Cliff High view on Bill Ryans accusations

[Seashore]

Originally Posted by morguana

this is not up for debate, a pm or email is by its very nature private
and to post an email or pm without consent is not cosher......end of

m x

I don't believe that is true when there is a public issue involved that is being discussed in a public forum by a public person who is putting out very public information for general consumption by the world at large.

[Zeddo]

Originally Posted by eleni

Posting private communication asked to be kept private will result in a ban. It's that simple.

Not entrusting private messages that are not meant to be shared would have circumvented this, and Bill Ryan should know this. I have no idea of the content or even the topic concerning this whole issue (presuming it's the whole Cliff High - Bill Ryan charade, which is all it is, 2 kids in a sandbox sulking over who has the best toys) but what I can say is that somebody who should have known better caused the final outcome. 2 wrongs don't make a right presuming that the banning is what would be construed as "right" in this instance, and the giving and sharing of the info the 2 wrongs.

Yes, in total simplicity the banning was correct, but was it moral? How quickly we cast aside our morality in protecting them we feel to be infallible, our "guiding lights" so to speak.

Once again, I will pose this question. Are we illuminated? Are we awakened? I think not. Struggling infants in a brave new world perhaps, but we have a long way to go before we can class ourselves as anything more than that, this includes both Kerry and Bill. We are all in this together and we need to look out for each other. The time to stop criticising, persecuting and generally damaging one another needs to stop, and stop NOW. We are starting to look like a bunch of christians here, the only people I know who bury their wounded.

I was hoping to see a change in the tide of pettiness that has been washing the shores of avalon especially in the past month, but I am afraid this is a mere pipe dream. I am hoping to be proven wrong. What was that old saying, "united we stand - divided we fall"? Oh yes there is something else and it was mentioned in a post in this thread....NEVER share writing in private what you do not wish to have aired in public. This is not a new precept, so Mr Ryan, take more care in future, you are not infallible. None of us are. The fact that Bill Ryan even shared something he wanted to be kept private needs to be questioned.

That's my petty tuppence worth.

Z

[sjkted]

Originally Posted by eleni

Posting private communication asked to be kept private will result in a ban. It's that simple.

Oh, I see. You're just doing your job. I wish I could say I understand, but I don't.

I find an incredible irony that Project Camelot is a project based on interviewing "whistleblowers" who by their very nature are not respecting an oath of privacy because they find it absolutely unconscionable that they not speak for the sake of humanity.

This discussion is critical for Avalon, and yet you censor the whistleblower.

Why is this "explanation" being made private?

--sjkted

[eleni]

Bill Ryan asked her not to post it. franciejones posted it. I removed it and the other mods and I discussed this behavior, all were in agreement. It had nothing to due with the subject being discussed.

[sjkted]

Originally Posted by Zeddo

Yes, in total simplicity the banning was correct, but was it moral? How quickly we cast aside our morality in protecting them we feel to be infallible, our "guiding lights" so to speak.

Of course it was not moral. It was a decision from the mind based on policy -- not a decision from the heart based on expanding consciousness.

As JFK said, I find the idea of secrecy repugnant in a free society.

--sjkted

[sjkted]

Ok. If you read the above message and do a search on messages by The Brightest Light, it is quite obvious he is acting as a provocateur here.

It seems like this is attempting to be made into quite a heated thread. I'm not going to name any other names here, but if someone is trying to incite division, check their profile and history of messages posted and see if there is a pattern of posting almost exclusively messages about I doubt this or You're wrong and such. Some of this is so obvious it's not even worth responding to these people.

--sjkted

[ellie]

Originally Posted by sjkted

Brightest Light: is this your view and writing or are you reposting from elsewhere?

--sjkted

Oh gee, because the evolved souls here didn't buy into the smurf world die hard stuff the people who live under the mushrooms have gone all nasty.

It's a shame really it is, but there you go.

Hey Brightest Light, I will take my chances with the beings that protect me and you can follow your path okay.

Go to it fella. Good luck with that in 2010.

[Moxie]

If emails are considered private by their very nature...
then why did Bill air Cliff's? ... tho he did, subsequently, appropriately apologize for citing the term "researcher/investigator" as "private investigator" not to mention over private bank accts<<<< (but still has not apologized for his name calling). That's the part that was so embarrassing.

