Kill Filters
rnovar
pamela, liz and of course patrick to name a few, it is remarkable how quiet
the list becomes.
I am struck by the incredible noise and the quality of the needle stuck in
the record content of those who have elected themselves the protectors of
the rest of us from the evils of LEC or LGAT's in general.
I guess it is necessary to repeat the arguments against the evils of LEC
regularly in case someone new checks in and risks thinking that they are
capable of choosing for themselves if the time and money and of course risk
to their sanity are worth the potential benefits of being a brainwashed
enrollment zombie serving the rapacious greed of the likes of truly evil men
like Harry or Art. Heaven help us if someone faces the discomfort of
discovering that they and not their mother are the source of happiness in
their own lives. Heaven help us if too many people decide that they can
make a difference in their communities and find they have the power to speak
for their commitments. It might get more difficult to ban subversive books
and arrange for creationism to take its rightful place in 4th grade science.
Now if it were only possible to set up a filter to ignore any comments
replying to the "contrarians". I find it difficult to be with folks like
Fred attempting to treat folks like patrick or robert or pamela with a
measure of respect and dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are
being abused by their willingness to engage with the yahoo element. Oh well
simply my own problem, but it does annoy me to read and realize that others
might consider the trash robert puts out about Linda as having some basis in
anything other than his own twisted thoughts. He is a real posterchild for
the dangers of "Lifespring", Pamela for the dangers of getting involved with
Werner Erhard and his programs. That 6 day is one to really watch out for.
Khnu...@aol.com
"rnovar" <rno...@flash.net> wrote:
> Oh well simply my own problem,
Now this I will grant you. It is your problem.
>but it does annoy me to read and realize that >others
> might consider the trash robert puts out about Linda as having some basis in
> anything other than his own twisted thoughts. He is a real posterchild for
> the dangers of "Lifespring".
Let's see, Linda sends me an obnoxious and condescending e-mail, cleverly
disguised as an "invitation", then proceedes to tattle e-mail my wife about
it, like my wife would actually care. Then after our little tiff, she
fantasizes on the aflplayers member forum of shooting me with a gun.
Resorting to fantasy about physical violence? Is this trash and garbage to
you? Do you often find yourself justifying physical violence? Flaming debate
is one thing, but the justification of physical violence is another.
So, I urge you to stick your head back in the ground, and utilize your kill
file on my posts. I wouldn't think to have my words possibly open your mind
beyond whatever sales pitch you acquired doing the Forum.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
<snip all>
I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other viewpoints
the Landmarkians are.
This is what concerns me a great deal should Landmark ever achieve any real
influence in a community, a state, the country, or the world. Would it be the
end of freedom of speech?
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
Tony Pay
rno...@flash.net ("rnovar") wrote, in part:
> I find it difficult to be with folks like Fred attempting to treat
> folks like patrick or robert or pamela with a measure of respect and
> dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are being abused by their
> willingness to engage with the yahoo element.
I'd say Fred's doing an important job. Not, I hasten to add, an
important job for Landmark, but an important job for all of us.
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd To...@stsm.demon.co.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
... Brain: apparatus used to think we think.
Tony Pay
In article <6seoih$rh1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
> In article <6scie8$8fo$1...@excalibur.flash.net>,
> "rnovar" <rno...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> <snip all>
>
> I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other
> viewpoints the Landmarkians are.
Yes, it is indeed overwhelming evidence: a very clear demonstration of
how intolerant of other viewpoints 'the Landmarkians' are.
> This is what concerns me a great deal should Landmark ever achieve any
> real influence in a community, a state, the country, or the world.
Yes, this is what concerns you a great deal.
> Would it be the end of freedom of speech?
A very good question to ask.
pat...@kdi.com
> pamela, liz and of course patrick to name a few, it is remarkable how quiet
> the list becomes.
>
> I am struck by the incredible noise and the quality of the needle stuck in
> the record content of those who have elected themselves the protectors of
> the rest of us from the evils of LEC or LGAT's in general.
>
> I guess it is necessary to repeat the arguments against the evils of LEC
> regularly in case someone new checks in and risks thinking that they are
> capable of choosing for themselves if the time and money and of course risk
> to their sanity are worth the potential benefits of being a brainwashed
> enrollment zombie serving the rapacious greed of the likes of truly evil men
> like Harry or Art. Heaven help us if someone faces the discomfort of
> discovering that they and not their mother are the source of happiness in
> their own lives. Heaven help us if too many people decide that they can
> make a difference in their communities and find they have the power to speak
> for their commitments. It might get more difficult to ban subversive books
> and arrange for creationism to take its rightful place in 4th grade science.
>
> Now if it were only possible to set up a filter to ignore any comments
> Fred attempting to treat folks like patrick or robert or pamela with a
> measure of respect and dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are
> simply my own problem, but it does annoy me to read and realize that others
> might consider the trash robert puts out about Linda as having some basis in
> anything other than his own twisted thoughts. He is a real posterchild for
> Werner Erhard and his programs. That 6 day is one to really watch out for.
>
to the point that they cant stand to hear anything that is not in complete
agreement
with the party line. that is how it was in germany before the take over,
and that is how it is becoming for more and more people in the lgat way.
remember this person is trying to REMOVE those that he or she doesnt value.
theres another little clue, of course most of u wont get it. hey u, if what
u need is quietness, talk to your coaches, they will massage your mind for you
and u will feel much much better, but be careful, too much brain wash and u
could walk out with no mind at all (wink)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you
Smashing Pumpkins
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
pat...@kdi.com
To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
> Hi everybody!
>
> In article <6seoih$rh1$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other
> > viewpoints the Landmarkians are.
>
> Yes, it is indeed overwhelming evidence: a very clear demonstration of
> how intolerant of other viewpoints 'the Landmarkians' are.
>
> > This is what concerns me a great deal should Landmark ever achieve any
> > real influence in a community, a state, the country, or the world.
>
> Yes, this is what concerns you a great deal.
>
> > Would it be the end of freedom of speech?
>
> A very good question to ask.
>
> Tony
> --
> _________ Tony Pay
> |ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd To...@stsm.demon.co.uk
> | |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
> tel/fax 01865 553339
>
well anyting is possible isnt it. we could have it with whoevers body
parts are served with the steak sauce :) ( this is just a little joke,
program people so dont be upset. by by
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Watch out now, beware the words of soft shoe shufflers
George Harrison
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Larry Person
>I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other viewpoints
>the Landmarkians are.
>This is what concerns me a great deal should Landmark ever achieve any real
>influence in a community, a state, the country, or the world. Would it be the
>end of freedom of speech?
Are you familiar with the fallacy of generalization?
Furthermore, rnovar is not intending to deny anyone's freedom of speach;
rather, he is doing something akin to turning off a television program he
finds offensive. He just doesn't want to read what certain people say.
That's not the same thing as attempting to prohibit them from saying it.
I find your post, offensive, estie. You would probably consider me to be a
"landmarkian," although I have been an activist in favor of free speech for
all of my adult life, as demonstrated in the ballot box, by letters I've
written to my elected officials, and in my political donations. Currently,
I am a paid-up member of EFF and the ACLU.
--
Khnu...@aol.com
lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> Currently,I am a paid-up member of EFF and the ACLU.
ahhh....just as I suspected, a card carrying liberal ;-)
::flashing back to the 1988 Bush/Dukakis race:::
"Read my hips, no new taxes"
pat...@kdi.com
fk...@vnet.net (Fred Kidd) wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 19:40:20 +0100, To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay)
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
>
> >In article <6scie8$8fo$1...@excalibur.flash.net>,
> > rno...@flash.net ("rnovar") wrote, in part:
> >
> >> folks like patrick or robert or pamela with a measure of respect and
> >> dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are being abused by their
> >> willingness to engage with the yahoo element.
> >
> >important job for Landmark, but an important job for all of us.
>
> list can vent ? <g> I wonder how Moscow is in the Fall ?
>
> As for being abused, I don't feel that from Khnum or Pam. They hold
> no malice towards me--none--zero and I know that. If anyone is
> "responsible" for intentionally agitating them, it's me. It's easy to
> push someone's buttons-much harder to hear what they're saying. I
> hear them now and they listen to me so all is well.
>
> Kill Filters for me are a last resort. When someone doesn't make an
> attempt to listen or refuses to hear me after repeated attempts, I use
> the filter. But I've only done that once in 5 years. It doesn't mean
> the person filtered is bad or what they say is wrong. It just means I
> gave up on communicating with them.
> Fred Kidd
> fk...@vnet.net
> "If a man have a strong faith he
> can indulge in the luxury of skepticism."
> Nietzche
>
ok, mr kidd, if i TRY to be nice to u and u try to be nice to me will
un unkill me :) not that we are gonna agree on much but i will try if
u will.
and i wont even post my sig to u, unless i forget of course
--
Patrick Darcy
pat...@kdi.com
oh stop it larry person, u wont believe this
but
this is what happens to people that have been brainwashed. they dont want
to be around anthing that conflicts with their (or rather THEY'r) way of
thinking. i know in a million yeats u probably wont believe this but it
just might be true.
by the way i heard the stock market closed down about 500 points today.
how is u'r stock doing.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you
Smashing Pumpkins
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> --
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
rolling on the floor...........................sorry :)
pat...@kdi.com
Khnu...@aol.com wrote:
> In article <6sesk7$kfa$1...@its.hooked.net>,
> lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
>
>
> ahhh....just as I suspected, a card carrying liberal ;-)
>
> ::flashing back to the 1988 Bush/Dukakis race:::
>
> "Read my hips, no new taxes"
hey khnum, maybe we SHOULD be a little nicer to larry person. if my
book continues to come true, well he just might need a friend or two. i
suspect he will return to his program for more mind massage to make himself
feel better or not, what do u think
rolling on the floor :)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
What if what is isnt true, what if what is isnt you
Smashing Pumpkins
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Larry Person
Khnu...@aol.com wrote in message <6sfdd9$p8q$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6sesk7$kfa$1...@its.hooked.net>,
> lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
>
>> Currently,I am a paid-up member of EFF and the ACLU.
>
>ahhh....just as I suspected, a card carrying liberal ;-)
I didn't realize constitutional rights were a "liberal" or "conservative"
issue. :-)
Larry Person
pat...@kdi.com wrote in message <6sfo8u$67g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>by the way i heard the stock market closed down about 500 points today.
>how is u'r stock doing.
In the toilet just like everyone else's.
I haven't sold anything, though.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other viewpoints
> >the Landmarkians are.
>
> >This is what concerns me a great deal should Landmark ever achieve any real
> >influence in a community, a state, the country, or the world. Would it be
the
> >end of freedom of speech?
>
> Are you familiar with the fallacy of generalization?
Sure I'm familiar with generalization. And if I ever encounter a Landmark
advocate who expresses tolerance for other viewpoints about Landmark, I'll
change the way I state this.
> Furthermore, rnovar is not intending to deny anyone's freedom of speach;
> rather, he is doing something akin to turning off a television program he
> finds offensive. He just doesn't want to read what certain people say.
> That's not the same thing as attempting to prohibit them from saying it.
You're reading things into my post that I didn't say. I stated that rnovar's
post conveyed *intolerance*. I don't see that he has any capability of
prohibiting anyone from saying anything.
His post went far beyond "doing something akin to turning off a television
program he finds offensive." It engaged in insulting and unfounded
characterizations. It was inflammatory in nature.
It's worth pointing out that history has shown that intolerance often leads to
censorship.
> I find your post, offensive, estie. You would probably consider me to be a
> "landmarkian," although I have been an activist in favor of free speech for
> all of my adult life, as demonstrated in the ballot box, by letters I've
> written to my elected officials, and in my political donations. Currently,
> I am a paid-up member of EFF and the ACLU.
Great! Then we can count on you to set an example of equity for the group?
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Khnu...@aol.com
> >
> > ahhh....just as I suspected, a card carrying liberal ;-)
> >
> >
> > "Read my hips, no new taxes"
>
> hey khnum, maybe we SHOULD be a little nicer to larry person. if my
> book continues to come true, well he just might need a friend or two. i
> suspect he will return to his program for more mind massage to make himself
> feel better or not, what do u think
>
I wouldn't even wish this upon my worst enemy.
