[MD] opposition of zeitgeist and Shambhala

[Woods Woods]

Marsha:
If my post about Krishnamurti didn't ooze skepticism, I don't know 
what to say.  

woods:
Exactly.  That's what I thought you posted and I posted back about 
this very point.

Marsha:
Or are we back to the Devil Card in the Tarot Deck and 
entrapping ourselves.    All these patterns are conceptions rather 
than experience.  They are dissected and isolated from causes and conditions.
What's your point?



woods:
    My initial point was after I came across this opposition to zeitgeist 
was to look into this skepticism.  I guess it's a topic now due to a part two 
of zeitgeist that had come out about a month ago.  I instantly recognized 
that zeitgeist is brought up here on this forum and some people have liked 
it a lot.  So I thought it would be healthy to see the opposing side to zeitgeist 
since I never heard any skepticism about zeitgeist on this forum  Well, now 
I know why there is no skepticism about zeitgeist.  Without thought some 
people are joining this cult without any thought and healthy skepticism right 
here on this forum.  Notice all the backlash for posting opposition to zeitgeist.  Ian's 
big argument maker, which he has few and I dare to say he doesn't usually contribute 
much thought it seems when it comes disagreement (he avoids opposition to his values), 
but anyways his flat argument was zeitgeist has a lot of historical facts.  Well, the video 
I sent had a lot of historical facts too about what these zeitgeist people believe in.  That's 
a flat argument.
    Just pointing out the preconceptions people have.  dmb goes as far as to ask me to leave.  
Please.  dmb needs to leave with a comment like that.  dmb needs to back up, and just 
because I bring up an argument against zeitgeist doesn't mean I'm trying to kill his holy god 
zeitgeist.  There's a deep strain of ideology in this forum that needs to burst or else it will 
fall into to the same traps that it supposed has set out to rid with dynamic quality.  



woods