Portrait of a Landmark Couple - Darren & Charla Mack
elle...@hotmail.com
Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one
small mention. A closer look at Landmark would have been a lot more
interesting than what they did broadcast about the sleaze-ball, who
typifies the type of person drawn to an extended involvement with
these scammers, in my opinion. Heck, they're probably thrilled with
the PR and think if he can enroll the jury in the ~empty &
meaningless~ bit he may get off the hook. Conversely, they may be
horrified that he is making himself out to be the ~victim.~
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/23/48hours/main2507610.shtml
"...Charla eventually gave up acting and moved back to Reno. When she
started dating Darren Mack, they seemed a perfect match. Friends say
they also shared an interest in a self-awareness training group called
Landmark Education.
"He was really into self improvement. He liked going to seminars about
improving himself all the time. Achieving his goals. Which was money,
money, money," says writer Amanda Robb.
Darren Mack is the oldest son of a wealthy and prominent Reno family;
his parents owned one of the largest pawn shop in the city. When his
father was killed in a plane crash in 1986, Darren became half owner
of the family business and, according to court records, was said to be
worth almost $10 million.
"They lived large. I mean there's no doubt about it. She drove a
Lexus, he drove a Hummer. They had fancy things, fancy jewelry," says
Robb. "It was fabulous."
But Darren Mack had been down the aisle before. Darren and his ex-wife
Debbie had two children together but the marriage did not end well.
"He would not stop fighting with Debbie. She spent more than a quarter
of a million dollars in legal fees just responding to him," says Robb,
who knows Debbie. "And Charla was on his side at the time."
Darren had joint custody and for a while at least, he, Charla, and his
kids seemed to be one big happy family.
But their clean cut family image was a far cry from their private
lives. Christine says her friend Charla was a very sexual person,
without sexual inhibitions-
something she shared with Darren.
"They became sort of a fixture on the strip club circuit in and around
Reno," Robb explains. "It moved up into swinging. They actually went
to swinger conventions in California, Arizona and Mexico where there'd
be group sex parties. They called it 'sexing.'" ..."
HAPPYsamurai
> Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one
> small mention.
thanks to the net
you and i can create our own virtual documentaries
http://brunsona.livejournal.com/
maybe this guy is perfect for charla....
HAPPYsamurai
check synopsis here for relevance
elle...@hotmail.com
> thanks to the net
>
> you and i can create our own virtual documentaries
>
> http://brunsona.livejournal.com/
>
> maybe this guy is perfect for charla....
Yikes!
Where does Harry find these people:
"...Harry Palmer, the creator of the Avatar Materials, talks about
people trying to get from New York to Boston. Until they realize that
they are actually in Chicago, they will not be successful. So, I
discovered - and am still discovering - exactly where I am, who I am,
and how I operate. Most of this is not comfortable to face so I've
avoided it for years."
Tex
----- Original Message -----
From: <elle...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:56 PM
Subject: Portrait of a Landmark Couple - Darren & Charla Mack
>
> Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one small
> mention. A >closer look at Landmark would have been a lot more
> interesting than what they did >broadcast about the sleaze-ball, who
> typifies the type of person drawn to an extended >involvement with these
> scammers, in my opinion.
And you base this opinion on what Ellen?
The two physician friends you knew who also went head long into Amway?
Perhaps it has more to do with the company you keep. The folks I met during
est were quite diverse. My guess is I met many more who took their courses
then you have, since the number is in the hundreds. Most of them were not
multi-millionaires flying to Mexico to pimp their wives at "sexing" parties.
Perhaps the current incarnation of est has simply lowered their standards.
But most of those that I know that have taken the course are middle class
parents trying to make ends meet to support their families.
Again, perhaps the people you associate with are of a different ilk.
>Heck, they're probably thrilled with the PR and think if he can enroll the
>jury in the ~empty >&> meaningless~ bit he may get off the hook.
>Conversely, they may be
> horrified that he is making himself out to be the ~victim.~
More horrified that one of their "star" seminar leaders butchered his wife
and shot a judge, leaving his own children essentially parentless. You see,
the people running Landmark are children and or parents and brothers and
sisters just like the rest of us. As much as you and others here try to
portray them as inhuman, they are not.
It is true that some of those seminar leaders are real assholes.
Not all of them, but some.
Eldon
> On Feb 25, 3:52 pm, "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > thanks to the net
>
> > you and i can create our own virtual documentaries
>
> >http://brunsona.livejournal.com/
>
> > maybe this guy is perfect for charla....
>
> Yikes!
>
> Where does Harry find these people:
If you wanted to do current research on where the various
"introductory events" are held, you'd discover that he finds them
mainly in:
- The US (currently about half)
- Holland
- Australia/New Zealand
- Korea, Taiwan and Japan in something like that order for Asia.
France collapsed in 1995, and Germany in 2002. Holland is imminent.
Not a ghost of a chance in mainland China.
Sorta parallels the downfall of the mother church.
Serena Nordstrup
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <ellen...@hotmail.com>
>
> Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:56 PM
> Subject: Portrait of a Landmark Couple - Darren & Charla Mack
>
> > Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one small
> > mention. A >closer look at Landmark would have been a lot more
> > interesting than what they did >broadcast about the sleaze-ball, who
> > typifies the type of person drawn to an extended >involvement with these
> > scammers, in my opinion.
>
> And you base this opinion on what Ellen?
> The two physician friends you knew who also went head long into Amway?
> Perhaps it has more to do with the company you keep.
And you base this perhaps on what, Tex?
> The folks I met during
> est were quite diverse. My guess is I met many more who took their courses
> then you have, since the number is in the hundreds. Most of them were not
> multi-millionaires flying to Mexico to pimp their wives at "sexing" parties.
You reckon?
> Perhaps the current incarnation of est has simply lowered their standards.
> But most of those that I know that have taken the course are middle class
> parents trying to make ends meet to support their families.
Like Darren and Charla.
> Again, perhaps the people you associate with are of a different ilk.
Perhaps AND perhaps.
