Werner at CAM 2012

[Caligari]

Talking about coaching. Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
Among Masters 2012:

"Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
from every corner of the world! If you meet the criteria, request an
invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
(and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"

http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/

"Thursday May 17

Upscale Continental Breakfast 7:30am – 9:15am

Partners Park
Our supporters. Great resources. All day!

Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter: Werner
Erhard
(OMG – need we say more?) 9:30am – 4:30pm

Lunch 1:30pm – 2:30pm

Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people 1:30pm – 2:30pm
..."

http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/

[Caligari]

It sounds like "not nice" is a current theme for Werner,

=====
"out of my respect for people, I am not a nice person" ~ Werner
Erhardt #cam2012
=====
https://twitter.com/#!/suzipomerantz/status/203137866732285953

[Ellen]

...Sounds like they're straying into Avatar territory.


Ellen

[Tex]

Current???
when was Werner ever nice?

[Caligari]

When did Werner make that a talking point before?

[Ellen]

He probably contracted with some image "enhancement" types, or maybe
he read some "self-"help book that offered tricks for ~turning
negatives into positives,~ or some other such nonsense. He must have
realized what a creep he appeared to lots of people. Too bad he
couldn't or didn't use his old scientology ~technology~ and just
~disappear~ the problem. (Or, likewise est/Landmark ~technology~ of
~putting the past in the past.~) Yeah, that works. <tic>


Ellen

[Caligari]

While Werner may not have originated much of what he's done, to say
that he's not intelligent and sharp is mistaken. Werner has shown a
keen understanding of what has an impact on people, shaping those into
his unique methods. And he has built many still viable
organizations. He is quite intelligent and capable.

-- Caligari

[Ellen]

By what criteria are you evaluating "intelligence?"


Ellen

[Caligari]

You've got to be kidding.

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

On May 20, 1:16 am, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 19, 10:09 pm, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Talking about coaching.  Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
> > Among Masters 2012:
>
> > "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
> > specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
> > from every corner of the world!  If you meet the criteria, request an
> > invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
> > (and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"
>
> >http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/
>
> > "Thursday May 17
>
> > Upscale Continental Breakfast   7:30am – 9:15am
>
> > Partners Park
> > Our supporters.  Great resources.       All day!
>
> > Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter:  Werner
> > Erhard
> > (OMG – need we say more?)     9:30am – 4:30pm
>
> > Lunch   1:30pm – 2:30pm
>
> > Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people      1:30pm – 2:30pm
> > ..."
>
> >http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/
>
> It sounds like "not nice" is a current theme for Werner,

Cherry picking a few words out of context, in order to sell some
conclusion about it, standard dishonest alt.fan.landmark gobbledygook.
What of the other 100 or 1000 ideas likely to have been expressed by
Werner Erhard at "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™)?

[Ellen]

No.

Are you using $$$?

Or number of people "influenced?"

Or persistence of "ideas?"

Or what?

Because using those criteria, L. Ron Hubbard would also meet the
"distinction." Do you think he was intelligent?


Ellen

[Ellen]

I would have used different words. "Intelligent" and "capable"
describes just about everyone who isn't dead or in jail or living
under a bridge. I would call Werner cunning and opportunistic, for
instance. You have to be (at least somewhat) intelligent to be
cunning.

I don't think he is nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is. And
remember, charm is the coin of the realm in sociopathy-land. Werner
Erhard was able to charm when he wanted to but there is/was a nasty
undercurrent of predatory ruthlessness very close to the surface.

How do you explain his embrace of scientology? It was well known as a
cult/scam when he "studied" it.


Ellen

[Tex]

It was just way he was.
Nice he was not.

[Caligari]

I interacted with Werner quite a few times over 3-4 years. There were
times, mainly early on when he was quite nice, and times, mainly later
on, when he wasn't. How much did you interact with Werner?

-- Caligari

[Caligari]

There you go. A person showing intelligence isn't a ethical
statement. The values and ethics come out in what a person's
intelligence is applied to.

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> I would have used different words.  "Intelligent" and "capable"
> describes just about everyone who isn't dead or in jail or living
> under a bridge.  I would call Werner cunning and opportunistic, for
> instance.  You have to be (at least somewhat) intelligent to be
> cunning.
>
> I don't think he is nearly as intelligent as he thinks he is.  And
> remember, charm is the coin of the realm in sociopathy-land.  Werner
> Erhard was able to charm when he wanted to but there is/was a nasty
> undercurrent of predatory ruthlessness very close to the surface.
>
> How do you explain his embrace of scientology?  It was well known as a
> cult/scam when he "studied" it.
>
> Ellen

/\
|
|
Your posts, whatever anyone here would say about them, vividly reveal
the world view YOU inhabit Ellen. And that is all. You sculpt the same
descriptions over and over to paint others as beneath or less than
you or villains in some way. It is all just look into Ellen's world
IMO.

[Ellen]

What do you think of scientologists? Just your opinion, of course.


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> What do you think of scientologists?  Just your opinion, of course.
>
> Ellen

I don't know any scientologists and have limited experience of any
scientologists, except for a few celebrities talking on Youtube. And
I am not interested or involved, they seem ok to me.

I have had more exposure more to people like you who are dedicated to
smearing scientology on-line, and painting it as an unwanted group. I
perceive the anti-scientolosts which includes you and Rick Ross and
his devotees to be inconsiderate internet and street goons with
nothing better to do than fancy themselves as freedom-fighters and who
behave and talk in ways that make them look uglier and cultier than
any imaginary threat they are pointing fingers at.

[Tex]

Rarely.
I watch him interact with others, mainly.
Or I saw him on video, mostly.

He was always cordial, polite.
I would say it is safe to say he wasn't worried about being judged as nice.

[Caligari]

Werner continues to be cordial and polite in public.

He may even now be nice to people sometimes when not in public. ;)

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> Werner continues to be cordial and polite in public.

And how exactly do you know this to be true? What about when he is not
so called "cordial and polite" in public?

> He may even now be nice to people sometimes when not in public.  ;)
>
>   -- Caligari

You seem comfortable positioning yourself as THE expert about Werner
Erhard. You may have been in the same room with a handful of time 30
years ago (?) and now you casually post speculations of how he is in
public and how he may be in private. Fabricated baseless wild useless
speculations. Useless to anyone expect yourself and a few other Rick
Ross devotees.

[Caligari]

I always "expect" myself.

;)

[Sinead (Author)]

Correction:

"...You may have been in the same room with Werner Erhard a handful of
time 30 years ago (?)  and now you post YOUR speculations of how he is

in public and how he may be  in private. Fabricated baseless wild

useless speculations. Useless to anyone EXCEPT yourself and a few
other Rick Ross devotees..."

[Ellen]

LOL


E

[Ellen]

On May 21, 4:38 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What do you think of scientologists?  Just your opinion, of course.
>
> > Ellen
>
> I don't know any scientologists and have limited experience of any
> scientologists, except for  a few celebrities talking on Youtube. And
> I am not interested or involved,  they seem ok to me.

That explains a lot.

>
> I have  had more exposure more to people like you who are dedicated to
> smearing scientology  on-line, and painting it as an unwanted group. I
> perceive the  anti-scientolosts which includes you and Rick Ross and
> his devotees to be inconsiderate internet and street goons with
> nothing better to do than fancy themselves as freedom-fighters and who
> behave and talk in ways that make them look uglier and cultier than
> any imaginary threat they are pointing fingers at.

Here's a little hint, "Sin:"

Cults are, above and beyond anything else, about money. There are a
few exceptions, but these are rare. The first criterion in the
determination of what makes a group a cult is the amount of money they
extract from members.

