Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Sociopathy in the News
26 views
Skip to first unread message
Ellen
May 12, 2012, 3:55:17 PM5/12/12
to
Interesting article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1&src=dayp&pagewanted=all
"...In another study, the researcher Mark Dadds found that as C.U.
children matured, they developed the ability to simulate interest in
people’s feelings. “We called the paper ‘Learning to Talk the Talk,’ ”
Dadds said. “They have no emotional empathy, but they have cognitive
empathy; they can say what other people feel, they just don’t care or
feel it.” When Anne worried that Michael might have begun manipulating
his therapists — faking certain feelings to score points — she might
have been more right than she knew."
---
It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of psychology
that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths. The things that
characterize a sociopath are the same traits that make them successful
-- they are cunning, deceptive, manipulative, controlling, cold-
blooded, and ruthless. Many of the more intelligent are very good at
reading people and knowing how to fake the responses they know people
want to hear. Most salespersons are, at least somewhat, sociopathic.
The most successful have learned how to prosper and stay out of jail
but they are human predators nonetheless. They take advantage of
people. They are users.
From the beginning, it was obvious Werner Erhard was a sociopath.
What baffles me is why so many "normal" people still rush to his
defense. Are they so desperate to believe that some con-man ~loves~
them? Did they really think the fake ~I love you~ with which he ended
every correspondence was real?
Or are they just trying to protect his business and his business
model?
Ellen
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/magazine/can-you-call-a-9-year-old-a-psychopath.html?pagewanted=8&_r=1&src=dayp&pagewanted=all
"...In another study, the researcher Mark Dadds found that as C.U.
children matured, they developed the ability to simulate interest in
people’s feelings. “We called the paper ‘Learning to Talk the Talk,’ ”
Dadds said. “They have no emotional empathy, but they have cognitive
empathy; they can say what other people feel, they just don’t care or
feel it.” When Anne worried that Michael might have begun manipulating
his therapists — faking certain feelings to score points — she might
have been more right than she knew."
---
It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of psychology
that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths. The things that
characterize a sociopath are the same traits that make them successful
-- they are cunning, deceptive, manipulative, controlling, cold-
blooded, and ruthless. Many of the more intelligent are very good at
reading people and knowing how to fake the responses they know people
want to hear. Most salespersons are, at least somewhat, sociopathic.
The most successful have learned how to prosper and stay out of jail
but they are human predators nonetheless. They take advantage of
people. They are users.
From the beginning, it was obvious Werner Erhard was a sociopath.
What baffles me is why so many "normal" people still rush to his
defense. Are they so desperate to believe that some con-man ~loves~
them? Did they really think the fake ~I love you~ with which he ended
every correspondence was real?
Or are they just trying to protect his business and his business
model?
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 12, 2012, 11:44:24 PM5/12/12
to
> It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of psychology
> that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths.
you cast onto others you want to marginalize. "sociopath" is another
popular label you toss around casually to serve your attacks on
others.
> The things that characterize a sociopath are the same traits that make them successful
saying?
> -- they are cunning, deceptive, manipulative, controlling, cold-blooded, and ruthless.
> Many of the more intelligent are very good at reading people and knowing how to fake the responses they know people want to hear.
brightly here.
> Most salespersons are, at least somewhat, sociopathic.
> The most successful have learned how to prosper and stay out of jail but they are human predators nonetheless. They take advantage of people. They are users.
> From the beginning, it was obvious Werner Erhard was a sociopath.
>What baffles me is why so many "normal" people still rush to his defence.
Sounds to me like you hate America!
> Are they so desperate to believe that some con-man ~loves~ them?
> Did they really think the fake ~I love you~ with which he ended every correspondence was real?
experiences with "fake ~I love you~" onto others.
> Or are they just trying to protect his business and his business model?
>
> Ellen
Tex
May 12, 2012, 11:07:35 PM5/12/12
to
He says this in the very article in the Financial Times you posted here.
Most people who did est either didn't know Werner Erhard or kind of shrugged their shoulders and said "this guy came up with this?????"
Nice story though, Ellen.
Your comments will be quoted by many internet ~researchers~ as the Truth. ;)
Serena Nordstrup
May 13, 2012, 8:29:24 AM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 3:44 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
onto foods they want to marginalize.
> "sociopath" is another
> popular label you toss around casually to serve your attacks on
> others.
>
> > The things that characterize a sociopath are the same traits that make them successful
>
> Where is the science that uses these terms and backs up what you are
> saying?
>
> > -- they are cunning, deceptive, manipulative, controlling, cold-blooded, and ruthless.
>
> Sounds like you Ellen
>
> > Many of the more intelligent are very good at reading people and knowing how to fake the responses they know people want to hear.
>
> Your hurt and disappointment with people and your cynicism is shining
> brightly here.
What color shines from the alleged cynicism?
> > Most salespersons are, at least somewhat, sociopathic.
>
> Sounds to me like you hate America!
Market vendors in Benin do not mostly count as sociopathic...
> > The most successful have learned how to prosper and stay out of jail but they are human predators nonetheless. They take advantage of people. They are users.
>
> Sounds to me like you hate America!
Tierra del Fuego has such a miserable climate -- despite the relative
paucity of salesdroids there.
> > From the beginning, it was obvious Werner Erhard was a sociopath.
>
> "obvious" to who? You and Rick Ross? To who else?
>
> >What baffles me is why so many "normal" people still rush to his defence.
>
> Sounds to me like you hate America!
... and Russia, and Costa Rica, and the Caymans, and any other of Jack
Rosenberg's hideouts ...
wrote:
> > It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of psychology
> > that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths.
>
> There are no "gurus" and cult leaders, these are labels people like
> you cast onto others you want to marginalize.
No breads nor cheeses exist: rice-consumers simply cast these labels
> > that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths.
>
> There are no "gurus" and cult leaders, these are labels people like
> you cast onto others you want to marginalize.
onto foods they want to marginalize.
