Practical steps to enlightenment

[mikiel]

prince: "Learn, first of all, not to lie, you can only fool those who are lower in IQ. And that won't get you anywhere.

You are not enlightened, or even close. Keep trying and working on it."

My life as a communicator is dedicated to radical honesty, the kind which confronts egocentricity, which you so flagrantly display, directly and bluntly... no "little white lies" to spare one's "feelings."
Get it?
Your opinion that I am lying is based on absolutely nothing. You are just blowing gas out your ass, cuz your sense of superiority is threatened, as well it should be if you are below the 99.9996 IQ percentile level.
If you have anything to say of substance in argument against anything/everything I've said in this forum, then state your case.
Otherwise, STFU and slink off to lick your wounds.
mikiel

[Ramayana]

Correct me if I'm wrong here Michael. From the sounds of it, and the fact I don't know too many ppl signing their name as Mikiel... But, did you get banned from the myspace science forums? Not that it would surprise me, wasn't your defense to some new age wacko assertions, that you were to smart to be wrong?? Literally, that was your defense, correct? That your IQ was 170 plus and the rest of us were too dumb to even understand your concepts??

Could it be?

I'm not exactly sure what trolling is, as applied to this post. I do second Dan's motion, tho, that you "stick to addressing what the poster says here."
I have nothing to hide. I am *radically honest* and suggest that anyone who doesn't know how that differs from normal honesty look it up.
I was banned from "Myspace" for radical honesty, soon after a new very strick moderator took over, enforcing "be nice above all else."

My blog there, "The Myspace Recipe for Mediocre Science" was the last straw. Yes, indeed, I was a trouble maker and the "scientists" there hated me for my mystic visions and my challenges of the Minkowski/Einstein "thought experiment" become "science dogma" called "spacetime." (See also my two blogs on that subject at Myspace.) It's all information which I invite all to read, including my thread there, "Question Scientific Authority."

It is true that after a year and a half of insults directed toward me there for said challenges of the "scientific mainstream," alleging various degrees of abject stupidity, that I revealed my IQ percentile ranking in the top 99.9996% of the population who have taken Western IQ tests.
And it is true that most folks could not comprehend much of the cosmology I presented in the science forum there, tho many appreciated my contributions in the "Philosophy/Religion" forum.

But, yes, "Granny," the new chief of the "Nice Police" has banned me from myspace. I have no regrets, as I have always spoken the Truth as I know it and shared Visions as I have seen them, all in a radically honest way. Myspace "Can't handle the truth" on that level of radical.
mikiel

Yup, same person...

Claiming you desire respectful dialog shouldn't be a problem with the "nice police"... hmmm??

I'm curious what institute or university conducted these tests and if there is a way to validate these claims? What was the agenda to these tests?

What is the highest score on an IQ test ever archived and how can you verify such a thing among peers? How do you find someone qualified to rank such percentiles?

[Blair]

Once again, don't lie, to anyone, and most of all, don't lie to yourself.

Enlightened ones don't say Get it?, STFU, and so on.

[mikiel]

Once again, don't lie, to anyone, and most of all, don't lie to yourself.

Enlightened ones don't say Get it?, STFU, and so on.

Once again, I do not lie, even tho you have your hostile opinion about me... without the benefit of actual information.

As to your next very myopic statement about enlightened ones, I must share a couple of quotes from the most intelligent integral philosopher in the world today, Ken Wilber. He and I have had a few conversations about enlightenment, and I happen to fit into his scenario of "rude boy" teachers, i.e., "not nice" when confronting such egocentricity as yours.
Here is his a piece from an intro to a book by his buddy, Andrew Cohen, founder of the Zine, "What is Enlightenment." (Shared here at least once before.):
--------------
" If you want encouragement, soft smiles, ego stroking, gentle caresses of your self-contracting ways, pats on the back and sweet words of solace, find yourself a Nice Guy or Good Girl, and hold their hand on the sweet path of stress reduction and egoic comfort. But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face."
-------------
Hopefuly, since he has interviewed many "world-class" enlightened teachers, this will expand your horizons on what enlightened ones do and don't say.
Now, just to bend your mind in the opposite direction, here is another Wilber quote full of sweetness and light. Both are true, but their truth is based on different contexts... This one being from absolute, transcendental perspective without the need to hold the ego to the fire for purification:
--------------
"If your identity expands to embrace the Kosmos, you will treat all sentient beings with respect and kindness, for they are all perfect manifestations of the same radiant Self, which is your very own Self as well. This comes to you in a direct realisation of the Supreme Identity, precisely because identity can span the entire spectrum of consciousness, matter to body to mind to soul to spirit, with each expansion bringing a greater moral embrace, until the all itself is embraced with passionate equanimity."
--------------
Can you see the Truth in both extremes? (Rhetorical question.) You are very small minded in spiritual matters. I suspect you will embrace the latter and reject the former. I care not either way. Just giving you something beyond your realm to chew on.
Enjoy!... or stay hostile... your choice.
mikiel

