Red Strike (& Ban) - Reed Marcotte

A place to view the strikes record, strikes issued and reasons why (if gifted)
Post Reply
User avatar
Site Admin
Posts: 716
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:07 pm
Location: London, England

Red Strike (& Ban) - Reed Marcotte

Post by Nicky » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:20 pm


I previously issued Reed with 3 Amber strikes and a muting of his account for his past interactions on the forum. You can read these strike threads by following the below links:


In the past 24 hours, Reed sent me through some private correspondence via email which I have chosen to share below:

Hello again Nicky,
I must have peeked 20 times or so at the thread I posted about compassion to see what had come of it. I didn't know the other ambers had been issued and just realized I had been muted within the last couple of days. I read the feedback from the previous amber strike a while ago and I am trying to absorb the feedback that your team and Mary have accumulated as per the more recent amber strikes. I'm honestly getting the feeling that I am not liked. That is not a cry for pity. Doesn't really matter. I asked a question in regards to compassion so that I may be able to compare my own feelings about compassion to that of Jesus.
Though I may have worded the "compassion" post in a bias fashion, giving away the fact that I do have my own preconceived notion about what real compassion is, I don't believe I'm being diagnosed correctly, not to mention, I haven't asked for all the feedback. Then to be told that my take on compassion from God's perspective is wrong without me haven mentioned anything about what my take is... He really doesn't have an idea about what it ACTUALLY is from God's perspective BUT he pretty arrogantly believes that he does know. , is premature.
Lena says these are great questions then you say I don't know what I'm talking about. I mean seriously, I'm seeing so many inconsistencies, guessing and unwarranted observations, many of which are untrue, that I only feel it appropriate to stop participating. Face it. you don't like me and you love spending time bashing me. There, how's that for drawing a conclusion? At least my conclusion is accurate within the context of what has been written about me unlovingly. Here are some more points, I feel, are off the mark within the content of everything around the amber strikes....................
-you are not 100% certain in your heart that AJ is Jesus
-you have gone over (this certainty) many times
-this thread has highlighted some addictions in your self, of being helped by a woman. (Lena)
-I now feel, that you, in fact, want to feel superior over a woman (Lena)
-In reality you have been very unkind in your very initial post (Lena)
-due to a number of addictions he was trying to get met
-his motivation to post about the above came from a debate he had with another member
-muting of his account on the forum due to his interactions with Lena
-1. Reed is being lazy. He doesn't want to self reflect and explore his actual feelings enough to just explain them and/or ask questions. He wants other people to do that work and so he just posts a facebook post (or the video) to get people to discuss something he doesn't want to explore enough to describe his feelings. He wants other people to 'do the work' of figuring out what his point or question is
-2. He is trying to make a point through his posting 'questions' and isn't seeking answers at all - which is dishonest and not humble. Reed actually eventually got upset with Lena for answering his "questions" e.g. when she gave her opinion on the facebook post being posted in addiction. This further indicates that there was no humble seeking on his part. He really just wanted to make a point - Maybe Reed posted the part about his friend to 'shame' them about their facebook posting, particularly if they are another member of this very forum.
Reed likes to have engagement with women. It meets some addictions in him for attention from women.
-He likes to have women 'work' for him. He certainly doesn't see that as a gift. He simply has addictive emotional desires for sexual validation from women. To get this he draws them into exchanges in which they give him time, attention and approval. When the woman/women cease to give him this he then expresses rageful, angry, condescending emotions at them underneath a facade of 'innocence'. This entire dynamic originates in his relationship with his mother. I have the feeling that he had a mother who gave his a lot of sexual validation and did an extreme amount for him. As a result he now feels entitled to this and gets rageful when he doesn't get it.
-The only reason Reed responded to Lena's original request for him to formulate his ideas into questions is that he wants women to engage with him and so he wrote the questions.