Do you really think that what I write here in any way compares to the
systemic manipulation, predation, abuse, exploitation, destruction,
and murder that happens inside cults? How did you come up with
this...


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> Here's a little hint, "Sin:"
>
> Cults are, above and beyond anything else, about money.

Are all businesses "cults"? Is America a cult? One could easily argue
that America is all about the Benjamin's.

>There are a few exceptions, but these are rare.

Who determines the exceptions? You and Rick Ross?

>The first criterion in the determination of what makes a group a cult

Who fabricated this "criterion"? Is there any peer reviewed scientific
studies support it?

> is the amount of money they extract from members.

How much $ have casinos and Club Med "extracted from members"? Do they
qualify as "cults"?

> Do you really think that what I write here in any way compares to the systemic manipulation, predation, abuse, exploitation, destruction, and murder that happens inside cults?

You appear to have fabricated a world view that you then rail against.
You are at war with yourself Ellen.

> How did you come up with this...

I did not come up with "this", you did. It is part of your hysterical
fantacy land.

>
> Ellen

[Caligari]

On May 19, 10:09 pm, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Talking about coaching.  Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
> Among Masters 2012:
>
> "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
> specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
> from every corner of the world!  If you meet the criteria, request an
> invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
> (and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"
>
> http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/
>
> "Thursday May 17
>
> Upscale Continental Breakfast   7:30am – 9:15am
>
> Partners Park
> Our supporters.  Great resources.       All day!
>
> Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter:  Werner
> Erhard
> (OMG – need we say more?)     9:30am – 4:30pm
>
> Lunch   1:30pm – 2:30pm
>
> Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people      1:30pm – 2:30pm
> ..."
>
> http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/

and here's a photo,

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s320x320/484186_3593151181616_1058499904_3208399_42125553_n.jpg

[Ellen]

Are you a "grad?" Have you "done" any Landmark "programs?" If so,
which ones?


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> Are you a "grad?"  Have you "done" any Landmark "programs?"  If so, which ones?
>
> Ellen

Are you a "grad" Ellen?  Have you "done" any Landmark "programs? Did
someone you were or are in a relationship with "do" any Landmark
"programs If so, which ones?

[Ellen]

No No. Yes. Dunno.

(I went to an "introductory meeting" for research purposes.)


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> > I don't know any scientologists and have limited experience of any
> > scientologists, except for  a few celebrities talking on Youtube. And
> > I am not interested or involved,  they seem ok to me.
>
> That explains a lot.

What does it "explain a lot" to you Ellen?

What direct experience have you had with the Church of Scientology or
Scientologists Ellen? Are you implying that you have had more then
just internet exposure and more than just Rick Ross coaching re: the
topic?

[Ellen]

Nor "implying" anything.

Why would I care if I'd only read about it...


Are you a Landmark "grad?"




Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> Nor "implying" anything.
>
> Why would I care if I'd only read about it...

So you have someone in your life who is or was a Scientologist? Care
to say more about that?

>
> Are you a Landmark "grad?"
>
> Ellen

I am as much a Landmark "grad" as ?Serena? is a Landmark "grad". ?

Serena? and I did all the same hard work to be the all knowing know-it-
alls in alt.fan.landmark that we are.

[Ellen]

On May 22, 1:14 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Nor "implying" anything.
>
> > Why would I care if I'd only read about it...
>
> So you have someone in your life who is or was a Scientologist? Care
> to say more about that?

Already have.

>
>
>
> > Are you a Landmark "grad?"
>
> > Ellen
>
> I am as much a Landmark "grad" as ?Serena? is a Landmark "grad". ?
>
> Serena? and I did all the same hard work to be the all knowing know-it-
> alls in alt.fan.landmark that we are.

I'll take that as a "no."



Ellen

[Serena Nordstrup]

Do you not feel privileged to receive occasional glimpses of other
"worlds", Sinead ?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 23, 6:29 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's a little hint, "Sin:"
>
> > Cults are, above and beyond anything else, about money.
>
> Are all businesses "cults"? Is America a cult? One could easily argue
> that America is all about the Benjamin's.

... but not that Ellen suggested that all money signals culthood...

> >There are a few exceptions, but these are rare.
>
> Who determines the exceptions? You and Rick Ross?
>
> >The first criterion in the determination of what makes a group a cult
>
> Who fabricated this "criterion"? Is there any peer reviewed scientific
> studies support it?
>
> > is the amount of money they extract from members.
>
> How much $ have casinos and Club Med "extracted from members"? Do they
> qualify as "cults"?
>
> > Do you really think that what I write here in any way compares to the systemic manipulation, predation, abuse, exploitation, destruction,  and murder that happens inside cults?
>
> You appear to have fabricated a world view that you then rail against.
> You are at war with yourself Ellen.

So what do you find new about disagreeing with a world-view ?

[Ellen]

On May 22, 11:29 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's a little hint, "Sin:"
>
> > Cults are, above and beyond anything else, about money.
>
> Are all businesses "cults"?

No.

Somebody observed the Scientology is a business disguised as a
religion and Landmark is a religion disguised as a business.


>Is America a cult?


No.

One could make the argument that North Korea is a cult.

>One could easily argue
> that America is all about the Benjamin's.

That doesn't make it a cult.

>
> >There are a few exceptions, but these are rare.
>
> Who determines the exceptions? You and Rick Ross?

Yes. And lots of other people, writers, journalists, historians,
academics, cult-watchers, cult victims, families of cult victims,
etc., etc.

> >The first criterion in the determination of what makes a group a cult
>
> Who fabricated this "criterion"? Is there any peer reviewed scientific
> studies support it?

There are generally accepted criteria. No need for "peer review."
It's just a working concept with fuzzy boundaries. Cults have
typically "hired" some "professional" who doesn't believe cults exist,
just as the petroleum industry can find climate-science deniers.

> > is the amount of money they extract from members.
>
> How much $ have casinos and Club Med "extracted from members"? Do they
> qualify as "cults"?

No.

> > Do you really think that what I write here in any way compares to the systemic manipulation, predation, abuse, exploitation, destruction,  and murder that happens inside cults?
>
> You appear to have fabricated a world view that you then rail against.
> You are at war with yourself Ellen.

So this hypothetical "world view" I "fabricated" compares with the
very real and actual horrors of the above?

> > How did you come up with  this...
>
> I did not come up with "this", you did. It is part of your hysterical
> fantacy land.

You came up with the suggestion that what I do is worse than what
cults do.


Not to worry though. We know you're just a stooge who will say
anything -- doesn't really matter how preposterous.



Ellen

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 21, 10:25 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 20, 1:16 am, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 19, 10:09 pm, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Talking about coaching.  Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
> > > Among Masters 2012:
>
> > > "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
> > > specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
> > > from every corner of the world!  If you meet the criteria, request an
> > > invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
> > > (and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"
>
> > >http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/
>
> > > "Thursday May 17
>
> > > Upscale Continental Breakfast   7:30am – 9:15am
>
> > > Partners Park
> > > Our supporters.  Great resources.       All day!
>
> > > Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter:  Werner
> > > Erhard
> > > (OMG – need we say more?)     9:30am – 4:30pm
>
> > > Lunch   1:30pm – 2:30pm
>
> > > Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people      1:30pm – 2:30pm
> > > ..."
>
> > >http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/
>

> > It sounds like "not nice" is a current theme for Werner,
>

> Cherry picking a few words out of context, in order to  sell some
> conclusion about it, standard dishonest alt.fan.landmark gobbledygook.
> What of the other 100 or 1000 ideas likely to have been expressed by
> Werner Erhard at "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™)?

