U are real
Jim Foster
patrick <1pat...@austin.quik.com> wrote in message
<7pl530$s50$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>
>
>
> U are real whether u believe it or not. in the programs they
>(help) u to believe that u are not real, and of course they
>have no truth for u
> its time to put on our thinking caps
Pat. What are we going to think about?
Actually in the programs i've always been encouraged to be aware of
what -is- real. What -is- real?
Who told you you were real?
Landmark, in effect, cannot -tell you- that you are anything. That's where
they don't claim to offer you truth. You pay, you come, if you don't get
what you came for then whatever... just, blah, whatever, you're not
obligated to come again.
I raises a question for me as to what drives you to be on this NG if you're
not interested in landmark or what it offers.
j2
patrick
U are real whether u believe it or not. in the programs they
(help) u to believe that u are not real, and of course they
have no truth for u
its time to put on our thinking caps
:)
rolling on the floor again
by by pat
--
Dont let anyone tell u, what u must do
INXS
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Raina Beurle
Jim Foster wrote in message <7pl8es$mtv$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>(help) u to believe that u are not real, and of course they
>>have no truth for u
>> its time to put on our thinking caps
>
>
>
>Actually in the programs i've always been encouraged to be aware of
>what -is- real. What -is- real?
>Who told you you were real?
>
>Landmark, in effect, cannot -tell you- that you are anything. That's where
>they don't claim to offer you truth. You pay, you come, if you don't get
>what you came for then whatever... just, blah, whatever, you're not
>obligated to come again.
>
>I raises a question for me as to what drives you to be on this NG if you're
>not interested in landmark or what it offers.
>
>j2
I'm sure Patrick is here for the transformation. This is a transformational
newsgroup you know. In fact we are watching your blossoming as a result of
your participation here. Your mother and father paid your tuition...
when we were in the programs ... were we programmed?
love miss raina
Jim Foster
Raina Beurle wrote in message <93521200...@srv1.space.net.au>...
>I'm sure Patrick is here for the transformation. This is a transformational
>newsgroup you know. In fact we are watching your blossoming as a result of
>your participation here. Your mother and father paid your tuition...
>
>when we were in the programs ... were we programmed?
>love miss raina
What about, You? (=
What is it that drives you to post here and enlighten my "new convert" self,
or whatever? Giving me this information about landmark, it's something i'm
willing to listen to, and i thank you for sharing it with me. But i'm not
seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
Just be straight with me, that's all i'm asking... What is it that you're
trying to tell me?
j2
Jennifer Moore
you write of patrick:
>I raises a question for me as to what drives you to be on this NG if you're
>not interested in landmark or what it offers.
but patrick _is_ interested in Landmark.
just not in the same way you are...
Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "manages to make the bass fill the space *
* most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Larry Person
Jim Foster wrote in message <7pm7hd$n3t$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>But i'm not
>seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
What does this mean? Is this something you heard in the forum yesterday,
Jim?
Jim, just because *you* don't *see* transformation doesn't mean it's not
present. Furthermore, maybe we as a group are not committed to
transformation. Maybe we don't want to bring forth possibility.
I know I am not committed to possibility *everywhere* in my life.
Larry Person
Jennifer Moore wrote in message ...
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>What is it that drives you to post here and enlighten my "new convert" self,
>or whatever? Giving me this information about landmark, it's something i'm
>willing to listen to, and i thank you for sharing it with me. But i'm not
>seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
Hi Jim,
On this ng (as a whole) we are unconditional about the possibility
that we (collectively) see Landmark as being... all the possibities.
From Landmark has much to offer people, and once enough
people do the Forum the world will be saved to Landmark
only offers destruction to people and once we can make sure
no one will ever be able to do the Forum again the world will
be saved.
Some people have come to their particular view of Landmark
from direct participation, and some from having grads of the
trainings in their lives. (or some because we've done other
transformational work, and find enough here to be interested
in and comment on).
K.
*********************************************************
Access to power must be confined to those who are
not in love with it.
-Plato
kmo...@aol.com
Orroro/Fitz
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
Jim Foster <illu...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<7pm7hd$n3t$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> Raina Beurle wrote in message <93521200...@srv1.space.net.au>...
> >
> >Jim Foster wrote in message <7pl8es$mtv$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> >I'm sure Patrick is here for the transformation. This is a
transformational
> >newsgroup you know. In fact we are watching your blossoming as a result
of
> >your participation here. Your mother and father paid your tuition...
> >
> >when we were in the programs ... were we programmed?
> >love miss raina
>
>
> What about, You? (=
> What is it that drives you to post here and enlighten my "new convert"
self,
> or whatever? Giving me this information about landmark, it's something
i'm
> willing to listen to, and i thank you for sharing it with me. But i'm not
> seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
Then you have not taken the time to look. Or you don't like what you hear.
In my time on this newsgroup I have seen transformation in others and
myself.
Amazing what actually I have seen happen on this newsgroup. Those that have
been brave enough to speak out about what happened when they were part of
the programs...the information that people have shared to answer questions.
Watching those that come to this group and do their "drive by" posts of
what they state we are <those that "oppose" LEC> has even been educational
and transforming for me.
I have noticed that listening and being engaged in that listening are two
separate issues with those in Landmark. Listening doesn't require critical
thought or interaction. It just requires that you keep your mouth shut long
enough for the other person to finish and then for you to state "I got
that" or "I got it". The conversation has ended. There is zero interchange
of ideas from a level playing field. I have also noticed that something
else that will happen is the type of ~conversation~ that you have put forth
above. You have demonstrated to me that you have not *looked* at this
newsgroup. Or you have chosen to not *see* what happens here. Either way,
you are not open to conversation *unless* it is by your "rules"....and
*please* don't tell me that there are no rules...because you inadvertently
state those in just your paragraph above.
Maybe it is time for you to go back and *read* about this newsgroup via
Deja News...if you truly want to look at transformation in process. I'm not
going to tell you what has happened here...go read it yourself.
Start with Larry's posts...
> Just be straight with me, that's all i'm asking... What is it that you're
> trying to tell me?
Look, do not make requests out of others unless you are willing to step
outside of the Landmark box. We have been straight with you. For you to
indicate we are not is a slap in the face to us that post here. I suggest
that you get your listening fine tuned for Real Life issues.
-pam
Larry Person
Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebb6$e7885780$e962490c@default>...
>I have noticed that listening and being engaged in that listening are two
>separate issues with those in Landmark. Listening doesn't require critical
>thought or interaction. It just requires that you keep your mouth shut long
>enough for the other person to finish and then for you to state "I got
>that" or "I got it".
Interesting Pam. We're in synch. I was thinking just this morning --
probably just as you were posting this -- that I don't get the feeling that
Jim listens at all (engagedly or otherwise) to what's said here, or, for
that matter, that he's really interested in any of us.
>Maybe it is time for you to go back and *read* about this newsgroup via
>Deja News...if you truly want to look at transformation in process. I'm not
>going to tell you what has happened here...go read it yourself.
And after he does that, there will be a quiz. For example, what does
Kathleen do for a living? How many children does Pam have? Like that.
Or perhaps we could ask about the TOTALLY AWE INSPIRING THINGS people on
this newsgroup do that have NOTHING TO DO WITH LANDMARK. Extra credit, Jim,
if you can give me one example. I'll give you a hint. It has something to
do with Linda.
>
>Start with Larry's posts...
Or Raina (given that Jim is setting himself up as an insider).
>Look, do not make requests out of others unless you are willing to step
>outside of the Landmark box. We have been straight with you. For you to
>indicate we are not is a slap in the face to us that post here. I suggest
>that you get your listening fine tuned for Real Life issues.
Well, the thing about Real Life issues is that many of them happened for us
after our 21st birthdays.
Orroro/Fitz
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
Larry Person <La...@LarryPerson.com> wrote in article
<91Bv3.3746$9K....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
>
> Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebb6$e7885780$e962490c@default>...
> >I have noticed that listening and being engaged in that listening are
two
> >separate issues with those in Landmark. Listening doesn't require
critical
> >thought or interaction. It just requires that you keep your mouth shut
long
> >enough for the other person to finish and then for you to state "I got
> >that" or "I got it".
>
> Interesting Pam. We're in synch. I was thinking just this morning --
> probably just as you were posting this -- that I don't get the feeling
that
> Jim listens at all (engagedly or otherwise) to what's said here, or, for
> that matter, that he's really interested in any of us.
IMO you can be engaged in listening and still not be a part of the
conversation. Engaged only means another level of intensity. Like my cat
watching me talk to her as I hold the kitty treat.
> >Maybe it is time for you to go back and *read* about this newsgroup via
> >Deja News...if you truly want to look at transformation in process. I'm
not
> >going to tell you what has happened here...go read it yourself.
>
> And after he does that, there will be a quiz. For example, what does
> Kathleen do for a living? How many children does Pam have? Like that.
*nods*
> Or perhaps we could ask about the TOTALLY AWE INSPIRING THINGS people on
> this newsgroup do that have NOTHING TO DO WITH LANDMARK. Extra credit,
Jim,
> if you can give me one example. I'll give you a hint. It has something
to
> do with Linda.
agreed.
And so far I pass the quiz *G*
> >Start with Larry's posts...
>
> Or Raina (given that Jim is setting himself up as an insider).
Well, I was addressing yours more from the perspective of Transformation.
Trying to keep it within a vague sort of way to what he ~requested~. Now,
that Six Day thread would be worthy of a look see though...considering the
*mention* by someone about pubic hair. :-)
Talk about Transformation...that thread did a lot for me and my awareness
of what really was going on in those programs.
> >Look, do not make requests out of others unless you are willing to step
> >outside of the Landmark box. We have been straight with you. For you to
> >indicate we are not is a slap in the face to us that post here. I
suggest
> >that you get your listening fine tuned for Real Life issues.
>
>
> Well, the thing about Real Life issues is that many of them happened for
us
> after our 21st birthdays.
Meanwhile we just have to deal with the Center of the Universe aspect of
Jim's life I guess. *sigh*
I do find it unreasonable the way the "chores" of the household were
divided up. One thing that I am clear on is that there is *zero* team work
involved. If one room is not to another's standards...is one issue. And
everyone has different skill levels and those should be celebrated and
used. Teamwork. Not sending people off to do what could very well be the
impossible. The system will fail as it is set up.
And since Jim is committed now...who is doing the kitchen?
-pam
Mark Cooper
> *big snip*
>
> I have noticed that listening and being engaged in that listening are two
> separate issues with those in Landmark. Listening doesn't require critical
> thought or interaction. It just requires that you keep your mouth shut long
> enough for the other person to finish and then for you to state "I got
> of ideas from a level playing field.
>
> -pam
>
I remember from the Advanced course being shown the scene from "Karate
Kid" where he has to wax and wash all the cars. This was Mr. Miagi's way
of teaching him karate.
( remember that anyone?)
We were then told to do the exercises we would be given to do and trust
that it would lead to something worthwhile, like in "Karate Kid".
Looking back it seems more like being told, "shut up and do what you're
told".
( But we were told very nicely)
JMO, Mark
Jim Foster
Larry Person wrote in message ...
>
>Jim Foster wrote in message <7pm7hd$n3t$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>>But i'm not
>>seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
>
>
>Jim?
>
>Jim, just because *you* don't *see* transformation doesn't mean it's not
>present. Furthermore, maybe we as a group are not committed to
>transformation. Maybe we don't want to bring forth possibility
>
Nah, Larry, it's not something from the forum, Raina said, "I'm sure Patrick
is here for the transformation. This is a transformational
newsgroup you know." I'm just tellin you i don't see this going on. i'm not
asserting that it's not actually going on. For all i know patrick, raina,
you, K., could be getting transformation everyday opening up alot in your
lives.
I know i'm not committed to possibility everywhere either. Alot of times,
also i pretend to be committed to possibility and i'm not. Like with
cleaning my house. I said i was committed to enrolling my family in that
possibility. Actually it was i was committed to the cleaning up the house,
under the pretense of commitment to the possibility of enrollment.
j2
Jim Foster
KMottus wrote in message <19990821103301...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <7pm7hd$n3t$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
self,
>>or whatever? Giving me this information about landmark, it's something i'm
>>seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
>
>
>On this ng (as a whole) we are unconditional about the possibility
>that we (collectively) see Landmark as being... all the possibities.
>From Landmark has much to offer people, and once enough
>people do the Forum the world will be saved to Landmark
>only offers destruction to people and once we can make sure
>no one will ever be able to do the Forum again the world will
>be saved.
Cool (= i got it
>Some people have come to their particular view of Landmark
>from direct participation, and some from having grads of the
>trainings in their lives. (or some because we've done other
>transformational work, and find enough here to be interested
>in and comment on).
>
>K.
Wonderful, thanks
The way it occured for me, alright? Is that, i come here expecting a
bunch of Grads having conversations about what's going on in their lives and
insights and info and things like that. What i found is people who are
bitter about LEC and some defaming it in conversation, some not, but no one
really excited about what it has to offer. Like i'm this new view of what
the forum is producing right now in people's lives and i'm gonna be chopped
down or sucked in to the conversation.
It bothered me--to be honest--it bothered me that people would be out to
just denounce a company and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
all the while pretending to be a great representation and and be right, be
this person who knows and no one else does. So...
Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad representation
of myself and landmark and my experience. I walked into a conversation
that's been going on for a long long time and the pretense isn't gonna
change, i even brought my own pretense into it. It's not really something
i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i feel pretty lone, and
closed off there.
What about you? what do you think?
j2
Jim Foster
Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebc6$eb764040$077a490c@default>...
>Meanwhile we just have to deal with the Center of the Universe aspect of
>Jim's life I guess. *sigh*
Problem?
>I do find it unreasonable the way the "chores" of the household were
>divided up. One thing that I am clear on is that there is *zero* team work
>involved. If one room is not to another's standards...is one issue. And
>everyone has different skill levels and those should be celebrated and
>used. Teamwork. Not sending people off to do what could very well be the
>impossible. The system will fail as it is set up.
Okay, thanks for sharing, Pam
But i don't care, it's not going to fail
>
>And since Jim is committed now...who is doing the kitchen?
Jim is doing the kitchen after getting off the computer.
j2
>
>-pam
Jim Foster
Mark Cooper wrote in message <37BF1B...@neotek.net>...
>I remember from the Advanced course being shown the scene from "Karate
>Kid" where he has to wax and wash all the cars. This was Mr. Miagi's way
>of teaching him karate.
>( remember that anyone?)
>We were then told to do the exercises we would be given to do and trust
>that it would lead to something worthwhile, like in "Karate Kid".
>
>Looking back it seems more like being told, "shut up and do what you're
>told".
>( But we were told very nicely)
Danielson didn't have to learn Karate, he stepped in and made the choice to
take Miagi's coaching...
and he won the tournament too.
j2
(and there is no "nicely" for me present for me, it's all been blunt and in
alot of cases very "not nice." It'd have been alot nicer to be in Tahiti
sippin a mai tai. But i'm glad i did the work. ;)
Jim Foster
Jennifer Moore wrote in message ...
>hi Jim
>
>you write of patrick:
>>I raises a question for me as to what drives you to be on this NG if
you're
>>not interested in landmark or what it offers.
>
>but patrick _is_ interested in Landmark.
>
>just not in the same way you are...
i notice, otherwise he wouldn't be posting here (=
that's what i was asking patrick to answer tho.
j2
Jim Foster
>ha!
heh!! ;)
It really is funny how i've been about this. I hope you read my post about
the authenticity.
Tell me what you think. e-mail me
j2
Linda
> The way it occured for me, alright?
alright. <nods>
> Is that, i come here expecting a
> bunch of Grads having conversations about what's going on in their lives and
> insights and info and things like that.
That's exactly what is here. Grads and other people sharing what's
going on in our lives, and insights and info and things like that.
Did you want me to share some of my recent wins? :-)
> What i found is people who are bitter about LEC and some defaming it in >conversation,
LEC Sucks. neener neener. Jim, Lighten up.
>some not, but no one really excited about what it has to offer.
In other words, people who have participated a lot, or long enough, or
had the time to reflect and consider to have a better idea of what
it's really about, than a newly minted Grad with a buzz on.
Gee, there's plenty of excitement round these parts, don't you 'get'
all the energy that is coming your way... We're plugged into a
possibility that's even grander than anything you've even dreamed
about.
woo woo. Reality, try it on.
>Like i'm this new view of what
> the forum is producing right now in people's lives
Yes, you are. We're real clear that LEC is responsible.
>and i'm gonna be chopped down or sucked in to the conversation.
Everyone here is very supportive of your stated goals, go clean that
kitchen,
the whole ng is watching and rooting you on. When you cut back on
your LEC participation and enroll in a writing course at your junior
college,
there will be a huge cry and cheers and attaboys.
Have you had time to read your poetry during your practice Forum
weekend?
Aren't you getting a little ragged working nites and trying to do all
this stuff and what about sleep? You getting enough sleep?
> It bothered me--to be honest--it bothered me that people would be out to
> just denounce a company and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
If not here; then where, if not now, then when?
> where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
Well now, if it makes no difference to LEC, then it isn't something
that you need to worry about either then, eh?
> all the while pretending to be a great representation and and be right, be
> this person who knows and no one else does. So...
We get a lot of those sorts round here, comes with the training, I
think. Or it could just be your listening, eh?
> Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad representation
> of myself and landmark and my experience.
But you're doing fine, I'd say you're giving an accurate account of it
all.
> I walked into a conversation that's been going on for a long long time and the pretense isn't gonna change, i even brought my own pretense into it. It's not really something i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i feel pretty lone, and
> closed off there.
Oh Jim, I can see that your need for affiliation is very strong.
Don't feel alone. I know there are some pro_Leccies round here
somewhere who are feeling very connected to you right now. Surely
they've contacted you and offered their support? Lawrence and Gary,
and Bob... You should get to know Bob.
Kindest Regards,
Linda
je...@my-deja.com
So the kitchen ~committment~ is prioritised _lower_ then the computer
~committment~ ? Is it 'mucking about on the computer' that takes
priority over the kitchen or is it 'talking about Landmark on the
internet/computer' that takes priority over the kitchen? Or both?
BTW. Who does the kitchen stuff while your at forum? Like doing the
bathroom once a week is probably fine, but doesn't the kitchen need
attention after every meal? If your not round at meal times with the
family, what happens about that? And specially if the computer takes
priority over the kitchen when you are at home? Seems to me the kitchen
must have had long periods of untidiness this weekend eh? Or is your
~commitment~ just to do the kitchen stuff - but no committment to
when or how often or what is most useful to others in the house?
The whole thing sounds confusing and difficult to me Jim - specially
if at all has to be fitted in round Landmark as the top priority eh?
Jen.
Jennifer Moore
you write:
> The way it occured for me, alright? Is that, i come here expecting a
>bunch of Grads having conversations about what's going on in their lives and
>insights and info and things like that.