> rolling on the floor :)
>
"Not gonna do it. Wouldn't be prudent."
Larry Person
>> hey khnum, maybe we SHOULD be a little nicer to larry person
Not necessary. You guys have been fine. Besides, I'm a big boy; I can
handle a little good-natured ball busting.
--
Tony Pay
estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
> In article <6sesk7$kfa$1...@its.hooked.net>,
> lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> > estie_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >
> > > I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other
> > > viewpoints the Landmarkians are.
> >
> > Are you familiar with the fallacy of generalization?
>
> Sure I'm familiar with generalization. And if I ever encounter a
> Landmark advocate who expresses tolerance for other viewpoints about
> Landmark, I'll change the way I state this.
No, no, no. For it to be 'a demonstration of how intolerant of other
viewpoints the Landmarkians are', and to avoid the fallacy, you'd have
to have examined statements by all Landmark graduates, and *shown* that
they were all intolerant in the way you *asserted* this one to be. Just
the one won't do.
The complete sentence should have read:
"I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other
viewpoints at least one of the Landmarkians is."
and then have been justified.
(And an IMHO wouldn't have gone amiss, either, just to give the
impression that you weren't expressing your own intolerance on this
particular occasion.)
The fallacy of generalisation, in one form or another, lies under almost
all intolerance, by the way.
Watch out for that sword:-)
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd To...@stsm.demon.co.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
... Beam me up, Scotty, This planet sucks!
pat...@kdi.com
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
> In article <6sh25r$jbi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
>
> > lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
>
> > > estie_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > >
> > > > I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other
> > > > viewpoints the Landmarkians are.
> > >
> > > Are you familiar with the fallacy of generalization?
> >
> > Sure I'm familiar with generalization. And if I ever encounter a
> > Landmark advocate who expresses tolerance for other viewpoints about
> > Landmark, I'll change the way I state this.
>
> No, no, no. For it to be 'a demonstration of how intolerant of other
> viewpoints the Landmarkians are', and to avoid the fallacy, you'd have
> to have examined statements by all Landmark graduates, and *shown* that
> they were all intolerant in the way you *asserted* this one to be. Just
> the one won't do.
Trust me, Tony, my statement was not based solely on rnovar's one statement.
Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce statements and
demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting tolerance. I have yet to encounter
a single one, although I've encountered multitudes that display intolerance.
A pattern, wouldn't you say?
Face it, Landmark has a reputation for being intolerant of non-agreement. If
you don't like it, you can always work to change it.
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Tony Pay
estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
> > > > estie_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > > I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of
> > > > > other viewpoints the Landmarkians are.
> > > >
> > > > Are you familiar with the fallacy of generalization?
> > >
> > > Sure I'm familiar with generalization. And if I ever encounter a
> > > Landmark advocate who expresses tolerance for other viewpoints
> > > about Landmark, I'll change the way I state this.
> >
> > No, no, no. For it to be 'a demonstration of how intolerant of
> > other viewpoints the Landmarkians are', and to avoid the fallacy,
> > you'd have to have examined statements by all Landmark graduates,
> > and *shown* that they were all intolerant in the way you *asserted*
> > this one to be. Just the one won't do.
>
> Trust me, Tony, my statement was not based solely on rnovar's one
> statement.
>
> Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce statements
> and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting tolerance. I have yet
> to encounter a single one, although I've encountered multitudes that
> display intolerance. A pattern, wouldn't you say?
But this is nonsense. There are plenty of examples here of people who
have a different view of the Forum from you, and who exhibit tolerance.
Unless you consider statements like the one I have just made to be
examples of intolerance, which would be a pretty useless way of defining
intolerance, in my opinion.
If someone says something that I don't agree with, it's not intolerance
for me to say so; nor is it intolerance to argue against them, or go on
not agreeing with them after the argument.
What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
characteristic when you can't possibly know that. It is to attempt to
reactivate our tribal instincts -- instincts we all have, by the way,
and must all learn to resist, if the human race is to survive -- in an
irresponsible manner. It is to indulge in propaganda.
> Face it, Landmark has a reputation for being intolerant of
> non-agreement. If you don't like it, you can always work to change
> it.
If you mean, Landmark as an organisation, then I'm not up to that. If
you mean, people who did the Forum, then trying to get them, and
everyone here, to be both accurate and particular about what they say is
a start that I'm committed to.
Khnu...@aol.com
To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
> What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
> characteristic when you can't possibly know that. It is to attempt to
> reactivate our tribal instincts -- instincts we all have, by the way,
> and must all learn to resist, if the human race is to survive -- in an
> irresponsible manner. It is to indulge in propaganda.
Now THIS is nonsense. The only truly human social structure is tribalism.
Every indiginous culture on the planet has respect for the environment. And
it is through tribalism that these cultures have such an understanding of the
planet, the ecology, and the inter-relationship between all living things.
The tribal entity exists so as to abide in harmony with its environment. It's
something that benefits everyone.
Do you seriously believe the corporations, all the heirarchies, and
feudalistic goverments and companies, materialistic capitalism, are steps in
the right direction? Do you seriously believe that these are indications of a
failing human race? The only goal of these structures is to continue their
beuracracy, and have absolutely nothing to do with the real, natural, human
condition. You may seriously want to reconsider your uninformed notion of
tribalism, and it's impact on communities.
> > Face it, Landmark has a reputation for being intolerant of
> > non-agreement. If you don't like it, you can always work to change
> > it.
>
>If you mean, Landmark as an organisation, then I'm not up to that.
Why is that Tony? Is it because you'd have to agree that a $10,000,000
lawsuit, not to mention all the lost time and money wasted in our justice
system, which ALL of us eventually end up paying, is a gross example of
intolerance? If what you may be insinuating is true, Landmark would be
inundated with responses from grads requesting that they put a stop to this.
But the grads don'', and you want to know why? Because inherently, they may
talk a good game regarding tolerance of others, but will follow up with no
real action to back their words.
> If you mean, people who did the Forum, then trying to get them, and
> everyone here, to be both accurate and particular about what they say is
> a start that I'm committed to.
So, you're committed to "trying" to get everyone here to be accurate and
particular about what they say. Wow. How about committing to following up
on your own words, Tony? How do you feel about this lawsuit? Do you find
Landmark Education Corporation to be intolerant, or tolerant of the views of
Elle Magazine, and it's writer and editors?
Tony Pay
Khnu...@aol.com (you) wrote:
> In article <19980902....@stsm.demon.co.uk>,
> To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
>
> > What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
> > characteristic when you can't possibly know that. It is to attempt
> > to reactivate our tribal instincts -- instincts we all have, by the
> > way, and must all learn to resist, if the human race is to survive
> > -- in an irresponsible manner. It is to indulge in propaganda.
>
> Now THIS is nonsense. The only truly human social structure is
> tribalism. Every indiginous culture on the planet has respect for the
> environment. And it is through tribalism that these cultures have such
> an understanding of the planet, the ecology, and the
> inter-relationship between all living things. The tribal entity
> exists so as to abide in harmony with its environment. It's something
> that benefits everyone.
I was talking about the aspects of tribalism that are inappropriate to
our present condition. (Hence the 'in an irresponsible manner,' and
the context given by the first sentence.)
These inappropriate aspects, which there is good reason to believe may
be hard-wired instincts that we now possess because they had survival
value millions of years ago, include our tendency to lump together and
label both ourselves (us) and those different from ourselves (them)
without regard to consideration of individuals. They also include what
has been called 'the hypercredulity instinct', which is our tendency to
believe without question, and act upon, assertions and orders made by a
powerful leader, and coordinately, our tendency to embrace superficially
plausible ideas unquestioningly.
There is now considerable evidence to suggest that the human race has
survived extended periods of cataclysmic climate change, in which both
these instincts would have had considerable survival value, making
possible swift, coordinated and cooperative action by an entire tribe.
But in our present state, these instincts, far from having survival
value, may lead us to our ultimate destruction, quite apart from being
at odds both with our notions of what is ethical and with our notions
of what is rational and sensible.
> Do you seriously believe the corporations, all the heirarchies, and
> feudalistic goverments and companies, materialistic capitalism, are
> steps in the right direction?
This is not a debate about whether we should choose tribalism or our
present world situation. We are at present where we are.
> Do you seriously believe that these are indications of a failing human
> race?
Don't know what you mean by this.
> The only goal of these structures is to continue their beuracracy, and
> have absolutely nothing to do with the real, natural, human condition.
> You may seriously want to reconsider your uninformed notion of
> tribalism, and it's impact on communities.
In many cases survival has become more important than anything else to
these structures. But giving in to the inappropriate parts of our
tribal instincts is a very important mechanism by which communities are
damaged, I would say. Look around the world -- at Northern Ireland,
say, until very recently (thank God).
> > > Face it, Landmark has a reputation for being intolerant of
> > > non-agreement. If you don't like it, you can always work to
> > > change it.
> >
> > If you mean, Landmark as an organisation, then I'm not up to that.
>
> Why is that Tony?
Other things to do, I guess. Too difficult. I don't have an ongoing
relationship with them. You may have noticed that I don't defend them
as an organisation here.
> Is it because you'd have to agree that a $10,000,000 lawsuit, not to
> mention all the lost time and money wasted in our justice system,
> which ALL of us eventually end up paying, is a gross example of
> intolerance? If what you may be insinuating is true, Landmark would
> be inundated with responses from grads requesting that they put a stop
> to this. But the grads don'', and you want to know why? Because
> inherently, they may talk a good game regarding tolerance of others,
> but will follow up with no real action to back their words.
No, I don't see it as intolerance. It's quite particular, and they may
have a good case. If they don't, they'll lose. I can't say, as I
didn't read the article. I'm not about to cry greatly over 'Elle'
magazine, particularly if they wrote the sort of inuendo I've seen in
some other cases.
> > If you mean, people who did the Forum, then trying to get them, and
> > everyone here, to be both accurate and particular about what they
> > say is a start that I'm committed to.
>
> So, you're committed to "trying" to get everyone here to be accurate
> and particular about what they say. Wow.
You may well put quotes round the trying, in your particular case. I
tried quite hard with you, and with some success, it seems:-)
> How about committing to following up on your own words, Tony? How do
> you feel about this lawsuit? Do you find Landmark Education
> Corporation to be intolerant, or tolerant of the views of Elle
> Magazine, and it's writer and editors?
Some of that I've answered. But I'll read it. (How did you come to
read it? It's not something that normally arrives on my doormat:-)
Tony
--
_________ Tony Pay
|ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd To...@stsm.demon.co.uk
| |ay Oxford OX2 6RE
tel/fax 01865 553339
... In case of fire, burn.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
> estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
>
> > > > > estie_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of
> > > > > > other viewpoints the Landmarkians are.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you familiar with the fallacy of generalization?
> > > >
> > > > Sure I'm familiar with generalization. And if I ever encounter a
> > > > Landmark advocate who expresses tolerance for other viewpoints
> > > > about Landmark, I'll change the way I state this.
> > >
> > > No, no, no. For it to be 'a demonstration of how intolerant of
> > > other viewpoints the Landmarkians are', and to avoid the fallacy,
> > > you'd have to have examined statements by all Landmark graduates,
> > > and *shown* that they were all intolerant in the way you *asserted*
> > > this one to be. Just the one won't do.
> >
> > Trust me, Tony, my statement was not based solely on rnovar's one
> > statement.
> >
> > Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce statements
> > and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting tolerance. I have yet
> > to encounter a single one, although I've encountered multitudes that
> > display intolerance. A pattern, wouldn't you say?
>
> But this is nonsense. There are plenty of examples here of people who
> have a different view of the Forum from you, and who exhibit tolerance.
But you failed to show them to us, Tony. And to make your point, you need to
show that they are in the majority. Also, I haven't said anything about
people who have a different view from *me*. I said people who predominantly
support the Forum (Landmarkians) predominantly lack tolerance for viewpoints
that differ from theirs. Do you know what a generalization is? It's a
statement of what is generally, usually, more often than not, true. To
correct myself, I have thought of some examples of tolerance (not plenty of
them). And, they are, by far, in the minority.
