Disappointment vs. Dysappointment

[Sinead (Author)]

From: Psychology Today April 24th 2012

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201204/disappointment-vs-dysappointment


"......If you think of disappointment as dis + appointment and by that
an expectation of a certain outcome, i.e. an appointment with a
result, that just didn’t happen, you realize that a disappointment is
neutral. It becomes painful only when you apply a different meaning
to it, as in, “That shouldn’t have happened,” “That wasn’t fair,”
“It’s not right.” When you apply such meanings they appear to justify
your reacting emotionally to it. However when you change those
meanings, your need to react emotionally goes away.*......."

* This perception is adapted from the transformational ideas that are
foundational to Landmark Education. If you haven’t yet attended one
of their Forum programs, I would urge you to check one of them out. It
will change the way you look at and live in the world.

[patrick]

On May 13, 7:00 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> From: Psychology Today April 24th 2012
>

> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201204/disappointment...

>
> "......If you think of disappointment as dis + appointment and by that
> an expectation of a certain outcome, i.e. an appointment with a
> result, that just didn’t happen, you realize that a disappointment is
> neutral.  It becomes painful only when you apply a different meaning
> to it, as in, “That shouldn’t have happened,” “That wasn’t fair,”
> “It’s not right.”  When you apply such meanings they appear to justify
> your reacting emotionally to it.  However when you change those
> meanings, your need to react emotionally goes away.*......."
>
> * This perception is adapted from the transformational ideas that are
> foundational to Landmark Education.  If you haven’t yet attended one
> of their Forum programs, I would urge you to check one of them out. It
> will change the way you look at and live in the world.

i agree . it WILL change the way u look at and live in the world.

is this change a good thing ? how can it be given it comes from
a company of no right or wrong. and its no buddism like tex says and
its not zen or zen like either

[Sinead (Author)]

This is one writer (Dr. Mark Goulston's) perspective and commentary.

"a good thing" or a "a bad thing, is a question that can be applied to
every human activity or non-activity, event, change and non-change.
Tell me one single activity or event or change that is without
question one or the other Patrick. Is it "a good thing" that a person
never does Landmark or anything like it and never changes the way they
look and live in the world in the way that customers of Landmark claim
they have initiated change for themselves?

And what do you mean by "good"? According to Jesus way? You are a
fanatical religious cultist so I assume all "good things" must involve
Jesus.

[Ellen]

On May 13, 8:54 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>

Abuse of a child.

>Is it "a good thing" that a person
> never does Landmark or anything like it and never changes the way they
> look and live in the world in the way that customers of Landmark claim
> they have initiated  change for themselves?

Most grown-ups learn how to navigate without some perverted
"philosophy" like est/Landmark. Most post-kindergarteners learn the
world that exists isn't a product of their own imaginations. Most
high-schoolers learn their way of ~looking & living in the world~
isn't the only way, the best way, or often even a good way. It's the
work of maturation to sort these things out for yourself -- not rely
on the "training" or "programming" of some con-artist.

>
> And what do you mean by "good"? According to Jesus way? You are a
> fanatical religious cultist so I assume all "good things" must involve
> Jesus.

Try to refrain from your silly comparison. It only makes you look
stupid using the "logic" cults like to use: "Everything's a cult."


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> Abuse of a child.

"turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and
your soul and u will be just fine."

Patrick

> >Is it "a good thing" that a person
> > never does Landmark or anything like it and never changes the way they
> > look and live in the world in the way that customers of Landmark claim
> > they have initiated  change for themselves?
>
> Most grown-ups learn how to navigate without some perverted
> "philosophy" like est/Landmark.  Most post-kindergarteners learn the
> world that exists isn't a product of their own imaginations.  Most
> high-schoolers learn their way of ~looking & living in the world~
> isn't the only way, the best way, or often even a good way.  It's the
> work of maturation to sort these things out for yourself -- not rely
> on the "training" or "programming" of some con-artist.

"turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and
your soul and u will be just fine."