Well, it's not that that's entirely untrue. Some people here do talk
sometimes about what's going on in their lives, and we do have insights
and we do exchange info.
but I think I can imagine what you meant by that description, which this
is not - something more like a Landmark seminar - am I right? - and
there are things elsewhere on the net which resemble that much more
closely (i.m.o.) than alt.fan.landmark does.
see for instance the Landmark graduates' list (instructions for
joining which may well still be at:
http://www.realtime.net/~bladex/landmark/applicat.htm
- if they're not there any more, let me know and I will go looking)
>What i found is people who are
>bitter about LEC and some defaming it in conversation, some not, but no one
>really excited about what it has to offer.
<grin>
that would be an "unfulfilled expectation" then :-)
>Like i'm this new view of what
>the forum is producing right now in people's lives
not sure what you mean by that
>and i'm gonna be chopped
>down or sucked in to the conversation.
What I think you are pointing to there is that you are not getting a lot
of ~agreement~ for your interpretations of your life. instead people
are more likely to challenge you.
I can see how you could ~occur for~ some people as naive in your
innocent enthusiasm (which i.m.o. is not particularly a function of your
chronological age, since lots of older people also do the same "ra ra
Landmark ra ra my wonderful new life" thing that you could sometimes be
interpreted as doing) and perhaps as "fair game" :-)
I think you're doing a pretty good job of not being suppressed actually
& I respect that.
but if you characterise it as avoiding being "chopped down or sucked
in", you might be missing some of what's available here. It's easy to
interpret the conversations here as adversarial <thinks: yep, you could
certainly get evidence for that <grin>> but that is i.m.o. not the most
powerful ~listening~ to bring to it. There are people here whose
experience of Landmark / LEC / est / WE&A etc.etc. goes back years, and
it's quite possible that you could learn something from them. for
instance about not falling down the biggest pitfalls.
& as for bitterness... I would suggest that you interpret any
~occurring~ of bitterness as an eloquent expression of painfully close
acquaintance with the ways that the "technology" can be misused :-)
what do you think of all that?
>It bothered me--to be honest--it bothered me
which is one of the things this place is "good for" - practising
listening to things that "bother you" - practising listening to things
you "can't listen to" - finding out what you're hookable by...
>that people would be out to
>just denounce a company
It isn't as simple as that.
>and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
>where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
I wouldn't assume that it makes no difference to what's happening "out
on the court". I think it does. I am pretty sure there are people
whose decisions about whether to participate with Landmark or not, or
how much to participate, have been influenced by the conversations here.
(if you call that "on the court".)
As to whether it "makes a difference" to LEC... that's another question.
depends who from LEC is watching... depends on what those-of-us-who-
still-participate-sometimes take back to LEC from what we learn here...
> Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad representation
>of myself and landmark and my experience.
not sure what you mean by that
>I walked into a conversation
>that's been going on for a long long time
You're not wrong there :-)
<laughing - not in a nasty way but like "well spotted">
>and the pretense isn't gonna
>change,
>i even brought my own pretense into it.
can you say more about that? what pretense do you think you see here?
what pretense have you detected yourself in?
>It's not really something
>i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i feel pretty lone, and
>closed off there.
so what is it you have been doing here if it isn't for you? saving the
world ;-) ?
>What about you? what do you think?
I am glad you are posting here and I hope you get value from it. & I
appreciate your honesty & courage as evidenced in this post. In my
experience, most graduates who pop up on a.f.l with the same kind of
expectations that you had don't stay long. They leave in a sulk with
some speed as soon as someone challenges their version of the world.
and even the ones who stay often stay in a rather righteous I'm-gonna-
set-you-guys-straight sort of way. It's a minority who stick around and
look at who they themselves ~are being~. which is what I see you
beginning to do in this post. and I really appreciate it.
Of course I realise that now I've told you where the enthusiastic people
are you might not wanna play here any more! but if you do stick around
then I think you are on the right track in enquiring into your own
expectations & upsets & ~being~. good work.
love
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
> The way it occured for me, alright? Is that, i come here expecting a
Yo, I have no problem with how anything ~occurs~ for you.
What you experience is what you experience.
>bunch of Grads having conversations about what's going on in their lives and
Lots of people have that expectation.
If you want that, there is the not-the-Smith list <I Don't keep
the URL for that one handy.... anyone got it> And if you
go to http://forums.delphi.com/randrarchives/start there
is another disscussion forum that is reserved for the
positive side of things (moderated strictly)
>insights and info and things like that. What i found is people who are
>bitter about LEC and some defaming it in conversation, some not, but no one
That's only part of what goes on here.
Defaming has some pretty strict legal definitions, are you
qualified to determine if what goes on here is defamation.
>really excited about what it has to offer. Like i'm this new view of what
>the forum is producing right now in people's lives and i'm gonna be chopped
>down or sucked in to the conversation.
It all depends on how you show up here. Some (not a lot, but some)
people come on this ng very positive about what LEC has to offer,
and they don't get chopped up or sucked down.
>
>It bothered me--to be honest--it bothered me that people would be out to
>just denounce a company and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
And where else would people denounce things, I thought part of the
USENET charter was all denouncement all the time.
And notice that it bothered you. That usually indicates that you
have now identified yourself as LEC (or whatever else). This
is me, this is not me. Your treating LEC just like you've
probably treated everything else in your life. Just another
thing to identify yourself as.
>where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
Um, if you read the archives of this ng, you will find that many of
the people here have been committed to getting what they have
to say to make a difference to LEC, and find that nothing they
have done made the slightest bit of difference to alter anything.
So they do the "warning to others" thang.
>all the while pretending to be a great representation and and be right, be
>this person who knows and no one else does. So...
Huh? you've gotten so far into the ~jargon~ your nonsensical.
>
> Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad representation
>of myself and landmark and my experience. I walked into a conversation
Your a fine representation of yourSelf and your experiences, and
as a graduate of the Forum.
>that's been going on for a long long time and the pretense isn't gonna
Is ~pretense~ your new jargon-of-the-day word? It really doesn't
communicate much to me. It just sounds like your using it as the
new label of the day. Anything that isn't the way my expectations
say it should be is a ~pretense~.
>change, i even brought my own pretense into it. It's not really something
>i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i feel pretty lone, and
>closed off there.
>
>What about you? what do you think?
About what in particular.
As for lone and closed off, I never have felt that way here at all,
and I'm in the pro-camp (different LGAT). I have friends on all
sides of the fence.
But then I don't see attacks on LEC or LGAT's in general as
threatening to my ego. I'm willing and capable of discussing
things openly, honestly and authentically in either english or
jargon.
And I listen and hear what people have to say, rather than
broadcasting.
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>
>Jennifer Moore wrote in message ...
>>hi Jim
>>
>>you write of patrick:
>>>I raises a question for me as to what drives you to be on this NG if
>you're
>>>not interested in landmark or what it offers.
>>
>>but patrick _is_ interested in Landmark.
>>
>>just not in the same way you are...
>
>i notice, otherwise he wouldn't be posting here (=
>
>that's what i was asking patrick to answer tho.
You could check the archives, he's stated what he is here
for zillions of time, he even wrote a book about it.
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebc6$eb764040$077a490c@default>...
>
>>Meanwhile we just have to deal with the Center of the Universe aspect of
>>Jim's life I guess. *sigh*
>
>Problem?
Well, it can get annoying to those who've grown past the
"center of the universe" stage.
One place it showed up is in what I interpret as your
lack of ability to listen to what other people say on this
ng.
Like when I was talking about MY good student answer
and you kept insisting I was talking about YOUR response.
And then defending yourself against accusations I never
even made about you.
Your the center of the universe, I *musta* been talking about
you. It's not even concievable to you that what I was talking
about was me.
It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
to go through it. Enjoy it while it lasts. (unless your gonna
be one of those who never gets over it <memories of ex-
husband......shudder... that's a big part of why he is the ex>)
GSaun039
where this thread ends up?
I have noticed that Patrick does that a lot. He doesn't say Landmark
Eduscation, the Forum, or Lifespring or any other number of self-exploration
programs. For all we know he may be talking about most prime-time TV programs
or computer programs by Microsoft (which are also classifes as "programs").
However, Patrick:
If you are indeed talking about the Landmark Education programs and
specifically the Forum, in which you participated, you know that your
statements are incorrect and yet you continue to say the same old things. That
you continue to intentionally keep posting the same inaccurate statements
provides an indication that it is prefereable for you to continue to
intentionally keep telling a LIE, which is interesting given what your claims
concerning "the programs" are (ostensibly that they are telling the Big Lie).
For example, where in the LEC programs does anyone say "you are not real"?
What distinction? There are conversations concerning our realtionship to what
we view as reality, but heh, it doesn't take the Forum or any other "program"
to challenge that. And that is very different from what your statement asserts.
The nature of reality has long been a topic of discussion going back to
ancient Greek and Chinese civilizations. Even modern science presents a
challenge to our sense of reality if we are willing to give it any
consideration.
[Current observations and theories suggest that our relationships to the
"observable" universe are incorrect and what we "see" represents between 1 and
10 percent of the matter in the universe and that there coexists a whole other
universe of exotic "dark" matter of which we cannot detect or interact with.
We observe evidence of it's existence and yet cannot see it. What's lacking to
test the theories are particle accelerators of sufficient energy to test
current predictive theories. In several years, particle accelerators of
suffcient size to begin to test those theories will be operationa. If
observation supports the theories, our relationship to "reality" will be
similarly altered, since we may discover the the very stuff we are made of, the
protons, neutrons, and electrons of the atoms in our bodies, is an
insignificant fraction of the stuff in the universe that we see as "our
reality". This will be especially so if we discover that this seemingly exotic
matter exists in the same space as we do, passing through us as easily as
neutrinos do, yet forming a whole "different" and coexistent reality.]
Similarly, your comments concerning truth continue to be as incorrect. Nowhere
in any of the Landmark courses can you demonstrate that anyone says "there is
no truth" or that. What is said is of the words spoken, that it is not THE
truth (emphasis on the word "THE" as in singular and exclusive). Nor does any
course say anything there being "no truth" or that you or anyone else shouldn't
have any "truth". You made that up and it's a persistent lie that you tell so
that you can make yourclaims, mostly false, about "the programs" and what is
said in them. What's even amusing is that you have not and continue to be
unable to elucidate what "truth" they ('the programs") are trying to take away
from you and/or everyone else.
Over the past 2+ years I have participated in this newsgroup, you have ascribed
various sinister intents to "the programs" and specifcally aimed at you. What
if some unnamed group (not LEC) manipulated you into the position of taking the
Forum, knowing that you were susceptible to something else (like paranoia);
that is, thinking that someone else (e.g, Landmark) was attempting to brainwash
you and get you into a cult, and that they needed some patsy who would react
just as you have. What if they succeeded and you unwittingly have become a
member of some other unnamed and unknown secret organization whose sole purpose
is to find and manipulate people so that they complain in the manner that you
do. And what if they further recruited people in such a manner so that they
think they have "free-will" and "free-thought" about "what's wrong" with "the
programs." For all you know, they might be sitting back laughing their asses
off at how successful they were in creating you, everytime they read a post
from you. Unless you can say that before the Forum you used to go around and
accuse other people and organizations were trying to take away truth and
reality (which you have not said that you used to do) I'd say that the before
and after contrast is pretty good evidence that you, indeed, have been
manipulated to produce the exactly that intended result. Since most of what
you've said, cummulatively, has little resemblance to the Forum or any other
LEC couse, I'd say that someone or something else manged to take your life away
from you. You've evidently forgotten what that life was all about because
you're here, telling the lies you continue to tell. The fact that you feel
like it's given you a purpose, a reason to "exist" in this newsgroup, is that
not just further evidence that you've been manipulated by something or someone
else? Again, in contrast to your life prior to the Forum, since little of what
you espouse is even the content of the Forum, your life has evidently been lost
to something else. It just wasn't the Forum or any other Landmark course.
Gary
_________________________
To send e-mail, remove "bite-me" spam block from the address
People like us know that the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Albert Einstein
Linda
>
> In article <7pntge$6vc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
> <illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >
> >Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebc6$eb764040$077a490c@default>...
> >
> >>Meanwhile we just have to deal with the Center of the Universe aspect of
> >>Jim's life I guess. *sigh*
> >
> >Problem?
Not really, we put up with lots of people's COU behaviour on here
<ducking>
> Well, it can get annoying to those who've grown past the
> "center of the universe" stage.
>
> One place it showed up is in what I interpret as your
> lack of ability to listen to what other people say on this
> ng.
>
> Like when I was talking about MY good student answer
> and you kept insisting I was talking about YOUR response.
> And then defending yourself against accusations I never
> even made about you.
>
> Your the center of the universe, I *musta* been talking about
> you. It's not even concievable to you that what I was talking
> about was me.
>
> It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
> to go through it.
Sure, Most kids grow out of the center of the universe thing, I think
it peaks around age 4, normally and preschool or Kindergarten is the
beginning of "Hey, you mean I'm NOT the center of the universe?"
but if someone has a dx of ADD or something similiar, then it isn't a
matter of them doing it from a lack of maturity, but a lack of
ability...
It's not _won't listen_, but rather _can't_ always listen...missing
the gist of conversations, not catching on...taking things
personally...
And the missing of social cues is also _extremely_ common in people
with ADD.
The website url I posted has a really good example in the Case
study...
Linda
Linda
{snip of a great post}
ACE! You go, girl.
Linda
Raina Beurle
>>
>>Jim Foster wrote in message <7pl8es$mtv$1...@nntp5.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
>>I'm sure Patrick is here for the transformation. This is a
transformational
>>your participation here. Your mother and father paid your tuition...
>>
>>when we were in the programs ... were we programmed?
>>love miss raina
>
>
>What about, You? (=
self,
>or whatever? Giving me this information about landmark, it's something i'm
>willing to listen to, and i thank you for sharing it with me. But i'm not
>seeing any transformation in the group. What's the possibility?
>
>trying to tell me?
>
I post here Jim, because I post here. (Gee, am I starting to sound like
Fred?)
Nothing drives me to post here.
I love a "new convert", as I did even when I worked for LEC, but I love them
quite differently now.
I love the sweetness.
I love the zealousness.
I love the naivity.
I love the FL role play.
I do see a lot of myself and others in you Jim, which is probably why I love
you so.
When I was a kid I had a book called "How a Chick is born" which went
through the developmental stages of a chicken from fertilisation to
hatching. That was my favourite book for a long time - I even think my
mother still has it. Now this is just an analogy right...but when I read
your posts I have an overwhelming sense of familiarity for the phase - as I
either experienced it or observed it. Sometimes I think you are me... I told
you this newsgroup was transformational didn't I? It certainly allows me to
experience the sameness between myself and others.
The other thing is, since I started participating in this newsgroup my life
has opened up in ways that you wouldn't believe.... I am accomplishing
things in my life with such velocity that I surprise myself, I have more
time am better organised and I have been left thinking that I am becoming an
opening for miracles.
Before I was participating here, I didn't have much time, I was often making
commitments I didn't want to make and sometimes experienced being
manipulated into taking actions that I didn't want to take.
Since I started participating here I have definitely grown more wise, and
become much more able to speak frankly about how things were and/or are for
me.
My income and assets have grown and I have more time and energy to spend
with my children.
I have become more confident in talking to large groups of people and
sharing my ideas and experiences.
I also became engaged to a really wonderful man, whom my children and family
loves, and I have realised a childhood dream in taking a month long trip
trekking through South America and visiting the ruins of the Incas!
So, you wanna hang around for a bit and get your share of what's possible in
alt.fan.landmark. I'm sure you are already getting a sense of what's
possible, otherwise I doubt that you would have been posting so committedly.
Now... who do you know who can enrol by Friday? (sorry... couldn't help it)
love miss raina
patrick
gsau...@aol.combite-me (GSaun039) wrote:
> Isn't it interesting that Patrick throws out something about "the
programs" and
> where this thread ends up?
> I have noticed that Patrick does that a lot. He doesn't say Landmark
> Eduscation, the Forum, or Lifespring or any other number of
self-exploration
> programs. For all we know he may be talking about most prime-time TV
programs
> or computer programs by Microsoft (which are also classifes as
"programs").
for the record, when i speak of programs i usually am referring
to that disgusting cult named landmark forum.
>
> However, Patrick:
>
> If you are indeed talking about the Landmark Education programs and
> specifically the Forum, in which you participated, you know that your
> statements are incorrect and yet you continue to say the same old
things. That
> you continue to intentionally keep posting the same inaccurate
statements
> provides an indication that it is prefereable for you to continue to
> intentionally keep telling a LIE, which is interesting given what your
claims
> concerning "the programs" are (ostensibly that they are telling the
Big Lie).
actually i believe that there ARE some people out there that will have
second thoughts about their program, when they understand that jinnendra
did indeed stand right in front of me in my program and while the
people were screaming and wailing and crying, keep saying the word
shit over and over. if u have a problem with this, bring it on.
>
> For example, where in the LEC programs does anyone say "you are not
real"?
in my program we were told we had no value. we were not told that
we werent real. i have spoken to people that have attended programs
other than the one that i attended and they dont speak of have any
value or nor they seem to be mixed up over whether there is any
reality or not.
> What distinction? There are conversations concerning our realtionship
to what
> we view as reality, but heh, it doesn't take the Forum or any other
"program"
> to challenge that.
there, u practically answered your question to me yourself. is landmark
challenging peoples perspective of them being real. are they challenging
that. are deaf or have u not read any of the archive in this newsgroup.
are u stating that because there is DARK MATTER, that jinnedras
psychological baptims in excrement should just considered some new
way of thinking
>
> Over the past 2+ years I have participated in this newsgroup, you have
ascribed
> various sinister intents to "the programs" and specifcally aimed at
you.
have u ever heard anyone that lead the forum say the words,
"play the game"
of course this is just your perception and like the programs have
taught u well, u probably cant get it right because u are just human.
i hope.
i have a question for u. what does it matter to u what i post on this
newsgroup. u dont seem to be here much. i get the feeling that u do
read the newsgroup, of course u dont want to have any kind of discussion
about the programs, the psycological damange that can be brought on.
u just seem to occasionally jump in the newsgroup and start in on me.
u have done it once or twice before.
i have another question for u. have the programs been feeding u with
it doesnt matter when u live or when u die, because it doesnt matter.
i seem to get this from u. it sounds like jinnedras part of how we
are made up of molecules and because our molecules are the same as the
molecules in the chair, only arranged in a different order then we
have no value, because the chair has no value. your posting of einstein
reminds me a lot of this. did u get this from your programs, if so
has it made u feel better to know that u have cancer and that u will
die, quite possibly because of your cancer and u are scared like anyone
would be, so u attend and donate your time to programs so that u can
get more of u dont matter. get real gsaun, u do matter, even to me,
u are real and it does matter that it does matter. u are fellow human
being and u have meaning.
>
> Gary
> _________________________
> To send e-mail, remove "bite-me" spam block from the address
>
> People like us know that the distinction between past, present, and
future is
> only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
p.s. u commented awhile back that u archive the newsgroup, including
my posts, go back and read some of them. u will see that there are
people in the programs that dont seem to have any reality. just like u
>
> Albert Einstein
>
--
Dont let anyone tell u, what u must do
INXS
GSaun039
writes:
> in my program we were told we had no value. we were not told that
>we werent real. i have spoken to people that have attended programs
>other than the one that i attended and they dont speak of have any
>value or nor they seem to be mixed up over whether there is any
>reality or not.