> >Heck, they're probably thrilled with the PR and think if he can enroll the
> >jury in the ~empty >&> meaningless~ bit he may get off the hook.
> >Conversely, they may be
> > horrified that he is making himself out to be the ~victim.~
>
> More horrified that one of their "star" seminar leaders butchered his wife
> and shot a judge, leaving his own children essentially parentless.
But adults make more efficient recruiters.
> You see,
> the people running Landmark are children and or parents and brothers and
> sisters just like the rest of us. As much as you and others here try to
> portray them as inhuman, they are not.
"Inhuman" does not exist amongst humans. I wonder why we invented that
word?
> It is true that some of those seminar leaders are real assholes.
> Not all of them, but some.
And the center-managers. And the assitants. And the fellow-attendees.
HAPPYsamurai
> On Feb 27, 4:11 am, "Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > The folks I met during
> > est were quite diverse. My guess is I met many more who took their courses
> > then you have, since the number is in the hundreds. Most of them were not
> > multi-millionaires flying to Mexico to pimp their wives at "sexing" parties.
>
> You reckon?
>
Tex
"Serena Nordstrup" <s_nor...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1172561714.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 27, 4:11 am, "Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: <ellen...@hotmail.com>
>>
>> Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
>> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:56 PM
>> Subject: Portrait of a Landmark Couple - Darren & Charla Mack
>>
>> > Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one
>> > small
>> > mention. A >closer look at Landmark would have been a lot more
>> > interesting than what they did >broadcast about the sleaze-ball, who
>> > typifies the type of person drawn to an extended >involvement with
>> > these
>> > scammers, in my opinion.
>>
>> And you base this opinion on what Ellen?
>> The two physician friends you knew who also went head long into Amway?
>> Perhaps it has more to do with the company you keep.
>
> And you base this perhaps on what, Tex?
ellen stating that she knew a couple of physicians, one an ex-spouse, who
took Landmark courses and also got heavily involved in Amway. Of course,
perhaps she just made up a story.
>
>> The folks I met during
>> est were quite diverse. My guess is I met many more who took their
>> courses
>> then you have, since the number is in the hundreds. Most of them were not
>> multi-millionaires flying to Mexico to pimp their wives at "sexing"
>> parties.
>
> You reckon?
>
>> Perhaps the current incarnation of est has simply lowered their
>> standards.
>> But most of those that I know that have taken the course are middle class
>> parents trying to make ends meet to support their families.
>
> Like Darren and Charla.
They were multi-millionaires, in case you haven't been following the story.
That puts them a notch higher than middle-class.
>
>> Again, perhaps the people you associate with are of a different ilk.
>
> Perhaps AND perhaps.
>
>> >Heck, they're probably thrilled with the PR and think if he can enroll
>> >the
>> >jury in the ~empty >&> meaningless~ bit he may get off the hook.
>> >Conversely, they may be
>> > horrified that he is making himself out to be the ~victim.~
>>
>> More horrified that one of their "star" seminar leaders butchered his
>> wife
>> and shot a judge, leaving his own children essentially parentless.
>
> But adults make more efficient recruiters.
non-sequitor.
>
>> You see,
>> the people running Landmark are children and or parents and brothers and
>> sisters just like the rest of us. As much as you and others here try to
>> portray them as inhuman, they are not.
>
> "Inhuman" does not exist amongst humans. I wonder why we invented that
> word?
The diestinction exists, I'm claiming that they are human.
>
>> It is true that some of those seminar leaders are real assholes.
>> Not all of them, but some.
>
> And the center-managers. And the assitants. And the fellow-attendees.
Some.
Would you like to share something with the rest of the newsgroup Serena?
:-)
Tex
"HAPPYsamurai" <profst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1172574633....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
elle...@hotmail.com
> ellen stating that she knew a couple of physicians, one an ex-spouse, who
> took Landmark courses and also got heavily involved in Amway. Of course,
> perhaps she just made up a story.
LOL...
I couldn't make this up.
(Never said those were the only Landmarkers I've had the misfortune to
know.)
E
Tex
<elle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172618980....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I did meet a few who got sucked into to a variety of get rich quick ideas,
but they were just a few.
Lots of people looking for a "tribe" to belong to I guess.
As an Anthropology major you must understand the mechanics better than most.
I didn't even pledge a fraternity in college. Probably why est quickly lost
its luster for me. Wasn't looking for a tribe leader to look up to.
Certainly not a bigamist car salesman, that's for sure.
>
>
> E
>
>
>
elle...@hotmail.com
> I did meet a few who got sucked into to a variety of get rich quick ideas,
> but they were just a few.
> Lots of people looking for a "tribe" to belong to I guess.
> As an Anthropology major you must understand the mechanics better than >most.
> I didn't even pledge a fraternity in college. Probably why est quickly lost
> its luster for me. Wasn't looking for a tribe leader to look up to.
> Certainly not a bigamist car salesman, that's for sure.
Just so much mass psychology and group dynamics, the study of which is
well known to lots of people outside our protective bubble of a
culture. There are good reasons we need to observe cults and learn
from them, mainly self-protection:
"...Terrorist cells have 'striking parallels' to cults, Varghese
explained. 'One thing we frequently see in the trajectory of
terrorists is a conversion experience that occurs within a small,
tight-knit group. The dynamics of such groups tend to reinforce
personal conviction, especially among individuals whose other social
networks have frayed or can't match the intensity of bonds forged in
what is for them an existential struggle.'"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21246681-28737,00.html
Mates 'til the death
* Terrorist cells are like cults whose members form close bonds
and attack their own communities, writes Sally Neighbour
* February 19, 2007
"HE seemed a really kind man. He taught the really bad kids and
everyone seemed to like him." So said a former pupil of Mohammad
Sidique Khan, the 30-year-old teaching aide who led a cell of bombers
who blew up three trains and a bus in London in July 2005, killing 56
people.
"I know my son. He's honest, he's got a clean record, and he has never
been in trouble." These are the words of the tearful father of one of
22 men arrested in Melbourne and Sydney and soon to face trial on
charges of belonging to a terrorist group and preparing for a
terrorist attack.
