Re: Charlane Exposed! [OT]

In Article <9hd8la$hej$2@news1.xs4all.nl> Josh wrote:
> I hope everybody can see this "Charlane" is just trying
> to control the discussion from the other side (from
> what is purported to be the ZetaTalk-side), together
> with the other openly-anti-ZetaTalk trolls.
>
> What is "she" trying to do?
> What is even easier than saying ZetaTalk-supporters
> are nuts?
> Create your own `suporter', and make it behave insane,
> exactly what the posts under the "Charlane" name
> amount to.

To clarify, Charlene does NOT speak for ZetaTalk, nor should her
interpretations be taken as having an official stamp of approval from
me.  She is just one of hundreds of individuals noisy about having
discovered the ZetaTalk site and anxious to sight the inbound Planet X
themselves.  She's stepping onto this Usenet and entered the discussion
on her own accord, something I didn't ask her to do as I've not asked
ANYONE to speak for me or fight my battles, but she's in there slugging
it out with those who scream "crazy" and "stupid" and resort to
character assassination as step one.

If you want to know what the Zetas have said, READ IT ON THE WEB SITE
(http://www.zetatalk.com).  If you want to know what I have stated
during these debates, pick it up from the Usenet postings I've put on
the ZetaTalk web site (http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use20011.htm)

I've found the postings by The Small Kahuna, J. William Dell, Jimmy Joe,
and Josh to be solidly and consistently grounded, and there are other
level headed individuals too.  But there are others who have read or
heard the Zeta information and mix it in with other information, or blur
it because of their agenda or the stance they must take in public life.
Charlene works for the DoD, under contract, and thus would be loathe to
stray too far from espoused stances of the establishment, I suspect.
This does not make her insincere, it just gives her conflicting motives.

The Troubled Times mailing list has hundreds of individuals discussing
"whether" and "what if" and "what to do".  They all bring their own
perspective, though they are supposed to abide by the basic premise of
the mailing list else go packing.  NASA would get little business done
if its employees could function under the premise that the world is flat
and the Sun goes round the Earth.  The Red Cross would get little work
done if the argument that disasters never happen were allowed equal
billing.  Still, the reactions of these very human folks range from:

- attacking the messenger.
  There are people who lose it when the Zetas are yet again
  highly accurate, as when Planet X was sighted at the exact
  coordinates or crop shortages clicked in the year the Zetas
  predicted.  At those times they noisily declare that the
  ZetaTalk Accuracy TOPIC
  (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword232.htm) and the
  2003 TOPIC
  (http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword062.htm) should
  be gutted or removed from the web.  They lose it, get
  hysterical, etc., and WANT the message to go away or be
  proven wrong.

- clinging to other explanations.  NASA says ... or Sitchin
  says ... or some analysis by this person or that says ... and
  this is encouraged on tt-watch as the premise is "whether"
  basically, but when these other explanations are examined
  they hold water ONLY when removed from most of the facts.

- hoping its not true but mentally preparing in case it is.
  The most common reaction.

And then we have the disinfo artists, who:
- try to insert new "leadership"
- trying to become the spokesperson
- try to make the group look "crazy" by association
- try distracting discussion that makes the serious members
  lose patience and drop out
- insert characteristics that would make the mailing list a
  "threat" (become a militia, etc)
- attempt to change the premise and purpose of the group

And these disinfo artists invariably pronounce themselves as "friends".
But it's not easy to discern the disinfo artists from sincere
individuals with varying degrees of logical ability and varying degrees
of backbone and varying degrees of impact should the scary info be
proven to be true.  Reactions are as varied as people, and we know how
varied they are :-).

In Article <9hdf4m$pc1$1@news1.xs4all.nl> Josh wrote:
> In article <20010627144105.04075.00001418@ng-mf1.aol.com>, Charlane wrote:
>> Piss off Jos.
>
> Charlane, you have argued the following, maybe you
> care to comment on them so i understand you a little
> better here:
> * You say you are looking at P-X with your own scope,
>   and saying you cannot see it.
>
>   Isn't this providing continues dishonest
>   negative-sighting-reports of P-X ?
>
>   The real answer is that you are not using an
>   observatory-grade scope, on top of that Orion is
>   badly visible, and P-X is said to gain brightness
>   later.
>
>   Why are you trying to find it with a scope that cannot
>   see it, as reported.
>
>   If you have a good-size scope after-all, can you give
>   us some parameters of it? Will at least give us an
>   idea of what you are saying you do: what is the
>   objective etc etc etc.
>
> * You said to the question "how do we know the scope
>   was pointed at the right place for the positive
>   sightings",: "we don't".
>
>   Isn't this providing doubt about the three positive
>   sightings?
>
>   Isn't the real answer that it is highly unlikely that
>   three observatories misplaced their scope ?
>   Sure we can't know it for sure if we don't do it
>   ourselves (even then...), but /three/ observatories...
>   seems much, not?
>
> * Escape-velocity is escaping the planets magnetic-field.
> * "isn't polarity a fundamental part of gravity"?
> * Michael Davis (a known troll from aav if you didn't
>   know) is according to "Charlane": having good points,
>   has a great mind, and stands out from the croud.