Come on, Patrick. I seriously doubt that anyone said that you had no value or
that you weren't real during your Forum. In fact, this claim of yours about
being told that people who attend the Forum aren't real or have no value is a
relatively new phenomenon. How many people, who are they, where are they? Were
they at your Forum and would they corroborate what you say? Or are these "some
people" part of the ubiquitous "they". Well, Patrick I'll see your people and
raise you, and tell you that I too have talked to a number of preople (who are
no longer in any of the programs) and "they" say that it hasn't happened, and
"they" have participated in the previous versions of W.E's travelling road show
long before you or I ever even heard of the Forum.
And yes, I do archive the posts for between six months and one year, so I
usually have a fairly extensive collection of posts on my hard drive at any
given time to check against.
The point I make and will continue to make is that you continue to write in a
fashion that I characterize as deceitful and characterisitic of a lie. That
you've been told any number of times prior to this that you are incorrect can
indicate a couple of things:. You just don't believe that you could posibly be
incorrect about what you think or think you experienced, even though it's
totally uncharacterisitic of any Landmark program in existence at the time you
did the Forum (conclusion: your grasp of reality leaves a lot to be desired,
you relate to some falsehood you've created and think it's real, which is
entirely the point of the "reality" discussion) or you Knowingly and
Intentionally create and maintain the lies and deceptions about what is said
and what is presented to suit some other personal purpose. It's one thing to
honestly and truthfully report on what is said and presented and then to
challenge or disagree with it in this newsgroup, which has the discussion of
this topic as it's main focus. It's completely different to present a lie and
then to present it as if it's really what was said or presented. And given
that you've made certain claims about your religious beliefs in the past an
intentional and knowing lie doesn't bode well with your beliefs.
>> What distinction? There are conversations concerning our realtionship
>>to what we view as reality, but heh, it doesn't take the Forum or any other
>>"program" to challenge that.
there, u practically answered your question to me yourself. is landmark
challenging peoples perspective of them being real. are they challenging
that. are deaf or have u not read any of the archive in this newsgroup.
The answer is NO! THEY ARE NOT CHALLENGING WHETHER PEOPLE ARE REAL! But your
statements present it as if Landmark does and your statements are entirely
incorrect. And the "reality conversation" is actually one that is fully
explored in the Advanced Course. The precursor conversation about reality and
the "outcome" of the "reality conversation" are, indeed, there in the Forum if
one is listening. However, since you haven't done the Advanced Course, you
just don't know from first hand experience what that conversation is about or
how it turns out. If you knew how it "turns out" I think, given the way you
present things, that you'd be incredibly surprised.
> are u stating that because there is DARK MATTER, that jinnedras
>psychological baptims in excrement should just considered some new
>way of thinking
No and had I intended to I would have stated it that way. Notice that you
stated that way in the form of a question. I will state it again exactly as I
intended. If the predicitve theories are born out by experimental observation
in high-energy particle accelerators (which, in turn support an already large
mountain of observational evidence in astronomy and astrophysics), then how we
relate to what we "see" and the knowledge of what we "see", as in directly in
front of us, around us and through us, as "reality" will be forever altered. I
anticipate a good deal of resistance when that day finally comes because it
seems that people have a ard enough time accurately perceiving "reality" with
what they observe. Are they going to be able to accept that what the actually
see represents only 1 percent of what's really there? The fact that we are
unable to interct with dark matter directly or that it doesn't seem to interact
with us directly stiil won't alter the findings, if they are indeed correctly
predicted, that we relate to reality from the basis of a small fraction of the
seen world, with little or no regard for the unseen.
> of course this is just your perception and like the programs have
>taught u well, u probably cant get it right because u are just human.
>i hope.
If you are referring to the story about how someone or something other than
Landmark has set you up and brainwashed you so this is the way you'd turn out,
yeah, it's just a perception. It's just a story I made up like the one you
make up about the programs teaching you that people have no value. I don't
certify that it's accurate or the truth. i place it there so that you can
consider it and repond. What's interesting is that you haven't said that you
were this way before you did the Forum, so again I can contend that this
before/after contrast is just as likley in the face of the evidence as anything
else. I on the other hand have stated from the outset that I have thought in
ways similar to the cocepts and distinctions of the Forum and the whole
curriculum for most of my life and what I ended up with was an organized set of
tools, most of which I already had developed long ago. For some people there
was absolutlely no change whatsoever, between the before and after Forum.For
them, I am as I always was. However, given the level at which I have
participated, I state with some certainty that I can accurately reproduce the
major distinctions of the Forum and tht what you present is A Patrick Forum, or
a Mindgames in the Key of C Forum, not the Landmark Forum. So, if you were
this way before you did the Forum, you have no worries and you still have the
same life you had before you did the forum. But, if you weren't this way
before you did the Forum, someone or something got to you and it probably
wasn't the Forum (it served only as the triggering mechanism.
>i have another question for u. have the programs been feeding u with
>it doesnt matter when u live or when u die, because it doesnt matter.
No. Because they never ever, EVER,EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER present anything this
way. You do ,but the leaders of the Landmark courses do not, have not. I know
you think it's the same thing and therein lies your problem. It is not the
same thing and the words that are actually spoken are chosen intentionally,
just as the words that were chosen for the Bible were chosen intentionally.
However, I'll play a little game with you and your words. Name the top 10
leaders from the North, Central, and/or South American continents who were
alive 1000 years ago. So does it matterwhen you live or die? In all
likelihood, 1000 years from now, no one will remeber you or I. So what?
However, what I say, and this is not THE showpiece of Landmark Education
although they use it, is what you say, quite literally the words you use to
express your view on life, gives you your experience of reality. Put another
way, the words you use and the filter you see life through are literally one
and the same. In that way what you say literally matters. That is very
different from empty and meaningless.
>i seem to get this from u. it sounds like jinnedras part of how we
>are made up of molecules and because our molecules are the same as the
>molecules in the chair, only arranged in a different order then we
>have no value, because the chair has no value.
Again, you are equating something that doesn't equate. We, as human beings,
assign value through language. The world as physical space does not. the
world has no language, only we do. Let's take "gravity". Aristotle said: "It
is the nature of things". Newton said it was an attractive force that related
to the masses of the objects. And Einstein said that it was due to the
presence of matter which results in the curvature of 4-dimensional spacetime.
About the only prediction you could make with Aristotle's point of view is that
you would reliably fall to the earth if you didn't take action to stop
yourself. But it did little to predict, reliably, what was seen in the sky
(sun, moon, stars, planets). Newtons Laws of Motion required a whole new
creation of mathematics (calculus) and could predict reasonably accurately some
of the observations about the interaction of two bodies with mass. However,
Einstein's general theory of relativity with its prediction of the curvature of
spacetime has produced some of the most accurate predictions in the history of
mankind. Does that mean the universe speaks the language of Einstein? No, not
all. The universe doesn't speak Einsteinian, we do.
your posting of einstein
>reminds me a lot of this. did u get this from your programs, if so
>has it made u feel better to know that u have cancer and that u will
>die, quite possibly because of your cancer and u are scared like anyone
>would be, so u attend and donate your time to programs so that u can
>get more of u dont matter.
My selection of this Particualr Einstein quote has no particular signifcance.
It's one of several that I've come acroos in my studies of Einstein and my
study of advanced physics that appealed to me. There are several of his and
others (in the realm of physics) that have a certain appeal to me.
I don't use the word "scared" to describe my feelings about my cancer although
there certainly is some fear. AND I embrace my fear and welcome it,
acknowledge it. It is simply there and it doesn't paralyze me from action.
And the ;argest portion of that fear is and was that I wouldn't have the time
time to do allthe things I wish to do or be all the things I wish to be. It
did one thing for me, it took away the "luxury of waiting for "someday" to show
up. No matter how many times it's been said, no matter where, the phrase
"there's no time like the presen"t just didn't have quite the urgency until I
was diagnosed. Nothing in the Landmark curriculum had me get off my duff like
that did. And just so that we're clear about this, whatever time I donate is
because it serves me in my representation of who I say I am. On August 30,
1999 I complete a continuous assisting agreement and will be stepping away from
assisting for some currently indeterminant time period.
Finally, on this point I will retate something I've said here before. Before
my involvement in Landmark, I tended to downplay my contribution to people and
the difference I made in being involved in their lives. It wasn't that I
couldn't or people couldn't make a difference, but that the extent of my impact
just didn't reach all that far and the way I spoke of it was as follows: I
don't make much of a difference. This, from someone who had as just two weeks
from completing SELP.And then someone told me of the difference I made to their
lives and I didn't even now until they told me. It had me reexamine that aprt
of what I said about my life and has foever altered my view of the impact that
we all have. So you won't find me saying I don't matter, even if you think
tht's what the programs teach. I have no "meaning" in the sense that it's
distinguished in Landmark (and even if I did, it's not revealed to me by
anything I see). Even the Bilble (KJV) only uses the word "meaning" twice and
neither are in reference to meaning of life, God, or those other fundamental
and unanwerable questions. However, my life has purpose that I sense more
clearly than I have in the past.
get real gsaun, u do matter, even to me,
>u are real and it does matter that it does matter. u are fellow human
>being and u have meaning.
>i have a question for u. what does it matter to u what i post on this
>newsgroup. u dont seem to be here much. i get the feeling that u do
>read the newsgroup, of course u dont want to have any kind of discussion
>about the programs, the psycological damange that can be brought on.
>u just seem to occasionally jump in the newsgroup and start in on me.
u> have done it once or twice before.
It doesn't matter, actually. Every once in a while I like to remind you and
everyone else that reading that some of the stuff you write, even though people
respond to it, doesn't accurately represent the Forum. Sometimes, in deling
with people over a long period of time, the familiarity with their position and
their writing style seems, I think, to lull people into some semi-conscious
state about accuracy. This thread is a great example. Some of the players
here have been going on from months (I know, my computer has dutifully
downloaded every post) and as I've caught up on me reading it seems like these
"trends" tend to develop.
I'm more than happy to discuss the courses with you or anyone else. I have
answered quite a few question and carried on long-term discussions with persons
who publically participate in this ng, as well as those looking for information
and perhaps a reasonable voice in the crowd. At times my attention is focused
on those discussions, some of which are time consuming and very rewarding. And
other than acknowledging those conversations exist, I never share the content
of those discussions. So I can be a very busy guy, even when I'm very quiet
here in this ng.
One of the requirements, however, of any meaningful discussion is that the
facts be accurately represented. In that you seem very unwilling to stick
accurately to the facts. Periodically, after reading your posts and some of
the outrageous assertions, I like to remind you that you are confusing your own
version of the Forum with the Landmark version. And since I have stayed
involved and watched what has changed and what has remained the same, I believe
that what I present is, at least, current and has a reasonble chance of being
accurately stated and/or represented. I suggest that if this wasn't so, it
wouldn't even occur for you that I "jump into the newsgroup and start in on"
you. If you want to tlk about pschological damage, fine. Talk about yours.
You're not a mental health professional (and neither am I. However, I happen to
be married to one in this 13 year relationship so I have lots of resources to
go to)
That's all for now
Gary
_________________________
To send e-mail, remove "bite-me" spam block from the address
People like us know that the distinction between past, present, and future is
only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
Albert Einstein
Jim Foster
Jennifer Moore wrote in message ...
>
>you write:
>> The way it occured for me, alright? Is that, i come here expecting a
>>bunch of Grads having conversations about what's going on in their lives
and
>>insights and info and things like that.
>
>Well, it's not that that's entirely untrue. Some people here do talk
>sometimes about what's going on in their lives, and we do have insights
>and we do exchange info.
>
>but I think I can imagine what you meant by that description, which this
>is not - something more like a Landmark seminar - am I right? - and
>there are things elsewhere on the net which resemble that much more
>closely (i.m.o.) than alt.fan.landmark does.
Nope, just a conversation and sharing between graduates, like a metting
place. Not a thrash place.
>
>see for instance the Landmark graduates' list (instructions for
>joining which may well still be at:
>http://www.realtime.net/~bladex/landmark/applicat.htm
>- if they're not there any more, let me know and I will go looking)
checked it out, thanks
>
>>What i found is people who are
>>bitter about LEC and some defaming it in conversation, some not, but no
one
>>really excited about what it has to offer.
>
><grin>
>that would be an "unfulfilled expectation" then :-)
exactly (=
>
>
>>Like i'm this new view of what
>>the forum is producing right now in people's lives
>
>not sure what you mean by that
>
>>and i'm gonna be chopped
>>down or sucked in to the conversation.
>
>What I think you are pointing to there is that you are not getting a lot
>of ~agreement~ for your interpretations of your life. instead people
>are more likely to challenge you.
no no... that -is- my interpretation. I'm just telling you about it. I'm not
looking for agreement, just getting straight.
>
>I can see how you could ~occur for~ some people as naive in your
>innocent enthusiasm
yeah, i got that
(which i.m.o. is not particularly a function of your
>chronological age, since lots of older people also do the same "ra ra
>Landmark ra ra my wonderful new life" thing that you could sometimes be
>interpreted as doing) and perhaps as "fair game" :-)
>
>I think you're doing a pretty good job of not being suppressed actually
>& I respect that.
Well thanks
>
>but if you characterise it as avoiding being "chopped down or sucked
>in", you might be missing some of what's available here.
i'm getting straight so i have that access.
> It's easy to
>interpret the conversations here as adversarial <thinks: yep, you could
>certainly get evidence for that <grin>> but that is i.m.o. not the most
>powerful ~listening~ to bring to it.
Definately not.
>There are people here whose
>experience of Landmark / LEC / est / WE&A etc.etc. goes back years, and
>it's quite possible that you could learn something from them. for
>instance about not falling down the biggest pitfalls.
The pitfalls some of us are/have been in?
>
>& as for bitterness... I would suggest that you interpret any
>~occurring~ of bitterness as an eloquent expression of painfully close
>acquaintance with the ways that the "technology" can be misused :-)
>
>what do you think of all that?
ahhhh, It's more of like to... something happened along the way of that
experience that left-- like Larry, for example-- resigned about landmark
(and that's not bad, or something to change about Larry). But yeah, the
bitterness is interpretation. Really it's just a bunch of people writing on
a newsgroup about landmark.
>
>
>>It bothered me--to be honest--it bothered me
>
>which is one of the things this place is "good for" - practising
>listening to things that "bother you" - practising listening to things
>you "can't listen to" - finding out what you're hookable by...
yeah, i got it ;) Again... it's the inauthenticity.
>
>>that people would be out to
>>just denounce a company
>
>It isn't as simple as that.
tell me about that
>
>>and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
>>where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
>
>I wouldn't assume that it makes no difference to what's happening "out
>on the court". I think it does. I am pretty sure there are people
>whose decisions about whether to participate with Landmark or not, or
>how much to participate, have been influenced by the conversations here.
>(if you call that "on the court".)
No, i call that new or potential grads coming in and and deciding not to do
or be involved in LEC through the conversation that's going on here.
On the court would be like... calling up all the people you know and
enrolling them in not participating in LEC programs... or starting an
anti-LEC orginization, etc.
>
>As to whether it "makes a difference" to LEC... that's another question.
>depends who from LEC is watching...
heh
i'm sure you have some clue as to that. There are probably alot of very
involved people watching.
>depends on what those-of-us-who-
>still-participate-sometimes take back to LEC from what we learn here...
>
>
>> Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad representation
>>of myself and landmark and my experience.
>
>not sure what you mean by that
>
>>I walked into a conversation
>>that's been going on for a long long time
>
>You're not wrong there :-)
><laughing - not in a nasty way but like "well spotted">
>
>>and the pretense isn't gonna
>>change,
>
>>i even brought my own pretense into it.
>
>can you say more about that? what pretense do you think you see here?
>what pretense have you detected yourself in?
The pretense that i'm not making anyone wrong, and that i'm not an example
to the people who read here.
What does that do to -you-?
>
>>It's not really something
>>i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i feel pretty lone, and
>>closed off there.
>
>so what is it you have been doing here if it isn't for you? saving the
>world ;-) ?
no no... saving the NG ;) That was the inauthenticity.
>
>I am glad you are posting here and I hope you get value from it. & I
>appreciate your honesty & courage as evidenced in this post. In my
>experience, most graduates who pop up on a.f.l with the same kind of
>expectations that you had don't stay long.
I wouldn't have if i never confronted the inauthenticity. When i really get
present to that, it clear that no one's fooled but me. The basic human
reaction to inauthenticty is to hide it. I'm not sure many forum grads get
that they're inauthentic in almost everything they do.
> They leave in a sulk with
>some speed as soon as someone challenges their version of the world.
>and even the ones who stay often stay in a rather righteous I'm-gonna-
>set-you-guys-straight sort of way.
Yeah (= like that pretense there... "you're not wrong, but i'm still gonna
show you what's right"... right?
> It's a minority who stick around and
>look at who they themselves ~are being~. which is what I see you
>beginning to do in this post. and I really appreciate it.
Wonderful... it's amazing... over the last couple days just looking at
ares where i'm not authentic, and how it impacts my life and other peoples
lives (this was a nig part of the new forum) how much of a big joke it
really is. One thing that was said in the weekend was... a human being by
nature is inauthenic. You'll never be authentic. The highest level of
authenticity you can reach is to be authentic about your inauthentcity.
I found in trying to get authentic about my inauthenticities, i'd just take
a swing and tell everyone i'm inauthentic... all under the pretense that i'm
presentr to my being inauthentic... or that i'm complete with it. No...
there still that.
>
>Of course I realise that now I've told you where the enthusiastic people
>are you might not wanna play here any more! but if you do stick around
>then I think you are on the right track in enquiring into your own
>expectations & upsets & ~being~. good work.
Thanks Jennifer (=
Under that pretense, in that impact it has for me... feeling like an
outsider... doing my WF being cute and petendingly oblivious to being
right/racket, doing all that crap and just really distancing, feeling alone
and confronted. I just wonder how it impacts the other people here. Maybe
stupid, angry... i dunno. Inauthenticities are really a sickening thing.
the possibility i invented out of that is contribution! ;)
like... being contributed to as well as contributing!
j2
(Moshe was sharing about inauthenticities that he had really gotten present
to the impact in his life... and other's lives... that had him have to
actually get up and run to the toilet. In gettin authentic about what i'm
inauthentic about... really getting the impact... there's anything posible
from that)
Jim Foster
KMottus wrote in message <19990822094445...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <7pnt8a$8j9$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>> The way it occured for me, alright? Is that, i come here expecting a
>
>What you experience is what you experience.
k, got it
>
>>bunch of Grads having conversations about what's going on in their lives
and
>
>Lots of people have that expectation.
>If you want that, there is the not-the-Smith list <I Don't keep
>the URL for that one handy.... anyone got it> And if you
>go to http://forums.delphi.com/randrarchives/start there
>is another disscussion forum that is reserved for the
>positive side of things (moderated strictly)
>
>>insights and info and things like that. What i found is people who are
>>bitter about LEC and some defaming it in conversation, some not, but no
one
>
>That's only part of what goes on here.
>Defaming has some pretty strict legal definitions, are you
>qualified to determine if what goes on here is defamation.
