Sky Links, 8-4-18

About QAnon

Most Americans are currently unaware of the unprecedented and historic underground revolution taking place just outside the mainstream public purview. But that will change very soon. Like a dam ready to burst, this story can’t be contained much longer.

So, what exactly is “The Storm?” Most of us would probably agree that there is a great deal of corruption in our government, but we don’t believe there is much, if anything, we can do about it. Well…


As you read this, there is a brilliant plan being executed to identify, uproot and eliminate the corrupt and downright evil elements in government and society that are deeply entrenched, not only here in the U.S., but worldwide. Well-known, well-respected leaders and celebrities will soon be indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced, which will likely come as a complete shock to many, many good Americans – our friends and neighbors – that have simply been deceived and have bought in to the lies of the Deep State cabal.

Like something from a popular spy novel, this real-life 3D chess match and psychological operation (“PsyOp”) is being played out on the world stage with unofficial narration from an anonymous patriot or team of patriots known as Q.


Q is an individual or group with the highest level of security clearance somewhere in the Trump administration that last October began posting Real News, i.e the truth about what is really going on in the world behind the scenes. While everyone else is being indoctrinated by the mainstream news media’s deep state narrative, aka Fake News, those following Q’s posts are receiving timely and truthful information, predictions and instructions in advance of events actually taking place.

Compassion in the Aftermath of The Storm -Chris Jacobson

Preachers Emulating TED Talks Today

Mike Frost:  Okay, so I’ve got to be honest here. As someone who regularly presents at major Christian conferences around the world, I see a lot of TED-worthy talks being delivered in the name of Jesus. On big stages, with huge audiences, lighting, cameras, screens, the works.

They are highly rehearsed or have been delivered many times (which amounts to the same thing). They are derivative, shallow, and presented with a kind of faux intensity that wins over the newer members of the audience. They’re full of breathy expressions of how much God loves us, prearranged pauses, penetrating stares, trenchant attacks on the object of their scorn.

They repeat truths we’ve heard a million times, but deliver the material with such momentousness it makes you feel like you’re watching Kennedy announce the race to the moon.

They move some, but inform no one.

Why on earth are preachers looking to TED for clues on how to communicate? TED talks glorify “ideas” for their own sake, and reward glossy presentation over rigorous thought or intellectual debate.

Catholic priest, Henri Nouwen once said that the best preaching manages to be “flexible without being relativistic, convinced without being rigid, willing to confront without being offensive, gentle and forgiving without being soft, and true witnesses without being manipulative.”

That doesn’t sound like TED. In fact, it sounds like Jesus.

The sermon isn’t a set of ideas delivered by a guru or expert. It’s testimony, raw and true. The pulpit is a witness box, the congregation a jury and the preacher a witness to the truth that God is engaged in a redemptive mission of cosmic proportions in Christ.

The preacher’s voice should be filled with the unmistakable urgency, risk and passion of one giving dangerous testimony to the activity of God that otherwise goes unspoken. The church gathers to hear the truth and nothing but the truth about its living witness as a sign of the kingdom of God.

The best Christian preaching is rough, guileless, and unsophisticated. But it’s also marked by authenticity, truth and beauty.

Can you imagine Jesus delivering a TED talk? No, me either.  -Michael Frost

What Do Gen Z People Want From Church?


We asked the same group what they wanted in a church, what would help them believe and mature in that belief, and they nominated two basic things:


They wanted to feel that their questions were welcome, even when questioning basic christian teachings. That there was no barrier or stigma to expressing doubt about received answers because difficult questions were seen as the way to learn and grow. They saw exposure to diverse viewpoints as important in learning truth.

And they wanted honest and well-based answers. Too often churches give answers that conform to their dogma, but are hard to respect because historical, scientific or other scholarship doesn’t support the church’s answers, or the answers don’t gel with what most of us know about life, the world or God.

An example is the Canaanite genocide apparently commanded by God in the Old Testament and recorded in the book of Joshua. More conservative christians try to justify the commands attributable to God, but educated younger christians think it is blasphemous to think a good God would command such a thing, the archaeological evidence makes the Joshua account problematic, and anyway, Joshua tells two different stories, with the genocide appearing to be exaggeration.

Conservative christians can tend to gloss over the problems with their view in their determination to protect their doctrine of an inerrant Bible, but modern young adults tend to want to question this approach and resent having their questions shut down or answered inadequately.