> "sociopath" is another
> popular label you toss around casually to serve your attacks on
> others.
>
> > The things that characterize a sociopath are the same traits that make them successful
>
> Where is the science that uses these terms and backs up what you are
> saying?
>
> > -- they are cunning, deceptive, manipulative, controlling, cold-blooded, and ruthless.
>
> Sounds like you Ellen
>
> > Many of the more intelligent are very good at reading people and knowing how to fake the responses they know people want to hear.
>
> Your hurt and disappointment with people and your cynicism is shining
> brightly here.
> > Most salespersons are, at least somewhat, sociopathic.
>
> Sounds to me like you hate America!
> > The most successful have learned how to prosper and stay out of jail but they are human predators nonetheless. They take advantage of people. They are users.
>
> Sounds to me like you hate America!
paucity of salesdroids there.
> > From the beginning, it was obvious Werner Erhard was a sociopath.
>
> "obvious" to who? You and Rick Ross? To who else?
>
> >What baffles me is why so many "normal" people still rush to his defence.
>
> Sounds to me like you hate America!
Rosenberg's hideouts ...
patrick
May 13, 2012, 11:59:36 AM5/13/12
to
their time lounging around for years is at the very least
taking advantage of people.
Message has been deleted
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 1:13:55 PM5/13/12
to
> anyone that has a company that asks for free labor
LEC has never asked for "free labor" and has never had and does not
have any "free labor" opportunities. There are paid staff persons and
people in programs. LEC has a very large and very popular Assisting
Training Program where people get training and development in the
exercise of leadership, communication and other things that people
say are important to them that they expect from LEC. These programs
are voluntary and people choose to enter these varied programs and
stay as long as they want to and then, like Caligari, reach cessation
point of some kind and no longer choose to participate in the
Assisting Training Program and do not. Interns and apprentices in all
walks of life also do not offer "free labor". "Free labor" = slavery
and is always involuntary.
>while they spend their time lounging around for years is at the very least taking advantage of people.
"lounging around"? And what is that based on? Some thought in your
head? Is that what your life consists of Patrick, "lounging around"
smoking weed and worshipping your Jesus cult?
Ellen
May 13, 2012, 1:27:10 PM5/13/12
to
On May 12, 8:44 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ratings.htm
Ellen
wrote:
> > It is obvious to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of psychology
> > that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths.
>
> There are no "gurus" and cult leaders, these are labels people like
> you cast onto others you want to marginalize. "sociopath" is another
> popular label you toss around casually to serve your attacks on
> others.
Guess you stayed home from school that day:
> > that most "gurus" and cult leaders, are sociopaths.
>
> There are no "gurus" and cult leaders, these are labels people like
> you cast onto others you want to marginalize. "sociopath" is another
> popular label you toss around casually to serve your attacks on
> others.
http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ratings.htm
Ellen
Caligari
May 13, 2012, 1:44:06 PM5/13/12
to
neither side proud of this...."
http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/RatingsF.htm#werner
Haha
Ellen
May 13, 2012, 3:08:26 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 10:13 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
"suggestion," mental coercion, or mind control? Or are you just
pretending (~creating your own reality~) not to.
Or did you drink too much Kool-Aid with the implanted ~idea~ that if
you assign a different word like "assisting," it's not the same thing.
I know why they kicked you over here; you're too stupid for even
Landmark.
Ellen
wrote:
> > anyone that has a company that asks for free labor
>
> LEC has never asked for "free labor" and has never had and does not
> have any "free labor" opportunities. There are paid staff persons and
> people in programs. LEC has a very large and very popular Assisting
> Training Program where people get training and development in the
> exercise of leadership, communication and other things that people
> say are important to them that they expect from LEC. These programs
> are voluntary and people choose to enter these varied programs and
> stay as long as they want to and then, like Caligari, reach cessation
> point of some kind and no longer choose to participate in the
> Assisting Training Program and do not. Interns and apprentices in all
> walks of life also do not offer "free labor". "Free labor" = slavery
> and is always involuntary.
Do you understand the first thing about seduction, manipulation,
>
> LEC has never asked for "free labor" and has never had and does not
> have any "free labor" opportunities. There are paid staff persons and
> people in programs. LEC has a very large and very popular Assisting
> Training Program where people get training and development in the
> exercise of leadership, communication and other things that people
> say are important to them that they expect from LEC. These programs
> are voluntary and people choose to enter these varied programs and
> stay as long as they want to and then, like Caligari, reach cessation
> point of some kind and no longer choose to participate in the
> Assisting Training Program and do not. Interns and apprentices in all
> walks of life also do not offer "free labor". "Free labor" = slavery
> and is always involuntary.
"suggestion," mental coercion, or mind control? Or are you just
pretending (~creating your own reality~) not to.
Or did you drink too much Kool-Aid with the implanted ~idea~ that if
you assign a different word like "assisting," it's not the same thing.
I know why they kicked you over here; you're too stupid for even
Landmark.
Ellen
Ellen
May 13, 2012, 4:20:03 PM5/13/12
to
Werner Erhard's not lounging around. He's hitting the circuit in a
desperate last-ditch effort to ~resurrect~ his "reputation." He's
imagining he can snow as many people as he did back in the 70s with
his slickster patter and "charisma" (blech). He's fantasizing a "new-
life" for his ~creation~ -- that stupid warmed-over hash of
scientology and "Think and Grow Rich" and perverted Dale Carnagie and
Psychocybernetics that brought him the fame 'n' fortune to which he
felt entitled. There's money in cults, you betcha. Too bad he
couldn't stomach the down/dark side of cult creation -- someone might
actually expose your ~sources~ and your hypocrisy and abuse and make
you look really, really foolish/evil. And too bad the only people
this might work on are either dead or have Alzheimer's or are too
clueless to look anything up or do any research. Heaven knows, his
70's eras "fans" are so brain-damaged they aren't of any use to him.