Cherry-pick one of his alleged ideas and bring it here for dissection
and evaluation, then...

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 21, 2:32 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 20, 2012 12:20:10 PM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > On May 20, 6:29 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > On Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:16:10 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > > > On May 19, 10:09 pm, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Talking about coaching.  Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
> > > > > Among Masters 2012:
>
> > > > > "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
> > > > > specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
> > > > > from every corner of the world!  If you meet the criteria, request an
> > > > > invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
> > > > > (and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"
>
> > > > >http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/
>
> > > > > "Thursday May 17
>
> > > > > Upscale Continental Breakfast   7:30am – 9:15am
>
> > > > > Partners Park
> > > > > Our supporters.  Great resources.       All day!
>
> > > > > Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter:  Werner
> > > > > Erhard
> > > > > (OMG – need we say more?)     9:30am – 4:30pm
>
> > > > > Lunch   1:30pm – 2:30pm
>
> > > > > Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people      1:30pm – 2:30pm
> > > > > ..."
>
> > > > >http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/
>
> > > > It sounds like "not nice" is a current theme for Werner,
>

> > > > =====
> > > > "out of my respect for people, I am not a nice person" ~ Werner
> > > > Erhardt #cam2012
> > > > =====
> > > >https://twitter.com/#!/suzipomerantz/status/203137866732285953
>
> > > Current???
> > > when was Werner ever nice?
>
> > When did Werner make that a talking point before?
>
> It was just way he was.
> Nice he was not.

Ok, but when did Werner make that a talking point before?

[Serena Nordstrup]

Name them.

[tubby]

Baroness Nordstrup??????

[tubby]

With you as Head Chef Baroness Nordstrup??????

Nuh your cooking stinks, no flavour or taste .
On top of that it gives you diarrhoea

Cheers

[Serena Nordstrup]

Irrelevant.

> Nuh your cooking stinks, no flavour or  taste .
>  On top  of that it gives you diarrhoea

Irrelevant example of the ad hominem fallacy.

[tubby]

Okay I take it back.

Cheers

[Caligari]

On May 19, 10:09 pm, Caligari <enric.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Talking about coaching.  Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
> Among Masters 2012:
>
> "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
> specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
> from every corner of the world!  If you meet the criteria, request an
> invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
> (and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"
>
> http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/
>
> "Thursday May 17
>
> Upscale Continental Breakfast   7:30am – 9:15am
>
> Partners Park
> Our supporters.  Great resources.       All day!
>
> Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter:  Werner
> Erhard
> (OMG – need we say more?)     9:30am – 4:30pm
>
> Lunch   1:30pm – 2:30pm
>
> Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people      1:30pm – 2:30pm
> ..."
>
> http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/

More Werner photos and aphorisms from CAM 2012:

http://www.suzipomerantz.com/more-notes-from-a-day-with-werner-erhard-at-cam-2012/

http://www.suzipomerantz.com/final-notes-from-a-day-with-werner-erhard-at-cam-2012/

[Ellen]

> http://www.suzipomerantz.com/more-notes-from-a-day-with-werner-erhard...
>
> http://www.suzipomerantz.com/final-notes-from-a-day-with-werner-erhar...



Yechhhhhh...

Is he really passing this junk off as some kind of ~wisdom?~

Is he offering himself up as one of these ~masters?~

How about this little tidbit:

"...People who have mastered life are ordinary people. They see/
perceive life differently than most of us. They interact with life
differently. They make sense of it/ interpret life differently than
most."

You could say the same thing about schizophrenics. The miracle is
that Weener can get anyone to listen to this garbage.

I wonder if he'd imagine himself to possess ~mastery~ over the
entities who ruined his reputation.



Ellen

[Membership Membershop]

> Yechhhhhh...
>
> Is he really passing this junk off as some kind of ~wisdom?~

"junk" and "pass off" is what you have added, your spin, how you talk
about others, Werner Erhard was in fact invited to present what he
presented and he accepted the invitation and presented what he
presented.

> Is he offering himself up as one of these ~masters?~

None of the edited clips presented clips expressed that Werner Erhard
was "offering himself" as anything, let alone "one of these masters".
That is your addition.

>
> How about this little tidbit:
>
> "...People who have mastered life are ordinary people. They see/
> perceive life differently than most of us. They interact with life
> differently. They make sense of it/ interpret life differently than
> most."
>
> You could say the same thing about schizophrenics.

You could say the same thing about Michelangelo, Albert Einstien,
Simone de Beauvoir, LeoTolstoy, Franz Kafka, Carl Jung, Sir Richard
Branson, Leonardo DaVinci, Steve Jobs, Marie Curie, Galileo etc.

> The miracle is that Weener can get anyone to listen to this garbage.

He does not "get" anyone to listen to anything. Prove that Werner
Erhard got anyone to do anything. And there is no "miracles" or
magical thinking needed to explain this. Werner Erhard is invited to
a long list of respected schools and publics gatherings to present and
discuss ideas. if you are genuinely interested you could call any of
those institutions and ask them why they invited Werner Erhard to be
there, and then come back and report what your findings.

And you Ellen? Your only stage appears to be a newsgroup called
alt.fan.landmark, where no one listens to your garbage.

>
> I wonder if he'd imagine himself to possess ~mastery~ over the entities who ruined his reputation.

Yes, these are the things you "wonder" about.
>
> Ellen

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 31, 2:43 pm, Membership Membershop

<membershipmebers...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yechhhhhh...
>
> > Is he really passing this junk off as some kind of ~wisdom?~
>
> "junk" and "pass off"  is what you have added,

Can you think of a more effective and more succinct way to express
(say) disgust and contempt ?

> your spin,
... or legitimate expression of ~opinion~ ...

> how you talk about others,

...except the royal family of Lesotho.

> Werner Erhard was in fact invited

By whom?

> to present what he presented

with every word pre-approved?

> and he accepted the invitation and presented what he
> presented.

Conclusion? the world became the poorer for Jack Rosenberg's
expenditure of hot air ?

> > Is he offering himself up as one of these ~masters?~
>
> None of the edited clips presented clips expressed that Werner Erhard
> was "offering himself" as anything, let alone "one of these  masters".
> That is your addition.

So we need to search for evidence elsewhere to answer the question:
does Jack Rosenberg offer himself up as a ~master~?

> > How about this little tidbit:
>
> > "...People who have mastered life are ordinary people. They see/
> > perceive life differently than most of us. They interact with life
> > differently. They make sense of it/ interpret life differently than
> > most."
>
> > You could say the same thing about schizophrenics.
>
> You could say the same thing about Michelangelo, Albert Einstien,
> Simone de Beauvoir, LeoTolstoy, Franz Kafka, Carl Jung, Sir Richard
> Branson, Leonardo DaVinci, Steve Jobs, Marie Curie, Galileo etc.

Did Kafka master ~life~?

> > The miracle is that Weener can get anyone to listen to this garbage.
>
> He does not "get" anyone to listen to anything. Prove that Werner
> Erhard got anyone to do anything.

Jack Rosenberg didn't get anyone to esteem his activities to such an
extent as to invite him to make a presentation at CAM 2012 ?

> And there is no "miracles" or
> magical thinking needed to explain this.  Werner Erhard is invited to
> a long list of respected schools and publics gatherings to present and
> discuss ideas. if you are genuinely  interested you could call any of
> those institutions and ask them why they invited Werner Erhard to be
> there, and then come back and report what your findings.
>
> And you Ellen? Your only stage appears to be a newsgroup called
> alt.fan.landmark, where no one listens to your garbage.

