Justice Souter

[cwb2007]

Hollis

Even if she was appointed to one position by G.W. Bush she proved liberal enough to be appointed to another position by Clinton. The fact that she was also a Bush appointee does not diminish the fact that she was also a Clinton apointee, simply appointed to different positions at different times.
Note that Souter, an avowed leftist, was also appointed by Bush senior.

[hollis]

I have "noted" all of that. None of that diminishes the fact that you didn't have your facts straight before you posted. It is really not that big of a deal, it takes away nothing from what anyone has said. But if we here at HQ are always talking about being sticklers for "the truth," talk the talk and walk the walk. Since we're trotting out facts, Souter was opposed by Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, and he was considered a top choice by Reagan but passed over. So as Cal pointed out, all of this "they were liberal/conservative enough to be appointed by so and so" isn't pertinent to the type of justice they will turn out to be.

[Caligastia]

So Hollis

Would you like your truth in a 50 caliber or a .22


Given your methodology - you can still dodge both.

[cwb2007]

Hollis
I did not get my facts wrong. Sotomayor was a Bush apointee for a district court. She currently is a Clinton apointee for the second court of appeals. If she is confirmed to the Supreme Court(likely) she will be an Obama apointee. The three don't conflict with one another the time frame is simply different.

[hollis]

I'll not dissemble or parse the words of previous statements: I'll take .50 caliber for $1000 Alex.

[Caligastia]

Hollis

I've noted, on multiple occasions, that when cornered with a 'truth' that doesn't serve your stated position - you disappear on some errand for serveral days - then return leaving the prior unanswered material laying in a shallow grave. So, you'll forgive me if I can't dance a jig around your admiration for the truth. Incidentally, I'm not the only one who has noticed this of you.

BANG!

[hollis]

That's it?

I've got a life, Cal. I work and I have a family. So if you're going to try to hang me on it, have at it. I did skate around the issue of my oath and your interpretation of my disservice to it largely because you degraded the discussion into an insult to my service when you haven't served a day in your life.

I've noticed that you shift the contents of a discussion back onto the character of the person talking whenever you feel that you have been caught in the act. No one else here does that. Why?

[Caligastia]

And you think that character is irrelevant?

I'm not aware of any 'act' I have to be caught in. What I have to say has the benefit of proof.


As an afterthought. People have been trying to 'catch me' for 15 years and none have. Thought they'd catch me lying - but I don't lie. Thought they'd catch me being wrong - I'll admit it when I am wrong. Thought they'd catch me in logical error - none have. Thought they'd catch me being self aggrandizing - none have.
So just what do you think you would have caught me in.

Your comment is, i think, more about thee than me.

[Caligastia]

Hollis

I've given this some more thought.

I'd like you to go ahead and bust my act.

[hollis]

Not only did you turn it back on my character again, but you failed to answer my question. So I guess I'll repeat it: no one else here does that. Why?

I don't know that I can bust your act. I guess I could try if you are really that interested.

And for the record, what I believe I "caught" you in was that you haven't spent a day in uniform but felt the audacity to judge my service, compare me to a Nazi, tell me my oath was meaningless, and compare me to a coward general from WWII. Never once truly addressing why it is you stated you "had different priorities" when the Army came to the door circa Vietnam. The day you can describe ground combat to me from a first person perspective is the day I take your oath bashing and some of your more military-oriented comments to heart. Until then, your description of past lives as powerful generals are colorful words.

[Caligastia]

If we follow your logic:

Only a person in uniform (or as been) can opine as to your adherance to your oath. If we extend the logic, or the lack thereof, only a politician can talk about politics. Only the member of a racial group can speak about race and so on and so on.

This is the basis for the current double standards that serve to empower one group over another while quieting the other from delivering criticism.

You state that discussing the eligibility of the Kenyan president (amongst officers) is a no no. You'll not think, not talk and not question. You'll obey his orders up to and including turning your gun on american citizens. ( a good reason why you don't want to be looking down a 50 caliber in civilian hands ). I will agree with you on one point - the 50 is a nasty weapon.

In this light - your oath before God and man doesn't hold water and it does not impress to issues of character. If a man's word is no good - the man isn't either.

Never once truly addressing why it is you stated you "had different priorities" when the Army came to the door circa Vietnam.

By the time the draft got around to me, the guys I'd spoken to who had come back all said the same thing about Nam - bogus deal - and went into detail explaining why. As it turns out, they were right and history speaks well to the point.

I decided this was one I was going to leave be and saw to it that this came to pass.