Unless you can make sense as to why these speculations are true, it would only behoove me to think them in error. For example: I ask a question and because a woman decides she would like to attempt answering it is not sufficient evidence or does not warrant an accurate "feeling" on somebody else's behalf to accuse me of having and emotional injury like being addicted to needing help from women. I find this quite condescending, misleading and guiding somebody in the wrong direction of Love and Truth.

As I mentioned to Lena, "Maybe women attract me because of my short comings." makes a lot more sense to me because this is actually what is happening in respect to Lena, Niky H, and Mary. Yes, there are plenty of women who find it addicting due to the superior feeling they get from men whom they feel to be inadequate. "I'll fix him." But it doesn't seem likely that anybody on your end of this discussion would even consider this as a possibility because I am not allowed to disagree with "the team" lest I be punished.

This is evident in the audio Mary posted. Firstly, that you're being harsh from an authoritative perspective which suggests that you're not intending to be helpful, and secondly, you fear being wrong. Am I not entitled to my feelings? Doesn't mean they're true, does it?

To say that I am being sinful by trying to make a point in order to clarify my own perspective on the subject of compassion instead of just asking a direct question is asinine. I may not be able to deliver the truth on a subject very well but it doesn't make me intentionally sinful especially if my observation, "Look, I reckon the world doesn't have a clue about compassion. I don't like the following video or post because it feels off to me. Am I correct or do I have an error?", is not worded exactly in the way you feel it ought to be. It's the reason I was hoping Jesus would be able to discuss it. I recall a seminar video where Jesus opens with the question, "How's everybody's families?" Well, does this question not imply an underlying point. And a damn good one, in my opinion.

In regard to the story I posted that you found strange because I elected not to disclose the names of the people involved was simply due to the fact that I did not want to offend anybody but was supporting my initial post on what I felt was the world's false sense of compassion that, funny enough, I am still not clear about which was my upfront intention. Then to accuse me of trying to shame another individual, whom btw is not associated with DT, versus using the story to help others to understand real compassion, is an insult. I get the feeling it's what you hoped I was attempting to do.

One last thing I'd like to mention in regard to arrogance that was actually part of my and Niky H "debate". I feel, there is a fine line between being arrogant and delivering Truth in terms of how it may be perceived by the recipient. Example: "I am Jesus. Deal with it." I mean, how arrogant is this to a person who is not open enough to consider it? But yet, because it is the Truth, it cannot be arrogant from God's perspective. I have been perceived as being arrogant for sharing, displaying, posting or whatever I feel is the Truth. My intentions, though you may not agree, are to assist others in possibly obtaining a bit for themselves.

Thanks, Nicky, but I don't feel as though you're all that sincere in helping others grow in Love and Truth.

Reed (the Anti Christ)
At the moment, Reed feels it is OK to attack people, project anger/rage, condescension as well as remaining very arrogant and manipulative throughout. This email highlights to me that my previous decision to mute him were accurate. Many of the points raised in the strike threads initially are exhibited in more clarity here and Reed has now exposed to me his true intentions and motivations, none of which are in harmony with Divine Truth as Jesus & Mary teach it to be. There is very little humility and desire at present to self-reflect on previous feedback gifted to him as he has chosen to criticise and attack.

It is no coincidence that Reed has felt it appropriate to send me such an email, particularly after listening to the audio feedback recording concerning myself, Lena & Eloisa from Mary/Jesus I made available for everyone to listen to only a few short days ago.

Reed stated that he had listened to it in his email above and has since chosen to use what was shared (myself, Lena & Eloisa's current shortcomings) out of context to launch into an attack of predominantly myself, by attempting to prey on our current flaws to his advantage. When he engages in this, it gives him the feelings of superiority, power as well as feeding his quite large addiction to arrogance resulting in the projection of condescension and attack. His motivations and intentions are quite dark at this time and this is in part, driven by a group of very dark spirits around him who can work through him due to the co-dependency that exists between both parties.

As a result, Reed's account will now be banned from the forum as the previous provision of a muting (and still being able to view the forum) is one he does not yet value due to his desire to exercise his will in an unloving manner.


Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest