David Wilcock's latest Blog

[Digi]

Originally Posted by raoulduke666

Hmm...how many times has he been wrong and why is Project Camelot/Avalon still listening to him? Let me guess, timelines are always changing right?

David is actually pretty good for not making predictions that don't come true, mainly because he seems careful to not make many predictions at all.

You may wish to indict him for getting the November 27th date wrong, but he actually never went public with it. He never said November 27th at all to anyone in public, before the date. Bill Ryan did, and associated the remark with Wilcock, and David said he believed that disclosure would "most likely" be before Christmas, but that if it wasn't it would probably be early in the new year. He says he didn't go public with 27/11 because he felt it would prevent it from happening, and that he believes Bill Ryan making the date public made it impossible to go ahead with. Make of that what you will, but a failed prediction it is not.

And besides, when did being wrong about stuff become a reason to be completely ignored? It's okay to get things wrong from time to time. People who say "this prediction comes from God, and there is no way it can be wrong" you ought to scrutinize. David, though, says his disclosure prediction is based on a some intuitive data, his interpretation of current affairs, and some insider testimony; he says he's "fairly sure" that it's going to come out in the next few months. If it doesn't, well then what? Deride him, brand him a fraud, and crucify him? Weather men get stuff wrong all the time, but that doesn't mean meteorology isn't a valid science, nor does it mean those particular meteorologists are hoaxers. If someone can demonstrate an ability to predict the future of certain topics, at an accuracy rate above random, then I'm going to pay attention.

Originally Posted by derpif

Hi,
Is that true?
I thought it was David on C2C who gave away the alleged disclosure date first?

I'm quite sure it is. I followed it very closely from the moment he said he was expecting disclosure to the moment the 27th based without incident, and at no point did I hear him say that. In fact, the only time he mentioned the subject of dates was to say that he wouldn't be giving one.

If you, or anyone else can find a record of him saying it would be the 27th, I'd be very interested to see. PM me.

Originally Posted by Luminari

I am going to say this again, and I'm going to keep saying it until everyone on the forum understands the concept;

The most EGOIC thing you can do is accuse another person of EGO

think about that.

I can't tell if you're being ironic in reiterating something David himself has said. It was silly when he said it, and if you're being serious, it's silly now. In saying that, he accuses anyone who is accusing him of ego... of ego, and therefore is guilty of ego himself. This, I'm sure, creates some sort of recursive paradox, in that it implicitly accuses oneself of ego. Not that being egoistical is even a capital offence. I'm pretty big head myself, and look, I'm working on it, but I'm not going to beat myself up over it, I just need to be aware that whatever my estimation of myself, or my exploits might be, I should probably cut it in half if I want it to realistically interface with the world.

If I had to give David advice on the matter, it would be that if you find yourself in a situation where you're being "accused" of egotism so often that you blog about it, you might want to think about how egotistical you are. It could be that people are mad at you about your opinions on the president, and therefore are sending you email about your ego, or it could be that they just think you've got a big ego.

Originally Posted by Humble Janitor

I don't see an ego with Wilcock.

No point in getting hung up on things that aren't there.

Again, this is such a ludicrous thing to say that I'm not sure if I'm completely missing some intended irony.

David Wilcock has a monumental ego. Again, my saying this shouldn't be interpreted as my desire to see him burned alive, or any of that stuff - nor is it in anyway an indictment of his work - it's just a fact as I perceive it - he, like me, is a huge big-head. I'm not sure how anyone can read more than 3 of his blog posts and not come away with that. Whether it's mentioning he is a "virtuoso" drummer, or claiming that people at his conference enjoyed "one of the peak moments of their lives", David rarely seems to miss the opportunity to highlight his good points.

So in summary: big ego - let's notice it, and then forgive it.

[Humble Janitor]

What if people told him that they had a good time at his conference? Ever stop to think about that? Nothing wrong with flaunting your talents as well. David spends so much time talking about more complex things that I find it interesting that he considers himself to be a virtuoso drummer.

[Digi]

Originally Posted by Humble Janitor

What if people told him that they had a good time at his conference? Ever stop to think about that? Nothing wrong with flaunting your talents as well. David spends so much time talking about more complex things that I find it interesting that he considers himself to be a virtuoso drummer.