Testimonials like these are often repeated as families, friends and
communities struggle to confront the new face of terrorism - the
emergence of "home grown" terror cells around the world.
The first wave of the Islamist jihad, masterminded by bearded fanatics
living in caves in Afghanistan, was shocking enough, but somehow
simpler to comprehend.
Much harder to fathom is this second wave, a phenomenon the British
authorities call neighbour terrorism - middle-class family men from
the suburbs of London and Melbourne, Sydney and Toronto, willing to
wreak death and destruction where they were born and grew up. This
troubling trend has academics and counter-terrorism specialists around
the worldwide redoubling their efforts to understand the causes of
radicalisation - in short, what makes a terrorist.
"There is much about the nature of Islamist terrorism that is not
fully understood, including in particular the fundamental question of
the 'transmission belt' from religious belief to terrorism," Peter
Varghese, head of Australia's Office of National Assessments, told a
security conference in Canberra last year.
ONA has teams of analysts working full-time to apprehend a threat that
Varghese describes as "growing and spreading to more countries",
stemming from a large, diverse and fluid network, that is more often
inspired by al-Qa'ida than directed by it.
As Varghese pointed out, no study has been able to explain why some
people become terrorists. But a clear pattern is emerging. A key
feature is what he calls "socio-psychological factors and questions of
identity".
Terrorist cells have "striking parallels" to cults, Varghese
explained. "One thing we frequently see in the trajectory of
terrorists is a conversion experience that occurs within a small,
tight-knit group. The dynamics of such groups tend to reinforce
personal conviction, especially among individuals whose other social
networks have frayed or can't match the intensity of bonds forged in
what is for them an existential struggle."
This assessment is echoed by former CIA field officer turned
psychiatrist, author and government adviser, Marc Sageman, in his book
Understanding Terror Networks. Cutting through the jargon, Sageman
uses a simpler term - he calls it the "bunch of guys" theory.
Sageman knows Islamic extremists better than most, having worked with
the Afghan mujahidin in the late 1980s during the anti-Soviet war, the
crucible for the present global jihad.
After studying the lives of 172 terrorists, Sageman found the most
common factor driving them was the potent social bonds within their
terrorist cell. Most started as friends, colleagues or relatives -
just "a bunch of guys" drawn ever closer by bonds of friendship,
loyalty, solidarity and trust, and rewarded by a powerful sense of
belonging and collective identity.
Sageman cites a string of cases to demonstrate his theory - Mohammed
Atta's Hamburg cell of 9/11 bombers; the three brothers at the core of
the Bali bombing team - Muklas, Amrozi and Ali Imron; and the would-be
millennium bombers who planned to attack Los Angeles airport in 2000.
These and other cells reveal a three-step process in becoming a
terrorist. First comes social affiliation through friendship, kinship
or discipleship (as in the followers of Abu Bakar Bashir). Next comes
progressive intensification of beliefs and faith within the group. The
final step is encountering a link to the jihad, and then joining it.
This is usually a "bottom-up" process; most are "enthusiastic joiners"
not brainwashed recruits.
Sageman's study shows, as others have, that the common stereotype of
the terrorist as poor, desperate, naive or just plain "mad" is a myth.
There is simply no psychological profile of a terrorist and no
evidence that mental illness, personality disorder or childhood trauma
feature among their ranks.
Three-quarters of the terrorists in Sageman's sample were upper or
middle class. They were typically more educated than average, skilled,
upwardly mobile and married with children. Many, especially the
leaders, were educated in the West, multilingual and cosmopolitan.
(The late Azhari Husin, the Australian-educated PhD professor who
became Jemaah Islamiah's master bomb-maker and his colleague from the
University of Technology in Malaysia, JI's current operational leader
Noor Din Mohammed Top are two examples).
Another key finding of Sageman's work is that most of the terrorists
went to secular schools. Only 23 per cent had exclusively Islamic
education. (The exception is Indonesia, where the level of religious
schooling was much higher.)
Furthermore, only about half were religious in childhood. The rest
experienced a "shift in devotion" later - a crucial factor in their
transformation, but not the cause. This concurs with Varghese's
observation that most terrorists have little history of extremism, or
even religious piety. Contrary to popular belief, religion is clearly
not the driving force.
These themes are explored further by Harvard Law School professor and
long-time terrorism specialist, Louise Richardson, in her book What
Terrorists Want. Richardson has studied dozens of terrorist groups,
from the Palestinian zealots of antiquity and the assassins of
medieval times to the IRA in her native Northern Ireland where she
grew up a child of the troubles. Richardson's starting point is that
terrorism is neither a new strategy nor the work of a bunch of mad
fanatics, but rather "an age-old political phenomenon that can be
understood in rational terms".
Richardson writes: "Group, organisational and social psychology are
more helpful than individual psychology in explaining terrorist
behaviour."
Drawing on interviews with dozens of terrorists, she says many speak
of an "intense feeling of camaraderie within the group" and "an
overarching sense of the collective", which consumes the individual.
Richardson identifies a "lethal cocktail" of three key ingredients
that make a terrorist: a "disaffected individual", an "enabling
community" and a "legitimising ideology".
The idea of the "disaffected individual" resonates strongly in
Australia. Think of the troubled Sydneysider Mamdouh Habib, who spent
nearly three years in Guantanamo Bay; the alcoholic divorcee Jack
Roche, currently serving nine years for conspiring to bomb the Israeli
embassy in Canberra; or the Adelaide cowboy turned Taliban fighter,
David Hicks.
Converts such as Roche and Hicks are drawn to Islam by its empowering
ethic of egalitarianism, brotherhood and social justice. For a young
man in search of meaning, Sageman says fundamentalist Islam offers
"elegance and simplicity" and "a single solution devoid of ambiguity".
As interpreted by the extremists, it also offers a justification for
acts of violence.
As for the cause of the average recruit's "disaffection", alienation
is a powerful recurring theme. Out of Sageman's group of 172
terrorists, 115 (70 per cent) joined the jihad movement while in a
country other than their homeland, as students, refugees, workers or
fighters living abroad, while cut off from their family, friends and
culture. Another 14 were second-generation immigrants.