[tek0]

Dealing with half the shit you guys enlighten the rest of us with can shed light in 10-20% of any given thought patterns I seek.


The rest is like a hookah and startrack http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Trippy_ ... -4194.html


If you can watch all of that you made some farking progress.


If you were beyond that than no need to acknowledge my rantings esspecially you thomas.....




You are already partially illuminated and for a vietnam era man I expect you have something beyond the average joe at least in respect for what it is to be a human being.

[PJ818]

"....But if you want Enlightenment, if you want to wake up, if you want to get fried in the fire of passionate Infinity, then, I promise you: find yourself a Rude Boy or a Nasty Girl, the ones who make you uncomfortable in their presence, who scare you witless, who will turn on you in a second and hold you up for ridicule, who will make you wish you were never born, who will offer you not sweet comfort but abject terror, not saccharin solace but scorching angst, for then, just then, you might very well be on the path to your own Original Face." (Wilber)
-------------

While I can't say definitively what he had in mind 'behind the scenes' in the quote, I can share what my experience in this regard has been.

The Rude Boys/Nasty Girls are mirrors for what is also within me. The most obnoxious, to me, were the easiest mirrors to begin grappling with when I practiced, "whenever I am disturbed, the problem is within me."

Sarcasm was once my self-proclaimed 'greatest strength'. I was sooo above name-calling and cussing, dontcha know. Well, I was in a group where there was a person I absolutely couldn't stand - his sarcasm was perfection. And, after a time, I chose to become as good as he was and 'get him'. It was all I could do to make myself read his posts. But I wanted to learn his superior technique, so I read.

Then one day I turned the focus on myself. What is sarcasm and why do I do it? I definitely reacted to his posts - what was it that I despised, and why was I trying to get better at a behavior that I disliked in him?

I'd begun to study anger and to understand where a newly found rage had come from. In that vein, I came to understand that anger is energy and must be released - either inward or outward.

Sarcasm was how I leaked the rage and kept it from building up (there are *many* vent techniques). When I no longer was using that method to release - while I was 'studying him', I discovered what lay behind the venting mechanism - pure anger. Beneath the sarcasm was envy and pride. When I ran the 'catches' back over my life - it was everywhere. Not only what I said out loud/in writing - but the thoughts that ran through my mind. And that the core of all personality is escape from Ego's shame and subsequent rage. A surprise, to me, was finding that laughter was also a shame release.

Another 'staple' of my personality was 'truth telling'. I learned that telling others shocking truths about themsleves was so that they would be on the defensive. They were so busy defending themselves, they didn't have time to attack back. The best 'nailings', however, were the ones they couldn't figure out happened until later. Stiletto by Billy Joel used to be one of my favorite songs.

And that brings me to knowing the difference, now, between 'radical truth telling' - and the ability to turn the fingers on myself through 'rigorous self-honesty'.

When I see someone who isn't yet willing to look within themselves, I don't challenge them. I once tore through life like a bull in a china shop and I allow others to do the same. Rigorous honesty isn't for those who need it - it's for those who want the amazing peace on the other side of doing the hard part.

If I hadn't already gotten 'right-sized' in a major way (there's always More to learn) prior to reading you - you may have been the mirror I needed. Wilber, to me, was encouraging you to continue to be a mirror for others. The mirrors that provoke/cause reactions are like gold for spiritual alchemy. And what Wilber was most likely saying was that since you weren't in the space to look at yourself, then continue to be a mirror for others who are willing to do the inner work.