Regardless, your basic premise and assumption that only you are entitled to opinions on these subjects is false and self serving.


The day you can describe ground combat to me from a first person perspective is the day I take your oath bashing and some of your more military-oriented comments to heart. Until then, your description of past lives as powerful generals are colorful words.

Well bubba, you've yet to establish a lie in any of my colorful words. Yet, there are more. The code identifies the son of man who raises an army of 200 million and is 'given' control of 1/4 of the earth (the Americas). The place is identifiably in Angel's Keep.
This same son of man is also identified as having battlefield experience with licenses spawning from God to use that experience. Also, the code identifies that the person who breaks the code is THAT son of man.

More colorful words. Now add 15 years of hard physical evidence and those words are carved in ancient stone. If you can best all of this - please - take your best shot.

You live in the middle of a double standard Hollis. While your 'service' is admirable, one has to ask what exactly it is you are serving. Self comes to mind. Without adherance to the oath - no other possibility rests on the table. There are many who view the military as a welfare arm of the government where one gets room, board and a job. Their service to an oath is way down on the list of priorities if at all.

During WWII both Ike and Patton agreed that 40% of the ranks were dead weight. This is less today as there is no draft. Even so, the welfare aspect of motivation equates to dead weight. Impossible for me to arrive at a number but its there.

Obama's patterning is obvious and his links to the historical Nazi, Hitler, equally obvious. What would you call anyone who obeys him and follows his agenda? Nazi works for me.

Hollis - It IS about CHARACTER and if you don't see it - that's the problem isn't it.

I'll toss out some more colorful words.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

When you took your oath - God was listening.

[hollis]

You can opine all that you want, but whether I take your opinion as an educated one is another matter entirely. I wrote that I would not take your opinion to heart. If character is ever so important, and experience builds character, and character influences opinion, then your lack of experience in the military may directly effect whether or not your opinion is educated. Case in point: you show a fundamental lack of understand when it comes to the NCO culture of today's military.

The Kenyan presidents credentials still have not been verified, which is troublesome, but even Stephen has admitted that there are now doubts about whether the forgery is a forgery. But, at your suggestion, I have discussed the issue with a couple of officers offline and out of uniform. I never said I would turn my weapon on Americans, you invented that to distort the argument into an emotional one. Find me a place where I said I would do that, and I'll be very surprised. You likely used the reasoning of the slippery slope to put those words in my mouth.

Bogus deal? So if it turns out the Iraq was a bogus deal, I would have been justified in refusing to serve? When did service to one's country become dependent on whether or not the fight was bogus? As long as it isn't illegal, then (at the time you were available for the draft) service was mandatory. Did you dodge the draft?

Beyond just stating it without providing any back up, explain to me how a military that comprises just 1% of the American public can be a welfare arm of the government. If it is, it isn't a very good one.

And why am I supposed to set out to establish your lies? What benefit is there to me to entertain you or help you mentally masturbate? Why do you want that? All I can say to that point is that I don't have evidence beyond words and pictures upon which to judge the proposition that you are the Planetary Prince. The 15 years of hard physical evidence is available only to YOU and your carefully selected inner circle. You document it with writing and reasoning and few pictures, but without the ability to examine the evidence first hand, I have no way to judge whether you have based your conclusion on a faulty premise. It doesn't work that way. I will admit though that your conclusion could be valid even standing on a faulty premise. Which leads me back to why?

[Caligastia]

So now we finally come down to the bottomline between us Hollis.

Whether you accept me or not is irrelevant. You dismiss the 15 years of evidence, and the journey of it, claming it has been shared only with a select few. The evidence of HQ and the 10 years it has been online says otherwise. It is true that I don't share everything publically and see no point in casting pearls before swine. Regardless, more than enough has been proffered to inform and, perhaps, inspire. To this end, the web site serves its purpose.

Backed into a corner, you now claim I'm a liar. No evidence to the fact - just your own self serving opinion. You've decided that for me to be right about you - I must be a liar. It is true that one of us is a liar and the reader can make their own determination.

Character and integrity are more than words. They represent a state of being just as much as their anthesis establishes the opposite. As with others of your ilk, you prefer to indulge self serving beliefs regardless of what facts contradict and you are free to do so and to accept the consequences of your self inflicted delusions. Such is the nature of your journey.

>>>>>Bogus deal? So if it turns out the Iraq was a bogus deal, I would have been justified in refusing to serve?