> Unless you consider statements like the one I have just made to be
> examples of intolerance, which would be a pretty useless way of defining
> intolerance, in my opinion.
>
> If someone says something that I don't agree with, it's not intolerance
> for me to say so; nor is it intolerance to argue against them, or go on
> not agreeing with them after the argument.
You are correct. It is not intolerant to disagree with what is said. It is
intolerant to attack, insult, degrade, demean, belittle, bully, attempt to
intimidate the person who said it. It is intolerant to "kill filter", refuse
to even read, it. How does one know, without reading something, how one will
find it to be? It is intolerant to not be able to tolerate someone who is
tolerant (in rnovar's example, Fred).
> What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
> characteristic when you can't possibly know that.
You and Larry Person are the only people who have said that. Trust me. I'm
fallible, but I usually choose my words with reasonable care. When I intend
to say that every one of a group of people, without exception, have a
characteristic, that is what I will say. It's a much stronger statement than
the one I made. I was addressing the general condition.
> > Face it, Landmark has a reputation for being intolerant of
> > non-agreement. If you don't like it, you can always work to change
> > it.
>
> If you mean, Landmark as an organisation, then I'm not up to that. If
> you mean, people who did the Forum, then trying to get them, and
> everyone here, to be both accurate and particular about what they say is
> a start that I'm committed to.
What you, personally, can do is to demonstrate tolerance yourself, to take a
stand for tolerance and against intolerance, to do everything in your power to
further tolerance.
Interesting that you haven't commented about rnovar's post.
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Khnu...@aol.com
Khnu...@aol.com (you) wrote:
> In article <19980902....@stsm.demon.co.uk>,
> To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
>
> > What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
> > characteristic when you can't possibly know that. It is to attempt
> > to reactivate our tribal instincts -- instincts we all have, by the
> > way, and must all learn to resist, if the human race is to survive
> > -- in an irresponsible manner. It is to indulge in propaganda.
>
> Now THIS is nonsense. The only truly human social structure is
> tribalism. Every indiginous culture on the planet has respect for the
> environment. And it is through tribalism that these cultures have such
> an understanding of the planet, the ecology, and the
> inter-relationship between all living things. The tribal entity
> exists so as to abide in harmony with its environment. It's something
> that benefits everyone.
I was talking about the aspects of tribalism that are inappropriate to
our present condition. (Hence the 'in an irresponsible manner,' and
the context given by the first sentence.)
>These inappropriate aspects, which there is good reason to believe may
>be hard-wired instincts that we now possess because they had survival
>value millions of years ago, include our tendency to lump together and
>label both ourselves (us) and those different from ourselves (them)
>without regard to consideration of individuals.
This has absolutely nothing to do with tribalism. Absolutely nothing. Once
again, look at any indigenous culture, like the Native-Americans tribes, and
you will uncover a profound respect for the environment and nature. This is
the nature of the tribal indentity, to exist in conformity with nature and
the environment. Can we say this about our present "advanced" notion of
global systems today? I would say no, considering the amount of environmental
damage we are doing to the planet.
>There is now considerable evidence to suggest that the human race has
>survived extended periods of cataclysmic climate change, in which both
>these instincts would have had considerable survival value, making
>possible swift, coordinated and cooperative action by an entire tribe.
There has always been evidence. Modern human is at least 100,000 years old,
not to mention our last common monkey ancestor was approx 5 million years
ago. It is also known that the planet re-glaciates every approx 110,000 years
(Milakovitch's theory- although it's still being debated as to what exactly
is the trigger for this).
>But in our present state, these instincts, far from having survival
>value, may lead us to our ultimate destruction, quite apart from being
>at odds both with our notions of what is ethical and with our notions
>of what is rational and sensible.
And this is a result of the unnatural systems that are in operation in the
world, now as we speak. Not some bogus idea that tribalism, and left-over
caveman thoughts are running our head. This is the starting point for
accepting the LGAT philosphy. While technologically, we are certainly more
advanced than a few thousand years ago with regards to mastering of
materials, but it also had contributed to our spiritual decline as a human
race, not lingering survival instincts.
>> Do you seriously believe the corporations, all the heirarchies, and
>> feudalistic goverments and companies, materialistic capitalism, are
>> steps in the right direction?
>This is not a debate about whether we should choose tribalism or our
>present world situation. We are at present where we are.
The question is that our present situation is the cause for our spiritual
calamity, not left-over thinking from our anthropological ancestors. Someday
humans will mature enough to understand this, and change the systems of the
world.
> Do you seriously believe that these are indications of a failing human
> race?
Let me rephrase this, Do you seriously believe that these these corporations,
all the heirarchies, and feudalistic goverments and companies, materialistic
capitalism, are indications of an advancing human race? I would say it's just
the opposite, and the true origin of our mental malaise
>> The only goal of these structures is to continue their beuracracy, and
>> have absolutely nothing to do with the real, natural, human condition.
>> You may seriously want to reconsider your uninformed notion of
>> tribalism, and it's impact on communities.
>In many cases survival has become more important than anything else to
>these structures. But giving in to the inappropriate parts of our
>tribal instincts is a very important mechanism by which communities are
>damaged, I would say. Look around the world -- at Northern Ireland,
>say, until very recently (thank God).
And that is exactly my point. It's not the left-over caveman thoughts that are
at cause of the Northern Ireland problems. It's the unnatural, and
inappropriate thinking as a result of the various hierarchies, beauracracies,
and feudalistic goverments, systems, and religions which are in operation.
>> > > Face it, Landmark has a reputation for being intolerant of
> > >> non-agreement. If you don't like it, you can always work to
> >> > change it.
> >>
> >> If you mean, Landmark as an organisation, then I'm not up to that.
>
>> Why is that Tony?
>Other things to do, I guess. Too difficult. I don't have an ongoing
>relationship with them. You may have noticed that I don't defend them
>as an organisation here.
It's not a question of defending them. Do you find that filing a $10,000,000
lawsuit is considered intolerant of others viewpoints on the Forum? Do you
find this practice by Landmark to be an example of LEC's tolerance to
opposing views? If this is an example of LEC's tolerance, what are the
graduates views of tolerance.
>No, I don't see it as intolerance. It's quite particular, and they may
>have a good case. If they don't, they'll lose. I can't say, as I
>didn't read the article. I'm not about to cry greatly over 'Elle'
>magazine, particularly if they wrote the sort of inuendo I've seen in
>some other cases.
It's not an issue whether they have a good case or not. It's the very act
itself of filing the lawsuit is where tolerance ends. If LEC were tolerant,
there would be no lawsuit. Of course the grads will never consider to
question this.
Larry Person
>stand for tolerance and against intolerance, to do everything in your power to
>further tolerance.
Funny, for someone who isn't fond of Landmark, you can sure sling jargon
like the best of 'em.
What would a stand for tolerance look like? More interesting, what would a
stand *against* intolerance look like?
Actually, I *am* a stand for tolerance. For example, I invite you to examine
my behavior in this newsgroup. You have no way of knowing about my
personal life, but I will say that among the groups to which I contribute
are two resounding voices FOR tolerance: Southern Poverty Law Center and
People for the American Way.
If I might make an observation: It almost seems like you are intolerant in
your pursuit of tolerance.
--
Tony Pay
estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
> > > Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce
> > > statements and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting
> > > tolerance. I have yet to encounter a single one, although I've
> > > encountered multitudes that display intolerance. A pattern,
> > > wouldn't you say?
> >
> > But this is nonsense. There are plenty of examples here of people
> > who have a different view of the Forum from you, and who exhibit
> > tolerance.
>
> But you failed to show them to us, Tony. And to make your point, you
> need to show that they are in the majority.
They are clearly in evidence here. Indeed, rnovar's post was, in part,
saying that he found some people overtolerant, indeed being taken
advantage of. I may not be able to convince *you*, but I'm speaking
also to the larger audience. And, no, I don't have to show that they
are in the majority to make my point. You said quite clearly above that
you have yet to encounter a single one.
> Also, I haven't said anything about people who have a different view
> from *me*. I said people who predominantly support the Forum
> (Landmarkians) predominantly lack tolerance for viewpoints that differ
> from theirs.
'people who have a different view of the Forum from you' was simply a
standin for 'Landmarkians'.
> Do you know what a generalization is? It's a statement of what is
> generally, usually, more often than not, true. To correct myself, I
> have thought of some examples of tolerance (not plenty of them). And,
> they are, by far, in the minority.
If you're correcting yourself, then fine. But this is not how the term
'generalization', as in the term used by Larry, 'the fallacy of
generalization', is normally understood. He applied it, correctly in my
view, to what you said previously.
> > Unless you consider statements like the one I have just made to be
> > examples of intolerance, which would be a pretty useless way of
> > defining intolerance, in my opinion.
> >
> > If someone says something that I don't agree with, it's not
> > intolerance for me to say so; nor is it intolerance to argue against
> > them, or go on not agreeing with them after the argument.
>
> You are correct. It is not intolerant to disagree with what is said.
> It is intolerant to attack, insult, degrade, demean, belittle, bully,
> attempt to intimidate the person who said it. It is intolerant to
> "kill filter", refuse to even read, it. How does one know, without
> reading something, how one will find it to be? It is intolerant to
> not be able to tolerate someone who is tolerant (in rnovar's example,
> Fred).
I haven't kill-filed anyone here yet, but I choose to whom I speak. I
reserve the right to choose to whom I listen, too, without fear of
thinking myself intolerant if I decide in the end to shut my ears.
> > What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
> > characteristic when you can't possibly know that.
>
> You and Larry Person are the only people who have said that.
What does that matter? If only I had said it, it would still be true.
> Trust me.
On the present evidence, no thanks. To trust you would be not to
challenge what is incoherent in what you say.
> I'm fallible, but I usually choose my words with reasonable care.
> When I intend to say that every one of a group of people, without
> exception, have a characteristic, that is what I will say. It's a
> much stronger statement than the one I made. I was addressing the
> general condition.
Refer to your statement above:
> > > Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce
> > > statements and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting
> > > tolerance. I have yet to encounter a single one, although I've
> > > encountered multitudes that display intolerance.
> What you, personally, can do is to demonstrate tolerance yourself, to
> take a stand for tolerance and against intolerance, to do everything
> in your power to further tolerance.
Well, thanks. Presumptuous isn't the word for this one.
> Interesting that you haven't commented about rnovar's post.
Really interesting, since I have commented on rnovar's post. You just
didn't read it, like you didn't read much else.
Tony Pay
Khnu...@aol.com (you) wrote:
> > I was talking about the aspects of tribalism that are inappropriate
> > to our present condition. (Hence the 'in an irresponsible manner,'
> > and the context given by the first sentence.)
>
> > These inappropriate aspects, which there is good reason to believe
> > may be hard-wired instincts that we now possess because they had
> > survival value millions of years ago, include our tendency to lump
> > together and label both ourselves (us) and those different from
> > ourselves (them) without regard to consideration of individuals.
>
> This has absolutely nothing to do with tribalism. Absolutely nothing.
> Once again, look at any indigenous culture, like the Native-Americans
> tribes, and you will uncover a profound respect for the environment
> and nature. This is the nature of the tribal indentity, to exist in
> conformity with nature and the environment. Can we say this about our
> present "advanced" notion of global systems today? I would say no,
> considering the amount of environmental damage we are doing to the
> planet.
Well, I'd like to agree with you, even if I don't know whether I do or
not yet. (See (*) at the end of the post.)
Previously, I was just saying what I had been talking about. If I had
never used the word 'tribal', perhaps this whole conversation wouldn't
have happened. I wasn't suggesting that it's only tribal organisations
that suffer from the problems of humanity.
How about 'now inappropriate instinctual heritage'?
> > There is now considerable evidence to suggest that the human race
> > has survived extended periods of cataclysmic climate change, in
> > which both these instincts would have had considerable survival
> > value, making possible swift, coordinated and cooperative action by
> > an entire tribe.
>
> There has always been evidence. Modern human is at least 100,000
> years old, not to mention our last common monkey ancestor was approx 5
> million years ago. It is also known that the planet re-glaciates every
> approx 110,000 years (Milakovitch's theory- although it's still being
> debated as to what exactly is the trigger for this).
