A Boot to Dan's Butt - Part 11

Cy's Response to Dan's Quote Below:
Re: New (temporary) Rule - DS section
« Reply #40 Today at 12:03pm »

Today at 11:29am, dan wrote:

Cy,

Quote Cy:
As any interpretation you have a right
to present and to be heard, to be acknowledged, to engage in debate, and to
defend, etc....you do not however have a right to exceed the bounds of common
decency in the process of doing or achieving such ends. Nor does anyone in this
in either the forefront or behind the scenes. The days of that being the status
quo and/or acceptability are at an end.


I cannot answer for CK’s ethics and objectives. I

only know that he has aided and abetted my eschatological stance. He
may have chosen to conceal his nefarious agenda behind this faux-eschaton.

But I do know that CK is the only known key player in this Endgame. I can
nail him to the wall of a Congressional Inquiry, but I will not participate in
that inquest unless all other participants are fully aware of the possible
eschatological consequences. .

That is where I differ in opinion. He is not the only key player in this Game...(endgame is an inappropriate lable based on my knowledge). Perhaps you meant the only 'known' key player? I would agree in that he is prominent in that his name is very public in this sector but this is not the only sector functioning. And his spotlight will always be shared irregardless of whether the names are initially known or not.

Nailing him to the wall with a Congressional Inquiry may or may not be necessary. I would judge that according to the level of negative influence he or his particular arena chooses to make on the ongoing effort toward preparing and effecting an honest & honorable Human Disclosure prior to unambiguous Contact.

Apparantly there are leaders already active in sorting the situation out equitably who are including the prior history of Contact which involves the Greys Group & Reppies....Since he is not in his prior post (location) I would assume he his either:

1. otherwise engaged or busy elsewhere in support or opposition

2. or is involved as is appropriate for his history and existential ability to influence

3. or has been maneuvered out of the loop to allow for a more productive adjustment of the paradigm as reflected by the activity noted by AF below.

i.e.

Yesterday at 4:02pm, af wrote:

Okay lets bash out the detail.

This new Treaty will be with another faction of ETs that are different
to the Greys and the Reptiods. What this new faction will want from us seems to
me more sociological and environmental.

Children interacting with ETs started with the Greys Whitney Strieber
being a good example. What we have now are Hybrids that are being developed to
work with ETs and Humanity.

I should point out that the Greys have a very good understanding what a
Treaties is, which like all Treaties in our own history are like. They get
breached and tested by the other side to see the reaction. eg US/UK said yes you
can abduct some of our people. The Greys abducted thousands.

SO here is the current problem US/UK don't like the Greys and the
Treaty they have with them but currently they both need each other. Abductions
seem to have been reduced of late but it still happens.

Now here is the interesting part the UK and US do not agree with each
other about how to open this can of worms. But there are people above my contact
and Source A that seem to be working closely together on this.

Currently it feels like we are just waiting for something to
happen.

AF