Official Silence About Free Energy

[BlueAngel]

Ah, Gale.

I think you're confused.

It was Jane Doe whom you said was repeating the words, "in deed" and inferred that she was using NLP programming, but now you're saying that I'm repeating the words "in deed."

HUH?

Please, Gale, try to remember that which you write so I don't have to remind you.

I think it is you who considers it a game and a joke inasmuch as I inquired of you as to why you considered that Jane Doe was using NLP programming through the use of her repetition of the words "in deed" and you have not yet answered other than to insinuate that since I'm a mind control victim and, because you believe I've spoken about NLP, I should answer the question that I posed to you.

Sorry, pal.

But, that's not the way it happens around these parts.

You accused Jane Doe of using NLP programming with her use of the words "in deed" on numerous occassions.

I asked you to explain.

You didn't.

Instead you deflected.

Now, you, sir, are called to task and not me.

You made the claim that Jane Doe was using NLP progrmaming with her use of the words "in deed."

You made the claim.

Now you need to explain it.

Explain why you think the words "in deed" as used by Jane Doe on numerous occasions are considered by you to be NLP programming.

Don't deflect my question to you unto me.

[galexander]

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

Ah, Gale.

I think you're confused.

It was Jane Doe whom you said was repeating the words, "in deed" and inferred that she was using NLP programming, but now you're saying that I'm repeating the words "in deed."

HUH?

Please, Gale, try to remember that which you write so I don't have to remind you.

I think it is you who considers it a game and a joke inasmuch as I inquired of you as to why you considered that Jane Doe was using NLP programming through the use of her repetition of the words "in deed" and you have not yet answered other than to insinuate that since I'm a mind control victim and, because you believe I've spoken about NLP, I should answer the question that I posed to you.

Sorry, pal.

But, that's not the way it happens around these parts.

You accused Jane Doe of using NLP programming with her use of the words "in deed" on numerous occassions.

I asked you to explain.

You didn't.

Instead you deflected.

Now, you, sir, are called to task and not me.

You made the claim that Jane Doe was using NLP progrmaming with her use of the words "in deed."

You made the claim.

Now you need to explain it.

Explain why you think the words "in deed" as used by Jane Doe on numerous occasions are considered by you to be NLP programming.

Don't deflect my question to you unto me.

Everything I have said so far on the subject is quite self-evident and not in need of further explanation.

You will not succeed in hounding further information out of me, mainly because there isn't any available.

BlueAngel, you are clearly wasting time AND space.

And I would directly contradict what you have just said, you DID repeat "in deed" and in a mocking, sarcastic manner, indicating quite plainly that you didn't take the subject seriously at all.

[jane doe]

2 characters.

[galexander]

Originally Posted by jane doe

2 characters.

And a third considering you said it in the first place.

"In deed".

And I should have pointed out to BlueAngel that not only has this discussion been a waste of time but also a waste of 'ENERGY'.

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by galexander

And a third considering you said it in the first place.

"In deed".

And I should have pointed out to BlueAngel that not only has this discussion been a waste of time but also a waste of 'ENERGY'.

You started the discussion.

Therefore, you can blame yourself for wasting your time and energy.

[BlueAngel]

Originally Posted by galexander

Everything I have said so far on the subject is quite self-evident and not in need of further explanation.

You will not succeed in hounding further information out of me, mainly because there isn't any available.

BlueAngel, you are clearly wasting time AND space.

And I would directly contradict what you have just said, you DID repeat "in deed" and in a mocking, sarcastic manner, indicating quite plainly that you didn't take the subject seriously at all.

You haven't said anything about NLP that is self-evident because, as you said, you don't know anything about NLP so, how on earth could you possibly point out anything about NLP that is self-evident when, in your own words, you don't know anything about it?

Confused much?

I'll say.

You just figured Jane Doe was using NLP with her repetition of the words, "in deed," even though you don't know anything about NLP.

Okay, whatever, Gale,

I guess all of this somehow plays into your theory that the Space Shuttle and ISS don't exist.

Delusional?

Obviously, you don't take the subject of NLP seriously, because you don't know anything about it.

You are clearly wasting time and space, Gale, because, when I questioned your accusations about Jane Doe using NLP, instead of expounding, you tried to detract by pointing your finger at me because I used the words "in deed" one time and because I WAS a mind control victim, you somehow thought I was responsible for elaborating as to your suggestion that Jane Doe was using NLP.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works around these parts, pal.

You suggested that Jane Doe was using NLP; you pointed it out; I questioned you; you are the one who needs to answer and not me.

As I said, you can try to detract by pointing your finger at me, but, it is not I who suggested Jane Doe was using NLP.

It was you.

If you didn't have any further information available about NLP other than randomly suggesting a member might be using it, and didn't want me to hound you further, you shouldn't have stated what you did.

Clearly, you know not of what you speak.

That, my friend, is the only self-evidence you have provided.

[BlueAngel]

Jane Doe responds, "2 characters."

Gale responds, and a third considering you said it in the first place.

Okay, whatever.

[BlueAngel]

Here's a suggestion, Gale.

Next time you insinuate that a member of this forum is using NLP, as if it is detrimental, you need to be able to explain what NLP is and why this apparently presents a problem for you or anyone else.

Otherwise, you're just wasting this forum's space.

[jane doe]

Originally Posted by galexander

And a third considering you said it in the first place.

"In deed".

You haven't researched the posts between Blue Angel and myself. I used the term "in deed" after Blue Angel.

I have also used the term "2 characters" because I tried to erase my post and the notations required me to write 2 characters.

Blue Angel, do you have the copywrite for "whatever" same as "huh?", copywrite Blue Angel.

[galexander]

Originally Posted by BlueAngel

You haven't said anything about NLP that is self-evident because, as you said, you don't know anything about NLP so, how on earth could you possibly point out anything about NLP that is self-evident when, in your own words, you don't know anything about it?

Confused much?

I'll say.

You just figured Jane Doe was using NLP with her repetition of the words, "in deed," even though you don't know anything about NLP.

Okay, whatever, Gale,

I guess all of this somehow plays into your theory that the Space Shuttle and ISS don't exist.

Delusional?

Obviously, you don't take the subject of NLP seriously, because you don't know anything about it.

You are clearly wasting time and space, Gale, because, when I questioned your accusations about Jane Doe using NLP, instead of expounding, you tried to detract by pointing your finger at me because I used the words "in deed" one time and because I WAS a mind control victim, you somehow thought I was responsible for elaborating as to your suggestion that Jane Doe was using NLP.

Sorry, but that's not the way it works around these parts, pal.

You suggested that Jane Doe was using NLP; you pointed it out; I questioned you; you are the one who needs to answer and not me.

As I said, you can try to detract by pointing your finger at me, but, it is not I who suggested Jane Doe was using NLP.

It was you.

If you didn't have any further information available about NLP other than randomly suggesting a member might be using it, and didn't want me to hound you further, you shouldn't have stated what you did.

Clearly, you know not of what you speak.

That, my friend, is the only self-evidence you have provided.

I would like to make the following points:

1. I never claimed to be an expert on Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

2. Why should I be obliged to explain to all what NLP is when it can be found easily enough on the internet?

3. I would like to remind you this thread is NOT on the subject of NLP but on FREE ENERGY.

Please.