Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

Melfy you need to do some "lines" on the GLP blackboard me thinks.....

I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.
I, Melfy, confess that I am a zetacultie bunker.

Honesty is always the best policy, Melfy. I'm sure your Mama always stressed this truth to you.



Last Edited by The Lone Ranger on 03/23/2010 07:24 PM

ZetaTalk is ***NOT*** a CULT!!!!

Good grief, you only have to look at the latest "zetabarf"

Posts from zetamax = absolutely none whatsoever
Posts from User 78/68 = none whatsoever

They are not interested in discussion, they are simply following the debunkers into whatever thread they go.

Is that not stalking?

1. The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
2. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
3. Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
4. The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry�or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
5. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar�or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
6. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
7. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
8. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
9. The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
10. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
11. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
12. The group is preoccupied with making money.
13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
15. The most loyal members (the "true believers") feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even tconsider leaving) the group.

Source: Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups - Revised - Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

1. Yes.
2. Yes.
3. No.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. No.
8. No.
9. Yes.
10. Sort of (Freestore is a good example).
11. Sort of.
12. No.
13. Sort of...you do spend a lot of time defending it zetamax.
14. Yes (see poleshift.ning)
15. Sort of.

Let's see, that's a definite 7 out of 15 and a wishy-washy 4...that makes 11 out of 15.

Zetatalk is damn close to being a cult.

You're just too damn stupid to realize that ZetaMax was right and the statement was aimed "squarely" at you Circuit Stupid ... and every other deflunker here. Sux to be so dense, eh?

Find that job yet, Freeloader?

EVERY other debunker?

Why is that?

Hey Luserboy!!

Remember how you used to always go on about Nancy and zetatalk being so popular?....surely you remember


.....wicked eh, Luserboy.

And it's only going to get better for us debunkers eh!!



PS: It's staggering to witness how Ms LIEDer's GLP popularity has dropped dramatically since our successful debunker boycott of last year.

But like I've said before GLP is still the winner because of the rapid rise in our debunker popularity.

"The accuracy of these predictions was quite compelling"......really?

Six plus years on and these fools still hold true to these falsehoods.

2012 is gonna be fun for sure!!!

Last Edited by The Lone Ranger on 03/24/2010 07:06 AM

Nice post. And I totally agree with your final assessment. For all practical purposes, Imo, zetatalk is nothing less than a cult operating primarily on the internet as the main method of sourcing out gullible followers. But as of our current time, as Dr Postman has stated, zetatalk is a Failed cult. This single fact alone is comforting to know.

predicts that come 2012(by the end of the year definitely)when all the 2012 Mayan fuss passes without jackshit happening.....zetatalk will be nothing more than a dead duck in the water....so to speak.

Ms LIEDer has latched onto Gerard's Poleshit ning, no surprises there, to try and keep her charade going for as long as possible. It is but a temporary denial of reality. The end is nigh for Ms LIEDer's zetatalk.....it will be but a very enjoyable moment to behold.

Last Edited by The Lone Ranger on 03/24/2010 07:00 AM

In the Service-to-Self oriented groups all are, essentially, criminals. They are ruthless and utterly without scruples. They would prey upon each other endlessly. The control over each other is not by criminal rules, but by the rule of the strong. The pecking order is ruthlessly established, by whatever means necessary. Once established, this becomes the law. Essentially the rule of law is the long list of rules from the lawgiver. Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with this process. It is a dictatorship.

In the Service-to-Other oriented groups, none wishes to hurt the other. Concern for the group, and others, is expected and delivered. Rules are not used to control here, either. Order is established by the group discussing what needs to be done, and various members volunteering. Communication regarding difficulties, requests for assistance, and status on the ongoing concerns of the many are frequent. There are no secrets. There is no need to be defensive against each other, as all have common goals and none means to take advantage of the other. There are no locked doors. All turn their backs on each other without fear. Goods are not hoarded but shared. Service-to-Others entities trust each other utterly, and this trust is not misplaced.

from [link to poleshift.ning.com]

thats from ZetaTalk: Engagement Rules, written by Jul 15, 1995.