And Patrick has never served himself up as an example and charged
people money for some idiotic "program." Do you think attacking him
is helping your ~cause?~ What is your ~cause,~ anyway. Is this some
~project~ you picked? Did they give you a list, (for the
unimaginative), of ~possibilities~ where they suggest "defending
Werner and est/Landmark on the internet" is a good ~choice?~
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 4:24:19 PM5/13/12
to
> Guess you stayed home from school that day:
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/sarlo/Ratings.htm
>
> Ellen
that your internet reference material there does not have any
credibility in Caligari's "real" world and is ignored by most
respectable thinkers who are interested in critical thinking.
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 4:38:18 PM5/13/12
to
whistleblower coming through!!!! Go gettem tiger!
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 4:44:16 PM5/13/12
to
> And Patrick has never served himself up as an example and charged people money for some idiotic "program." Do you think attacking him is helping your ~cause?~
May 12, 2012 02:10PM
patrick-darcy
Date Added: 01/21/2003
Posts: 338
Re: hi again
first thing, try not to overthink . second , remember the cults have
no truth and they in a round about way attempt to make u believe what
they say is the truth even though they tell u that they have no
truth.
turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and your
soul and u will be just fine.
Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it
now. ...............................................................david
gray"
> What is your ~cause,~ anyway. Is this some ~project~ you picked?
May 12, 2012 02:10PM
patrick-darcy
Date Added: 01/21/2003
Posts: 338
Re: hi again
first thing, try not to overthink . second , remember the cults have
no truth and they in a round about way attempt to make u believe what
they say is the truth even though they tell u that they have no
truth.
turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and your
soul and u will be just fine.
Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it
now. ...............................................................david
gray"
> What is your ~cause,~ anyway. Is this some ~project~ you picked?
> Did they give you a list, (for the unimaginative), of ~possibilities~ where they suggest "defending Werner and est/Landmark on the internet" is a good ~choice?~
May 12, 2012 02:10PM
patrick-darcy
Date Added: 01/21/2003
Posts: 338
Re: hi again
first thing, try not to overthink . second , remember the cults have
no truth and they in a round about way attempt to make u believe what
they say is the truth even though they tell u that they have no
truth.
turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and your
soul and u will be just fine.
Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it
now. ...............................................................david
gray"
> What is your ~cause,~ anyway. Is this some ~project~ you picked?
The "turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and
your soul and u will be just fine." line is my fave, don'tya love
it?
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 4:33:54 PM5/13/12
to
> Do you understand the first thing about seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind control?
who rants about these topics positions themselves as instant "experts"
on "seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind
control" after having skimmed a few blogs and articles and message
boards. I don't regard you or them as "experts" or people worth
listening to, no matter how loud or often you talk. Maybe when you
are invited to harvard or the Whitehouse to say your 2 cents, I will
prick up my ears.
>Or are you just pretending (~creating your own reality~)
>not to.
> Or did you drink too much Kool-Aid
Who drinks "Kool-Aid"? I have never drank "kool-aid". Wasn't that
some drink from the 50's? How old are you lady?
>with the implanted ~idea~ that if you assign a different word like "assisting," it's not the same thing.
> I know why they kicked you over here; you're too stupid for even
similar all knowingness.
> Landmark.
>
> Ellen
Ellen
May 13, 2012, 4:56:02 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 1:24 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I wouldn't expect otherwise.
Of course you prefer the used-car-sales version of reality.
The brainwash works so well on certain types (those whose narcissism
dove-tails with Werner's) that they/you might spend a life-time
~enthralled.~
Ellen
wrote:
Of course you prefer the used-car-sales version of reality.
The brainwash works so well on certain types (those whose narcissism
dove-tails with Werner's) that they/you might spend a life-time
~enthralled.~
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 5:31:27 PM5/13/12
to
> I wouldn't expect otherwise.
and your Guru Rick Ross?
> Of course you prefer the used-car-sales version of reality.
Mayor? United Nations Ambassador? What does this tiny piece of
respectable ancient history that is dragged up by you and Rick Ross,
"used-car-sales" have to do with anything?
> The brainwash works so well on certain types (those whose narcissism dove-tails with Werner's) that they/you might spend a life-time~enthralled.~
relationship to education and authority there , nothing more.
>
> Ellen
Tex
May 13, 2012, 9:30:45 PM5/13/12
to
Delusional old lady crossing ahead
Sinead (Author)
May 13, 2012, 9:37:47 PM5/13/12
to
> GO SLOW
> Delusional old lady crossing ahead
Tex
May 13, 2012, 9:47:12 PM5/13/12
to
then she's just your ordinary internet troll fishing for a bite.
Desperately seeking attention in a lonely world.
Ellen
May 13, 2012, 10:01:19 PM5/13/12
to
in this context.
(You're no spring chicken yourself, you old poop.)
Ellen
Ellen
May 13, 2012, 10:04:22 PM5/13/12
to
On May 13, 6:47 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>blah, blah, blah....
Oh wait,
There's more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html?_r=1&hp
Opinion
Capitalists and Other Psychopaths
By WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ
Published: May 12, 2012
THERE is an ongoing debate in this country about the rich: who they
are, what their social role may be, whether they are good or bad.
Well, consider the following. A recent study found that 10 percent of
people who work on Wall Street are “clinical psychopaths,” exhibiting
a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an “unparalleled
capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation.” (The proportion at
large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more
likely to lie, cheat and break the law.
The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would
find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form,
and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior. This should hardly be
news. The English writer Bernard Mandeville asserted as much nearly
three centuries ago in a satirical-poem-cum-philosophical-treatise
called “The Fable of the Bees.”
“Private Vices, Publick Benefits” read the book’s subtitle. A
Machiavelli of the economic realm — a man who showed us as we are, not
as we like to think we are — Mandeville argued that commercial society
creates prosperity by harnessing our natural impulses: fraud, luxury
and pride. By “pride” Mandeville meant vanity; by “luxury” he meant
the desire for sensuous indulgence. These create demand, as every ad
man knows. On the supply side, as we’d say, was fraud: “All Trades and
Places knew some Cheat, / No Calling was without Deceit.”