>
>>really excited about what it has to offer. Like i'm this new view of what
>>the forum is producing right now in people's lives and i'm gonna be
chopped
>>down or sucked in to the conversation.
>
>It all depends on how you show up here. Some (not a lot, but some)
>people come on this ng very positive about what LEC has to offer,
>and they don't get chopped up or sucked down.
Alright, but they're not here.
>
>>
>>It bothered me--to be honest--it bothered me that people would be out to
>>just denounce a company and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
>
>And where else would people denounce things, I thought part of the
>USENET charter was all denouncement all the time.
I dunno. Actually i noticed that newsgroups seem to all be "negative"
discussion.
>
>And notice that it bothered you. That usually indicates that you
>have now identified yourself as LEC (or whatever else). This
>is me, this is not me. Your treating LEC just like you've
>probably treated everything else in your life. Just another
>thing to identify yourself as.
Exactly!!
how sharp of you! ;) and i never noticed till yesterday
>
>>where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
>
>Um, if you read the archives of this ng, you will find that many of
>the people here have been committed to getting what they have
>to say to make a difference to LEC, and find that nothing they
>have done made the slightest bit of difference to alter anything.
>
>So they do the "warning to others" thang.
Yeah, but just happenstance on whoever comes in?
if that was a real commitment i'd think it'd show up outside of an NG.
Maybe it does, but... hey. Not a great deal of people are discouraged as far
as the NG, aside the occasional new grad stubling upon the NG, eh?
>
>>all the while pretending to be a great representation and and be right, be
>>this person who knows and no one else does. So...
>
>Huh? you've gotten so far into the ~jargon~ your nonsensical.
No, that's called "all the while i was pretending to
do....................." No jargon in there. Look at it a couple times. I'm
telling you what i've been doing here.
>
>>
>> Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad representation
>>of myself and landmark and my experience. I walked into a conversation
>
>Your a fine representation of yourSelf and your experiences, and
>as a graduate of the Forum.
>
>>that's been going on for a long long time and the pretense isn't gonna
>
>Is ~pretense~ your new jargon-of-the-day word?
> It really doesn't
>communicate much to me. It just sounds like your using it as the
>new label of the day. Anything that isn't the way my expectations
>say it should be is a ~pretense~.
What the hang up about jargon? Pretense is pretense! (= pretending... like,
i pretend to be this, while really i do this. Anything i (or you) -pretend-
is pretense.
>
>>change, i even brought my own pretense into it. It's not really something
>>i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i feel pretty lone, and
>>closed off there.
>>
>>What about you? what do you think?
>
>About what in particular.
About the impact the pretense has on you.
>
>As for lone and closed off, I never have felt that way here at all,
>and I'm in the pro-camp (different LGAT). I have friends on all
>sides of the fence.
Okay... so? It doesn't change how it occured for me... like, i was thinking
"hey! i have NO friends here." Even now i'm even thinking that trying to get
by pretending i don't feel like that anymore.
>But then I don't see attacks on LEC or LGAT's in general as
>threatening to my ego. I'm willing and capable of discussing
>things openly, honestly and authentically in either english or
>jargon.
>
>And I listen and hear what people have to say, rather than
>broadcasting.
"But then I don't see attacks on LEC or LGAT's in general as
threatening to my ego. I'm willing and capable of discussing
things openly, honestly and authentically in either english or
jargon."
I don't get a feeling of being shared with out of that... like you're
"broadcasting" yourself to me.
What i'm asserting is that most of the time... here... or in any
conversation in my life, i more of just say the way things look to me,
rather than sharing. Like... oh my hamburger, it's big, it's juicy, it's got
ketchup and mustard... it's good, it tastes really juicy and fresh. Instead
of just giving people a taste of it, right?
If you wanna say there's something wrong with the way i post stuff or
the way i listen or hear or share... say it!! There's nothing wrong with
saying someone is wrong. I won't make you wrong for it! ;)
I can do this, i can do that, or i don't do this, i'm this way and that...
so what? so show me something! From what i see something here is threatening
or confronting to you, or else there wouldn't have been a reply.
What got you to talk?
j2
Jim Foster
je...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7poule$9ej$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>> >And since Jim is committed now...who is doing the kitchen?
>>
>> Jim is doing the kitchen after getting off the computer.
>>
>
>So the kitchen ~committment~ is prioritised _lower_ then the computer
>~committment~ ? Is it 'mucking about on the computer' that takes
>priority over the kitchen or is it 'talking about Landmark on the
>internet/computer' that takes priority over the kitchen? Or both?
Ahah! who makes this stuff up? The only thing it means is i said i was
sdoing the kitchen after i got off the computer. There's no priority... with
a commitment it's something that you're really dedicated to... like look at
bruce lee. He was committed to being a great martial artist. Maybe sometimes
he went to the store or read a book and then practiced martial arts... does
that mean he wasn't committed or... i daresay more committed to reading a
book than martial arts?
The kitchen will be clean.
>
>BTW. Who does the kitchen stuff while your at forum? Like doing the
>bathroom once a week is probably fine, but doesn't the kitchen need
>attention after every meal?
i come home at night and do it
> If your not round at meal times with the
>family, what happens about that?
They wash their dishes, put them in the sink, wash the table etc. Tonight i
came home and it was trashed. I cleaned it up.
>And specially if the computer takes
>priority over the kitchen when you are at home? Seems to me the kitchen
>must have had long periods of untidiness this weekend eh?
Nah... small ones (= a few hours...
As compared to like 10 years of untidyness.
> or is your
>~commitment~ just to do the kitchen stuff - but no committment to
>when or how often or what is most useful to others in the house?
Nope... it's an everyday commitment... like running and reading etc.
There was a girl there this weekend who's a runner. She runs every morning
and thinking how much time the forum takes... she still got up this sunday
mornng and ran 8 miles before she came. --That's-- commitment.
>
>The whole thing sounds confusing and difficult to me Jim - specially
>if at all has to be fitted in round Landmark as the top priority eh?
>
>Jen.
It has all to be fitted around it's my commitment, and it's my commitment
and that... it's my commitment.
j2
Jim Foster
KMottus wrote in message <19990822120646...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>In article <7pntge$6vc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>
>>Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebc6$eb764040$077a490c@default>...
>>
>>>Meanwhile we just have to deal with the Center of the Universe aspect of
>>>Jim's life I guess. *sigh*
>>
>>Problem?
>
>"center of the universe" stage.
Oh, sure... i can get that. It's upsetting.
>
>One place it showed up is in what I interpret as your
>lack of ability to listen to what other people say on this
>ng.
>
>Like when I was talking about MY good student answer
>and you kept insisting I was talking about YOUR response.
>And then defending yourself against accusations I never
>even made about you.
>
>Your the center of the universe, I *musta* been talking about
>you. It's not even concievable to you that what I was talking
>about was me.
>
>It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
>to go through it. Enjoy it while it lasts. (unless your gonna
>be one of those who never gets over it <memories of ex-
>husband......shudder... that's a big part of why he is the ex>)
>
>K.
Hmmm... ex-husband, that's no accident you bring him up. So i'm reminding
you of him?
anyway...
And sure... i'm still at that stage... it's all about me. It's always been
all about me. When i was born they wrapped me in a blanket, rocked me to
sleep, held me, droe me around, gave me presents, gave me candy... of course
it was about me. Some of us just get to the part where we try to act like
"it's not about me". But it's about me... still about me no matter how much
i tell you it's not.
I have an awesome relationship with my girlfriend. Sure it's all about me,
and for her it's about her... sometimes it's about her with me, and about me
with her... but mostly it's just me thinking about what's gonna happen at
teh end of the night... but hey! is that bad? is it something that no one
else does and i'm supposed to cover up? does it make me a jerk? maybe those
guys who pretend like it's not about them are the ones that work
j2
j2
je...@my-deja.com
"Jim Foster" <illu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hiya kiddo,
You OK? How much sleep are you getting?
I'm sorry you thought you don't have friends here (reply to Jennifers
post). Personally I like you and feel quite fond (and protective ;-) of
you. I think its to do with your lack of 'nastiness' - well until
these last few posts - which are getting a little incoherent for me.
Which is why I asked about the sleep. Its a genuine concern Jim. OK?
If you continue to throw honest and open communication back in peoples
faces though (like your rather offensive comment re K's ex-
husband)....well...I don't know, maybe something other than sleep
deprivation happened this weekend?
That would be a shame. Like I said - up to now I've enjoyed you being
around:-)
Jen.
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>It all depends on how you show up here. Some (not a lot, but some)
>>people come on this ng very positive about what LEC has to offer,
>>and they don't get chopped up or sucked down.
>
>Alright, but they're not here.
Um let's see. Gary S., Jennifer, me (although positive
about another LGAT, neutral on Forum), Larry when he
was playing on this side of the fence, Fred (a committed
neutral, but he doesn't get chopped up or sucked down
when he plays on this side of the fence... I still see the
image from the fence-riding post, and it still makes me
smile).
We're all here....
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>"But then I don't see attacks on LEC or LGAT's in general as
>threatening to my ego. I'm willing and capable of discussing
>things openly, honestly and authentically in either english or
>jargon."
>
>I don't get a feeling of being shared with out of that... like you're
>"broadcasting" yourself to me.
Well, I'm still trying to figure out how to get into conversation
with you. I think this is a start.
>
>What i'm asserting is that most of the time... here... or in any
>conversation in my life, i more of just say the way things look to me,
>rather than sharing. Like... oh my hamburger, it's big, it's juicy, it's got
>ketchup and mustard... it's good, it tastes really juicy and fresh. Instead
>of just giving people a taste of it, right?
>
So, I'm trying to get your point here (and it isn't always easy for
me to get your point).... Um still not getting it... sounds like, given
that this is only a newsgroup, the only way you could share is
by getting us to go to the Forum???? That can't be what your
saying. I have found (I've been here for 3+ maybe 4 years) that
it is completely possible for people to share deeply and
authentically just by talking about the way life looks to them.
(both sides of the fence.) It takes getting beneath the surface
of things and really taking time to "detail" it (like detailing a car,
getting the Q-tips into the crevises, and polishing evey side
of it). At least for me, the "Oh look, that's the pretense" (in
the LGAT's I do, we use ~pretense~ in a particular sense,
since you suddenly started using that word, in like every
post from you I'd read that day, I presumed it was something
that they worked on in your Forum the day before and you were
trying it out with everything) Rather than revealing all of what's
going on for you. It's much riskier to be totally revealing about
what's occuring for you than to toss the appropriate label on
it a move on, but I say it's worth that risk.
> If you wanna say there's something wrong with the way i post stuff or
>the way i listen or hear or share... say it!! There's nothing wrong with
>saying someone is wrong. I won't make you wrong for it! ;)
Sweetie, I don't find anything wrong with the way you post. I
do, hold you as capable, and ~responsible~ (sorry if that triggers
anyone) for what you ~generate~ here. I think the LEC programs
are like the stuff I do, so the ~being source for what you generate~
is likely to be something landed more in the Advanced course
(based on what people say about the Advanced course), so maybe
I'm not being clear. I, generally, find it very useful, especially
when I don't get the response I'm expecting, to look at myself
for explaining what happened. (for example, I'm very clear
that any miscommunication between the two of us is that I
haven't found a way to communicate to you clearly... so I'm
trying different things to find what works.... I'm not trying to
change you, I'm trying to figure out who I need to be that
you will hear me. One thing that seems to work for you, is
to ~distinction~ at you. I'd like to hear more about what you've
been getting from what I said, but I do see that those words
are on some level getting through to you.)
>
>I can do this, i can do that, or i don't do this, i'm this way and that...
>so what? so show me something! From what i see something here is threatening
>or confronting to you, or else there wouldn't have been a reply.
>
That's an interesting interpretation. Mostly what I do here, since
I don't have an experience of the Forum to talk about, is I'll talk
about concepts, ~distinctions~, and find out more about peoples
experiences. I find that when I have deep discussions with people
about what particular ~distinctions~ mean to them, how they ~occur~
for them, how they use them, my own understanding of myself
and others as human beings is deepened.
If anything, what prompts me to respond to you is when I see you
using a distinction in a way that I think will lead to one of those
pitfalls you do not believe exist.
And sometimes because I know I can use my wicked sense
of humor YMMV to make others laugh (I have a public declaration
to do that on this ng BTW <vweg>)
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Hmmm... ex-husband, that's no accident you bring him up. So i'm reminding
>you of him?
>anyway...
Just a little warning, that not getting off the ME ME ME conversation
can have prices associated with it.
>And sure... i'm still at that stage... it's all about me. It's always been
>all about me. When i was born they wrapped me in a blanket, rocked me to
>sleep, held me, droe me around, gave me presents, gave me candy... of course
>it was about me. Some of us just get to the part where we try to act like
>"it's not about me". But it's about me... still about me no matter how much
>i tell you it's not.
>
Sweetie, you couldn't hide that it's all about you.
We are all *WAY* more transparent about what drives us than
*ANY* of us like to admit.
>I have an awesome relationship with my girlfriend. Sure it's all about me,
>and for her it's about her... sometimes it's about her with me, and about me
>with her... but mostly it's just me thinking about what's gonna happen at
>teh end of the night... but hey! is that bad? is it something that no one
>else does and i'm supposed to cover up? does it make me a jerk? maybe those
>guys who pretend like it's not about them are the ones that work
I never asked you to cover anything up. But you seem to be
~coming from~ the notion that you are a fixed entity (fixed as in
immutable rather than fixed as in no longer broken :-D). This
is just the way I am. You can shift off the ME ME ME conversation
any time you choose to, and your going to have to if you wanna
be a contribution to others (particularly if your gonna do the IFL
thang...).
KMottus
>
>If you continue to throw honest and open communication back in peoples
>faces though (like your rather offensive comment re K's ex-
>husband)....well...I don't know, maybe something other than sleep
>deprivation happened this weekend?
Hey Jen,
Well, it is always easier to see the "alien on someone
elses face" than on one's own.
<giggle>.... gotta find that exchange between SamOL and me...
To summarize....
It's much easier to see the various ~distinctions~ of the trainings
in other people than it is in one's own self. They are like an
alien on your face, the tenticles are positioned such that your
eyes aren't covered, so you can't see it's there. A lot of
what goes on between people, sometimes, is just tossing
the aliens off of our face onto someone elses... and the
tossing gets harder until there are dead splatted aliens
decorating the room.
See, he's just holding me completely ~responsible~ (sorry)
for my communication. Now my ~interpretation~ is that he
thinks that I don't like his posts (which isn't true) and that I
don't like them because they remind me of my ex-husband.
What I see similar between him and my Ex is the "it's all
about me" stuff. It can get really old to be in a relationship
with someone like that over time. There's nothing inherently
wrong with the ME conversation, it's just that there are very
predictable results that come out of it.
Orroro/Fitz
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
Jim Foster <illu...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<7pqvcq$o54$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> KMottus wrote in message
<19990822120646...@ngol03.aol.com>...
> >In article <7pntge$6vc$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
> ><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >>Orroro/Fitz wrote in message <01beebc6$eb764040$077a490c@default>...
> >>
> >>>Meanwhile we just have to deal with the Center of the Universe aspect
of
> >>>Jim's life I guess. *sigh*
> >>
> >>Problem?
> >
> >Well, it can get annoying to those who've grown past the
> >"center of the universe" stage.
>
> Oh, sure... i can get that. It's upsetting.
Annoying does not equate to "upsetting". Annoying is like a gnat that
doesn't go away. Upsetting is having a whole herd of yellow jackets taking
up residence in your home. Hopefully that distinction helps clear that up.
Guess maybe being annoying is upsetting to you though? Upsetting indicates
a trigger...maybe you like that type of control? Triggering people. Being
annoying can be so boring...but upsetting, that is another "game".
> >One place it showed up is in what I interpret as your
> >lack of ability to listen to what other people say on this
> >ng.
> >
> >Like when I was talking about MY good student answer
> >and you kept insisting I was talking about YOUR response.
> >And then defending yourself against accusations I never
> >even made about you.
> >
> >Your the center of the universe, I *musta* been talking about
> >you. It's not even concievable to you that what I was talking
> >about was me.
> >
> >It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
> >to go through it. Enjoy it while it lasts. (unless your gonna
> >be one of those who never gets over it <memories of ex-
> >husband......shudder... that's a big part of why he is the ex>)
> >
> >K.
>
>
> Hmmm... ex-husband, that's no accident you bring him up. So i'm reminding
> you of him?
> anyway...
> And sure... i'm still at that stage... it's all about me. It's always
been
> all about me. When i was born they wrapped me in a blanket, rocked me to
> sleep, held me, droe me around, gave me presents, gave me candy... of
course
> it was about me. Some of us just get to the part where we try to act like
> "it's not about me". But it's about me... still about me no matter how
much
> i tell you it's not.
>
> I have an awesome relationship with my girlfriend. Sure it's all about
me,
> and for her it's about her... sometimes it's about her with me, and about
me
> with her... but mostly it's just me thinking about what's gonna happen at
> teh end of the night... but hey! is that bad? is it something that no one
> else does and i'm supposed to cover up? does it make me a jerk? maybe
those
> guys who pretend like it's not about them are the ones that work
Nice excuse for your behavior...making those ~wrong~ that don't "do" life
like you do.
And what strikes me as funny in a sick way is that K is *still* playing
into your center of the universe behavior by trying to figure out how to
communicate with you. You are not even coming close to wanting to be
engaged in an authentic conversation with her based upon what I am reading
of your posts. Your current excuse seems to be you are inauthentic so
*shrug* you don't even have to *work* towards being authentic.
Guess that is where the whole thing about the programs slides down the
slippery slope of being incompatible to religion(s). See my particular
religious aspect is to obtain a balance regarding behaviors. To look at the
"bad" and the "good", be aware that those sides exist and I have choices.
But it is like you have given yourself the choice of "no choice" with that
inauthentic broadcast...and in a very subtle way, permission to be a
"jerk".
Why on earth would you do that to yourself Jim? Makes no sense that you
would care that little about yourself and the life you could live by just
accepting such nonsense because someone that your mom "respects" states it
is so.
larrry...@my-deja.com
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> Larry when he
> was playing on this side of the fence
I'd put myself in the equivocal camp these days. I'm not neutral; I
have strong positions and opinions that go both ways and it doesn't do
justice to them to net them out to neutral.
I love the content but the organization and the culture that surrounds
it give me the willies.
larrry...@my-deja.com
"Jim Foster" <illu...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Hmmm... ex-husband, that's no accident you bring him up. So i'm
reminding
> you of him?
> anyway...
Jim, you arrogant little prick.
The way you come across here -- with all the "i got it" and such, and
remarks like the one I just quoted -- is that you relate to people like
forum leaders relate to people while they're leading a course.
I'm not surprised, actually, given the amount of time you have spent in
and around the forum and other courses over the past month.
Are you the same way in real life?
I have a big problem with what you said to Kathleen, about her ex. It
is totally off base (at least as it occurs to me). How the hell do you
have the perspective to know whether it's an accident that she brings
him up? Or the ability to conclude that you remind her of him? When
did you get your degree in psychology, and when did you do your
supervised clinical training? Or, more on point, when did you get the
training Landmark course leaders have that enables them to be with
people in a way that (a) they're able to "get" such things and (b)
present them to people responsibly in a way that creates openings, not
upset?
