guess no predictions

[Palehorse]

Hey QS, any news on that breatharian thing you were doing?  Weren't you supposed to be done by now or no?

[Quiet Storm]

It's not done yet, but it will be done as of this coming Monday August 30th at exactly 3:27 pm ET.

I am starting feel alot more energetic and clear-headed and I guess from now till it finishes that will only be increasing. I don't have as much of a desire to eat as I did before I started the process. What else can I say? I feel great, and satisfied with where I am at right now. [8D]

[Adam]

quote:But... as far as I can see, all of the specific dates he's named always came with some disclaimer to the effect that they weren't set in stone. Due to the fluid nature of time and unpredictable variable of free-will, that seemed reasonable enough to me, if a bit frustrating. Another thing that came into my mind were statements in Revelation about how "the great and terrible Day of the Lord" kept being pushed back so that more people would have a chance to wake up, and fewer would be hurt... but as I've shown, that day did eventually come. So, it seems things may have been done in this way once before.

However, the one thing Oazaki has repeatedly put all his money on, paralleling Jesus putting all his own money on "before this generation has passed away," is that very dramatic things will begin happening before the end of 2004. If nothing happens, then he will have joined the ranks of every failed doomsday prophet who has ever wailed gibberish from a street corner. What's more, since nothing overt has happened yet, the bar keeps raising higher and higher, due to the fact of the upcoming election. Since this will probably be the most controversial and polarizing election in our history, I would be more surprised if something weird didn't happen, with or without Oazaki. In other words, if most of the world doesn't know what the Zhedhi Order is by 12/31, I would say without reserve that it's finally time to put all this nonsense behind us.

I like your open-minded attitude Palehorse. Would be nice to see more like it around here []

IMO most people's criticisms of Oazaki are from not really understanding what he is doing. No, he does not hand it to you on a platter. Yes, he has played games. Yes, there has been manipulation. And yes, he has given you the pieces to the puzzle in his threads. Unfortunately most people just jump on the bandwagon and react, rather than spend some time trying to look into it further.

I guess we will know for sure by the end of year, eh? [] []

[Palehorse]

quote:Originally posted by Adam

I like your open-minded attitude Palehorse. Would be nice to see more like it around here []

IMO most people's criticisms of Oazaki are from not really understanding what he is doing. No, he does not hand it to you on a platter. Yes, he has played games. Yes, there has been manipulation. And yes, he has given you the pieces to the puzzle in his threads. Unfortunately most people just jump on the bandwagon and react, rather than spend some time trying to look into it further.

I guess we will know for sure by the end of year, eh? [] []

I'm glad someone realizes what *I'm* trying to do here.  Yes, I'm still on the fence about him and his claims, but that's because thus far, I see it as the most intellectually honest option.  I will admit that I jumped the gun when I first showed up, possibly due to some ego issues of my own.  Those being that as an aspiring religious scholar, I saw someone making use of the Bible in a way that was a bit out there even for me (as unorthodox as I am, lol) and so I went into auto-refute mode.

That said, I'm still pretty skeptical about certain claims of his, such as the ones that have him writing Revelation himself, destroying deities and what have you.  However, it then occurred to me: what if he's claiming certain things, possibly intended as metaphors, and deliberately phrasing them in such a way that it will immediately turn off anyone who's ego is propped up by dogmatic beliefs?  I could be totally off base, but he certainly seemed to say as much at one point, when he claimed to have taken upon himself all the karma associated with 666... and that's certainly the result he's been getting.  It's also a scenario, like many others, that sounds very familiar to me.

Matthew 13:13
"This is why I speak to them in parables: "Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."

So yeah, I'm still on the fence about this whole thing, and will probably continue to be until either predictions start coming true, or 12/31, whichever comes first.  My concern though, is that like you said, I believe too many people are rejecting him out of hand because he either defied their expectations or poked their ego in some way.  I'm here saying that not only is this not a solid basis for rejecting these claims, it's precisely those very things which got a whole lot of people killed some 2000 years ago.

[Nameless]

quote:Originally posted by Adam

I like your open-minded attitude Palehorse. Would be nice to see more like it around here []

I think perhaps I have a different understanding of the term "open-minded" to many.  I've always taken it to mean that if evidence is presented it should not be dismissed out of hand based on a priori assumptions.  In Oazaki's case it would be wrong to use some equivalent of, "His claims are crazy therefore I shall ignore them and give them no consideration."

However many people seem to use the phrase to mean that you should continue to give consideration to a claim despite a lack of evidence, which is something quite different.

