Shane Jensen (guest) 23 Jan 2011 21:29
OK, gang – as soon as I point out just a couple of the various factual errors your GreatJujube has asked to be shown, I’m going to make a prediction. But first things first…
Error #1: ‘She strives in her writings and workshops to open as many people as possible to the Nine Dimensions. After 2011 to 2012, only these people will survive and be in “ecstatic communion with nature and the Creator”9’ If we go to the relevant footnote, we find ‘9. 213, “The Mayan Code”[4]’. And if we go to p. 213 of that text, we find that Hand Clow says ‘the people of Earth’; she doesn’t say ‘only these people’. I don’t know whether snorks was just confused or has fudged references to achieve the desired effect. But it leads the uninformed reader to infer that according to ‘The Mayan Code’, only those who receive Hand Clow’s teachings will survive and thrive.
Error #2: ‘When Hand Clow first channeled Satya in 1995, she stated that this being was an “Astrologer, Keeper of the Records for the Pleiades and the Central Pleiadian Library of Alcyone (32). However, Hand Clow on her website refers to Satya as a Goddess and teaches “Goddess Alchemy”.’ ‘However’ implies a contradiction. And if we go to the footnotes, we find ‘32. “The Pleiadian Agenda”’, with no page reference. And if we go to p. 8, l. 9 of that text, we find the voice of Satya saying ‘… I am a Pleiadian goddess…’ I mention this because in snorks’s conclusion, we find ‘When Hand Clow elevated Satya to Goddess, she set out her actual agenda’. This leads the uninformed reader to infer that Hand Clow deviously changed her story later (when in fact snorks has just changed the facts in a way that fits this site’s agenda).
I could cite genuine inconsistencies in Hand Clow’s work if I thought it was warranted, i.e., if there was evidence that she has anything but good intentions. But she concentrates her critique on warmongers who cause harm en masse, while you go after ageing sixties flower children etc. My interest in the inconsistencies on this site has to do with the fact that it pretends scientific authority, yet members don’t demonstrate rigour in their research. If real scientists were as careless as you folk when writing up their findings, we wouldn’t be able to trust them (or the purity of their motives), would we?
And now, based not on intuition but on observation, I predict that (1) you won’t even see why, let alone admit, that the above errors matter (which of course they don’t, except on principle); (2) you won’t bother to correct them; and (3) if you respond at all, it will be insulting. I further predict that one or more of your guests will respond in the same vein, and without having checked any facts for themselves. In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
BTW, according to my correspondence with Inner Traditions (the publishers of Hand Clow’s book, from which, last time I looked, snorks quotes 600+ words), ‘Fair Use allows for 250 words to be reprinted without having to seek permission. If you are wanting to quote more than 250 words, please contact our Permissions Dept at this email: moc.snoitidartrenni|sthgir#moc.snoitidartrenni|sthgir’.