Perhaps we should cross-post the non-garbage to more newsgroups ...

> > I wonder if he'd imagine himself to possess ~mastery~ over the entities who ruined his reputation.
>
> Yes, these are the things you "wonder" about.

Deeply perceptive today, I see.

[Tex]

On Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:09:02 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> Talking about coaching. Last Thursday Werner opened for Conversation
> Among Masters 2012:
>
> "Conversation Among Masters™ (CAM™) is a unique event designed
> specifically and exclusively for Master Level Coaches of all kinds,
> from every corner of the world! If you meet the criteria, request an
> invitation so that you may join us at unequivocally THE most beloved
> (and FUN) gathering of experienced and successful Coaches anywhere!"
>
> http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/
>
> "Thursday May 17
>
> Upscale Continental Breakfast 7:30am – 9:15am
>
> Partners Park
> Our supporters. Great resources. All day!
>
> Morning Opener- The Conversation Begins!Conversation Starter: Werner
> Erhard
> (OMG – need we say more?) 9:30am – 4:30pm
>
> Lunch 1:30pm – 2:30pm
>
> Lunch w/Werner for 10 lucky people 1:30pm – 2:30pm
> ..."
>
> http://www.conversationamongmasters.com/cam-2012/agenda/

LOL!!!!
The Riddler has ~spoken~

http://tinyurl.com/8yb6oaq

[Ellen]

So...

You find Serena's observations confusing (?), puzzling, obscure,
oblique, and/or confounding, yet you ~understand~ or find "meaningful"
or worthy of esteem the claptrap spewed by Werner Erhard.

Like this bit, chosen at random:

"...Knowing that you’re breathing is a different state than
discovering that you’re breathing. Contrast what you learn and
understand with what you discover for yourself. If it doesn’t move or
shock you, you haven’t discovered it (as opposed to learned it,
understood it, had insight)."

Say what??? sucka'



(Dude's got dementia. Or he ran out of money and still thinks he can
peddle his nonsense. Or he thinks people will imagine his ~creation~
as something more than some silly fad from the 1970s.)

...Unbelievable




Ellen

[Caligari]

Werner is still preaching to the type of person who saw hidden meaning
in Jimi Hendrix's song "Are You Experienced"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8N6DjJccc

;)

[Ellen]

LOL

I'd take a cup o' Jimi over buckets and buckets of Weener any day.


Lemmee see here:

I gotta ~create~ breathing so I can ~discover~ it for myself in order
to be "shocked & moved" and then, what, I get to ~experience~
breathing?

I dunno....



Ellen

[Tex]

No.

>yet you ~understand~ or find "meaningful" or worthy of esteem the claptrap >spewed by Werner Erhard.

No.

Loaded question fallacy, again.
You also like to use Serena's favorite, the fallacy of many questions.

Complex question, trick question, multiple question or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions") is a question that has a presupposition that is complex. The presupposition is a proposition that is presumed to be acceptable to the respondent when the question is asked. The respondent becomes committed to this proposition when he gives any direct answer. The presupposition is called "complex" because it is a conjunctive proposition, a disjunctive proposition, or a conditional proposition. It could also be another type of proposition that contains some logical connective in a way that makes it have several parts that are component propositions.[1]
Complex questions can but do not have to be fallacious, as in being an informal fallacy.[1]

One form of misleading discourse involves presupposing and implying something without stating it explicitly, by phrasing it as a question. For example, the question "Does Mr. Jones have a brother in the army?" does not claim that he does, but implies that there must be at least some indication that he does, or the question would not need to be asked.[2] The person asking the question is thus protected from accusations of making false claims, but still manages to make the implication in the form of a hidden compound question. The fallacy isn't in the question itself, but rather in the listener's assumption that the question would not have been asked without some evidence to support the supposition. This example seems harmless, but consider this one: "Does Mr. Jones have a brother in jail?"
In order to have the desired effect, the question must imply something uncommon enough not to be asked without some evidence to the fact. For example, the question "Does Mr. Jones have a brother?" would not cause the listener to think there must be some evidence that he does, since this form of general question is frequently asked with no foreknowledge of the answer.
[edit]Complex question fallacy

For more details on this topic, see Loaded question.
The complex question fallacy, or many questions fallacy, relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. In other words, a presupposition by itself, doesn't have to be a fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved.[1][3][4][5][6] For example, "Is Mary wearing a blue or a red dress" – with an assumption that Mary is wearing a dress – is likely non-fallacious, if it is common knowledge that Mary wears dresses. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question and are intended to trick them into replying in a way they wouldn't do if the question was simple, does the argument containing them become fallacious.[1][4][5][6]
Hence we can distinguish between:
legitimately complex questions (not a fallacy): A question that assumes something that the hearer would readily agree to. For example, "Who is the Monarch of the United Kingdom?" assumes that there is a place called the United Kingdom and that it has a monarch, both true.
illegitimately complex question: On the other hand, "Who is the King of France?" would commit the complex question fallacy because while it assumes there is a place called France (true), it also assumes France currently has a king (false). But since this answering the question does not seem to incriminate or otherwise embarrass the speaker, it is complex but not really a loaded question.[7]
When a complex question contains controversial presupposes (often with loaded language – having an unspoken and often emotive implication), it is known as a loaded question.[3][4][6] For example, a classic loaded question, containing incriminating assumptions that the questioned persons seem to admit to if they answer the questions instead of challenging them, is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" If the person questioned answers "Yes", then that implies that they have beaten their wife before. A loaded question may be asked to trick the respondent into admitting something that the questioner believes to be true, and which may in fact be true. So the previous question is "loaded," whether or not the respondent has actually beaten his wife — and if the respondent answers anything other than "yes" or "no" in an attempt to deny having beaten his wife, the questioner can accuse him of "trying to dodge the question". The very same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[4]

[Tex]

If you say so, Ellen.
Keep working on your breathing.
It might open your heart chakra. ;)

Jimi Hendrix taught me that during my GSLP. ;)

>
>
> Ellen

[Tex]

You talkin' about the type of people that hang around Valencia Street in the Mission.
>
> ;)

[Caligari]

Actually the people at a building on lower Broadway.

Though I did see a few months back a guy and his friend at a cafe
chatting up girls with Landmark lingo. They didn't come across well.

-- Caligari

[Tex]

And Ellen tells us the Landmarkers are all screwing like bunnies.
How do we reconcile this??? :)

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 2, 11:27 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 1, 2012 2:44:28 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > On May 31, 5:22 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Thursday, May 31, 2012 1:34:13 PM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:
> > > > On May 31, 9:34 am, Ellen <ellena...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On May 31, 6:28 am, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sunday, May 20, 2012 1:09:02 AM UTC-4, Caligari wrote:

<snip>

> > Though I did see a few months back a guy and his friend at a cafe
> > chatting up girls with Landmark lingo.  They didn't come across well.
>
> And Ellen tells us the Landmarkers are all screwing like bunnies.

Where does she tell us this?

> How do we reconcile this???  :)>

We could start by ~trying~ to make the ~distinction~ between in-group
and out-group.

[elle...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 1, 2012 4:27:12 PM UTC-7, Tex wrote:


(snip)

> And Ellen tells us the Landmarkers are all screwing like bunnies.
> How do we reconcile this???

Most likely, only with each other.