Dismissing despite evidence, and accepting without evidence are both undesirable reactions I believe.  The first is closed-minded, the second is irrational.

quote:IMO most people's criticisms of Oazaki are from not really understanding what he is doing. No, he does not hand it to you on a platter. Yes, he has played games. Yes, there has been manipulation.

To be honest I don't see where there has been "manipulation".  I see lying, and I see retroactive changes of intent.  The idea that he has been doing something more complex is one that originated from Oazaki himself, directly after it became clear that a simple viewing of his comments would conclude that he was a fraud.

I'm certainly not saying that it's impossible for Oazaki to have some complex, metaphor-laden, parable-esque approach, just that we have no reason to think this is the case beyond his own claim.  His claims are always perfectly clear right up until the moment they fail, at which point he makes an after-the-fact alteration of his intent.

I find it interesting, and not a little amusing, that a number of people took his original predictions seriously, and yet when he admitted they had been lies, and not predictions at all, these people took this as a point in his favour and in favour of having supported him.  The reaction was akin to "Ha, he's manipulated those who doubted him into reacting against predictions he wasn't making", but what does that say about those who gave the predictions serious consideration?

If there is manipulation then it is far more focused on those who support him, since they are the ones somewhat buying into what he intends, which as we've seen, is subject to change.

My other problem with viewing his comments as clever, complex game-playing is that it leaves us with little basis on which to judge him.  If his 2004 predictions fail, should we then dismiss him?  Or rather should we assume that it was merely our own shallow understanding that lead us to believe predictions were his intent?  If we give Oazaki enough credit and dig deep enough it's possible to twist any comment he makes in such a way as to maintain belief in him.

Is that an approach that he's earned?  I don't believe so.

[Adam]

That's it Palehorse, that's it.

But Nameless, I think you are trying box Oazaki and what he says into your own expectations and standards. He fails to meet the ones you have set yourself, and have decided based on your own rules, that Oazaki is not who he says he is.

When I say open-minded, I mean taking an approach that is just that: having an open-mind to all possibilities, and not letting one's ego, and it's judgements/expectations/standards/beliefs/etc get in the way of seeing what is really happening. And if there is one thing in common that posts attacking/deriding/etc. Oazaki have, it's a certain failure to meet expectations set by those making such attacks/etc.

Why is it that you assume Oazaki set those predictions, and when they 'failed' to come true, he scrambled to cover himself? Perhaps he actually meant what he said when those prediction dates were causal. ie. they were meant to CAUSE events?

If Oazaki is who he says he is... do you think that he will match up to most people's expectations of such a person?

I personally don't think it's going to be too much of a worry, the whole 'by the end of 2004' thing. Because my intuition is telling me that this world will not be the same come 2005. And not in a new-agey 'things are always changing' way, either.

Time is the ultimate judge here though, innit? []

[Adam]

I believe that we were given capabilities within ourselves, that allows us to be completely dependant on our own being for answers, guidance etc. And more to the point, I think this internal capacity is to me, the primary means of receiving guidance, assistance, advice... etc etc etc. It exists beyond anything external. I rely on this above and beyond anything else for decisions in living my life... and not just that, but perceptions of reality, the truth of what is going on in this world, other people around me... and so on. And this part of my being knows above all else what is essential for my path, and what is not, and what shall lead me astray.

Which is why when Oazaki came along, I read everything he said with a sense of skepticism - and I still do. But I will admit, when I first read his posts, there was an almost overwhelming feeling of, 'this guy is on the f*cking money!!'. So the feelings (not to be confused with emotions) come first for me, the evidence/proof comes second.

'Why?', some of you ask (I'm sure). 'Will that not lead you astray?'

I live my life according to what is necessary for my path. And as such, I choose to listen to the strongest means I/we have for doing such a thing above any other form.

The other approach is to approach everything from a physical mindset, and need things beyond the physical proved to you. Take the so-called 'skeptics societies' (or whatever they're called) we have around today. Skeptics? Nope! Just closed-minded fools with a physical-mindset.

I believe in taking an approach that leaves nothing out, and believing that there are things out there can exist beyond our typical human perceptions. Simple, innit? []

So that is why I have never jumped on the bandwagon of slagging Oazaki off as being a BS artist. I've refused to make assumptions, second-guess, or think Oazaki is someone he is not. Instead, I've chosen to remain centered in myself, listen deeply to my intuition and trust what I have felt. My intuition comes first - anything external will always come second.  And my intuition tells me Oazaki is a little bit more than we here are used-to... [] ... and is someone going to tell me that is not my intuition I'm listening to...? []

[Palehorse]

This just in from a livejournal group I discovered last night.  (Note: the image is gone, possibly because the post is old.)  