These figures add up to a total of 78 per cent who were "socially
alienated, or temporarily disembedded, from their societies of
origin". Sageman concludes that "this absence of connection is a
necessary condition" for joining the global jihad.
After joining, the cell becomes the new recruit's world. As the bonds
within it grow ever stronger, his ties to all other groups grow
weaker. This "in-group love" is strengthened by what Sageman calls a
"common bond of victimhood based on Islam". And it is paralleled by
growing "out-group hate", which in turn is sharpened by the
identification of a common enemy - such as the US and its allies.
The internet plays a pivotal role in strengthening the sense of
belonging and collective identity enjoyed by those who join, and
enhancing their disconnection from the outside world. In cyberspace
they become part of a much larger virtual community, without the
constraints of earthly society. As Sageman writes, this "ideal virtual
community" has strong appeal for alienated youths living in immigrant
communities in the West.
This process of disconnection helps explain how a young man takes the
final step to carrying out a terrorist act. "They become embedded in a
socially disembedded network, which, precisely because of its lack of
any anchor to any society, is free to follow abstract and apocalyptic
notions of a global war between good and evil."
Much the same conclusions can be found in the Report of the Official
Account of the Bombings in London on July 7 2005, which describes how
the kind and dedicated teaching aide known as Sid organised the London
cell with his friend Shehzad Tanweer, a "friendly, mature and modest"
university graduate, who worked in the family fish and chip shop,
drove a red Mercedes Benz bought for him by his father and played for
a local cricket team.
The report finds that the process of indoctrination for the London
bombers was principally through "personal contact and group bonding".
While sometimes attendance at a radical mosque or contact with an
extreme spiritual leader can be influential, a more critical factor is
the role of personal mentors and then bonding within a group, in which
members "begin feeding off each other's radicalisation".
The report notes, "There is little evidence of overt compulsion. The
extremists appear rather to rely on development of individual
commitment, group bonding and solidarity".
The notion of cultural and social alienation also applies to the
London cell. Clive Walker, a terrorism specialist of the University of
Leeds, home town of the bombers, has expanded on this theme. He sees
the London cell as "a group of young men caught between the
conservative and unreplicable culture of their parents and the
apparently unappealing culture of the West".
Walker writes: "The problem may not lie in mosques at all, but in the
problems of a second generation ethnic minority". A minority whose
members feel alienated from the social and cultural values of the
larger community around them. This certainly rings true in Australia,
where most of the men charged with terrorism have been second and
third generation Australians, brought up in the displaced cultures of
their parents.
While religion is clearly not the main driver, it does play a crucial
role for the terrorists who embrace it. In Richardson's words, "it
provides a unifying, all-encompassing philosophy or belief system that
legitimates and elevates their actions".
Richardson cites Osama bin Laden, whose oft-repeated demands are
clearly political - the removal of foreign forces from Saudi Arabia,
an end to hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan - but who utilises
religion to legitimise his actions and persuade followers that their
struggle is sanctioned by God.
It is this conviction that makes the terrorist who claims to be
inspired by his religion the most terrifying of all.
"Islamic fundamentalists tend to see the world in terms of an enduring
and cosmic struggle between good and evil," Richardson writes. They
are therefore less prone to compromise, "more fanatical, more willing
to inflict mass casualties more absolutist, more transnational and
more dangerous".
Sally Neighbour is a senior reporter with The Australian and Four
Corners and the author of In the Shadow of Swords, on the trail of
terrorism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAPPYsamurai
i like it so much that you think about this stuff ellen
harrys idea of an enlightened planetary civlisation is based on
manipulating mass conscious instead of
1 understanding it
and 2
teaching people that personal development is a good deal to do with
overcoming its NEGATIVE attributes
call it what you will... the understandng of groups has a lot to offer
the world... way more than the marketting bullshit of tricking people
but wait there's more
nah just kidding
1one negative trend is the one that schools compete for funding
instead of being focussed on teaching people to become mature citizens
-- the preimary focus is on keeping up appearences to get funding
sure you need money for computers etc
but really and truly -- you don't need money to teach kids
responsibility and caring
of course ideally both should be there -- but character and virtue
should be given recognisable status next to work skills and creative
stuff -- there is no teaching without values -- the values of the
teachers comes thru
if the foundation of the school is money or if it is character it
comes thru to the child
cut to chief seatles speech
Serena Nordstrup
> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1172561714.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:11 am, "Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: <ellen...@hotmail.com>
>
> >> Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
> >> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:56 PM
> >> Subject: Portrait of a Landmark Couple - Darren & Charla Mack
>
> >> > Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one
> >> > small
> >> > mention. A >closer look at Landmark would have been a lot more
> >> > interesting than what they did >broadcast about the sleaze-ball, who
> >> > typifies the type of person drawn to an extended >involvement with
> >> > these
> >> > scammers, in my opinion.
>
> >> And you base this opinion on what Ellen?
> >> The two physician friends you knew who also went head long into Amway?
> >> Perhaps it has more to do with the company you keep.
>
> > And you base this perhaps on what, Tex?
>
> ellen stating that she knew a couple of physicians, one an ex-spouse, who
> took Landmark courses and also got heavily involved in Amway.
Of course Ellen stated that, but what do you base your "perhaps" on?
> Of course,
> perhaps she just made up a story.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> The folks I met during
> >> est were quite diverse. My guess is I met many more who took their
> >> courses
> >> then you have, since the number is in the hundreds. Most of them were not
> >> multi-millionaires flying to Mexico to pimp their wives at "sexing"
> >> parties.
>
> > You reckon?
>
> >> Perhaps the current incarnation of est has simply lowered their
> >> standards.
> >> But most of those that I know that have taken the course are middle class
> >> parents trying to make ends meet to support their families.
>
> > Like Darren and Charla.
>
> They were multi-millionaires, in case you haven't been following the story.
> That puts them a notch higher than middle-class.
Sounds like a nice simplistic definition of "middle-class" based
primarily on income can encourage us to overlook the commonalities
of parents supporting their families.