It's appropriate for a course leader to say that when she or he is
interacting with a participant *IN A COURSE*. It's not appropriate
almost all the rest of the time, unless someone specifically requests
it. Let me tell ya, I have very intimate social relationships with a
couple of Landmark course leaders, and when I see them they don't say
things to me like that. They talk like normal human beings. I think
they can't be *bothered* to coach and process me when they're not
getting paid for it. You know, time off?
Not to mention that you made the remark in public, that it seemed to me
like a dig, and that you don't have any information about Kathleen's
relationship with her ex and what happened that their status changed,
that Kathleen doesn't appear to have given you permission to say that
kind of thing to her, and that you're 19 fucking years old and you
should at least take some respectful distance talking about real-world
situations about which you don't have the beginning of a clue.
I *hope* you do this around Landmark people, maybe in an assisting
agreement, or ILFLP or something, and I *hope* someone has the
integrity to say something to you about it. Unfortunately, I suspect
what *will* happen is that people will think it's cute, or think you're
too valuable a resource or whatever, or be too self-engrossed, or too
*busy*, and they'll step right over it.
You should cut it out. It's really obnoxious.
Jennifer Moore
[for everyone else just to keep straight who said what
>>> is Jim
>> is me
> is Jim again]
>>>that people would be out to
>>>just denounce a company
>>
>>It isn't as simple as that.
>
>tell me about that
Well for instance. I am not here to denounce LEC. My declared game
here is to have people experience being heard and the ~technology~ not
be misrepresented. I also have a big interest in learning about how the
ideas can be misused (deliberately or "humanbeingly" as it were) and
what effect that can have on people. and I am looking for the patterns
in it like: if a lot of people do the same thing and it doesn't work,
where did that come from? where did they learn to do that? and could
they have learned the useful stuff without picking the dodgy bits up
too? or if a few people do some excessively dodgy stuff using Landmark
to justify it then how could that have been interrupted? or if people
suffer bad effects then how could they have been protected from that?
My personal experience with Landmark has been that I consider it a
valuable strand in my life, I learnt a lot from my participation and I
don't know where I would have learnt that stuff if not there. And I
don't say that it's perfect and I don't dis other people's experience if
it was different. and I am interested in keeping the good stuff for
people and not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
(as opposed to: everything in the Forum is common sense and only losers
need it / any useful grain of truth in the Forum is incidental to the
process of separating suckers from their money, i.e. there _is_ no good
stuff worth the bother of extracting.)
I am pretty sure that even some of the people who ~occur for~ you as
"out to denounce a company" are actually more like "out to denounce
certain practices and/or results of the company".
for instance some aspects of the way that the measures are set up for
people to "succeed" or "fail" in the organisation, and in particular how
that predictably tends to create a context that calls human beings to be
~in survival~
and that some things are not measured at all, which does not i.m.o.
match with a declared commitment to cause them (for instance how are we
currently measuring that people in intros have "no basis for a
conversation about pressure"?)
or the way that a steady stream of graduates emerges from the Forum
~making wrong~ anyone who doesn't agree with them that Landmark is the
best thing since sliced bread
or the company's practice of suing people who write less than flattering
articles in the press
or the way you can be a course leader in Landmark (or hold some other
respected position) while concealing or ignoring certain aspects of your
personal life which, to coin a phrase, "suck" :-)
though I will agree with you that _some_ people seem to be out to
denounce the company as a whole. but unless they have said themselves
that is what they are doing (which I think for instance Robert and Alan
have said, am I right guys?) then I wouldn't assume it.
>>>and do it --here-- of all places, on a newsgroup
>>>where it makes no difference to LEC or what's happening out "on the court"
>>
>>I wouldn't assume that it makes no difference to what's happening "out
>>on the court". I think it does. I am pretty sure there are people
>>whose decisions about whether to participate with Landmark or not, or
>>how much to participate, have been influenced by the conversations here.
>>(if you call that "on the court".)
>
>No, i call that new or potential grads coming in and and deciding not to do
>or be involved in LEC through the conversation that's going on here.
>
>On the court would be like... calling up all the people you know and
>enrolling them in not participating in LEC programs... or starting an
>anti-LEC orginization, etc.
I don't think this is a particularly crucial conversation, but since we
are in it, I just want to say that I'm not convinced by the distinction
(non-Landmark sense of the word) you draw here.
I'm not a particularly big fan of that on-the-court/in-the-stands
metaphor. so I haven't dwelt in it like I have in some of them. But my
understanding of it is: in-the-stands is ~talking about~ and on-the-
court is some kind of being in action.
and if calling people you know and enrolling them in not participating
counts as "on the court", then I certainly think enrolling people-
reading-here in not participating counts as "on the court". What do you
think is so different between those?
>>As to whether it "makes a difference" to LEC... that's another question.
>>depends who from LEC is watching...
>
>heh
>
>i'm sure you have some clue as to that. There are probably alot of very
>involved people watching.
That may be, but if they are not in a position to redesign the
structures and measures by which LEC operates, i.m.o. the effect they
can have depends mainly on their ability to enrol the people who _are_
in such positions. which is true of any of us here.
I'm not aware of anyone in a design position having been in conversation
with us on a.f.l, or of any structural changes which have happened at
LEC as a result of a conversation here. And that's not to say none has
happened, but I have no evidence that they have.
>The pretense that i'm not making anyone wrong, and that i'm not an example
>to the people who read here.
>
>What does that do to -you-?
What does _what_ "do to me"?
I just want to insert here that I've noticed myself a few times not
understanding what you're saying or asking Jim. and this is one of
those times. It might help (not being sarcastic, a genuine suggestion)
if you could reread your posts before you send them, from the point of
view of: Would someone else be able to figure out what I meant here?
>>so what is it you have been doing here if it isn't for you? saving the
>>world ;-) ?
>
>no no... saving the NG ;) That was the inauthenticity.
<grin>
>The basic human
>reaction to inauthenticty is to hide it. I'm not sure many forum grads get
>that they're inauthentic in almost everything they do.
so you would be "one up" over the rest of 'em then
<ducks>
<grins>
>> They leave in a sulk with
>>some speed as soon as someone challenges their version of the world.
>>and even the ones who stay often stay in a rather righteous I'm-gonna-
>>set-you-guys-straight sort of way.
>
>Yeah (= like that pretense there... "you're not wrong, but i'm still gonna
>show you what's right"... right?
yep, something like that.
>over the last couple days just looking at
>ares where i'm not authentic, and how it impacts my life and other peoples
>lives (this was a nig part of the new forum)
I am curious - let me get this clear - are we talking about a redesign
of the Forum here, and you were in one of the trial versions?
>One thing that was said in the weekend was... a human being by
>nature is inauthenic. You'll never be authentic. The highest level of
>authenticity you can reach is to be authentic about your inauthentcity.
>
>I found in trying to get authentic about my inauthenticities, i'd just take
>a swing and tell everyone i'm inauthentic... all under the pretense that i'm
>presentr to my being inauthentic... or that i'm complete with it. No...
>there still that.
<grin>
this is great
like you could just get the whole inauthenticity conversation over with
once and for all right now! rather than: it lasts till you die :-)
I love it
mine would be more like:
"oh yes I know I'm inauthentic, now PLEASE don't make me LOOK THERE, I
owned up to it in principle, isn't that enough, let me off the icky bit
where I really have to ~get present~ to it...
oh okay okay I'll have a little look... but at least let me do it in
secret and not actually have to tell anyone what I find out... I'll just
think about it... or maybe write it in my diary...
oh okay okay I will tell someone... but I'm not gonna tell them the
really icky awful ones that I can't ~be with~... and I'm only gonna
tell them where I ~occurred~ for myself as inauthentic, I'm not gonna
let them in to what that felt like and how uncomfortable it was to look
there, so even when I own up to all this icky stuff I can still play it
down and look like I've got it all together"
hahahahahahaha!
<ouch>
hahaha
{aside: nobody take this thing as TRUE... it is not TRUE that human
beings are inherently inauthentic... it is A PERSPECTIVE that may allow
for some insights}
> Under that pretense, in that impact it has for me... feeling like an
>outsider... doing my WF being cute and petendingly oblivious to being
>right/racket, doing all that crap and just really distancing, feeling alone
>and confronted. I just wonder how it impacts the other people here. Maybe
>stupid, angry... i dunno. Inauthenticities are really a sickening thing.
nope, they are "really" inauthenticities
which is itself an interpretation and not "real"
<ducks>
<grins>
but steady on here... watch out that the "wondering how it impacts the
other people here" isn't some kind of "I found mine, now I am ahead of
the game, now it is my job to prod everyone else into doing the same"
because I couldn't tell if you meant: how does *your* inauthenticity
impact the other people here.... or how does *theirs*.
and (I say) the only way you get to impact MY inauthenticity (and anyone
else's who wishes to declare themselves as having some :-) ) is by being
a role model... owning up to YOURS... making it that little bit safer
to "tell one on yourself" round here...
which takes a lot of courage, but we already know you've got that, so no
problem there :-)
>Thanks Jennifer (=
you're welcome
<blows kiss>
Jim Foster
larrry...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ps6s4$hk2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <19990823081848...@ngol01.aol.com>,
> kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
>> Larry when he
>> was playing on this side of the fence
>
>I'd put myself in the equivocal camp these days. I'm not neutral; I
>have strong positions and opinions that go both ways and it doesn't do
>justice to them to net them out to neutral.
>
>I love the content but the organization and the culture that surrounds
>it give me the willies.
yeah, i can definately see that
j2
Jim Foster
I'm wondering why the ex-husband was brought up. And those are my "maybe
it's this" thoughts.
Yeah, i was spiteful tho... it's easy to see what it's done.
but i'm still wondering.
j2
larrry...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7ps8vf$j8l$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <7pqvcq$o54$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>,
Jim Foster
KMottus wrote in message <19990822094446...@ngol02.aol.com>...
>In article <7pntt5$a00$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>
>>that's what i was asking patrick to answer tho.
>
>You could check the archives, he's stated what he is here
>for zillions of time, he even wrote a book about it.
Okay... but what's wrong with asking?
j2
patrick
> <illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >>It all depends on how you show up here. Some (not a lot, but some)
> >>people come on this ng very positive about what LEC has to offer,
> >>and they don't get chopped up or sucked down.
> >
> >Alright, but they're not here.
>
> about another LGAT, neutral on Forum), Larry when he
> was playing on this side of the fence, Fred (a committed
> neutral, but he doesn't get chopped up or sucked down
> when he plays on this side of the fence... I still see the
> image from the fence-riding post, and it still makes me
> smile).
>
> We're all here....
>
>
> *********************************************************
> Access to power must be confined to those who are
> not in love with it.
> -Plato
>
> kmo...@aol.com
>
and if i may add to this. there still is a fence, yep, there still is
but
i moved it when no one way looking :)
love is all u need
--
Dont let anyone tell u, what u must do
INXS
patrick
gsau...@aol.combite-me (GSaun039) wrote:
> In article <7pq6br$37u$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, patrick
<1pat...@austin.quik.com>
> writes:
>
> > in my program we were told we had no value. we were not told that
> >we werent real. i have spoken to people that have attended programs
> >other than the one that i attended and they dont speak of have any
> >value or nor they seem to be mixed up over whether there is any
> >reality or not.
>
> Come on, Patrick. I seriously doubt that anyone said that you had no
value or
> that you weren't real during your Forum.
hey , were u there. sorry fella, your jinnendra is a wierd nasty
old man. he really is. with people completely unaware of what he
was saying. this is true. but of course your programs get u all mixed
up about that, because for the most part they dont have any truth,
do they ?
In fact, this claim of yours
about
> being told that people who attend the Forum aren't real or have no
value is a
> relatively new phenomenon. How many people, who are they, where are
they?
like i said, read the newsgroup.
Were
> they at your Forum and would they corroborate what you say? Or are
these "some
> people" part of the ubiquitous "they". Well, Patrick I'll see your
people and
> raise you, and tell you that I too have talked to a number of preople
(who are
> no longer in any of the programs) and "they" say that it hasn't
happened, and
> "they" have participated in the previous versions of W.E's travelling
road show
> long before you or I ever even heard of the Forum.
just because they say that they dont think it could have happened
doesnt mean it didnt happen. just think, jinnedra has his racket
going and people like u and many others that cant see what is really
going on. of course u feel better about yourself , so instead of
thinking in your mind that this is a possibility, even maybe even
a remote possibility u claim it as lies and that it couldnt happen.
>
> And yes, I do archive the posts for between six months and one year,
so I
> usually have a fairly extensive collection of posts on my hard drive
at any
> given time to check against.
then read some of your archive. listen closely to what people are
saying, try at least to get rid of your landmark filters and try to
read some of this stuff with an independent .
>
> The point I make and will continue to make is that you continue to
write in a
> fashion that I characterize as deceitful and characterisitic of a lie.
this is your opinion, u are welcome to have it. u may continue to post
against all u want. i will NOT change my style
pardon the french bla bla bla
>
> >> What distinction? There are conversations concerning our
realtionship
> >>to what we view as reality, but heh, it doesn't take the Forum or
any other
> >>"program" to challenge that.
>
> there, u practically answered your question to me yourself. is
landmark
> challenging peoples perspective of them being real. are they
challenging
> that. are deaf or have u not read any of the archive in this
newsgroup.
>
> The answer is NO! THEY ARE NOT CHALLENGING WHETHER PEOPLE ARE REAL!
But your
> statements present it as if Landmark does and your statements are
entirely
> incorrect. And the "reality conversation" is actually one that is
fully
> explored in the Advanced Course.
u can stick the advanced course where the sun dont shine
The precursor conversation about
reality and
> the "outcome" of the "reality conversation" are, indeed, there in the
Forum if
> one is listening. However, since you haven't done the Advanced
Course, you
> just don't know from first hand experience what that conversation is
about or
> how it turns out. If you knew how it "turns out" I think, given the
way you
> present things, that you'd be incredibly surprised.
i have talked to many people, and many people seem to be lost as to
what reality is, if they are real, or even if they want the possiblity
that they are real. it seem to be kinda like well if im not real, then
what i say and do is not real and then there is no right or wrong and
then there is no responsibility if there is no right or wrong.
sorry gsaun, but if u dropped dead tomorrow i would feel rather bad
about it. u have touched my life, when i first came to this newsgroup
u were one of the first to come at me :) u were also one of the first
that i laughed with or at :) and yes it does matter, just because it
does.
well u seem to like your programs so much lets just add jinnedra saying
the s word over and over and over. i think according to him, none of
us matter, because according to him, everybody should be going to hell
and then it just might not matter
> About the only prediction you could make with Aristotle's point of
view is that
> you would reliably fall to the earth if you didn't take action to stop
> yourself. But it did little to predict, reliably, what was seen in
the sky
> (sun, moon, stars, planets). Newtons Laws of Motion required a whole
new
> creation of mathematics (calculus) and could predict reasonably
accurately some
> of the observations about the interaction of two bodies with mass.
However,
> Einstein's general theory of relativity with its prediction of the
curvature of
> spacetime has produced some of the most accurate predictions in the
history of
> mankind. Does that mean the universe speaks the language of Einstein?
No, not
> all. The universe doesn't speak Einsteinian, we do.
your landmark forum is NOTHING that einstein, or any other thinkers
would ever endorse, unless of course they were into mind control. u
seem to be expending incredible amounts of energy to make me wrong :)
keep it up u little human u
and i will continue to say a little prayer for u occasion. i really have
done this u know, hope u dont mind, if u do, oh well
yes u mentioned a while back that your wife was health professional
i have a question, ask your wife if calling people shits and assholes
is abusive language. ask her why an organization would use such words
on it s people.
>
> That's all for now
>
> Gary
> _________________________
> To send e-mail, remove "bite-me" spam block from the address
>
> People like us know that the distinction between past, present, and
future is
> only a stubbornly persistent illusion.
>
> Albert Einstein
>
--
Larry Person
Jim Foster wrote in message <7psnlk$lio$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Actually i don't have any training. I was just saying what i was thinking.
>
>I'm wondering why the ex-husband was brought up. And those are my "maybe
>it's this" thoughts.
>Yeah, i was spiteful tho... it's easy to see what it's done.
>
>but i'm still wondering.
Let me refresh your memory. This is what Kathleen said:
KMottus wrote in message <19990822120646...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
>to go through it. Enjoy it while it lasts. (unless your gonna
>be one of those who never gets over it <memories of ex-
>husband......shudder... that's a big part of why he is the ex>)
Maybe -- and I know you probably haven't ~authentically~ considered this --
MAYBE Kathleen was offering you a perspective about YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR that
YOU DON'T SEE RIGHT NOW.
Personally, when Kathleen offers me some kind of perspective about *my*
behavior I tend to listen. She's usually right.
Jim Foster
KMottus wrote in message <19990823081853...@ngol01.aol.com>...
>In article <7pqvcq$o54$1...@nntp8.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>Just a little warning, that not getting off the ME ME ME conversation
>can have prices associated with it.
no, i'm really inviting you to look at that. What got you to mention your
ex-husband? Was it just to tell me i was doing that?
>
>>And sure... i'm still at that stage... it's all about me. It's always been
>>all about me. When i was born they wrapped me in a blanket, rocked me to
>>sleep, held me, droe me around, gave me presents, gave me candy... of
course
>>it was about me. Some of us just get to the part where we try to act like
>>"it's not about me". But it's about me... still about me no matter how
much
>>i tell you it's not.
>>
>
>Sweetie, you couldn't hide that it's all about you.
I know! that's exactly it! (= that's the humor in the whole thing is that
while pretending not to do certian things... it's so apparent to everyone
else.
>We are all *WAY* more transparent about what drives us than
>*ANY* of us like to admit.
I notice "it's all about me" with everyone. My mom, my brother, my sister,
my dad, my freinds, the people on here. It always all about me
>
>
>>I have an awesome relationship with my girlfriend. Sure it's all about me,
>>and for her it's about her... sometimes it's about her with me, and about
me
>>with her... but mostly it's just me thinking about what's gonna happen at
>>teh end of the night... but hey! is that bad? is it something that no one
>>else does and i'm supposed to cover up? does it make me a jerk? maybe
those
>>guys who pretend like it's not about them are the ones that work
>
>I never asked you to cover anything up. But you seem to be
>~coming from~ the notion that you are a fixed entity (fixed as in
>immutable rather than fixed as in no longer broken :-D).
Hehe (= well... i'm an inauthentic lying selfish jerk who covers things up
by nature. Even tho i'm committed to the possibility of leadership, of love,
friendly or whatever possibility i am. It doens't make me automatically
freindly or loving... it makes me a lying selfish jerk that's committed to
being loving.
> This
>is just the way I am. You can shift off the ME ME ME conversation
>any time you choose to, and your going to have to if you wanna
>be a contribution to others (particularly if your gonna do the IFL
>thang...).
