxymoron

I just thought about something. When Billy Graham's organization had a problem with a bill, individual, organization, or company...it is my understanding, at least, that they paid whatever was owed(or claimed to be owed)...and just simply stopped doing business with that individual, organization, or company. No fighting. No comment. Nothing. They simply went quietly in another direction. There may be some real wisdom in that. No comment. No fighting. No invitations. No interviews. Nothing. It's very easy to second guess and criticize when one is not directly involved in a situation. However...just as a hypothetical...what if something like this happens again...and the previously posted interviews are left alone...but no further contact or comment is made regarding the problem individual? Both parties might just move on...without stirring up a hornets nest.

orthodoxymoron, what you are suggesting is called co-existing peacefully. Great idea.

Now that K&B retracted their endorsement of St. Clair, I am left to wonder which part of St. Clair's past interviews I should re-evaluate.

-feeler

[waitinginthewings]

This subject has now been debated to death......can we just bury the hatchet now and move on pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

[franciejones]

As an interesting side note to all of this...St. Clair has just today posted links for two Camelot presentations/interviews on his Facebook page. I do not know if he maintains his own Facebook page, but I thought it a bit strange to see them posted by him. Is he trying to "say he is sorry?"

Just a weird thing I noticed. I had a "hmmm" reaction to it

[cantaloupe]

:dead thread?

[dagon]

[Luminari]

This is a tragic love story right?

The intuition I get from this whole scenario is that St Clair has/had romantic feelings for Kerry and viewed Bill as an obstacle or competition.

This was gleaned from body language and other things I picked up..

I may be totally wrong but please dont attack me if you disagree.

The people here saying nasty things about St Clair and 'I disliked him from the start' etc how would you feel about people being so quick to judge you.

Zen of Stars is a great book, at least he did something positive we can agree on (if you even read it that is).

Peace out,

L

[feeler]

Originally Posted by Luminari

This is a tragic love story right?

The intuition I get from this whole scenario is that St Clair has/had romantic feelings for Kerry and viewed Bill as an obstacle or competition.

This was gleaned from body language and other things I picked up..

I may be totally wrong but please dont attack me if you disagree.

The people here saying nasty things about St Clair and 'I disliked him from the start' etc how would you feel about people being so quick to judge you.

Zen of Stars is a great book, at least he did something positive we can agree on (if you even read it that is).

Peace out,

L

Luminari,

Are you serious?

Do you know whether Kerry was ever invited to join St. Clair's Radiant Zone?

If I were Bill, being human, besides erasing St. Clair's interviews from this site, I would try to erase St. Clair from Kerry's memory.

Just kidding.

-feeler