removed for rule 1. I know you know better
Hilarious!
We attack arguments here, not people.(rule 1)
If you have nothing to add as a refute, it is better to bow out and keep your integrity. I hope you'll do better going forward.
Removed for rule 1: attack the argument, not the person
Can be approved upon edit
Good luck getting targeted by seething psychos and glowie feds who can't handle the Truth!
The rabbit hole goes deeper than that, fren 🕳️🐇
I'll second that I don't think Dr. Andreas Noack is controlled op but it is good to question things and people, praying to the Most High God who knows everything can also be very helpful :o)
I'll take your word for it, would probably push me over the edge of insanity and I'm standing too close as it is..
Would you like to resolve the conflict? We can try it here or at c/CommunitiesConflict
Yahweh's Salvation Anointed was Yahweh before He was Salvation Anointed, "Before Moses was, I AM", (Yahweh).
LSD by CIA: https://www.orwelltoday.com/lsdbycia.shtml
Oops, my bad, I appreciate the assist!
We can't be certain of paid shill status.. It's an attack. I'm leaving this one for converstaion purposes.
People are allowed to disagree and repeat their ideas, within reason, I'm personally tired of repeating myself tho..
I disagree. We debate worldviews here and it isn't an attack on your person but rather the worldview they think you have, is there an echo? Hello, hello..
Then refute their argument..
I can say anything is a lie too.. It's not a rebuttal and it's lazy dude. And yes, I'm on your case but it's because I want you to try better, people are allowed to disagree and then we rebuttal.
And stop trying to kick people off the site.
Misquoting is an attack on the person, not the argument.
The comment on a supposed worldview is not an attack to your person but on a worldview they think you hold, it can and should be refuted so you are better understood.
It could be a misunderstanding of how you present your beliefs. Same with different world shapes theories can be refuted if misunderstood. We should debate these things.
Removed for rule 1
Argument will need to be edited for approval and not misquoting user
Removed for rule 1
No argument to save
Removed for Rule 1
Argument?:
That's how I know I'm on the right track
Calling someone a bot is another rule 1 violation. As well as putting words in someones mouth..
Is there no other way to communicate your point? It's a rule 1 violation and does nothing for your point.
This is full of rule 1 accusations dude. I know you can communicate without it but you keep choosing not to, why?
Edit: I'm also asking the user you replied to about their violation.
Link to first comment asking to pick 3:
https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ASGEEvCuW/round-table-discussion-the-world/c/4eblBBLoMwo
I've tried many times to finish the Ra and the Hidden Hand interviews and I'm having a lot of issues getting thru it, it's not even fun as a thought experiment, it holds no interest for me and I'm not getting anything out of it and I'm sorry, I wanted to try to find some common ground and it is there I just don't know to bridge the gap on this. I get an F on this course..
I started adding notes per session to share and I doubted it would suffice.
I'm actually curious. I've been moderating behaviour not content and I haven't done what you say I did.
Removed for rule 1: attack the argument, not the person