Yes, I did. Though having a good time does not necessarily mean that one is a enjoying a peak life moment. That's not to say they weren't, it's just that it seems unlikely. If that were the only thing, I'd have let it go unnoticed, and probably just taken it on faith that whilst unusual, some of the people enjoy their conference experience as much as their weddings, child-births, and graduations - but this is not a handful of events, this is a trend which underpins everything he says.

A boast is a boast, even when it isn't a lie. Even if they did have a "peak moment in their lives", why go on about it quite so much? There's flaunting a talent, and then there's bragging. One is compatible with humility, and one is not. I too have talents, but I try not to overstate them. If I were do that, I'd be taking a positive fact about myself, and outputting a statement of diminished veracity.

Again, there's no attack in my saying he has a big ego, it's just that it's true.

[Humble Janitor]

I tend to ignore such drivel and focus on the bigger message at hand.

I don't care about David's supposed ego. I *DO* care about the message he's trying to convey.

[Digi]

Originally Posted by Humble Janitor

I tend to ignore such drivel and focus on the bigger message at hand.

I don't care about David's supposed ego. I *DO* care about the message he's trying to convey.

Well like I say, there's no attack in my saying this, and I forgive him, but it's another thing entirely to ignore it. Being a big head makes people overstate the case all the time. When it's something like telling everyone that a documentary is going to be all about you, it's easily mitigated, in that everyone gets to see the documentary and finds out that wasn't true. When it's something like saying - and this is hypothetical here - "this witness said things that ENTIRELY corroborated my theories", it's another thing, because we might not be able to check that witnesses testimony ourselves. If we know that he tends to overstate things, if doing so boosts his self image, we need to temper the weighting of such statements with that knowledge.

Again, it's not evil, it's just pertinent.

I must say though, I am quite amused by how defensive you guys are being on his behalf. I am also amused at how the line seems to have gone from "he has no ego" to "well so what that he does",without any kind of acknowledgement of the inconsistency.

[Luminari]

Digi get back on track, in all of your empassioned posts on this thread not a single one has addressed the topic of this thread. Have you even read it? The article?

Just a reminder, this thread is entitled:

David Wilcock's latest Blog, ok?

NOT

David Wilcock's Ego.

I also posted the link to this article on the Wanderer Awakening thread before this one was created and was also attacked by another person with issues who only wanted to talk smack about David too.

Keep it on topic please, a discussion about the substance of the article would be great thanks,

L

[Firedrake]

I thought this was awesome:



The Fall of the Bully:

The bully didn't want any of the kids in 'his' schoolyard to play with the other kids -- the ones who lived all throughout the neighborhood.

He guarded the gates. He liked being the Big Fish in a Small Pond. He told elaborate stories of how evil, treacherous and deceptive the other kids were.

He wanted everyone to respect him and pay him for protection, while fearing anyone and everyone else around them -- including him most of all.

If the kids found out they had all these other friends in the neighborhood who could have helped them, they might have quickly forgotten about the bully... and laughed at his once-fearsome authority.

Over the years, the bully grew weak and tired. He couldn't beat people up anymore, so he started paying his friends to do it.

Now he has run out of money to pay all his friends. They, too, became tired of all his lies and backstabbing games -- so as soon as his money ran out, they ditched him.

It took a while for all the kids on the schoolyard to realize the bully could not hurt them anymore. His power was so feared, so legendary, that the stories of his beatings continued to awe and inspire them for some time.

But there were cracks in the armor. A series of signs -- irrefutable and undeniable -- started happening that gradually made the kids realize the bully's power to hurt them had evaporated.

Now all the people he shamed, humiliated and attacked over the years are finally standing up -- and they're going to tell us the truth.

They're going to tell their story... of what it was like to live in fear of this bully for so many years, and never be able to share the secret truth of the horrors he was putting them through.

Once the bully is gone, the children can run and sing and dance and play happily -- quickly recovering from the nightmare of abuse they endured for so long. They won't have to hand over all their lunch money to him and his friends any more.

And they will soon find out they have a lot more friends than they ever could have imagined -- regardless of whatever horror stories the bully tried to tell them about how mean and evil all the other kids were.


As for the information David presents, and not so much about how he presents it, I happen to resonate very strongly with where David is coming from and agree with much of what he says. As with any and all information, one must use discernment and pick and choose what works for them at that moment where they are at in their journey back to the one; because we are all at different places so sometimes it is hard to understand one another and why someone may feel so strongly about a specific piece of information at a certain time.

If we can operate from a place of objective neutrality we can more easily see things for what they really are and not how we judge it.