And now this w/FrancieJones... deep sigh!
ok, so all you mods agreed, that doesn't make you correct, not to mention that it wouldn't do any good to consult the "founder" Bill on that matter for he's already demonstrated very poor manners all around.

Bill answered the Q & A on Cliff as though he was speaking casually with a dear friend over cocktails... when in fact he was airing himself on the worldwide web (maybe having had one too many, hmmm?< just joking but you get the drift).

Francie? You hang in there. I've always admired your spirit and good sense!

[Dood]

Hello Moxie....

By the Way: I like your 'Moxie'!

[Majorion]

HOPEFUL
371 /AKA/ DONJUAN
ARCORA /AKA/ SCARAB /AKA/ ALOE /AKA/ THE BRIGHTEST LIGHT


The funny thing is, I think I had a conversation with all these people (or, one person).




Scarab, Brightest Light, whatever... you're a seriously troubled individual and I genuinely wish help for you.

Peace

[YinYangMind]

Originally Posted by Moxie

If emails are considered private by their very nature...
then why did Bill air Cliff's? ... tho he did, subsequently, appropriately apologize for citing the term "researcher/investigator" as "private investigator" not to mention over private bank accts<<<< (but still has not apologized for his name calling). That's the part that was so embarrassing.

And now this w/FrancieJones... deep sigh!
ok, so all you mods agreed, that doesn't make you correct, not to mention that it wouldn't do any good to consult the "founder" Bill on that matter for he's already demonstrated very poor manners all around.

Bill answered the Q & A on Cliff as though he was speaking casually with a dear friend over cocktails... when in fact he was airing himself on the worldwide web (maybe having had one too many, hmmm?< just joking but you get the drift).

Francie? You hang in there. I've always admired your spirit and good sense!

Agree with your perspective and those who have voiced similar views.

Mod's, you can justify your actions however you choose, but those of us watching those actions (as well as the actions of Bill, Kerry, Deagle, et al!) will observe and come to our own conclusions regardless of how you manage your responsibilities here.

I must say as a general observation that I'm extremely disappointed in the content and general intellect I've found here since jumping in a few weeks ago. As stated in previous posts, I've followed PC/PA since inception and have been intrigued by most of the interviews through the middle of this year. But then, with Deagle, Burisch and a few others (and yes, I've listened/watched to each of them several times!) it began to lose something, they seemed so contrived and suspicious in presentation and content that I actually had to listen/watch several times to be sure I wasn't missing anything. Then after several viewings of Kerry either struggling with the content/message (her role in the High, LaViolette and Greer interviews in particular) I began to think that something was going sideways.

Once Bill started this latest episode with Clif followed by the way it's been handled here by Bill and the mod's, I'm beginning to think that all's not well in the land of Camelot!

You mod's should really check your motives and morals and then have a chat with Bill and try to plug the holes in what appears to be a sinking ship! It's very apparent that a majority of us who spend time here out of interest and truth are getting soured by the content and actions of those who built and manage this joint! There are far too many sites and places of less nefarious activities and richer more mature content to explore and learn from...so far, this has seemed more like Payton Place than the Land of Camelot!

My $2 worth...

YinYangMind

[YinYangMind]

Originally Posted by franciejones

He escalated it in my opinion to refute your comments on this forum AND in an email that you sent to me which I did not request from you. I forwarded to Clif what you had said in the email...unedited ofcourse and he chose to reply on his site. I will post the email here for others to read.

Curious, how could someone be 'banned' and still post?!?

Very strange indeed...the mystery thickens...

[Northern Boy]

I`m waiting for you Maro

YES. WE FOOLED YOU. and guess what? we laughed like hell at your sorry asses while we did it. it was FUNNY AS HELL. but you're going to find that HELL isn't funny at all.