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> So...
>
> You find Serena's observations confusing (?), puzzling, obscure,
> oblique, and/or confounding, yet you ~understand~ or find "meaningful"
> or worthy of esteem the claptrap spewed by Werner Erhard.
>
> Like this bit, chosen at random:
>
> "...Knowing that you’re breathing is a different state than
> discovering that you’re breathing. Contrast what you learn and
> understand with what you discover for yourself. If it doesn’t move or
> shock you, you haven’t discovered it (as opposed to learned it,
> understood it, had insight)."
>
> Say what??? sucka'
>
> (Dude's got dementia.  Or he ran out of money and still thinks he can
> peddle his nonsense.  Or he thinks people will imagine his ~creation~
> as something more than some silly fad from the 1970s.)
>
> ...Unbelievable
>
> Ellen

Ellen and Caligari, please share with us a single philosophical or
religious idea that is not "nonsense " and "claptrap? in your
personal point of view? Would you also say that the The
Mahabarata’s Bhagavad-Gita and The Hindu Vedas, The Bible , Tibetan
Book of the Dead, The Koran, The Jewish Torah and all other such
books that muse on philosophical or religious ideas are just
"nonsense " and "claptrap"?

Tarkovsky's, Bresson's , Bergman's, Pasolini's ideas and films , all
"nonsense " and "claptrap"? Poetry all "nonsense " and "claptrap"?
Song lyrics all "nonsense " and "claptrap? The discipline of yoga all
"nonsense " and "claptrap"?

Can you expand on the list of "dudes" and ladies you view as having
"dementia" throughout history who endeavoured to present and
discuss ideas and innovations and look outside the status quo of
their day that who you view as "spewing nonsense and claptrap"? Who
else is worthy of being casually invalidated by you two outstanding
thinkers?

Or is it just a select few that you, Caligari and Rick personally do
not like and have cherry picked that are the "spewing" evil doers? And
anyone besides your tiny clique is suppose to give a toss about YOUR
likes and dislikes?

[elle...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, June 2, 2012 12:55:33 PM UTC-7, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > So...
> >
> > You find Serena's observations confusing (?), puzzling, obscure,
> > oblique, and/or confounding, yet you ~understand~ or find "meaningful"
> > or worthy of esteem the claptrap spewed by Werner Erhard.
> >
> > Like this bit, chosen at random:
> >
> > "...Knowing that you’re breathing is a different state than
> > discovering that you’re breathing. Contrast what you learn and
> > understand with what you discover for yourself. If it doesn’t move or
> > shock you, you haven’t discovered it (as opposed to learned it,
> > understood it, had insight)."
> >
> > Say what??? sucka'
> >
> > (Dude's got dementia.  Or he ran out of money and still thinks he can
> > peddle his nonsense.  Or he thinks people will imagine his ~creation~
> > as something more than some silly fad from the 1970s.)
> >
> > ...Unbelievable
> >
> > Ellen
>
> Ellen and Caligari, please share with us a single philosophical or
> religious idea that is not "nonsense " and "claptrap? in your
> personal point of view?

The only constant is change -- Heraclitus

Would you also say that the The
> Mahabarata’s Bhagavad-Gita and The Hindu Vedas, The Bible , Tibetan
> Book of the Dead, The Koran, The Jewish Torah and all other such
> books that muse on philosophical or religious ideas are just
> "nonsense " and "claptrap"?

No. See if you can make the ~distinction.~ Are you really equating or comparing the intellectual sludge produced by Werner Erhard with the above?

>
> Tarkovsky's, Bresson's , Bergman's, Pasolini's ideas and films , all
> "nonsense " and "claptrap"? Poetry all "nonsense " and "claptrap"?
> Song lyrics all "nonsense " and "claptrap? The discipline of yoga all
> "nonsense " and "claptrap"?

Nope. Just est, Landmark, scientology, and similar compilations.

> Can you expand on the list of "dudes" and ladies you view as having
> "dementia" throughout history who endeavoured to present and
> discuss ideas and innovations and look outside the status quo of
> their day that who you view as "spewing nonsense and claptrap"?

L. Ron Hubbard
Mary Baker Eddy
Madame Blavastsky
Edgar Cayce
David Icke

>Who else is worthy of being casually invalidated by you two outstanding
> thinkers?

Nothing "casual" about it.

> Or is it just a select few that you, Caligari and Rick personally do
> not like and have cherry picked that are the "spewing" evil doers?

Nothing personal. And lots more than "do not like."

> anyone besides your tiny clique is suppose to give a toss about YOUR
> likes and dislikes?

Why do you presume, with the mountain of articles, books, references, postings, observations, commentary, experiences, and statements from victims going back decades and decades that ours is a "tiny clique?" Or about "likes and dislikes." Do you think by your own pathetic little attempts you can diminish the evidence against these silly groups?



Ellen

[Serena Nordstrup]

"suppose" ?

[Sinead (Author)]

> No.  See if you can make the ~distinction.~  Are you really equating or comparing the intellectual sludge produced by Werner Erhard with the above?

You invalidate philosophical thought. Werner Erhard quotes, draws from
and is inspired by some of these sources. You are calling it all
"intellectual sludge". Perhaps you just resent the man because he
created a successful profitable business out of that? Perhaps you
resent capitalism and people making $? Are you some poor ex teacher
who has $ issues Ellen?

> Nope.  Just est, Landmark, scientology, and similar compilations.

Your entitled to have your list of likes and dislikes.

> L. Ron Hubbard
> Mary Baker Eddy
> Madame Blavastsky
> Edgar Cayce
> David Icke

Awesome

> Nothing personal.  And lots more than "do not like."

Nah, it is just your likes and dislikes. sorry, you are a liar and
your opinions are just opinions. .

> Why do you presume, with the mountain of articles, books, references, postings, observations, commentary, experiences, and statements from victims going back decades and decades that ours is a "tiny clique?"  Or about "likes and dislikes."  Do you think by your own pathetic little attempts you can diminish the evidence against these silly groups?

Your "mountain" isa "mountain of mostly opinions and newspaper and
magazine articles of very little importance, which is why you also
ignore glowing articles that praise and admire and speak well of
Landmark Education and Werner Erhard. You can't have it both ways
Ellen. Though, I know you want to.

[Caligari]

On Jun 2, 12:55 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>  > So...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You find Serena's observations confusing (?), puzzling, obscure,
> > oblique, and/or confounding, yet you ~understand~ or find "meaningful"
> > or worthy of esteem the claptrap spewed by Werner Erhard.
>
> > Like this bit, chosen at random:
>
> > "...Knowing that you’re breathing is a different state than
> > discovering that you’re breathing. Contrast what you learn and
> > understand with what you discover for yourself. If it doesn’t move or
> > shock you, you haven’t discovered it (as opposed to learned it,
> > understood it, had insight)."
>
> > Say what??? sucka'
>
> > (Dude's got dementia.  Or he ran out of money and still thinks he can
> > peddle his nonsense.  Or he thinks people will imagine his ~creation~
> > as something more than some silly fad from the 1970s.)
>
> > ...Unbelievable
>
> > Ellen
>
> Ellen  and Caligari, please share with us a single philosophical or
> religious idea that is not "nonsense " and "claptrap?  in your
> personal  point of view? Would you also say that  the  The
> Mahabarata’s Bhagavad-Gita and The Hindu Vedas, The Bible , Tibetan
> Book of the Dead, The Koran, The Jewish Torah and all other such
> books  that muse on philosophical or religious ideas  are just
> "nonsense " and "claptrap"?