In other words, Enron, BP, Goldman, Philip Morris, G.E., Merck, etc.,
etc. Accounting fraud, tax evasion, toxic dumping, product safety
violations, bid rigging, overbilling, perjury. The Walmart bribery
scandal, the News Corp. hacking scandal — just open up the business
section on an average day. Shafting your workers, hurting your
customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab.
These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away
with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.
I always found the notion of a business school amusing. What kinds of
courses do they offer? Robbing Widows and Orphans? Grinding the Faces
of the Poor? Having It Both Ways? Feeding at the Public Trough? There
was a documentary several years ago called “The Corporation” that
accepted the premise that corporations are persons and then asked what
kind of people they are. The answer was, precisely, psychopaths:
indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to
their own interests.
There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but
ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect
morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist
values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians
in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an
unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.)
Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like
Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us
to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the
single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every
man for himself.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about “job creators,” a phrase
begotten by Frank Luntz, the right-wing propaganda guru, on the ghost
of Ayn Rand. The rich deserve our gratitude as well as everything they
have, in other words, and all the rest is envy.
First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth
creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers
use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess
productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes
to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other,
but that’s what happens nonetheless.
Also, entrepreneurs and the rich are different and only partly
overlapping categories. Most of the rich are not entrepreneurs; they
are executives of established corporations, institutional managers of
other kinds, the wealthiest doctors and lawyers, the most successful
entertainers and athletes, people who simply inherited their money or,
yes, people who work on Wall Street.
MOST important, neither entrepreneurs nor the rich have a monopoly on
brains, sweat or risk. There are scientists — and artists and scholars
— who are just as smart as any entrepreneur, only they are interested
in different rewards. A single mother holding down a job and putting
herself through community college works just as hard as any hedge fund
manager. A person who takes out a mortgage — or a student loan, or who
conceives a child — on the strength of a job she knows she could lose
at any moment (thanks, perhaps, to one of those job creators) assumes
as much risk as someone who starts a business.
Enormous matters of policy depend on these perceptions: what we’re
going to tax, and how much; what we’re going to spend, and on whom.
But while “job creators” may be a new term, the adulation it expresses
— and the contempt that it so clearly signals — are not. “Poor
Americans are urged to hate themselves,” Kurt Vonnegut wrote in
“Slaughterhouse-Five.” And so, “they mock themselves and glorify their
betters.” Our most destructive lie, he added, “is that it is very easy
for any American to make money.” The lie goes on. The poor are lazy,
stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They
shower their beneficence upon the rest of us.
Mandeville believed the individual pursuit of self-interest could
redound to public benefit, but unlike Adam Smith, he didn’t think it
did so on its own. Smith’s “hand” was “invisible” — the automatic
operation of the market. Mandeville’s involved “the dextrous
Management of a skilful Politician” — in modern terms, legislation,
regulation and taxation. Or as he versified it, “Vice is beneficial
found, / When it’s by Justice lopt, and bound.”
An essayist, critic and the author of “A Jane Austen Education.”
--------
>blah, blah, blah....
Oh wait,
There's more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html?_r=1&hp
Opinion
Capitalists and Other Psychopaths
By WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ
Published: May 12, 2012
THERE is an ongoing debate in this country about the rich: who they
are, what their social role may be, whether they are good or bad.
Well, consider the following. A recent study found that 10 percent of
people who work on Wall Street are “clinical psychopaths,” exhibiting
a lack of interest in and empathy for others and an “unparalleled
capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation.” (The proportion at
large is 1 percent.) Another study concluded that the rich are more
likely to lie, cheat and break the law.
The only thing that puzzles me about these claims is that anyone would
find them surprising. Wall Street is capitalism in its purest form,
and capitalism is predicated on bad behavior. This should hardly be
news. The English writer Bernard Mandeville asserted as much nearly
three centuries ago in a satirical-poem-cum-philosophical-treatise
called “The Fable of the Bees.”
“Private Vices, Publick Benefits” read the book’s subtitle. A
Machiavelli of the economic realm — a man who showed us as we are, not
as we like to think we are — Mandeville argued that commercial society
creates prosperity by harnessing our natural impulses: fraud, luxury
and pride. By “pride” Mandeville meant vanity; by “luxury” he meant
the desire for sensuous indulgence. These create demand, as every ad
man knows. On the supply side, as we’d say, was fraud: “All Trades and
Places knew some Cheat, / No Calling was without Deceit.”
In other words, Enron, BP, Goldman, Philip Morris, G.E., Merck, etc.,
etc. Accounting fraud, tax evasion, toxic dumping, product safety
violations, bid rigging, overbilling, perjury. The Walmart bribery
scandal, the News Corp. hacking scandal — just open up the business
section on an average day. Shafting your workers, hurting your
customers, destroying the land. Leaving the public to pick up the tab.
These aren’t anomalies; this is how the system works: you get away
with what you can and try to weasel out when you get caught.
I always found the notion of a business school amusing. What kinds of
courses do they offer? Robbing Widows and Orphans? Grinding the Faces
of the Poor? Having It Both Ways? Feeding at the Public Trough? There
was a documentary several years ago called “The Corporation” that
accepted the premise that corporations are persons and then asked what
kind of people they are. The answer was, precisely, psychopaths:
indifferent to others, incapable of guilt, exclusively devoted to
their own interests.
There are ethical corporations, yes, and ethical businesspeople, but
ethics in capitalism is purely optional, purely extrinsic. To expect
morality in the market is to commit a category error. Capitalist
values are antithetical to Christian ones. (How the loudest Christians
in our public life can also be the most bellicose proponents of an
unbridled free market is a matter for their own consciences.)