Oh yes I fell for it and was just getting ready to accept your friendship offer

then I saw this wonderful loving angelic post and thought thats what has been missing good old fashion Astro Vera church sermons and it brought back so many memories .

you have had plenty of time to post info here why haven`t you ? Since you are banned I`ll help you out and answer for you . History Circus posted the second life thread , you are here to recruit more people to surrender access to their email address`s access to all files from their pc`s allowing you clowns in. This is why you are here you need them to go to your site to grow your flock and that is where you will show them what it is you want to . and not here

Your group has a simple flaw to it you can`t accept questioning you can`t accept being told your way is not the only way you can`t even infiltrate a forum with out being detected the only one you got fooled from what i saw in your post was you SOME TIMES THE BRIGHTEST LIGHTS HAVE THE DIMEST BULBS

....you are going to BURN and YOU KNOW IT.

The only one I see here doing any type of burning is you guys if you are up front and tell those who are here what you are doing then they accept it or reject it and you go your separate ways but thats not how you want to do it its about control with you

[YinYangMind]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Ryan
Actually, the thread title should be Bill Ryan on Clif High's accusations!

I was appreciative that Clif posted my original message correct and unchanged.

(Please do read it carefully, by the way.)

It had been a reply to a question on the Bill Ryan thread, asking why Clif had stated publicly that Bill Deagle was a paid agent. So I answered the question, because that was the purpose of the thread.

Clif was correct about my getting the 'PI' wrong. That was my error. The rest of what I wrote was essentially correct.

The substantive issue is that Clif was trying to smear a whistleblower for reasons best known to himself, and was searching for information he could use to discredit him. For me, that's an integrity issue.

What I'd called a PI [Private Investigator] was described in the original e-mail (sent to me on 14 April) by Clif as a "researcher/detective". This person was NOT hired by him. My mistake, and I'm happy to correct that.

Meanwhile, Clif's reason for escalating this issue publicly was - I'm as sure as I can be - an excuse to raise the profile of his allegations against Bill Deagle. So I will not be wrestling with him anywhere.

But I'll make this simple response here (or else people will wonder why I'm not saying anything) - and then Clif can shout from the rooftops if he wants to make an idiot of himself.

The issue is this. We will protect Camelot whistleblowers against smears and innuendo. If not us, then who? This is our job and is one of the reasons Camelot exists.

If someone wants to create a wonderful new world by raking through the personal finances of someone they disagree with without directly facing to the person they're trying to make a case against, then I suggest that this is not the direction to take to create a new civilization.

It sounds terribly like the old one to me.

Very best wishes to all - Bill

______

Note:

* For me the issue feels closed, and the above is a pretty good statement of where I stand.
* I won't be visiting this thread again. You're welcome to ask me questions on the Bill Ryan thread, and I'll answer them. The reason for this is simply limited time - I can only reasonably monitor one long thread on the forum, and it's helpful for members to have just one place where they can find me. So please forgive me if this is my only post here.
--Cheers, B

Does this read like a private email to anyone here? If it's the response to the original message that Bill sent to franciejones who in turn sent it to Clif who then posted it and his reply to Bill, then it's becoming more and more clear that the post original email actions and responses have been the work of childish ego-centric minds not interested in truth or integrity.

More Payton Place to me...somebody needs to clean the castle!

YinYangMind

[eleni]

Originally Posted by YinYangMind

Curious, how could someone be 'banned' and still post?!?

Very strange indeed...the mystery thickens...

No mystery- she was banned after she posted that.

[sjkted]

From Bill Ryan:

Meanwhile, Clif's reason for escalating this issue publicly was - I'm as sure as I can be - an excuse to raise the profile of his allegations against Bill Deagle. So I will not be wrestling with him anywhere.

But I'll make this simple response here (or else people will wonder why I'm not saying anything) - and then Clif can shout from the rooftops if he wants to make an idiot of himself.

The issue is this. We will protect Camelot whistleblowers against smears and innuendo. If not us, then who? This is our job and is one of the reasons Camelot exists.


I think it is quite honorable of Bill and Kerry to protect their witnesses. If the person is a real whistleblower, then they could very well be in danger of losing their job or even their life. I can understand this.

What I don't understand is why Bill is using the words smears and innuendo. I haven't seen anyone here who is smearing Bill Deagle, but I see a lot of people who are questioning his message and questioning the credibility of Camelot to continue to rely on him as a continuing "witness". Deagle has already given all of his information, so a discussion would not in any way jeopardize his position since everything is already out there. What's the harm with an intelligent discussion on the merits of Deagle's INFORMATION and NOT HIMSELF as a person?