> >> Again, perhaps the people you associate with are of a different ilk.
>
> > Perhaps AND perhaps.
>
> >> >Heck, they're probably thrilled with the PR and think if he can enroll
> >> >the
> >> >jury in the ~empty >&> meaningless~ bit he may get off the hook.
> >> >Conversely, they may be
> >> > horrified that he is making himself out to be the ~victim.~
>
> >> More horrified that one of their "star" seminar leaders butchered his
> >> wife
> >> and shot a judge, leaving his own children essentially parentless.
>
> > But adults make more efficient recruiters.
>
> non-sequitor.
I leap too far for you?
> >> You see,
> >> the people running Landmark are children and or parents and brothers and
> >> sisters just like the rest of us. As much as you and others here try to
> >> portray them as inhuman, they are not.
>
> > "Inhuman" does not exist amongst humans. I wonder why we invented that
> > word?
>
> The diestinction exists,
I wonder how clearly that distinction distinguishes. Perhaps you could
quote an example or so of the unhumanization attempts you allege.
> I'm claiming that they are human.
I suggest that we can't reliably ~distinguish~ inhuman ~landmarkers~
from human ones.
> >> It is true that some of those seminar leaders are real assholes.
> >> Not all of them, but some.
>
> > And the center-managers. And the assitants. And the fellow-attendees.
>
> Some.
> Would you like to share something with the rest of the newsgroup Serena?
> :-)
Sophomorically
Serena
Tex
> On Feb 28, 6:10 am, "Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1172561714.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 27, 4:11 am, "Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: <ellen...@hotmail.com>
>>
>> >> Newsgroups: alt.fan.landmark
>> >> Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 2:56 PM
>> >> Subject: Portrait of a Landmark Couple - Darren & Charla Mack
>>
>> >> > Too bad CBS caved to the cult for narcissists, making only this one
>> >> > small
>> >> > mention. A >closer look at Landmark would have been a lot more
>> >> > interesting than what they did >broadcast about the sleaze-ball, who
>> >> > typifies the type of person drawn to an extended >involvement with
>> >> > these
>> >> > scammers, in my opinion.
>>
>> >> And you base this opinion on what Ellen?
>> >> The two physician friends you knew who also went head long into Amway?
>> >> Perhaps it has more to do with the company you keep.
>>
>> > And you base this perhaps on what, Tex?
>>
>> ellen stating that she knew a couple of physicians, one an ex-spouse, who
>> took Landmark courses and also got heavily involved in Amway.
>
> Of course Ellen stated that, but what do you base your "perhaps" on?
I base it on the many people I know or knew that have taken Landmark courses
and don't appear to fit the narrow, stereotyped, negative description that
is presented here.
Perhaps it's just the company I keep.
bruno Tonon
"Tex" <ritte...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RoOdnTZUhOGf-3nY...@comcast.com...
Fair point Tex.
How about you sharing your experience and great knowledge Serena.Why do you
keep
your purported experiences all to yourself???
Get in the bun fight and give us your raw materials instead of just placing
questions.
\Don't be such a bore!!!
Show us some life!!!!!!!!
Cheers
Serena Nordstrup
Your "perhaps" sounds like speculation to me, a hypothetical straw-man
to posit against Ellen's clearly labelled "opinion" about those whom
she narrowly (precisely) defines as "drawn to an extended
involvement"... You do compare like with like, do you not?
> Perhaps it's just the company I keep.
My, you do like your vague "perhaps"es! -- Perhaps you keep non-
representative company.
Serena Nordstrup
> "Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:RoOdnTZUhOGf-3nY...@comcast.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
I see no point here, Bruno -- only a question and a smiley. What
point to you consider fair?
> How about you sharing your experience and great knowledge Serena.Why do you
> keep
> your purported experiences all to yourself???
>
> Get in the bun fight and give us your raw materials instead of just placing
> questions.
>
> \Don't be such a bore!!!
>
> Show us some life!!!!!!!!
I feel no compellingly urgent impetus to drag myself down to that
level, Bruno. What would I gain by that?
Slimily
Serena
Tex
Precisely. But I have a few more "data points" than Ellen has, so perhaps my
"opinion" is drawn from a bit more experience and info. I've met plenty of
the flakes, but they were a minority.
Tex
Life perhaps. Your life. Aliveness.
Live life Serena, don't just postulate about it.
HAPPYsamurai
> Life perhaps. Your life. Aliveness.
> Live life Serena, don't just postulate about it.
\
alliteration oxymoron
Serena Nordstrup
You would have to evaluate the value of your brief-range estoid data-
points one by one and compare them with the quality and scope of
Ellen's announced and unannounced and derivative statements over the
years. Just counting data-points won't necessarily wash.
Serena Nordstrup
You mention "life", and I think of amoebas. Inspiring, huh?
> Live life Serena, don't just postulate about it.
And after having lived life, may I postulate? How many years of
postulation would you deprive me of?
bruno Tonon
Come on Serena, you are so close to coming out the box!!!
keep pushing its not that hard .
You can still postulate all you want. Just live!!!!!
Cheers Bruno
Listen to what Tex has said about life.
Let me give you a cliche "" Live a life you love""
cheers Bruno
HAPPYsamurai
lesson in egg sucking
HAPPYsamurai
> How about you sharing your experience and great knowledge Serena.Why do you
> keep
> your purported experiences all to yourself???