Patrick

> > And what do you mean by "good"? According to Jesus way? You are a
> > fanatical religious cultist so I assume all "good things" must involve
> > Jesus.
>
> Try to refrain from your silly comparison.  It only makes you look
> stupid using the "logic" cults like to use: "Everything's a cult."
>
> Ellen

"turn to God and he will help u. give him your mind, your body and
your soul and u will be just fine."

Patrick

[Sinead (Author)]

> > Tell me one single activity or event or change that is without
> > question one or the other Patrick.
>
> Abuse of a child.

*Some* people consider spanking a child "abuse", *some* people
consider yelling at a child "abuse", *some* people consider any
disciplinary action and allot of things "abuse", while others
consider all those things to not be "abusive" at all but rather a
"good thing".

[Ellen]

On May 13, 2:24 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

See if you can figure out what "abuse" means -- if nothing else, by
legal definition.

Ellen

[Ellen]

On May 13, 5:00 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> From: Psychology Today April 24th 2012
>

> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201204/disappointment...

>
> "......If you think of disappointment as dis + appointment and by that
> an expectation of a certain outcome, i.e. an appointment with a
> result, that just didn’t happen, you realize that a disappointment is
> neutral.  It becomes painful only when you apply a different meaning
> to it, as in, “That shouldn’t have happened,” “That wasn’t fair,”
> “It’s not right.”  When you apply such meanings they appear to justify
> your reacting emotionally to it.  However when you change those
> meanings, your need to react emotionally goes away.*......."
>
> * This perception is adapted from the transformational ideas that are
> foundational to Landmark Education.  If you haven’t yet attended one
> of their Forum programs, I would urge you to check one of them out. It
> will change the way you look at and live in the world.

Someone needs to alert "Psychology Today" they've been infiltrated.


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> Someone needs to alert "Psychology Today" they've been infiltrated.
>
> Ellen

You some kind of paranoid crazy lady who imagines evil people are out
to get you and control the world and spies and infiltrators are
everywhere? kookoo kookoo

[Tex]

Oh yeah, she's nuts.
this will send her to the Psychology Today editorial board.
It will give her something to do, and perhaps they can recommend some treatment for her.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-99th-monkey/201110/40th-anniversary-the-est-training

There are many people in the world, and you may be one of them, who have nothing good to say about est (Erhard Seminar Training), or its controversial founder, Werner Erhard. (est was one of the very first intensive consciousness seminars of the Human Potential Movement in the early 70s, the prototype for hundreds of spin-offs and workshops that continue to be offered today.) Over the years there have been negative stories, rumors, accusations of cultish behavior, disaffected employees and so on. The usual stuff we have come to expect.
But there are also far more people in the world, by a long shot, who are among the million or so participants that attended Erhard's training who were thrilled by the results they received. People had enormous and powerful changes occur for them in a very short time—it was a two-weekend course—and no naysayer could talk them out of the very real value they experienced in their lives as a result of participating in est, whether it was dramatic transformations in their relationships with their families, with their work and personal vision, or most important, with the recognition of who they truly were in the core of their beings.


This latter group is coming together on December 17th, at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, 40 years after est's inception (see Transformation Reunion here) to acknowledge and celebrate what they experienced over the course of two weekends four decades ago, and to share what has happened since and how they have used what they experienced in the est training to "make a difference" in the world, which was always the point. "If you're not sharing it, you never got it," Werner used to say, and it was his stated intention—perhaps grandiose, but a worthy goal nonetheless—to "make the world work for everyone, with nobody left out."


If you think about it, how many specific weekends can you vividly remember from 40 years ago? Clearly, something occurred in that room that was not only indelibly memorable, but utterly transforming, such that many graduates of the training would forever after demarcate their lives as "before and after" est. What occurred can perhaps best be described as a fundamental shift in one's essential identity and point of reference, the place within consciousness where one stands in relationship to all of experience itself.
Prior to the est training, and prior to spiritual awakenings that arise in many other modalities, the seeker generally assumes that who they are is the voice in their head that continuously narrates the story of their lives, the voice that speaks within, calling itself "I." This seems perfectly obvious; who else could I be, if not the "I" that thinks and speaks, makes plans and decisions, expresses preferences and dislikes, and carves out one's life path based on all of the available data and experience from the past? To challenge such a deeply-held assumption can be enormously difficult, unsettling and confusing, and can often elicit anger and defensiveness, which is why former est trainer Stewart Emery once paraphrased Jesus, "The truth may set you free, but it will piss you off first."