Please note I used the word discussion not debate. For me the definition of discussion is: I share my information and you share your information and the two of us honestly try to make sense all of it. The word debate means that I try to "prove" my point and discredit you while you attempt to assert your view.

Bill and Kerry apparently worked quite diligently to bring on Dr. Steven Greer who had a very different perspective than they did. Why don't Bill and Kerry interview Cliff and Bill at the same time?

Why is Bill not responding to the substance of what Cliff said? This just seems like a red herring to me.

--sjkted

[truth and integrity]

Bill Ryan asked her not to post it. franciejones posted it. I removed it and the other mods and I discussed this behavior, all were in agreement. It had nothing to due with the subject being discussed.

I have a big problem here. Bill forwarded to francie a private e-mail sent by Cliff. As he asked francie not to post it indicates that he did not asked Cliff’s permission. So he asked francie to keep a secret, be dishonest, and not to post an e-mail. When francie refused to play his game she was banned. So Bill can be unethical and dishonest as he wishes because he owns this website. But people who want to have their integrity keep intact are banned? Are we not playing the same game of those who want to rule us?

Best regards,

[clarkkent]

this is the same ol' forum nonsense with mods and banning, it gets very old.
(and i totally agree she shouldnt have been banned)

the issue at hand is bill who i usually find reasonable, completely sidestepped answering cliff highs statement and went the extra step to call him and idiot and mis characterize cliff as "shouting from the mountaintops"

more and more it should be clear to everyone that bill and kerry (while having decent intentions) have a world view and an agenda to support that view regardless.

this means that they dont thoroughly research their "whistleblowers" nor do they even argue with them as long as it supports their view (whereas if someone differs they make themselves look petty and unprofessional as in the case with greer, a laughably bad and unprofessional interview)

the sad thing is for over a year they've driven and extremely paranoid "gloom and doom" world view. they will post every bit of non sense from sources they have never seen ( as in "hawkeye" who was saying the "roths' were all but taking over with martial law last year.)

i wasnt a fan of st clair but now i see he was level headed in distancing himself from B and K. what bugs me the most is that kerry specifically seems to have gotten a huge head over camelots popularity and genuinely thinks she is privy to the latest cutting edge info in the conspiracy world, yet if someone like Greer offhandedly mentions the PTB having a device that can materialize astral entities, she brushes past that little bit of info ive never heard before and lets her ego get into a pissing contest.

imagine if bill and kerry genuinely sought info regarding all these matters , we all would be privy to info that would let us be more informed and make up our OWN minds all the better. but no bill and kerry have a set agenda and if people like Cliff call into question the validity of their "witness" they will stand by them no matter how idiotic their claims are.

folks, no one is going to learn the whole picture , or very much if it ,by following camelot. kerry and bill want to believe we're at war with bad guy aliens and spiritually at war as well, they believe the same story youll find all over the net or in your local barnes n noble new age section, that our gov is in league with evil aliens and that reptillians are eating babies and that were headed for martial law and ultimate disaster. people who fall for this are getting half truths mixed with a truckload of BS.

if thats what you believe or want to believe, then camelot IS for you because they'll never deviate from that line of thought and they'll line up their mystery guests to support this view, even if they think they're moses and were offered to rule the planet as king "Penis of the Dragon" (thats what "pindar" means) yes thats straight from ol dr deagle himself.

in my opinion "camelot" via kerry and bill have a naive outlook thats ultimately negative and narrow minded and serves the agenda of the PTB perfectly. they have an inflated sense of importance by the hits their website receives and the cash given to them by regular folks with dayjobs to fly them all around the globe gathering what is essentially disinfo.

this rebuttal by cliff was at least an opportunity for them to stand and answer and admit they can be wrong about their "whistleblowers" or even just answer questions with integrity, instead it was a response that was evasive and immature.

this is the issue at hand, mod banning/power/rules aside.

http://superstrangeland.blogspot.com/

[Majorion]

Originally Posted by truth and integrity

I have a big problem here. Bill forwarded to francie a private e-mail sent by Cliff. As he asked francie not to post it indicates that he did not asked Cliff’s permission. So he asked francie to keep a secret, be dishonest, and not to post an e-mail. When francie refused to play his game she was banned. So Bill can be unethical and dishonest as he wishes because he owns this website. But people who want to have their integrity keep intact are banned? Are we not playing the same game of those who want to rule us?