>
> > But in our present state, these instincts, far from having survival
> > value, may lead us to our ultimate destruction, quite apart from
> > being at odds both with our notions of what is ethical and with our
> > notions of what is rational and sensible.
>
> And this is a result of the unnatural systems that are in operation in
> the world, now as we speak. Not some bogus idea that tribalism, and
> left-over caveman thoughts are running our head.
Well, here is one point where we differ. I find the notion that our
instinctual heritage needs to be integrated with our capacity for
rational thought a compelling one. Our emotions are equally our
heritage. My own work as a musician is largely involved with the
integration of reason and emotion.
> This is the starting point for accepting the LGAT philosphy. While
> technologically, we are certainly more advanced than a few thousand
> years ago with regards to mastering of materials, but it also had
> contributed to our spiritual decline as a human race, not lingering
> survival instincts.
I don't know really what you mean by 'the LGAT philosophy'. I know you
don't like *something* about LGATs, but as I've said before, for me it
isn't a philosophy in the normal sense of the word, but a communication
of what Huxley called, 'The Perennial Philosophy'.
In the other bit, I take you to be saying that it's not our nature, but
technology, that is the problem. I don't really agree with this either.
Surely it's how we misuse technology that is the problem.
> > > Do you seriously believe the corporations, all the heirarchies,
> > > and feudalistic goverments and companies, materialistic
> > > capitalism, are steps in the right direction?
>
> > This is not a debate about whether we should choose tribalism or our
> > present world situation. We are at present where we are.
>
> The question is that our present situation is the cause for our
> spiritual calamity, not left-over thinking from our anthropological
> ancestors. Someday humans will mature enough to understand this, and
> change the systems of the world.
Same as above. It seems to me that the systems of the world are all
vulnerable to individual changes of heart, sometimes amazingly so. One
of the things that attracted me about the est training was that it
seemed to show that change of heart, though difficult work to sustain
over a period of time in the long run, was nevertheless a simple and
incredibly powerful thing.
> > > Do you seriously believe that these are indications of a failing
> > > human race?
> > I don't understand this.
> Let me rephrase this, Do you seriously believe that these these
> corporations, all the heirarchies, and feudalistic goverments and
> companies, materialistic capitalism, are indications of an advancing
> human race? I would say it's just the opposite, and the true origin of
> our mental malaise.
I think we do better than past civilisations in many ways, and that our
structures nevertheless create big problems. I don't personally think
that the structures are the source of the problems. After all, we
created them. 'How can we make them work better?' is more the question
for me. This doesn't of course preclude changing them.
> Do you find that filing a $10,000,000 lawsuit is considered intolerant
> of others viewpoints on the Forum? Do you find this practice by
> Landmark to be an example of LEC's tolerance to opposing views? If
> this is an example of LEC's tolerance, what are the graduates views of
> tolerance.
I don't see it as a question of opposing views. The subject of the
Forum is not its content. The philosophy (or non-philosophy) of the
Forum is not what is said in it, in my experience (though I did it over
ten years ago, so it may have changed.) To report it as content, and to
attack it as content, is to misunderstand it, in my view. I am against
the propagation of misunderstanding of what I consider to have been, for
me, a very useful tool in my life; and Landmark, for perhaps different
reasons, though also perhaps for some of the same reasons, are equally
against such a propagation of misunderstanding.
I know you disagree with me on this.
Now mostly, if people report their opinions of it as content, as
opinions, they unavoidably misrepresent *it* (if indeed you can call it
an *it*), but there's little you can do to correct that, because they're
accurately representing *their opinions*.
> > No, I don't see it as intolerance. It's quite particular, and they
> > may have a good case. If they don't, they'll lose. I can't say, as
> > I didn't read the article. I'm not about to cry greatly over 'Elle'
> > magazine, particularly if they wrote the sort of inuendo I've seen
> > in some other cases.
>
> It's not an issue whether they have a good case or not. It's the very
> act itself of filing the lawsuit is where tolerance ends. If LEC were
> tolerant, there would be no lawsuit. Of course the grads will never
> consider to question this.
On the basis of your posting of the URL for the 'Elle' article, I
downloaded it and read it quickly after posting my last. It seemed to
me to be the standard suspicious newspaper line from the first, out to
demean those who claimed to get value from it and hyping up the shock
value of the content, taken out of context and reported sneeringly
throughout. If it had stuck to opinion, 'Elle' would have probably been
OK. It seems they reported some stuff as though it were fact, when it
isn't. If you do that, you risk being attacked by Landmark, because
they have no other way of correcting the negative impression. It's a
dangerous move, though, because they look as though they are being
intolerant, as you say.
I'd like to know what Werner would have done.
PS
(*) This is probably nothing to do with your discussion of the tribal
thing, particularly the ecological bit, but it might interest you to
find out more, if you don't already know that is.
I was just in Siena for a month. They divide up the city into 17
'contrade', rather like urban tribes, who outlet their rivalries in
the buildup to and the execution of two annual 85 second horseraces,
each of which is given the name, 'Il Palio'. It's very interesting,
very ritualistic (anal and oral rituals as well as religious ones) and
it seems to be a powerfully unifying influence on what is a very
friendly city. IMHO of course.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> >What you, personally, can do is to demonstrate tolerance yourself, to take a
> >stand for tolerance and against intolerance, to do everything in your power
to
> >further tolerance.
>
> like the best of 'em.
I haven't been around Landmark since they appropriated this phrase. My use of
it is totally unrelated to theirs.
> What would a stand for tolerance look like? More interesting, what would a
> stand *against* intolerance look like?
Could look a number of different ways. I've usually found that which builds
understanding to be the most effective. Empowering those who are adversely
affected by intolerance would be another way. Speaking out about tolerance
and intolerance would be another way. There are others. The simplest thing
for any individual to do is to practice tolerance in their own lives.
> Actually, I *am* a stand for tolerance. For example, I invite you to examine
> my behavior in this newsgroup. You have no way of knowing about my
> personal life, but I will say that among the groups to which I contribute
> are two resounding voices FOR tolerance: Southern Poverty Law Center and
> People for the American Way.
>
> If I might make an observation: It almost seems like you are intolerant in
> your pursuit of tolerance.
That's essentially what you've been saying from the beginning. I noted that
something was intolerant, and you've been labelling me as intolerant for
noticing it.
I imagine that the organizations you mentioned above notice intolerance quite
often. Does that make them intolerant?
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
> estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
>
> > > > Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce
> > > > statements and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting
> > > > tolerance. I have yet to encounter a single one, although I've
> > > > encountered multitudes that display intolerance. A pattern,
> > > > wouldn't you say?
> > >
> > > But this is nonsense. There are plenty of examples here of people
> > > who have a different view of the Forum from you, and who exhibit
> > > tolerance.
> >
> > But you failed to show them to us, Tony. And to make your point, you
> > need to show that they are in the majority.
>
> They are clearly in evidence here. Indeed, rnovar's post was, in part,
> saying that he found some people overtolerant, indeed being taken
> advantage of.
The person whom rnovar found "overtolerant", Fred, is not, by his own
definition, a Landmarkian. He's a Fencian.
I may not be able to convince *you*, but I'm speaking
> also to the larger audience. And, no, I don't have to show that they
> are in the majority to make my point. You said quite clearly above that
> you have yet to encounter a single one.
If you want to make the point that, in general, Landmarkians are tolerant,
then demonstrations of tolerance by Landmarkians need to predominate.
> > Also, I haven't said anything about people who have a different view
> > from *me*. I said people who predominantly support the Forum
> > (Landmarkians) predominantly lack tolerance for viewpoints that differ
> > from theirs.
>
> 'people who have a different view of the Forum from you' was simply a
> standin for 'Landmarkians'.
Well, please don't do that. Sometimes Landmarkians and I have the same view
of the Forum. And your statement changed the meaning of my statement.
> > Do you know what a generalization is? It's a statement of what is
> > generally, usually, more often than not, true. To correct myself, I
> > have thought of some examples of tolerance (not plenty of them). And,
> > they are, by far, in the minority.
>
> If you're correcting yourself, then fine. But this is not how the term
> 'generalization', as in the term used by Larry, 'the fallacy of
> generalization', is normally understood. He applied it, correctly in my
> view, to what you said previously.
If I may contradict you, yours is not the meaning given in the dictionary,
which is the one customarily used. I'm not correcting myself on this point.
This is the way I've always used it. You seem to have used it differently,
so I'm correcting your interpretation of what I said.
> > > Unless you consider statements like the one I have just made to be
> > > examples of intolerance, which would be a pretty useless way of
> > > defining intolerance, in my opinion.
> > >
> > > If someone says something that I don't agree with, it's not
> > > intolerance for me to say so; nor is it intolerance to argue against
> > > them, or go on not agreeing with them after the argument.
> >
> > You are correct. It is not intolerant to disagree with what is said.
> > It is intolerant to attack, insult, degrade, demean, belittle, bully,
> > attempt to intimidate the person who said it. It is intolerant to
> > "kill filter", refuse to even read, it. How does one know, without
> > reading something, how one will find it to be? It is intolerant to
> > not be able to tolerate someone who is tolerant (in rnovar's example,
> > Fred).
>
> I haven't kill-filed anyone here yet, but I choose to whom I speak. I
> reserve the right to choose to whom I listen, too, without fear of
> thinking myself intolerant if I decide in the end to shut my ears.
>
> > > What *is* intolerance is to say that all of a group of people have a
> > > characteristic when you can't possibly know that.
> >
> > You and Larry Person are the only people who have said that.
>
> What does that matter? If only I had said it, it would still be true.
It matters because you have said that I said something which I did not say. I
was speaking in general terms, and you seem to have understood it as an
absolute. There are very few absolutes in life. Death and taxes come to mind
immediately.
> > Trust me.
>
> On the present evidence, no thanks. To trust you would be not to
> challenge what is incoherent in what you say.
Took that one out of context. It was connected to the next sentence, meaning
that you should trust me to describe what I do. Unless you think you know
better than I do what I do?
> > I'm fallible, but I usually choose my words with reasonable care.
> > When I intend to say that every one of a group of people, without
> > exception, have a characteristic, that is what I will say. It's a
> > much stronger statement than the one I made. I was addressing the
> > general condition.
>
> Refer to your statement above:
>
> > > > Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce
> > > > statements and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting
> > > > tolerance. I have yet to encounter a single one, although I've
> > > > encountered multitudes that display intolerance.
You've cut and pasted out of sequence and out of context.
> > What you, personally, can do is to demonstrate tolerance yourself, to
> > take a stand for tolerance and against intolerance, to do everything
> > in your power to further tolerance.
>
> Well, thanks. Presumptuous isn't the word for this one.
Sheesh! I was agreeing with you that taking on all intolerance in the
Landmark organization was unrealistic, and that all you could reasonably do
was to act on a personal level. I think you're going out of your way to take
objection. Lighten up!
> > Interesting that you haven't commented about rnovar's post.
>
> Really interesting, since I have commented on rnovar's post. You just
> didn't read it, like you didn't read much else.
I've read everything in this thread, Tony. If you're going to make false
statements on my behalf, I don't see any point in continuing the
conversation. You seem to be determined to carry on both sides of it by
yourself, irregardless of what I say.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
fk...@vnet.net (Fred Kidd) wrote:
> On 2 Sep 1998 20:54:26 GMT, lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> >>What you, personally, can do is to demonstrate tolerance yourself, to take a
> >>stand for tolerance and against intolerance, to do everything in your power
to
> >>further tolerance.
> >
>
> have unless you have tolerance to begin with. Sort of like "not
> being", when you must "be" in order to "not be".
That turned my head inside out!
> It's pretty funny actually. Let's all be intolerant of intolerance...
> The Anti-Intolerance Society.
I don't know if being intolerant of intolerance in others is the best course
of action. One can always be intolerant of intolerance in themselves. And
work to change intolerance in others, and to overcome its effects.
> >Funny, for someone who isn't fond of Landmark, you can sure sling jargon
> >like the best of 'em.
> >
>
> She's had to learn a new language to get through.
Good one, Fred!
> >What would a stand for tolerance look like? More interesting, what would a
> >stand *against* intolerance look like?