Probably most of Aristotle's philosophy written before 300 BC is sound
and the basis of modern science. Example from "Posterior Analytics
Book I" on the difference between just perceiving or experience
something and reasoning principals from perception:

===============
31. We cannot obtain true knowledge by perception. Even if perception
(as a faculty) is of qualities, not just of particular things, still,
when we perceive, we must perceive a particular thing in a particular
place now. But the universal, what is true in all cases, cannot be
perceived, since it is not a particular thing now. If it were, it
would not be universal. We mean by universal that which is always and
everywhere the case. Since demonstrations are universal, and
universals cannot be perceived, it is clear that scientific knowledge
cannot be obtained by perceiving. And, clearly, if we could perceive
that triangles have angles equal to two right angles, we would still
look for proof. We would not have knowledge, though some people say
so. Perception must be perception of particular things, but knowledge
is getting to know the universal.

Even if we were on the moon and saw the earth cutting off the sun's
light, we would not know the cause of the eclipse. We would have a
perception -- "there is an eclipse now" -- but we would not know the
reason why. Perceiving does not have to do with the universal.

It is, of course, true that as a result of seeing the same thing
happen many times we would look for the universal and have a proof;
the universal becomes clear from a number of particular instances.
The universal is highly esteemed because it makes the cause obvious.
In the case of things that have a cause other than themselves, the
universal is more highly esteemed than perception and intuitional
grasp....
===============

-- Caligari

[tubby]

Hi Caligari,

Can you explain what Aristotle means by use of the word Universals and
how the assumptions
behind those meanings affect the meaning of what he is trying to say
between Perceptions and
reasoning principles from perception.
Are the Greek"s interpretations of Universals concepts relevant in
today's world????

By the way I I don't think any one here in the group doubts what
Aristotle is saying. It has validity
and is worthy of following.

Cheers Bruno

Lets see if the Ranters here keep this discussion now to a
reasonable , open relevant level.

[Sinead (Author)]

Caligari is up to his trickery here. Notice his comment did not follow
the one he replied to. Usual Caligari misdirection tactic.

[Sinead (Author)]

So what? So you agree with or do not take issue with this one cherry
picked individual Aristotle's philosophy, so what?

What do you have to say about the Mahabarata’s Bhagavad-Gita, The

Hindu Vedas, The Bible , Tibetan Book of the Dead, The Koran, The

Jewish Torah and all other such books? "Sound" enough for your
approval? Sufficient basis in modern science for you? Or just
"nonsense " and "claptrap" and "intellectual sludge"?

[Caligari]

Yes, Aristotle references a universal of Euclidean geometry in this
quote:

==========

And, clearly, if we could perceive that triangles have angles equal to
two right angles, we would still look for proof. We would not have
knowledge, though some people say so. Perception must be perception
of particular things, but knowledge is getting to know the universal.

==========

This can be found in Euclid's Elements Book I, Proposition 32:

=========
In any triangle, if one of the sides is produced, then the exterior
angle equals the sum of the two interior and opposite angles, and the
sum of the three interior angles of the triangle equals two right
angles.
=========

with proofs: http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/propI32.html

The proof is the demonstration that deduces the universal. A
universal can also be called a principal that can be applied beyond
just the perception and experience a person can have. Such as
Newton's principals or laws of motion:

===========
First law: The velocity of a body remains constant unless the body is
acted upon by an external force.[3][4][5]
Second law: The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly
proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass
m, i.e., F = ma.
Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies
are equal, opposite and collinear.
===========
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

> Are  the Greek"s  interpretations  of Universals concepts relevant in
> today's  world????

Yes, Euclid's universals from before 300 BC are being taught in Math
classes today and Aristotle's universals are also being taught now in
College logic courses.

-- Caligari

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 4, 1:28 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > No.  See if you can make the ~distinction.~  Are you really equating or comparing the intellectual sludge produced by Werner Erhard with the above?
>
> You invalidate philosophical thought.

As opposed to snippets therefrom.

> Werner Erhard quotes, draws from
> and is inspired by some of these sources.

Especially the silly and obtuse bits?

> You are calling it all "intellectual sludge".

All?

> Perhaps  you just resent the man because he
> created a successful profitable business out of that?

Perhaps Ellen has marginally more interest in bad ideas than in stupid
persons?

> Perhaps you resent capitalism and people making $?

Perhaps arguments about ideas do not always involve personal feelings?

> Are you some poor ex teacher
> who has $ issues Ellen?
>
> > Nope.  Just est, Landmark, scientology, and similar compilations.
>
> Your entitled to have your list of likes and dislikes.
>
> > L. Ron Hubbard
> > Mary Baker Eddy
> > Madame Blavastsky
> > Edgar Cayce
> > David Icke
>
> Awesome
>
> > Nothing personal.  And lots more than "do not like."
>
> Nah, it is just your likes and dislikes. sorry, you are a liar and
> your opinions are just opinions. .
>
> > Why do you presume, with the mountain of articles, books, references, postings, observations, commentary, experiences, and statements from victims going back decades and decades that ours is a "tiny clique?"  Or about "likes and dislikes."  Do you think by your own pathetic little attempts you can diminish the evidence against these silly groups?
>
> Your "mountain" isa "mountain of mostly opinions and newspaper and
> magazine articles of very little importance,

Mostly? What percentage of texts in the subject of rosenbergism
comprises ~opinions~? What percentage of texts in the subject of
rosenbergism has "very little importance"?

> which is why you also
> ignore glowing articles that praise and admire and speak well of
> Landmark Education and Werner Erhard.

Why exactly does Ellen allegedly ignore glowing articles?

> You can't have it both ways Ellen.

Why not?

[elle...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 3, 2012 6:28:15 AM UTC-7, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > No.  See if you can make the ~distinction.~  Are you really equating or comparing the intellectual sludge produced by Werner Erhard with the above?
>
> You invalidate philosophical thought.

Wow. Such ~power.~ Are you sure about this? I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bath water.

>Werner Erhard quotes, draws from
> and is inspired by some of these sources.

Why not go directly to ~source~ rather than take your philosophy and poetry filtered through the second-rate mind of an un-educated sleeze-bag "guru?"

>You are calling it all
> "intellectual sludge".

Nope. Only the part "adapted/adopted" and spun/wrung/rinsed/twisted/mangled through the estie/Landmarky laundromat.

>Perhaps you just resent the man because he
> created a successful profitable business out of that?

Perhaps monkeys might fly out of my.....

>Perhaps you
> resent capitalism and people making $?

Gee. So much opportunity to ~resent~ everything and everybody.

>Are you some poor ex teacher
> who has $ issues Ellen?
>
>
> > Nope.  Just est, Landmark, scientology, and similar compilations.
>
> Your entitled to have your list of likes and dislikes.
>
>
> > L. Ron Hubbard
> > Mary Baker Eddy
> > Madame Blavastsky
> > Edgar Cayce
> > David Icke
>
> Awesome
>
>
> > Nothing personal.  And lots more than "do not like."
>
> Nah, it is just your likes and dislikes. sorry, you are a liar and
> your opinions are just opinions. .

Give an example of a lie.

> > Why do you presume, with the mountain of articles, books, references, postings, observations, commentary, experiences, and statements from victims going back decades and decades that ours is a "tiny clique?"  Or about "likes and dislikes."  Do you think by your own pathetic little attempts you can diminish the evidence against these silly groups?
>
> Your "mountain" isa "mountain of mostly opinions and newspaper and
> magazine articles of very little importance, which is why you also
> ignore glowing articles that praise and admire and speak well of
> Landmark Education and Werner Erhard. You can't have it both ways
> Ellen. Though, I know you want to.