I believe through meditation we start to truly experience what ego is and how to live in the moment.

-Love and Light-

[PilotSimone]

I find DW refreshingly authentic.

It seems that many hold back authenticity for fear they will sound egotistical. I know I certainly have for most of my life.

From my perspective... How boring. How un-courageous.

Why shouldn't all of us think highly of ourselves? Especially when we're sharing our talent for the betterment of the world.

Our society is all about the shaming when people start to feel good about themselves. I look forward to seeing this attitude dissolve as we enter the Golden Age. I want to see what people really have to offer!! I don't want anyone holding themselves back for fear of how it might 'look' to others. Again, what a waste that is.

[Digi]

Originally Posted by Luminari

Digi get back on track, in all of your empassioned posts on this thread not a single one has addressed the topic of this thread. Have you even read it? The article?

Just a reminder, this thread is entitled:

David Wilcock's latest Blog, ok?

NOT

David Wilcock's Ego.

I also posted the link to this article on the Wanderer Awakening thread before this one was created and was also attacked by another person with issues who only wanted to talk smack about David too.

Keep it on topic please, a discussion about the substance of the article would be great thanks,

L

I'm very neatly on track all ready, as no single person can decide the direction of conversation. Besides, I think the discussion of his ego is integral to any discussion about the information he presents in his article. It's a little odd that you're asking me to stay on topic, because all my posts have been responses to other peoples' posts - I haven't changed any topics here, only continued them. I'm therefore lead to believe you've singled me out because we have differing opinions.

I've actually done my utmost to remain dispassionate in writing my posts - my opinion that he's very egotistical is matter-of-fact - the passion you've detected must have been injected some time after I've hit the 'Submit' button, and so I can not be held accountable for it.

Yes, I've read the article. From start to finish, and many parts several times over. I liked it, and was educated by it. Though, as I've said, information has to be considered with an assessment of the filter through which it comes. This guy has a big ego, which tends to make him overstate his case, and move his role in things toward the centre. That's as pertinent to understanding what he writes as the words themselves. That kind of thing is especially pertinent when you have to take his word for a lot of his evidence. Secret witnesses, dream data, all that stuff comes solely through him, you can't judge it for yourself, and therefore you have to rely on his judgement of it. Knowing his prejudices is vital to properly assimilating that evidence.

It's interesting to me that you imply I've attacked you. Please, point to where I've done this, and I'll immediatly retract it. Perhaps you're confusing disagreement with combat. The things are virtual opposites. Criticism is not insult. Far from it, in fact.

Equally interesting is that you suggest I'm "talking smack" about David Wilcock. Saying someone has a big ego is not talking smack. It's just that I think it's true. I've been redundant in my attempts to make it clear that I am not trying to attack, or disparage David Wilcock. I think he has a big ego, but that's really up to him. I have no hatred of him for that; this isn't a value judgement. All I'm interested in is knowing it's there, because it effects the context of his very intriguing output.

Say something about the substance, that I feel I can add to, and I'll respond.

[quetzalcoatl11]

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves" - Jung

David Wilcock has been assailed for his ego so many times, but people on these boards of any forum should recognize this sort of attack as an ad hominem attack on David himself and not of the substance of his work. The extent to which David's 'ego' bothers a person is actually a representation or outward projection of what is inside that person and what they are likely contending with within themselves. Whatever it is within another that seems to evoke annoyance, the trick is to always look first within yourself to see whether or not it may exist there as well.

What is very difficult for many to understand is that the level David has reached in his own life, through many difficult trials and struggles, is a highly appreciative form of love for the creative Spirit which infuses and animates his life- this is not to be confused with ego- it is a healthy form of being capable of witnessing that one's life is an expression of God's Will, and to not recognize this creatively Divine Spirit within yourself is what keeps so many people from actualizing their lives from a higher level. I have the sense that the contempt that so many have for David is actually the frustration and contempt they harbor for themselves, for having not been able to access a form of self-love which acknowledges the divine within themselves as David has.

I know that David has faults as a human being, but I would be far less trustful of him had be pretended not too, when in reality he is one of the more humble people you will come across. It's easy for us to stand where we are and criticize, but the truth of the matter is that the content of his message remains powerfully transformative, and overwhelmingly with loving and positive intent, that is something which cannot be said for very many people.

I think, beyond it all, people may be threatened by David's intelligence and charisma, they cannot understand it so they condemn it- they cannot figure out a way to love themselves for their unique gifts so they denounce another for his own.