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 14, 1:36 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

... hence Ellen's single focus on "Psychology Today" ...

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 14, 12:00 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> From: Psychology Today April 24th 2012
>

> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/just-listen/201204/disappointment...

>
> "......If you think of disappointment as dis + appointment and by that
> an expectation of a certain outcome, i.e. an appointment with a
> result, that just didn’t happen, you realize that a disappointment is
> neutral.  It becomes painful only when you apply a different meaning
> to it, as in, “That shouldn’t have happened,” “That wasn’t fair,”
> “It’s not right.”  When you apply such meanings they appear to justify
> your reacting emotionally to it.  However when you change those
> meanings, your need to react emotionally goes away.*......."
>
> * This perception is adapted from the transformational ideas that are
> foundational to Landmark Education.  If you haven’t yet attended one
> of their Forum programs, I would urge you to check one of them out. It
> will change the way you look at and live in the world.

Marvellous what pseudo-mileage one can get out of a little dodgy folk-
etymology...

[Sinead (Author)]

> Marvellous what pseudo-mileage one can get out of a little dodgy folk-
> etymology...

here's one for you:

"turn to God and he will help u.

give him your mind, your body and your soul and u will be just fine."

"Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it now."

Patrick

[Sinead (Author)]

> ... hence Ellen's single focus on "Psychology Today" ...

hence your boy patrick's focus on his cult:

[Ellen]

On May 13, 6:43 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:36:39 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Someone needs to alert "Psychology Today" they've been infiltrated.
>
> > > Ellen
>
> > You some kind of paranoid crazy lady who imagines evil  people are out
> > to get you and control the world and spies and infiltrators are
> > everywhere? kookoo kookoo
>
> Oh yeah, she's nuts.
> this will send her to the Psychology Today editorial board.
> It will give her something to do, and perhaps they can recommend some treatment for her.
>

> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-99th-monkey/201110/40th-anniv...

>
> There are many people in the world, and you may be one of them, who have nothing good to say about est (Erhard Seminar Training), or its controversial founder, Werner Erhard. (est was one of the very first intensive consciousness seminars of the Human Potential Movement in the early 70s, the prototype for hundreds of spin-offs and workshops that continue to be offered today.) Over the years there have been negative stories, rumors, accusations of cultish behavior, disaffected employees and so on. The usual stuff we have come to expect.

(Wow. Such a breezy dismissal. "Usual stuff?" Cult, scam, rip-off?
Child and wife abuse? Intellectual shell-game. Culty, bogus self-
improvement shake-down. Just so many ~stories,~ huh? Or just so many
(meaningless) ~opinions?~ Or part of the ~disappearing~ past? See how
"self-referential" works?)

> But there are also far more people in the world, by a long shot, who are among the million or so participants that attended Erhard's training who were thrilled by the results they received. People had enormous and powerful changes occur for them in a very short time—it was a two-weekend course—and no naysayer could talk them out of the very real value they experienced in their lives as a result of participating in est, whether it was dramatic transformations in their relationships with their families, with their work and personal vision, or most important, with the recognition of who they truly were in the core of their beings."

(Ackkkkk! Call 911. It's L. Ron from the grave. And he's on the
march.)

> This latter group is coming together on December 17th, at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, 40 years after est's inception (see Transformation Reunion here) to acknowledge and celebrate what they experienced over the course of two weekends four decades ago, and to share what has happened since and how they have used what they experienced in the est training to "make a difference" in the world, which was always the point. "If you're not sharing it, you never got it," Werner used to say, and it was his stated intention—perhaps grandiose, but a worthy goal nonetheless—to "make the world work for everyone, with nobody left out."