Seems like you missed or skipped the day in middle-school when they talked about the paradoxical nature of......



Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> > > No.  See if you can make the ~distinction.~  Are you really equating or comparing the intellectual sludge produced by Werner Erhard with the above?
>
> > You invalidate philosophical thought.
>
> As opposed to snippets therefrom.

Yes snippets. That is what we are talking about,

> > You are calling it all "intellectual sludge".
>
> All?

Not all?

> > Perhaps you resent capitalism and people making $?
>
> Perhaps arguments about ideas do not always involve personal feelings?

There are no "personal feelings" "involved"? You, Caligari and Ellen
Robots as long suspected?

> > Your "mountain" isa "mountain of mostly opinions and newspaper and
> > magazine articles of very little importance,
>
> Mostly? What percentage of texts in the subject of rosenbergism
> comprises ~opinions~?  What percentage of texts in the subject of
> rosenbergism has "very little importance"?

Not "mostly"? "Percentages"? No research of facts required silly, this
is not alt.fan.landmark? Pretty sure it is.

> > which is why you also
> > ignore glowing articles that praise and admire and speak well of
> > Landmark Education and Werner Erhard.
>
> Why exactly does Ellen allegedly ignore glowing articles?

Ask Ellen. Or not.

>
> > You can't have it both ways Ellen.
>
> Why not?

> > Though, I know you want to.

I take it back, you and Ellen can have it both ways and you do.

[Sinead (Author)]

> Nope.  Only the part "adapted/adopted" and spun/wrung/rinsed/twisted/mangled through the estie/Landmarky laundromat

So your thoughts on The Bible and The Koran then? Good recourses for
communities to live from?

> Perhaps monkeys might fly out of my.....

?


> Gee.  So much opportunity to ~resent~ everything and everybody.

Your resentment, scorn and bitterness is what you are about in
alt.fan.landmark

> Give an example of a lie.

You, your Guru Rick Ross and your little lackey Caligari are living
breathing examples of dishonesty.

> Seems like you missed or skipped the day in middle-school when they talked about the paradoxical nature of......

BS

> Ellen

[tubby]

> ===========http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion

>
> > Are  the Greek"s  interpretations  of Universals concepts relevant in
> > today's  world????
>
> Yes, Euclid's universals from before 300 BC are being taught in Math
> classes today and Aristotle's universals are also being taught now in
> College logic courses.
>
>   -- Caligari

Yes I get that.

My question was what did the Greeks actually mean by Universals,
what are they and where do they reside?????

Would those kind of assumptions make sense to us today???????

cheers

[Sinead (Author)]

> I'd take a cup o' Jimi over buckets and buckets of Weener any day.
>
> Lemmee see here:
>
> I gotta ~create~ breathing so I can ~discover~ it for myself in order
> to be "shocked & moved" and then, what, I get to ~experience~
> breathing?
>
> I dunno....
>
> Ellen

So you will take a cup o' guy who abused LSD, sleeping pills,
marijuana, alcohol, hit beat and abused women and probably committed
suicide? Because he could skillfully inventively play a guitar for a
brief period of his young life? Whatever floats your boat Ellen. The
cups you drink from are telling.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 5, 6:30 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > No.  See if you can make the ~distinction.~  Are you really equating or comparing the intellectual sludge produced by Werner Erhard with the above?
>
> > > You invalidate
>

> > As opposed to snippets therefrom.
>
> Yes snippets. That is what we are talking about,

Thanks for the elucidation. That viewpoint remained obscure in the
formulation "You invalidate philosophical thought".

much philosophical discuyssion involves invalidating snippets of
philosophical thought. Otherwise we might have a monolithic
philosophical orthodoxy ...

> > > You are calling it all "intellectual sludge".
>
> > All?
>
> Not all?

Perhaps not, then...

> > > Perhaps you resent capitalism and people making $?
>
> > Perhaps arguments about ideas do not always involve personal feelings?
>
> There are no "personal feelings" "involved"?

Why ever not? But perhaps *arguments* about ideas do not always
involve personal feelings? -- After all, emotionality makes for poor
argumentation...

> You, Caligari and Ellen
> Robots as long suspected?

That ad-hominem suspicion has no relevance to the discussion.

> > > Your "mountain" isa "mountain of mostly opinions and newspaper and
> > > magazine articles of very little importance,
>
> > Mostly? What percentage of texts in the subject of rosenbergism
> > comprises ~opinions~?  What percentage of texts in the subject of
> > rosenbergism has "very little importance"?
>
> Not "mostly"? "Percentages"? No research of facts required silly,

I take it from your reluctance to support your contentions that we
cannot dismiss Ellen's "mountain" of material as 'mostly opinions". I
further take it from your reluctance to support your contentions that
Ellen's "mountain" of material has significant importance...

> this is not alt.fan.landmark?  Pretty sure it is.
>
> > > which is why you also
> > > ignore glowing articles that praise and admire and speak well of
> > > Landmark Education and Werner Erhard.
>
> > Why exactly does Ellen allegedly ignore glowing articles?
>
> Ask Ellen. Or not.

I'll ask you. Because you wrote "which is why you [Ellen] also ignore
glowing articles [...]" and I have not succeeded in unravelling the
logic of your "which is why". Accordingly, I'll ask you: Why exactly

does Ellen allegedly ignore glowing articles?

> > > You can't have it both ways Ellen.
>
> > Why not?
> > > Though, I know you want to.
>
> I take it back, you and Ellen can have it both ways and you do.

Thanks. It may prove useful to have the ability to refer to (say)
Bartley as an example of "mostly opinions" contained in Ellen's
"mountain"...

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 5, 11:38 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > Nope.  Only the part "adapted/adopted" and spun/wrung/rinsed/twisted/mangled through the estie/Landmarky laundromat
>
> So your thoughts on The Bible and The Koran then? Good recourses for
> communities to live from?
>
> > Perhaps monkeys might fly out of my.....
>
> ?
>
> > Gee.  So much opportunity to ~resent~ everything and everybody.
>
> Your resentment, scorn and bitterness is what you are about in
> alt.fan.landmark

Glory to scorn! -- But how can you tell what Ellen ~is~ about ? Do you
regard ad-hominem reference to Ellen's aboutness as relevant to
discussion?

> > Give an example of a lie.
>
> You,  your Guru Rick Ross and your little lackey Caligari are  living
> breathing examples of dishonesty.

What percentage of the time? Do you have a specific example?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 5, 11:50 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Association fallacy.

[Sinead (Author)]

so what? this is alt.fan.landmark, anything you accuse anyone of doing
you have done yourself, you want proof? read your own garbage once in
a while

[Sinead (Author)]

> Glory to scorn!

Sad.

>-- But how can you tell what Ellen ~is~ about ? Do you
> regard ad-hominem reference to Ellen's aboutness as relevant to
> discussion?

Yes

> What percentage of the time? Do you have a specific example?

96%

[Sinead (Author)]

> That ad-hominem suspicion has no relevance to the discussion.

This never stops you Ellen and Rick Ross from piling on the so called
"ad-hominem" with an utmost of off topicness. You want examples? Read
your own garbage.

> I'll ask you. Because you wrote "which is why you [Ellen] also ignore
> glowing articles [...]" and I have not succeeded in unravelling the
> logic of your "which is why". Accordingly, I'll ask you: Why exactly
> does Ellen allegedly ignore glowing articles?

Reason unknown.

> Thanks. It may prove useful to have the ability to refer to (say)
> Bartley as an example of "mostly opinions" contained in Ellen's
> "mountain"...