Capitalist values are also antithetical to democratic ones. Like
Christian ethics, the principles of republican government require us
to consider the interests of others. Capitalism, which entails the
single-minded pursuit of profit, would have us believe that it’s every
man for himself.
There’s been a lot of talk lately about “job creators,” a phrase
begotten by Frank Luntz, the right-wing propaganda guru, on the ghost
of Ayn Rand. The rich deserve our gratitude as well as everything they
have, in other words, and all the rest is envy.
First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth
creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers
use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess
productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes
to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other,
but that’s what happens nonetheless.
Also, entrepreneurs and the rich are different and only partly
overlapping categories. Most of the rich are not entrepreneurs; they
are executives of established corporations, institutional managers of
other kinds, the wealthiest doctors and lawyers, the most successful
entertainers and athletes, people who simply inherited their money or,
yes, people who work on Wall Street.
MOST important, neither entrepreneurs nor the rich have a monopoly on
brains, sweat or risk. There are scientists — and artists and scholars
— who are just as smart as any entrepreneur, only they are interested
in different rewards. A single mother holding down a job and putting
herself through community college works just as hard as any hedge fund
manager. A person who takes out a mortgage — or a student loan, or who
conceives a child — on the strength of a job she knows she could lose
at any moment (thanks, perhaps, to one of those job creators) assumes
as much risk as someone who starts a business.
Enormous matters of policy depend on these perceptions: what we’re
going to tax, and how much; what we’re going to spend, and on whom.
But while “job creators” may be a new term, the adulation it expresses
— and the contempt that it so clearly signals — are not. “Poor
Americans are urged to hate themselves,” Kurt Vonnegut wrote in
“Slaughterhouse-Five.” And so, “they mock themselves and glorify their
betters.” Our most destructive lie, he added, “is that it is very easy
for any American to make money.” The lie goes on. The poor are lazy,
stupid and evil. The rich are brilliant, courageous and good. They
shower their beneficence upon the rest of us.
Mandeville believed the individual pursuit of self-interest could
redound to public benefit, but unlike Adam Smith, he didn’t think it
did so on its own. Smith’s “hand” was “invisible” — the automatic
operation of the market. Mandeville’s involved “the dextrous
Management of a skilful Politician” — in modern terms, legislation,
regulation and taxation. Or as he versified it, “Vice is beneficial
found, / When it’s by Justice lopt, and bound.”
An essayist, critic and the author of “A Jane Austen Education.”
--------
Serena Nordstrup
May 14, 2012, 7:29:48 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 5:13 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
for something else ...
> and has never had and does not
> have any "free labor" opportunities.
... just unpaid contracts ...
> There are paid staff persons and
> people in programs.
... and some of those programs feature and encourage unremunerated
work ...
> LEC has a very large and very popular Assisting
> Training Program where people get training and development in the
> exercise of leadership, communication and other things
like recruiting, and lake arranging chairs ...
> that people
> say are important to them that they expect from LEC. These programs
> are voluntary and people choose to enter these varied programs and
> stay as long as they want to and then, like Caligari, reach cessation
> point of some kind and no longer choose to participate in the
> Assisting Training Program and do not. Interns and apprentices in all
> walks of life also do not offer "free labor". "Free labor" = slavery
> and is always involuntary.
Handy definition -- and the opposite of a familiar standard
definition. The Oxford English Dictionary has: "free - c. Of or
designating workers who are not slaves. Esp. in free labour (freq.
contrasted with slave labour [...]"
wrote:
> > anyone that has a company that asks for free labor
>
> LEC has never asked for "free labor"
~landmark~ so-called ~education~ just gets its labor gratis by asking
>
> LEC has never asked for "free labor"
for something else ...
> and has never had and does not
> have any "free labor" opportunities.
> There are paid staff persons and
> people in programs.
work ...
> LEC has a very large and very popular Assisting
> Training Program where people get training and development in the
> exercise of leadership, communication and other things
> that people
> say are important to them that they expect from LEC. These programs
> are voluntary and people choose to enter these varied programs and
> stay as long as they want to and then, like Caligari, reach cessation
> point of some kind and no longer choose to participate in the
> Assisting Training Program and do not. Interns and apprentices in all
> walks of life also do not offer "free labor". "Free labor" = slavery
> and is always involuntary.
definition. The Oxford English Dictionary has: "free - c. Of or
designating workers who are not slaves. Esp. in free labour (freq.
contrasted with slave labour [...]"
Serena Nordstrup
May 14, 2012, 7:35:04 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 8:33 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> and anyone
> who rants about these topics positions themselves as instant "experts"
> on "seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind
> control" after having skimmed a few blogs and articles and message
> boards.
Unlike non-ranters ...
>I don't regard you or them as "experts" or people worth
> listening to, no matter how loud or often you talk.
Unlike non-ranters ...
wrote:
> > Do you understand the first thing about seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind control?
>
> No I do not, do you? I know you and your "guru" Rick Ross
... and you know this how?
>
> No I do not, do you? I know you and your "guru" Rick Ross
> and anyone
> who rants about these topics positions themselves as instant "experts"
> on "seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind
> control" after having skimmed a few blogs and articles and message
> boards.
>I don't regard you or them as "experts" or people worth
> listening to, no matter how loud or often you talk.
Serena Nordstrup
May 14, 2012, 7:40:09 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 8:44 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Where here does Patrick "charge people money" ?
wrote:
> > And Patrick has never served himself up as an example and charged people money for some idiotic "program." Do you think attacking him is helping your ~cause?~
>
> http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?4,109147,110357#msg-110357
> May 12, 2012 02:10PM
> patrick-darcy
> Date Added: 01/21/2003
> Posts: 338
> Re: hi again
> first thing, try not to overthink . second , remember the cults have
> no truth and they in a round about way attempt to make u believe what
> they say is the truth even though they tell u that they have no
> truth.
>
> turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and your
> soul and u will be just fine.
>
> Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it
> now. ...............................................................david
> gray"
Where here does Patrick "serve himself up as an example" ?