(Blechhh. Another ~world that works~ bit of malarky. Geeeeze. You
can't be serious.)

> If you think about it, how many specific weekends can you vividly remember from 40 years ago? Clearly, something occurred in that room that was not only indelibly memorable, but utterly transforming, such that many graduates of the training would forever after demarcate their lives as "before and after" est. What occurred can perhaps best be described as a fundamental shift in one's essential identity and point of reference, the place within consciousness where one stands in relationship to all of experience itself.

(Oh please. L. Ron's followers say the same things.)

> Prior to the est training, and prior to spiritual awakenings that arise in many other modalities, the seeker generally assumes that who they are is the voice in their head that continuously narrates the story of their lives, the voice that speaks within, calling itself "I." This seems perfectly obvious; who else could I be, if not the "I" that thinks and speaks, makes plans and decisions, expresses preferences and dislikes, and carves out one's life path based on all of the available data and experience from the past? To challenge such a deeply-held assumption can be enormously difficult, unsettling and confusing, and can often elicit anger and defensiveness, which is why former est trainer Stewart Emery once paraphrased Jesus, "The truth may set you free, but it will piss you off first."

(Sounds like a recipe for schizophrenia. And there's a reason it's
called "madness.")


Oh, and "Tex,"

McDonald's could claim equal similar nonsense about "feeding a billion
people," "making a difference," "transforming the planet," blah,
blah, and blah. Does the fact that they've sold a billion hamburgers
make their product anything but cheap junk food?


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> (Ackkkkk!  Call 911.  It's L. Ron from the grave.  And he's on the march.)

This tired old baseless Scientology L. Ron Hubbard line of yours is
all you got? Man, I would liked to have met L. Ron Hubbard. I bet the
guy was a million times more interesting and intelligent than you and
your alt.fan.Rick Ross devotees.

[Tex]

I take it you will be canceling your subscription to Psychology Today, Ellen.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 15, 12:37 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Sinead, do you regard this unsourced advice (attributed (?) to someone
called "Patrick") as relevant to the context of the current thread
and as on-topic for the newsgroup alt.fan.landmark ?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 14, 1:43 pm, Tex <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:36:39 PM UTC-4, Sinead (Author) wrote:
> > > Someone needs to alert "Psychology Today" they've been infiltrated.
>
> > > Ellen
>
> > You some kind of paranoid crazy lady who imagines evil  people are out
> > to get you and control the world and spies and infiltrators are
> > everywhere? kookoo kookoo
>
> Oh yeah, she's nuts.
> this will send her to the Psychology Today editorial board.
> It will give her something to do, and perhaps they can recommend some treatment for her.
>

> http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-99th-monkey/201110/40th-anniv...

>
> There are many people in the world, and you may be one of them, who have nothing good to say about est (Erhard Seminar Training), or its controversial founder, Werner Erhard. (est was one of the very first intensive consciousness seminars of the Human Potential Movement in the early 70s, the prototype for hundreds of spin-offs and workshops that continue to be offered today.)

A blessed relief for the (arguably) greater number of people in the
world (or out of it) who may occasionally detect a minimum of good in
rosenbergism -- such as its eminent role as a good example of
silliness.

> Over the years there have been negative stories, rumors, accusations of cultish behavior, disaffected employees and so on. The usual stuff we have come to expect.
> But there are also far more people in the world, by a long shot, who are among the million or so participants that attended Erhard's training who were thrilled by the results they received. People had enormous and powerful changes occur for them in a very short time—it was a two-weekend course—and no naysayer could talk them out of the very real value they experienced in their lives as a result of participating in est, whether it was dramatic transformations in their relationships with their families, with their work and personal vision, or most important, with the recognition of who they truly were in the core of their beings.
>
> This latter group is coming together on December 17th, at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles, 40 years after est's inception (see Transformation Reunion here) to acknowledge and celebrate what they experienced over the course of two weekends four decades ago, and to share what has happened since and how they have used what they experienced in the est training to "make a difference" in the world, which was always the point. "If you're not sharing it, you never got it," Werner used to say, and it was his stated intention—perhaps grandiose, but a worthy goal nonetheless—to "make the world work for everyone, with nobody left out."
>
> If you think about it, how many specific weekends can you vividly remember from 40 years ago? Clearly, something occurred in that room that was not only indelibly memorable, but utterly transforming, such that many graduates of the training would forever after demarcate their lives as "before and after" est. What occurred can perhaps best be described as a fundamental shift in one's essential identity and point of reference, the place within consciousness where one stands in relationship to all of experience itself.
> Prior to the est training, and prior to spiritual awakenings that arise in many other modalities, the seeker generally assumes that who they are is the voice in their head that continuously narrates the story of their lives, the voice that speaks within, calling itself "I."