> >
>
> ............."speaking words of wisdom, Let it be, let it be......"
Sometimes. Sometimes the effects are just too much to ignore. For instance,
I didn't let aparteid be in South Africa. I joined in the economic boycott.
I wrote magazine articles. I demonstrated outside the South African embassy.
I wanted to walk around it seven times to see if it would fall down, like
Joshua and Jerico, but I couldn't talk the rest of the group into it.
> >Actually, I *am* a stand for tolerance. For example, I invite you to examine
> >my behavior in this newsgroup. You have no way of knowing about my
> >personal life, but I will say that among the groups to which I contribute
> >are two resounding voices FOR tolerance: Southern Poverty Law Center and
> >People for the American Way.
> >
> >If I might make an observation: It almost seems like you are intolerant in
> >your pursuit of tolerance.
>
> IMO, she's just tried to voice something which is hard to explain in
> writing. It's too easy to be misinterpreted by those who are
> intolerant. <8>)
Thanks, Fred. Let's go back to Kidd-in around. Get it?
There are people putting up more of that wallpaper. And shrines! No pink
flamingoes? No bobbing-head Jesuses? I know what we need. A pink
bobbing-head Werner!
Tony Pay
estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> > > Interesting that you haven't commented about rnovar's post.
> >
> > Really interesting, since I have commented on rnovar's post. You
> > just didn't read it, like you didn't read much else.
>
> I've read everything in this thread, Tony. If you're going to make
> false statements on my behalf, I don't see any point in continuing the
> conversation. You seem to be determined to carry on both sides of it
> by yourself, irregardless of what I say.
Then you'll have read this:
In article <6scie8$8fo$1...@excalibur.flash.net>,
rno...@flash.net ("rnovar") wrote, in part:
> I find it difficult to be with folks like Fred attempting to treat
> folks like patrick or robert or pamela with a measure of respect and
> dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are being abused by their
> willingness to engage with the yahoo element.
I'd say Fred's doing an important job. Not, I hasten to add, an
important job for Landmark, but an important job for all of us.
Tony
--
Let's back up, for everyone's sake. I really don't like the way this is
going, even to the point where I don't like the sound of what I'm saying
as I'm saying it.
I don't want to leave anyone out, but I admire here particularly the
work of Fred, and the work of Jennifer, Sam and Rick Hartman. All of
these posters have done the Landmark Forum, and are positive about it,
whilst being critical of Landmark, to varying degrees. They are also
willing to engage in positive conversation with people who are negative
about both the Forum and Landmark itself. As I indicate in the post
quoted above, I think they are doing a very important job.
In the real world, there are many sorts of people who did the Forum or
the est training (mostly the latter, among my acquaintances, friends and
family). The attitudes to the experience of the people I know
personally range from mildly positive to quite positive, with a couple
of outstanding negatives. Now, are the people who had a positive
experience 'Landmarkians' for you? Originally, I thought that what you
posted implied that they were, and you give some evidence for this here,
because you say:
> Sometimes Landmarkians and I have the same view of the Forum.
...which view, I take it, is a negative view. This would seem to imply
that Landmarkians are people who did the Forum, even including those who
are negative about it. But you can't mean that. It would include you
yourself. What *do* you mean?
On the other hand, we have you saying:
> The person whom rnovar found "overtolerant", Fred, is not, by his own
> definition, a Landmarkian. He's a Fencian.
So here, whether someone is a 'Landmarkian' depends on what their
attitude is to Landmark, and to the sorts of things they say, not
whether they did the Forum.
You can see that this difference is crucial. On the one interpretation,
I hear you saying that I, along with a number of others I count as just
normal people, are, as Landmarkians, intolerant as a corollary of our
positive view of the Forum as an experience. On the other,
Landmarkians are those who did the Forum and who you perceive as
intolerant, by definition.
Now, after a bit, one gets a little irritated by being labelled as one
of what patrick likes to call, 'program people', and being told that one
is therefore necessarily intolerant. So, if you're not doing that, I'd
like you to clear up the confusion.
I don't regard myself as intolerant, but I am human.
Larry Person
estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6slepl$i6e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> If I might make an observation: It almost seems like you are intolerant
in
>> your pursuit of tolerance.
>
that
>something was intolerant, and you've been labelling me as intolerant for
>noticing it.
Well, no, that's not the way it went down.
rnovar made his post about using the kill filter. It's questionable IMHO
whether that post demonstrated intolerance.
Then you said:
>>
I'm bookmarking this as a demonstration of how intolerant of other
viewpoints
the Landmarkians are.
<<
Which is fallacious.
After I pointed out the fallacy of your argument, you then committed another
fallacy -- the fallacy of the straw man -- when you accused others of
generalizing that "landmarkians" *ARE* tolerant, when in fact that argument
was never asserted. I said that *I* was tolerant and that your comments
were personally offensive, and I offered evidence to prove my point. When I
speak about myself and only myself it's not a generalization.
Neither I, nor anyone else, made any general claims about the tolerance
level of the "Landmarkians." Tony Pay did point out that some
"landmarkians" who post in alt.fan.landmark are tolerant, but his purpose
was not to assert the generalization that "'landmarkians' are tolerant" but
to show that your generalization is not accurate.
KMottus
continuing discussions far beyond the point anyone else would
have committed (don't know how to spell it...that Japanesse ritual
of disemboweling oneself). And now apparantly of intolerance
because I don't reply to certain people.
I do get to choose who I communicate with. I, generally, read and
do my best to understand the viewpoints of everyone here. I chose
to stop communicating with two people in particular, because it finally
got to the point where it was obvious to me, IMHO, that there was no
more to discuss and continuing to repond to them only served to
increase the noise on the newsgroup. In the three or so years I have
been here, these are the first two people I have ever even thought about
ending the communication with.
Estie, honey, if you want tolerance here, you need to exhibit it as well.
In general (that is most of the time, but certainly not all of the time) it
seems that you find the postive side of the coin painfully intolerable to
you. That's just the way you appear to me. This may not be the intent
of your writing, or the intent of how you respond to the postive people,
but it seems that the only thing that will make you happy is for this
newsgroup to consist soley of people talking about how bad and evil
Landmark is. This may not be what you think, or what you really mean,
but the way you talk, leads me to believe that this is what you mean.
There may be a need for that on the Internet. And I think there is also
a need for people of various viewpoints to be able to talk to one another.
I'm sorry, your in so much pain, I'm sorry things have been so bad for
you. I wish for nothing but your healing.
But I'm not going to go away, I'm going to continue to fight for everyone
having the right to speak here (even if I in particular choose to no longer
talk to them). It may suprise you, but my guess from conversations I've
had in Email is that the pro-side, for the most part, feels much less
welcome here than the con-side, or the fence-side. Enough so that
they've gone off and formed an email group where they can freely
talk. So far I haven't seen that there are enough unwelcome con-side, that
the only way they can talk in peace has been to do the same. Like I
said, there may be a need for that, especially for those who need to
talk about things without dissension for their own healing, but that is
not going to be in an open to everyone, unmoderated, public Usenet
group.
*********************************************************
Blessed is he who has learned to laugh at himself,
for he shall never ceased to be entertained
---John Powell
kmo...@aol.com
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<xJvH1.2787$_c3.11...@news.rdc1.nj.home.com>...
> whether that post demonstrated intolerance.
Maybe in your opinion -- but it is intolerance in mine. Consider the *fact*
that this proclamation was posted on this newsgroup last March with may
name attached to it, and now again. I figure RNovar was stirring the pot
again. And with a desperate need to be the "center of attention" without
having to join in on a conversation. This particular person in not able to
carry a conversation unless there is total agreement to their ideals.
RNovar has the *right* to not listen...but I do not believe that extends to
making the proclamation like he did (i.e. the mannerism is questionable). I
don't believe that I have ever made an announcement of such a nature ---
but I get regularly reamed here. I still listen to what you and others have
to say. I disagree or find a common ground that we can work from (sometimes
the other person finds the common ground). That is tolerance. Stating that
you won't listen is intolerance. Just doing it without the "center of
attention" announcement is using your Usenet service wisely.
--
Pamela Fitzpatrick
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil
is that good men do nothing.
--Edmund Burke 1790
SPAMMERS BE WARNED: poster of this message
is a resident of King County Washington, USA
Pamela Fitzpatrick
<6sli64$m94$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <19980902....@stsm.demon.co.uk>,
> To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
> > In article <6sk84d$cb0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > estie_...@my-dejanews.com (you) wrote:
> >
> > > > > Now if you want to refute what I said, you need to produce
> > > > > statements and demonstrations of Landmarkians exhibiting
> > > > > tolerance. I have yet to encounter a single one, although I've
> > > > > encountered multitudes that display intolerance. A pattern,
> > > > > wouldn't you say?
> > > >
> > > > But this is nonsense. There are plenty of examples here of people
> > > > who have a different view of the Forum from you, and who exhibit
> > > > tolerance.
> > >
> > > But you failed to show them to us, Tony. And to make your point, you
> > > need to show that they are in the majority.
> >
> > They are clearly in evidence here. Indeed, rnovar's post was, in part,
> > saying that he found some people overtolerant, indeed being taken
> > advantage of.
You did not address the issue -- RNovar did state that people are
overtolerant of *me* on this newsgroup. So, if Fred is not tolerant as a
"Landmarkian" -- then who is? Specifics please. I didn't make the
accusation nor want to be part of this argument. But I'm tired of the
sparing and I would like to know who *in your opinion* is tolerant on this
newsgroup. Personally, I could care less if they are "Landmarkians",
"Fencians" or "no longer associated with est, WE&A or LECians". Who? Just
plan *who*?
Pamela Fitzpatrick
> But I'm not going to go away, I'm going to continue to fight for everyone
> having the right to speak here (even if I in particular choose to no
longer
> talk to them). It may suprise you, but my guess from conversations I've
> had in Email is that the pro-side, for the most part, feels much less
> welcome here than the con-side, or the fence-side.
I'm going to throw this out -- one way that a "pro-side" would feel
"unwelcome" here is because what we talk about causes *thinking*. It does
not surprise me in the least that there would be the "need" to form a
separate email group. I also find it interesting that they are unwilling to
look at their own discomfort to see where that is coming from. As an
example, maybe there is a level of truth spoken here on this newsgroup that
they personally don't "see" having happened. And don't want to entertain
that it *could* happen. That has been the ongoing conversation regarding
me. Even though I have attempted to get something done -- I have to
constantly repeat myself as if there is no space for listening.
Enough so that
> they've gone off and formed an email group where they can freely
> talk.
That's great -- but I see that as isolating themselves. Only being with
like minded people, speaking the same language. Nothing to create a check
and balance...
So far I haven't seen that there are enough unwelcome con-side, that
> the only way they can talk in peace has been to do the same.
And you are WRONG there -- I am on a list for those that are in recovery
from cultic abuses. Ironically it is a rather strong list. Not only that --
there are different groups on there represented. We learn from each other.
I talk about things there that I would never DARE discuss here. Considering
the intolerance that has been exhibited in the past to *my* experiences
with the programs. I find it very interesting that you would be so
incredibly ignorant of that having happened *already*. Is there a myth
about those from the programs that you are wishing to put out there?
So, to burst the bubble -- I don't "do" my recovery here -- I am in
conversation here -- to get people to think about what they are really
saying vs. what they mean. I'm simply living. You appear to see it as
"injured" though...
Larry Person
>There are people putting up more of that wallpaper. And shrines! No pink
>flamingoes? No bobbing-head Jesuses? I know what we need. A pink
>bobbing-head Werner!
No doubt you're heard about the bobbing head Jerrys (garcia, that is)? :-)
--
Khnu...@aol.com
>
> IMO, she's just tried to voice something which is hard to explain in
> writing. It's too easy to be misinterpreted by those who are
> intolerant. <8>)
>
> Fred Kidd
Well Fred,
I'll tolerate intolerance only up to a point. Then I'm committed to
intolerating the intolerance, and then to bring about toleration to all those
who were once intolerate.
Khnu...@aol.com
To put it another way, "you ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know."
rnovar
really expect it to go down as it has and realize that like anything else
posted here, there is someone who will take it as an opportunity to smear
LEC or those who have or do participate with them.