Exploiting another false premise to your own personal ends. No one said anything about Iraq the issue was Vietnam and history records the deadly folly of it. The difference between the two is that Iraq is a just war and Vietnam was not. Then, and now, I am not inclined to take the dictums of corrupted bureaucrats as my guideon. I make up my own mind what I will and won't do and act accordingly. The government is not my God.

>>>When did service to one's country become dependent on whether or not the fight was bogus? As long as it isn't illegal, then (at the time you were available for the draft) service was mandatory. Did you dodge the draft?

Vietnam was an economic war fostered not for national interests but so Dow Chemical and others could make money. 50,000 men died for their profit statements. I chose not to be party to it. No, I didn't dodge the draft - I exploited an ability I have. I can look into a man's eyes and let him see something that terrifies him. The person who examined me for the draft received a full dose of it and decided that it would be better to take the women and children first. It is a rarity that anyone makes me do anything I don't want to do.

Today, I would not have hesitated to sign up for Iraq.

>>>Beyond just stating it without providing any back up, explain to me how a military that comprises just 1% of the American public can be a welfare arm of the government. If it is, it isn't a very good one.

Easy enough. China is a good example of the government job and Komrade Obama is going to craft GM into an unprofitable organization that does nothing more than provide jobs at the never ending expense of the public just as they did with Amtrak (nationalization of the railroad) in the 70's and with the post office. Neither of which can operate at a profit inspite of monopolies. GM is the next to fall and when the American public doesn't buy their cars - more public funds will the pumped in ad infinitum. Add to this that Hugo Chavez now calls your 'president' Komrade Obama and says he makes Chavez and Castro look like rightists. When Communists tell you he's left of them - maybe you should listen.

The military differs to some degree in that while they will take those looking for a free meal - they also demand and enforce compliance with their rules which are different from those in the civilian world.

>>>And why am I supposed to set out to establish your lies? What benefit is there to me to entertain you or help you mentally masturbate? Why do you want that?

You established the existence of no lies other than your own and then paint me with your brush. Everything on HQ has the support of logic, reason and fact. You've established no bona fides that supports your opinion.

I'd suggest that if 'truth' is of any import to you, that you visit the Rev Code site, download the software and the instructions and do your own research. I'll even give the first encrption key - 'blessed is he'.
You define such an education as mental masturation so keep agents handy for cleaning your keyboard. It'll get messy.

>>>The 15 years of hard physical evidence is available only to YOU and your carefully selected inner circle.

And what value would there be in showing you more? Answer = none.
You can not eradicate a delusion with truth unless the deluded one is willing. Even if you stood in the Lair and saw all the photos are accurate, it would not move you. Breaking a 2000 + year old Bibical encryption will not move you. For you, the government is God and you'll have no other Gods before them. The government will tell you what you want to hear - I won't. I tell you the truth and you can keep it or not as you wish. I don't have a dog in your fight and you have to conquer your own demons.

As for my inner circle, Father sent them all to me. They took the journey and came to their own conclusions. However, Father did choose them carefully and all are competent to their appointed tasks. HQ was the medium by which they were all directed. Regardless, you've been given 'enough' and you conclude I'm a liar because I won't tell you what you want to hear.

>>>I have no way to judge whether you have based your conclusion on a faulty premise.

I've not stated a premise at all so there is no possibility of having a faulty one. The code clearly identifies who I am. Now, truthfully, I stated my identity before I broke the code in 2002. I had other evidence that was sufficient to establish the point and I shared it with the group at Adven 2. Five of seven decided it was sufficient to justify a continuation in the journey. One was pissed at me because I wouldn't tell him he was one of the witnesses and one was in the bad guy camp from the jump. Today, they are 11 of 12 and the apostle John will be the last to arrive.

However, today, the code is more than enough and it gives great detailing. I've taught all the Advens how to use their dimensional skills and all have seen and done much. All came with Father's imprimatur and Old One's confirmations and I invested the time to do these things. I would not do the same for you although I did run a test here to see 'if' it could be done via the internet - it can't.

As to 'why'. As I've always said - HQ is a gift. I gain nothing from it and anyone who thinks its about ego aggrandizement has no clue what he's talking about and is an idiot.

To accept the gift, you have to be open to the truth. You aren't.
So, we move on and perhaps your journey will lead you to that which was freely given.