The growth of social media indicates that generation Z values community and keeping in touch, even if older generations sometimes think social media provide only shallow communication. So it is no surprise to find that this generation tends to value the community side of christianity over passively sitting in church, or even actively worshiping. Many of them learn and grow in their faith most through discussion and learning with friends.


Millennials vs. Gen. Z 

Stop Using Filler Words Like "um", "ah", "so", "right?", "you know?",  and "like"

Noah Zandan:

The Trouble with Crutch Words

We know it’s hard to pay attention to a speaker when every third word is a filler, but it can be difficult to pinpoint exactly how those verbal crutches are affecting our experience. We analyzed over 4,000 spoken communication samples in our database to identify how much speakers are relying on filler words and how those words are affecting the way their audiences perceive them. While we found that the excessive use of fillers can negatively influence audiences in many ways, three critical factors are significantly negatively correlated with too many fillers.

To get your message across effectively, you have to keep your audience engaged. When you use excessive fillers, audiences are less likely to hang onto your every word because the fillers get in the way of the emotional stories or fascinating research you’re trying to share.

Audiences want to believe that you are acting and speaking naturally — the way you might in a one-on-one conversation. While of course most people use fillers in casual conversation, when you bring them with you to the microphone, they distract from your core personality and make you sound nervous, distracted, or disengaged rather than authentic.

If you want your audience to buy into your message, you have to make it clear, logical, and easy to follow. Unfortunately, filtering through crutch words to catch the important parts requires more cognitive effort than audiences are willing to put forth. So too many fillers will likely mean they’ll tune out in favor of an easier cognitive task —such as thinking about their to-do lists.

So why isn’t our speech fluent? Studies suggest that we verbalize hesitations because we’ve been conditioned to fill the void even when we don’t have something to say. For example, we use “um” and “ah” to hold onto the “conversational floor” as we are planning what we are going to say next, with “ah” signaling a short delay and “um” signaling a longer delay.

Good comment: I am surprised this article did not mention the word "so." I am rather frustrated by the frequency of the inappropriate use of "so." Few things are more aggravating, academically, than asking my students a yes-or-no question and their answers, invariably, start with the word "so." I have reached the point I have expanded my course expectations to include cessation of the inappropriate use of "so." If I receive papers that start out with the word "so," and it is more often than I care to admit, I immediately hand it back for them to correct. If I ask a yes or no question and the answer starts with the word "so," I ring the bell on my desk and he or she knows to start over. The word "so" is plaguing our ability to formulate and express a well crafted answer. -T McMannus

How to Stop Saying “Um,” “Ah,” and “You Know” -Noah Zandan

Most of The Fires Are Caused By People, Not Global Warming

Does anyone else remember the Smokey Bear ads? “Only YOU can prevent forest fires?” Something tells me they need to bring Smokey back to teach people how to enjoy nature more responsibly. But human error is only part of the issue.

The fires are more intense now because of the increased fuel loads. Dry grass, unchecked forest growth, and brush all add to the intensity and speed at which a fire burns.

...poor forest management has led to additional fuel. Humans have carelessly caused fire after fire. And a third of our growing population lives in areas that are much more prone to burn.

As our population grows, more and more people – one-third of homes, specifically – live in or near the forests and natural areas, something called Wildland-Urban Interface. According to a report by the USDA, if you are in that interface, sooner or later, you’re going to be at risk of a wildfire. “Homes located anywhere in the WUI will eventually be exposed to wildfire, regardless of vegetation type or potential for large fires.”

90% of Wildfires Are Caused by People, Not by “Climate Change” – Here’s Why (and How) You Must Prep Your Home for the Inevitable -Daisy Luther

Twitter Shadowbanning

Surveys show that Americans of all stripes don't always trust the information they receive from both mainstream media and Silicon Valley's online platforms. The trend is especially marked among Republicans.

54% of Republican or Republican-leaning adults said it was very likely that social media platforms censor political viewpoints they find objectionable. An additional 32% said it was somewhat likely.
64% of those adults say that major tech companies support liberal views over conservative ones.
20% of Democrats or Democratic-leaning adults said it was very likely that the platforms censor political views, and 42% said it was somewhat likely.

72% of Americans think social media sites intentionally censor political views -David McCabe

Photo Credit: Spacebridge by longobord CC 2.0