I do have little tolerance for that and exercise my right to not be bothered
by those whose words and points of view seem so predictable. I've not
filtered plenty of people who have critisisms and things to say about LEC
are not "pro". Tony Pay mentioned a few people all of whom I read and often
with interest. I have developed a certain affinity and appreciation for
some of those folks.
I just think that some of what is posted here is just noise and offensive
noise at that. Is it any different than changing the channel when they
start opining about Clinton? It may be the hypocracy factor that I find so
annoying. Tony Pay and Larry Person seem to me to be right on with regard
to their analyisis of Estie's words and point of view.
Now I may be a closed minded sob, who thinks i'm right an dmy poop doesn't
smell but I don't think I am representative of whatever "landmarkians" are.
In my opinion and experience, folks who have participated in the programs of
LEC tend to be far more generous and open to hearing and considering a wide
variety of views. They tend to be in my opinion tolerant to the point of
often being wishy-washy so open as they are to other possibilities than the
one they walked in with.
Someone raised the possibility to me in a private post that perhaps their
are people posting things on this list who have as a job description pooping
in the space. Some seem to be doing it for free just cause they enjoy it
but I have begun to consider the possibility that there might be someone or
people who are paid to talk bad about LEC at every opportunity.
Yours in intolerance,
standing for the squelching of free speech and all opinions contrary to my
own,
rick
self-proclaimed LEC robot, brainwashed victim of the evil Werner Erhard and
his minions and too stupid to know that my life has been ruined by those
guys.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
kmo...@aol.com (KMottus) wrote:
> As one who has been accused previously of overtolerance for
> continuing discussions far beyond the point anyone else would
> have committed (don't know how to spell it...that Japanesse ritual
> of disemboweling oneself). And now apparantly of intolerance
> because I don't reply to certain people.
I certainly haven't accused you of intolerance. Has someone else?
Personally, I would make a distinction between someone who uses kill filters
and posts his kill filter list three times along with inflammatory statements
about banning books and teaching creationism in the fourth grade that I don't
know what the basis of that was because it certainly hasn't been discussed on
the ng and someone who chooses not to engage in conversations with people who
dig at them regularly, and I thought I had stated my views on that.
> I do get to choose who I communicate with. I, generally, read and
> do my best to understand the viewpoints of everyone here. I chose
> to stop communicating with two people in particular, because it finally
> got to the point where it was obvious to me, IMHO, that there was no
> more to discuss and continuing to repond to them only served to
> increase the noise on the newsgroup. In the three or so years I have
> been here, these are the first two people I have ever even thought about
> ending the communication with.
>
> Estie, honey, if you want tolerance here, you need to exhibit it as well.
I have exhibited a great deal of it. And I've been the only poster who has
clearly asked that the same standards be applied on both sides of the fence.
I've also stated that if people want me to be tolerant of them, they need to
be tolerant of me. This is more a matter of not engaging in lopsided
relationships than of intolerance.
> In general (that is most of the time, but certainly not all of the time) it
> seems that you find the postive side of the coin painfully intolerable to
> you.
'Scuse me. I haven't said anything about being in pain. I more often than
not disagree with the positive side of the coin, but I don't find it
intolerable, or I wouldn't even be reading it.
> That's just the way you appear to me. This may not be the intent
> of your writing, or the intent of how you respond to the postive people,
> but it seems that the only thing that will make you happy is for this
> newsgroup to consist soley of people talking about how bad and evil
> Landmark is. This may not be what you think, or what you really mean,
> but the way you talk, leads me to believe that this is what you mean.
Nah, I enjoy a good debate, as long as it's clean.
> There may be a need for that on the Internet. And I think there is also
> a need for people of various viewpoints to be able to talk to one another.
I agree.
> I'm sorry, your in so much pain, I'm sorry things have been so bad for
> you. I wish for nothing but your healing.
I disagree. I'm not in any pain whatsoever.
> But I'm not going to go away, I'm going to continue to fight for everyone
> having the right to speak here (even if I in particular choose to no longer
> talk to them).
I'm glad to hear that. I think you're one of the most level-headed people
here, most of the time.
> It may suprise you, but my guess from conversations I've
> had in Email is that the pro-side, for the most part, feels much less
> welcome here than the con-side, or the fence-side. Enough so that
> they've gone off and formed an email group where they can freely
> talk.
It doesn't surprise me at all. Again, I think it has to do with their
intolerance to listening to other viewpoints.
> So far I haven't seen that there are enough unwelcome con-side, that
> the only way they can talk in peace has been to do the same. Like I
> said, there may be a need for that, especially for those who need to
> talk about things without dissension for their own healing, but that is
> not going to be in an open to everyone, unmoderated, public Usenet
> group.
I see this ng as a place for discussion.
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
To...@stsm.demon.co.uk (Tony Pay) wrote:
> In article <6sli64$m94$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> estie_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > > > Interesting that you haven't commented about rnovar's post.
> > >
> > > Really interesting, since I have commented on rnovar's post. You
> > > just didn't read it, like you didn't read much else.
> >
> > I've read everything in this thread, Tony. If you're going to make
> > false statements on my behalf, I don't see any point in continuing the
> > conversation. You seem to be determined to carry on both sides of it
> > by yourself, irregardless of what I say.
>
>
> In article <6scie8$8fo$1...@excalibur.flash.net>,
> rno...@flash.net ("rnovar") wrote, in part:
>
> > I find it difficult to be with folks like Fred attempting to treat
> > folks like patrick or robert or pamela with a measure of respect and
> > dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are being abused by their
> > willingness to engage with the yahoo element.
>
> I'd say Fred's doing an important job. Not, I hasten to add, an
> important job for Landmark, but an important job for all of us.
I did read that. And it was a comment about Fred, not about rnovar's post,
although it was derived from rnovar's post.
> Let's back up, for everyone's sake. I really don't like the way this is
> going, even to the point where I don't like the sound of what I'm saying
> as I'm saying it.
>
> I don't want to leave anyone out, but I admire here particularly the
> work of Fred, and the work of Jennifer, Sam and Rick Hartman. All of
> these posters have done the Landmark Forum, and are positive about it,
> whilst being critical of Landmark, to varying degrees. They are also
> willing to engage in positive conversation with people who are negative
> about both the Forum and Landmark itself. As I indicate in the post
> quoted above, I think they are doing a very important job.
Jennifer, Sam, and Rick haven't posted much since I began, so I have no
opinion about them. One of the reasons my initial statement was stated
generally was because I wanted to avoid the personal slant this thread has
taken.
> In the real world, there are many sorts of people who did the Forum or
> the est training (mostly the latter, among my acquaintances, friends and
> family). The attitudes to the experience of the people I know
> personally range from mildly positive to quite positive, with a couple
> of outstanding negatives. Now, are the people who had a positive
> experience 'Landmarkians' for you? Originally, I thought that what you
> posted implied that they were, and you give some evidence for this here,
> because you say:
>
> > Sometimes Landmarkians and I have the same view of the Forum.
>
> ...which view, I take it, is a negative view. This would seem to imply
> that Landmarkians are people who did the Forum, even including those who
> are negative about it. But you can't mean that. It would include you
> yourself. What *do* you mean?
I was thinking that Landmarkians and I sometimes share the same positive view
of the Forum. You assumed the worst. And I appreciate your asking me for
clarification.
> On the other hand, we have you saying:
>
> > The person whom rnovar found "overtolerant", Fred, is not, by his own
> > definition, a Landmarkian. He's a Fencian.
>
> So here, whether someone is a 'Landmarkian' depends on what their
> attitude is to Landmark, and to the sorts of things they say, not
> whether they did the Forum.
>
> You can see that this difference is crucial. On the one interpretation,
> I hear you saying that I, along with a number of others I count as just
> normal people, are, as Landmarkians, intolerant as a corollary of our
> positive view of the Forum as an experience. On the other,
> Landmarkians are those who did the Forum and who you perceive as
> intolerant, by definition.
When I said "Landmarkian" I was referring to someone who has done the Forum
and who adheres to the views of the organization.
> Now, after a bit, one gets a little irritated by being labelled as one
> of what patrick likes to call, 'program people', and being told that one
> is therefore necessarily intolerant. So, if you're not doing that, I'd
> like you to clear up the confusion.
I can understand that. While you were gone I had conversations with both
Patrick and Khnum about their being irritating. And I have not said that
anyone specifically was necessarily intolerant, other than rnovar. Again, I
was speaking in general, not absolute terms.
Over the years I've known thousands of estians and Landmarkians (and their
actions have been very similar in this regard), as well as being familiar
with the actions of the organizations per se. It has been extremely rare to
find even a willingness to admit that any viewpoint other than the
organization's exists, much less is valid. People who don't share Landmark's
viewpoint have literally been thrown out of Intros, the Forum, and the
organization. They have been attacked and insulted. They have been sued.
These are not acts of tolerance.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
"Larry Person" <La...@LarryPerson.com> wrote:
> After I pointed out the fallacy of your argument, you then committed another
> fallacy -- the fallacy of the straw man -- when you accused others of
> generalizing that "landmarkians" *ARE* tolerant, when in fact that argument
> was never asserted.
You're right about that. That argument was never asserted, not even by me.
I can see that you haven't understood what I've said, that we're not going to
agree about much, and that this is probably going to be nothing but a
sparring match which I don't want to engage in. If you found rnovar's post
to be tolerant, then any further discussion is pointless. Personally, I
haven't seen the likes of it since the last time the KKK was on the news.
And I found it to be extremely offensive.
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
Ggearloose, Larry, Tony and of course rnovar to name a few, it is remarkable
how quiet the list becomes.
I am struck by the incredible noise and the quality of the needle stuck in
the record content of those who have elected themselves the protectors of
the rest of us from the evils of anti-LGAT thinking in general.
I guess it is necessary to repeat the arguments against the evils of thinking
for oneself regularly in case someone new checks in and risks thinking that
they are capable of choosing for themselves if listening to others at the
risk to their sanity are worth the potential benefits of being freed from
brainwashed and serving the rapacious greed of the likes of truly evil people
like Linda or Kmottus. Heaven help us if someone faces the discomfort of
discovering that they and not Landmark are the source of happiness in their
own lives. Heaven help us if too many people decide that they can make a
difference in their communities and find they have the power to speak for
their commitments. It might get more difficult to ban subversive books and
arrange for creationism to take its rightful place in 4th grade science.
Now if it were only possible to set up a filter to ignore any comments
replying to the "pros". I find it difficult to be with folks like
Kmottus attempting to treat folks like Larry or Tony or Sam with a
measure of respect and dignity. Too often it seems to me like they are
being abused by their willingness to engage with the yahoo element. Oh well
simply my own problem, but it does annoy me to read and realize that others
might consider the trash Linda puts out about Robert as having some basis in
anything other than her own twisted thoughts. She is a real posterchild for
the dangers of "counselling", Fred for the dangers of getting involved with
reading literature. Those who favor open discussions are really ones to watch
out for.
DISCLAIMER: The above is a role reversal of rnovar's post, and in no way
reflects my own opinions. Just wondering what the reaction will be.
Khnu...@aol.com
"rnovar" <rno...@flash.net> wrote:
> I posted my bit on kill filters to provoke a bit of conversation. I did not
> really expect it to go down as it has and realize that like anything else
> posted here, there is someone who will take it as an opportunity to smear
> LEC or those who have or do participate with them.
>
> I do have little tolerance for that and exercise my right to not be bothered
> by those whose words and points of view seem so predictable. I've not
> filtered plenty of people who have critisisms and things to say about LEC
> are not "pro". Tony Pay mentioned a few people all of whom I read and often
> with interest. I have developed a certain affinity and appreciation for
> some of those folks.
>
> I just think that some of what is posted here is just noise and offensive
> noise at that. Is it any different than changing the channel when they
> start opining about Clinton?
