Debunk means to expose false or exaggerated claims, pretentions, glamour...

[Guest guest]

, " Gram "

<gramario wrote:

>

> Hi,

> I am new and have been lurking a while to get the feel of things.

I was

> surpirsed that you say that the Five TIbetans have been debunked

here. COuld

> you explain further, please?

> Tx.

> R.

 

Sure.

 

You need to get a dictionary.

 

We did NOT say " debunk " .

 

Debunk means to expose false or exaggerated claims, pretentions,

glamour...

 

Which is NOT the case.

 

Rusty did one Hell of a great answer.

 

Thank you Rusty.

 

Many of those drills are excellent, but his " story " is totally JUST

THAT...

 

....a story.

 

Don't throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater;-)

 

 

 

> >> > - 5 Tibetan Rites ( haven't begun these yet )

> >

> > I'm surprised that you mention them, I think they have been

debunked

> > many a time on this list, I remember a post by Doc John comparing

> > and contrasting them with the great Wayne Cook's... if you don't

> > find it here check out on MM-ES.

>

[Guest guest]

Sorry, I'm responsible. My loose choice of words has started it all.

 

I've been trying to learn stuff on " cold calling " , and of course I

ran across Randy...

 

I didn't like what I read, there was no specific " how-to " s.

 

Paradoxically, the next thing I know, I'm using his words!

 

Pierre

 

 

>

> Sure.

>

> You need to get a dictionary.

>

> We did NOT say " debunk " .

>

> Debunk means to expose false or exaggerated claims, pretentions,

> glamour...

>

> Which is NOT the case.

>

> Rusty did one Hell of a great answer.

>

> Thank you Rusty.

>

> Many of those drills are excellent, but his " story " is totally

JUST

> THAT...

>

> ...a story.

>

> Don't throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater;-)

>

>

>

> > >> > - 5 Tibetan Rites ( haven't begun these yet )

> > >

> > > I'm surprised that you mention them, I think they have been

> debunked

> > > many a time on this list, I remember a post by Doc John

comparing

> > > and contrasting them with the great Wayne Cook's... if you

don't

> > > find it here check out on MM-ES.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Randi came up when you researched " cold calling " ? That's funny, I

would have expected him to show up more for " cold reading " ...

 

--David BrandtOn 4/14/06, coudertpy <coudertpy wrote:

 

 

 

Sorry, I'm responsible. My loose choice of words has started it all.

 

I've been trying to learn stuff on " cold calling " , and of course I

ran across Randy...

 

I didn't like what I read, there was no specific " how-to " s.

 

Paradoxically, the next thing I know, I'm using his words!

 

Pierre

[Guest guest]

A friend of mine gave me a report on how to do cold readings and look like a pro

at it.

 

I never learned how to do it...

 

Why not?

 

It's important, of course, to be able to spot a fraud. But what does that do

for the attractor fields and belief systems?

 

The T-men don't study all the different kinds of counterfiet monies out there.

There's no way to learn all the different counterfeits.

 

It is, however, fairly simple (even thought it's NOT easy) to learn to recognize

the real deal.

 

The thing is, when your focus is on " debunking " , then the SCM gets programmed to

believe everything out there " must " be fraudulent and in need of " debunking " .

 

How do you debunk the VERIFIABLE FACT that Ingo Swann CORRECTLY Remote Viewed

Saturn BEFORE our technology caught up with and verified what he CORRECTLY

Remote Viewed...???

 

I know I can and have Remote Viewed. I know the conditions that make it more

favorable for me to have higher correct hits and accuracy. I can verify FOR

MYSELF that Remote Viewing works.

 

I'm no expert yet on energy testing (depending on your definition and criteria

for " expert " -- I'm more competent at it than 95 percent of the population, but

as far as Energy Testing goes, I'm not YET at " expert level " ), but I can do

pretty damn good with it, sometimes, too. And I know, so far, which types of

things I'm not as good at with energy testing, so when I energy test those

things, I look for other ways to also verify what I tested.

 

Other times, I know 100 PERCENT that my energy test was and is correct.

 

You know, if someone tried to " debunk " whether or not you could really tie your

shoes or if it was just a hoax, after while you might start to doubt your own

ability to correctly tie your own shoes.

 

It probably wouldn't cause immediate loss of the skill, but you might find more

and more instances of your shoes coming untied all the time, at the most

inconvenient of times (like when you've got your hands full and can't stop to

tie them, thus proving two different ways that you can't really tie your own

shoes properly, can you?), and pretty soon, you'd have to start shopping for

velcro shoes or loafers.

 

But everybody knows it's easy to learn to tie your own shoes.

 

So instead of focusing on " debunking " , instead focus on COMPETENCY at whatever

it is YOU WANT TO LEARN.

 

Have fun :-)

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

>coudertpy <coudertpy

>Apr 14, 2006 9:45 AM

>

> Re: Debunk means to expose false or

exaggerated claims, pretentions, glamour...

>

>

>Sorry, I'm responsible. My loose choice of words has started it all.

>

>I've been trying to learn stuff on " cold calling " , and of course I

>ran across Randy...

>

>I didn't like what I read, there was no specific " how-to " s.

>

>Paradoxically, the next thing I know, I'm using his words!

>

>Pierre

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " David

Brandt " <david.brandt wrote:

>

> Randi came up when you researched " cold calling " ? That's funny, I

would

> have expected him to show up more for " cold reading " ...

>

> --David Brandt

 

 

Double oops! So...that'd why people practice the Wayne Cook...

 

Pierre

 

> On 4/14/06, coudertpy <coudertpy wrote:

> >

> >

> > Sorry, I'm responsible. My loose choice of words has started it

all.

> >

> > I've been trying to learn stuff on " cold calling " , and of course

I

> > ran across Randy...

> >

> > I didn't like what I read, there was no specific " how-to " s.

> >

> > Paradoxically, the next thing I know, I'm using his words!

> >

> > Pierre

> >

> >

> >

>