It's all opinions. IMO

[Ellen]

Listening to Jimi Hendrix play some music being preferable to
listening to Werner Erhard bloviate about some silly 1970's garbage
philosophy he made up is a mystery to you?


Huh?



Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

You and your guru Rick Ross can like and dislike and listen to and not
listen to whatever you want. No mystery to me or anyone. People
choose what gives them their greatest jollies.

[Ellen]

So....

I've scammed money off desperate people?

I've taken advantage of gullible rubes and fleeced them?

I've peddled nonsense and then charged people for brainwashing?


Where have I done this?



Ellen

[Ellen]

On Jun 5, 11:08 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So,

You've adopted a live and let live "philosophy?"

Does that mean you won't be defending and supporting a brain-washing
cult any longer?

Does that mean you will no longer expend any energy ~making others
wrong?~



Ellen

[Ellen]

On Jun 5, 4:45 am, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Jun 5, 11:38 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > Nope.  Only the part "adapted/adopted" and spun/wrung/rinsed/twisted/mangled through the estie/Landmarky laundromat
>
> > So your thoughts on The Bible and The Koran then? Good recourses for
> > communities to live from?
>
> > > Perhaps monkeys might fly out of my.....
>
> > ?
>
> > > Gee.  So much opportunity to ~resent~ everything and everybody.
>
> > Your resentment, scorn and bitterness is what you are about in
> > alt.fan.landmark
>
> Glory to scorn! -- But how can you tell what Ellen ~is~ about ? Do you
> regard ad-hominem reference to Ellen's aboutness as relevant to
> discussion?
>
> > > Give an example of a lie.
>
> > You,  your Guru Rick Ross and your little lackey Caligari are  living
> > breathing examples of dishonesty.

So,


No specific example?



Ellen

[Caligari]

Universals are concepts that identify recurring events and physical
entities. The idea of "chair" is a universal describing all past and
future chairs. The Newtonian law that "to every action there is
always an equal and opposite reaction" is a universal describing all
events of actions on a physical body.

>
> Would those kind of assumptions make sense to us today???????

Yes, it is a basic element of language that certain words describe a
class of objects and events that recur from the past into the future
like "rock", "water", "air", "jumping", "radio". Anything that can be
abstracted to a concept that describes recurring physical entities or
events. Then there are Particulars described as specific events and
objects that do not recur like "Bruno", "President Kennedy", "The
Wright Brothers first flight", etc. These are particular events and
physical objects that exist in a finite time and as single or a few
physical entities.

Wikipedia,
Universal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_(metaphysics)
Particular: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particular

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> So....
>
> I've scammed money off desperate people?

Who said you did? And who has done this that you know? Please provide
facts and evidence

> I've taken advantage of gullible rubes and fleeced them?

Who said you did? And who has done this that you know? Please provide
facts and evidence

> I've peddled nonsense and then charged people for brainwashing?

Who said you did? And who has done this that you know? Please provide
facts and evidence

> Where have I done this?

Who said you have done any of this ? And who has done any of that that
you know for a facts has done so? Please provide facts and evidence.


>
> Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> So,
>
> You've adopted a live and let live "philosophy?"

I have not adopted nor not adopted anything. That is your framework.

> Does that mean you won't be defending and supporting a brain-washing cult any longer?

Ar you going to keep beating and torturing your neighbour's dog
Ellen?

> Does that mean you will no longer expend any energy ~making others wrong?~

It means no such thing unless you want to add that meaning. Go for
it.

>
> Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> So,
>
> No specific example?
>
> Ellen

Not facts needed, this is alt.fan.landmark.

[Sinead (Author)]

> Where have I done this?
>
> Ellen

Clarification

Meant: "...anything you accuse any visitors/posters in
alt.fan.landmark of doing, you have done yourself...."

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 6, 12:46 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Glory to scorn!
>
> Sad.

You disapprove of scorn in some way? Or you disapprove of its
glorification?

> >-- But how can you tell what Ellen ~is~ about ?

But how can you tell what Ellen ~is~ about. Sinead ?

> > Do you
> > regard ad-hominem reference to Ellen's aboutness as relevant to
> > discussion?
>
> Yes

Why?

> > What percentage of the time? Do you have a specific example?
>
> 96%

Do you have a specific example, Sinead ?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 6, 12:51 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > That ad-hominem suspicion has no relevance to the discussion.
>
> This never stops you Ellen and Rick Ross from piling on the so called
> "ad-hominem" with an utmost of off topicness. You want examples?

Yes please.

> Read your own garbage.
>
> > I'll ask you. Because you wrote "which is why you [Ellen] also ignore
> > glowing articles [...]" and I have not succeeded in unravelling the
> > logic of your "which is why". Accordingly, I'll ask you: Why exactly
> > does Ellen allegedly ignore glowing articles?
>
> Reason unknown.

So your phraseology "which is why" counts as rhetorical flourish
rather than as logical binder ?

> > Thanks. It may prove useful to have the ability to refer to (say)
> > Bartley as an example of "mostly opinions" contained in Ellen's
> > "mountain"...
>
> It's all opinions. IMO

So why did you refer to "mostly opinions" before?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On Jun 6, 12:45 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>

wrote:
> On Jun 5, 7:49 am, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 11:50 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > I'd take a cup o' Jimi over buckets and buckets of Weener any day.
>
> > > > Lemmee see here:
>
> > > > I gotta ~create~ breathing so I can ~discover~ it for myself in order
> > > > to be "shocked & moved" and then, what, I get to ~experience~
> > > > breathing?
>
> > > > I dunno....
>
> > > > Ellen
>
> > > So you will take a cup o' guy who abused LSD, sleeping pills,
> > > marijuana,  alcohol, hit beat and abused women and probably committed
> > > suicide? Because he could skillfully inventively play a guitar for a
> > > brief period of his young life? Whatever floats your boat Ellen.  The
> > > cups you drink from are telling.
>
> > Association fallacy.
>
> so what? this is alt.fan.landmark, anything you accuse anyone of doing
> you have done yourself, you want proof?

Yeah, some proof might prove interesting.

> read your own garbage once in a while

I tend to shred the incriminating stuff.

[Serena Nordstrup]

No specific example, then...

[Sinead (Author)]

> You disapprove of scorn in some way? Or you disapprove of its glorification?

Let's stick with "sad".

> But how can you tell what Ellen ~is~ about. Sinead ?

I have read Ellen and her guru Rick Ross's posts and I have an opinion
what these two people are about.

> > > Do you regard ad-hominem reference to Ellen's aboutness as relevant to discussion?

> > Yes
>
> Why?

No reason.

> > > What percentage of the time? Do you have a specific example?
>
> > 96%
>
> Do you have a specific example, Sinead ?

Do you?

[Sinead (Author)]

> Yes please.

Read your own garbage.

> So your phraseology "which is why" counts as rhetorical flourish rather than as logical binder ?

Whatever you say. If you remain unclear , ask your guru Rick Ross for
answers.

> So why did you refer to "mostly opinions" before?

Because I did. If you remain unclear, ask your guru Rick Ross for
answers.

[Sinead (Author)]

> Yeah, some proof might prove interesting.

Interesting enough to read your own garbage and see the answer plain
as day?

> > read your own garbage once in a while
>
> I tend to shred the incriminating stuff.

It's ok, your guru Rick Ross and Ellen are spouting the same garbage
as you, you can go back and read their garbage that was not shreded.

[Sinead (Author)]

"specific examples" are unnecessary in alt.fan.landmark. Baseless
unsupported claims and opinions are a big hit in this internet group.