Actually, yes it is. I am in no way defending what Clinton may or may not
have done, but in relation to his predecesors, one who conspired to fix an
election, then conspire to cover up the break in, and the other, selling arms
to terrorist nations, in exchange for money to fund a covert, illegal war
opposed by the american people and congress, only to have his cohort Bush
pardon all the co-conspirators, who pleaded guilty, as a christmas eve
present. That is why I turn the channel. The list of presidential
trangressions is a long one from Washington on down. And this is what happens
when one dabbles in politics, the news of the hour and the problems of the
day. Nobody's hands are clean.
>It may be the hypocracy factor that I find so
> annoying. Tony Pay and Larry Person seem to me to be right on with regard
> to their analyisis of Estie's words and point of view.
>
> Now I may be a closed minded sob, who thinks i'm right an dmy poop doesn't
> smell but I don't think I am representative of whatever "landmarkians" are.
> In my opinion and experience, folks who have participated in the programs of
> LEC tend to be far more generous and open to hearing and considering a wide
> variety of views. They tend to be in my opinion tolerant to the point of
> often being wishy-washy so open as they are to other possibilities than the
> one they walked in with.
Hmmm....so, why does LEC use legal pressure to opposing viewpoints?
Especially opposing viewpoints available to the general public, and
viewpoints that come with deep pockets? This is not an example of
"tolerance" from LEC. Why would such wonderful, tolerant, open-minded
graduates allow such a flagrant abuse of corporate power and intimidation?
Why would they allow that to happen within an organization that supposedly
means so much to them? You know why? Because they are as intolerant and as
close-minded as LEC. And unfortunately, this kind of abusive corporate power
is not limited to LEC.
This is why all this talk of tolerance/intolerance is garbage. LEC itself
doesn't exhibit tolerance, especially when it's crucial to it's image and
it's bottom line. If what LEC does (or does not) teach were really that
profound, it's followers and especially its leaders and organizers should not
be concerned about opposing views, since the message would transcend the
negative reviews. But their teachings and message doesn't, so it must justify
it's greed and image by intimidating all opposers.
> Someone raised the possibility to me in a private post that perhaps their
> are people posting things on this list who have as a job description pooping
> in the space. Some seem to be doing it for free just cause they enjoy it
> but I have begun to consider the possibility that there might be someone or
> people who are paid to talk bad about LEC at every opportunity.
Naw, I just do it for fun. And hopefully open someone's mind about their
attachments to a corporate organization.
> Yours in intolerance,
> standing for the squelching of free speech and all opinions contrary to my
> own,
> rick
> self-proclaimed LEC robot, brainwashed victim of the evil Werner Erhard and
> his minions and too stupid to know that my life has been ruined by those
> guys.
>
ahhh...sure rick....yeah,....if you say so.......
--
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
Larry Person
>Personally, I
>haven't seen the likes of it since the last time the KKK was on the news.
And how many fallacies can we identify in *that* sentence?
Not to mention that it undermines the REAL THREAT posed by groups like the
KKK when the KKK is invoked so carelessly. To equate using a kill filter,
to equate rnovar's words, with the 150 some-odd-year-long legacy of
hatred and violence is ridiculous and insulting to the Klan's victims.
--
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
lpe...@well.com (Larry Person) wrote:
> estie_...@my-dejanews.com writes:
> >Personally, I
> >haven't seen the likes of it since the last time the KKK was on the news.
>
> And how many fallacies can we identify in *that* sentence?
There are NO fallacies in that sentence. That's become your favorite label
to use whenever you dislike and/or disagree with something. Discredit it,
without backing up your discreditation.
> Not to mention that it undermines the REAL THREAT posed by groups like the
> KKK
It in no way undermines them.
> when the KKK is invoked so carelessly.
It was not invoked carelessly. It was the only analogy I could think of to
adequately describe rnovar's rhetoric.
> To equate using a kill filter,
> to equate rnovar's words, with the 150 some-odd-year-long legacy of
> hatred and violence is ridiculous and insulting to the Klan's victims.
As someone who has been targeted by the KKK, I don't find it ridiculous and
insulting.
When you get to my "role-reversal" post, please know that, even when I knew I
didn't mean what I was saying, it literally made me sick to say it. It was
revolting and disgusting and nauseating. I've had one hell of a headache ever
since.
- Estie
--
SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
Washington, US.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Larry Person
with arguing with a fool is that people watching may not be able to tell the
difference."
And with that little ad hominem comment, I am done with this discussion.
KMottus
>I'm going to throw this out -- one way that a "pro-side" would feel
>"unwelcome" here is because what we talk about causes *thinking*. It does
Some of it does. What usually makes most of the "pro-side" feel
unwelcome here IMO are the ones who don't even get much of
a chance to hang around and read the insightful, thought provoking
information because they get (in a manner of speaking) mugged
when they come on the group. It is unfortunate that there is FAN in
the title of the group. People who don't know better assume that the
"I just did the forum and I loved it" would be welcome here. It is
rare that someone's posts like that aren't immediately jumped upon
with the "you brainwashed, jargon-spouting ninny" response. (OTOH
it isn't any more fair for the "pro-side" to immediately jump on the
"they runied my life" intro posts with "get over it you victim" either)
Both are instances of intolerance.
>not surprise me in the least that there would be the "need" to form a
>separate email group. I also find it interesting that they are unwilling to
>look at their own discomfort to see where that is coming from. As an
>example, maybe there is a level of truth spoken here on this newsgroup that
>they personally don't "see" having happened. And don't want to entertain
>that it *could* happen. That has been the ongoing conversation regarding
>me. Even though I have attempted to get something done -- I have to
>constantly repeat myself as if there is no space for listening.
>
I know I also feel like I constantly repeat myself here. Most people
jump on a newsgroup without doing a lot of reading on dejanews.
I tend to look at it as repeating for the sake of newer readers, although
I to have often felt unlistened to here. Considering that no matter what
I post I get a chorus of "see more PROOF she's brainwashed...na na
na na na". For what ever reason, I am willing to endure that to get
down into the thoughtful, insightful posts. Most people I find are not.
I think that's why we have a pretty high turn-over of newbies of all
stripes. Most people have a very low tolerance for taunting.
> Enough so that
>> they've gone off and formed an email group where they can freely
>> talk.
>
>That's great -- but I see that as isolating themselves. Only being with
>like minded people, speaking the same language. Nothing to create a check
>and balance...
That would also be true of any group, of any stripe, which limits
membership to those on one-side of the coin whether it's the
it's the best thing I ever did side, or the it's an evil cult side.
>
> So far I haven't seen that there are enough unwelcome con-side, that
>> the only way they can talk in peace has been to do the same.
>
>And you are WRONG there -- I am on a list for those that are in recovery
>from cultic abuses. Ironically it is a rather strong list. Not only that --
Whoa....I meant no LANDMARK-specific groups. There are lots of
private groups open only to those who are exiting a cult. Very few
are specific to a cult.
>there are different groups on there represented. We learn from each other.
>I talk about things there that I would never DARE discuss here.
Would it suprise you that there are lots of things about my experiences
with Lifespring I feel like I don't DARE discuss here. I'm only willing
to put up with so much, there are some muggings I just don't want to
go through.
>Considering
>the intolerance that has been exhibited in the past to *my* experiences
>with the programs. I find it very interesting that you would be so
>incredibly ignorant of that having happened *already*. Is there a myth
>about those from the programs that you are wishing to put out there?
>
Nope, IMO people who have done any of the programs are just
as fraught with all the pettiness, etc that afflicts the rest of humanity.
They just hide it behind the jargon.
Unlike some of the "anti-side" I refuse, categorically to lump all the
graduates, or anyone else all in one group (exept on the occasions
when I do :-D... I'm a human being, and that seems to be the nature
of human beings to lump everyone together) Of course I do have
my own prejudices, and some people have to jump through hoops
with me to show that they aren't just like all the other X I've ever met,
but it's not did a program vs didn't do a program. My predjudices tend
to be a lot more specific and exotic. IMNSHO (see a post that had
Ancient Wisdom in the title... I expressed some of them there, but in
what I thought at the time was a humorous, satirical light..although
others didn't see it that way)
>So, to burst the bubble -- I don't "do" my recovery here -- I am in
>conversation here -- to get people to think about what they are really
>saying vs. what they mean. I'm simply living. You appear to see it as
>"injured" though...
Some people, possibly simply from the way the tend to express
themselves, seem to be angered, upset, or indignified, to a much
larger degree than seems reasonable (to me) to my posts. So far,
all of those people have been from the "Landmark is a cult that
damaged/hurt/destroyed X" So I tend to assume that the anger
isn't at me so much as I touched a nerve.
KMottus
writes:
>I certainly haven't accused you of intolerance. Has someone else?
I'm one of the vocal *plonkers* here. It sounded like to me that
anyone who would refuse to respond..what that means in my case,
althought that also tends to mean I don't read them much any more
either.. is a form of intolerance, so, yes, I feel that you have lumped
me in with the intolerant.
>Personally, I would make a distinction between someone who uses kill filters
>and posts his kill filter list three times along with inflammatory statements
>about banning books and teaching creationism in the fourth grade that I don't
>know what the basis of that was because it certainly hasn't been discussed on
>the ng and someone who chooses not to engage in conversations with people who
>dig at them regularly, and I thought I had stated my views on that.
>
>> I do get to choose who I communicate with. I, generally, read and
>> do my best to understand the viewpoints of everyone here. I chose
>> to stop communicating with two people in particular, because it finally
>> got to the point where it was obvious to me, IMHO, that there was no
>> more to discuss and continuing to repond to them only served to
>> increase the noise on the newsgroup. In the three or so years I have
>> been here, these are the first two people I have ever even thought about
>> ending the communication with.
>>
>> Estie, honey, if you want tolerance here, you need to exhibit it as well.
>
>I have exhibited a great deal of it. And I've been the only poster who has
>clearly asked that the same standards be applied on both sides of the fence.
>I've also stated that if people want me to be tolerant of them, they need to
>be tolerant of me. This is more a matter of not engaging in lopsided
>relationships than of intolerance.
>
So suggesting to people in email that they leave is tolerant.
Also I would suggest you read a book, called the Nazi Doctors...forget
the author... the first step in the process to intolerance of any kind is
the lumping together of a group of people and seeing them as different,
and often less human, than the group that one identifies oneself as.
I see you as lumping me in with all the other's that you despise, and
I find that intolerant. That may not have been what you meant, but that
is what it looks like from over here. I am one of the few (lets see it's
rick, jennifer, tony, me....gary's not around much anymore......ggearloose
only makes special appearances.... yep that's us... the Landmarkians
on the group.) Most of the others are on the fence or fully in the
anti camp.
>> In general (that is most of the time, but certainly not all of the time) it
>> seems that you find the postive side of the coin painfully intolerable to
>> you.
>
>'Scuse me. I haven't said anything about being in pain. I more often than
>not disagree with the positive side of the coin, but I don't find it
>intolerable, or I wouldn't even be reading it.
>
May be it's just the way you express yourself, but it often seems that
the level of indignation is way out of line with the offence on several
occasions. I tend to assume that comes from some sort of pain/upset/
etc. that isn't fully healed.
>> That's just the way you appear to me. This may not be the intent
>> of your writing, or the intent of how you respond to the postive people,
>> but it seems that the only thing that will make you happy is for this
>> newsgroup to consist soley of people talking about how bad and evil
>> Landmark is. This may not be what you think, or what you really mean,
>> but the way you talk, leads me to believe that this is what you mean.
>
>Nah, I enjoy a good debate, as long as it's clean.
>
>> There may be a need for that on the Internet. And I think there is also
>> a need for people of various viewpoints to be able to talk to one another.
>
>I agree.
>
>> I'm sorry, your in so much pain, I'm sorry things have been so bad for
>> you. I wish for nothing but your healing.
>
>I disagree. I'm not in any pain whatsoever.
Like I said... that's how it looks from here. It might just be the
way you express yourself.
>
>> But I'm not going to go away, I'm going to continue to fight for everyone
>> having the right to speak here (even if I in particular choose to no longer
>> talk to them).
>
>I'm glad to hear that. I think you're one of the most level-headed
people
>here, most of the time.
I'm glad to hear you say that. There are any number of people
who will vehemately disagree with that. Which is one
of the reasons they are on my do not reply list. There is
no point discussing anything with them as all they want
to do is say "yep your brainwashed"... after every thing I
say. That's not a debate, and there's no point responding
anymore.