I got that, Kathleen
It's not something i resist, making a contribution... i'd resist being
contributed to... but i'm also committed to not doing that. I love making a
contribution and once i let it happen, i usually love being contributed to.
But even in making a contribution i get to feel good about what i've done
and all under the pretense that it's not about me.
j2
Jim Foster
Raina Beurle wrote in message <93533495...@srv1.space.net.au>...
>I post here Jim, because I post here. (Gee, am I starting to sound like
>Fred?)
>
>Nothing drives me to post here.
>
>I love a "new convert", as I did even when I worked for LEC, but I love
them
>quite differently now.
>I love the sweetness.
>I love the zealousness.
>I love the naivity.
>I love the FL role play.
>I do see a lot of myself and others in you Jim, which is probably why I
> love
>you so.
cool, i hear that
>
>When I was a kid I had a book called "How a Chick is born" which went
>through the developmental stages of a chicken from fertilisation to
>hatching. That was my favourite book for a long time - I even think my
>mother still has it. Now this is just an analogy right...but when I read
>your posts I have an overwhelming sense of familiarity for the phase - as I
>either experienced it or observed it. Sometimes I think you are me... I
> told
>you this newsgroup was transformational didn't I? It certainly allows me to
>experience the sameness between myself and others.
>
Great! I'm glad you shared that with me, cuz... i know lotsa instances where
i really realted to what someone has been doing and never got up the guts to
say so. With my girlfriend even... i realize what i found so intruiging
about her is that... she reminded me of me.
>The other thing is, since I started participating in this newsgroup my life
>has opened up in ways that you wouldn't believe.... I am accomplishing
>things in my life with such velocity that I surprise myself, I have more
>time am better organised and I have been left thinking that I am becoming
> an
>opening for miracles.
>
>Before I was participating here, I didn't have much time, I was often
>making
>commitments I didn't want to make and sometimes experienced being
>manipulated into taking actions that I didn't want to take.
Cool, I got that. The forum was like that for me.
>
>Since I started participating here I have definitely grown more wise, and
>become much more able to speak frankly about how things were and/or are for
>me.
>My income and assets have grown and I have more time and energy to spend
>with my children.
>I have become more confident in talking to large groups of people and
>sharing my ideas and experiences.
>I also became engaged to a really wonderful man, whom my children and
> family
>loves, and I have realised a childhood dream in taking a month long trip
>trekking through South America and visiting the ruins of the Incas!
Rock on, Raina ;)
>
>So, you wanna hang around for a bit and get your share of what's possible
> in
>alt.fan.landmark. I'm sure you are already getting a sense of what's
>possible, otherwise I doubt that you would have been posting so
>committedly.
>
>Now... who do you know who can enrol by Friday? (sorry... couldn't help
it)
(already got a few ;)
Oh, BTW... the distinction enrollment has been changed. I think you'll like
it. I'll post it up on it's own thread.
j2
>
>love miss raina
>
>
>
>
>
>
Jim Foster
Linda wrote in message <37BFE896...@inlink.com>...
>Jim Foster wrote:
>
>Did you want me to share some of my recent wins? :-)
sure, absolutely
>
>> What i found is people who are bitter about LEC and some defaming it in
>conversation,
>
>LEC Sucks. neener neener. Jim, Lighten up.
>
>>some not, but no one really excited about what it has to offer.
>
>In other words, people who have participated a lot, or long enough, or
>had the time to reflect and consider to have a better idea of what
>it's really about, than a newly minted Grad with a buzz on.
No, no other words. There are alot of people at the Dallas center who have
been doing this work for long periods of time--from the early 90's, 80's...
even some from est in the 70's--who are still lit up about it.
>
>Gee, there's plenty of excitement round these parts, don't you 'get'
>all the energy that is coming your way...
Yep! got it!
> We're plugged into a
>possibility that's even grander than anything you've even dreamed
>about.
>
>woo woo. Reality, try it on.
>>Like i'm this new view of what
>> the forum is producing right now in people's lives
>
>Yes, you are. We're real clear that LEC is responsible.
exactly what i was saying... -i'm- responsible
I'm not blaming rocks or the weather or the people on this newsgroup (well
not all the time ;) for causing my life.
I went to the forum... i got it... i came home... i used the forum to make
everyone wrong... i went to the seminar... i pretended like i never made
anyone wrong anymore... i went to the forum again... i got it... i got to
looking at my inauthenticities... i posted on the NG... i got a reply... i'm
posting back
---I--- did all that.
>
>>and i'm gonna be chopped down or sucked in to the conversation.
>
>Everyone here is very supportive of your stated goals, go clean that
>kitchen,
Clean
>
>the whole ng is watching and rooting you on. When you cut back on
>your LEC participation and enroll in a writing course at your junior
>college,
>there will be a huge cry and cheers and attaboys.
>
>Have you had time to read your poetry during your practice Forum
>weekend?
yeah, i was reading edna st. vincent millay. I read poetry more now
actually -after- the forum
that i took on reading it at least 30 minutes a day. I write more too.
Not that that means the forum is responsible for that.
>Aren't you getting a little ragged working nites and trying to do all
>this stuff and what about sleep? You getting enough sleep?
>
i get a 4-7 hours. It's enough for me. I do it really out of my commitment
to move up where my girlfriend lives.
[snip]
>> this person who knows and no one else does. So...
>
>We get a lot of those sorts round here, comes with the training, I
>think. Or it could just be your listening, eh?
Really, Linda... i don't think that's something that people get from the
courses. It's something i've done all my life.. i even asked my freind Tony
about if he ever feels like i think i'm smarter than him, and i'm trying to
tell him something he doesn't know. He said "Yeah man... all the time"
In the courses i just got more courageous about making people stupid ;)
>
>> Now i'm fessing up. I don't want to be here as that bad
>> representation
>> of myself and landmark and my experience.
>
>But you're doing fine, I'd say you're giving an accurate account of it
>all.
>
>> I walked into a conversation that's been going on for a long long time
and the pretense isn't gonna change, i even brought my own pretense into it.
It's not really something i'm gonna say helped me out alot ;) in fact... i
feel pretty lone, and
>> closed off there.
>
>Oh Jim, I can see that your need for affiliation is very strong.
No, no! i'm not asking for agreement... i'm just telling you the effect of
what i did to myself.
>Don't feel alone. I know there are some pro_Leccies round here
>somewhere who are feeling very connected to you right now. Surely
>they've contacted you and offered their support? Lawrence and Gary,
>and Bob... You should get to know Bob.
I haven't been contacted by Lawrence, Gary, -or- Bob. Who are they?
>
>Kindest Regards,
>Linda
j2
Jim Foster
Larry Person wrote in message ...
>Let me refresh your memory. This is what Kathleen said:
>
>KMottus wrote in message <19990822120646...@ngol03.aol.com>...
>>It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
>>to go through it. Enjoy it while it lasts. (unless your gonna
>>be one of those who never gets over it <memories of ex-
>>husband......shudder... that's a big part of why he is the ex>)
>
>
>Maybe -- and I know you probably haven't ~authentically~ considered this --
>MAYBE Kathleen was offering you a perspective about YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR that
>YOU DON'T SEE RIGHT NOW.
>
>Personally, when Kathleen offers me some kind of perspective about *my*
>behavior I tend to listen. She's usually right.
Larry... i really did authentically consider that.
i thought maybe there's more, i dunno...
I'm clear on my behavior tho
If she's usually right, should i fix my behavior?
Just check it out man... i know it was a pissy thing to say. Sorry, Kathleen
(but i still am invitin ya to check that out). But i do things like that...
i just do, and i do them, and i do them and i do them. I -was- inauthentic,
and not only did i upset some people, it's the distancing that it gives me
gain. The "not listening"? I really am listening... i'm just not real happy
about what i'm listening to.
So, look... out of that i can invent something... so here's what it is, what
i'm inventing out of that is Generosity.
I got it!
j2
Larry Person
Jim Foster wrote in message <7ptj14$f03$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Oh, BTW... the distinction enrollment has been changed. I think you'll like
>it. I'll post it up on it's own thread.
A rose by any other name ...
KMottus
<La...@LarryPerson.com> writes:
>Personally, when Kathleen offers me some kind of perspective about *my*
>behavior I tend to listen. She's usually right.
<blushing> Thanks!!
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
Let's do this from a LGAT perspective (those who will gag on it
can stop reading now ;-D ). There are certain ~conversations~
and ~ways of being~ that are necessary for you to be fully
accessing in order for you to be able to ~be~ the kind of contribution
that is needed for an Introduction (we call 'em guest events)
to be effective. In order to live from those ~conversations~,
your going to have to ~get off~ the ones that you usually
run that aren't in ~alignment~ with the ~commitment~ that
25% (or whatever the standard is) of the people at the
Introduction enroll in the Forum. So if you go to lead an
Introduction (which is why you've enrolled in ILFLP, right?)
your going to have to figure out how to ~be~ loving (for instance)
EVEN THOUGH you have a ~conversation~ about yourself
that you are a lying, selfish jerk. Because, your not, really.
You've invented and created yourself to be a lying, selfish,
jerk. It's comfortable for you to be that way, you know how
to do it well, you've had lots of practice at it. We all have
to invent and creat ourselves to be something. And you can
recreate or reinvent yourself whenever you decide your
going to do it (and you'll have to choose which your going
to be in every moment of every day for your whole life,
COOL, huh?)
See there's a difference between I'm an X whose committed
to be Y, and I'm a Y who is an X, too. But that's Advanced
course stuff. If you want the ~woo-woo~ version, it's what
you put right after the I am that is what the universe hears....
and what your mind will create. The stuff near the end
of the sentance is what you do to make yourself feel
better, or look better, about what you put immediately
after the I AM.
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>In the courses i just got more courageous about making people stupid ;)
Now there's a quote for the brochure =:-O.
<giggle>
Orroro/Fitz
well. And a distinction that for some odd reason that is completely missed
on a lot of people that participate.
My ex-husband included.
-pam
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
KMottus <kmo...@aol.comspamtrap> wrote in article
<19990824083741...@ngol06.aol.com>...
> In article <7ptina$ieu$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
Jim Foster
they should also put that you get nothing out of it
j2
KMottus wrote in message <19990824083741...@ngol06.aol.com>...
>In article <7ptjpi$it6$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
><illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
>>In the courses i just got more courageous about making people stupid ;)
>
>Now there's a quote for the brochure =:-O.
>
><giggle>
>
Orroro/Fitz
The word generosity has already been invented. It means something specific
and that requires a particular set of behavior on your part. Generosity
doesn't usually mean that you get to be more of a prick but I guess at this
point you can be a generous prick. In some sections of Seattle that can be
an attribute. Around here it just shows up as another example of not
hearing what is being said, being obnoxious about your belief and having
zero tact in conversations with people.
-pam
--
Poster is a resident of Washington State.
Spammers be warned, Washington State has a Spam Law that is successfully
enforced.
Jim Foster <illu...@mindspring.com> wrote in article
<7ptkk5$ahg$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>...
>
> Larry Person wrote in message ...
>
> >Let me refresh your memory. This is what Kathleen said:
> >
> >KMottus wrote in message
<19990822120646...@ngol03.aol.com>...
> >>It's a stage, we all go through it, I think we all seem to need
> >>to go through it. Enjoy it while it lasts. (unless your gonna
> >>be one of those who never gets over it <memories of ex-
> >>husband......shudder... that's a big part of why he is the ex>)
> >
> >
> >Maybe -- and I know you probably haven't ~authentically~ considered this
--
> >MAYBE Kathleen was offering you a perspective about YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR
that
> >YOU DON'T SEE RIGHT NOW.
> >
> >Personally, when Kathleen offers me some kind of perspective about *my*
> >behavior I tend to listen. She's usually right.
>
>
Jim Foster
Which is... i'm naturally that way. I have been since about 7 or 8 years
old.
> We all have
>to invent and creat ourselves to be something. And you can
>recreate or reinvent yourself whenever you decide your
>going to do it (and you'll have to choose which your going
>to be in every moment of every day for your whole life,
>COOL, huh?)
Yeah! (=
>
>See there's a difference between I'm an X whose committed
>to be Y, and I'm a Y who is an X, too. But that's Advanced
>course stuff. If you want the ~woo-woo~ version, it's what
>you put right after the I am that is what the universe hears....
>and what your mind will create.
But you need to cement it down by enrolling other people in that you got
that for yourself... or else the possibility never gets realized. I'll
always have selfish jerk. I won't always be being a selfish jerk, but it's
easy to fall back into.
> The stuff near the end
>of the sentance is what you do to make yourself feel
>better, or look better, about what you put immediately
>after the I AM.
Like what stuff after?
Markus Hirt
KMottus wrote:
> You can shift off the ME ME ME conversation
> any time you choose to, and your going to have to if you wanna
> be a contribution to others (particularly if your gonna do the IFL
> thang...).
Sorry to interrupt your excellent posts, Kathleen (you may blush now),
but (and here follows cold water...)
Seriously, given the statement Jim posted from his Forum Leader about
"you are the fulfillment of my life", I have some doubts that he'd
given up his ME conversation.
And it's not something new or Forum specific to contribute to
others out of totally selfish reasons. And of course it isn't
something bad. It is only that a health insurance will pay
a therapy against that behaviour if you call it codependency.
Markus
patrick
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> In article <HFnw3.4150$9K....@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>, "Larry Person"
> <La...@LarryPerson.com> writes:
>
*my*
> >behavior I tend to listen. She's usually right.
>
>
> K.
>
> *********************************************************
> Access to power must be confined to those who are
> not in love with it.
> -Plato
>
> kmo...@aol.com
>
--
this is wonderful, rolling on the floor
by by
dhc...@inlink.com
Golly, Please reassure me that you Did get a welcoming email from
someone participating with LEC welcoming you to the newsgroup and
offering their support? Anyone?
Lawrence is the Forum Graduate Association MEMBER, who invited people
who belong to that organizaton to come onto the ng and participate.
Sort of a call to muster out and be heard, which he posted on the
website.
Gary is GSaun, you may have read his recent essays on the Positive Side
under his nom de plume...
Bob is Bob G. who maintains the Ongoing Transformation site that has the
Smith Gallery and is/was/prolly-still-is very active in maintaining
transformation on the net with other grads. and talking about Heidegger
and stuff like that. He's extremely high energy and enthusiastic about
tranformation, right Jennifer?
I remember posting all those links, so I won't repost them, you can look
them up if you like, however, I can't imagine you have had time to
follow them all yet to any depth, this week, with the projects you've
got going right now, nor in the near future, what with that FAQ due in
by the end of the month. or is that the afl website that has that end of
month deadline?
So I have no hope you've read the Adult ADD websites that I posted,
either, eh? They're very good links, very interesting, I think.
Like Jen, I've mentioned being concerned about the amount of sleep
you're getting...
I think that 4 hours of sleep isn't enough for optimum performance, it
doesn't allow for Stage 4 sleep nor does it allow for the hormone
signals to be produced that restore and repair muscles. Plus, sleeping
during the day throws a person off even more, daylight sleep is
significantly less restorative than in the nighttime.
You are getting sleepy, so sleepy, your arms are tired, your eyes are
tired, your head is heavy, so heavy you can't hold it up... your eyelids
are so heavy you can't keep them open... heh heh.
Linda
KMottus
<illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>>You've invented and created yourself to be a lying, selfish,
>>jerk. It's comfortable for you to be that way, you know how
>>to do it well, you've had lots of practice at it.
>
>Which is... i'm naturally that way. I have been since about 7 or 8 years
>old.
>
Nope, your not "naturally" that way. Gee, your saying the
perfect things for me to expound on the LGATian philosophy
of ~human beingness~. <your not a plant are you? <eg> >
In the LGAT-view around the age of 7 or 8 is when people
usually start putting up the barriers (pretenses, rackets,
etc.... all the things you may view as inauthenticities).
You discovered that by ~being~ a selfish jerk you could
protect yourself from something. It worked. So you kept
it up. Somewhere along the line you forgot that you
invented yourself that way, and believed that you *were*
that way. So now the pretense (mask, barrier, etc) is
the one with the power. It has you believing that it is
*real*, that it is how you *are*. You invented yourself
to be this way, you can invent yourself to be any other
way you chose. OTOH, human beings are creatures
of habit. It takes alot of work and effort to change the habits.
You may never stop, occasionally, falling back on being
a selfish jerk, or you may be able to ~get off~ it totally. Only
time will tell.
>> We all have
>>to invent and creat ourselves to be something. And you can
>>recreate or reinvent yourself whenever you decide your
>>going to do it (and you'll have to choose which your going
>>to be in every moment of every day for your whole life,
>>COOL, huh?)
>
>Yeah! (=
>
>>
>>See there's a difference between I'm an X whose committed
>>to be Y, and I'm a Y who is an X, too. But that's Advanced
>>course stuff. If you want the ~woo-woo~ version, it's what
>>you put right after the I am that is what the universe hears....
>>and what your mind will create.
>
>But you need to cement it down by enrolling other people in that you got
>that for yourself... or else the possibility never gets realized. I'll
>always have selfish jerk. I won't always be being a selfish jerk, but it's
>easy to fall back into.
>
First person you get to enroll is yourself, and right now you
appeared to be totally enrolled in your selfish jerkness.
Even if your being your new reinvention, some people will *get*
it and some won't. Now you will know that you've really shifted
the ~conversation~ when people start getting it. You can tell
yourself you've shifted all you want, but until it starts showing
up on the radar screen of life (other people) all your doing is
blowing sunshine up your butt.
>> The stuff near the end
>>of the sentance is what you do to make yourself feel
>>better, or look better, about what you put immediately
>>after the I AM.
>
>Like what stuff after?
Whatever your inventing yourself to be. When you say
I am sad, your creating yourself to be sad, when you say
you are loving, your creating yourself to be loving. You
keep repeating that you ARE a selfish jerk, and that is
helping to perpetuate it. Now you may be committed to
creating yourself that way. And that's OK, I don't really
understand why you'd want to, but then lots of people do
stuff I don't understand. Now you might want to try thinking
about it as I am creating myself as a selfish jerk, or I am
experiencing myself as a selfish jerk. That helps to separate
the ~conversation~ of selfish jerkness from what your
ego identifies as you.
KMottus
>Seriously, given the statement Jim posted from his Forum Leader about
>"you are the fulfillment of my life", I have some doubts that he'd
>given up his ME conversation.
Well, most people can never give it up entirely, but from
what I've seen (At least 'round here, maybe things are different
over in Forum-world) in those moments when someone
is really being in contribution to someone else, they
gave it up for that portion of time. At least what I've seen
from being at a number of our Guest Events, when the
person leading it is really stuck in their it's all about
ME converstation, the GE (to use Jennifer's cleverly coined
phrase) sucks, and people don't enroll (which usually is
the point of having the thing). But when the person leading
it is focused on it being about the other people, then it
usually works much better.
>And it's not something new or Forum specific to contribute to
>others out of totally selfish reasons. And of course it isn't
>something bad. It is only that a health insurance will pay
>a therapy against that behaviour if you call it codependency.
<giggle>
dhc...@inlink.com
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> In article <7pu85h$t9g$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, "Jim Foster"
> <illu...@mindspring.com> writes:
>
> >>You've invented and created yourself to be a lying, selfish,
> >>jerk. It's comfortable for you to be that way, you know how
> >>to do it well, you've had lots of practice at it.