No one can *make* me feel anything that isn't an open wound inside of me in need of healing. When I do the work and find the healing, then the very same behavior that used to drive me crazy, doesn't anymore. I may recognize it in others - but not react to it. That's how I began to understand and practice compassion.

One of the tools discovered when I spent a couple of years trekking through Buddhism was, "I Am That". Anything I saw that repulsed me or made me cringe, I'd say to myself, "I am that." I didn't, at the time, know how that statement could be true, I just knew that if I kept working, I'd see it eventually. And still do. Progress, not Perfection. Yet. <g>

Can I see today that given the right conditions, a less 'commandment oriented' childhood, that I could have been a serial killer from the shame-rage that was never allowed to be buried by positve self-esteem and defense mechanisms/coping strategies? Yes.

And I learn that I am 'one' with others by understanding how Ego operates in me. I am not unique. Before I can begin to grasp the Self, I must first peel the cons of Ego the Self became identified with. I am not my Ego - but saying it is not the same as experiencing it from doing the inner work.

I find the subtle reactions harder to catch. But something Sue said in another thread 'clicked' for me and I'm working on that one now. It doesn't matter that what she said I may be taking in a different light than one she intended for herself - an arrow landed and now to identify the target.

[Blair]

Once again, I do not lie, even tho you have your hostile opinion about me... without the benefit of actual information.
mikiel

Are you sure it's me who is the hostile one?

[David Quinn]

It seems you don't yet understand, prince. Mikiel isn't hostile, he is a rude-boy sage. There is a difference.

-

[Dave Toast]

Yes indeed. And his every word does not drip with ego but merely projects your own back at you, radically!

[mikiel]

It seems you don't yet understand, prince. Mikiel isn't hostile, he is a rude-boy sage. There is a difference.

-

This will be a very difficult challenge for you, David. Contemplate, if you are able, the possibility that everything I have said on this forum is true (as I know it from my life-experience.) If you can't... just beyond your 'realm of the possible', then there is nothing left to say.
If the mikiel in your mind is the real one and the one I present here (as the only expert on this old man) is a big lie based on pure arrogant egocentricity... then since you are a moderator and I just a lying interloper... the "truth" is established and we can disregard everything mikiel says as a lie, trumped by the superior wisdom of David, who "knows" with perfect logic and epistomology, that 'mik' is a fake.
Hey, David... my 'logic" score in those tests you detest was almost as high as the scale goes. Do you have any of that currency or are you just full of shit? This is a sincere question.
mikiel

[David Quinn]

I see you as someone who has made some significant breakthroughs, but has stagnated because of overestimating their importance in the larger scheme of things, resulting in a ceiling being formed over your mind. I also see you as someone whose buttons are easily pushed.

-

[mikiel]

I see you as someone who has made some significant breakthroughs, but has stagnated because of overestimating their importance in the larger scheme of things, resulting in a ceiling being formed over your mind. I also see you as someone whose buttons are easily pushed.

-

I keep asking you to go beyond empty rhetoric and baseless character assasination and be specific in your arguments. Yet you refuse.
On what basis do you see me as having stagnated? My life is a dynamic manifestation of the gift of liberation I received in '94, and we are a community with a shared vision. It is not, if you can grok it, "my" vision (tho I am the teacher), but a selfless vision of community in perfect harmony with nature, The One in All, and each other as loving brothers and sisters.
My vision of "the larger scheme of things" was given after a 7 day vision quest on top of Mt. Shasta. It is on my site as "The Great Pyramid Prophecy", the culmination of 30 yrs of study and mystic vision on the subject of Global Awakening.

From this perspective your narrow views, like men's superiority over women... the most restrictive possible view of enlightenment as based on Puritan/ascetic renunciation... and absolutely no experience of conscious transcendence of mental process (nirvana, samadhi, "Consciousness without an Object"... etc... as in universal mystic realization) qualifies you as spiritually ignorant of what enlightenment is. Yet, anybody can create a website and presume to be an authority on all the above.
You, sir, are the egocentric pretender here.

If you do choose to respond to this post, see if you can actually refute, or at least address the several points I've made, rather than just depend on your "authority" as a moderator whose wisdom must be taken for granted. I see through your shit. You don't fool me. You have no argument against this post or any I have given in reply to you yet.
Go ahead. make a real argument, for a change. Your "status" as a moderator is wearing thin, i'm sure, with the readers of our 'debate.'