>
>> It may suprise you, but my guess from conversations I've
>> had in Email is that the pro-side, for the most part, feels much less
>> welcome here than the con-side, or the fence-side. Enough so that
>> they've gone off and formed an email group where they can freely
>> talk.
>
>It doesn't surprise me at all. Again, I think it has to do with their
>intolerance to listening to other viewpoints.
>
I see it as most of them having got mugged when they entered the
group. Do you think the same thing of the private you have to
prove you status as a no longer in a cult to get into the group
private email lists the same way?
Or is that different?
If so, how?
(BTW... I think it's a great thing that they exist... I think there is a
real need for people to get together and be able to communicate
freely what they've been through.)
>> So far I haven't seen that there are enough unwelcome con-side, that
>> the only way they can talk in peace has been to do the same. Like I
>> said, there may be a need for that, especially for those who need to
>> talk about things without dissension for their own healing, but that is
>> not going to be in an open to everyone, unmoderated, public Usenet
>> group.
>
>I see this ng as a place for discussion.
Then don't tell people who don't agree with you to go somewhere else, or
make grand assumptions about the other side. Neither of those two things
fosters discussion.
Khnu...@aol.com
kmo...@aol.com (KMottus) wrote:
> Also I would suggest you read a book, called the Nazi Doctors...forget
> the author... the first step in the process to intolerance of any kind is
> the lumping together of a group of people and seeing them as different,
> and often less human, than the group that one identifies oneself as.
whoa......hold on Kmottus. Just because we may have a difference in views
upon our respective LGAT's, doesn't indicate that I see you as less than
human like I was a nazi, who wants to exterminate all LEC followers. I am
curious as to why you chose to align behind ggearloose, and then not think
that I would somehow respond to your palling around with he/she/it?
And what about those wacky aflplayers? It is your forum, or at least that's
what it says in the introduction. And that was the only time I'd seen any
physical posting of fantasized violence. It seems someone posted that Linda
shot me with a handgun. In all the verbal ball busting that's been done
herre, I don't think I, or any others have ever expressed or wished or
fantasized about inflicting violence on another human. All expect in the
aflroleplayers forum.
> I see you as lumping me in with all the other's that you despise, and
> I find that intolerant. That may not have been what you meant, but that
> is what it looks like from over here. I am one of the few (lets see it's
> rick, jennifer, tony, me....gary's not around much anymore......ggearloose
> only makes special appearances.... yep that's us... the Landmarkians
> on the group.) Most of the others are on the fence or fully in the
> anti camp.
What about Fred and Larry? I've had the pleasure of personally exchanging
views with them, they are considered "Landmarkian". Although they may not
fully agree with what I post here, we at least understand where each of us is
coming from.
> Then don't tell people who don't agree with you to go somewhere else, or
> make grand assumptions about the other side. Neither of those two things
> fosters discussion.
What about filing a $10,000,00 lawsuit? How does that foster the discussion in
regards to journalists writing critically about an LGAT?
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Khnu...@aol.com
> Unlike some of the "anti-side" I refuse, categorically to lump all the
> graduates, or anyone else all in one group (exept on the occasions
> when I do :-D... I'm a human being, and that seems to be the nature
> of human beings to lump everyone together) Of course I do have
> my own prejudices, and some people have to jump through hoops
> with me to show that they aren't just like all the other X I've ever met,
> but it's not did a program vs didn't do a program. My predjudices tend
> to be a lot more specific and exotic. IMNSHO (see a post that had
> Ancient Wisdom in the title... I expressed some of them there, but in
> what I thought at the time was a humorous, satirical light..although
> others didn't see it that way)
>
I'll take that "others" could be myself. This is the difference. Should I
complain that my views of the world, and Hermetic Philosophy are being mugged,
and that people don't want to listen to me, because of some biases they may
have? Your take on it was misinformed, stating that the whole thing smacks of
Crowleyism. It wasn't humorous and satirical and light. It demonstrated biased
ignorance. There's an even deeper understanding, and not just that particular
book, but with the other books I have on my list as well.
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
http://members.aol.com/Khnum369/main.html
Larry Person
>What about Fred and Larry? I've had the pleasure of personally exchanging
>views with them, they are considered "Landmarkian". Although they may not
>fully agree with what I post here, we at least understand where each of us is
>coming from.
Thanks, Robert.
I've enjoyed our private email, Robert, and sometimes I find your public
posts stimulating and educational. Just because I disagree with someone
it doesn't mean that I don't want to engage in discussions with him. In
fact, discussions where everyone agrees are boring. I will, however,
disengage if I find a discussion to be frustrating or if the other person
isn't listening.
Robert and I happen to have a lot in common, by the way. We both love
the Grateful Dead and have spent considerable amounts of time doing things
resulting from that. So even though we disagree on at least one subject,
there is still common ground and we can still be friendly.
--
pat...@kdi.com
hi estie, do u know how to rock and roll, do u have soul :)
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
Watch out now, beware the words of soft shoe shufflers
George Harrison
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
>
> --
> SPAMMER NOTICE: Poster is a toothless moonshining resident of the State of
> Washington, US.
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
>
--
Patrick Darcy
Love, just think about it
estie_...@my-dejanews.com
> writes:
>
> >I certainly haven't accused you of intolerance. Has someone else?
>
> I'm one of the vocal *plonkers* here. It sounded like to me that
> anyone who would refuse to respond..what that means in my case,
> althought that also tends to mean I don't read them much any more
> either.. is a form of intolerance, so, yes, I feel that you have lumped
> me in with the intolerant.
I'm sorry if you took that inference. I never said it and I never meant it.
I didn't include *plonking* and I've since made that distinction clear (see
below). And, as far as I know, you could not be considered a "Landmarkian"
in any sense of the word. Sounds like you're going out of your way to take
offense, where none was given.
> >Personally, I would make a distinction between someone who uses kill filters
> >and posts his kill filter list three times along with inflammatory statements
> >about banning books and teaching creationism in the fourth grade that I don't
> >know what the basis of that was because it certainly hasn't been discussed on
> >the ng and someone who chooses not to engage in conversations with people who
> >dig at them regularly, and I thought I had stated my views on that.
> So suggesting to people in email that they leave is tolerant.
No, and I've also since apologized for that.
> Then don't tell people who don't agree with you to go somewhere else,
You're commenting on something that you have no knowledge about. It didn't
have anything to do with disagreement. Why don't you ask him what names he
repeatedly called everyone else in the group that provoked me to do what I
did?
- Estie
KMottus
writes:
>I'm sorry if you took that inference. I never said it and I never meant it.
>I didn't include *plonking* and I've since made that distinction clear (see
>below). And, as far as I know, you could not be considered a "Landmarkian"
>in any sense of the word. Sounds like you're going out of your way to take
>offense, where none was given.
The difference between a plonk and putting someone in a kill file
is miniscule at best, and while there is some distinction made
between the two in this ng... that is not the case in most places.
Not offended, just noting that your net seems to be pretty wide.
My understanding is that vast majority of newsgroup readers,
in your eyes must be intolerant, because most people don't
read every post. They read the threads/people that interest
them and ignore the rest.
>
>> >Personally, I would make a distinction between someone who uses kill
>filters
>> >and posts his kill filter list three times along with inflammatory
>statements
>> >about banning books and teaching creationism in the fourth grade that I
>don't
>> >know what the basis of that was because it certainly hasn't been discussed
>on
>> >the ng and someone who chooses not to engage in conversations with people
>who
>> >dig at them regularly, and I thought I had stated my views on that.
>
>> So suggesting to people in email that they leave is tolerant.
>
>No, and I've also since apologized for that.
>
>> Then don't tell people who don't agree with you to go somewhere else,
>
>You're commenting on something that you have no knowledge about. It didn't
>have anything to do with disagreement. Why don't you ask him what
names he
>repeatedly called everyone else in the group that provoked me to do what I
>did?
>
>- Estie
No I don't know the content of your private emails with others, and
I don't want to. What occurs in private between members of a group
to me is something I don't want to stick my nose in.
I'm just noting that you public persona here, as I see it, hasn't
been a model for tolerance, especially of differing view points.
I know you say that behind the doors you've been talking to
people on your side of the fence who quite publicly display
their intolerance, but the only people you seem willing to call
on it in public so far is someone you disagree with.
Being someone who wants everyone to be tolerant of others
is a hard thing to do. It is noble, but difficult. If that is truely
what you want to be doing here, go for it. But be careful, it
can be very difficult to set aside one's own baggage to
be someone who's for universal tolerance.
BTW...hope your feeling better soon, and see a doctor about it.
KMottus
KMottus
AOL has been updating some features.
Guess it's time to go annoy the tech support
people.....
again....
Khnu...@aol.com
kmo...@aol.com (KMottus) wrote:
> In article <6ss984$8um$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, estie_...@my-dejanews.com
> writes:
>
> >I'm sorry if you took that inference. I never said it and I never meant it.
> >I didn't include *plonking* and I've since made that distinction clear (see
> >below). And, as far as I know, you could not be considered a "Landmarkian"
> >in any sense of the word. Sounds like you're going out of your way to take
> >offense, where none was given.
>
> The difference between a plonk and putting someone in a kill file
> is miniscule at best, and while there is some distinction made
> between the two in this ng... that is not the case in most places.
>
> Not offended, just noting that your net seems to be pretty wide.
>
> My understanding is that vast majority of newsgroup readers,
> in your eyes must be intolerant, because most people don't
> read every post. They read the threads/people that interest
> them and ignore the rest.
I'm not going to argue or defend Estie's use of generalizing "Landmarkians",
or the use of using the KKK for an anology. I was not kidding regarding my
position of the folly of labeling "tolerance" and "intolerance". Let's look
at these words first:
Intolerant 1 : unable or unwilling to endure
Certainly, rnover advocation of using kill filters, since he is unwilling or
unable to just skip the posts. One can't help but to conclude that after
reading his first kill filter post. Some people wouldn't read my posts once
they see my name, another degree of the tolerance/intolerance scale.
The second definition falls more in line with the $10,000,000 lawsuit filled
by LEC against Elle Magazine.
2 a : unwilling to grant equal freedom of
expression especially in religious matters b
: unwilling to grant or share social,
political, or professional rights :
> I'm just noting that you public persona here, as I see it, hasn't
> been a model for tolerance, especially of differing view points.
>
> I know you say that behind the doors you've been talking to
> people on your side of the fence who quite publicly display
> their intolerance, but the only people you seem willing to call
> on it in public so far is someone you disagree with.
>
Rnover was blatantly exhibiting an intolerant attitude. LEC filling a
$10,000,000 is another exaple of high degree intolerance. I think you confuse
"disagreement" with "intolerance", and wear the shield of "bigotry" and
"intolerance" in an attempt to disempower the people you disagree with. You've
also have noted to read a book called "the nazi doctors" to attempt to portray
some of the con side as fascists, simply because they don't agree that
using Lifespring/LEC is a good choice to make.
> Being someone who wants everyone to be tolerant of others
> is a hard thing to do. It is noble, but difficult. If that is truely
> what you want to be doing here, go for it. But be careful, it
> can be very difficult to set aside one's own baggage to
> be someone who's for universal tolerance.
What I find is that the greater the attachment to the program, corporation,
or trainings one has, the less apt they are to take disagreement and
adversity in opinions on the subject. My position on LGAT's demonstrates this
time and time again. Lifespring is a parasite on the mind, to control you
mentally, and then attach themselves to your pocketbook, and free labor. But,
of course, Lifespring MUST INCORPORATE PARTS OF THE TRUTH, or SPIRITUALITY in
their trainings, or else why would they draw people in to support them.
Sometimes a little truth will go along way. But it also invites con-men and
swindlers, marketeers and middlemen, charletans and snake-oil salesmen, to
take advantage of the human tendency to be inherently spiritual. And that is
my point. And while one may argue, weakly, that the parasite might apply to
everything, but as we've seen, the parasite aspect is the true nature of
LGAT's and religion, and I suggest avoiding them.
--
Take care,
Robert
http://members.aol.com/Terranova0/diet.index.html
http://members.aol.com/Khnum369/main.html
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----