[PilotSimone]

Originally Posted by quetzalcoatl11

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to a better understanding of ourselves" - Jung

David Wilcock has been assailed for his ego so many times, but people on these boards of any forum should recognize this sort of attack as an ad hominem attack on David himself and not of the substance of his work. The extent to which David's 'ego' bothers a person is actually a representation or outward projection of what is inside that person and what they are likely contending with within themselves. Whatever it is within another that seems to evoke annoyance, the trick is to always look first within yourself to see whether or not it may exist there as well.

What is very difficult for many to understand is that the level David has reached in his own life, through many difficult trials and struggles, is a highly appreciative form of love for the creative Spirit which infuses and animates his life- this is not to be confused with ego- it is a healthy form of being capable of witnessing that one's life is an expression of God's Will, and to not recognize this creatively Divine Spirit within yourself is what keeps so many people from actualizing their lives from a higher level. I have the sense that the contempt that so many have for David is actually the frustration and contempt they harbor for themselves, for having not been able to access a form of self-love which acknowledges the divine within themselves as David has.

I know that David has faults as a human being, but I would be far less trustful of him had be pretended not too, when in reality he is one of the more humble people you will come across. It's easy for us to stand where we are and criticize, but the truth of the matter is that the content of his message remains powerfully transformative, and overwhelmingly with loving and positive intent, that is something which cannot be said for very many people.

I think, beyond it all, people may be threatened by David's intelligence and charisma, they cannot understand it so they condemn it- they cannot figure out a way to love themselves for their unique gifts so they denounce another for his own.

LAD.

Great post!

[Digi]

I'm sure I've posted this already, but I can't see it, so apologies if this is a double post.

Originally Posted by Humble Janitor

I tend to ignore such drivel and focus on the bigger message at hand.

I don't care about David's supposed ego. I *DO* care about the message he's trying to convey.

Well like I say, there's no attack in my saying this, and I forgive him, but it's another thing entirely to ignore it. Being a big head makes people overstate the case all the time. When it's something like telling everyone that a documentary is going to be all about you, it's easily mitigated, in that everyone gets to see the documentary and finds out that wasn't true. When it's something like saying - and this is hypothetical here - "this witness said things that ENTIRELY corroborated my theories", it's another thing, because we might not be able to check that witnesses testimony ourselves. If we know that he tends to overstate things, if doing so boosts his self image, we need to temper the weighting of such statements with that knowledge.

Again, it's not evil, it's just pertinent.

[Humble Janitor]

Right. It's all water under the bridge.

We just disagree.

[derpif]

@ Digi,
apologies, I listened to C2C again and he did not tell the exact date.
My bad, very sorry.

Have a nice day,
derpif

[TheChosen]

What is so wrong about having a big ego anyway??... Oh right... New Age literature goes on and on and on and on.... about how guilty you are if you have 1 speck of ego

I am sick of fully competent modest people being crushed down by those who knew how to market themselves and didn't have a problem of telling the world the truth .. that they are unique and the best thing under the sun. And my complete 'favourites' are people who talk about how they have mastered the disolution of ego all the time and how great they are for doing that ... ummm... say what??! lol

Modesty is a virus programming designed to enslave humanity into obedience and obscurence.

If I am so good and great to realize I am really one of the best if not THE best in my field .. I will not wait 2 seconds before sharing it with everyone else.

You know what Bruce Lee said when a commentator asked him if he is great?

"If I told you I am good, I would be lying to you ... and if I told you I am great you would say I am boasting"

Would you rather be a liar or 'accussed' of boasting? In fact the reason I like DW on a personal level is that he has no problem with sharing how great he is...

[Digi]

Originally Posted by TheChosen

What is so wrong about having a big ego anyway??... Oh right... New Age literature goes on and on and on and on.... about how guilty you are if you have 1 speck of ego

I am sick of fully competent modest people being crushed down by those who knew how to market themselves and didn't have a problem of telling the world the truth .. that they are unique and the best thing under the sun. And my complete 'favourites' are people who talk about how they have mastered the disolution of ego all the time and how great they are for doing that ... ummm... say what??! lol

Modesty is a virus programming designed to enslave humanity into obedience and obscurence.

If I am so good and great to realize I am really one of the best if not THE best in my field .. I will not wait 2 seconds before sharing it with everyone else.

You know what Bruce Lee said when a commentator asked him if he is great?