Your vision is blurred by nearly opaque egocentricity regarding how you see me "as someone whose buttons are easily pushed."
Either I am a liar or I am not. I am still a slave to ego or I am not, as I have truely testified. If not, my ego was permanently transcended in '94.
You may want to decide whether to continue to call me a liar or "know when to fold 'em", as you have no hand to play here regarding the truth of my awakening... having no ego- buttons to push, and all of that.

Or you could just ban me from this pretentiously titled forum, and I will gladly leave such a farce, as I did when banned from Myspace... a little juvenile popullarity contest with no "space" for radical honesty.
Think about it for awhile before you pop off another egocentric reaction under the guise of a responsible response.

mikiel

[Blair]

Mikeil, you got very defensive when I called you a liar.

You do not speak in a way which is consistent with those who have 170 IQ's. Not to say they express themselves better, they just speak in a certain, and very peculiar and consistent way, which you don't, wether they are 60 or 6. You express yourself in more of an 120 IQ way.

But the IQ is not the point, it's your claim to enlightenment which is the big lie.

You show a lot of anger and easily provoked. This is not enlightened behaviour, it's more like a petulant hormonally charged 14 year old girl.

[Tomas]

.


-princess prancer-
prince - Mikiel, you got very defensive when I called you a liar.

-tomas-
At the very least, you'd be better off naming him as a top-20 "cheerful liar."




-princess prancer-
You do not speak in a way which is consistent with those who have 170 IQ's.

-tomas-
Oh, I would't go that far ... Bill Clinton's IQ is up in that area there 170's, also. I've met Clinton on a few occasions and he's nothing at all as when he is "on stage" or campaigning. In near one-on-one up-close appearances with him, he is an absolute bore. No original ideas.




-princess prancer-
Not to say they express themselves better, they just speak in a certain, and very peculiar and consistent way, whether they are 60 or 6.

-tomas-
Well, that's the way they work out their kinks.




-princess prancer-
You express yourself in more of an 120 IQ way.

-tomas-
He's a considerable higher level than that - not-withstanding his cussing words, the cussing simply takes the wind out of his arguments :-(




-princess prancer-
But the IQ is not the point, it's your claim to enlightenment which is the big lie.

-tomas-
Hey, a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do ... his speech nuances - is like the rest of us - read between the lines.




-princess prancer-
You show a lot of anger and easily provoked.

-tomas-
Bill Clinton (IQ-170) has that sort of anger level also. Don't worry about it princess, that's just mikiel's style.




-princess prancer-
This is not enlightened behaviour, it's more like a petulant hormonally charged 14 year old girl.

-tomas-
Naw, mikiel is alright - if he'd cut out the petty cussing (much like Victor should've) his arguments would come across more sane (logical) to us mere mortals. And, he'd be more engaging, too :-)

But, we'll see if he gets it...?


edit: to correct non-withstanding to not-withstanding
.

[mikiel]

Mikeil, you got very defensive when I called you a liar.
You mistake defensive for honest reply.

p: "You do not speak in a way which is consistent with those who have 170 IQ's. Not to say they express themselves better, they just speak in a certain, and very peculiar and consistent way, which you don't, wether they are 60 or 6. You express yourself in more of an 120 IQ way."

You are anorher "fucking idiot" ...
...I do not speak in a way which is consistent with those who have 170 IQ's."... Well, its a bit above 170 and your argument is without substance, tho you are too ignorant to know this as a real point of debate.

But the IQ is not the point, it's your claim to enlightenment which is the big lie.

You show a lot of anger and easily provoked. This is not enlightened behaviour, it's more like a petulant hormonally charged 14 year old girl.

You who live in ego do not "get" ego-transcendence. How could you? No way. What you consider a 'show of anger" is that intensity I shared in the Wilber quote. It is not peronal anger on my part but radical honesty which happens to show your stupidity ... as in how you "know" I am lying... totally ignorant of the study of "knowing' ... epistemplogy ... and you had no comment. Silence is good when you have no knowledge of the subject. Wise, ironically, on your part not to get into the study of how we "know.' Your ignorance in this matter would be embarrassing if only you had a clue.