REV 21 6 AND HE SAID UNTO ME IT IS DONE I AM ALPHA AND OMEGA THE BEGINNING AND THE END I WILL GIVE UNTO HIM THAT IS ATHIRST OF THE FOUNTAIN OF THE WATER OF LIFE FREELY

REV 22 17 AND THE SPIRIT AND THE BRIDE SAY COME AND LET HIM THAT HEARETH SAY COME AND LET HIM THAT IS ATHIRST COME AND WHOSOEVER WILL LET HIM TAKE THE WATER OF LIFE FREELY

I'm sorry for you Hollis. You have a hard road ahead of you but while there is life, there is also hope.

[Caligastia]

For others reading this thread.

The point we've arrived at with Hollis is not new. However, there is no malice from my end of things. If you are a respecter of freewill you also have to respect the determinations of those who won't listen to you.

Oddly, In Corinthians, Paul (having a bad hair day) complains that things were hidden by the planetary prince and he concluded that must be the reason people wouldn't listen to him.

Paul was a zealot and something of a pain in the ass with an edge for intolerance for those who didn't accept him. I also can be a pain in the ass BUT freewill is the determining agent here. There is no force, no threat, no predictions of hellfire and damnation intended to scare people into compliance.

We each choose our own paths and accept the consquences of those choices. The non ascendant personality prefers to blame others for their bad choices. The truth seeker accepts the truth, tries to learn from it and to chart a different path. One path stagnates while the other has the potential for growth. Both are choices.

[hollis]

It is funny, I don't feel backed into a corner. I feel that I have plenty of arrows left in my quiver. In fact, it is more funny that you're saying I am calling you a liar, and yet you are the one and only one in this conversation that has used the words "lies" or "liar," with one exception and only as far as my quick search with Firefox and scant memory serves. So I don't think I am that backed into a corner.

Unsurprisingly, you skewed focus away from the point: I cannot establish you to be true or untrue. I said as much already and you ignored that larger issue. You can be right or wrong about me and be a liar or not. I know I am too self-absorbed and that is immaterial to the truth or untruth of HQ. The two are falsely associated by you, not me. I've taken note of it, and I am working to improve it. You've got a special talent for calling a spade a spade regardless of who you turn out to be.

You discuss facts and truths here so casually sometimes that I feel I am in an episode of The X-Files. I wonder whether your statement "you prefer to indulge self serving beliefs regardless of what facts contradict and you are free to do so and to accept the consequences of your self inflicted delusions" reflects more on me, you or Agent Mulder. You write out these bald proclamations such as "No, I didn't dodge the draft - I exploited an ability I have. I can look into a man's eyes and let him see something that terrifies him" without a single shred of proof other than the fact that you wrote it. And yet you ask me to judge the body of HQ based upon that? That isn't how logic or reasoning or the scientific method works, and you can't change those methods to suit your mode of delivery. But then we start getting to meat of my problem here when you say "Everything on HQ has the support of logic, reason and fact. You've established no bona fides that supports your opinion." It may have the support of logic, reason and fact, but if I am unable to judge the evidence first hand, then it becomes a matter of faith. The only evidence that I have to examine first hand is what is written, not the Lair or feathers or anything else. Therefore, I cannot make a claim to whether or not you are the Planetary Prince because you say in the next few sentences that there is no point in providing me more.

Cal, whether you like it or not, you ask for an act of faith on behalf of the people who come to your page and to the message boards. They can see what is written but because they cannot put their hands in the proverbial wounds, they must take it on faith that what you have written and taken pictures of is accurate and then they must proceed from there to your logical end point. Getting to that logical end point without a personal examination of the facts allows for the possibility of establishing the argument of a false premise. If I stood in the Lair with the facts at hand in order to judge them, I would likely be moved. But I don't see you inviting me over anytime soon...

In the scientific world, for something to be considered a valid treatment effect, the statistical likelihood that the effect was caused by something other than the intended variable must generally be less than 5%. For more extremely singular treatments that cannot be generalized to the population, that value is usually less than 1%. That kind of thinking is ingrained in me because of the work that I do, so that is how I judge this situation.

You say that you have not stated a premise, but you invoke logic and reason at every turn. Premises are the foundation of reasoning. Your implied but stated premise is "Robert Burgess has experienced extraordinary events A, B, and C;" "Based on their qualities, extraordinary events A, B, and C are only likely to occur to a person who is Caligastia;" "therefore Robert Burgess is Caligastia." Whether or not that is the path the reasoning followed, without events A, B, and C being observable by me or others outside of the Advens, the argument cannot be tested, replicated or externally validated. For that reason, I go back to my point, I do not think that I am reasonable judge of whether you are a "liar" or not, nor did I ever claim to be.

So why did you want me to prove you wrong? I don't feel you sufficiently answered that.