It's interesting to see the descriptions of STS and STO straight from the horses `mouth' so to speak (personally I think it might be from the other end LOL) and compare them to the behaviour seen from both our resident bunkers and much more so by their `glorious leider'

Despite their claims to STOhood, their actions (and nancy's in particular) speak much louder than words and it is her own description I am going by- and it clearly describes her actions as STS

You're just too stupid to realize that you're one of the biggest twerps on this forum. You didn't specify specifically "debunkers" asshole. You said "what a thread you twerps are participating in." That means anyone posting here on a regular basis. And that means you as well since you've decided to start coming here...not being able to find any action in Nancy's threads. You're so incredibly stupid...do you know that by calling us "deflunkers" that makes you a "flunker"? So, that's an appropriate title for us and you. We've been trying to educate you so you aren't such a flunky but, alas, you're a lost cause. Sucks to be so dense there, huh, Luser?

BTW...look back at the last couple weeks and notice my posting pattern. I've been working for a month now dickhead. Which means all those times you said I wasn't looking for a job was all a lie! That's right...you exposed yourself as a liar yet again! Good job numbnuts! Have you found yourself a woman who is willing to put up with your sadistic attitude yet? Yeah, I thought not. You continue to show how jealous you are that I didn't have to work while I'm in school because I have a wife that makes enough to support us. Poor little, Luser! All alone because no woman wants to put up with his mean attitude.

I expect by the end of this year, your desperation will reach new levels. There won't be any line you won't cross in an effort to support your master. But that's okay...I'm taking much delight in watching you squirm.

Last Edited by Circuit Breaker on 03/24/2010 06:46 AM

Congrats, on "finally" getting that "cover job".

Hey, I hear Luser has a woman now!

Sure, she has to be inflated to 23 PSI before each 'use,' but for Luser even that is quite an achievement.

Melfy, you might want to investigate that avenue too. Given your obvious social skills and innate charm, it might be the only way you ever find True Love!

Melfy isnt bothered so long as mommy allows him to suckle off her teat every now and then.

What are yapping about? I'm married and have a young daughter. Suks to be a stupid DEFLUNKER!!!

Yeah, Melfy, and Volar has a telescope...

Have you told your daughter that you are relatively sure the world, as she knows it, will end fairly utterly within the next two years (you know, that idea you are supposedly on the fence about?)?

She's three - a little young to grasp "such a thing". She'll be six in December 2012 - just old enough to comprehend everything that will be occurring ... should it occur of course.

"... should it occur of course."

It won't.

Did you mean to actually give a firm 2012 date in your statement, by the way?

I thought you lot were keeping an 'open mind' about such things...

2012 is the "most probable" time frame - and I say that based on sources other than ZetaTalk. If ZetaTalk was the "only" source of Pole Shift speculation, I wouldn't be nearly as supportive as I am - in fact, I'd probably even be a "debunker". (Imagine that!)

Then why are you 'max' on the Zetas?

The name was chosen in the "beginning" - when my enthusiasm was MUCH greater. However, the "debunker wars" have exposed weaknesses in BOTH camps, and I am not beneath saying that there are "problems" with ZetaTalk - which I have acknowledged along the way. My "extremism" is only a DIRECT response the extremism of the debunker camp - who deny the possibility of "any" future pole shift - not just a "PX" instigated one (for which I have indeed lost some "enthusiasm"). Still, the alarm Nancy is sounding I think is IMPORTANT and should not be dismissed "wholesale" - as the debunkers invite everyone to do through ANY means available.

The only 'means' we employ in denying Nancy's ludicrous claims, Max, are reason, logic, and facts.

That's why we win every argument. And why the bunkers always lose.

That's not even REMOTELY true - and you know it!!!

Oh yes it is, and YOU know it.

Show me ONE argument the bunkers have one. One instance in which Nancy was PROVEN to be correct when she said something that conflicted with science. Just one.

Go ahead.

Make my day.

That would require of you TWO admissions:

1) That Nancy was "Right" about anything.
2) That your "precious" SCIENCE was in fact wrong about anything. (With said error being successfully demonstrated by anyone other than another PEER-REVIEWED "scientist")

Together they constitute TOO GREAT an obstacle to overcome...

Last Edited by ***ZetaMaX*** on 03/24/2010 03:10 PM

In other words, you can't point to an instance in which Nancy was right and poor primitive human science was wrong.

Your admission is duly noted.

[link to www.youtube.com]