And how you "know" I am not at IQ 99.9996 percentile is a joke... I will not,under the agreements of anonymity of the institute which did the study reveal the name of the institute. And if I did, they would not reveal the names of the "high geniuses" of the study, those scoring in the top one in a half million and above. You have no idea what a breach of confidentiality here would mean. The Pentagon wants to put all of us 170 and above geniuses under a "program" to enhance their military superiority. You are an idiot in this realm, and I will not reveal the "proof" as public information.
This is the end of this conversation, as per "proof' of my documented IQ.
mikiel

[mikiel]

-tomas-
Naw, mikiel is alright - if he'd cut out the petty cussing (much like Victor should've) his arguments would come across more sane (logical) to us mere mortals. And, he'd be more engaging, too :-)

But, we'll see if he gets it...?

Hi tomas,
Looks like a case of "condemnation with faint praise." So you think my cussing is naughty? OK, fine. Fits my persona as a biker fairly well. You'd be shaking your finger like a prissy old granny if you overheard me and my buds, the Free Souls bullshitting in a local tavern. Tch, tch, tch... Clicking your tongue and saying "shame on you."
Cute!
So, to "get it" I must clean up my act and talk nice. Gives me a chuckle. You demonstrate ego's axiom, "Everyone should be more like me." No, thanks.
mikiel

[Ramayana]

Mikeil, you got very defensive when I called you a liar.
You mistake defensive for honest reply.

p: "You do not speak in a way which is consistent with those who have 170 IQ's. Not to say they express themselves better, they just speak in a certain, and very peculiar and consistent way, which you don't, wether they are 60 or 6. You express yourself in more of an 120 IQ way."

You are anorher "fucking idiot" ...
...I do not speak in a way which is consistent with those who have 170 IQ's."... Well, its a bit above 170 and your argument is without substance, tho you are too ignorant to know this as a real point of debate.

But the IQ is not the point, it's your claim to enlightenment which is the big lie.

You show a lot of anger and easily provoked. This is not enlightened behaviour, it's more like a petulant hormonally charged 14 year old girl.

You who live in ego do not "get" ego-transcendence. How could you? No way. What you consider a 'show of anger" is that intensity I shared in the Wilber quote. It is not peronal anger on my part but radical honesty which happens to show your stupidity ... as in how you "know" I am lying... totally ignorant of the study of "knowing' ... epistemplogy ... and you had no comment. Silence is good when you have no knowledge of the subject. Wise, ironically, on your part not to get into the study of how we "know.' Your ignorance in this matter would be embarrassing if only you had a clue.

And how you "know" I am not at IQ 99.9996 percentile is a joke... I will not,under the agreements of anonymity of the institute which did the study reveal the name of the institute. And if I did, they would not reveal the names of the "high geniuses" of the study, those scoring in the top one in a half million and above. You have no idea what a breach of confidentiality here would mean. The Pentagon wants to put all of us 170 and above geniuses under a "program" to enhance their military superiority. You are an idiot in this realm, and I will not reveal the "proof" as public information.
This is the end of this conversation, as per "proof' of my documented IQ.
mikiel

The Unabomber had an IQ of 170. So maybe he's not stupid in the classical sense. He was seriously delusional and deranged.
Blasting ones IQ score out there as some sort of credential, that you are not stupid, well, really IS pretty stupid...

Not to be hostile, just being "honest" I have little doubts you are 100% full of shit....

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Back before I grew out of internet quizzes, I took this IQ test where everyone I knew who took it got the high score: "160 or higher". It wasn't that the test wasn't an IQ test; it just didn't take age into account. It was really lame.

So, question. Is there any way to verify that only 1 in 600,000 people who took this test scored 170+?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I remember this Which philosophy do you follow? test (found URL)... I remember being mad at this one because it called me an existentialist. It's like cynicism doesn't even exist.

[mikiel]

TS asked: "So, question. Is there any way to verify that only 1 in 600,000 people who took this test scored 170+?"

Here's a link to a chart comparing IQ scores to percentile rankings and rarity of occurrence.

http://www.eskimo.com/~miyaguch/combnorm.html

These equivalencies are derived from a Microsoft Excell NORMDIST program, which was not available when I was targeted for study.
You will notice that, on the chart, an IQ of 172 fell in the 99.99966 percentile ranking and a rarity of one in 300,000.