"This is an image from Terrence McKenna's Timewave Zero Software charting the novelty factor of December 2003 - December 2004. The vertical line is pointed toward July 24th.
If 2012 is absolute zero, the bottom-most point, then we're going to get catch a glimpse of the future near the climax of the drop, around the end of September.
WHEE!!! O_O

Wooooow.
And I thought the past two weeks have been crazy. ._.

More info on the Timewave Zero here = http://www.levity.com/eschaton/waveexplain.html "

Link to that post with comments: http://www.livejournal.com/community/2_0_1_2/44052.html

In other news, yesterday I was also reading about something that those who follow all things 2012 call "the day out of time," which was 7/25.  I don't really know anything about it, other than it appears to be the new year according to the Mayan calendar.  Well, I had been writing in my dream journal earlier, and that date stuck out in my mind.  I went back to check, and this is my entry for the night of the 25th (note: I was at someone else's house, sleeping on an air mattress that night):

"Whoa... last night right after falling asleep at Heather's, I semi woke up to my head feeling like it was spinning, after I'd been doing meditation And NEW for a while.  Then it escalated to where it felt like someone grabbing the corners of my mattress and alternating jerking them up and down.  I felt like I was going to fall off, at which point my blanket jerked off me like someone was pulling it off, and I was fully conscious by this time.

Crazy stuff, no?  Does anyone have more info or resources on this "day out of time"?

In any case, Oazaki or no Oazaki, I'm definitely gaining the sense that there is indeed something to this 2012 stuff, and things may start to get very interesting, sooner than later.

[Quiet Storm]

I saw this at surfingtheapocalypse.com...

*SNIP*

by Judi McLeod, Canadafreepress.com

August 27, 2004

The United Nations, which has a finger in every global pie, and ambitions to take over the World Internet, is inching its way towards calendar reform.

Long on lofty words and windy clauses, the official UN description for calendar reform is, "Calendar Reform and the Future of Civilization" (CRFC).

*SNIP*

Why is the UN itching to change the method by which the world tells time?

It's the Gregorian Calendar. Having replaced the Julian Calendar, the Gregorian was instituted by papal decree in the year AD 1582 and adopted by virtually all nations as the common world standard.

Accepted by virtually all nations notwithstanding, the Gregorian Calendar is irksome to New Agers because the whole world marks time based on the Birth of Jesus Christ. And as far as the occultist UN is concerned, that will never do.

*SNIP*

The final goal is to change the calendar from its present "artificial" 12-month year to a more "natural" 13-month year that more closely parallels the lunar and biological cycles.

The results and declarations from the World Summit on Peace and Time have been submitted to the General Assembly of the UN.

Wild and weird as it may sound, the Thirteen Moon Natural Time Peace Calendar could replace the Gregorian Calendar, courtesy of future UN resolution.

It is, after all, Canadian Maurice Strong and former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev who, under the auspices of the UN, are working on an agenda to replace the Ten Commandments with the Earth Charter.

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/cover082704.htm

[Anonymous]

Jennadots

Where do I get it  from,  well dear, from what you write.  Another example of what you write is the belief that there is no spirit world ( that is all just newage talk to you)  I can say that becasue you believe there are secrets.  Imagine that there really are guardian angels " where are they when you tinkle dear?" Do you imagine they wait in the hall wondering why it takes you so long or are they in the room with you watching?  When your playing love games in the bedroom do you think they stand outside wondering what your doing  and why your making those funny noises?  It is possible they are on the foot of the bed  rooting for you to win the wrestling contest dear? If you saw spirits or spoke to them you would know they are on the foot of the bed. You would know that  they gossip and there are no secrets and that any one that speaks to spirits or fairies and the like can simply ask questions about anyone and get answers if they are nosey enough.  Now you say we can not know who we are speaking to over the internet, well I am more inclined to believe that is your lack of skill speaking and I am asking you to keep your statements to lack of abilities to include only yourself and stop making blanket creations or statements about the rest of us.

[Aileron]

QS, god I can only hope that is a realistic source.

If that is true, if the UN is deciding to reform the calendrical system to a thirteen month calender, then it is rebuilding a better perception of earthly interaction for our species.
It would then be more closely related to the mayan calender system which was a much more accurate calender than the current gregorian calender.

One can only hope eh?

[Jenadots]

Dear Mike.  Your response proves my point....you don't know me at all. I never indicated I have no belief in the spirit world or other dimensions.  Ironically, in "real life" I have often been accused of living too much in those worlds and not enough in this one.  