Non-seekers need not apply. Those mystified by the meaninglessness of
"spiritual awakenings" need read no further. And people unafflicted by
voices in the head can mutter about the emperor having no clothes.

> This seems perfectly obvious; who else could I be, if not the "I" that thinks and speaks, makes plans and decisions, expresses preferences and dislikes, and carves out one's life path based on all of the available data and experience from the past? To challenge such a deeply-held assumption can be enormously difficult, unsettling and confusing, and can often elicit anger and defensiveness, which is why former est trainer Stewart Emery once paraphrased Jesus, "The truth may set you free, but it will piss you off first."

I wonder which of the multitudinous and multifarious truths Emery had
in mind ...

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 15, 8:41 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Re the subject-line: Ellen 's irrational fear of Scientology and L.
Ron Hubbard

Does tracing the history of the ideas of scientology and detecting
examples of the expression of those ideas somehow provide evidence of
"irrational fear" ?

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 15, 12:38 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > ... hence Ellen's single focus on "Psychology Today" ...
>
> hence

Non sequitur.

> your boy patrick's focus on his cult:

Fallacy of association.

[tubby]

All your truths Baroness Nordstrup.
You have it all!!!!!

[tubby]

Its very relevant Baroness and very on topic.
It clearly demonstrates to the cukoos in the group just how relevant
their input has been.

Now put out your hands Baroness as Patty suggests,
and feel the love!!!!!

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 15, 8:26 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 4:12 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 12:37 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Marvellous what pseudo-mileage one can get out of a little dodgy folk-
> > > > etymology...
>
> > > here's one for you:
>
> > > "turn to God and he will help u.
>
> > > give him your mind, your body and your soul and u will be just fine."
>
> > > "Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it now."
>
> > > Patrick
>
> > Sinead, do you regard this unsourced advice (attributed (?) to someone
> > called  "Patrick") as relevant to the context of the current thread
> > and as on-topic for the newsgroup alt.fan.landmark ?
>
> Its very relevant Baroness and very on topic.

... or so you claim ...

> It clearly demonstrates to the cukoos in the group just how relevant
> their input has been.

And what has a demonstration to alleged cuckoos got to do with
discussing rosenbergism ?

[Serena Nordstrup]

Do people have some sort of ownership of truths, Bruno? Tell us more!

> You have it all!!!!!

Huh?

[tubby]

That you are now pronounced Baroness Cukoo.
Do you like that!!!!

cheers

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 17, 12:06 am, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 16, 4:46 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 8:26 pm, tubby <btono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 4:12 pm, Serena Nordstrup <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 15, 12:37 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Marvellous what pseudo-mileage one can get out of a little dodgy folk-
> > > > > > etymology...
>
> > > > > here's one for you:
>
> > > > > "turn to God and he will help u.
>
> > > > > give him your mind, your body and your soul and u will be just fine."
>
> > > > > "Let go your heart. Let go your head. And feel it now."
>
> > > > > Patrick
>
> > > > Sinead, do you regard this unsourced advice (attributed (?) to someone
> > > > called  "Patrick") as relevant to the context of the current thread
> > > > and as on-topic for the newsgroup alt.fan.landmark ?
>
> > > Its very relevant Baroness and very on topic.
>
> > ... or so you claim ...
>
> > > It clearly demonstrates to the cukoos in the group just how relevant
> > > their input has been.
>
> > And what has a demonstration to alleged cuckoos got to do with
> > discussing rosenbergism ?
>
> That you are now pronounced Baroness Cukoo.