Best regards,

Frankly, if I had a private conversation with someone, an email no less, and that someone suddenly decided to go against my wishes clearly and post our personal exchanges on a forum belonging to myself, you bet I'd ban them too.

Besides, I don't think Bill was even involved with this decision, it seems to have been a staff consensus based on simple forum rules.

I've seen a lot of people on different forums get banned for truly nefarious reasons, but I'm sorry to say, this definitely ain't one of them.

[Carol]

I still don't see where francie did anything wrong. Dood was correct as Bill did not have an agreement with francie about not posting her email from him ~ which was unsolicited by francie. Last year when one of the mods ousted a witness and even contacted the FBI to make a report against him, Kerry did not ban that mod.

The reality is that if something is posted and the person involved (Bill) made a complaint, then the offending member is asked in a PM by a mod to delete the offending post. Did Bill make a complaint against francie (who he had high enough regard for to request she be a moderator)? Was francie contacted and asked to delete her post? Was it also approved of by Bill, as he is the other person involved?

I think these questions are pertinent to the issue, as clearly an injustice has occurred in the minds of other members here.

This is not about an issue of trust or betrayal. Bill never asked for an agreement from francie not to post what he wrote to her before sending his email. He is also well aware of francie's nature and knows her well enough that her being open with others about what was shared was a risk he took in sending her his email. Subsequently, with no prior agreement there is no betrayal of trust.

Both Bill and Kerry from the onset have promoted transparency when it comes to communication and both have had total freedom to express their personal opinions. Why is that not allowed for the members of the forum? Or am I missing something here?

[truth and integrity]

Frankly, if I had a private conversation with someone, an email no less, and that someone suddenly decided to go against my wishes clearly and post our personal exchanges on a forum belonging to myself, you bet I'd ban them too.

Besides, I don't think Bill was even involved with this decision, it seems to have been a staff consensus based on simple forum rules.

I've seen a lot of people on different forums get banned for truly nefarious reasons, but I'm sorry to say, this definitely ain't one of them.

You have missed my point. Before we can talk about Bill and francie we have to go back to Bill and Cliff. Did Bill get Cliff’s permission to forward Cliff’s private messages? No, he did not. Therefore, he asked francie not to post it and keep a secret.

Best regards,

[sjkted]

Folks, we're in the information age. AFIK, the term "private e-mail" is an oxymoron. If something were of a private nature, then why would anyone put it in e-mail? Surely the sender would know that it could be easily forwarded to someone else.

--sjkted

[sjkted]

http://projectcamelot.org/questions.html

Do you stand by your witnesses' testimony? Do you 'vet' them to ensure they're telling the whole truth?

We believe that 90% (possibly 95%) of the information on our site is accurate.

We welcome all information and feedback to help us verify challenging and important claims.

hmm...

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by sjkted

Ok. If you read the above message and do a search on messages by The Brightest Light, it is quite obvious he is acting as a provocateur here.

It seems like this is attempting to be made into quite a heated thread. I'm not going to name any other names here, but if someone is trying to incite division, check their profile and history of messages posted and see if there is a pattern of posting almost exclusively messages about I doubt this or You're wrong and such. Some of this is so obvious it's not even worth responding to these people.

--sjkted

Correct which is why the user in question ended up being banned, and messages and threads concerned were deleted. I am afraid I decided to delete your two messages above the quoted post that that quoted the deleted messages. I hope you dont mind overly much - though thanks for your efforts and contribution

Recursive moderation is like pushing water up a hill with a rake - but sometimes it is worth it.

A..

[Anchor]

Originally Posted by sjkted

Folks, we're in the information age. AFIK, the term "private e-mail" is an oxymoron. If something were of a private nature, then why would anyone put it in e-mail? Surely the sender would know that it could be easily forwarded to someone else.

--sjkted

The intent was clear.

Respecting that intent would have been nice.

A..