>>6844952

Island Pond, Vermont had a group who would do that 30 years ago going to Dead Shows.

they had a 'communial' living but it wasn't really. It was a heirarchy of leaders and people who were second teer dupes.

It was well known. Most people would stay away from them. They would have a dance circle with all of them. They would only mingle while being watched, and if you started to 'unhypnotize' them (for example the girl was saying how she of course would help care for othter people's kids for free and I asked about why she had to and what were they doing for her and which point the 'handler ' (I will call her that) came over and pulled her away.

It seemed to be a cult. They would tour the shows. But they weren't considered by other Deadheads to be 'cult' and they were not part of the band.

Nor did I ever see them or hear of them going to Bread-n-Puppet, which many Grateful Dead fans would go to (in the Summer) for their 'bread and puppet' camp-out (it was a two day thing, public welcome).

Nor would you ever see them out anywhere else. I've never been to Island Pond. It's almost in Quebec.

>>6845039

Not 'werent considered' should be

"Island Pond people were considered as a cult by many other Deadheads"

>>6845024

>(You)

person doesn't appreciate what you do.

person is trying to gather an emotional response. If I were to rate the person hes either trolling you , just to see how far he can push you, or it's a shill trying to make you feel unwelcome.

50 posts is a very lot, by the way.

>>6845078

Googlestabater Googlstabating

>>6845072

I object to bullying for loyalty.

who does that?

just in case it's not clear about a special kind of friend who is called a 'Skeptic' or in some circles a 'bull-shitter'.

they will intentionally take the other side of what you are on about just to be contrary and to see how far they can swing you through your wild mechanations of mind.

anyway, ya, loyalty oaths.

don't freemasons do that too?

>>6845168

there is soemthing off about your post, a way of mechanicalizing the concept of people, and a sort of misogeny . . . that really tells me a lot about you.

>>6845120

tell us what you think it is instead of murmers.

what is his 'dig' about?

or is he just pontificating about how holy the rulers of Physics, all from the same tribe of 'we run it you do not' are?

we're done with NASA types and their stand above and act as they are smarter bullshit.

suddenly we're suppose to read 75 posts about physics in the AM when we would rather hear news or deflect shills.

so what are they 'on to' in your speculation? and if it's good then maybe I'll review the 75 posts, but I just woke up a hour ago and I've got other ideas I'd rather work on.

>>6845207

so you don't have anything? OK. that's what I thought. I'm not reviewing the posts now.

you murmered as if there were something there, without a hint as to what it is, which seems like 'verification shilling'

and I said 'well, let's see what anon has got.

I get a list of bullet points about why I suck.

I know all about my own issues.

I was hoping to hear about something real with Physics.

but you can't tell me what the other anon, who you recommended I review his 28 posts, and his friends 50 other ones, and you got nothing but a bullet list.

I'm a shill

you're a shill

everyone's a shill shill

So you still didn't tell me what anon had been on about.

How did I tell you to stop posting? In fact I was requesting information about what you had recommended.

so what I did was prove to me and to many with eyes reading this that you are just here as some kind of verifictaion and bully shill.

sorry, my conclusion will stand unless you play nice. But you won't. or will you ? ? ?

>>6845234

there is some hyperpolic shilling going on.

they suggest 'must read' series of 'Phsyics' posts and won't say why we should read it.

this one:

>>6845236

calls me a 'jack ass' because I wanted a short infor on why I should read 75 posts about 'Physics'?

said I told him not to post when actually I was asking for a reason to do what he suggested.

they don't like being called out for their nonsense.

>>6845245

continues with anger and belligerence instead of just answering a simple requeset: what was he recommending in this post:

>>6845120

that all us othe anon should read?

he doesn't even know.

PS: by saying that they are 'over it' you imply that other anon need to review their stuff.

to put it in anther way:

what is the 'it' over which those 'physic talkers' were?

which it is it?

you got nothing.