By whom?

> Do you like that!!!!

Meanwhile, back in the non-Brunotick universe: what has a

[Ellen]

On May 14, 1:41 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I would be surprised if you didn't find him "a million times more
interesting and intelligent" than me. He was very interesting, if you
find con artists interesting, and, in my opinion, his was a singularly
American tale. You'd probably admire him. You might have even adored
him. Many did. Perhaps you might have tried to copy his uncanny
ability to take over the minds of (relative) simpletons and have them
do his bidding before he had the money to just buy them.


Ellen

[Sinead (Author)]

> I would be surprised if you didn't find him "a million times more interesting and intelligent" than me.

Besides a few of your fellow Rick Ross Devotees, who cares what you
find surprising or not surprising Ellen?

> He was very interesting,

Agreed.

> if you find con artists interesting, and,

You and Rick are con artists.

> in my opinion, his was a singularly American tale.

?

> You'd probably admire him.

I admire that grouping of people, who L R. Hubbard is a part of.
People interested in the study of human being and existence on earth.

> You might have even adored him.

What or who do you "adore" Ellen?

> Many did.

Says who? You? You talk like a head-case in alt.fan.landmark. So who
cares.

> Perhaps you might have tried to copy his uncanny ability to take over the minds of (relative) simpletons and have them do his bidding before he had the money to just buy them.

Ellen, how did you become so superior to so many people? Do you credit
your parents? Your education? luck?


> Ellen

[Caligari]

On May 14, 1:41 pm, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadautho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Werner doesn't seem to care much for L. Ron Hubbard any more after
they sent a private investigator to gather evidence and gave it to
CBS. From Werner's site,

============
Los Angeles Times

Founder of est Targeted in Campaign by Scientologists
Religion: Competition for customers is said to be the motive behind
effort to discredit Werner Erhard.
By Robert W. Welkos, LA Times Staff Writer
In October of 1989, a private detective was called into the Church of
Scientology's offices in Los Angeles and asked to conduct an
investigation in Northern California.

Ted Heisig, a non-Scientologist based in Orange County, said he was
led into a room and shown five file cabinets filled with documents
Scientology had been collecting for years. The subject: Werner Erhard,
founder of the worldwide self-awareness movement known as est.

"They had contacts [in the file cabinets] dating back to his childhood
days," Heisig recalled.

Many of the documents were written by former est members who had
joined Scientology and were then asked to write down anything they
knew about Erhard and his organization. Some accused him of having
links to neo-Nazis, of possessing bizarre personality disorders, of
being a scoundrel posing as a messiah.

Heisig said it was clear from the documents that Scientology was
preparing a "media blitz" against Erhard and that he was going to be a
key player, spreading and collecting information that could be used to
discredit the est founder.

"The reason, I think it comes down to, is competition," Heisig said.
"Since Werner started his est program, he took potential
customers...away from the church."

The secret campaign against Erhard would span more than a year and
become one of the Church of Scientology's top priorities. In
Sausalito, where Erhard then lived on a yacht, private detectives
spied on him and interviewed scores of disgruntled followers. They dug
deeply into records of his personal and financial affairs.

In the end, Erhard received so much notoriety, including a scathing
segment on "60 Minutes" last March, that he sold his business and now
lives in Costa Rica. Although he blames Scientology for his troubles,
it is hard to gauge what the organization actually accomplished behind
the scenes, because those who know most are not saying.
...
============
http://www.wernererhard.com/la_times.html

[Sinead (Author)]

> Werner doesn't seem to care much for L. Ron Hubbard any more after
> they sent a private investigator to gather evidence and gave it to
> CBS.  From Werner's site,

This "seeming" is your personal conclusion Caligari, based on how you
give and take away "care". You know nothing about how Werner Erhard
cared or "cares" or does not "care" for L. Ron Hubbard in the past,
now or "any more", unless you care to provide some quote From Werner
Erhard supporting your speculation and conclusion.