>
what is einstien famous for
his observations on the principles of life
or living a life he loved
the problem here i suppose is the converstaion is purported to be
about
HOW to live a life you love
ie the principles involved
SOME people here ARE able to discuss the principles involved
but those that can't make the LINK between life experience and life
principles can't keep up
so they want to ask serena what she had for breakfast and if she LOVED
it
there is some bizarre idea that because a person can consider life
principles that they obviosly don't "live a life they love"...
this is a totally irrational assumption
but because they cannot percieve principle they cannot gage life
experience from listening to the persons 'experiential" knowledge of
that principle
any one can regurgitate some words ... but when one gages the writers
understanding of the words one is able to realise their level of LIFE
EXPERIENCE with the principle
when i mention ethics i mean :
how do you LIVE the ethics you LOVE
and what experiences has that brought into your life and how have
those experiences shaped your relationship and EXPERIENTIAL
UNDERSTANDING of those ethics
aply it also to life principles
it is not always nescessary to hear various annecdotes when one can
hear it in how a person talks of their understanding of the principles
involved
we assume everyone [except the robots perhaps] will gain some degree
of life experience by the virtue of the fact they are alive
all this talk of LOVE is so culturally dependant
ask a GERMAN what love means -- and stand by for a whole different
viewpoint
Real-Tex
> On 2 Mar, 22:49, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:> How about you sharing your experience and great knowledge Serena.Why do you
> > keep
> > your purported experiences all to yourself???
>
> some people are able to discern "principle"
>
> what is einstien famous for his observations on the principles of life
He was mostly famous for his "Theory of Relativity."
E=mc2, the photoelectric effect etc.
But we digress. {;-D
>
> or living a life he loved
>
> the problem here i suppose is the converstaion is purported to be
> about
>
> HOW to live a life you love
>
> ie the principles involved
>
> SOME people here ARE able to discuss the principles involved
Name one principle discussed about whatever you are trying to say, if
you can.
>
> but those that can't make the LINK between life experience and life principles can't keep up
>
> so they want to ask serena what she had for breakfast and if she LOVED it
Who said that?
>
> there is some bizarre idea that because a person can consider life principles that they obviosly don't "live a >life they love"..
Again, what principles are you talking about?
I've discussed whether it is ethical to steal copyrighted material, to
plagerize?
Is that what you're talking about?
Thou shall not steal?
>
> this is a totally irrational assumption
This ramble sounds irrational to me.
Can you present what you're trying to say more coherently?
Start by defining the "princples" you often vaguely allude to?
>
> but because they cannot percieve principle they cannot gage life
> experience from listening to the persons 'experiential" knowledge of
> that principle
Again, name one of these principles.
Thou shall not steal, kidnap, declare bankruptcy to avoid paying
people what you owe them?
>
> any one can regurgitate some words ... but when one gages the writers
> understanding of the words one is able to realise their level of LIFE
> EXPERIENCE with the principle
>
> when i mention ethics i mean :
>
> how do you LIVE the ethics you LOVE
>
> and what experiences has that brought into your life and how have
> those experiences shaped your relationship and EXPERIENTIAL
> UNDERSTANDING of those ethics
>
> aply it also to life principles
>
> it is not always nescessary to hear various annecdotes when one can
> hear it in how a person talks of their understanding of the principles
> involved
>
> we assume everyone [except the robots perhaps] will gain some degree
> of life experience by the virtue of the fact they are alive
>
> all this talk of LOVE is so culturally dependant
>
> ask a GERMAN what love means -- and stand by for a whole different viewpoint
Why don't you tell us what love means Hap?
Try to keep the abstract ramblings to a minimum this time.
Serena Nordstrup
Did I say something careless?
> keep pushing its not that hard .
> You can still postulate all you want.
Thank you.
> Just live!!!!!
The lord giveth, and the lord taketh away...
> Cheers Bruno
>
> Listen to what Tex has said about life.
>
> Let me give you a cliche "" Live a life you love""
Thank you. Now what do I do with it? Too soggy to even wipe my ass
with it.
HAPPYsamurai
> Why don't you tell us what love means Hap?
you want me
> Try to keep the abstract ramblings to a minimum this time.
you don't want me
why don't you tell me why you think serena doesn't love her life
try to keep yor ramblings to a maximum this time ... just for shits
and giggles
HAPPYsamurai
tex
do you actually WANT to understand what i am saying
and if you do
would you like to take some responsibility for the task
here's a starter
can you percieve a difference between murder and copywrite
infringement
can you percieve a society that agrees all ideas are to be shared and
makes laws accordingly
is this imaginary society working at a higher level of principle or a
lower level than a society that makes laws on copywrite
and on what grounds do you compare the two
or would you just prefer to keep going with the witty repartee
in my experience trying to talk principle with someone who's repartee
has become a reflex action, is like talking principle with someone
who's drunk
its not worth the effort
ps
your ugly and your mother dresses u funny
Real-Tex
> On 6 Mar, 16:09, "Real-Tex" <ritter_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Why don't you tell us what love means Hap?
>
> you want me
>
> > Try to keep the abstract ramblings to a minimum this time.
>
> you don't want me
>
> why don't you tell me why you think serena doesn't love her life
I never suggested she didn't.
In fact I have no idea.
If I were to guess she didn't, it would be because I think most people
don't love there life, but live for salvation/contentment/success in
the future.
Real-Tex
Lot's of questions Hap, but still no substance.
That's just a cop out.
patrick darcy
well are u ugly and does your mother dress u funny or not ?
i want to know
bruno Tonon
Its your choice what you do with it. If its too soggy for you ,remember not
to wipe
your ass just as you have stated .
I was only trying to guide you.
bruno Tonon
Tell us how you apply it in your personal life so we can understand from
practical examples
how you put "Ethics" into place.
It may put more life in the conversation and we may all gain from it.
The last "Ethical" person I met in this group was "Cody"
I believe she leads an Ethical life . Can't be sure ofcourse but just my
gut feel.
I really am interested in your "Ethics" and how you and I would fit in
your Ethical world.
Wonder whether Serena is into "Ethics"
I think Tex is into it, and "Ellena"
Are we all Ethical here???????
Cheers bruno
"HAPPYsamurai" <profst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1173223857.1...@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com...
Serena Nordstrup
If a cliche doesn't help with ass-wiping, I'll need to get in the
Official Taster to ensure it doesn't contain poison. And consult the
Official Philosophers' Guild to examine the cliche for dangerous
notions like an individual ~life~ selectable hedonistically. This
could turn out quite an expensive gift you've given me, Bruno!
> I was only trying to guide you.
Ah, you get that for ~trying~. -- Do you have guiding qualifications?
HAPPYsamurai
ethical.............