> >
> >Which is... i'm naturally that way. I have been since about 7 or 8
years
> >old.
> >
>
If he has ADD like the p-docs said he did, then it's a different
dynamic and the LGAT "technology" isn't going to get the job done.
He probably is 'naturally' a certain way. I don't care for
the label he's stuck on a certain cluster of behaviours, and
changing the label is a good place to start.
Some of the stuff that he notices about himself is probably involuntary,
just like it is in tourettes.
patrick
> > >>You've invented and created yourself to be a lying, selfish,
> > >>jerk. It's comfortable for you to be that way, you know how
> > >>to do it well, you've had lots of practice at it.
> > >
lets see some change werner. have u gotten too comfortable with
all the money. do u feel that calling people assholes and shits
in the name of transformation has been worth it.
--
Dont let anyone tell u, what u must do
INXS
KMottus
>If he has ADD like the p-docs said he did, then it's a different
>dynamic and the LGAT "technology" isn't going to get the job done.
I'd never suggest to anyone that LGAT stuff would be the thing
that "gets the job done". I'm a firm believer in using a wide
variety of approaches to do just about anything. Every approach
has blind spots, or things they don't address as well as another
approach would. Psychology, Philosophy, Religion, LGAT's,
Neurobiology, Common Sense, Western Medicine, Eastern
Medicine, Folk Medicine... will all address some aspect of
it, but none will address all of it. If I were coaching him, like
I'd coach one of my own, and it was clear that his ADD was
causing difficulties in what he was committed to (if it isn't
a problem then there's no need to work on it... a friend of
mine growing up seemed to be able to take whatever
detriment the ADD she had might be causing and use it
to her advantage (she was on Ritalin in the early 70's
when that wasn't common). And I'd be saying things like
so when are you going to have the appointment with the
p-docs to set up a treatment regimine. If they suggested
medication, when will you have your prescirption filled.
Are you taking it exactly the way you are supposed to
(patient compliance for anything is usually poor). If they
thought some sort of behaviour modification was the way
to go. When will your appointments with the therapist be
set up? Are you doing ALL of the work that they therapist
is suggesting? If not DO IT!!. all like that.
My big concern with how he is using the ~technology~ now,
and he's already using it, is that he is using it to excuse
and justify how he is, rather than seeing that there ARE
things that could be different. He will ALWAYS have
certain struggles to face, but he can approach things
quite differently than this is the way I've always been
so it's the way I always will be and ya'll are just gonna
have to figure out how to live with me this way (which
is how I interpret much of what he is saying). I don't
see much evidence of him seeing that their might be
other options, and until he's willing to change things,
he's NOT gonna do anything, including what the p-docs
tell him to do.
There is some value in forgiving yourself for your weaknesses.
We all have aspects of ourselves that are troublesome, just
as we all have aspects of ourselves that really help us to
do what we want to do in life (and most are actually mixed
blessings. My pattern recognition talants are greatly useful
in data analysis and I've got observational talant out the ying/
yang (drove the poor experimental genetics lab students I
TA's nuts... we made 'em look at mutant fruit flies till they
figured out what was wrong with them. I'd look for about
3 seconds at the flies they claimed were normal and could
immediately see the mutation... I never had to use the cheat
sheet). And there are times when I really wish I could just
turn the damn things off (which through Tai Chi I'm getting
better at, but there's usually this background hum of my
brain whirring all the time).
When I get upset and frustrated with myself for having weakness,
or beat myself up over them, it doesn't really do me or anyone
else any good. But I don't use the fact that I have them, and
always will have them, to say I can't be or do anything else.
>
>He probably is 'naturally' a certain way. I don't care for
>the label he's stuck on a certain cluster of behaviours, and
>changing the label is a good place to start.
>
Agreed.
And oftentimes I've noticed with myself that much of what
I thought was just they way I am, is something rooted
more in my own view of myself than in what in fact are
the inherent tendancies. Sometimes when I try things that
aren't "natural" to me I find out that I *really* can do
something I thought wasn't "naturally" a part of me.
>Some of the stuff that he notices about himself is probably involuntary,
>just like it is in tourettes.
And alot of what I used to think was involuntary about my nephew's
behaviour, shockingly is not. He's severly ADD. I went up to
Canada for a family reunion, my one brother was able to go, but
the brother (Dad of the nephew) was not. Neither of the other
two kids could go (one was too young to really go, and the other
was already working and wasn't able to get time off) and I agreed
to take a 16 year old boy (bad enough without the ADD) to Canada
with me. We met up with the other brother in Calgary (he drove)
and went out to the reunion.
I was totally amazed by my nephew. I never knew he COULD
control himself and be such a wonderful kid. I was all geared
up to deal with how he usually is in the summer when he is
off his medication (his folks didn't like having to give him drugs
at all, so he only took it on school days during the year, and
not at all during the summer... you could watch his behaviour
change over the course of a weekend, so we know the meds
really did do him alot of good). I was shocked by how much
of what I thought was involuntary he did have some controll
over, when he wanted to. (what I've decided is most of the
time he'd doesn't want to, even when not controlling it
causes him no end of suffering)
Jim Foster
Jennifer Moore wrote in message ...
>hi Jim
[snip]
>Well for instance. I am not here to denounce LEC. My declared game
>here is to have people experience being heard and the ~technology~ not
>be misrepresented. I also have a big interest in learning about how the
>ideas can be misused (deliberately or "humanbeingly" as it were) and
>what effect that can have on people. and I am looking for the patterns
>in it like: if a lot of people do the same thing and it doesn't work,
>where did that come from? where did they learn to do that? and could
>they have learned the useful stuff without picking the dodgy bits up
>too? or if a few people do some excessively dodgy stuff using Landmark
>to justify it then how could that have been interrupted? or if people
>suffer bad effects then how could they have been protected from that?
Awesome
yeah, actually i found that after doing the forum... i would use the forum
to pretend about inauthenticity. Liek i was better now or something, and no
one else had these special skills for life so they weren't as good. Whatever
it was... there was alot of it.
>
>My personal experience with Landmark has been that I consider it a
>valuable strand in my life, I learnt a lot from my participation and I
>don't know where I would have learnt that stuff if not there.
Cool, yeah... i got that.
> And I
>don't say that it's perfect and I don't dis other people's experience if
>it was different.
Yeah ;) the pitfall?
> and I am interested in keeping the good stuff for
>people and not "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".
>
>(as opposed to: everything in the Forum is common sense and only losers
>need it / any useful grain of truth in the Forum is incidental to the
>process of separating suckers from their money, i.e. there _is_ no good
>stuff worth the bother of extracting.)
got it.
>
>I am pretty sure that even some of the people who ~occur for~ you as
>"out to denounce a company" are actually more like "out to denounce
>certain practices and/or results of the company".
Yeah, that's been my listening... that mosta the people here are out to
trash LEC. Believe me, it showed up.
That's not how it is, but that's how it's been for me. I wasn't trying to
proclaim that as the truth, but jsut share that that's been where i was
coming from.
>
>for instance some aspects of the way that the measures are set up for
>people to "succeed" or "fail" in the organisation, and in particular how
>that predictably tends to create a context that calls human beings to be
>~in survival~
>and that some things are not measured at all, which does not i.m.o.
>match with a declared commitment to cause them (for instance how are we
>currently measuring that people in intros have "no basis for a
>conversation about pressure"?)
i can get that,
i didn't ever think about it much... the measurements.
>or the way that a steady stream of graduates emerges from the Forum
>~making wrong~ anyone who doesn't agree with them that Landmark is the
>best thing since sliced bread
Exactly... using the forum to be inauthentic. Like i would tell people "oh
you don't need to do it, it'd just be cool!!" all the while thinking if i
could get the fool into it he'd be better.
>or the company's practice of suing people who write less than flattering
>articles in the press
Yeah... bad press has been there since "est". I don't particularly see
that as a counterproductive or immoral or whatever practice for companies to
eliminate bad press.
>or the way you can be a course leader in Landmark (or hold some other
>respected position) while concealing or ignoring certain aspects of your
>personal life which, to coin a phrase, "suck" :-)
But what would it do? To measure all that? I'm pretty sure what the
statistics are meant to do is to measure the effectiveness of Forum leaders/
seminar leaders/ room captians/ etc. in whatever they are looking to
accomplish.
IMHO
powerful speaking isn't often not enrolling. So the statistics of how many
people sign up out of the speaking would be a form to measure that. Not
really just a ploy to get unsuspecting people to sign up.
>
>though I will agree with you that _some_ people seem to be out to
>denounce the company as a whole. but unless they have said themselves
>that is what they are doing (which I think for instance Robert and Alan
>have said, am I right guys?) then I wouldn't assume it.
Cool, that's exactly what i'm up to (=
>
[snip]
>I don't think this is a particularly crucial conversation, but since we
>are in it, I just want to say that I'm not convinced by the distinction
>(non-Landmark sense of the word) you draw here.
>
>I'm not a particularly big fan of that on-the-court/in-the-stands
>metaphor. so I haven't dwelt in it like I have in some of them. But my
>understanding of it is: in-the-stands is ~talking about~ and on-the-
>court is some kind of being in action.
yeah, this could make a difference here ~on the court~
but i think i was leaning more towards it's not a real big stepping out and
standing for your belief in the world. Sure it could be a part of it, and
really it was a stupid thing for me to say, like... i'm here too, and i'm
doing things. For all i know some of the people on here could be out
campaigning to stop LEC in their city of whatever.
>
>and if calling people you know and enrolling them in not participating
>counts as "on the court", then I certainly think enrolling people-
>reading-here in not participating counts as "on the court". What do you
>think is so different between those?
It's not really.. just not as big
>That may be, but if they are not in a position to redesign the
>structures and measures by which LEC operates, i.m.o. the effect they
>can have depends mainly on their ability to enrol the people who _are_
>in such positions. which is true of any of us here.
Yeah, but a forum leader has straighter access to that than we do here.
>I'm not aware of anyone in a design position having been in conversation
>with us on a.f.l, or of any structural changes which have happened at
>LEC as a result of a conversation here. And that's not to say none has
>happened, but I have no evidence that they have.
>
>>What does that do to -you-?
>
>What does _what_ "do to me"?
The pretense
like what's the impact
>
>I just want to insert here that I've noticed myself a few times not
>understanding what you're saying or asking Jim. and this is one of
>those times. It might help (not being sarcastic, a genuine suggestion)
>if you could reread your posts before you send them, from the point of
>view of: Would someone else be able to figure out what I meant here?
K, i'll do that on this one
thanks
>>no no... saving the NG ;) That was the inauthenticity.
>
><grin>
>
>
>>The basic human
>>reaction to inauthenticty is to hide it. I'm not sure many forum grads get
>>that they're inauthentic in almost everything they do.
>
>so you would be "one up" over the rest of 'em then
><ducks>
><grins>
well, honestly it was that way (=
but just cuz i got this looking into my inauthenticity doens't mean i'm
above anyone... i'm still not authentic. Being "one up" for me, is usually
an inuthenticity in itself, Like it was when i saw myself as "i know
something these people don't know"... but so what? when has knowing made me
better?
Actually that put me in a funk thinking i was one up and then not getting
the expected results. What's there now is... i'm committed to being
authentic about where i've been inauthentic, a not being someone who is
better or worse than anyone.
[snip]>
>
>>over the last couple days just looking at
>>ares where i'm not authentic, and how it impacts my life and other peoples
>>lives (this was a big part of the new forum)
>
>I am curious - let me get this clear - are we talking about a redesign
>of the Forum here, and you were in one of the trial versions?
>
umm, yes and yes, but no. There is a new forum. And i was in the new
Landmark forum. It was a "practice forum" but being in it was not like a
trial version of the forum. It -was- the forum. There were 4 forum leaders,
and it was set up a bit different... Really it was the genesis of something
new for LEC itself. Like the wright brothers started it all? this forum is
like the b2 bomber.
>>One thing that was said in the weekend was... a human being by
>>nature is inauthenic. You'll never be authentic. The highest level of
>>authenticity you can reach is to be authentic about your inauthentcity.
>>
>>I found in trying to get authentic about my inauthenticities, i'd just
take
>>a swing and tell everyone i'm inauthentic... all under the pretense that
i'm
>>present to my being inauthentic... or that i'm complete with it. No...
>>there still that.
>
><grin>
>
>this is great
>
>like you could just get the whole inauthenticity conversation over with
>once and for all right now! rather than: it lasts till you die :-)
>
>I love it
>
>mine would be more like:
>"oh yes I know I'm inauthentic, now PLEASE don't make me LOOK THERE, I
>owned up to it in principle, isn't that enough, let me off the icky bit
>where I really have to ~get present~ to it...
>oh okay okay I'll have a little look... but at least let me do it in
>secret and not actually have to tell anyone what I find out... I'll just
>think about it... or maybe write it in my diary...
>oh okay okay I will tell someone... but I'm not gonna tell them the
>really icky awful ones that I can't ~be with~... and I'm only gonna
>tell them where I ~occurred~ for myself as inauthentic, I'm not gonna
>let them in to what that felt like and how uncomfortable it was to look
>there, so even when I own up to all this icky stuff I can still play it
>down and look like I've got it all together"
>
>hahahahahahaha!
>
><ouch>
>
>hahaha
hehe (= did you read that thread where i said how Moshe shared how getting
present to the impact some of his inauthenticites had him actually run to
the bathroom. Yeah... getting present to the impact was definately not a fun
thing... but there's that clearing to invent a possibility out of it.
Like... if you're gonna throw up, don't spend the whole duration of your
time trying not to and feeling ugly... throw up... and you can feel better.
>
>
>{aside: nobody take this thing as TRUE... it is not TRUE that human
>beings are inherently inauthentic... it is A PERSPECTIVE that may allow
>for some insights}
Oh, absolutely (=
i could use road signs and bumper stickers and billboards and t-shirts and
screen savers and yard decorations that say "THIS IS NOT THE TRUTH"
i forget sometimes
>
>
>> Under that pretense, in that impact it has for me... feeling like an
>>outsider... doing my WF being cute and petendingly oblivious to being
>>right/racket, doing all that crap and just really distancing, feeling
alone
>>and confronted. I just wonder how it impacts the other people here. Maybe
>>stupid, angry... i dunno. Inauthenticities are really a sickening thing.
>
>nope, they are "really" inauthenticities
>which is itself an interpretation and not "real"
><ducks>
><grins>
>
>
>but steady on here... watch out that the "wondering how it impacts the
>other people here" isn't some kind of "I found mine, now I am ahead of
>the game, now it is my job to prod everyone else into doing the same"
>
>because I couldn't tell if you meant: how does *your* inauthenticity
>impact the other people here.... or how does *theirs*.
yeah, but that'd be my inauthenticity in prodding em. that'd be a hell of an
impact, eh? ;)
Thanks for bringing that up for me before i got real into it.
>
>and (I say) the only way you get to impact MY inauthenticity (and anyone
>else's who wishes to declare themselves as having some :-) ) is by being
>a role model... owning up to YOURS... making it that little bit safer
>to "tell one on yourself" round here...
>
>which takes a lot of courage, but we already know you've got that, so no
>problem there :-)
*smiles* thanks again (=
I'm really not here to impose your inuthenticity on you. Just that i get
present to how my own pretense impacts you in your life, or the other people
here in their lives... it blows me away sometimes just how irresponsible i
can be about what i am and the effect it has on the world.
The enrollment manager at the center was reading a quote to the current
ILFLP in Dallas. I don't remember exactly how it went but something along
the lines of
"you are the pacesetters for the future. Whether you choose to accept it or
not, you are still the pace setters. If you decide to do nothing, to...
... [don't remember this part]...
If you decide to set no pace. You are still the pacesetters.
You will simply have decided that there is no pace."
It gives me chills. Just... the effect people have on eachother, and that
i... just being a certian way with people, can bring a little of what lights
them up in life... it's insane the feeling i get from it. And on the other
hand i can be inauthentic about my pretenses and mind my business and make
everyone else be wrong (which i still do)... it's insane that i do it ;) the
feeling i get from that.
So honestly... everyone here... i'mnot standing for that LEC is a "good"
thing or something that you "should" support or "should" be involved in.
What i'm standing for is that people in my life have the experience of being
alive and of love and of my own humility when they're around me.
The things i took on as possibilities are leadership and charisma
it's just that sometimes.. alot of the time i'm still that guy who thinks
people are all stipid jerks and i get to be irresponsible for life.
And really, i thank everyone on here for listening to me (even when i don't
listen) and just being here, challenging me and standing for what's
important to you and being a source of -my- transformation ongoing.
One person also i wanna ~acknowledge~ is Larry... for being so straight with
me, and pointing me to how i was being and having me question myself
constantly. Just, thanks for your concern and your commitment to me,
whatever it may be... but no one... and i mean no one anywhere ever, has
e-mailed me outta the blue, or talked to me on icq, or just--not even
knowing me--pushed me to look further than were i could see.
>you're welcome
>
><blows kiss>
>
>
>love
Thanks again, Jen
Really, i didn't expect anything like this, being -really- involved on here
when i come on.
if LEC keeps people at bay from eachother... then forget about it, i don't
want that between me and anyone. Not like stopping my participation, but not
fighting over whether it should be or not. What keeps people from eachother,
in my experience... is what kept me from people like it did on here when i
first came. The inauthenicity. So regardless... it's overall been a pleasure
to share.
i never would have predicted like, hehe, (= i daresay -caring- for people on
here (or just any feelings or true regard).
but i... it's amazing what's created through sharing.
So for the hundreth time, thanks
j2
Markus Hirt
Jim Foster wrote:
> Yeah, that's been my listening... that mosta the people here are out to
> trash LEC. Believe me, it showed up.
You are sharing your experience of the Forum. Others are sharing their
experience of the Forum. So far there are no great differences. What
differs is that you are mostly speaking about how the Forum was for
you (that's what LEC wants you to share, right?) whereas others here
are sharing more than their limited own experience.
> Yeah... bad press has been there since "est". I don't particularly see
> that as a counterproductive or immoral or whatever practice for companies to
> eliminate bad press.
Did they ever win a case?
> [...]
> yeah, this could make a difference here ~on the court~
> but i think i was leaning more towards it's not a real big stepping out and
> standing for your belief in the world. Sure it could be a part of it, and
> really it was a stupid thing for me to say, like... i'm here too, and i'm
> doing things. For all i know some of the people on here could be out
> campaigning to stop LEC in their city of whatever.
So if you take a stand for the possibility to stop Landmark in your
city, what would be an appropriate action?
Sharing your experience of the Forum and enrolling people into not
doing the Forum isn't working, simply because these people won't
share the information. OTOH, people who are enrolled into doing
the Forum will be enrolled into enrolling others.
Well, here are a few possibilities that work:
1) Setting up a website where people who are recruited into the
Forum can inform themselves about other experiences than the
recruiter's. (Nothing new, thanks to Linda for doing it.)
2) Setting an ad into a newspaper providing support by phone and a
reading list. (Nothing new, search for Action Works - and the
list was on Linda's website last time I looked).