If you really knew me, you would know your response makes no sense.

As to my skill or lack of it, well, you will never know and I certainly did not make blanket statements about "the rest of us ."

Perhaps you should examine why you see insult where none was intended or even given.  

As to secrets - yes, even spirits have them and if you have a problem with them being in your bedroom just ask them for a little privacy.  
Works every time.  Most will give it to you.  Its the ones who won't that you have to work at getting rid of. []

[Adam]

Ah yes, Timewavezero. I remember looking at that a little while ago, and remember looking at mid-2004. If I remember correctly it charts a complete drop starting from July 2004, to either Sep. or Nov.

I'm looking forward to the next few months eh? []

[clandestino]

Mikel, please make your posts a bit more good-mannered ! Disagreeing with someone is all well & good, but show a little respect whilst doing so !!


Kind regards,
Mark

[Anonymous]

Mark

Please explain when Jennadots posts only denigrate oazaki you do not notice?    Please explain why jennadots informs this group we are too stupid to know who we are listening to you say nothing?  Then you may follow up with an explanation with what is wrong with noticing that jennadots has made blanket creative statements about the people here and thier skills and basic knowledge and I  ask her to stop you suddenly find your way here and say this is bad mannered??  I understand she vows and declares she is innocent however  take the time ane interest in your job as moderator to read her posts here please!  Then recognise it is your responsibility to stop her and if you do not have the interest to do that let someone else do it.

[clandestino]

quote:Please explain why jennadots informs this group we are too stupid to know who we are listening to you say nothing?

Mikel, this is the 2nd time in this thread that you have claimed Jenadots has called everyone "stupid". However, her posts don't say anything of the sort ! I'm sorry that you have got this impression.

In fact, she makes an important point - we do not really know who we are communicating with over the internet, which makes it fun, but also dangerous at the same time.

Both you and Jenadots are entitled to agree or disagree with anyone on the astralpulse - I only ask that you do so in a respectful manner.

Hope this has answered your query,
kind regards,
Mark

[Jenadots]

Thanks, Clandestino.  

Jena

[0]

quote:

"Please explain when Jennadots posts only denigrate oazaki you do not notice? Please explain why jennadots informs this group we are too stupid to know who we are listening to you say nothing? Then you may follow up with an explanation with what is wrong with noticing that jennadots has made blanket creative statements about the people here and thier skills and basic knowledge and I ask her to stop you suddenly find your way here and say this is bad mannered?? I understand she vows and declares she is innocent however take the time ane interest in your job as moderator to read her posts here please! Then recognise it is your responsibility to stop her and if you do not have the interest to do that let someone else do it."


Im sorry Mikel, but besides the fact I cannot completely understand what it is you are trying to say, you also are just blindly throwing out accusations.

Nobody has declared her innocent(though without taking sides, people are entitled to the post of their choice in opinion), she has not called anyone stupid, in fact out of many people on the forums, it seems that jennadots is one of the more aware in her statements and declines from use of such incivility towards others here.

What exactly does blanket creative statements mean?

It is not any of the moderators duty to stop people from posting their opinions, however it is theirs to moderate civil discussion without insult and accusation.

I think you may need to read over more of her posts before you begin to censure her of any wrong doing, as well as citing others for their own lack of research into certain actions people here take, for it seems there arent many people here doing as such toward jennadots, nor others.

[Anonymous]

Mark

let us help you see what i see.
1  in the first sentence of jennadots post she calls a person a attempted "cult leader" then declares that the people who read this forum "have become cult followers"  ( Isn't that calling us  stupid}

2 in the second paragraph she refers to the same person as having wasted thier life on the internet. (isn't that calling us  stupid)

3 the third paragraph she refers to the same person as a schizophrenic lost in his delusions. A person that makes up the voices in his head. ( Isn't that calling all of us that channel stupid)

4 Her last statement is to express that this person will now get their panties in a bunch. ( Do I really need to explain this to you)

Now sir this is personal attack by jennadots and you sir are calling me stupid when you pretend these words by jennadots do not violate the  rule you claim you want me to follow. So how about you ask jennadots to follow the rule??  If you allow jennadots to be disrepectful then why are you asking me to behave?  Is this simple enough for you to understand?   If not I will be happy to try to explain in more detail why i feel your out of line and out of place as a moderator.  

[Jenadots]

Mike, if you will recall, I said he has found "a few" followers here.

And I have the right to express the opinion that Oazaki is trying to start a cult of some sort.  You don't have to agree with that.

And, in a discussion that was started on his motivations, I have a right to express some thoughts on why he does what he does.  Again, you don't have to agree with my opinions.