>
> http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?4,109147,110357#msg-110357
> May 12, 2012 02:10PM
> patrick-darcy
> Date Added: 01/21/2003
> Posts: 338
> Re: hi again
> first thing, try not to overthink . second , remember the cults have
> no truth and they in a round about way attempt to make u believe what
> they say is the truth even though they tell u that they have no
> truth.
>
> turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and your
> soul and u will be just fine.
>
> Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it
> now. ...............................................................david
> gray"
Where here does Patrick "charge people money" ?
Sinead (Author)
May 14, 2012, 8:36:41 AM5/14/12
to
On May 14, 7:35 am, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 8:33 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Do you understand the first thing about seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind control?
>
> > No I do not, do you? I know you and your "guru" Rick Ross
>
> ... and you know this how?
>
> > and anyone
> > who rants about these topics positions themselves as instant "experts"
> > on "seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind
> > control" after having skimmed a few blogs and articles and message
> > boards.
>
> Unlike non-ranters ...
>
> >I don't regard you or them as "experts" or people worth
> > listening to, no matter how loud or often you talk.
>
> Unlike non-ranters ...
> On May 14, 8:33 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Do you understand the first thing about seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind control?
>
> > No I do not, do you? I know you and your "guru" Rick Ross
>
> ... and you know this how?
>
> > and anyone
> > who rants about these topics positions themselves as instant "experts"
> > on "seduction, manipulation, "suggestion," mental coercion, or mind
> > control" after having skimmed a few blogs and articles and message
> > boards.
>
> Unlike non-ranters ...
>
> >I don't regard you or them as "experts" or people worth
> > listening to, no matter how loud or often you talk.
>
> Unlike non-ranters ...
"turn to God and he will help u.
give him your mind, your body and your soul and u will be just fine."
"Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it now."
Patrick
give him your mind, your body and your soul and u will be just fine."
"Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it now."
Sinead (Author)
May 14, 2012, 8:37:14 AM5/14/12
to
> Handy definition -- and the opposite of a familiar standard
> definition. The Oxford English Dictionary has: "free - c. Of or
> designating workers who are not slaves. Esp. in free labour (freq.
> contrasted with slave labour [...]"
Sinead (Author)
May 14, 2012, 8:34:24 AM5/14/12
to
> Where here does Patrick "serve himself up as an example" ?
>
> Where here does Patrick "charge people money" ?
Tex
May 14, 2012, 1:24:31 PM5/14/12
to
Thanks.
Clearly, we can count on your support to re-elect President Obama.
The above article sounds like a Romney bio.
Serena Nordstrup
May 16, 2012, 3:00:11 AM5/16/12
to
On May 14, 9:31 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
<snip>
> What does this tiny piece of
> respectable ancient history that is dragged up by you and Rick Ross,
> "used-car-sales" have to do with anything?
Perhaps it may have to do with reflecting an emphasis on sales as
opposed to an emphasis on serious ontology.
wrote:
<snip>
> What does this tiny piece of
> respectable ancient history that is dragged up by you and Rick Ross,
> "used-car-sales" have to do with anything?
opposed to an emphasis on serious ontology.
Serena Nordstrup
May 16, 2012, 3:04:34 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 12:37 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
A definition, huh? In what sense does that series of injunctions
represent a definition? What gets defined?
wrote:
represent a definition? What gets defined?
Serena Nordstrup
May 16, 2012, 6:44:31 AM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 12:34 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Where here does Patrick "charge people money" ?
>
> Dunno. The matter remains off-topic.
When Ellen wrote: 'And Patrick has never served himself up as an
matter as off-topic. When Sinead quoted what Ellen had written and
responded to it by quoting one of Patrick's posts, no-one noted the
matter as off-topic.
At what point did the matter become off-topic?
wrote:
> > Where here does Patrick "serve himself up as an example" ?
Where here does Patrick "serve himself up as an example", Sinead ?
> > Where here does Patrick "charge people money" ?
>
> Dunno. The matter remains off-topic.
example and charged people money for some idiotic "program." Do you
think attacking him is helping your ~cause?~ ' -- no-one noted the
matter as off-topic. When Sinead quoted what Ellen had written and
responded to it by quoting one of Patrick's posts, no-one noted the
matter as off-topic.
At what point did the matter become off-topic?
Serena Nordstrup
May 16, 2012, 6:48:50 AM5/16/12
to
On May 14, 1:37 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
wrote:
> > GO SLOW
> > Delusional old lady crossing ahead
>
> All road signs point to a complete and total nutcase.
... except road sings pointing to Chungking.
> > Delusional old lady crossing ahead
>
> All road signs point to a complete and total nutcase.
Sinead (Author)
May 16, 2012, 8:51:36 AM5/16/12
to
the topic of being a "fan" of Landmark Edu. going foreword. Thanks.
Ellen
May 17, 2012, 12:41:24 PM5/17/12
to
On May 16, 5:51 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hey, thanks for ~playing,~ "Sin."
Really, you're doing a great job of displaying Landmarkian
~transformation~ for us all here. Some of us might have forgotten
what it was like as memories fade.
You paid a few hundred bucks for some ~enlightenment~ "program" and
flail around with your fake ~education~ thinking you're fooling anyone
here? C'mon. We've heard the same nasty-ass stuff for decades. And
the phony concern for ~humanity~ and ~making the world work~ cr*p,
that's as stale as the silly chalkboard and stainless steel beaker at
the front of the stage.
The sad, sad fact is that there are lots like you who, for whatever
sick reason, emerge from these "programs" with some mutation of high-
pressure sales zealotry, tricky tendencies to manipulate, obnoxious
personal ~empowerment,~ pushy and aggressive righteousness, deluded
superiority, adolescent pseudo-philosophy, moral laxity, juvenile chip-
on-the-shoulder hostility, and nasty reactive rage to any criticism of
Landmark, est, or Werner. For too many, Landmark "training" magnifies
and enhances the worst human tendencies -- all wrapped up and
disguised as something good. It's really funny when you think of it
from a paradoxical perspective; what other business sells you a
disease that tricks you into thinking you're extraordinarily healthy.