--------------------------------------
whether you are ethical or not is between you and your conscience
whether you have the ability to discus the subject is another matter
entirely
bruno Tonon
> On 7 Mar, 22:22, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> ethical.............
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------
> whether you are ethical or not is between you and your conscience
Are you sure about that.? I don't know how you are using the word happ
but I also thought other people were involved and thats why ethical rules
were founded . Its about community.
I don't doubt your Ethics Happy, I just would have thought that since
they seem a strong foundation for many of your beliefs that you would
have expanded with some practical realities, on how you lead your life.
Ethics is a very simple yet complex study of right and wrong . I was hoping
you may have thrown more light on it.
By the way I don't disagree with you but just wanted to tease the discussion
out a bit.
I wonder what Serena would say about this??????
cheers
Serena Nordstrup
> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:1173355179....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
> Ethics is a very simple yet complex study of right and wrong . I was hoping
> you may have thrown more light on it.
>
> By the way I don't disagree with you but just wanted to tease the discussion
> out a bit.
>
> I wonder what Serena would say about this??????
Serena might idly wonder how Bruno can characterize ethics as
simultaneously simple yet complex.
Slipperily
Serena
bruno Tonon
It looks easy to solve Ethical problems on the surface however when
you dig a little deeper all different issues turn up.
Socrates tried to explain that in Plato's dialogues.
So what's your take on Ethics Serena???
Anyviewpoint you would like to espouse??????
cheers Bruno
cheers Bruno
>
> Slipperily
> Serena
>
HAPPYsamurai
i think i'm getting an insight into why you defend irrationality
Serena Nordstrup
> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173505581.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 10:12 pm, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1173355179....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Ethics is a very simple yet complex study of right and wrong . I was
> >> hoping
> >> you may have thrown more light on it.
>
> >> By the way I don't disagree with you but just wanted to tease the
> >> discussion
> >> out a bit.
>
> >> I wonder what Serena would say about this??????
>
> > Serena might idly wonder how Bruno can characterize ethics as
> > simultaneously simple yet complex.
>
> It looks easy to solve Ethical problems on the surface however when
> you dig a little deeper all different issues turn up.
How then can you state that "Ethics is a very simple ... study" ?
Would you like to revise this contention?
bruno Tonon
> On Mar 11, 12:07 am, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1173505581.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 9, 10:12 pm, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1173355179....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > <snip>
>>
>> >> Ethics is a very simple yet complex study of right and wrong . I was
>> >> hoping
>> >> you may have thrown more light on it.
>>
>> >> By the way I don't disagree with you but just wanted to tease the
>> >> discussion
>> >> out a bit.
>>
>> >> I wonder what Serena would say about this??????
>>
>> > Serena might idly wonder how Bruno can characterize ethics as
>> > simultaneously simple yet complex.
>>
>> It looks easy to solve Ethical problems on the surface however when
>> you dig a little deeper all different issues turn up.
>
> How then can you state that "Ethics is a very simple ... study" ?
>
> Would you like to revise this contention?
No. How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use them????
HAPPYsamurai
> Lot's of questions Hap, but still no substance.
> That's just a cop out.
i am sorry o great teacher
still to you start giving a shit about what i think
your statement is hypocritcal
as i said
there is too big a concptual/language gap to bridge between us if you
are gonna keep getting witty or bossy with me
its just a waste of time
i need to see some sincerity for a coupla weeks before i would get
anywhere near gracing you with my time on the deep subjects
you may see it as a cop out
i see it as common sense
tho on a positive note i have learnt from you in the past
but it took time to cut thru the barriers
sorry if i am expecting you to view this rationally
i'm sure someone else here is better qualified to bridge between our
similar yet different styles and underlying types
but maybe i'm wrong -- maybe the mystery of life brought us here to
have this conversation
bruno -- your the resident expert on life as a mystery.....
should i persist
and what would be the mysterious pay off ... and for whom?
HAPPYsamurai
> No. How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
>
> Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use them????
>
>
and then watching with the eye of an observer intent on percieving
past the mysteries of life
u may be surprised... or at least you may have built sufficient
rapport with serena to share
bruno Tonon
Rather as member of the group I think you should persist
I've allways felt that Tex is a reasonable member however
when pushed will bite back in defence.
That's from my biased point of view which I acknowledge.
I'm not suggesting or taking sides in your debate with him.
So yes , I would suggest you persist.
The payoff is for all of us because who knows ,we could all learn
from the outcome.
cheers Bruno
Tex
"HAPPYsamurai" <profst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1173644306....@c51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> Lot's of questions Hap, but still no substance.
>> That's just a cop out.
>
> i am sorry o great teacher
>
> still to you start giving a shit about what i think
>
> your statement is hypocritcal
What's hypocritcal about it Hap?
I'm saying playing 20 rhetorical questions when asked a direct question is a
cop out.
You can choose not to answer, but then blathering on about ethics when you
have nothing of substance to say about it is telling.
I think you're trying to obscure your lack of depth on the subject matter
you constantly reference.
It also appears I've struck a nerve. ;-D
>
> as i said
>
> there is too big a concptual/language gap to bridge between us if you
> are gonna keep getting witty or bossy with me
>
> its just a waste of time
Cop out.
You have nothing to say, that is why you don't respond.
We aren't talking privately. Make your point, perhaps others will see your
point if I don't.
Again, nothing to say, so you continue to speak in riddles.
Serena Nordstrup
> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1173607783.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 12:07 am, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "Serena Nordstrup" <s_nordst...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1173505581.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 9, 10:12 pm, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> >> "HAPPYsamurai" <profstock...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> >> >>news:1173355179....@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> >> Ethics is a very simple yet complex study of right and wrong . I was
> >> >> hoping
> >> >> you may have thrown more light on it.
>
> >> >> By the way I don't disagree with you but just wanted to tease the
> >> >> discussion
> >> >> out a bit.
>
> >> >> I wonder what Serena would say about this??????
>
> >> > Serena might idly wonder how Bruno can characterize ethics as
> >> > simultaneously simple yet complex.