"If I told you I am good, I would be lying to you ... and if I told you I am great you would say I am boasting"

Would you rather be a liar or 'accussed' of boasting? In fact the reason I like DW on a personal level is that he has no problem with sharing how great he is...

Well, Bruce Lee was great, and if someone had asked him if he was, and he had said so, he would not have been boasting, he would have been telling the truth. If he had then gone on to take every opportunity to re-mention his greatness, to the point of engineering discussions into having such opportunities, sometimes crowbarring it in entirely out of context, he'd be boasting.

It's entirely possible to be humble, whilst still completely factual, objective, and forthright about ones personal qualities and achievements. Those things are not incompatible, and there's a big difference between being unhealthily self-deprecating, and not having a proclivity for irrelevant self-aggrandizement. I'm troubled by anyone who isn't aware of that distinction.

It's okay for Bruce to say he was great also because it's not untrue, and he wouldn't have been delusional in believing that. It's a different matter when someone becomes so self absorbed that one's perception becomes unreliably tilted in favour of one's self.

When that seems to be happening to someone who's usefulness to me is their ability to reckon things, I need to be aware of it. I can now bare in mind that things he gets intuitively might be twisted by his desire to big himself up unrealistically. It's nothing for me to hate him about, and I don't think he needs to feel guilty about it. I don't even think he needs to overcome it, that's a matter for him. All I'm interested in is knowing that it's there, so I can better contextualize his ideas.

Your assertion that New Age literature says people are guilty if they have any ego is a straw-man. What literature? Moreover, I, nor anyone in this thread, has said that, and it therefore has no relevance here.

[Luminari]

Originally Posted by Digi

..In saying that, he accuses anyone who is accusing him of ego... of ego, and therefore is guilty of ego himself. This, I'm sure, creates some sort of recursive paradox..

Thanks for your observations. I don't usually gloss over people's flaws but nor do I focus on them, I personally find the constant ego accusations levelled at DW to be a fruitless diversion away from taking his information seriously by insecure people who for whatever reason have not studied the material.

The same thing comes up time after time against Steven Greer ad nauseum.

[FIIISH]

Just a reminder, this thread is entitled:

David Wilcock's latest Blog, ok?

NOT

David Wilcock's Ego.

You are right Luminari. My apologies to Lightwalker, the OP.

Regarding the latest blog post, I came away with an overwhelming
desire to be rid of all of this 3D gameplaying that we have been
engaging in for thousands of years. I am looking forward to an existence
where one can simply BE, and from this learn and grow without spending
so much time and energy on survival and posturing.

[eleni]

There are points in his blog I don't agree with - not sure about the Russian/Asian factions wanting to do away with other factions.....
also the spiral.......having to do with pixels and the ring count..........

[lightwalker]

So....I'm surprised no one mentioned the lady who turned to jelly after she died.

I'm headed in to Manhattan this week and all I can think of is "they" are among us...will I see one ? (a jelly person that is)

Every time I think about that story I just start laughing and I am not sure why because I have no problem considering that it is a truth.

Years ago when I first heard about the idea that the earth was hollow I refused to believe it and yet I had no problem believing in ET's and civilizations on other planets and all kinds of things, but a hollow earth...NO WAY. Well, I have changed and cannot invalidate someone else's truth because anyone who belongs to this kind of forum pretty much knows that the truth sure is stranger than fiction.

I just pick the ones that resonate with me and lot's of what David shares hits home for me. I am grateful for his passion and commitment to bringing in the light...cuz it makes my "walking" easier.

light...walker

[Derek]

Guys the more positive energy we create the easier the earth can make a smooth transition into higher energies. Why are we arguing? Arguing is one of the biggest egoistic things you can do. You know that. It's all about being right.
Your all on the same level, your all supporting a passionate opinion about david wilcock. It just happens to be a different opinion. I can assure you that you'd stop arguing if you could see your similarities. They FAR outweigh your differences.
There is too much arguing on this message board. We need to work together and unify.

[Digi]

Lightwalker: Which lady that turned to jelly? I don't understand.

Originally Posted by Derek

Guys the more positive energy we create the easier the earth can make a smooth transition into higher energies. Why are we arguing? Arguing is one of the biggest egoistic things you can do. You know that. It's all about being right.
Your all on the same level, your all supporting a passionate opinion about david wilcock. It just happens to be a different opinion. I can assure you that you'd stop arguing if you could see your similarities. They FAR outweigh your differences.
There is too much arguing on this message board. We need to work together and unify.