Or a shop that sells you some atrocious suit that fools you into
thinking you look really good. Or a group that sells you "insurance"
on your investments that leverages your loss into the stratosphere.
What amuses me is that they are still getting away with this low-rent
scam. It's because they can still find people like you, that's how.
Ellen
wrote:
Really, you're doing a great job of displaying Landmarkian
~transformation~ for us all here. Some of us might have forgotten
what it was like as memories fade.
You paid a few hundred bucks for some ~enlightenment~ "program" and
flail around with your fake ~education~ thinking you're fooling anyone
here? C'mon. We've heard the same nasty-ass stuff for decades. And
the phony concern for ~humanity~ and ~making the world work~ cr*p,
that's as stale as the silly chalkboard and stainless steel beaker at
the front of the stage.
The sad, sad fact is that there are lots like you who, for whatever
sick reason, emerge from these "programs" with some mutation of high-
pressure sales zealotry, tricky tendencies to manipulate, obnoxious
personal ~empowerment,~ pushy and aggressive righteousness, deluded
superiority, adolescent pseudo-philosophy, moral laxity, juvenile chip-
on-the-shoulder hostility, and nasty reactive rage to any criticism of
Landmark, est, or Werner. For too many, Landmark "training" magnifies
and enhances the worst human tendencies -- all wrapped up and
disguised as something good. It's really funny when you think of it
from a paradoxical perspective; what other business sells you a
disease that tricks you into thinking you're extraordinarily healthy.
Or a shop that sells you some atrocious suit that fools you into
thinking you look really good. Or a group that sells you "insurance"
on your investments that leverages your loss into the stratosphere.
What amuses me is that they are still getting away with this low-rent
scam. It's because they can still find people like you, that's how.
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 17, 2012, 7:02:08 PM5/17/12
to
|
|
|
A look into Ellen's world. What a vivid snapshot.
Ben Lewis
May 17, 2012, 8:10:43 PM5/17/12
to
Swinging her sword and slaying evil windmills. It's almost
embarrassing to read.
ben-estie
Tex
May 17, 2012, 9:40:27 PM5/17/12
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
Symptoms of this disorder include, but are not limited to:
Reacts to criticism with anger, shame, or humiliation
May take advantage of others to reach their own goal
Tends to exaggerate their own importance, achievements, and talents
Imagines unrealistic fantasies of success, beauty, power, intelligence, or romance
Requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from others
Easily becomes jealous
Lacks empathy and disregards the feelings of others
Obsessed with oneself
Mainly pursues selfish goals
Trouble keeping healthy relationships
Is easily hurt and rejected
Sets unrealistic goals
Wants "the best" of everything
Appears as tough-minded or unemotional [4]
Serena Nordstrup
May 19, 2012, 6:27:56 AM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 11:02 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Spot the ~distinction~ between Ellen's world and a few trenchant
samples of Ellen's (undisputed) ~opinions~...
wrote:
samples of Ellen's (undisputed) ~opinions~...
Serena Nordstrup
May 19, 2012, 6:44:08 AM5/19/12
to
Serena Nordstrup
May 19, 2012, 6:32:24 AM5/19/12
to
On May 18, 12:10 pm, Ben Lewis <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT), "Sinead (Author)"
>
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 16:02:08 -0700 (PDT), "Sinead (Author)"
>
insinuation, leaving each of Ellen's points unrefuted ...
Tex
May 19, 2012, 10:17:01 AM5/19/12
to
noun
1.
an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2.
any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3.
unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4.
such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
Ellen
May 19, 2012, 1:06:59 PM5/19/12
to
in a giant stinking heap.
Without knowledge, thought, or reason? I've got plenty of knowledge,
thought, and reason. How'd I give you the impression I haven't
thought about this nonsense? How many "reasons" does a person need?
Fifty? A hundred? A thousand?
> 2.
> any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
times. And rarely put up a "feeling," though I "feel" pretty
mystified that these clowns are still in business. Actually, I feel
sick -- Blechhhhh.
> 3.
> unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, especially of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
> 4.
> such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
>
thing over and over and over someone (anyone) will believe it? Or are
they paying you by the word, the way ol' ElRon got paid to write his
pulp science fiction...
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 19, 2012, 6:09:16 PM5/19/12
to
> What are you thinking, "Tex?" That if you keep repeating the same
> thing over and over and over someone (anyone) will believe it?
Ellen, are you unaware that you, ?Serena? and spamalot Rick are the
ones in alt.fan.landmark who resort to the repetition tactic? Your
posts expose the three of you to be people that must think that if
you 'keep repeating the same thing over and over and over someone
(anyone) will believe it?', that you are talking about yourself.
Tex
May 19, 2012, 5:54:42 PM5/19/12
to
You actually blur the line by including Scientology and it's more defined ad declared membership as the same.
I took the est Training nearly 30 years ago.
Only a prejudiced bigot would consider that participation membership to Scientology.
You once stated you didn't take yourself seriously.
Understandable.
>
>
>
>
> Ellen
Ben Lewis
May 19, 2012, 7:18:22 PM5/19/12
to
On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Tex <ritte...@yahoo.com>
>> > prej�u�dice? ?[prej-uh-dis] �Show IPA noun, verb, prej�u�diced, prej�u�dic�ing.
And I, 34 years ago.
>Only a prejudiced bigot would consider that participation membership to Scientology.
You can say THAT again, Tex!! I knew about hubbard and his
scientology long before I discovered est. Knew enough to stay well
clear of it!
bentot
>Only a prejudiced bigot would consider that participation membership to Scientology.
scientology long before I discovered est. Knew enough to stay well
clear of it!
bentot
Ellen
May 19, 2012, 11:14:23 PM5/19/12
to
On May 19, 4:18 pm, Ben Lewis <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com>
Uhhhh....
