Again you seem to totally misunderstand what I am saying and reply with comments against me which do seem genuinely personal. I am currently suffering from a long term illness and believe me I have no time to waste writing articles which I do not believe to be important. I wrote it as I regard it as a very important piece. What is wrong with thoroughly examining something, instead of posting general, wishy-washy comments? A lot of thought and energy went into that last post. Why do you not take me apart word for word if you feel I have a 'hidden agenda', instead of posting vague, general remarks about me and my agenda. I was led to believe that this was a forum which sought truth.

Where have I criticized David Icke? I surely have a right to challenge what he is spreading as 'truth' and to show that he is not conscious of where these teachings originate. I feel free to criticize what he is spreading as 'truth', as he himself is not aware of from where his teachings are originating.

David is being deceived, he is not, I repeat wilfully spreading deception. David seems to me to be an honorable man, it is others who responded to my other post with remarks regarding egotism.

It seems everytime I post you are waiting to write insinuous comments about me. Challenge what I say, not who I am.

I am tired of repeating this, I have no hidden agenda and you have no right to continually imply that I have. If you want the truth, I have my suspicions about you, but as I cannot prove them I do not air them. I have always found an old principle to be true in a majority of cases, namely that those who protest the loudest do so to prevent suspicion falling on them. Every word of what I say regarding David Icke's teachings (not the man) has been carefully thought out, and the new post certainly does not go over old ground, but explores new ground, so please don't say

Do you not believe in free expression?

I am using David Icke as an example of how the corrupt powers which reign in this world can deceive someone even with good intent, such as David. How can you construe this as an example of flaming "David Icke". You seem to read my posts without understanding them, whcih is fine, but don't then come out with unfounded allegations about me. Like I say I began regarding David as a possible deceiver, I did not say it, as it would not have been appropriate, for it is not for me to judge other people. I say categorically now, as in my latest post, I now regard David as a morally decent man, someone who believes in what he is saying. I wrote the latest piece partly in the hope that David will see he is being deceived, by the very powers he exposes elsewhere on his site. Is this not a tragic state of affairs? Am I not making myself a target with such an analysis? And when I say it pains me, it really does, indeed I find it difficult to think about the situation regarding David without feeling deep sorrow.

I repeat, what I can and I will analyse is people's teachings. I suggest you do the same regarding me, as your posts are written in such a general manner as to make it difficult for me to respond.

If his teachings are believed then people will be living in untruth and falsehood, should I stand by and let this happen without protesting? Without showing people how David has come to his teachings in the first place, what he terms the three voices? Should we stand back and not share our discoveries, discoveries which challenge people to think deeper about things which they might otherwise have passed by? Are we to become uncritical automatons? Isn't this failure to challenge misplaced authority what has got us to this situation whereby governments deceive and exploit their people, whereby groups scheme hidden in the background? All things must be brought in to the light and examined. Truth does not contradict man's ability to think, truth is not 'insane', truth is in a realm beyond ordinary earth-bound reason, but it does not contradict it. We may share what we discover with others or else we succumb to control and to ill-defined 'norms'

The title 'The Inspiration of David Icke' is not sarcastic, it is referring to exactly what it says, 'Inspiration' refers to communications from spiritual beings in sound, just as Imagination refers to the same communication in pictures. Do you not believe David when he says he heard these voices? Do you doubt the mediums sincerity?

Would you have me waste my time writing my life's story simply to refute your paranoid suspicions of me?

You say you find David's site "credible", why do you not expand on this? Is the problem that I am analysing teachings which you find dear? If so state them and defend them, do not hide behind David Icke. I am writing with my blood, so to speak, I am putting myself forward quite openly. What I said in my easter post I had told only one person previously. I am speaking from my heart, and I feel I have a right and a duty to do so. Should we, as the academics believe, talk about only topics which are safe and in which there is no truth to be discovered, only a limited range of opinions?

I am well aware of the legal mind, and every sentence I write is carefully considered and in no way have I slandered (or 'flamed') David Icke.

Perhaps, I should ask why you are flaming me, and attempting to deter me from expressing myself freely? And please this time write a specific reply.