[Caligari]

Sure, here's Werner talking about the tactics of L. Ron Hubbard's
organization Scientology on Larry King Live,

========
Mr. ERHARD: Well, let me give you an example. I don't know exactly
what would happen to me, but let me give you an example of a writer
who wrote a book critical of Scientology. She was subsequently
indicted by a federal grand jury for having sent a bomb threat to the
Church of Scientology. Now, the truth only came and she was exonerated
out of documents from an FBI raid in 1977 when they found in
confidential Scientology documents that Scientology had started a
program called Operation Freakout, which was designed to either have
her incarcerated or put in a mental institution. As I said to you, she
came very close to getting convicted. It was only because of this FBI
raid and documents that revealed that the church was behind thus plot,
that they had set her up and someone had impersonated ..."
========
http://www.lermanet.com/cisar/carto/thoburn.htm

And here's Harry Rosenberg calling into a Larry King Live interview
with "Reverend" Heber Jentzsch, president of the church of
Scientology,

========
3rd CALLER: [New York, New York] Yes, this is Harry Rosenberg. My name
is- and I'm Werner Erhard's brother. And I find it hard to believe
that Mr. Jentzsch doesn't know about the campaign his own organization
has run against Mr. Erhard, given that the L.A. Times in 1991 on a
front-page article, their own agent outlined the campaign to destroy
Werner's reputation. And so I would just like to know how it would be
possible for him not to know-

Larry King: Hold on a second. You're Werner's brother?

3rd CALLER: [New York, New York] Yes, I am.

Larry King: OK.

Heber Jentzsch: And your name is Rosenberg?

Larry King: Did- did- yeah, I think-

Heber Jentzsch: Yeah, that was his original name, when he was- when he
was- he was selling cars out on the East Coast, originally, right,
before he changed his name?

Larry King: No, but that's not germane.

Heber Jentzsch: No, it's not germane.

Larry King: You were a Mormon, originally, right, you're not a Mormon-

Heber Jentzsch: Oh yeah. No, that's true. But-

Larry King: OK. What about the L.A. Times story?

Heber Jentzsch: L.A. Times story, of course, we looked at that issue,
and I had a chance to check this out. And I talked to a private
investigator, who was doing investigations on Werner Erhard. And- not
for us, by the way. This was a private investigator, was doing
something from people hired by est. And what he told me was that he
was the one who was uncovering a lot of these problems with Werner
Erhard. It has nothing to do with the church of Scientology. His
problem, as I indicated before-

Larry King: Didn't the Times story say you were after him, though?
========
http://www.holysmoke.org/heber/heber07.htm

So both Werner Erhard and Harry Rosenberg are paranoid about Hubbard
and Scientology?

-- C

[Sinead (Author)]

> Sure, here's Werner talking about the tactics of L. Ron Hubbard's
> organization Scientology on Larry King Live,

> So both Werner Erhard and Harry Rosenberg are paranoid about Hubbard
> and Scientology?
>
>    -- C

Your personal conclusions about "care" and "paranoia". Absolutely
nothing to do with Werner Erhard (or Harry Rosenberg). Caligari, can
you just present your biased personal opinions and conclusions for
what they are, your own biased personal opinions and conclusions?
Your stories about others that you cherry pick snippets of other
stories to validate your views with..

[Caligari]

It's just a question. Werner and Harry Rosenberg clearly don't speak
highly of Scientology, neither does Ellen.

-- C

[Sinead (Author)]

> It's just a question.  Werner and Harry Rosenberg clearly don't speak
> highly of Scientology, neither does Ellen.
>
>   -- C

Where is Werner Erhard or Harry Rosenberg speaking highly or lowly of
Scientology in anyway whatsoever? Please provide a direct quote of
either Werner Erhard or Harry Rosenberg disparaging, discrediting,
maligning, putting down, slandering Scientology in any way. You are
adding some conclusion about not speaking "highly". There is no
similarity to Ellen's speaking of about Scientology, and Werner
Erhard and Harry Rosenbergs.