>
> >> It looks easy to solve Ethical problems on the surface however when
> >> you dig a little deeper all different issues turn up.
>
> > How then can you state that "Ethics is a very simple ... study" ?
>
> > Would you like to revise this contention?
>
> No.
You still maintain then the simultaneous simplicity and complexity of
ethics?
> How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
You wanna discuss the ethics of your changing the topic, Bruno?
> Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use them????
How can one forget the questions -- so carefuly crafted and so
wantonly wasted?...
bruno Tonon
Ethics as a subject seems to pop up in this group loosely presented
without much discussion about what it is or is not.
Hap did differentiate between personal Ethics and group Ethics.
I tried to say that Ethics is a very tricky subject to discuss and
forwarded
Platos dialogues as an example. Thats all I was trying to say.
I was intererested in your Ethics to draw you out of that castle
of yours where you seem to hide.
>
>> How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
>
> You wanna discuss the ethics of your changing the topic, Bruno?
>
>> Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use them????
>
> How can one forget the questions -- so carefuly crafted and so
> wantonly wasted?...
No craft at all Serena. Just a simple question "Whats your Ethics like"
My questions may be wasted but then thats your choice.
Do you have any viewpoint on Ethics you would like to espouse??????
Serena Nordstrup
You actually wrote: "Ethics is a very simple yet complex study of
right and wrong ." Where did I go wrong in concluding that you regard
ethics as simultaneously simple and complex?
> I was intererested in your Ethics to draw you out of that castle
> of yours where you seem to hide.
A Kafkaesque Castle?
> >> How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
>
> > You wanna discuss the ethics of your changing the topic, Bruno?
>
> >> Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use them????
>
> > How can one forget the questions -- so carefuly crafted and so
> > wantonly wasted?...
>
> No craft at all Serena. Just a simple question "Whats your Ethics like"
> My questions may be wasted but then thats your choice.
How can one forget the questions -- so carefully crafted by me and so
wantonly wasted by you?
If you want a simile, picture my ethics as a herd of snails in a
watermill.
Do you ~distinguish~ between questions and demands?
bruno Tonon
Why not? Are you the tormented type??????
>
>> >> How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
>>
>> > You wanna discuss the ethics of your changing the topic, Bruno?
>>
>> >> Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use
>> >> them????
>>
>> > How can one forget the questions -- so carefuly crafted and so
>> > wantonly wasted?...
>>
>> No craft at all Serena. Just a simple question "Whats your Ethics like"
>> My questions may be wasted but then thats your choice.
>
> How can one forget the questions -- so carefully crafted by me and so
> wantonly wasted by you?
>
> If you want a simile, picture my ethics as a herd of snails in a
> watermill.
Torment and languish once again Serena.
>
> Do you ~distinguish~ between questions and demands?
Yes
I ask for the third time.
Are there any viewpointson Ethics youwish to espouse?????
cheers
HAPPYsamurai
>
> I ask for the third time.
>
> Are there any viewpointson Ethics youwish to espouse?????
>
but sometimes its likeyou are trying to do a forumleaderstyle
confrontation on serena
i don't think she's in the demographic
perhaps serena you could "allow" yourself to be confronted by bruno?
tho i can't for the life of me see the payoff
and he doesn't have your forum money so he has no leverage
perhaps the expcercise would lead further up or down the garden path
cheers for helping me address the mystery of life bruno
HAPPYsamurai
>
> > Do you ~distinguish~ between questions and demands?
>
> Yes
>
> I ask for the third time.
>
> Are there any viewpointson Ethics youwish to espouse?????
>
at what age should a person give up pulling the wings off flies
serena?
is it good to nurture a parents ability and responsibility to teach
their children then difference between right and wrong?
is it also good to nurture a persons ability to teach their child to
survive?
assuming there are levels of behaviour [ethic] from top line to bottom
line
how do we practically encourage a person to aim for top line behavior
while still leaving the assesment of their behavior between them and
their conscience?
ah sweet mysterys of life
Serena Nordstrup
Why not indeed? -- Did you have Kafka in mind?
> Are you the tormented type??????
>
> >> >> How about giving us your viewpoint on ETHICS SERENA.
>
> >> > You wanna discuss the ethics of your changing the topic, Bruno?
>
> >> >> Forget the questions, tell us about your Ethics and how you use
> >> >> them????
>
> >> > How can one forget the questions -- so carefuly crafted and so
> >> > wantonly wasted?...
>
> >> No craft at all Serena. Just a simple question "Whats your Ethics like"
> >> My questions may be wasted but then thats your choice.
>
> > How can one forget the questions -- so carefully crafted by me and so
> > wantonly wasted by you?
>
> > If you want a simile, picture my ethics as a herd of snails in a
> > watermill.
>
> Torment and languish once again Serena.
>
>
>
> > Do you ~distinguish~ between questions and demands?
>
> Yes
>
> I ask for the third time.
>
> Are there any viewpointson Ethics youwish to espouse?????
Watch those snails, bruno. See how they interact with each other and
with the rest of the multiverse.
Serena Nordstrup
> On 13 Mar, 22:11, "bruno Tonon" <bto...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Do you ~distinguish~ between questions and demands?
>
> > Yes
>
> > I ask for the third time.
>
> > Are there any viewpointson Ethics youwish to espouse?????
>
> at what age should a person give up pulling the wings off flies
> serena?
Why should one ever stop pulling wings, pinning butterflies in
collections, and butchering game?
> is it good to nurture a parents ability and responsibility to teach
> their children then difference between right and wrong?
No: the parent might start believing in ~landmarckian~
~responsibility~...
> is it also good to nurture a persons ability to teach their child to
> survive?
That sounds deadly serious. Good computer-games let you die and
resurrect multiple times.
> assuming there are levels of behaviour [ethic] from top line to bottom
> line
>
> how do we practically encourage a person to aim for top line behavior
> while still leaving the assesment of their behavior between them and
> their conscience?
First invent and shape the conscience.
> ah sweet mysterys of life
Simpatice
Serena
HAPPYsamurai
so there you have it bruno
can you distill some espoused ethics from that
;-)