PsiPog.net : View topic - More of a question...

# PsiPog.net

# View topic - More of a question...

PsiPog.net Forum Index » PsiPog.net Ideas » More of a question...

More of a question...
Author | Message
--- | ---
More of a question... on Mon Mar 20, 2006 1:37 pm

### polaris

Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 27

Taken from the Telepathy manual in the articles section:
"10) Forced Hallucination: As the name states, the forcing of a hallucination upon a target. VIII C.
11) Hacking: Telepathic Hacking is a practice of accessing information from a targets mind, intercepting information being sent from one mind to another, interfering with said information, or distorting, destroying, or otherwise corrupting mental files"
I'm not bitching and complaining, nor am I trying to say "omg look! it mentions psionic combat!". I'm well aware that multiple articles talk about psychic combat, since it is a reality. Which is why i don't understand the rule "dont talk about psychic combat". If it's imformation given on the website with the intent of people learning it, why are they not allowed to discuss it? Thanks.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Mar 20, 2006 4:41 pm

### Vladimir

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 666

I think it's that it borders on combat. Full blown combat would be hurting or killing someone. I don't think there would be any in-depth articles about telepathic hacking though.

Back to top
Posted on Mon Mar 20, 2006 7:39 pm

### SunTzu

Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Posts: 126

defining is not teaching.

Back to top
Posted on Tue Mar 21, 2006 2:12 pm

### Vladimir

Joined: 14 Jan 2006
Posts: 666

Plus, if you're good enough to use it, you'll know how.

Back to top
Posted on Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:34 pm

### polaris

Joined: 12 Mar 2006
Posts: 27

True (and while defining is not teaching, people still learn something from it). However the way I feel about it is that nothing good ever came from limiting free speech. I see it the same way as treating the symptom, rather than fixing the problem itself. If it's just an unspoken blank spot that is relavent to other subjects it would only create problems with the build up of unspoken ideas.

Back to top
Posted on Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:53 pm

### Ilich

Joined: 15 Mar 2006
Posts: 55

Well they're not limiting free speech because this is a private forum, not a public one... But I see your point

Back to top
Posted on Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:57 am

### Peebrain

Site Admin
Joined: 27 Nov 2005
Posts: 716

I agree with SunTzu, and also would like to add another comment.
I think there can be very small and specific exceptions to the rules in this case. The reason being: people should be aware that psychic combat is something that exists. That's about my only feeling of obligation. I don't feel obligated to allow people to talk about it. I certainly don't feel obligated to allow people to teach it. And I don't feel obligated to allow people to talk about their personal experiences with it. But there needs to be SOME information so that people are aware that it exists. And nothing more. I believe the information in question serves that purpose, along with the few other times on PsiPog.net where we actually talk about combat. I don't want people to be oblivious it exists - but at the same time, I don't want to attract people interested in combat to PsiPog.net.
So there is a very fine line. A lot of information on combat would attract people interested in combat - even in the form of definitions. But at the same time, there should be a LITTLE bit of information, so that people are aware it exists. I don't want to pretend like it doesn't exist, but I also don't want to condone it.
~Sean

Back to top

PsiPog.net Forum Index » PsiPog.net Ideas » More of a question...

All Content, Images, Video, Text, and Software is © Copyright 2000-2006 PsiPog.net and their respective authors. All Rights Reserved.

You must agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy to view this website. Click here to contact the webmaster.