Would you call yourself or Ellen or Rick "paranoid" when it comes to
Werner Erhard, est and Landmark?

[Sinead (Author)]

> So both Werner Erhard and Harry Rosenberg are paranoid about Hubbard
> and Scientology?
>
>    -- C

How would you or anyone know these two person's internal states at a
certain moment in time unless you have a direct quote from either of
them describing their internal states in detail at a certain moment in
time, and you do not. You are welcome to speculate but only a Rick
Ross devote would invest or assign value or importance to your biased
speculations.

[Caligari]

Funny, you're making claims on people's internal state in relation to
Mr. Ross.

Do you have a sense of irony?

-- C

[Sinead (Author)]

> Funny, you're making claims on people's internal state in relation to
> Mr. Ross.
>
> Do you have a sense of irony?
>
>    -- C

My comments are 100% my personal biased opinions and nothing more then
that, where is the irony?

[Caligari]

The irony is in admonishing others to what your doing. But then your
proving in your posts the absurdism to meanglessness of everything
just being subjective.

-- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> The irony is in admonishing others to what your doing.

We are doing two different things. You say you speak the truth and
your opinions are real or partly real. I am aware that my opinions are
just a points of view and opinions. Night and day difference
Caligari.

> But then your proving in your posts the absurdism to meanglessness of everything just being subjective.

?

I cannot follow the jargon you are using.

>
>    -- Caligari

[Caligari]

Have you considered using dictionaries like http://dictionary.reference.com/
and encyclopedias like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?

Either way, I reasoned a few things out of this discussion -- so
thanks for that; over and out.

;),

Caligari

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >    -- Caligari

[Sinead (Author)]

> Have you considered using dictionaries likehttp://dictionary.reference.com/

> and encyclopedias likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page?

>
> Either way, I reasoned a few things out of this discussion -- so
> thanks for that; over and out.
>
>    ;),
>
>    Caligari

You and Ellen can type all the passive aggressive ";)'s" and "LOLs"
you want,it does not eclipse what you are.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 22, 4:44 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would be surprised if you didn't find him "a million times more interesting and intelligent" than me.
>
> Besides a few of your fellow Rick Ross Devotees, who cares what you
> find surprising or not surprising Ellen?
>
> > He was very interesting,
>
> Agreed.
>
> > if you find con artists interesting, and,
>
> You and Rick are  con artists.

Based on what?

> > in my opinion, his was a singularly American tale.
>
> ?
>
> > You'd probably admire him.
>
> I admire that grouping of people, who L R. Hubbard is a part of.
> People interested in the study of human being and existence on earth.

Who else do you group with Hubbard in this respect ?

> > You might have even adored him.
>
> What or who do you "adore" Ellen?
>
> > Many did.
>
> Says who? You? You talk like a head-case in alt.fan.landmark. So who
> cares.
>
> > Perhaps you might have tried to copy his uncanny ability to take over the minds of (relative) simpletons and have them do his bidding before he had the money to just buy them.
>
> Ellen, how did you become so superior to so many people? Do you credit
> your parents? Your education? luck?> Ellen

Red-herring/ad-hominem.

[Serena Nordstrup]

On May 22, 8:17 am, "Sinead (Author)" <sineadaut...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So both Werner Erhard and Harry Rosenberg are paranoid about Hubbard
> > and Scientology?
>
> >    -- C
>
> How would you or anyone know these two person's internal states at a
> certain moment in time unless you have a direct quote from either of
> them describing their internal states in detail at a certain moment in
> time, and you do not.

Ever heard of extrapolation, Sinead? Ever noted how justice systems
impute internal states at various periods?

> You are welcome to speculate but only a Rick
> Ross devote would invest or assign value or importance  to your biased
> speculations.

... whereas unbiased speculation provides grist to numerous mills ...

[Serena Nordstrup]

And that eclipsed irrelevance has nothing to do with the discussion...