Don't congratulate yourself too much there, bentot.
Est has been referred to as scientology-lite.
Werner Erhard called it "scientology without the woo-woo."
Ellen
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com>
Don't congratulate yourself too much there, bentot.
Est has been referred to as scientology-lite.
Werner Erhard called it "scientology without the woo-woo."
Ellen
Tex
May 19, 2012, 11:59:46 PM5/19/12
to
We really need more bandwidth for all the dipshit ideas out there, don't we Ellen? ;)
BTW, the lunar landing was a hoax, right?
Someone said it in a newsgroup somewhere.
Must be true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
Ellen
May 20, 2012, 3:21:29 PM5/20/12
to
On May 19, 8:59 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And President Obama has been referred to as a Muslim born in Kenya.
> We really need more bandwidth for all the dipshit ideas out there, don't we Ellen?
Gee, "Tex,"
> And President Obama has been referred to as a Muslim born in Kenya.
> We really need more bandwidth for all the dipshit ideas out there, don't we Ellen?
You're a real genius.
> BTW, the lunar landing was a hoax, right?
Lemme see hear:
Because someone says something silly, or believes in something
preposterous, then everything said by anyone must be untrue. Now how
does that work? For you, apparently.
> Someone said it in a newsgroup somewhere.
> Must be true.
landing hoaxes, that enough gullible people will make the leap. Well,
if they do, I say they belong in Landmark. It might be the only
~education~ they ever get. Est and scinetology are forever linked
because Weener was too stupid to disassociate himself from ElRon early
on. He used E-Meters on his own staff, for chrissakes.
Ellen
Sinead (Author)
May 20, 2012, 10:11:30 PM5/20/12
to
> Est and scinetology are forever linked
> because Weener was too stupid to disassociate himself from ElRon early
> on. He used E-Meters on his own staff, for chrissakes.
>
> Ellen
You appear to be obsessed or heavily involved (at least mentally and
> because Weener was too stupid to disassociate himself from ElRon early
> on. He used E-Meters on his own staff, for chrissakes.
>
> Ellen
emotionally) with Scientology Ellen. Probably more so than some card
carrying Scientologists.
Tex
May 20, 2012, 10:36:07 PM5/20/12
to
On Sunday, May 20, 2012 3:21:29 PM UTC-4, Ellen wrote:
> On May 19, 8:59 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And President Obama has been referred to as a Muslim born in Kenya.
> > We really need more bandwidth for all the dipshit ideas out there, don't we Ellen?
>
>
> Gee, "Tex,"
>
> You're a real genius.
>
>
>
> > BTW, the lunar landing was a hoax, right?
>
>
> Hmmmm...
>
>
> Lemme see hear:
>
> Because someone says something silly, or believes in something
> preposterous, then everything said by anyone must be untrue. Now how
> does that work? For you, apparently.
>
>
>
> > Someone said it in a newsgroup somewhere.
> > Must be true.
>
>
> Or do you think that because you can mention Obama/Kenya or lunar
> landing hoaxes, that enough gullible people will make the leap.
That seems to be what you are counting on.
> On May 19, 8:59 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And President Obama has been referred to as a Muslim born in Kenya.
> > We really need more bandwidth for all the dipshit ideas out there, don't we Ellen?
>
>
> Gee, "Tex,"
>
> You're a real genius.
>
>
>
> > BTW, the lunar landing was a hoax, right?
>
>
> Hmmmm...
>
>
> Lemme see hear:
>
> Because someone says something silly, or believes in something
> preposterous, then everything said by anyone must be untrue. Now how
> does that work? For you, apparently.
>
>
>
> > Someone said it in a newsgroup somewhere.
> > Must be true.
>
>
> Or do you think that because you can mention Obama/Kenya or lunar
> landing hoaxes, that enough gullible people will make the leap.
Ellen
May 20, 2012, 11:22:50 PM5/20/12
to
Ellen
Serena Nordstrup
May 23, 2012, 2:23:17 AM5/23/12
to
On May 20, 10:09 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadauth...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> think that if
> you 'keep repeating the same thing over and over and over someone
> (anyone) will believe it?', that you are talking about yourself.
... rather than about more repetitive folk?
wrote:
> > What are you thinking, "Tex?" That if you keep repeating the same
> > thing over and over and over someone (anyone) will believe it?
> > Ellen
>
> Ellen, are you unaware that you, ?Serena? and spamalot Rick are the
> ones in alt.fan.landmark who resort to the repetition tactic? Your
> posts expose the three of you to be people that must
Must?
> > thing over and over and over someone (anyone) will believe it?
> > Ellen
>
> Ellen, are you unaware that you, ?Serena? and spamalot Rick are the
> ones in alt.fan.landmark who resort to the repetition tactic? Your
> posts expose the three of you to be people that must
> think that if
> you 'keep repeating the same thing over and over and over someone
> (anyone) will believe it?', that you are talking about yourself.
Serena Nordstrup
May 23, 2012, 2:27:31 AM5/23/12
to
On May 20, 11:18 am, Ben Lewis <bentot1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com>
An example of prejudice against the Church of Scientology? Or of good
research?
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 14:54:42 -0700 (PDT), Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com>
research?
Serena Nordstrup
May 23, 2012, 2:18:44 AM5/23/12
to
Tex ? ...
Serena Nordstrup
May 23, 2012, 2:32:45 AM5/23/12
to
as a religious group? as a national group?
> > > 4.
> > > such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
>
> > What are you thinking, "Tex?" That if you keep repeating the same
> > thing over and over and over someone (anyone) will believe it? Or are
> > they paying you by the word, the way ol' ElRon got paid to write his
> > pulp science fiction...
>
> IT is your prejudice towards all the people that you very loosely define as cult members that I am referring to, Ellen.
>
> You actually blur the line by including Scientology and it's more defined ad declared membership as the same.
0 new messages