Firstly, it has been pointed out that David's reply on the Forum was written some time ago only as a response to my first post. My reply was written on the understanding that this was a response to all my posts. My reply, therefore, appears unnecessarily angry with David.
It was also been pointed out that the portal page was not designed by David. As I have explained elsewhere I do not believe that this affects my original argument per se. Given that the page bears his picture and his words, I do not believe that it was unreasonable to assume that David had designed it.
I must admit that I was rather wary of re-reading my first post on David Icke seeing the reaction that was generated by the third, considering that the first was written at a time when I did doubt the sincerity of David's intentions. However, having re-read it there is nothing in there which could be construed, in my eyes, as an attack on David and I see no need to apologise for it in general. Indeed I still believe that my analysis of the portal page is as valid as any other.
The only section which might be able to be contrued in such a manner is the paragraph suggesting parallels between David's teachings and those of Lewis Farrakhan. I apologise to David if this upset him. It is not to be read as if I was suggesting that David was a plant of the Security Services. I am happy to make clear that David is not a plant of the powers which be in the same manner that Lewis Farrakhan most probably is.
The part referring to allegations that David's teachings had prevented cases of SRA being taking seriously should not have been written without evidence to back this up. The problem was that I had the article on my hard drive with no URL, I have since found an article similar to the one which I have. That article, 'The True Story About Mark Phillips By Ray Bilger', can be found at http://www.sightings.com/general2/phil.htm .
I also now realise that the the title of that post, 'The Hidden Symbolism of David Icke?' was completely misleading seeing as David did not design the web page. This may understandably have upset him and I apologise for choosing this title. I also accept that it may not be the case that David is 'setting himself up' as a teacher.
In light of the above I accept that David's response here posted is a valid one. I am no longer angry with David regarding this.
The questions I asked in the post which followed are still valid, however, and have not been addressed by David. I will take David's post as a reply to the symbolism post and, in view of the title, I can understand why David did not take this post seriously.
The only question which has been answered satisfactorally is the question I asked regarding Laurence being the 'bad guy' to David's 'good guy'. Laurence had sent me an email entitled 'Screw the Christians, ripe for the harvest', and in view of the end of my previous post which had explained my pseudonym in relation to the murder of Arlis Perry, this understandably, in my opinion, infuriated me. Lawrence has apologised and he also took a lot of his time responding in detail to my posts. I appreciate that and no longer regard him as the 'bad guy'. Further, Laurence's response, to be fair to be him, was written as a response to a genuine error on my part in post . Due to the size of an email I received on my Hushmail server I had been unable to read it properly and had thought I had read something as being David's view when it was not. Therefore, the sentence in that post "The very fact that David does not believe in angelic beings is also irrelevant" is incorrect, in that I do not know David's beliefs regarding angels.
Having clarified my position above, I must state that I regard the questions I asked as still valid and would appreciate David's reply to them, if he can find the time to address them. I thank Jocelyn Savage for providing a list of the books which David used for his works.
Finally, with regard to the response which followed my third post, I still cannot comprehend why it was so bitter, especially with regard to the comments people made against me. I am perfectly prepared to debate every point in every one of of my posts. Although they may appear 'preachy' or 'pretentious' they should not be taken as a rigid and dogmatic stance - every point can be freely debated or criticised without offending my personal beliefs. What I do find reprehensible is that people have seen fit to accuse me of being an agent, this seems akin in my eyes to the mind-set resorted to by some Christians in the past which labels anyone who disagrees with them as a 'heretic'. Encouraging censorship in the name of freedom! In the interests of fairness I did send the posts in the thread to David Icke's website so he could I response. I sent the whole thread not to 'save my butt' as someone ignorantly put it, but, firstly, because my replies would have made little sense on their own and, secondly, so that it could be seen that the response they generated with totally out of proportion to what I had originally posted.
Let me finish by reproducing some of the comments which have made about me. I challenge anyone to find evidence supporting these statements in any of my posts. I also challenge anyone to find any remarks by me which are anywhere near as detrimental as these. I will not comment on any of them bar the one which refers to 'pseudo Christians' - 'pseudo' means 'false', so to the person who wrote that I would like to ask what right have you to cast aspertions on someone's faith; are you in a position to judge who is a 'genuine' Christian and who is not? The only common link I can find between the statements is that the underlying theme seemed to be 'throw out Novaliz from the Forum':
"So we've come across a couple of Real time spooks. Well, the CIA hangs out here so why not the Crown...welcome, boys. Just don't expect to get away with it!"
"Who are these pseudo Christians purporting to denigrate David Icke in an effort to destroy RumorMill? They have become the Lions that eat people. They will destroy us all!"
"Novaliz is no innocent, naive poster. This is a studied mind with a mission. He is carefully wording things to appeal to FEAR."
"All I am trying to convey here is that it seems to me that there is a new breed of disinformation artists that are PRETENDING to be Christians, while all the while they are nothing but SILENCERS and DISRUPTERS!"
"If Rixon and Novaliz and Data Junkie wanted to destroy Rumor Mill, they have gotten so far as to have created hate and discontent. AND it isn't much fun anymore. The lies, the deceit and the rancor do not make this a pleasant place to want to be. What I see is that these are people who have an overriding agenda. It is apparent in that they cannot be reasoned with: You either see it their way or else THEY WILL DOUBLE AND TRIPLE TEAM YOU UNTIL YOU JUST STOP POSTING, all the while protesting their innocense and crying out how terribly maligned they are."
"Can the attack on Esclarmonde by Rixon and Novaliz be one of the three prongs against RMNews? The age-old ploy of causing distrust and dissension amongst ourselves?"
"I have to admit, I still think you are an agent of some sort because I have not felt much sincerity from anything you have written here: Including USING AND then DISCARDING Rixon."
"Personally, I think Novaliz is a mealymouth wimp hiding behind faked innocence. Or maybe he's hiding in the grass, waiting to strike anyone who comes close."
"Novaliz proclaims over and over his innocence in any attack on David Icke and Esclarmonde. He pleads with us: "Why am I the target of such attacks, when all I have posted is a few ideas which I have had?" This solicitation of our sympathy is disingenuous.
He claims his posts are innocent words/ideas, that he has no ulterior motive. He, on the other hand, has become the innocent VICTIM of pernicious posts from children of the lesser gods."