3) Calling a journalist and sharing your Forum experience.
(Nothing new, or how do you think the negative press occured?)
4) Calling a government agency and asking them to take action.
(Nothing new, the senate of Berlin already has a good
documentation on the Forum - and they were sued by LEC)
5) Engaging in a cult awareness group and answering the hundreds
of calls concerning Landmark. (Nothing new, the Cult Awareness
Network was sued into silence by LEC and the $ientos, whereas
InfoSekta in Switzerland was still allowed to use words like
"cultlike features" and "unprofessional" after the lawsuit.)
6) Writing a book about your Forum experience (Nothing new,
it was published in Germany, 1996. Of course LEC sued - and
lost completely, even against words like "brainwashing".)
So what really new possibilities would you create out of nothing?
What specific measureable result could you generate in a three
month project?
Yes, there really was a time I considered doing that as a SELP
project...
Markus
KMottus
>Yes, there really was a time I considered doing that as a SELP
>project...
>
>
BWHAHAHHAHAH
Seeing Markus sitting in the witness chair at a trial..
"but they said they were committed to my commitments,
unconditionally..."
Mark Cooper
>
> Jim Foster wrote:
>
> > Yeah, that's been my listening... that mosta the people here are out to
> > trash LEC. Believe me, it showed up.
>
> experience of the Forum. So far there are no great differences. What
> differs is that you are mostly speaking about how the Forum was for
> you (that's what LEC wants you to share, right?) whereas others here
> are sharing more than their limited own experience.
>
> > that as a counterproductive or immoral or whatever practice for companies to
> > eliminate bad press.
>
>
> > [...]
> > but i think i was leaning more towards it's not a real big stepping out and
> > standing for your belief in the world. Sure it could be a part of it, and
> > really it was a stupid thing for me to say, like... i'm here too, and i'm
> > doing things. For all i know some of the people on here could be out
> > campaigning to stop LEC in their city of whatever.
>
> city, what would be an appropriate action?
>
> Sharing your experience of the Forum and enrolling people into not
> doing the Forum isn't working, simply because these people won't
> share the information. OTOH, people who are enrolled into doing
> the Forum will be enrolled into enrolling others.
>
> Well, here are a few possibilities that work:
>
> 1) Setting up a website where people who are recruited into the
> Forum can inform themselves about other experiences than the
> recruiter's. (Nothing new, thanks to Linda for doing it.)
Could someone post the url for this site?
Thanks, Mark
*snip*
>
> Markus
KMottus
>Markus Hirt wrote:
>> Well, here are a few possibilities that work:
>>
>> 1) Setting up a website where people who are recruited into the
>> Forum can inform themselves about other experiences than the
>> recruiter's. (Nothing new, thanks to Linda for doing it.)
>
>Could someone post the url for this site?
http://www0.delphi.com/aflcommunity/
>
>Thanks, Mark
Markus Hirt
Mark Cooper wrote:
>
> Markus Hirt wrote:
> 1) Setting up a website where people who are recruited into the
> > Forum can inform themselves about other experiences than the
> > recruiter's. (Nothing new, thanks to Linda for doing it.)
>
> Could someone post the url for this site?
>
Linda's original pages are still available on
http://www.xs4all.nl/~anco/mental/forum.html
The old address was
http://www.inlink.com/~dhchase/forum.htm
and now contains a link to Linda's new interactive Forum
http://www0.delphi.com/aflcommunity/
which has plenty of links to both positive and negative,
official and not-so-official pages on LEC.
If you want to read horror stories, I've to disapoint you:
People don't tend to publish them on the internet if they'd
ever want to apply for a new job.
Markus
Jim Foster
Markus Hirt wrote in message <37C94597...@swol.de>...
[snip]
>Well, here are a few possibilities that work:
>
>1) Setting up a website where people who are recruited into the
> Forum can inform themselves about other experiences than the
> recruiter's. (Nothing new, thanks to Linda for doing it.)
>
>2) Setting an ad into a newspaper providing support by phone and a
> reading list. (Nothing new, search for Action Works - and the
> list was on Linda's website last time I looked).
>
>3) Calling a journalist and sharing your Forum experience.
> (Nothing new, or how do you think the negative press occured?)
>
>4) Calling a government agency and asking them to take action.
> (Nothing new, the senate of Berlin already has a good
> documentation on the Forum - and they were sued by LEC)
>
>5) Engaging in a cult awareness group and answering the hundreds
> of calls concerning Landmark. (Nothing new, the Cult Awareness
> Network was sued into silence by LEC and the $ientos, whereas
> InfoSekta in Switzerland was still allowed to use words like
> "cultlike features" and "unprofessional" after the lawsuit.)
>
>6) Writing a book about your Forum experience (Nothing new,
> it was published in Germany, 1996. Of course LEC sued - and
> lost completely, even against words like "brainwashing".)
>
>So what really new possibilities would you create out of nothing?
>What specific measureable result could you generate in a three
>month project?
There's no such thing i think as a"new" possibility. Maybe new for me, like
if i had never been in love or had the experience of love before, then i
could really get into my bones, love. But out of nothing, every possibility
is possible. Like you can't draw a new picture on a page where a picture is
already drawn... you can, but it's just changing the picture. You get a
blank peice of notebook paper (or erase what's on yours) and then there's
room for something new.
And specific measurable result...
Umm... getting a new car? A house? Starting a Center? Having a barbecue at
the beach? Making twice as much money? Remodeling your house? Rasing $5,000
for charity? Going to lunch every other week with your mom who you haven't
talked to in 20 years?
A person can do anything (=
j2
>Yes, there really was a time I considered doing that as a SELP
>project...
>
> Markus
Jim Foster
Markus Hirt wrote in message <37C94597...@swol.de>...
>So what really new possibilities would you create out of nothing?
>What specific measureable result could you generate in a three
>month project?
>
>Yes, there really was a time I considered doing that as a SELP
>project...
>
> Markus
But as far as denouncing LEC, those are actions. If you can think of a new
action, cool. If not, cool
in three months you could say like... LEC will be out of germany. Or
whatever
j2
patrick
patrick <1pat...@austin.quik.com> wrote:
>
>
> U are real whether u believe it or not. in the programs they
> (help) u to believe that u are not real, and of course they
> have no truth for u
>
> its time to put on our thinking caps
>
> :)
>
im baacccckkkk. and im making a list, checking it twice, gonna
find out whos been naughty and nice
:)
>
> by by pat
Jennifer Moore
you write:
>Awesome
why thank you :-)
>>>What does that do to -you-?
>>
>>What does _what_ "do to me"?
>
>
>The pretense
>
>like what's the impact
I'm still not sure if you mean _your_ pretence or _my_ pretence.
but it was quite interesting considering this, because in a sense I
think pretence has "no impact"... what I mean by that is we are all so
entirely _used_ to it it's like "business as usual"... and what has the
"impact" is someone coming from anywhere _but_ pretence.
>but just cuz i got this looking into my inauthenticity doens't mean i'm
>above anyone... i'm still not authentic.
yeah, and even if you _were_ 100% authentic (whatever that means) that
still "doesn't mean" you're above anyone.
here's an invitation: check this out Jim: do you have it that "more
authentic" is better? or can you get that being inauthentic is
completely fine?
I don't mean like: no consequences. and I don't mean that you wouldn't
probably dislike the consequences when you take a look at them.
but can you get that there is nothing wrong with being inauthentic or
ineffective or upset or suppressed or cynical or resigned or in despair?
that they are all valid places to be if that's where you're at?
(and if the answer is "no, being authentic IS better", you are normal -
I have noticed that human beings generally aren't big fans of those
states :-) )
>>I am curious - let me get this clear - are we talking about a redesign
>>of the Forum here, and you were in one of the trial versions?
>>
>umm, yes and yes, but no. There is a new forum. And i was in the new
>Landmark forum. It was a "practice forum" but being in it was not like a
>trial version of the forum. It -was- the forum.
well yes, believe me I wasn't questioning that :-)
>There were 4 forum leaders,
>and it was set up a bit different... Really it was the genesis of something
>new for LEC itself. Like the wright brothers started it all? this forum is
>like the b2 bomber.
hmmm, from what you've said it sounds like either the new format has
been designed, and the 4 Forum leaders there were getting trained in it,
OR they are still trying out different formats and this was an
experimental one (so like the next one would be different as they test
different sequences of conversation, which is what I meant by trial).
d'you know which? mind you, I don't know if you'd be able to tell from
just being _in_ it. it doesn't really matter anyway if you don't know,
I was just curious.
>Thanks again, Jen
you're welcome, thanks for listening
(b.t.w. as Jen said, I am Jennifer and she is Jen for the purposes of
this newsgroup)
>it's amazing what's created through sharing.
no kidding
also while I'm here... in another thread you write:
>I think i am lost... lost in buncha not being expressed ;)
and in yet another thread you write:
>what's really there is that i'm frustrated. Like... No one seems to get
>this, and i do, so something's wrong (i do my smart thing).
I have a thought about that, which is that where you got "lost" and
frustrated is when you started defending your version of the "facts".
in the debate about what ~enrolment~ is.
I'm gonna suggest that ~who you were being~ in that thread was (mostly)
defending your ground. in a subtle and superficially "nice" way. and
what that gets you is a lot different from the result of sharing. hence
the frustration.
and in my experience even sharing gets undermined in that context. like
your share about what you created with your friend when you got enrolled
in "brotherhood". like: beautiful stuff, except, Sharing to prove a
point (which it looks to me like that was) is somehow different from
purely just sharing, and much less satisfying.
I don't want you to believe me. who am I to say that anyway. but you
might want to look there & see what you see.
love
Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* "manages to make the bass fill the space *
* most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
patrick
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> hi Jim
>
> you write:
> >Awesome
>
> why thank you :-)
>
> >>
> >>What does _what_ "do to me"?
> >
> >
> >The pretense
> >
> >like what's the impact
>
>
> but it was quite interesting considering this, because in a sense I
> think pretence has "no impact"... what I mean by that is we are all so
> entirely _used_ to it it's like "business as usual"... and what has
the
> "impact" is someone coming from anywhere _but_ pretence.
>
i'm
> >above anyone... i'm still not authentic.
>
> still "doesn't mean" you're above anyone.
>
> here's an invitation: check this out Jim: do you have it that "more
> authentic" is better? or can you get that being inauthentic is
> completely fine?
> I don't mean like: no consequences. and I don't mean that you
wouldn't
> probably dislike the consequences when you take a look at them.
>
> but can you get that there is nothing wrong with being inauthentic or
> ineffective or upset or suppressed or cynical or resigned or in
despair?
> that they are all valid places to be if that's where you're at?
>
> (and if the answer is "no, being authentic IS better", you are normal
-
> I have noticed that human beings generally aren't big fans of those
> states :-) )
>
redesign
> >>of the Forum here, and you were in one of the trial versions?
> >>
> >umm, yes and yes, but no. There is a new forum. And i was in the new
> >Landmark forum. It was a "practice forum" but being in it was not
like a
> >trial version of the forum. It -was- the forum.
>
>
> >and it was set up a bit different... Really it was the genesis of
something
> >new for LEC itself. Like the wright brothers started it all? this
forum is
> >like the b2 bomber.
>
> been designed, and the 4 Forum leaders there were getting trained in
it,
> OR they are still trying out different formats and this was an
> experimental one (so like the next one would be different as they test
> different sequences of conversation, which is what I meant by trial).
> d'you know which? mind you, I don't know if you'd be able to tell
from
> just being _in_ it. it doesn't really matter anyway if you don't
know,
> I was just curious.
>
> >Thanks again, Jen
>
> you're welcome, thanks for listening
>
> (b.t.w. as Jen said, I am Jennifer and she is Jen for the purposes of
> this newsgroup)
>
>
for my side than hers, but, and
i love her anyway :)
jennifer, if u would post your address again i would like to listen
to some of your music. and by the way do u dance too :)
Jennifer Moore
> i just love the way she talks, i actually belive jennifer does more
>for my side than hers,
what two sides would those be Patrick?
what side are you on and what side do you think I am on?
>jennifer, if u would post your address again i would like to listen
>to some of your music. and by the way do u dance too :)
http://www.material.demon.co.uk/SingleBass/SBalbum.htm
is where most of the music clips are.
and there's a whole song which you can get to from
http://www.material.demon.co.uk/SingleBass/SBSand.htm
I do dance for pleasure... but so far not professionally :-)
patrick
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> patrick writes
> > i just love the way she talks, i actually belive jennifer does more
> >for my side than hers,
>
> what two sides would those be Patrick?
the good and evil side silly :)
> what side are you on and what side do you think I am on?
now i bet u can guess which side im on :)
and i know which side your unwittingly on :)
>
> >jennifer, if u would post your address again i would like to listen
> >to some of your music. and by the way do u dance too :)
we'll have to do some music on the newsgroup together somtime
i'll show u how to power up and blast it out :)
>
> http://www.material.demon.co.uk/SingleBass/SBalbum.htm
> is where most of the music clips are.
> and there's a whole song which you can get to from
> http://www.material.demon.co.uk/SingleBass/SBSand.htm
>
> I do dance for pleasure... but so far not professionally :-)
wonderful, lets keep it that way :)
>
> Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * "manages to make the bass fill the space *
> * most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
--
I want your mind to lock in. i want your mind to lock in
i want your mind to lock oooooh oooooh oooooh oooooh
Klaus Meine
Jennifer Moore
>> > i just love the way she talks, i actually belive jennifer does more
>> >for my side than hers,
I asked
>> what two sides would those be Patrick?
Patrick replies
>the good and evil side silly :)
I asked
>> what side are you on and what side do you think I am on?
Patrick replies:
>now i bet u can guess which side im on :)
>
>
> and i know which side your unwittingly on :)
Are you saying that I am unwittingly on the side of evil?
patrick
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> patrick wrote
> >> > i just love the way she talks, i actually belive jennifer does
more
> >> >for my side than hers,
>
> I asked
> >> what two sides would those be Patrick?
>
> Patrick replies
> >the good and evil side silly :)
>
> I asked
> >> what side are you on and what side do you think I am on?
>
> Patrick replies:
> >now i bet u can guess which side im on :)
> >
> >
> > and i know which side your unwittingly on :)
>
> Are you saying that I am unwittingly on the side of evil?
yep
i love u anyway though :)
>
> Jennifer * a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * "manages to make the bass fill the space *
> * most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
--
KMottus
writes:
>> Patrick replies:
>> >now i bet u can guess which side im on :)
>> >
>> >
>> > and i know which side your unwittingly on :)
>>Jennifer asks:
>> Are you saying that I am unwittingly on the side of evil?
>
>Patrick replies
>yep
>
>i love u anyway though :)
Hmmmm...
Good = Patrick, Mr. there are no rules, I can do anything I want, or say
anything I want about anyone I don't like or consider evil...
Evil = Jennifer, Ms love, understanding, generously listening to people
and unrelenting patience with everyone, unconditionally...
K.
Bob465
> Evil = Jennifer, Ms love, understanding, generously listening to people
> and unrelenting patience with everyone, unconditionally...
>
> K.
busy body i am. i asked fred kidd for a rain chk on the measurability talk.
...but i had to concur. i've had the previledge of playing w/ jennifer
elsewhere amongst grads. she is all you say + one of the more intellegent
folks you'll meet anywhere.
patrick
kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> In article <7re4rl$f7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, patrick
<1pat...@austin.quik.com>
> writes:
>
> >> Patrick replies:
> >> >now i bet u can guess which side im on :)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > and i know which side your unwittingly on :)
> >>Jennifer asks:
> >> Are you saying that I am unwittingly on the side of evil?
> >
> >Patrick replies
> >yep
> >
> >i love u anyway though :)
>
> Hmmmm...
>
> Good = Patrick, Mr. there are no rules, I can do anything I want, or
say
> anything I want about anyone I don't like or consider evil...
>
people
> and unrelenting patience with everyone, unconditionally...
>
> K.
>
> Access to power must be confined to those who are
> not in love with it.
> -Plato
>
> kmo...@aol.com
>
by by pat
Ohhh think twice, another day for u and me in paradise.
Phil Collins
jim_...@my-deja.com
patrick <1pat...@austin.quik.com> wrote:
> In article <19990914084441...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> > In article <7re4rl$f7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, patrick
> <1pat...@austin.quik.com>
> > writes:
> >
> > Good = Patrick, Mr. there are no rules, I can do anything I want, or
> say
> > anything I want about anyone I don't like or consider evil...
> >
> > Evil = Jennifer, Ms love, understanding, generously listening to
> people
> > and unrelenting patience with everyone, unconditionally...
> >
> > K.
> >
> i just love it when she completely misinterprets my words
>
> by by pat
>
Luke 6:45 (English-NIV)
The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart,
and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his
heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks.
Here's a great opportunity to correct a misinterpretation, Patrick.
What did K get in error? BTW, she ain't the only one. I would think
that a generous, loving person would jump at the opportunity to correct
a misimpression.
BTW, I'm thinking of starting a writing career in my first book the
main character will be Petrick Fartsy. Kind of has a flatulent ring to
it, don't you think?
patrick
put into your head :)
by by pat
--
I want your mind to lock in. i want your mind to lock in
i want your mind to lock oooooh oooooh oooooh oooooh
Klaus Meine
jim_...@my-deja.com
patrick <1pat...@austin.quik.com> wrote:
> In article <7rn2ru$jmh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> jim_...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <7rmtsv$ge4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > patrick <1pat...@austin.quik.com> wrote:
> > > In article <19990914084441...@ngol02.aol.com>,
> > > kmo...@aol.comspamtrap (KMottus) wrote:
> > > > In article <7re4rl$f7k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, patrick
> > > <1pat...@austin.quik.com>
> > > > writes:
> >
> and dont forget to return to landmark to get your possibilities
I never thought I'd hear an endorsement of Landmark from you, Patrick!!
=:0. I guess ya just can't count on anything to be consistent these
days <sigh>.
Jennifer Moore
>> Jennifer, Ms love, understanding, generously listening to people
>> and unrelenting patience with everyone, unconditionally...
Bob concurs:
>i've had the previledge of playing w/ jennifer
>elsewhere amongst grads. she is all you say + one of the more intellegent
>folks you'll meet anywhere.
thanks for those lovely words K & Bob
love
patrick
Jennifer Moore <jenn...@material.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> KMottus writes:
> >> Jennifer, Ms love, understanding, generously listening to people
> >> and unrelenting patience with everyone, unconditionally...
>
> Bob concurs:
> >i've had the previledge of playing w/ jennifer
> >elsewhere amongst grads. she is all you say + one of the more
intellegent
> >folks you'll meet anywhere.
>
> thanks for those lovely words K & Bob
>
> love
>
> Jennifer
do u want to do u your song together or not :)
and if u dont do u mind if if do it . if u
dont mind, would u somehow get me a clean
copy of it so i can listen to it
thanks pat
* a k a SINGLE BASS * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> * "manages to make the bass fill the space *
> * most people need a band for" - Scene & Heard *
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>
--
I want your mind to lock in. i want your mind to lock in
i want your mind to lock oooooh oooooh oooooh oooooh
Klaus Meine