Expressing opinions that differ from yours - or that you don't happen to like, is not calling anyone stupid.  I am hardly the first or only person to express skepticism over Oazaki's claims and motivations. And generally speaking, he doesn't like any skepticism and has been known to be quite condescending about it.  

Just what is your problem about me expressing my opinions and with me? I really don't understand why you are taking anything I said about Oazaki's motivations so personally.  

I have made no personal attacks on you.  Yet you persist in seeing one
and then claiming "isn't that calling us stupid?"  You and who else?

No one else seems to think I am insulting them, except perhaps Oazaki who knows and accepts that I am a skeptic.  

Oh, well....you don't have to like anything I or anyone else says here.  And you certainly don't have to agree with any of it.  No one will call you stupid for expressing a different opinion.  And no one has.

But your accusations are a bit out of line - and that is being polite about it.

Enough said....if you want to persist in seeing insult where there is none, persist away.

[Quiet Storm]

Actually Jenadots, your posts do have a slight tone of "I'm more superior than those who are more open-minded to Oazaki's stuff than I am".

I don't actually view your posts as insulting (well at least not anymore, and it has been like that for a while I guess) because I already know that you haven't quite figured it out yet and that most of the perceptions you have of Oazaki as well as the people who are more open-minded about his stuff are in fact quite self-deluded, IMHO.

Mikel is just pointing out what your shadow-self is communicating. Yea it's subtle, it's like the 'background' of your posts.

[Jenadots]

Hi, QS.  Ok --

I was open to Oazaki's initial postings.  But the further "out there" he got, the more skeptical I became of some of his claims.  

Doesn't mean I think anyone is stupid for not being skeptical.  And any delusions I had about myself are long gone.  

I "get" what Oazaki is saying and what he is not.  I just get it in a different way from you is all.  I have a different view of it.  

And that's OK.  Hope you have returned to school and gotten your driver's license and gone out and had some fun during this beautiful summer.  I assume your breatharian experience is coming to an end and hope it went well for you.  How are you feeling from it?

JD

[Quiet Storm]

I can be skeptical when I feel like being skeptical too Jenadots.

The breatharian process is over and done with! and I am satisfied with the transformation. [^]

Here's something to think about:

Every idea is 'true' at one level or another. All reality is a projection and our interpretations of reality are projections also. []

It is a subjective truth based on an objective reality of "reality". []

[Anonymous]

O

You seem to have two basic portions to your post and I would like to reply to each section in  a seperate post.

First  "Moderators are supposed to keep it civil"  Thank you for recognizing that personal attacks are not civil. Can we also agree there is a difference in pointing out what you find wrong with someones post and personally insulting people?  Now I have tried all day to figure out how to call someone a cult leader or follower and have it not be personal or have the recipient feel all warm and fuzzy. Perhaps it is just me however calling someone delusional does not apply to what they have said as much as it seems to be a direct personal attack. I understand your only point in this forum is to ask me to stop posting about jennadots and that you have no interest in this forum except to defend the reputation of jennadots and I would like to point out  that no matter how warm and fuzzy you think she is elsewhere right here in this forum jennadots has only posted personal insults to ozaki and anyone that reads his posts. She nor you have anything nice to say or add to the forum and if it bothers you that i notice that may I suggest you go elsewhere?

[Anonymous]

o

Blanket creations

When you believe you are a child of the creator you may believe you are also a creator.  Each statement out of your mouth may engage your creative abilities and form a portion of your future. Personal creations then would be statements that create results for you personally. Good mannered creators then would only create positive events for themselves. They would only say positive statements about the future that would bring joy to themselves.  Negative creators are individuals that speak from fear. Thier creative statements start with words like can't, impossible etc. I do not mind them creating lack of abundance for themselves that is thier choice. It is rude and bad mannered to create negative outcomes for the many. " YOU CAN NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE SPEAKING TO ON THE INTERNET "  is a direct quote from jennadots and her partner mark.  Now look at that creation.  First she is creating for everyone in the universe that we have no spiritual knowledge or abilities to see energetically, astrally visit, ask a fairy to go check for us.  Now this is a blanket creation becasue it applies to everyone and it is a negative creation becasue it involves lack. So  if I recognise that jennadots not only creates for her self that she does not have spiritual ability  but that she also demands that I do not have any spiritual ability,  I hope you understand that it is my right and duty to refute her negative creations. If you find that this bothers you perhaps you will take all the energy you have set against me and apply them to teaching jennadots the spiritual lessons required for her to develop a postive attitude and the ability to express herself in warm and fuzzy ways while on this forum?