The institute which ranked me only went four decimals and was based on the simple progression, 99%=top one in a hundred; 99.9%= top one in a thousand; 99.99%= top one in ten thousand; 99.999%= top one in 100,000; 99.9999%= top one in a million.
In between the last two it progressed as per 99.9995= top one in a half million, etc, puting my 99.9996% at top one in 600,000 and so on up.
There was also a difference in rarity figures, as my 174 (ave) was one in 600,000 rather than the 500,000 in the chart, and, as stated, at 99.9996 as compared to the chart's 99.99981%.

Hope that's finally enough of the IQ score and percentile number game. I didn't bring it up. Our new (to me) shit slinger Ramayana did. And I already explained that it was in response to 18 months of insults to my intelligence by the popularity contestants at Myspace that finally brought me out on the subject, which is properly considered obscene dick and tit waving.
Enough already!
mikiel

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I was kinda hinting at independent verification. I was suspicious when I scored high on an online IQ test, and my suspicions were confirmed when I got someone else to do the test and they scored off the charts as well. The fact that this institution doesn't even want to be identified makes me suspect something illegitimate is going on, especially if you paid for the testing.

I really don't give a rat's ass about any of these tests. I thought that would be clear when I posted a link to a "what philosophy do you follow?" quiz. I'm pretty much just interested in why this institution is so secretive. Secrecy doesn't lend much confidence; I'm hoping you weren't gyped out of cash to be told what you wanted to hear.

[brad walker]

I was kinda hinting at independent verification. I was suspicious when I scored high on an online IQ test, and my suspicions were confirmed when I got someone else to do the test and they scored off the charts as well. The fact that this institution doesn't even want to be identified makes me suspect something illegitimate is going on, especially if you paid for the testing.

That's the real intelligence test.

[mikiel]

I was kinda hinting at independent verification. I was suspicious when I scored high on an online IQ test, and my suspicions were confirmed when I got someone else to do the test and they scored off the charts as well. The fact that this institution doesn't even want to be identified makes me suspect something illegitimate is going on, especially if you paid for the testing.

I really don't give a rat's ass about any of these tests. I thought that would be clear when I posted a link to a "what philosophy do you follow?" quiz. I'm pretty much just interested in why this institution is so secretive. Secrecy doesn't lend much confidence; I'm hoping you weren't gyped out of cash to be told what you wanted to hear.

Trevor,
For someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about any of these tests, you are quite persistent in your inquiry about them. Fine. I'll go another step to answer you.
I took the usual two IQ tests in school (no online paid-for tests) and averaged 174 on them. The institute in question had launched a study of all who scored at or above the top half million of those tested. (see my last post.) This study first administered a special IQ test calibrated to "high genius", skipping the parts of the usual test of "common knowledge" and adding shit that your average test taker has no clue about. I went way high on that one, which "they said" indicated I was actually above the 174 mark, but that test was experimental (for conformation of "high genius") and not yet standardized cuz it was skewed to the high end.

The actual focus of the study was on various fields like cosmology ("How do you see the universe"), literature ("Who most inspired you?), math/geometry ("How do you see the relationship between Pi and Phi as descriptors of the universal forms, spiral and circle?")... stuff like that.
The institute gauranteed confidentiality (as a protective measure as explained in last post) and was, in fact, a pure research project.

Maybe now you can get off your high horse of skepticism and accept the above as the true account it is.
If not... well, I've done my honest best to clarify and I'll leave it at that.
mikiel

[Carl G]

I wouldn't want a super high IQ for the same reason I wouldn't want to be hung like a horse: although it would be fun I wouldn't want to deal with the runaway ego problems sure to accompany such a gift.

Speaking for myself.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

miki,

For someone who doesn't give a rat's ass about any of these tests, you are quite persistent in your inquiry about them. Fine. I'll go another step to answer you...

<answers>

...Maybe now you can get off your high horse of skepticism and accept the above as the true account it is.

No reason to be silly: my skepticism was the correct method of inquiry. It got you to reveal enough facts about this institution so that I could understand the need for secrecy.