What is arguing if not work? Being as it isn't possible to argue alone, we can consider arguing a form of working together. Arguing, debate, criticism, disagreement are more than legitimate, they're vital to forwarding and refining our collective knowledge. Fighting, however, is an entirely different matter. It is possible, and can be desirable, to argue without fighting.

For my part, that's what I've been doing here.

[lightwalker]

I call her The Jelly Lady

This is from part 4 under PRECISELY HUMAN-LOOKING ETS

http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2968.htm




"We may have talked about the Roswell business, and we can get back to that later, but the most interesting item in the file is about the woman who was jaywalking in New York, and was hit by some minority trying to escape from the police.

[It was a] terrible impact and knocked her up onto the sidewalk. Right next to a hospital. So, she was rushed there, but died there at once -- or more likely was killed by the impact.

So, when they did an autopsy on her, they were lucky because they got right on to her, or whatever it was.

And that was good, because about two hours later, after the body cooled off, it turned to a sort of jelly.

But, this is the fascinating part. It looked like a woman from the outside but once they cut into her, it wasn’t a woman.

GD: It was a transvestite?

RTC: No, it wasn’t human. The insides were all different.

None of the staff had ever seen anything like it before. So, they photographed the body and took out what they hoped might be some kind of organs.

Didn’t do any good because, like the body, the pieces all turned to jelly in the jars.

But there are the affidavits and the photographs, plus the police report of the accident and the emergency room people. Not human.

What it was, no one knows, not to this day."


A good story isn't it ! I still can't stop laughing.

lightwalker

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Digi

Lightwalker: Which lady that turned to jelly? I don't understand.



What is arguing if not work? Being as it isn't possible to argue alone, we can consider arguing a form of working together. Arguing, debate, criticism, disagreement are more than legitimate, they're vital to forwarding and refining our collective knowledge. Fighting, however, is an entirely different matter. It is possible, and can be desirable, to argue without fighting.

For my part, that's what I've been doing here.

I totally agree with what you said, you said it perfectly. Debating and sharing opinions is very healthy.

This whole thread is an argument about something that isn't at all relevant to the topic. David Wilcocks ego. Its creating unnecessary negative energy and division. There is not much we can gain from proving that David does or does not have an ego.

[Digi]

Originally Posted by Derek

I totally agree with what you said, you said it perfectly. Debating and sharing opinions is very healthy.

This whole thread is an argument about something that isn't at all relevant to the topic. David Wilcocks ego. Its creating unnecessary negative energy and division. There is not much we can gain from proving that David does or does not have an ego.

I've said this in this thread already, but I'll try and re-phrase it: the status of his ego is relevant. If David were a mathematician, and his usefulness to me was in supplying me with new eye-opening equations I'd never considered before, I wouldn't give a rats about his ego - I'd just take his equation, and test it - the output would stand on self evidence.

However, David is in the business of fuzzy evidence; he relays insider testimony from people who are anonymous to us, and interprets his own dreams on our behalf. These aren't hard bits of data that you or I can make estimates about directly, they come through David, and therefore we have to understand David himself to properly contextualize his testimony. I need to counter balance his biases to level out the info. If I think he has a tendency to subconsciously move himself toward the centre of scenarios he is recounting, then I need to move him slightly further away from the centre to make a proper estimate about what he's relaying. Just like if you play poker against someone who bluffs a lot, you should be a lot less worried about what hand they might have when they make a bet than if they were someone who bet only very occasionally. It's about adjusting to someone's tendencies. It's something I need to do to properly weight his ideas.

So tell me you think he isn't egotisitical (which I think is a pretty far out opinion to have), but don't tell me it isn't relevant.

I don't think it spreads negative energy to discuss a facet of someone's character, even if that facet is one that is undesirable to most people, as long as it's done maturely. I mean, if we were discussing someone who was well above average weight, and it was relevant, would we not be able to mention it in an adult fashion, without it seeming as though we were verbally assailing the person? I don't see how my discussing his ego from an objective point of view spreads "negative energy".

Again, I'm not making a value judgement on him. I have an ego probably about the same size as David's. I've decided it's something I don't like all that much in my self, and I'm probably going to spend the rest of this life reducing it. If David is happy with the state of his ego, good for him, I have no quarrel, but I will notice it, and discuss it, if it seems relevant, and I think it seems relevant.